The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/17/2021 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPage 1 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Michael Bello Walter Dunn This meeting will be held Kurt Knierim remotely via Zoom Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison: Jim Rose Karen McWilliams Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting MARCH 17, 2021 5:30 PM Landmark Preservation Commission AGENDA Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. This remote Landmark Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/94284162189. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 942 8416 2189. Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission for its consideration must be emailed to gschiager@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to gschiager@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:00 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2021. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 17, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. AGENDA ITEMS 2-4 ARE SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATIONS Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. 2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 610 S. LOOMIS AVE 3. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 511 N. GRANT AVE 4. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 420 WEST STREET The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ● Approval of Minutes ● Items of no perceived controversy ● Routine administrative actions Packet Pg. 2 Page 3 • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 5. 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. 6. 247-249 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW (REHABILITATION AND ADDITION) DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for a mixed-use project at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District, to identify any key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Old Town District Design Standards. APPLICANT: Randy Shortridge, [au] workshop (architect); Drew Fink (owner) 7. 220 EAST LAUREL STREET, LONG APARTMENTS: AFTER-THE-FACT DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of work to the Landmark-designated Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, that was undertaken without approval and has already occurred. APPLICANT: Jordan Obermann, Forge and Bow Dwellings, on behalf of Kent Obermann, Rarem LLC. 8. 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, REHABILITATION, ADDITION, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a conceptual review of the applicants’ project, identify key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of all accessory structures, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners) • OTHER BUSINESS o Election of Officers (Chair and Vice Chair) • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 1 Gretchen Schiager From:meg dunn <barefootmeg@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:54 PM To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Extending our virtual meeting period Hi Karen, Given our ongoing COVID‐19 “Safer at Home” recommendation from the State, I think it would be prudent for us to continue to hold meetings virtually for the foreseeable future. Why don’t we set June 2021 as a cut off point to revisit this, with the option to revisit the issue sooner if somehow a vaccine is found and quickly disseminated early next year, and the Safer at Home recommendation is lifted. I know that P&Z is holding a mixed meeting soon, so I think we should be open to that should the need arise. So, to summarize: Let’s plan to continue our virtual LPC meetings until June 2021 with the understanding that, should the need arise, we would be willing to consider an alternative option on a one‐off basis. Given that the members of the LPC seem to feel that our virtual meetings have been going well, I don’t foresee this happening. But I would like to be flexible should an applicant or appellant feel the need for an in‐person setting. Thanks! ‐ Meg Packet Pg. 4 Date: Roll Call Mike Bello Walter Dunn Kurt Knierim Eizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Meg Dunn Vote -8 present Consent Agenda: 1) MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2021 2) SF DEMO NOTIFICATION – 610 S. LOOMIS AVE (Pulled) 3) SF DEMO NOTIFICATION – 511 N. GRANT AVE 4) SF DEMO NOTIFICATION – 420 WEST STREET Walter Dunn Mike Bello Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Kurt Knierim Jim Rose Eizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Meg Dunn Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8-0 7) 220 EAST LAUREL STREET DESIGN REVIEW - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS (See minutes for full motion) Vacant Seat Kurt Knierim Jim Rose Eizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Mike Bello Anne Nelsen Meg Dunn -Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8-0 7) 220 EAST LAUREL STREET DESIGN REVIEW - DENIAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS (See minutes for full motion) Kurt Knierim Jim Rose Eizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Mike Bello Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Meg Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -Yes 8-0 8) 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - CONTINUED TO APRIL 21st Jim Rose Eizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Mike Bello Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Kurt Knierim Meg Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes 8-0 ELECTION OF OFFICERS - CHAIR - MEG DUNN Kevin Murray Walter Dunn Mike Bello Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Kurt Knierim Jim Rose Eizabeth Michell Meg Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes Yes Yes 8-0 ELECTION OF OFFICERS - VICE CHAIR - KURT KNIERIM Walter Dunn Mike Bello Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Kurt Knierim Jim Rose Eizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Meg Dunn Yes Yes Yes -Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8-0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 3/17/2021 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 3-17-21 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC February 17, 2021 Hearing • Att 1 added on 3/8/21 2. SF Demo - 610 S. Loomis 3. SF Demo - 511 N Grant 4. SF Demo - 420 West St DISCUSSION AGENDA: 5. Staff Design Review Decision Report • Staff Report updated 3/15/21 6. 247-249 Linden Conceptual Review • Applicant Proposal updated 3/15/21 7. 220 E Laurel - Long Apartments • Staff Report updated 3/16/21 • Att 4 - Design Review Application - updated 3/16/21 • Original Att 5 - Letter re Permit B1903204 removed 3/16/21 • New Att 5 - Staff Presentation added 3/16/21 • Original Att 8 - 2019 Plans removed 3/16/21 • New Att 5 – Sconce Detail Photos added 3/16/21 • Att 5 – Staff Presentation updated just before hearing 3/17/21 8. 1306 W Mountain Conceptual • Citizen emails/letters in support: None • Citizen emails/letters in opposition (Added to the online packet on 3/16/21): 1. Julie St Croix 2. Andrew McMahan 3. Veronica Lim 4. Gina Janett 5. Michelle Haefele 6. Eric Smith 7. Robert and Mary Ann Bjornsen (Forwarded to the Commission on 3/16/21 and added to the packet after the meeting): 8. Wiliam Jacobi 9. Laura Baily 10. Per Hogestad (Forwarded to the Commission on 3/17/21 and added to the packet after the meeting): 11. Carole Hossan 12. William Whitley 13. Nancy York 14. Kendal Stitzel 15. Kevin Cook 9a. Laura Bailey – add’l information added to #9 as #9a. (Received after cut-off on 3/17/21. Would have been read into the record at the hearing, but the item was continued. Will be included in the April packet along with all the others.) 16. Susan Peak 17. Sally Dunphy GENERAL CITIZEN EMAILS/LETTERS: None EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: None LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! Visitor Log [This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.] DATE: 3/17/21 Name Company Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance Randy Shortridge, Contractor [au]workshop rshortridge@auworkshop.co 6 – 247-249 Linden Drew Fink, Owner drewfink@gmail.com 6 – 247-249 Linden Jordan Obermann, Contractor Forge and Bow 7 – 220 E. Laurel Kent Obermann, Owner Rarem 7 – 220 E. Laurel Brian Berkhausen, Owner 8 - 1306 W Mountain Ave CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Title: Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): Brief statement of interest: Date: Signature: REMOVAL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 Landmark Preservation Commission Member CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Title: Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): Brief statement of interest: Date:Signature: REMOVAL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date:Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 /DQGPDUN3UHVHUYDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ0HPEHU Kevin Murray 247-249 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW (REHABILITATION AND ADDITION) I Have been contacted by the Design Team for this project for possibly being the Contractor for the project. 3/10/21 Kevin M Murray Digitally signed by Kevin M Murray Date: 2021.03.08 18:08:51 -07'00' Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2021 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 17, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC February 17, 2021 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 February 17, 2021 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Michael Bello This meeting was held Walter Dunn remotely via Zoom. Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Vacant Seat Regular Meeting February 17, 2021 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT:Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Kurt Knierim, Elizabeth Michell,Kevin Murray, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Mike Bello STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Brad Yatabe, Gretchen Schiager 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.” •AGENDA REVIEW Bzdek stated there were no changes to posted agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 2 February 17, 2021 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2021 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2021 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Knierim moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the February 17, 2021 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 7-0. • 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. Commission Questions Mr. Murray asked why aluminum clad vinyl clad windows were approved for 633 Remington. Mr. Bertolini explained the property is not a local landmark, therefore design review authority is advisory only. 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 Mr. Dunn recused himself from this item stating his company did the survey for the project. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek briefly introduced the item noting the LPC does act as a decision maker when alley improvements impact designated historic resources. She stated staff’s assessment is that the proposed improvements will have no direct impact on the only historic landmarked property abutting the work, which is the Armstrong Hotel. Applicant Presentation Todd Dangerfield, Downtown Development Authority, gave a brief overview of the project, progress, and timeline. Kara Scohy, Norris Design, shared a video about the history of the alleys and evolution of the design. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn asked about the transformer box on Olive at the Armstrong. Mr. Dangerfield replied it will remain. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 3 February 17, 2021 Chair Dunn asked how pedestrians will be kept from falling into stairwells near Jay’s Bistro. Mr. Dangerfield replied some of that will be corrected when the alley paving is redone as grades will change. He noted the main issue with rear step entries has always been water infiltration and the grade changes will help with positive draining. He stated planters and enhanced lighting will also guide pedestrians away from stairwells. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved 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. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dunn commended the DDA on its efforts to add art and pedestrian-friendly features in these projects and stated the historic downtown is enhanced by those efforts. Mr. Dunn returned to the meeting. 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 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She discussed the location of the project and noted the Commission’s conceptual review comments were provided in November and the applicant is now requesting a formal recommendation to the Hearing Officer. She briefly reviewed the proposed project and discussed the historic features of the building that will be retained as part of the project. Ms. Bzdek stated the Commission’s recommendation will need to speak to two areas of review: the alterations to the historic building based on the Secretary of the Interior standards, and the design compatibility requirements for the new construction on the site. She also noted the Commission will need to consider whether the movement of the historic building on the site would create a false sense of history. She stated staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Applicant Presentation Zell Cantrell, Galloway, reviewed the proposed site plan, pointing out significant features. He discussed the required deceleration and right-hand turn lane, tree lawn, and detached sidewalk. He mentioned efforts to retain the 1610 historic structure at its current location; however, those plans were not successful and moving the structure to the south became the best option. He detailed foundation issues with the 1610 building and noted moving it to a new foundation would help maintain its integrity. Kristoffer Kenton, Galloway, discussed the architectural design of the proposed new structure noting it pulls from the Craftsman structure of the historic building. Public Input None. Commission Questions Mr. Rose stated the five parking spaces that are directly to the north of the historic structure seem to encroach on the structure. He stated he would rather see the historic structure set into its own lawn type of space for residential context but acknowledged the parking spaces may be a Code requirement. Mr. Kenton replied there is a 5.5 foot walk at the back of the parking spaces as well as a landscape area. He stated the building sits four to five feet away from the paving edge. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 4 February 17, 2021 Mr. Cantrell stated the parking spaces will be critical to whatever use ends up in the building in the future. Additionally, he noted the primary customer access to the bank building will be from the south. Mr. Rose noted the asphalt did not exist when this structure was part of a residential row along College. He stated it is imperative there are landscape features that delineate the home without overwhelming it. Mr. Kenton noted there are 10.5 feet between the back of the curb and the face of the building. He commented on the constraint caused by the access, which is as far north as possible. Mr. Rose replied he is not concerned about the access drive, just about the parking spaces and their encroachment into a lawn barrier. Mr. Kenton commented on the parking being needed for any future tenant of the building. Ms. Nelsen asked if any thought had been put into demarcating the location of the existing building. Mr. Cantrell replied any demarcation would be in the middle of the drive aisle, which did not seem appropriate. He stated they have considered placing a plaque on the building or on a stand outside the building to indicate the former context. Chair Dunn stated she would like to see a sign indicating the locations of the houses versus the locations of the existing buildings and how this house was moved. She stated it may be worth having the sign both in the front and back of the building. Mr. Cantrell stated they may be able to find a photo of the homes for a plaque image. Mr. Knierim suggested the possibility of putting a sign in the bank for maximum exposure given the possible lack of pedestrians in the area. Chair Dunn suggested placing a sign in the bank and in front of the house. Chair Dunn asked if there are other historic homes on this block. Ms. Bzdek clarified this is the only historic home on the part of the block that is part of this redevelopment project. Chair Dunn asked if the stamped blocks on the wall of the building to the south that is going to be demolished will be repurposed. Mr. Cantrell replied the sandstone would be salvaged and available for individuals to pick up; however, there is probably not a good use for it on the site. Chair Dunn suggested materials could be donated to Habitat for Humanity as well. Mr. Murray noted Mendoza Brothers in Commerce City collects concrete block to resell as well. Mr. Cantrell stated the client may be reluctant to add the cost of pulling the building apart such that the blocks could be reused but stated they would be willing to have someone come pick them up. Commission Discussion Mr. Murray stated moving the historic home was the only way to save it and add some residential context. Commission Deliberation Mr. Knierim moved 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. Mr. Murray seconded. Chair Dunn thanked the team for designing the new building to echo the time period without mimicking the historic structure. She commended the simplified roof form and skirting. The motion passed 7-0. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 5 February 17, 2021 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) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting this project would be an infill project in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. She stated this item has been continued from January to allow the applicants the opportunity to revise the plans based on comments provided by the Commission. She noted the intensive level survey done on the existing building showed it does not meet the requirements for Fort Collins landmark designation, nor does it contribute to the National Register District, based on lack of significance and integrity. Ms. Bzdek noted the Commission agreed the proposal was compliant with the first five standards but was split regarding the project’s compliance with the sixth standard, which requires the new construction to use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements to relate the new construction to historic resources in the area of adjacency. Chair Dunn encouraged the members to point out the differences between the design in January and the revised design. Ms. Nelsen commented on the changes she observed. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff gave a brief review of the site plan, area of adjacency and focus on the Queen Anne style. He pointed out the simplification of the porch and rooflines and discussed the building massing and site placement. He shared several perspectives of the context. Public Input None. Commission Questions Mr. Murray appreciated the changes made to the rooflines based on the Commission comments last month. He asked about the historic buildings used as a reference in the applicant presentation and Mr. Shuff identified the buildings. Commission Discussion None. Commission Deliberation Ms. Nelsen 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. Mr. Dunn seconded. Chair Dunn concurred with Mr. Murray on his assessment of the rooflines. The motion passed 7-0. 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 Mr. Murray recused himself from this item stating he had been involved in design assistance with the applicant. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 6 February 17, 2021 Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report noting this is a National Register Design Review for 420 Mathews Street, a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District. He noted the Commission is not in a decision-making role but will review the proposed alterations and report that staff has drafted on behalf of the Commission, provide any additional comments or modifications as necessary, and either approve or modify the findings in the draft report. Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the property and flanking properties, both of which are landmarks. He detailed the proposed rehabilitation project which will include a rear addition and window and door replacement, siding repair, porch replacement, and chimney reconstruction. He discussed character- defining features of the property and showed several images of the site. Mr. Bertolini stated staff finds that the overall project does not meet the standards largely based on the extent of replacement rather than repair of historic materials. He stated staff also finds the property will not likely contribute to the Laurel School Historic District after the rehabilitation is complete. Applicant Presentation There was no applicant presentation. Public Input None. Commission Questions Chair Dunn asked about the planned removal of the historic surrounds. Ryan McCarty replied he will be refurbishing and reusing the surrounds as much as possible. Chair Dunn asked if the colonial style would remain. Mr. McCarty replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn asked why the chimney look is changing. Mr. McCarty replied a stone cap will be added as that would have been a viable historic option. He noted he will be using the same brick for the reconstruction but stated there is a need for a better water seal. Chair Dunn asked the Commission for recommendations on keeping the historic look of the chimney while still keeping water out. Ms. Nelsen discussed the chimney and Mr. McCarty commented. Mr. Bertolini noted the building does not have gutters and stated staff would suggest using a half-round gutter. Mr. McCarty replied that is part of his proposal. Mr. Bertolini commented on grading negatively affecting water channeling. Ms. Nelsen stated the chimney does not seem well-flashed. Mr. McCarty replied there is currently no flashing and stated he will be repairing the siding in that area. Mr. Rose asked about the condition of the bay window and what reconnaissance was done to arrive at the conclusion it is beyond repair. He noted it is a central component of this style of architecture and stated everything possible should be done to attempt to repair it. Mr. McCarty replied he pulled the paint off and the entire bay window has fallen about two inches. He stated he will be reusing some of the window’s unique features in the reconstruction. Mr. Bertolini commented on the change on the front and the glazing pattern. Mr. Rose asked if the casements are original to the structure. Mr. Bertolini replied that is the case from what staff can tell as there are few historic images of the property. Ms. Michell asked what it would take to retain the shape of the bay window when it is rebuilt. Mr. McCarty replied he would redesign it; he stated his proposal is a personal preference. Mr. Rose asked about the use of board and batten on the addition and stated it is more emblematic of early 19th-century style. He suggested using a more subtle way to distinguish the addition. Mr. McCarty commented on another refurbished home he observed with board and batten but stated he would consider a change. Ms. Nelsen agreed with Mr. Rose’s comment and agreed a horizontal siding with a different scale could be useful. Mr. Rose stated an alternative could be using a beaded 4-inch lap siding or some other material to achieve the distinction without being quite so abrupt. Ms. Nelsen encouraged Mr. McCarty to retain the size and shape of the bay window as it is a very unique feature. Mr. McCarty replied he would look into it and noted window sizing is important. Chair Dunn agreed the bay window is one of the most beautiful features of the house. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 7 February 17, 2021 Commission Discussion Ms. Nelsen asked if the interior drawings and floor plans are kept as historical records. Mr. Bertolini replied records related to historic properties are considered permanent as part of the state record retention policy. Mr. Rose commended Mr. McCarty for taking on this project and seeing the potential in the property despite the challenges. He noted preservation is not necessarily an inexpensive endeavor. Chair Dunn asked Mr. McCarty if he has considered using tax credits. Mr. McCarty replied in the affirmative. Mr. Rose asked if it is conceivable the proposal could be revamped to include some of the suggested modifications and then potentially be considered to be contributing. Mr. Bertolini replied the Commission is documenting whether the proposed project meets the standards. He suggested not focusing too much on whether the property is contributing as that decision will be made by the National Parks Service. He stated the Commission should evaluate the project as proposed. Commission Deliberation Mr. Dunn moved 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. Mr. Knierim seconded. Mr. Rose encouraged Mr. McCarty to not interpret this motion as a lack of support and welcomed him to return to the Commission. He thanked him for taking on the project. Chair Dunn suggested there may be a way to stage the project to maximize tax credits. The motion passed 6-0. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn commented on the Mayor requesting a subcommittee on historic preservation. Ms. Bzdek replied she had not seen the recent Council meeting but believed there were some questions around the impact of historic preservation on affordable housing. She stated staff will be sending a memo to Council. Chair Dunn commented on the Ward School in Loveland, one of three stone one-room schoolhouses in Larimer County, recently being demolished. She also commented on Timberline Farm, which is a locally designated Loveland Historic District that was supposed to have been on this week’s Historic Preservation agenda for delisting. She stated that item was postponed as there may be an interested buyer. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tripoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 610 S. LOOMIS AVE STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the LPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. Historical Background The single-family property at 610 S. Loomis Ave was surveyed in 2020 and determined eligible as a City Landmark for its significance as an early example of the Minimal Traditional house type in the Westlawn Addition. The findings for that evaluation have been attached. ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Survey Form, 610 S. Loomis Ave. Packet Pg. 13 &1?;A>/1"A9.1> #) (19<;>->E&1?;A>/1"A9.1>%?D@@<9312<5 ;A:@E #1B9=5B 5@E ?BD?<<9>C 5?@;>5/A5805:3"-91 .1DC?> ?<@9DDC?EC5 A>>1:@A5805:3"-91%?D@@<9312<5 A5805:300>1?? * #??=9CF5 ?BD?<<9>C& #C:1>"-9100>1??!?C5@8!51>>5$3EB>9> * +5>>5CC55'< $1C?>9DI ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg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acket Pg. 15 &1?;A>/1"A9.1>#) 00>1?? * #??=9CF5 ! .5CD.1<<6B?>D+856B?>D?6D858?EC58?<4CD85=19>5>DB1>35G89389C 35>D5B54?>D85G1<< +89C81C1@1>5<4??B1>4CD?B=4??B2?D8?6G89381@@51B >?> 89CD?B93 B19C543?>3B5D5@1D9??B5><1B754CD??@@B?:53DC6B?=D856B?>D ?6D858?EC5G9D8C8?BD6<1D3?>3B5D5@?CDC1D9DC?EDC9453?B>5BC +G?3?>3B5D5 CD5@C4B?@4?G>D?D85I1B41D9DCC?ED85>4 2?F5D855>DBI9C1712<548??4 G9D8G??42B13;5DC +G?@19BC?6D8B55 ?F5B ?>54?E2<5 8E>7C1C8G9>4?GC 6<1>;D855>DB1>35 +85C581F5G??46B1=5C1>4CEBB?E>4C1<?>7G9D8G??4 CD?B=G9>4?GC *8EDD5BC1B569H54D?D85G1<<C?>59D85BC945?6D85G9>4?GC %?BD8.1<<C945+85>?BD8G1<<8?<4C>?5>DB95C +G?8?B9J?>D1<D8B55 <978D 21C5=5>D G9>4?GC G9D8 G??4 6B1=5C 1B5 @B5C5>D 9> D85 B19C54 3?>3B5D5 6?E>41D9?> &>D85=19>6<??B1B51D8B55 ?F5B ?>54?E2<5 8E>7C1C8G9>4?G 1>41C=1<<5B@19B?6D8B55 ?F5B ?>54?E2<5 8E>7C1C8G9>4?GC +85C581F5 G??46B1=5C1>4CEBB?E>4C1<?>7G9D8G??4C3B55>C 1CD.1<<B51B+85B51B?6D858?EC58?<4C1C9>7<55>DBI9>D?D852E9<49>71D9DC C?ED851CD 3?B>5B +89C 9C C9DE1D54 1D 7B145 9> D85 3?>3B5D5 6?E>41D9?> 1>4 @B?F945C1335CCD?D85=19>6<??B1CG5<<1CD8521C5=5>D +855>DB1>358?<4C1 G??4@1>5<4??BG9D81C9>7<5<978D +85B51BG1<<C8?<4C5F5B1<D8B55 ?F5B ?>5 4?E2<5 8E>7C1C8G9>4?GCG9D8G??4C3B55>C &EDC945D858?EC59C1>?@5> 3?>3B5D5@1D9? *?ED8.1<<C945+85C?ED8G1<<8?<4C>?5>DB95C &>D8521C5=5>D<5F5<1B5 G9>4?GCD81D1@@51BD?81F5255>5><1B7546?B57B5CC +85=19>6<??B8?<4C D8B55 ?F5B ?>54?E2<5 8E>7C1C8G9>4?GCG9D8G??4C3B55>C >/45@1/@A>-8'@E81A5805:3(E<1$9>9=1<+B149D9?>1< -:0?/-<5:3;>'<1/5-8'1@@5:31-@A>1?+89CB5C945>359C<?31D54?>D8551CDC945 ?6#??=9CF5>E5DG?@B?@5BD95CC?ED8?6$IBD<5*DB55D +89C@<135C9D:ECD>?BD8 ?6D85?<?B14?*D1D5,>9F5BC9DI31=@EC9>1>1B51D81D9C851F9<I@?@E<1D542I CDE45>DC <<?6D85@B?@5BD95C9>D851B511B5?33E@9542I89CD?B93C9>7<5 61=9I?6D85=EC541CB5>D1<C +858?EC5?>D89C@B?@5BDI6135CG5CD1>49CCEBB?E>4542II1B41B51CG9D8 =9>9=1<<1>4C31@9>7 7B1F5<4B9F5G1I5HD5>4C1<?>7D85C?ED8C945?6D85 8?EC56B?=D85CDB55DD?145D1385471B1759>D85213;I1B4 +85B51BI1B49C 3<?C54G9D81G??4@B9F13I65>35D81DBE>C1<?>7D85>?BD8@B?@5BDI<9>51>4D85> DEB>CC?ED8D?=55DD8571B175 5I?>4D8565>35D?D8551CD9C17B1CC54I1B4 D81D9C>?D?><I5>3<?C542IG??4@B9F13I65>39>72ED1<C?5HD5>4C>?BD8G1B4D? D85B51B?618?EC5D81D6135C?>D?$IBD<5*DB55D +8551CD5B>1B51?6D85@B?@5BDI 3<?C5D?D851<<5I9C?33E@9542I1@1F5421C;5D21<<3?EBD +89C5>D9B51B516B?= D858?EC51>471B175D?D851<<5IG1C89CD?B931<<I?@5>1>46?B=54D85213;I1B4 ?6D858?EC51D * #??=9CF5 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg. 25 &1?;A>/1"A9.1>#) 00>1?? * #??=9CF5 ! ,**?BD?<<9>C N+?@?7B1@893(E14B1>7<5 @8?D?B5F9C54 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 &1?;A>/1"A9.1>#) 00>1?? * #??=9CF5 ! ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 &1?;A>/1"A9.1>#) 00>1?? * #??=9CF5 ! B?>D?6D85?EC5-95GD?D85%?BD851CD 13;?6D85?EC5-95GD?D85.5CD ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 &1?;A>/1"A9.1>#) 00>1?? * #??=9CF5 ! B?>D?6D851B175-95GD?D851CD 13;?6D851B175-95GD?D85*?ED8G5CD ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 &1?;A>/1"A9.1>#) 00>1?? * #??=9CF5 ! +85'B?@5BDI6B?=D85<<5I-95GD?D85.5CD ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 &1?;A>/1"A9.1>#) 00>1?? * #??=9CF5 ! #1B9=5B?E>DICC5CC?B #1B9=5B?E>DICC5CC?B ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 511 N. GRANT AVE STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the LPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. Historical Background The single-family property at 511 N. Grant Avenue does not have up-to-date historical survey. It was constructed in c.1925 in the West Side addition and appears to have been addressed as 513 and 515 N. Grant for some time into the 1940s. It is a small example of a Craftsman Cottage, a common house type in northwest Fort Collins built for working- and middle-class families. It is one of several Craftsman-style buildings on the block but the only one of this small size. Notes below have been compiled by staff from a cursory record search. • 1925 (circa) – home constructed (no permit but appears on 1925 Sanborn Insurance Map) o Property shown as 515 N. Grant and is vacant this year • 1927-1940 – as 515 N. Meldrum, Louis Baechler, laborer/peddler, and wife Pearl are residents • 1948 – Lloyd Mondragon, welder, and wife Frances are residents • 1950 – Carl Eliason, student and Colorado A&M and wife Geneva are residents • 1950 – permit for a 6’x6’ addition on rear for a bathroom; new kitchen flooring • 1954 – addressed as 511 N. Grant; George Hickman, projectionist at the American Theater is the resident • 1956 – Rudolph Baldivia, Jr., employee for the Forney Manufacturing Co., and wife Mary, are residents • 2005 – reroof • 2014 - reroof Packet Pg. 32 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 1948 Assessor image 1968 Assessor image Packet Pg. 33 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 Packet Pg. 34 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 420 WEST STREET STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Demolition review and notification provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. This process provides for consideration of a single-family property over fifty years of age proposed for demolition for a new single-family dwelling. Community members receive notice about that demolition and can bring forward information about the property, and if they believe it is eligible as a City Landmark, can take action to protect the property through designation. City staff initiates the notification process after receiving a request for single-family demolition via either a demolition permit or written request with preliminary construction plans. The property is included in the next available consent calendar for the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the LPC meeting either to provide information about the property and/or nominate the property as a City Landmark under the provisions of Section 14-31 of Municipal Code. Historical Background The single-family property at 420 West Street does not have up-to-date historical survey. It was constructed in c.1952 in the Hinman’s Subdivision. It is a Minimal Traditional cottage with a unique Tudor Revival-styled enclosed entry (minor Tudor Revival elements are common in this house type). It is one of several Minimal Traditional and Ranch style residences on the block, in an area largely built up over the late-1940s and early- 1950s. Notes below have been compiled by staff from a cursory record search. • 1952 – home constructed for Mr. O.T. Deats • 1956 – Robert A. Feit, a driver for the City of Fort Collins, and wife Jennie, a typist with the Retail Trades Council, are residents Packet Pg. 35 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 1952 Assessor image 1968 Assessor image Packet Pg. 36 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 Packet Pg. 37 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, FEBRUARY 4, 2021 TO MARCH 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 HPS’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 February 4, 2021 to March 3, 2021. There is no staff presentation this month. Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 416 Remington St. Demolition of garage structure due to deteriorated condition. Contributing property to the Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) February 5, 2021 425 10th St. – Romero House In-kind roof replacement (wood shingle), gutter replacement, trim painting Approved February 8, 2021 200 Mathews St. – Carnegie Library In-kind roof replacement (membrane sections only) and partial gutter & downspout replacement/rehabilitation. Contributing property to the Fort Collins Museum, Stone and Janis Cabins, Boxelder School Landmark District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved February 9, 2021 259 S. College – Armstrong Hotel Removal of screen windows. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved March 3, 2021 Packet Pg. 38 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 247-249 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW (REHABILITATION AND ADDITION) STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for a mixed-use project at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District, to identify any key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Old Town District Design Standards. APPLICANT/OWNER: Randy Shortridge, [au] workshop (architect); Drew Fink (owner) RECOMMENDATION: N/A (Conceptual Review only; no decision requested) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards) and the adopted Old Town District Design Standards. The LPC should discuss and consider the presented materials and staff analysis. For City Landmarks and properties in City Landmark Districts, the Commission is a decision-maker and can choose to issue, or not issue, a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Issuing a CoA allows the proposed work to proceed. In this case, the applicant is requesting a conceptual review of proposed plans to provide advance feedback under Municipal Code 14-54(a)(2)(a) and is not requesting a final decision at this meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Old Town Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 and, with a smaller boundary that stops at Jefferson Street, it was designated as a local landmark district in 1979. Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV – Design Review of Proposed Alterations to Designated Resources, requires that the applicant obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. The proposed work consists of a rehabilitation plan for the existing historic building and a proposed rooftop and rear addition. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The 4,431-square foot building at 247-249 Linden Street was constructed in 1882 and is a contributing property to the locally designated Old Town Historic District as well as the National Register Old Town Historic District. Early commercial occupants of the ground floor included a gun shop, a novelty shop, and a coal, hay, and feed shop. The building is a well-preserved example of Italianate-style commercial block construction with modifications to an automobile service station in the late-1920s. It reflects its period of initial construction in the 1880s when Fort Collins’ downtown first transitioned from a predominantly wood frame, mixed- Packet Pg. 39 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 2 use area into a more permanent mixed-use downtown that remains today. It reflects the early and ongoing commercial, business, architectural, and development history in the district since the 1880s. Its character-defining features include its brick, Italianate façade with vertical, one-over-one wood sash windows with transoms and decorative crown molding on the upper floor, paired entrances (one for the main floor and one for the upper floor apartments) along Linden Street, dentilated Classical brick and pressed tin cornices with styled wood corbels next to the brick pilasters. The 1929 modifications to add garage doors to the front and rear of the first floor are also character-defining features associated with the period of automotive-related use, most prominently by a local Hispanic family, the Cienfuegos, who owned the property and operated an auto upholstery business there from the 1950s to 2015. The change of use is reflective of the trend that began in the 1910s, as several downtown businesses shifted to auto garages to support the increasing ownership of automobiles among Fort Collins residents. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1929: “Double doors for garage in front of building” (Permit #2515, W.E. Hurdle) • 1940s/early 1950s - first-floor commercial space was occupied by Joe’s Auto Upholstery, owned by Joe Cienfuegos. It is likely that garage doors with new brick surround were installed at that time. • 1980s - The original double, person entry doors for 249 Linden were removed due to poor condition and replaced with the entry system that is still in place today. The upper story windows were also replaced in the 1980s. HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: Since designation of the Old Town Historic District in 1979, this property has undergone Design Review on several past occasions. The Commission reviewed previous applications for alterations to this property from a previous owner in 2018 and 2019, and approved plans on March 20, 2019 for a rehabilitation plan that included a rooftop patio with rooftop access structure. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: None. In 2005, Mr. Cienfuegos received approval from the LPC to replicate the double entry doors to the second floor at 249 Linden based on the reconstructed doors at the abutting 251 Linden property, which had been supported with a grant from the State Historic Fund. Mr. Cienfuegos chose not to proceed with the work at that time. When Mr. Cienfuegos passed away in 2011, his son Richard carried on the business at the same location until he sold the building in 2015. Joe’s Auto Upholstery continues to operate under the same name but is now located at 310 Willow Street. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is requesting conceptual review comments for a proposed alterations that include the following: • Replace the existing, non-historic windows on upper floor (front and rear) with new windows (Marvin Ultimate Double Hung Metal Clad Wood) within the existing openings. Windows to match pattern/detail used on Robertson Block to the north. • Replace the non-historic entry door to 249 Linden (upper story) with a new, painted wood custom double- leaf door to match Robertson Block (sister building). • Replace garage door on primary façade with new aluminum garage door and transom with glass panes. • Clean and repaint cornices and other details. • Clean and repaint currently painted brick on primary façade. • Clean and repair existing stone sills. • Construct an addition on the rooftop to house indoor and outdoor living spaces (replace existing roof). Addition has a low-sloping, hipped roof and is set back 15 feet from the front wall, and 4 feet from the south parapet. • Construct a sunroom addition at the second story of the rear elevation. Add new steel transom and column at rear. • Remove existing garage door, person door, and intermediate wall. Replace with a wider garage door opening on the ground floor to accommodate two onsite parking spaces. • Enlarge one of the rear upper story windows to create doorway. Packet Pg. 40 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 3 • To support the added rooftop story, construct a timber frame with new foundations within the existing masonry perimeter walls on three sides. At the storefront wall, construct a steel moment frame with new foundation, hidden behind the original masonry configuration, allowing removal of the original masonry infill. Anchor the new frame to the masonry walls at floor levels. • Screen new rooftop mechanical equipment. • Clean and repair existing 1968 blade sign at front entry. • Relocate existing “Joe’s Auto Upholstery” transom window sign to interior foyer. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon preliminary review of the original proposal details, staff asked the applicant to provide the following updates, which are reflected in the current project details: • More details/rationale regarding choice of materials for the addition • More information/rationale regarding how roofline of new addition meets Old Town Design Standards • Update to rear garage door design to create an option closer to the historic entry pattern and door design • Request to consider rehabilitation of existing garage door on front façade • Clarification regarding rehab plan to clean and repaint PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. REVIEW STANDARDS: As the adopted standards that govern design review of proposed changes within the Old Town Historic District, the Old Town District Design Standards (adopted 2014) are of primary consideration for the Commission’s review. The relevant code standards are noted in the following chart; the full adopted standards document is available at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/pdf/old-town-design-standards.pdf. Applicable Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) 3.9 Replace a historic window with a matching design if repair is not possible. The standard notes the replacements should use the same opening size and the same window material, appearance, size, shape, number of panes, profile of sash and muntin, and glazing appearance. It also notes that alternative materials and design are permitted when it is not possible to match the historic design and materials of a window, if no other option is available and/or the opening is on a non-primary elevation. Alternative window designs shall match the general profile and details of the historic window and use materials that match the historic appearance in dimension, profile, and finish. The existing upper story windows are not historic (1980s era); the proposed replacements meet this standard in the context of a rehabilitation project that includes a simplified historic interpretation of the original windows. Y 3.10 Use special care when replacing a window on a primary façade. Give special attention to matching the historic design and materials of windows located on the façade. Also, match the historic design when replacing a window located on a secondary wall. The existing upper story windows are not historic (1980s era); the proposed replacements meet this standard in the context of a rehabilitation project that includes a simplified historic interpretation of the original windows. Y Packet Pg. 41 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 4 Applicable Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) 3.15 Maintain a historic primary entrance. The relevant details in this standard call for maintaining the historic size and shape of the door openings and locations on primary facades and do not allow the addition of new door openings on primary facades. The proposed work maintains the primary entrance patterns for the building for both the commercial, ground floor use as well as the upper story residential units, and meets this standard. Y 3.17 Location and design a new door and entry to preserve the historic composition. Locate a new door to be consistent with the historic architectural style of the structure. Design a new door or entry to match historic door proportions. The existing garage door on the front façade opening is undated, but the opening as currently configured with the brick surround dates to the Joe’s Upholstery era in the 20th century. The proposed alteration (replacement with a new garage door) is consistent with the historic proportions. The proposed changes on the rear do alter the existing entry pattern of central garage door flanked by two person doors on either side, with intermediate wall sections in between. The applicant proposes to replace the combined area of the garage door, one person door, and the intermediate wall space in between with a new garage door that meets their combined proportions on the rear wall addition, while maintaining a person door of similar proportion to the other person door, which would be removed as part of the original rear wall alterations that would be obscured by the new rear walls and openings on the ground floor. Consider this standard relative to the proposed changes on the rear elevation. The modern usage of the improved Old Firehouse Alley behind the building does create a greater degree of visibility for the rear building alterations. The Old Town Standards clearly note that rear additions are acceptable and preferred, but they were also developed with improved side and rear alleys in mind. See the discussion on page 26. “Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Preserve,” which provides some perspective on high visible rear walls versus those that are not highly visible, suggesting that rear walls on improved alleys should be repaired and preserved. At the same time, the Standards document also includes the rear addition to 233 Linden, a contributing building on the south end of the same block, as an appropriate example that meets the intent of the standards for rear alley locations. This addition appears to completely obscure/replace the original rear wall of 233 Linden. This example may be helpful by comparison. 3.19 Replace storefront features to match historic features if necessary. Use historical documentation to guide the design of replacement features, or design simplified versions of similar elements seen on nearby historic properties, if no documentation is available. Consider this standard relative to the proposed new person door on the façade. The standard allows for either matching or replacement features similar to nearby historic properties, as appropriate. A rehabilitation plan would allow for either option, as noted by previous staff and Commission discussions with a previous applicant about this door. Y Packet Pg. 42 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 5 Applicable Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) 3.22 Preserve the historic roofline on a historic structure. Maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Consider this standard relative to the preservation of the existing roofline as well as the proposed, hipped-roof addition as seen from the street. The design preserves the existing roofline and parapet at the important front and south elevations, but it does change the historic roofline at the rear, as seen from the improved alley. 3.31 Design an addition or accessory structure to be compatible with the historic structure. More specifically, this standard calls for the addition or accessory structure to be visually subordinate to the historic building and not replicate the design of the historic building. It must use materials of a similar color, texture and scale to materials in the surrounding historic context. The addition must be compatible with the scale, massing, and rhythm of the surrounding historic context and must incorporate windows and other openings at a consistent solid- to-void ratio to those found on nearby historic buildings. The addition should not use replicas of historic building components and details that would convey a false sense of history or draw undue attention to the addition. Consider this standard relative to the proposed new addition on the rooftop as well as on the rear. Regarding the primary material, the applicant proposes corrugated weathering steel walls, which is appropriately compatible. The solid to void ratio is generally consistent with the historic building and its nearby context, and does not convey a false sense of history nor replicate its historic design. Due to the one-story building abutting on the south, the rooftop addition is visible from the pedestrian view looking northwest, but has a lesser visual impact on the existing structure than on the rear elevation, where the addition alters the existing building design more significantly. As mitigating design strategies, the architect has employed transparency in the design of the sun room to preserve visibility of the existing wall and pattern of four vertical windows, as well as a side setback that reveals several feet of the original wall. Packet Pg. 43 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 6 Applicable Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) 3.32 Design an addition or secondary structure to be subordinate to the historic building. (To the side or at the rear; rooftop additions to the rear to minimize visual impacts from public streets.) Generally speaking, the proposed scale and massing of the addition is in keeping with the notion of subordinate, as described in this standard. The existing building is 4,431 square feet. The proposed addition, located on the rooftop and the rear elevation, would be approximately 1,330 square feet. The addition is set back from the roof by 15 feet and is otherwise located on the rear, and in size and visual impact creates a subordinate relationship on its most important, primary façade. As noted under 3.17 above, the modern usage of the improved Old Firehouse Alley behind the building does create a greater degree of visibility for the rear building alterations. The Old Town Standards clearly note that rear additions are acceptable and preferred, but they were also developed with improved side and rear alleys in mind. See the discussion on page 26. “Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Preserve,” which provides some perspective on high visible rear walls versus those that are not highly visible. At the same time, the Standards document also includes the rear addition to 233 Linden, a contributing building on the south end of the same block, as an appropriate example that meets the intent of the standards for rear alley locations. This addition appears to completely obscure/replace the original rear wall of 233 Linden. This example may be helpful by comparison. 3.33 Differentiate an addition from the historic structure. The description calls for use of changes in material, color, and /or wall plane; use of a lower-scale connecting element to join an addition; and use of contemporary architectural materials and styles or a simplified version of the existing architectural style. The additional massing has been differentiated through its contemporary, simplified design and materials. Y 3.34 Do not try to make an addition or secondary structure appear older than it is; do not replicate historic details (use simplified versions.) The proposed addition meets this standard, which is related to 3.33. Y 3.35 Do not damage the historic fabric of the historic building when adding an addition. This standard further specifies “do not damage or obscure significant architectural features of the historic building.” Consider this standard relative to the proposed alterations to the rooftop and rear addition. As noted in several instances above, the Commission’s collective understanding of the relative importance of the rear elevation must be established for this particular building and its context in order to respond to the importance of this specific standard. Packet Pg. 44 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 7 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Applicable Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property is retaining its historic use as a mixed commercial (ground floor) and residential (upper floor) building. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The existing character-defining features as noted by staff and previous LPC review discussions are its brick, Italianate façade with vertical, one-over- one wood sash windows with transoms and decorative crown molding on the upper floor, paired entrances (one for the main floor and one for the upper floor apartments) along Linden Street, dentilated Classical brick and pressed tin cornices with styled wood corbels next to the brick pilasters. The 1929 modifications to add garage doors to the front and rear are additional character-defining features representing the period of significance associated with the automotive use conversation that culminated with Joe’s Upholstery. Of the proposed alterations, the alterations to the garage doors and the rear door and window openings are of greatest concern relative to this standard. SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Of the proposed alterations, the proposed solution for the new person door on the façade may be the only area of concern for this standard. SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The existing garage door openings on the ground floor should be considered relative to this standard. SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The existing garage door openings on the ground floor should be considered relative to this standard. Packet Pg. 45 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 8 Applicable Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. The existing garage door openings on the ground floor and the front person door should be considered relative to this standard. Regarding the front garage door, the applicant notes concerns about whether it is a good candidate for repair and proposes replacement. If the Commission finds this replacement to be appropriate, a differentiated, contemporary garage door of a simple design would be appropriate to signify this new alteration. SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Proposed cleaning, repainting, and repair of the historic building features should be considered relative to this standard. Staff finds no reason for concern about the proposed work, as described. Y SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed rooftop and rear additions should be considered relative to this standard. SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The addition will be located on the roof and rear of the property and, if removed, would allow for retention of the original building’s essential form, although with some alterations to the integrity due to the changes that accommodate those additions. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations, addition, and new construction at 247-249 Linden, staff makes the following preliminary findings of fact: • The property at 247-249 Linden Street was designated as a City Landmark as a contributing building in the Old Town Historic District by City Council ordinance on December 18, 1979. Packet Pg. 46 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 9 • City Council adopted specific design standards for the Old Town Historic District on July 15, 2014. Along with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, these district design standards must be used to review alterations to properties in the Old Town District, pursuant to Chapter 14, Article IV – Design Review of Proposed Alterations to Designated Resources. • A proposal that satisfies the relevant and more specific requirements in The Old Town Historic District Design Standards will be in keeping with the more universally applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, upon which the Old Town District standards are based. • The proposed project for rehabilitation and addition to the 247-249 Linden Street meets several of the relevant standards as proposed, based on the analysis noted in this report. • Regarding the garage door on the façade, the degree of repairability and importance of retaining this undated, but historic feature warrant further discussion based on the expertise and perspective of the Commission members. • Establishment of the sensitivity of the rear wall of 247-249 Linden Street, per the Old Town Design Standard’s consideration of rear walls on improved alleys and other more visible locations, is important to create a basis for reviewing the proposed addition on the rear. Staff notes some room for discussion and interpretation by the Commission here, based on the guidance and relevant examples provided in the design standards document. RECOMMENDATION: Because the request is for a conceptual review, staff does not have a formal recommendation at this time. SAMPLE MOTIONS Upon receiving a request for a conceptual review, if the Commission finds that sufficient information is provided at the time of conceptual review to fully evaluate the project, and that no further substantive review is necessary, the Commission may elect to proceed to final review. In that event, the following sample motion has been provided. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at 247-249 Linden. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, 247-249 Linden, as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the relevant Old Town District Design Standards. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, 247-249 Linden, as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the relevant Old Town District Design Standards, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, 247-249 Linden, as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the relevant Old Town District Design Standards. ATTACHMENTS 1. Owner Approval for Remote Hearing 2. Staff Presentation 3. Applicant Proposal Packet Pg. 47 From:rshortridge@auworkshop.co To:Maren Bzdek Cc:Drew Fink; Jane Daniels; Jason Kersley Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 247-249 Linden LPC concept review Date:Thursday, February 25, 2021 7:02:36 PM We are aware of the option to wait until an in-person hearing is possible, but would like to go ahead with a remote hearing process. Thank you, RANDY SHORTRIDGE AIA LEED AP [au]workshop | architects+urbanists 405 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 c: 970.818.1589 auworkshop.co On Feb 25, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com> wrote: are aware of the option to wait until an in-person hearing is possible, but choose to go ahead with a remote hearing process. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 48 1 247/249 Linden – Conceptual Design Review Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, March 17, 2021 Site 2 1 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 49 Role of the LPC 3 • Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Old Town Design Standards • Provide guidance to applicant about how project can be improved to meet requirements of Municipal Code 14, Article IV Architecture 4 • 1882 – Tubbs & Cowan Block • 2-story Italianate brick commercial block • Stone sills and lintels • Brick and pressed tin Classical cornice with styled wood corbels • Ornamental brick pilasters • Late 1920s modifications for automotive shop 3 4 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 50 c. 1884 5 c.1900 6 5 6 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 51 1914 7 1927 8 7 8 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 52 Joe Cienfuegos, 253 Linden c. 1940 9 1976,1979 10 9 10 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 1983 11 12 11 12 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 1986 13 14 1999 13 14 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 55 2005 15 16 15 16 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 Application History June 20, 2018: Conceptual Design Review • Third-story addition • New ground floor openings on rear February 20, 2019: Conceptual Design Review • Third-story addition changed to a roof access structure • No change to rear openings; replacement of non-historic doors March 20, 2019: Conceptual/Final Design Review • Plans approved, 5-0 17 Current Project Highlights 18 • Rooftop addition with rear sunroom • Alterations to rear openings (window and doors) • Clean and repair historic design features; retain historic signage • Replace non-historic upper floor windows and front person door • Replace front garage door • Construct interior timber and steel frame inside masonry walls to support new construction 17 18 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 Key Standards 19 Staff Findings 247-249 Linden Street: designated landmark (contributing building in theOldTown Historic District) - December 18, 1979 City Council adopted specific design standards for the Old Town Historic District on July 15, 2014. Along with the SOI Standards, these district design standards must be used to review alterations. A proposal that satisfies The Old Town Historic District Design SOI Standards. The proposed project meets several of the relevant standards as proposed. Regarding the garage door on the façade, the degree of repairability and importance of retaining this undated, but historic, feature warrants further discussion based on the expertise and perspective of the Commission members. Establishment of the sensitivity of the rear wall per the OT Design Standard’s guidance and standards, is important to create a basis for reviewing the proposed addition on the rear. Needs discussion/interpretation. 20 19 20 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 247-249 LINDEN STREETCONCEPT REVIEWLANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 17, 2021 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 59 CONTENTS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & URBAN DESIGN/REDEVELOPMENT GOALS 2. EXISTING SITE AND CONTEXT 3. EXISTING BUILDING CONDITIONS 3. CONCEPTS FOR FAÇADE REHABILITATION 4. DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR ROOFTOP AND REAR ADDITION ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 60 EXISTING BUILDING Originally constructed in 1882 and designed by Denver architect William Quayle, the two story 247 Linden Street block occupied one building lot and shared three wythe brick party walls with adjacent buildings. Its original storefront was likely similar to its sister building at 251 Linden and was replaced with a brick surrounded garage and man door when it became a automotive repair shop sometime around 1938. It remained an automotive repair use until c. 2014 and has been unoccupied since. The upper floor (249 Linden) was composed of two apartments, neither of which have been occupied for some time. Upper story windows and the second level street-fronting entry door were replaced sometime after 1983. PROPOSED USES The ground floor will become general office/retail/restaurant space fronting Linden and the rear of the building will continue to allow vehicles inside—but now as residential parking spaces. The second story will continue to be divided front-to-back as two residential units with two bedrooms each and the new roof-top addition will be indoor and outdoor living spaces PROJECT DESCRIPTION REHABILITATION OF EXISTING FACADES Previous LPC reviews have determined that the period of significance is post-1938 so that the garage doors can remain. Non-historic second story windows will be replaced with new double-hung windows. Cornices and associated details will be cleaned and repainted as will currently painted brick on the primary façade. ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FOR ADDITIONS Rooftop: In order to avoid visually competing with the existing building the addition will be a simple mass, not unlike several hipped attic floors on other buildings in the vicinity. It will be setback from the front and southerly facades. Rear: A narrow sunroom addition at the second story of the rear façade will be setback from the south wall and will allow views through to the existing vertical windows. A necessarily wider garage door will provide an appearance similar to the ground level of the current the rear façade. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONCEPT The structural goal of this project is to preserve the existing masonry perimeter walls by means of strengthening at the interior so that the original appearance remains intact, and the building is brought up to current code. A heavy timber frame with new foundations will be built inboard of the perimeter at three sides. A steel moment frame with new foundation will be built inboard of the storefront wall and hidden behind the original masonry configuration, allowing the option to remove the non-original masonry infill. The masonry walls will be anchored to the new frame at the floor levels. The added story will bear solely on the new frame, set back from and independent of the existing walls so that undue stress isn’t added to the historic masonry. MECHANICAL NOISE AND SCREENING Keeping rooftop mechanical equipment screened and acoustically isolated from the occupied rooftop areas as well as out of view from surrounding streets is of paramount importance and measures have been taken to provide such screening and acoustic isolation. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 61 Rehabilitation and Addition Design Goals for 247-249 Linden: Rehabilitate existing front and rear facades and activate the southerly second level party wall Add a set back one-story roof addition and a rear addition with deferential, yet contemporary and complementary massing and materiality. Strive for Authenticity and Compatibility—details, materials and architectural character derived from and compatible with, but not imitative of adjacent buildings and additive to the scale of the downtown district. Contribute to a vibrant neighborhood per City Plan by adding housing, upper level activity, “eyes on the street” and walkability. Conversion of vacant ground level to retail/restaurant/office uses and re-use of currently vacant upper level residential to further activate the street, block and neighborhood. Add architectural charm to the neighborhood—provide a rooftop and rear addition wherein the concept, massing and character will be perceived as a great contribution to the character of the neighborhood. Provide limited parking on site—but hide it from view. PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT/URBAN DESIGN GOALS ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 62 CONTEXT EXISTING AERIAL VIEW FROM WEST ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 63 LAND USE CODE/ZONING CONTEXT CONSTRUCTED: 1882, NEW STOREFRONT C. 1938 ZONING DISTRICT: D (DOWNTOWN) Historic Core sub-district HISTORIC CONTEXT: OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT STREET FRONT TYPE: STOREFRONT PROPOSED USES: MIXED-USE DEVEL. REVIEW: BDR (BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) HEIGHT LIMIT: FOUR STORIES with setback above third story SETBACKS: NONE FRONT/SIDES, 5’ AT ALLEY T.O.D. OVERLAY: Allows for parking reduction and alternative compliance SITE EXISTING ALLEY EXTERIOR CONTEXT ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 64 LINDEN STREET CONTEXT EXISTING BUILDING ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 65 LINDEN STREET PRIMARY FACADE EXISTING BUILDING ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 66 EXISTING ALLEY EXTERIOR CONTEXT EXISTING BUILDING ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 67 EXISTING EXTERIOR CONDITIONS EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ALLEY EXTERIOR CONTEXT EXISTING BUILDING ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 68 EXISTING EXTERIOR CONDITIONS EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING ALLEY VIEWS EXISTING BUILDING ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 69 EXISTING EXTERIOR DETAIL CONDITIONS EXISTING BUILDING THE CLIENT DESIRES TO RETAIN THE RICH ORIGINAL DETAILS AND THEY WILL BE APPROPRIATELY REHABILITATED. LATER DETAILS FROM THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE (AFTER 1938 WHEN THE GROUND FLOOR WAS CONVERTED TO AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE) WILL BE RETAINED ON THE PRIMARY FAÇADE AND ALSO REHABILITATED ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 70 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED PRIMARY FAÇADE REHABILITATION REPAINT BRICK DENTILS TO MATCH SURROUNDING BRICK PATCH AND PAINT EXISTING TIN CORNICE AND SUBCORNICE DETAILS. COLOR TBD CLEAN & REPAIR and REPAINT CLEAN, PATCH AND REPAIR EXISTING STONE DETAILS AS NEEDED REPLACE NON-HISTORIC EXISTING WINDOWS WITH DOUBLE-HUNG WITH PATTERN/DETAIL SIMILAR TO SISTER BUILDING CLEAN AND REPAIR EXISTING BLADE SIGN FOR FUTURE TENANT PROVIDE NEW DUAL-GLAZED ALUMINUM GARAGE DOOR AND NON-PLANAR TRANSOM WITH ALL GLASS PANES NEW PAINTED WOOD CUSTOM DOUBLE LEAF DOOR, AND HARDWARE SIMILAR TO SISTER BUILDING NEW PAINTED WOOD CUSTOM DOOR AND HARDWARE TO MATCH SISTER BUILDING. PROVIDE TRANSOM TO MATCH HEIGHT OF ADJACENT GARAGE DOOR ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 71 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED ALLEY FAÇADE REHABILITATION REMOVE DOOR AND TRANSOM WINDOW ROOF TO BE REPLACED BY NEW ADDITION ENLARGE OPENING FOR DOORWAY REMOVE STUCCO & REPAIR EXISTING BRICK THIS ELEVATION ONLY REPAIR AND PAINT EXISTING WINDOW SURROUND REPLACE NON-HISTORIC EXISTING WINDOWS WITH DOUBLE-HUNG AND PATTERN/DETAIL SIMILAR TO SISTER BUILDING MAIN FACADE CLEAN AND REPAIR EXISTING STONE SILLS ADD NEW STEEL TRANSOM BEAM & COLUMN IF REQUIRED REMOVE GARAGE AND MAN DOOR AND INTERMEDIATE WALL ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 72 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WINDOWS EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING DOUBLE HUNG WITH TRANSOM 1906 PHOTO SHOWING FULL HEIGHT DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS (Fort Collins Archive HO2871) 1983 PHOTO SHOWING FULL HEIGHT DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS STILL IN PLACE (Fort Collins Archive HO9706) BASED ON PREVIOUS REVIEWS BY THE LPC, THIS POST 1938 FAÇADE WILL BE THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 73 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WINDOWS EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TYPICAL WINDOW CONDITIONS PROPOSED REPLACEMENT WINDOW: MARVIN ULTIMATE DOUBLE HUNG METAL CLAD WOOD PINE DOUGLAS FIR ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 74 EXISTING 249 ENTRY DOOR AND REPLACEMENT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING DOOR (LEFT) AND SISTER BUILDING DOOR (RIGHT) PROPOSED REPLACEMENT DOOR OPTION IS EXACT COLOR T.B.D. THIS DOOR STYLE WAS PRESENT IN THE 1983 PHOTO CHARACTER OF SISTER DOOR SHOWING DETAILS AND TRIMS TO BE DUPLICATED 249 LINDEN 249 LINDEN PROPOSED REPLACEMENT DOOR CONFIGURATION OPTION IF BUILDING CODE REQUIRES MAINTAINING A 3’-0” DOOR FOR EXITING SECOND FLOOR APARTMENTS ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 75 EXISTING 247 SECTIONAL DOOR AND REPLACEMENT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING DOOR AND DETAIL CONDITIONS THE EXISTING SECTIONAL DOOR FRONTING LINDEN STREET EXPRESSES THE CHARACTER OF THE LONG-STANDING GROUND LEVEL USE. THE DOOR ITSELF HAS BEEN EVALUATED FOR RE-USE AND WILL LIKELY NEED TO BE REPLACED AS: 1) IT CANNOT PROVIDE APPROPRIATE THERMAL PROTECTION WITH THE CURRENT SINGLE GLAZING AND THE DOOR STRUCTURE IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT REPLACEMENT WITH DUAL GLAZED UNITS. 2) WEAR AND TEAR ON THE CONNECTIONS AND FITTINGS OF THE EXISTING DOOR CREATE A SAFETY ISSUE, PARTICULARLY IF THE NEW USE IS A BAR OR RESTAURANT A SECTIONAL DOOR WITH SIMILAR LITE PATTERN AND APPRORIATE THERMAL PROTECTION WILL BE USED AS ILLUSTRATED AT RIGHT. PROPOSED DUAL-GLAZED AND INSULATED REPLACEMENT DOOR FROM INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR EXISTING DETAIL CONDITIONS ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 76 Alley FRONT AND RELOCATION OF EXISTING TRANSOM WINDOW SIGN EXISTING BUILDING SHADOW BOX WITH WHITE UPHOLSTERED BACKING FRAME WITH UPHOLSTERED FINISH AND EDGE PIPING PROPOSED FOYER LOCATION “by 1938, it housed Hawley’s Auto Top Shop. That was likely the beginning of its use as an automobile shop and probably marks the time period when the building was first converted from being a storefront to having a garage door front that enabled cars to be driven inside. But probably the most significant moment in the life of this building at 247 Linden Street, besides the day it was built, was when a guy by the name of Joe Cienfuegos (known as Chancio by his friends and family) bought the building in 1945 and opened up Joe’s Upholstery Shop. Seventy years later, though Joe is gone and the business has passed down to his son, Richard.” —247 Linden Street: Story of a Building, www.northerncoloradohistory.com ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 77 PROPOSED DESIGN FLOOR PLANS PROJECT SUMMARY SITE AREA: 28.3, X 90’ = 2,547 SF +- EXISTING BUILDING: 4,431 SF PROPOSED ADDITION: 1,330 SF +- TOTAL BUILDING: 5,761 SF +- DWELLINGS: 2DU @ 1,848 & 1,729 SF RESID. PARKING/STOR.: OFFICE/RESTR./RETAIL: 1,300 SF COMMON INTERIOR: PROPOSED PARKING: 2 SPACES HEIGHT: THREE STORIES 0 2 4 8 FEET ALLEY 6’ 5’ 10’ SETBACK ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 78 PROPOSED DESIGN SECTIONS ALLEY 10’ LINDEN STREET LONGITUDINAL SECTION SHOWING LOWERED THIRD FLOOR LEVEL SCREENED MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE BEYOND LOCATED TO MINIMIZE VIEW FROM SURROUNDINGS ROOF HIPPED TO MINIMIZE MASS CEILING AT 8 FEET AT FRONT AND BACK OF ROOF NEW FLOOR APPROX. 2 FEET LOWER THAN EXISTING ROOF (DASHED LINE) NEW WALL SETBACK 4 FEET FROM PARAPET SUNROOM CROSS SECTION 15 FOOT SETBACK BEDROOMS ENTRY STAIR BEDROOMS PARKING TERRACE LIVING LIVING TERRACE LOW SLOPE ROOF TO MINIMIZE MASS LINE OF EXISTING ROOF LOW EAVE HEIGHT TO MINIMIZE ADDITION FROM LINDEN 0 2 4 8 FEET 10 FOOT AVERAGE INTERIOR CEILING HEIGHT (BOTH UNITS) 5’-8” 12 2 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 79 PROPOSED DESIGN RESPONSE TO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW ADDITIONS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (PAGES 62-63) A SIMPLE, CONTEMPORARY AND MONOCHROMATIC MASSING WITH UNIQUE MATERIALS AND SETBACKS DIFFERENTIATES THE TOP AND REAR ADDITION FROM THE HISTORIC PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE THE PRIMARY AND SIDE FACADES ARE NOT OBSCURED BY THE ADDITIONS. THE REAR FAÇADE IS RESPECTED BY CREATING A TRANSPARENT ADDITION THAT REVEALS THE ORIGINAL FAÇADE INSIDE THE ADDITIONS DO NOT TRY TO APPEAR AS IF THEY WERE PART OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING THE PROPOSED ROOF ADDITION IS BOTH SETBACK FROM PRIMARY FACADES AND LOWERED INTO THE EXISTING MASS THIS APPROPRIATE REAR ADDITION IS JUST A FEW DOORS TO THE SOUTH OF OUR PROPOSED DESIGN NOTE ILLUSTRATIVE EXTENT OF APPROPRIATE REAR ADDITION ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 80 PROPOSED DESIGN RESPONSE TO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING AND ROOF FORMS THE PROPOSED SLOPED ROOF FORM IS SEEN IN MANY NEARBY BUILDINGS. SEE NEXT PAGE FOR EXAMPLES (PAGE 92) (PAGE 87) ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 81 PROPOSED DESIGN NEARBY BUILDINGS WITH SLOPED ROOF FORMS 132 LAPORTE WASHINGTON’S HIPPED THIRD STORY ATTIC ROOF RECENT ROOFTOP ADDITION TO EXISTING WALLS VISIBLE FROM COLLEGE AND LAPORTE AVENUES 214 LINDEN STREET GABLED SECOND STORY ROOF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION VISIBLE FROM LINDEN STREET 117 MOUNTAIN AVE KISSOCK BLOCK HIPPED THIRD STORY ATTIC ROOF ORIGINAL METAL CLAD ROOF FORM VISIBLE FROM COLLEGE AND MOUNTAIN AVE 314 MOUNTAIN AVE ARMORY BUILDING HIPPED THIRD STORY ATTIC ROOF W/PEAKED SKYLIGHT ORIGINAL ROOF FORM VISIBLE FROM MOUNTAIN AVE & CHESTNUT STREET 200 JEFFERSON ST. UNION PACIFIC DEPOT GABLED ROOF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION VISIBLE FROM ALL DIRECTIONS 320 WALNUT STREET SHED SECOND STORY ROOF NEW CONSTRUCTION 326 WALNUT STREET GABLED ROOF ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION BOTH VISIBLE FROM WALNUT STREET ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 82 PROPOSED DESIGN FROM OPPOSITE SIDEWALK SHOWING ROOF ADDITION FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF LINDEN STREET, THE PROPOSED ROOF ADDITION IS BARELY VISIBLE ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 83 PROPOSED DESIGN FROM OPPOSITE 239 LINDEN SHOWING ROOF ADDITION FROM THIS VANTAGE POINT, THE ROOFTOP ADDITION IS SEEN LOWERED BEHIND AND STEPPED BACK FROM THE EXISTING FRONT AND SIDE PARAPETS. THE LOW SLOPED ROOF IS NOT VISIBLE. ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 84 PROPOSED DESIGN FROM FIREHOUSE ALLEY SHOWING ROOF ADDITION FROM THIS VANTAGE POINT, THE LOW SLOPED ROOF IS VISIBLE AS ARE TWO SOUTH-FACING WINDOWS WITH PROPORTIONS MATCHING THOSE ON THE PRIMARY FACADE THE EXISTING PARTY WALL WILL BE REPAINTED AND MAY BECOME AN EXCELLENT LOCATION FOR A BUILDING MURAL—UNTIL THE LIKELY REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING TO THE SOUTH THE PROPOSED CORRUGATED WEATHERING STEEL WALLS AND ROOF HELP TO CREATE A MUTED AND SECONDARY ROOF MASSING THAT IDEALLY COMPLIMENTS THE BUILDING MATERIAL PALETTE ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 85 PROPOSED ADDITION COMPOSITE MATERIAL PALETTE FLAT WEATHERING STEEL WINDOW SURROUNDS CORRUGATED WEATHERING STEEL ROOF AND WALL PANELS AN EXCELLENT COLOR COMPLIMENT TO THE 1880’S TERRA-COTTA BRICK COLOR WITHOUT COPYING HISTORIC MATERIALS THE BRIGHT ORANGE AREAS SHOWN IN THE SAMPLE WILL WEATHER TO A DEEP BRONZE ON ALL SURFACES MASONVILLE SANDSTONE AT BASE OF ALLEY ADDITION MATCHES HISTORIC FOOTINGS AND STONE DETAILS BRICK SHOWN AS COLOR REFERENCE FOR REPAINTING AND COLOR FAMILY GRAY POWDER-COATED AND/OR PAINTED REPLACEMENT WINDOWS, STOREFORNT AND NEW DOORS AND WINDOWS CEDAR TONGUE AND GROOVE BOARDS FOR SOFFIT AREAS IN NEW ADDITION ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 86 PROPOSED ADDITION VIEW FROM OLD TOWN SQUARE (WITHOUT TREES) ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 87 PROPOSED ADDITION VIEW FROM OLD TOWN SQUARE (WITH TREES) ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 88 PROPOSED ADDITION VIEW FROM JEFFERSON STREET (WITHOUT TREES) ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 89 PROPOSED ADDITION VIEW FROM FIREHOUSE ALLEY ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 90 PROPOSED ADDITION VIEW FROM FIREHOUSE ALLEY (FENCES REMOVED) ALLEY ADDITION IS SET BACK TO REVEAL EXISTING SOUTHERLY FAÇADE AND SECOND LEVEL IS DESIGNED AS A SUNROOM TO ALLOW VIEWS THROUGH TO EXISTING REAR WALL NEW GARAGE DOOR RECALLS CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL BUT WITH PATTERNED OR TRANSLUCENT GLASS FOR PRIVACY MASONVILLE SANDSTONE BASE EXISTING PARAPET WALL DETAILS TO REMAIN ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 91 PROPOSED ADDITION VIEW FROM ALLEY ENTRANCE AT JEFFERSON ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 92 247-249 LINDEN STREET CONCEPT REVIEW LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 17, 2021 ITEM 6, ATTACHMENT 3 Updated 3-15-21Packet Pg. 93 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 17, 2021 Landmarks Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 220 EAST LAUREL STREET, LONG APARTMENTS – AFTER-THE-FACT DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Division Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for final design review of work to the Landmark-designated Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, that was undertaken without approval and has already occurred. APPLICANT/OWNER: Jordan Obermann, Forge and Bow Dwellings, on behalf of Kent Obermann, Rarem LLC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval in part, and denial in part, of a Certificate of Appropriateness. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to review an after-the-fact application, for work to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, that has occurred without approval. The landmark property is owned by Kent Obermann, who is updating the apartments into high-end units. In December 2020, staff noted that revised plans submitted to the Building Department for a building permit contained alterations to the Landmark property. When contacted about the required historic review, the owner’s representative, Forge and Bow Dwellings, informed staff that the work had already occurred without the required issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Chief Building Official issued a stop-work order for the property on January 25, 2021. The owner’s representative, Forge and Bow Dwellings, had previously been made aware of the requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness by both staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission, prior to undertaking this work. COMMISSION’S ROLE The Long Apartments property is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No 027, 1997. Alterations to Landmark properties are governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and are reviewed for compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for work that has already occurred and is requesting a final design review. Following discussion and consideration of the materials presented and the staff analysis, the Commission’s role, as a decision-maker, is to determine what portions, if any, of the work contained in this application meets the Standards. The appropriate Standards are the Rehabilitation Standards, which contains ten Standards all of which must be met (or found to not apply) in order for that work to be approved. Packet Pg. 94 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 2 Following the Commission’s action, Staff’s role will be to ensure that any work found not to meet the Standards (and therefore not approved) is restored back to its original condition and will ensure this occurs in a manner that does not cause additional damage to the property. If staff, with the assistance of relevant experts, determines that restoration of an item would cause enough additional damage that restoration work would not meet the Standards, then the item will be brought back to the LPC. As noted in Section 14-51(d), if an alteration does not meet the Standards and is not approved, the property owner shall restore the site, structure, or object to its original condition prior to the alteration occurring: Sec. 14-51 (d): If any alteration is made without first obtaining a certificate of appropriateness, the City may issue a stop work order for any permits issued for the property upon which the designated resource is located, refuse to finalize any issued permits, refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy, refuse to issue additional City permits, and take any other available action, or any combination of the aforementioned, until the applicant has applied for and received approval for the alteration. If the alteration is not approved, the property owner shall restore the site, structure, or object to its original condition prior to any alteration occurring. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The Long Apartments property was surveyed at the intensive level in August 2019 by Jason Marmor, Retrospect. Mr. Marmor found that the building is significant under several of the City’s Local Landmark-eligibility criteria: (1) Association with events contributing to the broad patterns of history; (2) Association with lives of significant people or groups; and (3) Embodying distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. In addition, Mr. Marmor noted the property’s contributing status to the Laurel School National Register District and determined that the Long Apartment property is eligible for individual designation on the National Register. Architectural features include: • The red brick building’s cubic form and austere design with little ornamentation; • Use of flush-laid contrasting yellow/buff-colored brick as simulated lintels at the top of each window; • Symmetrical fenestration on the façade and side elevations; • Recessed and slightly elevated front entry with flat canopy and tiled step; rear entry on the north elevation; • The c.1951 single-story flat-roofed addition, with horizontal picture window flanked by narrow windows on the front; (a similarly sized window opening filled with glass block is located on the rear elevation); • The addition’s original painted wooden entry door with small diamond-shaped light; a matching opening and matching entry door were located on the rear elevation but is now filled in; • The virtually unaltered brick 7-bay garage with original wooden doors. PREVIOUS DESIGN REVIEWS In 2019, the applicant, Forge and Bow Dwellings, submitted plans to the Building Department for alterations to this landmark property, and were contacted about the need for landmark design review and a Certificate of Appropriateness. In June 2019, a design review application was submitted by Annie Obermann, Forge and Bow Dwellings, and the proposed work was reviewed by qualified preservation staff for compliance with the City’s standards for alterations to Landmark properties. Staff found that several aspects of the work did not comply with the standards and denied this work. The applicant appealed staff’s decisions, and in August 2019, the work proposed under that application, along with additional work, was reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission. At its August 19, 2019 meeting the Commission approved, with conditions, the construction of a pergola in the rear courtyard area behind the Packet Pg. 95 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 3 c. 1951 addition; and approved construction of a cedar fence along a portion of the rear property line. The Commission denied requests to replace the addition’s windows and door; to paint the addition’s unpainted brick; to alter the landscape on the Laurel and Mathews elevations; and to add a rear screen by the dumpster. The Commission also asked for a Plan of Protection, a requirement for most work on or adjacent to landmark properties. In December 2020, staff noted that revised plans submitted to the Building Department for a building permit contained alterations to the Landmark property, which is the subject of this review. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES The applicant has not used any of the incentive programs for this project. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY To date, no public comment has been received. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION At its March 10, 2021 Work Session, Landmark Preservation Commission members requested that the following information be provided: 1. What is the status of the pergola? Is there any other work proposed for the future? The applicants plan to finish the courtyard in the future and do plan to construct a pergola at some point. The applicants do not currently have a detailed proposal to submit. The applicants are aware of the requirements to first receive an approved Certificate of Appropriateness and Plan of Protection before undertaking this, or any, exterior work. 2. Please provide a photograph of the new sconce on the addition. Added 3. Please clarify if the sconces flanking the front entry door have also been changed? It is not known if the front sconces are replacements. The sconces appear to match the photo from 1996; earlier photographs are indistinct or do not show the sconces. 4. Please add the date to the letter from Alex Henze included in the packet. The letter attached to the application (previous packet page 158, item 7, attachment 5) was submitted to Building Services prior to the applicant’s decision to officially pursue any exterior work with the LPC. 5. Update packet to include all other work that has been noted and is not already included. Added 6. Please provide a comprehensive list of work that has occurred over time: what happened when? What occurred prior to the LPC meeting in 2019; what was brought to the LPC in 2019; what was/wasn’t approved at that time; what’s happened since; what is still going to happen (if anything) Please see “Construction/Exterior Alteration History” section, below. 7. Additional Information Sought Given the Commission’s role in design review (to determine if an item does or does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation), some of the information requested by the Landmark Preservation Commission from staff and the applicant may not be relevant to this application and so has not been provided in this report. If at the meeting the Commission believes that any of this information is indeed necessary for its review, Staff will be prepared to provide the answers. The additional information asked for was: • Does all of the work that was done meet the Building codes? Packet Pg. 96 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 4 • What work was done with, and what work was done without, Building Department approval? • What is the responsibility of a later owner to reverse unapproved work? • Please provide a technical report regarding the potential for any damage resulting from the reversal of unapproved work and restoration of the building to its previous condition. CONSTRUCTION/EXTERIOR ALTERATION HISTORY • 1922 – construction of the Long Apartment Building • 1926 – construction of the 7-bay brick car garage • 1940 – re-roof garage • 1951 – insulate ceiling on 4th [top] floor • c.1951 – addition between apartment building and garage • 1954 – metal canopy roof over front entrance • 1985 – reroof • 1997 – Landmark designation • 2010 – relocate new electric meters on 15 unit multi-family building • 2015 - reroof apartment complex • 2016 – HVAC - install 16 minisplit condensers and 30 minisplit heads • 2017 – electrical: Upgrade service from 400 amp to 600 amp; move panels from stairway to apartments unit (may be entirely interior) • c.2015 - 2019 – half-round gutter on garage replaced with k-style gutter • c.2015 - 2019 – front stoop tile changed from red “quarry” tile to patterned tile • c.2015 - 2019 – storm door removed on c. 1951 addition • c.2015 - 2019 – trim/wood paint color changed from white to black • c.2015 – 2019 – sconce on c. 1951 addition replaced • c.2015 – 2019 – Hardware changes and lock boxes added by front entry • Pre 2019 – apartment building rear storm door removed; step removed • Pre 2019 – driveway regraded and resurfaced; • Pre 2019 - building screens repaired and replaced with aluminum • 2019 – Staff design review July 2019/ LPC design review Aug. 2019: o Replace front window of addition (denied); o replace door of addition (denied); o paint unpainted brick on addition white (denied); o install cedar fence (approved LPC); o add dumpster screen (denied); o change landscaping along Laurel and Mathew Streets (denied); o change landscaping in rear courtyard (approved – Staff) • 2020 – basement window lengthened down for egress window; wood window well (approved – staff) • 2020 – in-fill of c.1951 addition rear (courtyard) entry door • 2020 – replacement of 3 existing wood windows with fiberglass • 2020 – cedar fence constructed along portion of north lot line WORK FOR WHICH APPLICANT IS SEEKING A REPORT OF ACCEPTABILITY The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following work: • Removing the historic door and filling in the historic opening on the north (rear) elevation of the addition with masonry block. Packet Pg. 97 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 5 • Replacing three wood windows with fiberglass replacements in Unit A (basement); according to the applicant, the wood window surrounds were retained. On a field visit, staff noted that the bottom sill of the converted coal chute window has either been replaced or covered with the fiberglass material, while the rest of the surround appears to be wood. (A fourth window was approved by staff in 2019 to be converted to an egress window.) • Replacement of sconce on c. 1951 addition’s south (front) elevation. The design and materials of the previous scone is unknown. • Changes to hardware including the door handle, lock and address numbers and the addition of lock boxes. • Removal of two storm doors, on the front elevation of the addition, and on the rear entry of the apartment building. • Adding electric meters, conduits, and HVAC condensing units. • Changed the front stoop tile from a solid color tile to a patterned tile. • Changed the trim paint color from white to black. • Removal of concrete step at rear entry door and regrading driveway; repair/replace driveway concrete. • Replace half-round gutters with k-style gutters on front elevation of garage. • Wood-framed screens replaced with aluminum frames PROCESS AND STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code provides the process for reviewing proposed alterations and changes to properties that have been officially designated as Landmarks. Section 14-53(b)(1) identifies the Standards for review, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The relevant treatment for this application is the Rehabilitation treatment which contains ten (10) Standards, of which all applicable Standards must be met. To understand how each of the ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation work together, it is important to review the explanatory text found in “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.” The document, which was previously provided to the applicant, presents a clear hierarchy of preservation priorities as follows: 1) identify, retain, and preserve the historic materials and features of a building and its historic setting; 2) protect and maintain those materials and features, 3) repair those materials and features when the physical condition warrants it; and finally, 4) replace deteriorated historic materials and features only when “the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair” (see “Introduction” section, page 77). STAFF EVALUATION OF WORK AND APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: As provided for in Chapter 14-53, qualified historic preservation staff meeting the professional standards contained in Title 36, Part 61 of the Code of Federal Regulations has reviewed the project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Standards and Guidelines present a clear hierarchy for the treatment of historic fabric: 1) identify, retain, and preserve the historic materials and features; 2) protect and maintain those materials and features; 3) repair those materials and features when the physical condition warrants it; and finally, 4) replace deteriorated historic materials and features only when “the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair;” and if so, replaced “in-kind” with matching materials. Packet Pg. 98 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 6 Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Does Work Meet Standard? SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The building retains its historic use as a multi-family building. YES SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Removal of rear access door on the c.1951 addition; infill opening with masonry block: The removal and in-fill of the rear access door on the c.1951 addition notably alters distinctive features and spaces that characterize the property, including an understanding and appreciation of the historic courtyard itself. Further, the door, with its small diamond light, is a very distinctive design element. The applicant argues that the door did not allow for code-compliant interior steps; however, alternatives that would preserve the door and provide for code compliance were easily implemented. The interior stairs could have been redesigned or removed, and the door fixed and made inoperable on the interior, retaining the exterior appearance and historical understanding while achieving the same result. Removal of the red “quarry” entry tile and replacement with patterned tile: The replacement of the red quarry tile with brightly patterned tile is a noticeable alteration of the property’s characteristics. The size and shape, flat surface, and color of the tile that was removed was appropriate to the building’s time period, utilitarian appearance, and use. Mechanical equipment and conduit: The addition of a substantial amount of mechanical equipment and conduit on the rear elevations of the apartment building and c.1951 addition affects both the building’s materials and appearance. More sympathetic approaches to placement and installation would have better hidden the equipment and conduit and would have prevented damage to the brick and masonry. NO SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. This Standard is not relevant for this application. N/A Packet Pg. 99 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 7 SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Removal and in-fill of the rear access door on the c.1951 addition: The Landmark Preservation Commission determined at the time of the property’s Landmark designation that the c.1951 addition had historical significance in its own right and was a part of the property’s significance. City Council agreed and designated the entire property. The removal and in-fill of the rear access door on the c.1951 addition notably alters distinctive features and spaces that characterize the property, including an understanding and appreciation of the historic courtyard. The door itself, with its small diamond light, is a very distinctive design element. Removal of the garage’s half-round gutters and replacement with k-style gutters: While likely not original, the half-round gutters are a character-defining feature that have attained significance in their own right; the k-style gutters are typically attached to a building’s roof-line in a manner that can cause damage to the eaves or facia, and obscure historic construction techniques that would otherwise be visible. Removal of the sconce light in the c. 1951 addition: Information on the design and materials of this historic feature is not available. NO SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. This standard is unambiguous in regard to retention of historic materials, stating that distinctive character-defining features, including their materials and construction techniques, will be preserved. Removal and in-fill of the rear access door on the c.1951 addition is the most significant alteration under this standard; its alteration, as well as the removal or alterations of the windows and entry tile are each a loss of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize this property. Remove and replace wood screens with aluminum: Similarly, the loss of the historic wood screens is a loss of distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques that characterize this property. The aluminum screens do not match the design, color, and especially, the materials, of the historic screens. The materials and design of the sconce light is unknown, and its replacement cannot be evaluated. NO Packet Pg. 100 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 8 SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Removal and in-fill of the rear access door on the c.1951 addition; replacement of three window with new materials; removal of two storm doors; removal of sconce light; removal and replacement of tile; addition of condensers, mechanical equipment and conduit: All of this work was done without sufficiently exploring the possibility of repair. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that severity of deterioration “requires replacement,” which means that there is no option for repair. Further, many of the replaced features do not match the old. Staff cannot find any basis for claiming that the Standard would be met. NO SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. This Standard is not relevant for this application. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. This Standard is not relevant for this application. N/A SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Mechanical equipment and conduit: The addition of a substantial amount of mechanical equipment and conduit on the rear elevations of the apartment building and c.1951 addition is not a minimal change, affecting both the building’s materials and appearance. Attachments and penetrations were made into the brick and masonry in numerous locations. More sympathetic approaches to placement and installation would have better hidden the equipment and conduit and prevent damage to the brick and masonry. Work occurred between 2010 and 2021, including new HVAC condensing units installed between 2016 and 2021. NO SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. This Standard is not relevant for this application N/A FINDINGS OF FACT In evaluating the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, was designated as a City Landmark by City Council Ordinance No. 027, 1997. Packet Pg. 101 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 9 • That the paint color, the driveway elevation, the rear entry step, and the hardware on the entry door that was removed are not significant character-defining features of the property; while their alteration is still required to be evaluated by staff or the Commission in the design review process (as are all alterations to the building’s exterior and site), staff recommends their approval. • That, depending on the amount of deterioration, the removal of three lower-level historic wood windows and replacement with fiberglass windows could meet the Standard for Rehabilitation #6 and 9, which allow for the removal and replacement of materials that are in poor condition and cannot be repaired; • That a Certificate of Appropriateness be denied for the remainder of the work, finding that the work does not meet one of more of the Standards; • No information has been provided about the sconce light to adequately evaluate its removal and replacement. RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the paint color, driveway elevation and rear entry step, and the hardware that was removed on the apartment building’s front entry, finding that these items are not significant character-defining features of the property. • Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of three lower-level historic wood windows and replacement with fiberglass windows: The Standards for Rehabilitation allow for the removal and replacement of materials that are in poor condition and cannot be repaired. According to the applicant, the original window sashes were rotted out, but the existing frames were in good condition and are still in place. The new windows were direct set in the existing frames and matched the exterior trim, reusing existing pieces when possible. The sill section of the converted coal chute window frame is fiberglass, but the other sections of frame are the original wood. As the work has already occurred, it is unknow as to whether the windows could have been repaired. When replaced, the replacement needs to match the old in “design, color, texture, and where possible, materials.” The applicants matched the design, color and texture of the historic windows, but used a fiberglass material that had been previously approved on the egress window. Staff’s approval of the fiberglass material for the egress window was based on the egress window being installed partially below grade (and so subject to moisture) and to distinguish the new window from the historic. • Staff recommend that the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness be denied, and the objects ordered to be restored to their original condition prior to the alteration occurring, for the courtyard door and in-filled opening; removal of two storm doors: the electric meters, conduits, and HVAC condensing units attached to the brick and masonry; the front entry tile; the k-style gutters on the garage; and the aluminum screens; finding that: o The items are character-defining features of the property; o The work does not meet one or more of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as described in this Staff Report of March 17, 2021: o The proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, because it fails to satisfy all of the applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as required. o Because the proposed work does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code, there is no basis for approval. Packet Pg. 102 Agenda Item 7 Item 7, Page 10 SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the after-the-fact work at the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for [insert specific alterations], to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, finding that: • The proposal meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as required under Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. • [Add findings on how the project meets the applicable standards] This decision is based upon the materials and information provided to the Commission for this item and the Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report provided for this hearing. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for [insert specific alterations], to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, subject to the following conditions [insert specific conditions], finding that: • The proposal meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as required under Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. • [Add findings on how the project meets the applicable standards] This decision is based upon the materials and information provided to the Commission for this item and the Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report provided for this hearing. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for [insert specific alterations], to the Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, finding that: • The proposal does meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as required under Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. • [Add findings on how the item(s) do not meet the applicable standards] This decision is based upon the materials and information provided to the Commission for this item and the Commission discussion. The Commission adopts the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report provided for this hearing. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Landmark Designation 3. 2019 Intensive Survey by Retrospect 4. Design Review Application – revised 3/16/21 5. Staff Presentation – added 3/16/21 6. Approval for Remote Meeting 7. LPC August 21, 2019 Minutes Excerpt 8. Sconce Detail Photos Packet Pg. 103 1,128 188.1 220 E. Laurel St. This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.City of Fort Collins - GIS 143.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet143.0071.50 Notes Legend 857 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 104 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 105 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 106 I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.2669 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Long Apartments 6. Current building name: Long Apartments 7. Building address: 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 8. Owner name and address:D.L. Obermann Irrevocable Trust 5332 Paradise Lane Fort Collins, CO 80526 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W S ½ of NW ¼ of NW ¼ of section 13 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 493711 m E; 4491942 m N 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15' 12. Lot(s): South 80 feet of Lot 1 Block: 136 Plat: Fort Collins Platted: 1873 Parcel Number: 97132-11-026 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97132-11-026, which is located on the northwest side of the East Laurel Street and Matthews Street intersection. The rectangular lot is 140 feet wide (north-south) and 80 feet deep (east-west), encompassing an area of 11,200 ft² (0.26 acre). It contains the historic apartment building, its west one-story addition and attached perpendicular 7-bay garage, as well as the associated landscaping. The site boundary encompasses the area associated with its historic multi-family residential use. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular (nearly square) 15. Dimensions in feet: Length: 54 ft. (E-W) x Width: 63 ft. (N-S) 16. Number of stories: 3.0 + basement 17. Primary external wall material(s): Brick (red) 18. Roof configuration: Flat Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date ____________ Initials ________________ ______ Determined Eligible- NR ______ Determined Not Eligible- NR ______ Determined Eligible- SR ______ Determined Not Eligible- SR ______ Need Data ______ Contributes to eligible NR District ______ Noncontributing to eligible NR District OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 107 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 19. Primary external roof material: Built up rock 20. Special features: Porch 21. General architectural description: This nearly cube-shaped, four-story brick residential apartment building has a nearly square footprint (63 feet wide x 54 feet deep) and sits above a full basement. The building contains 15 apartments or living units occupying all four floors. Unlike the adjacent brick Kensington Place Apartments, the Long Apartments building displays an austere utilitarian design, with little ornamentation or recognizable stylistic elements. Distinctive design attributes include its cubic form, red brick walls, symmetrical fenestration on the façade and side elevations, a recessed and slightly elevated front entry with a flat canopy and decorative tile step; and the use of flush-laid contrasting yellow or buff-colored brick as simulated lintels at the top of each window unit. Another distinctive trait is the brass-plated (?) three-dimensional metal capital letters attached to the center of the façade below the roofline and spelling “LONG,” a name sign that identifies both the name of the apartment building as well as its original owner and builder. In addition to main entry centered on the façade/south elevation, there is a plain ground-level entry door on the north elevation as well as a metal fire escape ladder. Please refer to the attached photographs which depict all visible elevations and architectural details. 22. Architectural style/building type: No Style /Residential - apartment building 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The Long Apartments building is situated on the northwest corner of East Laurel Street and Matthews Street in a historic residential area. It is located just west of the historic Laurel School, and a large modern school building on the Laurel School campus sits across the street (Matthews) east of the apartments. The property is only a couple of blocks from the northeastern edge of the Colorado State University (CSU) campus, and is one of several brick apartment buildings erected in this area in the 1920s, including and the Scott Apartments (900 South College Avenue, built c. 1925), and the adjacent Kensington Place Apartments (200 Laurel Street), built c. 1922-1925. The apartment building’s landscaping consists primarily of a well-manicured grass lawn wrapping around the south and east elevations. Several decorative woody shrubs are established randomly on the lawn, primarily on the south/front side of the building. A large tree also grows behind (north of) the addition, whose foliage it covers. Concrete sidewalks extend along the Laurel and Matthews street sides of the property, with narrow landscaped strips containing a number of fairly large deciduous trees separating the sidewalk from the street. On the south side of the property, straight concrete pathways extend from the Laurel Street sidewalk to the main entries of the apartment building and west addition. At the western end of the parcel is a north-south oriented 7-un it garage that abuts and is aligned with the unpaved alley that bisects Block 136. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: West Side Addition: A single-story, 15.5 feet wide x 26.5 feet long brick addition extends from the apartment building’s west elevation and abuts or is connected to the rear of an older (1926) ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 108 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins garage building. The addition is covered by a flat roof with a full-length flat canopy projecting four feet beyond the south/front side of the building to shade the concrete walkway extending the length of the façade. An entry is situated near the west end of the addition’s façade, equipped with what appears to be the original painted wooden door with a small diamond- shaped light. To the right/east of the entry is a large horizontally-oriented picture window flanked by narrow windows; this large multi-part window has a red tabular sandstone sill. Archival evidence points to a construction date of c. 1951. Its original function is undetermined. Garage: Situated at the west end of the parcel, this long but narrow rectangular building faces an alley placed in a north-south orientation. It measures 18 feet wide x 65 feet long. This garage structure is a flat-roofed brick structure with a concrete floo r containing seven (7) identical one- car garage bays separated by partition walls, and each sealed with what appear to be original hinged double wooden doors. The garage was constructed in 1926 to serve the tenants of the Long Apartments. The garage building appears to be in fairly good, unaltered condition, but likely is not used any longer for sheltering automobiles. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1922 Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 1021, dated June 14, 1922, from entry in “Log of Building Permits,” 1920 – c. early 1950s, in collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive, and available online through the Fort Collins History Connection website. This construction date is also verified by comparison of the 1917 and 1925 Fort Collins Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of Fort Collins, available on microfilm from the Library of Congress. Fort Collins City Directory entries also indicate that the house was standing and occupied between 1922 and 1925. 26. Architect: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 27. Builder/Contractor: Ora E. Long Source(s) of information: Building Permit No. 1021, dated June 14, 1922, from entry in “Log of Building Permits,” 1920 – c. early 1950s, in collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive, and available online through the Fort Collins History Connection website. 28. Original owner: Ora E. Long Source(s) of information: City of Ft. Collins Building Permit No. 1021, issued on June 14, 1922 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The Long Apartments building was constructed in mid-to-late 1922, by owner and builder Ora E. Long of Fort Collins. He was issued a building permit (Permit No. 1021) on June 14, 1922 for construction of an “Apartment house,” for an estimated construction cost of $24,000. In September of 1926, a building permit (Permit No. 1508) was issued to subsequent owners M.S. Fishback & (Dr. Peter J.?) McHugh to erect an 18 ft x 65 ft, 7-stall garage building for use by apartment residents. The garage, which was estimated to cost $1,450 to construct, had a cement floor, brick walls, and a composition roof. The garage was re-roofed in 1940 (Permit No. 6357, dated September 26, 1940). A couple of other improvements were made to the apartment building in the early 1950s. In 1951, owner M. Van de Weghe obtained a permit to “insulate ceiling on 4th floor” (Permit No. 12565, dated Dec ember 26, 1951), for an estimated cost of $410. Several years later, in 1954, the same owner obtained another permit (Permit No. 13516, dated April 13, 1954) to “Build [a] roof over front entrance to present building;” it was a ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 109 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins frame and metal structure canopy placed above the main entry steps, measuring four feet wide and eight feet long, with an estimated construction cost of $300. The only other substantial change to the property was made in the early 1950s, when a one story, brick, flat-roofed addition (15.5 ft x 26.5 ft) was constructed extending west from the building’s west elevation, and connecting to the rear elevation of the 1926 garage building at the parcel’s west edge. 30. Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Residential – Multi-Family Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): None 33. Current use(s): Residential – Multi-Family Dwelling 34. Site type(s): Apartment building 35. Historical background: The Long Apartments building located at 220 Laurel Street in Fort Collins was constructed in 1922 by prolific owner and builder Ora E. Long. Since that time, it has remained in continual use as a multi-family residence close to Colorado State University. The building was erected in the 1920s, which was a period of substantial population growth and home building in Fort Collins. The city’s population increased 31% from 8,755 in 1920, to 11,489 in 1930. The population influx during this decade represented a strong resurgence after the lackluster 1910s (which included the World War I years). During this decade (the 1910s), Fort Collins’ population grew by a mere 6.6%, following three decades (1880-1910) of prolific and sustained growth. The building’s original owner and builder, Ora E. Long, who arrived in Fort Collins in 1901 from Kansas with his wife Patience, is responsible for constructing numerous single-family dwellings throughout Fort Collins, along with several larger construction projects. Examples of the latter include the Adventist Church located at 400 Whedbee Street, built in 1903; the Long Apartments (1922), and the Armstrong Hotel (1922-23) on the corner of South College Avenue and Olive Streets. Ora Long evidently was keenly aware of the need for and financial benefit of owning multi- family housing during a time (the early 1920s), when the economy was doing very well, the city’s population was growing rapidly, and the property he acquired in Block 136 near the university was ideal. The designer of the building is unknown. After obtaining a building permit from the city on June 14, 1922 to construct a three-story brick apartment building, it was ready for occupancy in late 1922 or very early 1923. Ora left his personal mark on the building with the word “LONG” spelled out with in brass-plated (?) three-dimensional letters affixed to the building’s façade. The property’s chain of title was not researched, but building permit information provides a partial list. It appears that M.S. Fishback and Dr. Peter McHugh had acquired ownership by September of 1926. Subsequent known owners, in chronological order, include Hubert Bottone, H.P. and M. Williamson, M. Van De Weghe, and the Long Apartments, Limited (with a business address of 121 N. College Avenue). ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 110 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins As the Long Apartments building was about to be constructed, there were only three apartment buildings listed in the 1922 Fort Collins city directory: the Bauman Apartments (319 South College Avenue), the Forrester Apartments (202 Walnut Street, in the “Old Town” commercial area), and the Virginia Apartments at 156 South College Avenue. City directories later in the 1920s reveal a flurry of multi-family housing building activity in Fort Collins accompanying the extensive home building phenomenon during this dynamic decade. The 1925 city directory indicates that at that time three more apartment buildings were in operation in Fort Collins, including the Linn Apartments as 122 Remington Street, the Scott Apartments at 904 South College Avenue, and of course, the Long Apartments at 220 South Laurel Street. Two years later (1927) the city’s stock of multi-family housing increased by three more apartment buildings: the Donnan Apartments at 317½ Walnut Street, the Kensington Apartments situated adjacent to the Long Apartments at 200 East Laurel Street, and the Miller Block, at 156 Linden Street. Due to the large number and frequent turnover of the long Apartment building’s tenants over time, individual tenants are unlikely to render apartment buildings and other rental residences historically significant. However, a “snapshot” of the types of people who occupied the building not long after it was built, is provided in the 1925 Fort Collins city directory as shown below: Apt. #1 Mrs. Harriet Warfel, a widow and student at nearby Colo. Agricultural College (CAC; now CSU); Apt. #2 Walter F. Garrison, a clerk at the Lowell-Moore Hardware Company, and his wife Golda; Apt. #3 Conrad S. and Ella Ickes, no occupations listed, presumably retired; Apt. #4 Mrs. Rhoda McIntyre (widow); Apt. #5 Mrs. F.B. Brisbane (widow) and William H. Brisbane, a student at CAC; Apt. #6 Miles D. Bradfield, manager at Boise-Payette Lumber Co, and his wife Blanche; Apt. #7 John R. Handy, a cashier at the First National Bank, and his wife Margaret; Apt. #8 Mrs. Martha Wilkins (widow); Apt. #9 Mrs. Emma E. Watts (widow); Apt. #10 Harry A. Tiemann and his wife Mary, no occupations listed, presumably retired; Apt. #11 John Duffield, a salesman, and his wife Caryl; Apt. #12 Roy W. Foard, an instructor at CAC, and his wife Ruth; Apt. #13 Frank M. Stow, a bookkeeper at the Fort Collins Abstract Company, and his wife Luetta; and Apt. #14 Clarence K. Harris, a salesman, and his wife Ruth As evidenced by the tenant list above, half of the Long Apartments units were occupied by non- working widows (five; 36% of total) and retirees (14%). The other units were occupied by married couples. As was a common social arrangement for this time period, men typically were employed outside the home, while their wives were not, and it appears that most if not all of the tenants’ jobs were likely not high-paying. Occupations represented by the 1925 “snapshot” included clerks, cashiers and a manager of local businesses. Two salesmen are also represented, as well as one instructor at nearby CAC. Two of the units also contained CAC students. The Long Apartments have continuously provided housing for numerous and diverse people from its opening in late 1922 or early 1923 until the present, and will likely continue this valuable role far into the future. The building had two major improvements during its history– a 7-bay detached garage for tenant parking (1926), and a small single story west side addition constructed c. 1951, but whose specific purpose is unknown. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 111 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins The Long Apartments property at 220 East Laurel Street was officially designated as a City of Fort Collins Local Landmark per Ordinance No. 27. Prior to its Local Landmark designation (initiated by request of the property owners, Sonia and Howard Nornes and Eleanor and Richard Anderson), the Long Apartments property was also determined to be a contributing element of the Laurel School or Midtown Historic District (5LR.463) which was officially added to the National Register of Historic Places on October 3, 1980. The significance of the Laurel School Historic District is summarized by History Colorado as follows: “Located south of Fort Collins’ downtown core, the district developed over a sixty year period from the mid-1870s into the 1930s. Also known as the Midtown Historic District, it is a good example of early community planning and also illustrates the social evolution of Fort Collins. Of the 665 properties, 549 contribute to the district’s historic and architectural integrity.” The Long Apartments property was determined to be a contributing element of the historic district. In 2019, a building permit application to improve the functionality and appearance of the property with a new landscape design and alterations in fenestration to the visible south side of the addition to the original apartment building triggered the need for this documentation and re-evaluation of this historic property. Because it is more than 50 years old, the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department required this documentation to be completed in order to thoroughly document and assess the property’s historical and architectural significance per the City’s historic preservation ordinance and evaluation criteria. In July 2019, historic preservation consulting company Retrospect (Jason Marmor) was hired by Forge & Bow Dwellings on behalf of the property owner(s) to research and document the property onto this Colorado Architectural Inventory Form, and to provide an updated recommendation in terms of Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility for review by the City of Fort Collins historic preservation department. 36. Sources of information: City of Fort Collins Building Permit information for 220 East Laurel Street, derived from Log of Building Permits, 1920 – c. early 1950s, in collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Available digitally through the Fort Collins History Connection website. Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1919 through 2018. From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Fort Collins Coloradoan 1951 “Ora L. [sic] Long Dies in Delta.” Fort Collins Coloradoan, Wednesday, September 12, 1951. Fort Collins Express 1923 “Long Apartments, corner of Laurel and Matthews,” captioned photograph in Fort Collins Express Anniversary edition, May 1923, p.6. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 112 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Larimer County Assessor 1949 Property Card for 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97132-11-026). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 1977 Property Card for 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97132-11-026). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 2019 Property information record for 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97132- 11-026). Larimer County Assessor’s website, accessed online, July 21, 2019. Sanborn Map Company Fort Collins, Colorado fire insurance atlas sheets showing 220 East Laurel Street, 1925 and 1948 editions. Available on microfilm from the Library of Congress at the Poudre River Library District’s main Fort Collins branch. 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. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes __X__ No _____ Date of designation: February 14, 1997 Designating authority: City of Fort Collins City Council 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: __ X _ A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; _ _X __ 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: Community Development, Architecture 40. Period of significance: 1922-Present 41. Level of significance: National _____ State ______ Local __X___ Not Applicable 42. Statement of significance: Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility: The Long Apartments property at 220 East Laurel Street (5LR.2669) is significant under several of the City of Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility criteria: 1. Association with events contributing to the broad patterns of history: The Long Apartments property was envisioned and constructed in the very early 1920s, during a decade when a substantial population influx and associated building boom was ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 113 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins taking place in Fort Collins. The Long Apartments building was one of the earlier multi-unit housing projects completed in the southeastern part of the growing city, close to Colorado Agricultural College/Colorado State University and a short distance from the downtown Fort Collins commercial area. For nearly 100 years as of this time (2019), the Long Apartments building has continually provided workers, students, college instructors, retirees, widows/widowers and others with housing. The property has played an important functional role in the residential development of Fort Collins, and in particular of the extensive historic residential area extending south of Mulberry Street and east of South College Avenue. Its origin in the early 1920s coincides with a building boom resulting from a population influx during the 1920s that included the construction of hundreds of homes throughout the city. Because the Long Apartments building is a prominent example of early 20th century (and 1920s) multi-family residential development in Fort Collins that is representative of the large population influx and associated building boom during the 1920s, the property appears to qualify for Local Landmark designation. 2. Association with lives of significant people or groups: The Long Apartments building represents a large and prominent example of the work produced by long-time Fort Collins builder, building contractor, developer, and city building inspector Ora E. Long, who left a tangible mark on the city’s architectural legacy and character. Proudly identified with Long’s name on its façade, the building was one of two large multi-unit residential buildings he built – the other being the large Armstrong Hotel located at South College Avenue and Olive Street) - along with numerous single family dwellings and a church. Not much is known about Ora Long’s construction career from c. 1904 through 1919, based on the lack of readily available information; however, it is clear that he must have been responsible for building many more homes and possibly more major projects like commercial buildings, etc. Locating this data would only serve to bolster Long’s local importance. In part because of its close association with prolific early twentieth century local builder Ora E. Long, the Long Apartments building appears to qualify for Local Landmark designation. 3. Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction: Built in 1922, the Long Apartments building is a largely unaltered and distinctive example of early 20th century multi-family housing architecture in Fort Collins. It does not represent an identifiable architectural style, but its utilitarian, efficient cubic design and lack of ornamentation are suggestive of the “modern” movement in large building design. The building’s architectural form is almost indistinguishable from a multi-story brick office building from the mid-twentieth century, and because of its austere “modernism” the Long Apartments is not readily recognizable as having been built in the early 1920s. An informal survey of nearby apartment buildings from the 1920s clearly revealed the diverse architectural approaches to multi-family housing, and the Long Apartments building represents one design solution with a decidedly modern appearance. Because of its architectural significance, this well-preserved and distinctive example of early 20th century apartment building architecture in Fort Collins appears to qualify under this criterion for Local Landmark designation. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 114 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: With the sole exception of the construction of the (c, 1950s-early 1960s) west side addition, the exterior of the original Long Apartments building is little altered, and retains integrity of location and association, as well as substantial integrity of location, design, materials, craftmanship, feeling and association. The property’s historic setting is slightly compromised by the presence of a large modern educational building on the west end of the Laurel School campus, across Matthews Street from the Long Apartments’ east elevation. Nevertheless, the adjacent and visually prominent historic brick Kensington Place Apartments building serves to offset this impact, and in general the surrounding neighborhood area displays a unified historic residential character. The exterior of the historic-age addition appears to be unaltered, and thus retains excellent architectural integrity. Likewise, the associated 7-bay garage constructed in 1926 appears largely unaltered, and also retains its architectural integrity. Due to the high level of integrity of the original apartment building, west side addition, and 7-bay garage, the property clearly displays sufficient integrity to meet the eligibility requirements of both the National Register of Historic Places and the City of Fort Collins Local Landmark program. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register (individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not (Individually) Eligible Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes _ No Discuss: 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 X Noncontributing _ Not Applicable _ VIII. 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: 5LR. #1-32 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: N/A 50. Date(s): August 6, 2019 51. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor 52. Organization: RETROSPECT 53. Address: 1031 East 4th Street, Unit B, 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 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 115 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Location of 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins (5LR.2669), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984). ඵ Long Apartments 220 East Laurel Street 5LR.2669 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 116 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins ` Sketch map of Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins (5LR.2669). LAUREL STREET N South 80 feet of Lot 1, Block 136 of the Fort Collins town site 4-Story brick apartment building 140 feet Alley MATTHEWS STREET 80 feet 4 6 3 7-bay garage 1-Story addition 1 7 5 2 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 117 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Portion of December 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of Fort Collins, showing the property at 220 East Laurel Street. The Kensington Apartments building is just left/west of the Long Apartments. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 118 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Portion of October 1948 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map of Fort Collins, showing the property at 220 East Laurel Street. The dark shading of the apartment and garage buildings indicate they are constructed of brick. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 119 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 1949 View of 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 120 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 1977 view of 220 East Laurel Street, Fort Collins, from old Larimer County Assessor’s property card. On file at the Local History Archive, Fort Collins Discovery Museum. One-story addition visible on left side of building. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 121 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, looking west-northwest. Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, looking northwest. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 122 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, with one=story addition at left, looking northeast. Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, with one=story addition at left, looking north-northeast. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 123 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Façade of Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, looking north. Closer view of façade of Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, looking north. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 124 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Façade of Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, looking northwest. Brass (plated?) building name sign on façade of Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 125 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Canopy-covered main entry of Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, looking north. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 126 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Main entry on façade/south elevation of Long Apartments, looking north. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 127 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 220 East Laurel Street (Long Apartments), main entry to building, looking northeast. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 128 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Canopy over main entry to 220 East Laurel Street (Long Apartments). Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, one of two brick planters flanking main entry on facade. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 129 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Decoratively tiled floor of main entry step of 220 East Laurel Street (Long Apartments). ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 130 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 220 East Laurel Street (Long Apartments), potentially original building number on facade. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 131 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins East elevation of Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, looking southwest. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 132 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 220 East Laurel Street (5LR.2669), rear/north elevation, looking west-southwest. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 133 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 220 East Laurel Street (Long Apartments), typical arrangement of basement and first floor windows on side elevations. Façade is fenestrated with both single and tandem windows. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 134 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins 220 East Laurel Street (Long Apartments), typical tandem apartment windows. 220 East Laurel Street (Long Apartments), typical tandem basement windows. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 135 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, 1-story addition, looking north-northeast. Long Apartments, 220 East Laurel Street, west elevation and 1-story addition, looking northwest. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 136 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins East side addition to Long Apartments (220 East Laurel Street) with entry at left, looking north. Long Apartments (220 East Laurel Street), junction of addition and west elevation, looking ENE. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 137 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Long Apartments, picture window on front/south elevation of addition, looking northeast. Long Apartments, sandstone sill of picture window on south elevation of addition. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 138 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Long Apartments (220 East Laurel Street), entry on south elevation of addition, equipped with what appears to be original door. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 139 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Seven-bay garage along alley on the west edge of the Long Apartments property, looking northeast. Seven-bay garage along alley on the west edge of the Long Apartments property, looking southeast. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 140 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Two of seven Individual one-car garages for the Long Apartments, visible in distance, looking east. North end of the seven-bay garage for the Long Apartments (220 East Laurel Street), looking southeast. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 141 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Individual one-car garage with original hinged wooden doors, at north end of seven-bay garage for the Long Apartments (220 East Laurel Street), looking east. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 142 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.2669 – 220 Laurel Street, Fort Collins Major buildings Known to Have Been Constructed by Ora E. Long The following table lists the major buildings (single family residences, apartment buildings, commercial buildings) that contractor/builder Ora E. Long constructed in Fort Collins based upon limited readily available archival information. A large batch of these new buildings (mainly modest single family homes) were built in 1903 during the beginning of Fort Collins’ sugar refining industry which started a rapid population influx and a building boom in the city. This information was derived from a year-end summary of building projects in December 1903, published in the Fort Collins Express-Courier. While Ora Long undoubtedly continued building homes and other major buildings in Fort Collins from 1904 through 1919, readily available information is lacking and would require considerable research to identify Long’s additional building projects during this time period. However, available building permit record data covering the time period from 1920 through the very early 1950s enabled the identification of a number of major Fort Collins buildings. It is worth noting that many post-1920 building permits were issued to Ora Long for a variety of other “lesser” construction projects such as remodeling, building residential additions and garages. Address Permit Date Ora Long’s Role Type of Building Lake Park (??) 1903 owner, builder house Corner of Stover & Laurel Streets 1903 builder house Corner of Stover & Myrtle Streets 1903 builder house ?? South Sherwood Street 1903 builder house 400 Whedbee Street 1903 builder Adventist Church Corner Stover & Magnolia Streets 1903 builder house ?? Jefferson Street 1903 builder brick house ?? East Laurel Street 1903 builder brick house ?? West Mountain Avenue 1903 builder house S. College Ave. (College & Elizabeth St. 1903 builder house ?? Laporte Avenue 1903 builder house ?? Remington Street 1904 builder “Modern 14-room brick terrace” 708 Remington Street 1922 owner, builder house 225 S. College Avenue 1922 owner, builder Armstrong Hotel 220 East Laurel Street 1922 owner, builder Long Apartments 1200 S. College Avenue 1923 owner, builder house 1301 West Mountain Avenue 1923 builder house 308 South Howes Street 1923 builder house 1419 South College Avenue 1924 builder house 503 S. Whitcomb Street 1924 owner, builder house 1349 South College Avenue 1925 owner, builder house 414 Second Street, Buckingham 1926 builder, building inspector house 335 Elizabeth Street 1928 owner, builder house ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 143 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 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 Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. Reminders: Complete application would need all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing and proposed. The following attachments are REQUIRED: ƑComplete Application for Design Review ƑDetailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) ƑColor photos of existing conditions 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). Jordan Obermann (Forge+Bow Dwellings)(970) 412-9777 116 N. College Ave, Suite 5, Fort Collins CO 80524 jordan@forgeandbow.com Rarem LLC (Kent Obermann)(970) 227-7990 5332 Paradise Lane, Fort Collins CO 80526 kentobe@comcast.net The scope of work for Permit B1903204 includes updating the floor plan and interior refinishing for Unit A, located in the building’s basement, as well as interior updates to common spaces including the basement storage room and the 1970s addition. During the refinish of Unit A, it was determined that the existing windows were not safe for future tenants and needed to be replaced. They were replaced in Fall of 2020 without proper approval from Historic Preservation. Upon further review, it was brought to our attention that multiple items on the building – completed at various times by previous owners and property management companies, were not approved by Historic Preservation. We seek to resolve all historic approvals on the exterior within this application in order to move forward with Permit B1903204. X X X 1950s ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 144 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 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: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Unit A Windows (basement, Northwest corner of building). Condition = New, Good The existing windows have already been replaced. We are seeking retrospective approval for the change. Permit B1903204 The existing windows within Unit A were deemed unsafe for future tenants and thus replaced in Fall of 2020. They did not operate and were not constructed of tempered glass (which is a concern given their low height off of the ground and proximity to the outdoor common space). Three of the windows have not yet been approved by Historic Preservation but have already been replaced. The Egress window on the West side of the building was approved in 2019, when Permit B1903204 was submitted and reviewed by Historic. The replacement windows match the look and function of the other existing windows on the building. Two of the windows are minimally visible from the street on the building’s North side. The window furthest West on the North elevation was actually an old coal shoot converted to a single pane window. The other window, located on the West side of the building, is not visible from the street or alley. The new windows are all sized to fit within the existing openings – no exterior brick work was done to the openings. Window specifications and photos are detailed in the supplemental application materials attached. South Entrance Tile (Front Door Stoop) Condition = Good The original tile has already been replaced. We are seeking retrospective approval for the change. The tile was replaced by a previous owner or a property management company sometime between 1996 and 2021 without approval from Historic Preservation. We do not have context or reasoning as to why the tile was replaced. It can be reasonably inferred, based on the 1996 photo of the front entrance, that the previous tile was damaged and potentially in poor condition. The new tile appears to be an encaustic cement product with a white, blue, and grey pattern. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials attached below. Unit A - Basement Windows Front Stoop Tile 2015 The tile was replaced on the front stoop. We do not have context or reasoning as to why the tile was replaced. It can be reasonably inferred, based on the 1996 photo of the front entrance, that the previous tile was damaged and potentially in poor condition. The new tile appears to be an encaustic cement product with a white, blue, and grey pattern. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 145 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 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: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Electric Meters (North Elevation of Building) Condition = Good These meters have already been installed. We are seeking retrospective approval of the change. New HVAC Unit (North Elevation of Building) Condition = Good This unit has already been installed. We are seeking retrospective approval. A new electric meter system was installed by a previous owner or property management company on the North side of the building sometime between 1996 and 2021. We do not have insight on the reason for updating the electrical meters, but we were able to locate a completed permit (B1002056) submitted on 4/15/2010. The permit scope of work says, “RELOCATE NEW ELECTRIC METERS ON 15 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING AS PART OF THE FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER PROJECT AS PER 2008 NEC. ONE-LINE ELECTRIC DIAGRAM REQUIRED FOR REVIEW AS PER SAM HANCOCK.” Additionally, on permit B1703306 submitted on 6/19/2017, work is described as, “Upgrade service from 400 AMP to 600 AMP move panels from stairway to apartments unit.” This particular permit does not appear to be related to the exterior electric work of concern. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. Two mini-split condensing units were installed - 1 on the Northwest corner of the apartment building and 1 on the North side of the 1970s addition, sometime between 1996 and 2021. When the original boiler that heated the building stopped functioning in 2016, the building owner installed individual mini-split units within each apartment to provide heat and cooling. The majority of the mini-split exterior condensing units are located out of view on the roof. For reasons unknown, two units were installed at ground level on the Northwest corner of the building (serving Unit A and the addition). We were able to locate a completed permit (B1606370) submitted on 10/25/2016. We don’t know if the two units in question are related to this particular permit or not, but it would be reasonable to assume they correspond on some level based on the matching model/brand. The permit scope of work says, “Installation of (16) new mini-split condensing units & 30 mini-split heads on apartment rooftop per stamped engineer's plans… ***Units to be installed toward center of rooftop and not seen from public right-of-way***.” Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. Feature C Name: Electric Meters Feature D Name: HVAC Condensing Unit 2010 2016 A new electric meter system was installed on the North side of the building. We do not have insight on the reason for updating the electrical meters, but we were able to locate a completed permit (B1002056) submitted on 4/15/2010. The permit scope of work says, “RELOCATE NEW ELECTRIC METERS ON 15 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING AS PART OF THE FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER PROJECT AS PER 2008 NEC. ONE-LINE ELECTRIC DIAGRAM REQUIRED FOR REVIEW AS PER SAM HANCOCK.” Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. Two mini-split condensing units were installed - 1 on the Northwest corner of the apartment building and 1 on the North side of the 1950s addition. When the original boiler that heated the building stopped functioning in 2016, the building owner installed individual mini-split units within each apartment to provide heat and cooling. The majority of the mini-split exterior condensing units are located out of view on the roof. For reasons unknown, two units were installed at ground level on the Northwest corner of the building (serving Unit A and the addition). We were able to locate a completed permit (B1606370) submitted on 10/25/2016. We don’t know if the two units in question are related to this particular permit or not, but it would be reasonable to assume they correspond on some level based on the matching model/brand. The permit scope of work says, “Installation of (16) new mini-split condensing units & 30 mini-split heads on apartment rooftop per stamped engineer's plans... ***Units to be installed toward center of rooftop and not seen from public right- of-way***.” Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 146 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 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: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. In the 1970’s, a small addition was added on to the back of the original building. In Fall of 2020, the access door between the backyard and the addition (North elevation of the addition) was omitted using cement blocks due to code and safety concerns. The other entrance to the addition (located off of Laurel Street on the South elevation of the addition) remains in place. The original backyard door did not allow for code-compliant steps down into the addition. The new cement blocks are not visible from the street or back alley. The cement blocks will be painted to match the wall. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. The door was omitted on the back of the 1970’s addition (North Elevation of Addition) Permit B1903204 Feature E Name: 1970 Addition Door (Backyard) Accent Paint Color Condition = Good The accent paint was completed previously. We are seeking retrospective approval. Paint ColorsFeature F: Paint Colors Sometime between 1996 and 2021, the building’s primary accent paint color was changed from white to black by the owner or property management company. The change was carried throughout all sides of the exterior elevations. The existing brick was not painted and remains as it was originally. We do not have information on the exact paint color used. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. 2015 In the 1950’s, a small addition was added on to the back of the original building. In Fall of 2020, the access door between the backyard and the addition (North elevation of the addition) was omitted using cement blocks due to code and safety concerns. The other entrance to the addition (located off of Laurel Street on the South elevation of the addition) remains in place. The original backyard door did not allow for code-compliant steps down into the addition. The new cement blocks are not visible from the street or back alley. The cement blocks will be painted to match the wall. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. The building’s primary accent paint color was changed from white to black. The change was carried throughout all sides of the exterior elevations. The existing brick was not painted and remains as it was originally. We do not have information on the exact paint color used. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. The door was omitted on the back of the 1950’s addition (North Elevation of Addition) Permit B1903204 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 147 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 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: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. North Driveway and Step Condition = Good The driveway and step were changed previously. We are seeking retrospective approval. Feature G Name: Driveway Paint ColorsFeature H: Storm Door Sometime between 1996 and 2021, the driveway and step on the North side of the building was changed by the owner or property management company. The new driveway appears to sit higher than the previous drive and the step to entrance door was removed. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. Sometime between 1996 and 2021, the storm door located on the South elevation of the 1970’s addition was removed by the owner or property management company. The door otherwise remains the same. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. 70’s Addition Storm Door Condition = N/A The storm door was previously removed. We are seeking retrospective approval. 2015 The driveway and step on the North side of the building was changed. The new driveway appears to sit higher than the previous drive and the step to entrance door was removed. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. The storm door located on the South elevation of the 1950’s addition was removed. The door otherwise remains the same. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. 50’s Addition Storm Door Condition = N/A The storm door was previously removed. We are seeking retrospective approval. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 148 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 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: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Feature I Name: Replacement Light Paint ColorsFeature J: Hardware Sometime between 1996 and 2021, the sconce located on the South elevation of the 1970’s addition was removed by the owner or property management company and replaced with a new light. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. Sometime between 1996 and 2021, the hardware by the front door was changed by the owner or property management company. Changes include the door handle and lock, BOX, BOX, and address numbers. The door otherwise remains the same. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. Sconce light located on 70s addition. Condition = Good The light was previously replaced. We are seeking retrospective approval. Hardware by Front Door: Handle, BOX, BOX, and Address numbers. Condition = Good The hardware was previously replaced. We are seeking retrospective approval. 2015 2015 Sometime between 2015 and 2021, the hardware by the front door was changed by the owner or property management company. Changes include the door handle and lock, lock boxes, and address numbers. The door otherwise remains the same. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. The sconce located on the South elevation of the 1950’s addition was removed and replaced with a new light. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. The hardware by the front door was changed. Changes include the door handle, lockboxes, and address numbers.The door otherwise remains the same. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. Sconce light located on 50s addition. Condition = Good The light was previously replaced. We are seeking retrospective approval. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 149 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 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: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Feature I Name: Replacement Light Paint ColorsFeature J: Hardware Sometime between 1996 and 2021, the sconce located on the South elevation of the 1970’s addition was removed by the owner or property management company and replaced with a new light. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. Sometime between 1996 and 2021, the hardware by the front door was changed by the owner or property management company. Changes include the door handle and lock, BOX, BOX, and address numbers. The door otherwise remains the same. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. Sconce light located on 70s addition. Condition = Good The light was previously replaced. We are seeking retrospective approval. Hardware by Front Door: Handle, BOX, BOX, and Address numbers. Condition = Good The hardware was previously replaced. We are seeking retrospective approval. 2015 2015 Sometime between 2015 and 2021, the hardware by the front door was changed by the owner or property management company. Changes include the door handle and lock, lock boxes, and address numbers. The door otherwise remains the same. We do not have insight as to why this change was made. Photos are included within the supplemental application materials. The gutter on the garage was replaced. The old gutter from 1996 appears to be a K-Style gutter. The new gutter is also a K-Style gutter with a black finish. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. It is unknown when the aluminum screens were installed on the building. They were mostly existing when Kent purchased the building in 2012, but they have required maintenance over the years. Screen frames have been re-screened as needed and replaced to match existing when required. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. Garage Gutters Condition = Good We are seeking retrospective approval. Screens on Building Condition = Fair We are seeking retrospective approval. Feature K Feature H Feature L Window Screens Condition = Fair It is unknown when the aluminum screens were installed on the building. They were mostly existing when Kent purchased the building, but they have required maintenance over the years. Screen frames have been re-screened as needed and replaced to match exsiting when required. Please reference attached photos, timeline, and building ownership and management summary sheets. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 150 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. 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 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. Drawing with dimensions. Product specification sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. Ƒ 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. Signature of Applicant Date X X X X X X ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 151 Owner Name Purchase Date Sale Date Rarem LLC Kent Obermann November 23rd, 2020 Present Owner DLOBERMANN IRREVOCALBLE TRUST Kent Obermann December 28th, 2010 November 23rd, 2020 Long Apartments LLC Howard Nornes April 6th, 2004 December 28th, 2010 Howard and Sonia Nornes Howard and Sonia Nornes January 30th, 2004 April 6th, 2004 Richard and Elanor Anderson Howard and Sonia Nornes Richard and Elanor Anderson Howard and Sonia Nornes July 1st, 1986 January 30th, 2004 Long Apartments LTD Unknown Unknown July 1st, 1986 Property Management Company Name Start Date End Date Real Property Management Sam Case 2/1/2019 Presently Managing Henderson Property Management Jessica Eads 6/13/2016 1/31/2019 All Property Management Unknown 4/1/2012 6/13/2016 Note: Property management companies are only know during the time period that Kent Obermann owned the building. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 152 Date Item Owner Permitted Contractor Notes 2010 Electric Meters Howard Nornes Yes Dickinson Electric Permit was pulled on 4/15/2010. Prior to 2019 Building Screens repaired and replaced. Uncertain. We haven't been able to determine when this work occured, but these items are all pictured in the 2019 photos from the agenda. They do not appear in the 1996 photos of the building. We can then assume they happened between 1996 and 2019. There was an effort to market the building to new tenants more starting in 2015, which we believe may have resulted in some of these changes. Permits would not have been required for any of this work. Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Prior to 2019 North Driveway and Step Resurfaced Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Prior to 2019 Paint Color Change Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Likely in last 5-7 years. Prior to 2019 Installation of patterned front stoop tile Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Likely in last 5-7 years. Prior to 2019 Storm Door Removed on 50s Addition Front Entrance Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Likely in last 5-7 years. Prior to 2019 Sconce on 50s Addition Changed Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Likely in last 5-7 years. Prior to 2019 Gutter on Garage Replaced Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Likely in last 5-7 years. Prior to 2019 Hardware on Front Entrance Replaced Actual date is unknown - not pictured in 1996 photos. Likely in last 5-7 years. 2016 HVAC Mini-Split Venting Installed for all units. Kent Obermann Yes Ft. Collins Heating and Air Permit was pulled on 10/25/2016 2020 In-fill of 50's Addition Back Door (North) Kent Obermann Yes Forge + Bow Permit was pulled on 2020 Replacement of 3 existing windows (Unit A) Kent Obermann Revision Forge + Bow Windows replaced in Fall 2020. Revision to permits submitted in November 2020. 2020 Installation of Egress Window (Unit A) Kent Obermann Yes Forge + Bow Approved by LPC in 2019. 2020 Installation of cedar fence Kent Obermann Not Required Forge + Bow Approved by LPC in 2019. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 153 South Elevation (1996) South Elevation (2021) Feature F: Change from white to black accent paint color. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 154 South Entrance (2021) South Entrance (1996) Feature B: Front Stoop Tile Feature J: Hardware Feature J: Hardware Feature J: Hardware Feature J: Hardware ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 155 South Elevation on 70’s Addition (2021) South Elevation on 70’s Addition (1996) Feature F: Change from white to black accent paint color. Feature H: Removal of Storm Door Feature I: Light ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 156 East Elevation (1996) East Elevation (2021) Feature F: Change from white to black accent paint color. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 157 North Elevation (1996) North Elevation (2021) Feature F: Change from white to black accent paint colors. Feature G: Driveway Feature A: Windows Feature D: Condenser #1 Feature C: Electric Meters ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 158 North Elevation - Electric Meters (2021) North Elevation - Entrance (2021) Feature C: Electric Meters Feature A: Windows Feature G: Driveway   (step removed) ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 159 North Elevation - Unit A Windows, East (2021) North Elevation - Unit A Window (West) and HVAC (2021) Feature A: Windows (closer photo) Feature A: Windows (Converted coal shoot) Feature D: Condenser #1 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 160 West Elevation (1996) West Elevation (2021) Feature F: Change from white to black accent paint color. Feature A: Windows Approved Egress Window Feature E: Door ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 161 West Elevation - Unit A Windows, North (2021) West Elevation - Unit A Egress Window, South (2021) Feature A: Windows (Closer Photo) Approved Egress Window ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 162 North Elevation of 70’s Addition (1996) North Elevation of 70’s Addition (2021) Feature E: Door Feature D: Condenser ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 163 West Elevation, Garages (1996) West Elevation, Garages (2021) Feature F: Change from white to black accent paint color. Feature K: New Gutter ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 164 Forge & Bow 220 E Laurel Quote #: YUVLDCZ A Proposal for Window and Door Products prepared for: End Customer: Forge + Bow Dwellings 116 N. College, Suite 5 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Contact Name: Colin Warner Mobile: (970) 443-1750 Email: colin@forgeandbow.com Job Site: Laurel Bsement 220 E Laurel Fort Collins, CO 80521 Contact Name: Shelby Shipping Address: MAWSON LUMBER & HARDWARE 350 LINDEN STREET FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 NICK BRISTOW MAWSON LUMBER & HARDWARE PO BOX 2206 FORT COLLINS, CO 80522-2206 Phone: (970) 482-8082 Email: nick@mawsonlumber.com This report was generated on 9/10/2020 2:22:36 PM using the Marvin Order Management System, version 0003.04.00 (Current). Price in USD. Unit availability and price are subject to change. Dealer terms and conditions may apply. Project Description: Replacement windows in basement apartment. Kitchen and Living Room units configured as double hung or fixed inserts in existing frames, Bedroom Egress unit configured as full frame double hung for nailfin install. Featuring products from: Feature A: Window Specifications ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 165 OMS Ver. 0003.04.00 (Current) Product availability and pricing subject to change. Forge & Bow 220 E Laurel Quote Number: YUVLDCZ OMS Ver. 0003.04.00 (Current) Processed on: 9/10/2020 2:22:36 PM Page 3 of 6 LINE ITEM QUOTES The following is a schedule of the windows and doors for this project. For additional unit details, please see Line Item Quotes. Additional charges, tax or Terms and Conditions may apply. Detail pricing is per unit. Line #1 Qty: 2 Mark Unit: Kitchen Net Price: Ext. Net Price: USD 551.58 1,103.16 Entered As: IO FS 31 5/8" X 37 3/8" RO 32 1/8" X 37 7/8" Egress Information Width: 28 11/16" Height: 14 9/64" Net Clear Opening: 2.82 SqFt Performance Information U-Factor: 0.3 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.33 Visible Light Transmittance: 0.57 Condensation Resistance: 57 CPD Number: MAR-N-332-00254-00001 ENERGY STAR: NC Performance Grade Licensee #870 AAMA/WDMA/CSA/101/ I.S.2/A440-08 LC-PG50 1206X1206 mm (47.5X47.5 in) LC-PG50 DP +50/-50 FL9430 Ebony Exterior Ebony Interior Essential Double Hung Inside Opening 32" X 37 5/8" 0 Degree Frame Bevel Top Sash IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Preserve Film on Exterior/Interior Bottom Sash IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Preserve Film on Exterior/Interior Black Weather Strip 2 Matte Black Sash Lock Ebony Sash Lift Exterior Aluminum Screen Ebony Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh 2 1/4" Jambs Thru Jamb Installation Frame Filler ***Note: Essential rough openings are 1/2" greater than overall frame size width and 1/2" greater than frame size height. Please take note of this when ordering Essential custom sized units. ***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change Line #2 Qty: 1 Mark Unit: Living Room Net Price: Ext. Net Price: USD 354.95 354.95 Ebony Exterior Ebony Interior Window Frame Essential Direct Glaze Rectangle Frame Size 38 1/2" X 22 1/4" Rough Opening 39" X 22 3/4" 0 Degree Frame Bevel IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Additional Mull Info: Stand Alone 2 1/4" Jambs Feature A: Window Specifications ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 166 OMS Ver. 0003.04.00 (Current) Product availability and pricing subject to change. Forge & Bow 220 E Laurel Quote Number: YUVLDCZ OMS Ver. 0003.04.00 (Current) Processed on: 9/10/2020 2:22:36 PM Page 4 of 6 Entered As: FS FS 38 1/2" X 22 1/4" RO 39" X 22 3/4" Egress Information No Egress Information available. Performance Information U-Factor: 0.28 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.36 Visible Light Transmittance: 0.63 Condensation Resistance: 59 CPD Number: MAR-N-325-00710-00001 ENERGY STAR: N, NC Performance Grade Licensee #814 AAMA/WDMA/CSA/101/ I.S.2/A440-08 LC-PG50 2108X2108 mm (64X113.5 in) LC-PG50 DP +50/-50 FL12378 Thru Jamb Installation Frame Filler ***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change Line #3 Qty: 2 Mark Unit: Living Room Net Price: Ext. Net Price: USD 551.58 1,103.16 Entered As: IO FS 31 5/8" X 37 3/8" RO 32 1/8" X 37 7/8" Egress Information Width: 28 11/16" Height: 14 9/64" Net Clear Opening: 2.82 SqFt Performance Information U-Factor: 0.3 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.33 Visible Light Transmittance: 0.57 Condensation Resistance: 57 CPD Number: MAR-N-332-00254-00001 ENERGY STAR: NC Performance Grade Licensee #870 AAMA/WDMA/CSA/101/ I.S.2/A440-08 LC-PG50 1206X1206 mm (47.5X47.5 in) LC-PG50 DP +50/-50 FL9430 Ebony Exterior Ebony Interior Essential Double Hung Inside Opening 32" X 37 5/8" 0 Degree Frame Bevel Top Sash IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Preserve Film on Exterior/Interior Bottom Sash IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Preserve Film on Exterior/Interior Black Weather Strip 2 Matte Black Sash Lock Ebony Sash Lift Exterior Aluminum Screen Ebony Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh 2 1/4" Jambs Thru Jamb Installation Frame Filler ***Note: Essential rough openings are 1/2" greater than overall frame size width and 1/2" greater than frame size height. Please take note of this when ordering Essential custom sized units. ***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change Line #4 Qty: 1 Mark Unit: Bedroom Net Price: Ext. Net Price: USD 648.05 648.05 Feature A: Window Specifications ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 167 OMS Ver. 0003.04.00 (Current) Product availability and pricing subject to change. Forge & Bow 220 E Laurel Quote Number: YUVLDCZ OMS Ver. 0003.04.00 (Current) Processed on: 9/10/2020 2:22:36 PM Page 5 of 6 Entered As: FS FS 32 3/4" X 64 1/8" RO 33 1/4" X 64 5/8" Egress Information Width: 29 13/16" Height: 27 33/64" Net Clear Opening: 5.70 SqFt Performance Information U-Factor: 0.3 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.33 Visible Light Transmittance: 0.57 Condensation Resistance: 57 CPD Number: MAR-N-332-00254-00001 ENERGY STAR: NC Performance Grade Licensee #870 AAMA/WDMA/CSA/101/ I.S.2/A440-08 LC-PG40 901X1973 mm (35.5X77.7 in) LC-PG40 DP +40/-40 FL9430 Ebony Exterior Ebony Interior Essential Double Hung Frame Size 32 3/4" X 64 1/8" Rough Opening 33 1/4" X 64 5/8" Top Sash IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Preserve Film on Exterior/Interior Bottom Sash IG - 1 Lite Low E2 w/Argon Stainless Perimeter Bar Preserve Film on Exterior/Interior Black Weather Strip 2 Matte Black Sash Lock Ebony Sash Lift Exterior Aluminum Screen Ebony Surround Charcoal Fiberglass Mesh 2 1/4" Jambs Nailing Fin Frame Filler ***Note: Essential rough openings are 1/2" greater than overall frame size width and 1/2" greater than frame size height. Please take note of this when ordering Essential custom sized units. ***Note: Unit Availability and Price is Subject to Change Project Subtotal Net Price: USD 3,209.32 2.900% Sales Tax: USD 93.07 Project Total Net Price: USD 3,302.39 Feature A: Window Specifications ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 168 1 After-the-Fact Design Review Long Apartment Complex, 220 East Laurel Street Landmark Preservation Commission March 17, 2021 220 E. Laurel Street Location Map 2 1 2 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 169 Executive Summary • After-the-fact approval • Fort Collins Landmark Ordinance No 027, 1997 • Purchased by members of Obermann family in 2010 • Staff and LPC design reviews 2019 • Egress window approved (Staff - 2019) • Applicant contacted when 2020 building plans showed new alterations 3 LPC’s Role Final Design Review: If Commission determines it has the necessary information to make a decision, it may proceed to final review Review Criteria: Does the work comply with Chapter 14 Standards, including Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation? • 10 Standards, of which all must be met or found to not apply Work Not Meeting Standards: (14-51(d)) Any alterations not meeting the Standards shall be restored back to original condition. Staff’s Role: Ensure work does not cause further damage or return to LPC 4 3 4 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 170 Building Features c. 1923 apartment building: red brick; cubic form; austere design with little ornamentation; symmetry Contrasting buff‐colored brick sills and simulated lintels Recessed front entry with flat canopy, tiled step; ground‐level entry on north elevation c.1951 addition: single‐story, flat‐roof: horizontal window flanked by narrow windows on the front; similar glass block window opening on rear Addition’s original wood entry doors with small diamond‐shaped light Virtually unaltered brick 7‐bay garage with original wooden doors 5 6 Long Apartments, 220 Laurel Street 5 6 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 171 7 South Entrance •Hardware (multiple locations); •Front stoop tile 8 c.1951 Addition (1996 photo) 7 8 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 172 9 •Removal of storm door •Changed light fixture •Aluminum screens •Paint color 2019 March 2021 9 10 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 173 11 c.1951 Addition – Courtyard (photos 1996) 12 Courtyard •Blocked in Door; •Condenser Unit 11 12 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 174 13 Courtyard - East Elevation: •Blocked-in Door •Aluminum Screens •Egress Window (approved) •Replaced Window #1 14 Courtyard - East Elevation: •Egress Window (approved) 13 14 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 175 15 North Elevation (1996) •Removal of rear storm door •Removal of rear entry step •Change driveway grade; repair/replace driveway concrete •Mechanical condenser •Electric meters & conduit •Two windows replaced 16 •Electric meters & conduit •Rear entry step & storm door •Two windows replaced North Elevation 15 16 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 176 17 North Elevation •Windows #2 and #3 •Second Condenser Unit 18 Garage •K-style gutter •Paint color 17 18 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 177 Staff Findings •Staff finds that the paint color, the driveway elevation, the rear entry step, and the hardware on the entry door that was removed are not significant character-defining features of the property and recommends their approval •Staff finds that the removal of three lower-level historic wood windows and replacement with fiberglass windows would meet Standards #6 and 9, which allow for the removal and replacement of materials that are in poor condition and cannot be repaired; the applicant has stated that the windows were in poor condition •Staff finds that the remaining work does not comply with Rehabilitation Standards 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, and recommend denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for work not meeting the Standards 19 19 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 3-17-21 Packet Pg. 178 Staff Findings •Staff finds that the paint color, the driveway elevation, the rear entry step, and the hardware on the entry door that was removed are not significant character-defining features of the property and recommends their approval •Staff finds that the remaining work does not comply with Rehabilitation Standards 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, and recommend denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for work not meeting the Standards •Staff will ensure work not meeting Standards is restored to its original condition without further damage to historic fabric. 20 20 From:Jordan Obermann To:Karen McWilliams Cc:Alexandra Henze Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Permission to Hold Remote Meeting Date:Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:10:19 AM That works, and I’ll act in behalf of him. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 25, 2021, at 12:06 PM, Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> wrote: Hello, Jordan, The Landmark preservation Commission hearing to consider the work without a permit is a quasi-judicial item that will be heard remotely. You have the option to hold off until an in-person hearing can be conducted. Notifying you and receiving your permission to hold a remote hearing is required under Ordinance No. 079, 2020: 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. Please respond to confirm if you, acting on behalf of Kent Obermann, Rarem LLC, would like to move forward with the hearing before the Landmark Preservation Commission at this time, or would prefer to wait until such time as an in-person hearing can be held. Best, Karen Karen McWilliams Historic Preservation Manager | City of Fort Collins kmcwilliams@fcgov.com | 970.224.6078 Tell us about our service, we want to know! COVID19 Resources For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business/ ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 179 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 August 21, 2019 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Kristin Gensmer, Co-Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Bello Fort Collins, Colorado Mollie Bredehoft Katie Dorn Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins 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 1:30 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. Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Minutes – Excerpt for 220 E. Laurel Street •CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Gensmer, Nelsen ABSENT: Wallace, Dorn, Murray, Simpkins STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager, Lambrecht ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** 3.220 EAST LAUREL STREET – APPEAL OF STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISION DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of an appeal of Staff’s decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for proposed alterations to the Long Apartment Complex, 220 East Laurel Street. The property is an officially designated Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Annie Obermann, Forge and Bow Dwellings, for D.L. Obermann Trust, Owner. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 180 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 August 21, 2019 Staff Report Mr. Yatabe explained the appeal review process stating the Commission will be making a decision to uphold or overturn the staff decision that is on appeal. He noted any changes to the proposed plan would require the applicant to come back before the Commission and if the Commission overturns the staff denial, it would be approving the plan as is. Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report and discussed the property and staff's denial of a request for the replacement of a historic window and door on the addition, the request to paint unpainted brick on the addition, and the request to substantially change and modernize the front and side landscaping of the property. She stated the denials were based on the findings that the proposed work did not comply with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. She noted staff approved a request for landscaping changes to the rear courtyard. Ms. McWilliams showed photos of the property over time and outlined the role of the Commission. Applicant Presentation Ms. Oberman gave an overview of the proposal citing the reason for the requested door change and noting deficiencies in the brick are the reason for the painting request. She stated many of the requested changes would help the addition match the original 1920's construction of the larger building. Ms. Oberman discussed the requested landscape changes which would pull sod away from the building to avoid water damage to the building, add raised planters, place a fence for privacy from the unkempt lot to the north, and place a metal screen in front of the dumpster area. She discussed the desire to increase outdoor amenities for residents. Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Bello requested clarification on what staff did and did not approve. Ms. McWilliams replied the only item approved by staff were the landscape changes behind the addition. She noted she was unaware of the proposed pergola and requested additional information. She stated staff also tabled the dumpster screen and fence for lack of information at the time. Ms. McWilliams stated staff was unaware of the changes made to the windows in the building as mentioned by Ms. Oberman and will therefore need to look at those changes. Mr. Bello requested details about the proposed door and window replacement. Ms. Oberman replied the two would not be connected in one unit. Chair Dunn outlined the way in which the Commission would address the discussion. Mr. Bello asked what the new windows would look like. Ms. Oberman replied they would look the same but be more efficient. Chair Dunn noted the standards require first evaluating the existing materials to determine they need to be removed. Chair Dunn asked for details relating to the door replacement. Ms. Oberman replied the door has a veneer layering that has been peeling up over time and it is not a high-quality door. She also stated the replacement would provide additional light. She stated replacing the veneer on the door would be more expensive than replacing it with a new door. Chair Dunn noted the Commission is looking for the addition to retain the characteristics of its own time rather than have it look like the original structure. Ms. Oberman stated they would like to replace the door with one that will function better for the new use as a fitness center and allow more light. Chair Dunn reviewed standards and discussed mid-century design stating the door and windows fit with the time period the addition was constructed and should therefore be retained. Ms. Gensmer noted replacement in-kind is required if replacement is necessary. Ms. Bredehoft agreed. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 181 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 August 21, 2019 Chair Dunn stated there is a lack of information on whether the door actually needs to be replaced. Ms. Oberman replied the quality of the door is lacking. She stated she understands the intention of keeping the integrity of architectural styles; however, the issue with this building is that the matching of the two styles was not done well in the original build. Chair Dunn stated maintaining the 1950's style of the addition is important. Ms. Gensmer discussed the importance of not creating a false sense of history for the addition. Ms. Oberman discussed some of the architectural aspects of the addition that are significant to the 1950's and asked if items such as the door are considered to be as significant as the roof line or other features. Chair Dunn recommended Ms. Oberman review the Secretary of Interior standards for additional guidance, adding that all elements are of equal importance. Chair Dunn discussed the standards for maintaining the same operability for windows to show craftsmanship and the requirement to repair rather than replace damaged distinctive features. Mr. Bello commented that replacing the windows with more energy efficient windows complies the City's net-zero goals. Chair Dunn noted there is quite a bit of energy loss with replacement and stated there are ways to increase the efficiency of historic windows. She asked Ms. Oberman what has been done to research using the current materials. Ms. Oberman replied the windows were painted shut at one point and attempts to make the single-pane windows operable has left them only able to open partially. She stated they could be taken apart and stripped but they have not used contractors with historic experience. Ms. McWilliams suggested Ms. Oberman could use the Design Assistance program for a window study. Ms. Nelsen noted this is a landmarked building which is why the Secretary of Interior standards must be applied. Chair Dunn requested Commission input regarding the brick painting. She stated seeing the difference between the addition and the original building is important. Ms. Gensmer stated the brick painting seems to be related solely to aesthetics. Ms. Oberman stated the brick is in good condition; the painting was a matter of preference. Ms. Gensmer noted brick painting would be difficult to reverse without causing damage to the structure. Chair Dunn requested input as to the proposed landscaping changes. She asked if there are existing planters in the southwest corner. Ms. Oberman replied in the affirmative but noted they are quite dilapidated and are larger than the proposed. Chair Dunn stated samples of the paver materials would be needed. Ms. Bredehoft asked about the proposed use for the east side. Ms. Oberman replied it is designed to feel like a courtyard. Ms. Bredehoft asked about the height of the proposed pergola. Ms. Oberman replied it is probably 8 feet tall, is freestanding, and is a combination of metal and wood. Chair Dunn commented that would be easily removed if necessary. Chair Dunn stated the landscape has been minimal in the past and the proposed landscaping is more complex. Ms. Bredehoft stated the landscaping seems quite modern and stated it is wise to pull the turf away from the building in order to protect it. Ms. Oberman discussed the way in which the landscaping was designed to reflect the 1950's. Chair Dunn stated the 1950's structure is small in comparison to the two 1920's apartment buildings. Chair Dunn requested input regarding the alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property. Ms. Bredehoft discussed the landscape plan and stated some of the pavers take away from the residential feel of the front of the building. She also asked about the spatial relationship of the adjacent front lawns. Ms. Nelsen asked whether the landscaping is historic therefore falling into the Commission's purview relating to the Secretary of Interior standards. Chair Dunn replied the landscaping would be included in the landmarked property but stated its character may need to be defined. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 182 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 August 21, 2019 Mr. Bello stated the proposed landscaping does not seem to match the rest of the neighborhood or the historic building. Ms. Oberman stated an apartment complex to the west has completed similar landscaping to make a larger buffer between the turf and the sidewalk. Chair Dunn asked if the referenced complex is landmarked. Ms. McWilliams replied in the negative. Chair Dunn commented the pavers in the middle of the lawn do not fit with the historic context. Ms. Oberman replied they are meant to fit with the 1950's historic nature of the addition. Chair Dunn stated there is a lot going on that does not match the largest 1920's building on the property. She suggested there are simple solutions that would not detract from the character of the building but would still serve the desired purpose. Ms. Nelsen stated it is a reasonable request to pull the turf away from the building so as to not deteriorate building materials with irrigation. Chair Dunn suggested the landscape should be simpler and more symmetrical. Ms. McWilliams suggested the design assistance program could also be used for landscape design. Ms. Bredehoft stated the landscaping of the space in back is perfectly acceptable and stated the proposed dumpster screen could be removable. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern about the height of the pergola and requested assurance it would not be visible from the font. Ms. Oberman replied it would not be visible. Commission members and Ms. McWilliams discussed the pergola and the need to acquire additional information regarding materials as it is a semi-permanent structure. Chair Dunn asked if a plan of protection is in place to ensure the garage is not disturbed by the formation of the concrete furniture. Ms. McWilliams replied in the negative. Chair Dunn stated that would be required. Chair Dunn asked if shade awnings are planned. Ms. Oberman replied in the negative. Commission members did not express concerns about the rear cedar fence other than ensuring it is not attached to the building. Chair Dunn requested input about the dumpster screen. Ms. Oberman stated it would be free-standing but with some type of concrete footings. Ms. Bredehoft noted the dumpster screen and raised planters are to be powder coated white and asked Ms. Oberman if they would consider using a different color. Ms. Oberman replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bredehoft asked when the tiles in the front entry were added. Ms. Oberman replied they were added over the last few years. Ms. McWilliams stated those have not been reviewed. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Bello stated he did not have any concerns about the back area with the exception of ensuring the pergola height is appropriate. Chair Dunn suggested reviewing the items in order with the windows first. Ms. Nelsen stated the request for the window replacement does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards for a landmarked property and the Commission would need to see evidence that all other avenues have been explored first. Ms. Gensmer agreed. Regarding the door replacement request, Ms. Nelsen reiterated her remarks about the windows and stated if the door were to be replaced, it should be replaced in kind. Regarding painting the brick, Ms. Gensmer stated that would not meet the Secretary of Interior standards. Regarding the visible landscaping, Mr. Bello stated the front should be simpler and the applicant could use design review assistance for developing something more appropriate. Regarding the rear courtyard, Ms. Bredehoft stated the pergola height and ensuring a plan of protection is in place for the garage are the only concerns. Regarding the cedar fence, Ms. Nelsen stated there are no concerns assuming it is not attached to the garage. She suggested the plan of protection could address that. ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 183 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 August 21, 2019 Regarding the dumpster screen, Mr. Bello suggested the applicant consider a different color. Ms. Bredehoft stated the applicant should work with design assistance. Chair Dunn stated she would like the design of the screen to be simpler. Ms. Gensmer asked if the Commission could conditionally approve or deny the seven elements individually. Mr. Yatabe replied the Commission could approve or deny portions of the request and summarized the Commission's discussion and previous staff determinations. [**Secretary's Note: The Commission took a brief recess.] Commission Deliberation Ms. Gensmer requested clarification on the condition related to the pergola height. Commission members replied it must not be visible from the street. Ms. Gensmer moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission uphold the staff decision to deny Items 1-4 as listed in the August 21, 2019 staff report. Ms. Gensmer further moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission uphold the staff decision to approve Item 5 with the following conditions: 1) limit the height of the pergola so the top is not visible from the street, and 2) provide an acceptable plan of protection to be reviewed by staff. Ms. Gensmer further moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve Item 6 regarding the fence with the condition that it is freestanding and does not connect to the garage. Ms. Gensmer further moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny Item 7 regarding the screen. This decision is based on the materials provided for this hearing, testimony at this hearing and board discussion. Ms. Nelsen seconded the motion. Commission members agreed staff could review the plan of protection. Mr. Bello stated he is concerned about denying the request to replace the windows but will support the motion. The motion passed 5-0. ***END EXCERPT*** ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 184 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 8 Added 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 185 ITEM 7, ATTACHMENT 8 Added 3/16/21 Packet Pg. 186 Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 17, 2021 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1306 W. MOUNTAIN AVE, CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, REHABILITATION, ADDITION, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to complete a conceptual review of the applicants’ project, identify key conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and outline alterations to the proposed project plans so that the project will better align with the Standards. The applicant is proposing an addition onto the side and rear elevation of the main building, demolition of all accessory structures, and construction of a new garage building. APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian and Barbara Berkhausen (property owners), Rick Zier (legal counsel) Jeff Schneider, Armstead Construction (contractor) RECOMMENDATION: This is a conceptual review, and no decision is being asked for the Commission at this time. Staff finds the current proposal to be inconsistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation and has provided an analysis below. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for compliance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). The LPC should discuss and consider the presented materials and staff analysis. For City Landmarks and properties in City Landmark Districts, the Commission is a decision-maker and can choose to issue, or not issue, a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Issuing a CoA allows the proposed work to proceed. In this case, the applicant is requesting a conceptual review of proposed plans to provide advance feedback under Municipal Code 14-54(a)(2)(a) and is not requesting a final decision at this meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The William and Violet Jackson Property was designated as a City Landmark on December 2, 2014. That designation included the full property, and specified that the main 1922 residence and 1942 garage constructed by the Jacksons were historic features, while the 1968 two-car garage was not. The property was designated under Standard C/3 for Design/Construction, specifically as an “excellent example of the west- coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century.” The proposed project includes demolition of significant portions of the north (rear) and east elevations, construction of an addition totaling 1,297 square feet, and replacement of all doors and windows. It also includes demolition of both accessory structures on the lot and construction of a new, 656-square foot garage at the rear of the lot. Packet Pg. 187 Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Character-defining features for this property discussed in the nomination form include: • A low pitched, open, front-gabled roof including exposed rafter tails. • Simple, rectangular massing under a single, front-gabled roof form, indicative of Craftsman Cottages of this style. • Outer brick walls set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward and two distinct bands of darker brick near the foundation. • Craftsman-style front porch including two, open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles and supported by brick pillars • Wood, one-over-one sash windows of varying sizes with matching wood storm windows. • Two distinctive brick chimneys • A c.1942 single-car garage at the northwest corner of the lot. [nomination form is Attachment 2 to this packet] ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include: • 1922 – construction of the original house • 1942 – construction of the single-car garage • 1947 – reshingling of the house • 1968 – addition of two-car garage at northeast corner of the lot • 2000s – minor restoration of exterior, including removal of aluminum storm windows with current wood • 2007 – reroof of buildings on the property HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: Since designation in 2014, this property does not appear to have undergone significant Design Review. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: N/A - Unknown DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for the following items: 1. Exterior demolition of rear half of east wall and all of the rear wall 2. Construction of a 1,297 square foot addition onto the existing 1,021 square foot home 3. Replacement of all doors and windows on the property exterior 4. Demolition of both accessory structures on the property. 5. Construction of a new 656 square foot garage at the rear of the lot. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original applications for demolition and building permits, staff has held two meetings with the applicants to explain the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the requirements for design review on City Landmarks. The first meeting, on February 4, 2021 identified key conflicts with the Standards, including the size and location of the addition, replacement of windows and doors, and demolition of the 1942 garage. The second meeting on February 25, 2021 focused on the process for review and what to expect. Since those meetings, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: • Provide detailed exterior photographs documenting the condition of the windows (received 3/2/21) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public outreach has been conducted and no public comment about this project has been received at this time. Packet Pg. 188 Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 3 STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: As provided for in Chapter 14-53, qualified historic preservation staff meeting the professional standards contained in Title 36, Part 61 of the Code of Federal Regulations has reviewed the project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff finds…Staff finds that the relevant review criteria under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property will remain in residential use. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The building is characterized by its small size compared to modern homes, its simple rectangular form under the front-gabled roof, and other Craftsman-style features including exposed rafter tails, the styled brick exterior, wood sash windows, and prominent brick chimneys. 1. Exterior demolition of rear half of east wall and all of the rear wall – The degree of demolition of historic materials, especially on the highly visible east elevation, does not meet this Standard as it disrupts the historic character of the property as a well-preserved Craftsman home with a simple, front-gabled configuration. 2. Construction of a 1,297 square foot addition onto the existing 1,021 square foot home – The addition, as designed, would significantly alter the massing of the building as viewed from Mountain Avenue, introducing an irregular roof form not common on Craftsman-style residences, and disrupting the simple, front- gabled, rectangular configuration that defines this house type. 3. Replacement of all doors and windows on the property exterior – Some of the exterior doors and most of the windows appear historic, although the storm windows were new (restored in the early 2000s by the previous owner). Available photographic evidence does not indicate a level of deterioration that would warrant removal and replacement of these features. These features should be repaired and rehabilitated rather than replaced. 4. Demolition of both accessory structures on the property – While the 1968 two-car garage is not historic and could likely be demolished without compromising the property’s significance, the one-car, 1942 garage is noted as historic, contributes to the property’s significance, and should be retained as part of the redevelopment of the property. 5. Construction of a new 656 square foot garage at the rear of the lot – The overall design of the new garage seems generally compatible. The roof orientation along a north-south axis is in keeping with the overall character and spatial organization of the site. The garage entry on the side rather than the north alley elevation is irregular. The new garage should be placed in a location that does not require demolition of the historic garage, which will likely require relocation of the entry to the alleyside/north elevation. N Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) Packet Pg. 189 Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 4 SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The 1942 one-car garage is noted as an alteration made by the Jackson family after they transitioned the property to a rental. Adding one- or two-car detached garages was a common alteration to residential properties from the 1910s-1940s and is often considered an historic development in its own right. The designation of the garage was supported by the Landmark Preservation Commission in its resolution, and is part of the designation ordinance adopted by Council. Demolition of the 1942 garage would not meet this Standard. N SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Due to the high degree of demolition and replacement outlined in the project scope, the project generally removes/replaces/alters rather than preserves several materials, features, finishes, and other character-defining features of the property. 1. Exterior demolition of rear half of east wall and all of the rear wall –The comparatively small nature of the property, the simple, rectangular form under the front-gabled roof, and the brick masonry walls are all character-defining features of the property. The demolition of both the rear elevation wall and the rear half of the east wall, along with the construction of an addition onto the side, destroys or significantly alters these character-defining elements. 2. Construction of a 1,297 square foot addition onto the existing 1,021 square foot home – As noted above, the building’s character-defining features include its simple footprint and relatively small, symmetrical massing. The addition, especially onto the east elevation, would disrupt the overall historic massing and footprint that define this type and style of home. 3. Replacement of all doors and windows on the property exterior – While the historic status of doors on the property is mixed, the windows appear to be historic with new (c.2000s) matching wood storm windows and appear to be in sound shape for repair. Their replacement is not recommended under this Standard. 4. Demolition of both accessory structures on the property – While the 1968 two-car garage does not characterize the property, the 1942 one-car garage does as noted in the Landmark nomination and its removal does not meet this Standard. 5. Construction of a new 656 square foot garage at the rear of the lot – As noted previously, the overall design and massing of this garage is generally compatible with the overall property. Its key conflict is in location – if it were relocated to not affect the 1942 garage, and retained the bulk of its current design elements, it might meet this Standard. N Packet Pg. 190 Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 5 Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Exterior demolition of rear half of east wall and all of the rear wall – This alteration is driven by the owner’s desire rather than a need or structural requirement. The demolition/alteration of this much of the historic brick outer wall does not meet this Standard. Where needed, exterior demolition of historic material should be minimal and focused on creating new entries into additions, etc., not wholesale demolition, even where salvage is proposed. • Replacement of all doors and windows on the property exterior – Based on submitted photographs, it does not appear that the windows and doors have deteriorated beyond repair. While there is excessive paint build-up in some areas, and cracked glass panes in need of replacement, the windows appear in good overall condition and easily repaired/weatherized for energy performance. Especially considering that there are new storm windows on the building from the early 2000s, the historic windows can likely be repaired, broken glass panes replaced and brought up to comparable energy performance as modern, dual-glaze windows for a lower cost. Window replacement does not meet this Standard. • Demolition of both accessory structures on the property – Both garage structures appear to be in good condition and able to be repaired/rehabilitated. While the 1968 two-car garage is not character- defining and could be demolished, the 1942 garage is historic and should be retained. N SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposal includes excavation of additional basement space under sections of the addition, a common method to expand square footage without expanding building footprint. Based on the construction date of the property, the disturbed nature of the soil, and distance away from natural waterways (beyond 200 ft), it is unlikely that excavation would uncover significant archaeological materials from the pre-contact or Euro-American periods. Y Applicable Code Standard Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) Packet Pg. 191 Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 6 SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. • Exterior demolition of rear half of east wall and all of the rear wall – The distinctive brick walls and simple, rectangular massing under the front- gabled roof form are defining features of this property. The significant amount of demolition would destroy these historic materials and does not meet this Standard. • Construction of a 1,297 square foot addition onto the existing 1,021 square foot home – In general, additions should meet four principles as established under the federal guidelines: compatible, distinguishable, subordinate, and reversible. The addition as proposed meets none of these. The new addition more than doubles the square footage of the existing house and has a roofline higher than the historic. While some of the new massing will be clustered in the basement level to mitigate this, the location and scale of the addition is not compatible with the massing, size, scale, or architectural features of the property. It is located on a highly visible elevation, disrupts the defining, symmetrical massing of the property, and is generally too large for a property of this type. It also involves the demolition of nearly a third of the exterior walls of the property, making it non-reversible. • Demolition of both accessory structures on the property – As noted above, the 1942 one-car garage is an historic resource, so its demolition does not meet this Standard. • Construction of a new 656 square foot garage at the rear of the lot – With the exception of the proposed location, which requires the demolition of the historic 1942 garage, the proposed new garage is generally compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate to the existing property. N SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. • Exterior demolition of rear half of east wall and all of the rear wall – The degree of demolition proposed is not reversible and does not meet this Standard. The new alteration and/or its removal in the future would leave the essential form and integrity of a highly visible elevation of the property impaired, likely permanently. • Construction of a 1,297 square foot addition onto the existing 1,021 square foot home – see item above. • Demolition of both accessory structures on the property – The 1942 one-car garage is historic and its demolition does not meet this Standard. The demolition of the 1968 two-car garage is likely consistent with this Standard. • Construction of a new 656 square foot garage at the rear of the lot – If a suitable location can be found on the lot, likely requiring some modest design changes, then the new garage likely meets this Standard. However, the owners may wish to consider simply retaining the existing garage since it is already compatible in design and oriented in a useful direction for alley access. N INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: Packet Pg. 192 Agenda Item 8 Item 8, Page 7 In evaluating the request for the alterations, addition, and new construction at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue was designated as a City Landmark by City Council ordinance on December 2, 2014. • The proposed project for alterations and addition to the main house at 1306 W. Mountain Ave, and demolition of both accessory structures for the construction of a new, detached garage do not meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the project does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation in several key ways, as identified in the analysis table above, specially: • Too many character-defining elements of the property are being removed or altered • The size and location of the additions are out of scale with the historic house • Demolition of the 1942 garage, noted as contributing in the 2014 nomination form. SAMPLE MOTIONS This is being presented to the Commission as a Conceptual Review, with a Final Review occurring at a later date. If instead the Commission desires to move to a Final Hearing on the item at this meeting and believes it has the necessary information, it may adopt a motion to proceed to Final Review, and may then consider a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, and construction of a new garage at, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, and construction of a new garage at, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for the alterations and addition to, and construction of a new garage at, the Jackson Property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Owner approval for remote hearing 2. Landmark Nomination form 3. Current Plan Set for project (addition and new garage) 4. Overall project set of photos from applicant 5. Supplemental window photos from applicant 6. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 193 1 Jim Bertolini From:Brian <bberkhausen@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:38 PM To:Jim Bertolini Cc:Barbara Berkhausen; Jeff Schneider; Rick@zierlawoffices.com Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: 1306 W. Mountain LPC conceptual - permission for remote hearing Jim, Thanks for scheduling the ZOOM meeting today. It was most helpful to review the Historic Nomination From as I had not previously seen it. You have my permission to proceed with the remote hearing. We do not want to delay our project any longer than necessary to obtain the appropriate approvals. Best regards, Brian Berkhausen . On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote: Brian, Thanks for you, Jeff, and Rick’s time this morning. I’ll get a follow-up note with more detail to you later today. Since we’re operating under COVID protocol, we do need to inform you that you have the right to postpone action on your project until the LPC is able to meet in person (please see below from Council’s emergency ordinance 2020-079): Any person or applicant seeking a quasi-judicial decision from City Council, a City b oard 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. Do we have your permission to proceed with a remote hearing? A response to this email is adequate. Thanks! JIM BERTOLINI Historic Preservation Planner ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 194 2 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolini@fcgov.com Visit our website! “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 same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.” ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 195 Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 2, Swett’s Addition, City of Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): William and Violet Jackson / Robert Bailey Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Robert Bailey Phone: 970-484-5411 Email: ecoregions@cs.com Address: 1306 West Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 or P.O. Box 512, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Mitchell Schaefer, Historic Preservation Intern; Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None DATE: Prepared 2 September 2014. Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.274 0 970.224.613 4-fax fcgov.com ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 196 Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property includes two contributing resources, the Craftsman bungalow home built in 1922 and the one-car garage located on the northwest corner of the lot, which William G. Jackson constructed in 1942. The two-car garage, constructed in 1968 by Robert Waldron, located southeast of the one-car garage and northeast of the home, does not contribute to the significance of the property due to its age. SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess both significance and integrity. Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. Significance: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1.A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2.A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess es high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the prope rty's historic character. Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 197 Revised 08-2014 Page 3 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C for embodying the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type and period. This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home is an excellent example of the west-coast Craftsman architectural style, popular in the early twentieth century. Its front-gabled roof, overhanging eaves with exposed roof rafters, false purlins, and iconic 19-by-7-foot porch are only some of the stylistic aspects that make up approximately one-third of all Craftsman homes in America.1 This home retains an abundance of its exterior and interior integrity. The home stands in the very location where it was originally built in 1922, and has excellent integrity of materials, workmanship and design. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made great efforts to restore the home to its 1920s character, and in doing so, provide a living snapshot into the past of the Fort Collins community. HISTORICAL INFORMATION This Craftsman bungalow home was constructed very likely in 1922. In September 1921, William Glenn Jackson, the vice president, advertising manager, and secretary for the Fort Collins Express-Courier (now the Fort Collins Coloradoan), purchased Lot 2, Block 2, of the Swett’s Addition to the city for $500.00.2 On June 3, 1922, Jackson obtained a ten-year loan for $3,000.00 for construction materials.3 Jackson hired Walter A. Knight, a building contractor living in Fort Collins, to build the house, and on June 21, 1922, Knight obtained a permit from the city to construct a “Five-room brick bungalow” for $4,000.00.4 William Glenn Jackson, the only son of William and Della McMillan Jackson, was born on June 5, 1884, in Ohio. By 1888 the family had moved to Colorado Springs. The younger William attended schools in the area, and, on July 18, 1907, at the age of 23, he married Grace Violet Sanders in that city. The 1910 federal census shows that Jackson had begun his newspaper career, working as a reporter in Colorado Springs. By 1918, when William registered for the draft, he and Violet had relocated to Fort Collins, and were living at 1133 Laporte Avenue. The 1920 census found them still at that address, along with their two young sons, William Frank and Glenn V. In 1922, the Jacksons moved into this Mountain Avenue residence, where they lived until at least until 1927. In 1930, the family was living in Eugene, Oregon, where William Jackson worked in newspaper advertising. Soon after, the family relocated to Estes Park. In May 1931, William G. Jackson and Dean Kirby became owners of the Estes Park Trail. Jackson bought Kirby out in August 1934. Former secretary of the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce William Dings became editor the same year. Jackson’s son, William F. Jackson, took over as the newspaper’s editor in 1938. After living in Estes Park for many years, William and Violet Jackson returned to Colorado Springs, where they remained until William’s death in 1966 and Violet’s in 1973. When the Jacksons left this Mountain Avenue home in the late 1920s, they chose to rent the property out rather than sell. Over the next nearly thirty years, at least seven different tenants lived here. The occupations of those residents ranged from lawyers and editors to gas inspectors and “sheep commissioners.” In 1942, Jackson acquired a building permit to construct a 12’ X 20’ 1 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture (New York: Knopf, 2013), 567. 2 Warranty Deed, September 16, 1921, Conveyance No. 41, Abstract of Title to Lot 2, Block 2, Swett’s Addition to Fort Collins, in possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3 Mortgage Deed, June 3, 1922, Conveyance No. 44, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, 1922 (Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1922), 85. 4 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 1027, June 21, 1922. ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 198 Revised 08-2014 Page 4 “frame one car garage” on the northwest corner of the lot; the estimated cost of labor and materials was $200.00.5 In 1947, Jackson re-shingled the home.6 In October 1949, the Jacksons sold the Craftsman home to Gordon and Evelyn Heumesser. Gordon Heumesser was employed as a steward for the Elks Club, and Evelyn Heumesser worked as a bookkeeper.7 The Heumessers remained here until 1963.8 In November of that year, they sold their home to John H. Rust Jr., a machinist, and his wife Dorothy.9 The Rusts financed their new home through the Fort Collins Federal Savings and Loan Association for $12,800.00, and remained here for five years until selling it to Robert “Bob” and JoAnne Waldron in 1968.10 The same year that the Waldrons purchased the home, they also paid $1,000.00 to construct a 22’ x 26’ two-car detached garage on the property.11 Bob Waldron, a World War II veteran, met his future wife, Joanne Bancroft in 1947, while both were working in downtown Fort Collins. The couple was married on February 22, 1948, and raised two daughters, Suzanne (Henderson) and Gwen (Feit). Bob worked at Paramount Laundry and then at Colorado State University Food Services, retiring from this position in 1972. JoAnne retired from Steele’s market in 1991, where she worked for 34 years. Bob Waldron passed away on December 6, 1999,12 and JoAnne on September 11, 2002. The current owner, Robert Bailey, purchased the home in 2001. Bailey, an ecological geographer and writer, is employed by the U.S. Forest Service.13 Since purchasing his home, Mr. Bailey has made great pains to restore it to its original 1920s Craftsman style both inside and out. “Fortunately,” he stated in an American Bungalow article he published in 2011, “the exterior needed little work.” He did, however, replace old aluminum storm windows with wood frames to fit the period, and in 2007 he paid to tear off the existing roof and replaced it with asphalt shingles.14 In an effort to “bring back the spirit of the original construction” Bailey has done extensive interior work including re-installing the original bathroom sink and toilet (which he found in the basement), removing the carpet to refinish and improve the pine flooring, and repainting much of the interior. Even much of Robert Bailey’s furniture fits the beautiful 1920s style of this beautiful brick Craftsman home.15 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1922 Architect/Builder: Walter A. Knight, Builder Building Materials: Brick, Wood Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow Description: This one-and-a-half story 1922 Craftsman bungalow home retains much of its original integrity of design, workmanship and materials, and stands as a wonderful example of the west-coast Craftsman style. The low pitched, open and front-gabled roof includes overhanging exposed roof rafters and is topped by asphalt shingles. The outer brick walls are set in Flemish bond with shiners and rowlocks facing outward. Two distinct bands of darker brick are set in a repeating pattern with only rowlocks exposed and pairs of specialty cut smaller bricks edge all corners of the main house. The lower band of rowlock bricks sits flush with the outer layer of brick as it wraps around the house, including the front porch, and forms the lintels for the basement windows. The 5 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 6968, May 6, 1942. 6 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 9851, May 12, 1947. 7 Warranty Deed, October 31, 1949, Entry No. 65, Abstract of Title; Fort Collins City Directory 1952 (Colorado Springs: Rocky Mountain Directory Co., 1952), 131. 8 See Fort Collins city directories, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963. 9 Deed, November 4, 1963, Entry No. 70, Abstract of Title. 10 See Fort Collins city directories, 1964–1968. 11 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 12395, June 10, 1968. 12 Obituary of Robert Waldron, Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. 13 Julie Estlick, “Back to Life,” Lydia’s Style Magazine, September 2008, 34. 14 City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. B0703533, June 5, 2007. 15 Robert Bailey, “The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective,” American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72–83. ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 199 Revised 08-2014 Page 5 higher-placed and corbelled band runs around the house forming the bottom sill of the first-story windows and connects with the cement cap of the porch’s wall structure. An undated addition to the kitchen on the rear (north) elevation sits on the northeast corner of the home and opens to a rear porch. The foundation is unexposed, but the base of the front and rear porches are constructed of cement. The front (south) elevation includes two open, low-pitched gables finished with shingles, one as part of the larger roof and the other covering the porch. The open and covered porch runs only a partial length of the front elevation. Its brick walls are set in Flemish bond capped by cement and lead to the front entryway. The porch’s gabled roof is supported by two brick pillars set in stretcher bond that rise from the porch’s brick walls. These pillars may have been repaired or installed sometime after the original construction, but building permits reveal no information concerning their addition. The porch’s gable has a slightly lower pitch than, and is symmetrical with, the front gable of the home and includes the exposed and overhanding rafters typical to Craftsman homes. Two decorative purlins are found below the soffits on either side of the porch’s gable. The steps leading up to the porch, along with the main entryway, is slightly asymmetrical and located just to the east of the center of the south elevation. The front entryway is protected by a glass door with wood rails and opens inward while an accompanying screen door opens outward. On either side of the front entryway are double-hung sash windows in cream wood frames that the current owner replaced after purchasing the property in 2001. The steps leading up to the porch are made of poured cement and adorned with decorative metal hand rails. Both of the east and west elevations are simple with little elaboration and continue the Flemish brick bond with the two distinctive dark-brick bands. On the west elevation four single pane windows that are nearly flush with the ground are surrounded by cream wood frames and provide light to the basement. Three double-hung sash windows and one single-pane window for the bathroom make up the first-story windows on the west elevation. Each of these windows is surrounded by cream wood frames. The three larger double-hung windows use the upper band of rowlock-patterned bricks as their sills. The east elevation bears a brick chimney set in corbelled Flemish bond before it pierces the roof, but set in standard, or running, bond there above without any corbelling or decorative patters above the roof line. This elevation bears four separate windows, one located just to the south of the chimney and three to the north. The only window located to the south of the chimney is a double-hung sash window surrounded by cream wooden frames. Like almost all other first-story windows it uses the higher-set band of rowlock bricks as its sill. The first, and smaller, of the three windows located north of the chimney is a double-hung sash window. The second window is comprised of three double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and divided by two cream wooden mullions. The third and northern-most window has its own row of dark bricks for a sill that also bear only rowlocks in a uniform pattern, but is separate from the band that extends around the entire house. This window has four lights arranged in two double-hung windows separated by a single cream wooden mullion. Two, double- pane windows are flush with the ground and, like those on the east elevation, provide light for the basement rooms. The rear (north) elevation includes the same low-pitched gable as the front also finished with shingles, but also includes a wood-frame addition to the brick structure on the northeast corner of the home. The only window on the north elevation that is set in the brick structure is located west of the addition and is a double-hung sash window set in a cream wooden frame and it also uses the higher-set rowlock band of dark bricks as its sill. The partial hipped-roof addition protrudes from the northeast corner of the home and provides additional space within the kitchen. This addition very well may have been a later addition as the current owner informed Historic Preservation department staff that when he restored the wood flooring in the kitchen he found a portion of the wall that is now covered by the restored wood floor. Its outer walls are finished with vertical wood siding without a rake and the roof rafters are open and exposed on the west and east elevations of the addition itself. The northern exposed rafters are hidden by the rain gutter than runs the entire length of the addition’s northern roof. It also bears a door with light pane and a screen door on the outside that lead out to the back porch and backyard. West of the rear entryway on the addition are two double-hung windows surrounded by cream wood frames and separated by a cream wood mullion. The back porch is entirely composed of cement and is ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 200 Revised 08-2014 Page 6 surrounded by a simple metal pipe railing. The steps to the porch are found on both the west and east sides and have since cracked away from the rest of the porch structure due to ground settling. The one-car garage included within this landmark designation is located on the northwest corner of the property and was built by William G. Jackson, then the owner of the property, in 1942. The car door faces north and opens into the alley. It is a front-gable structure with overhanging, exposed roof rafters and asphalt shingles. The four elevations are covered with light brown drop siding and all edges are protected with cream wood corner boards. The car door is symmetrical with the gable and made up of eight green wood panels and surrounded by a cream wood framework. The entryway is located on the east elevation in the southeast corner and is painted to match the car door. It has two wood panels within rails and is surrounded by cream wood framework. The east elevation includes one four-pane window with cream wood frames and a wooden sill to match. A similar four-pane window is fond on the south elevation and is slightly offset to the west from the center of the gable. The two-car garage on the property built in 1968 by Robert Waldron is located to the northeast of the home and to the southeast of the one-car garage described above. This structure is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 201 Revised 08-2014 Page 7 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Abstract of Title of Lot two (2) in Block two (2), of Swett’s Addition to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado; in Larimer County, Colorado, compiled by The Fort Collins Abstract Company. In the possession of Robert Bailey, Fort Collins, Colorado. Bailey, Robert. “The Sustainable Bungalow: Ecological Design in Historical Perspective.” American Bungalow 71 (2011): 72-83. Ching, Francis D. K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995. City of Fort Collins building permits, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. City Directories of Fort Collins, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado and Fort Collins Local History Archive, Fort Collins, Colorado. Estlick, Julie. “Back to Life.” Lydia’s Style Magazine (September 2008): 32–34. Family Search: William Glenn Jackson. https://familysearch.org Federal Census of the United States: 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1940. Accessed through www.heritagequestonline.com. “JoAnne Waldron.” (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, September 13, 2002. McAlester, Viriginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. “Robert Waldron.” (Obituary). Fort Collins Coloradoan, December 8, 1999. ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 202 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 203 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 10, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 1306 West Mountain Avenue CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Robert Bailey, Owner REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado BACKGROUND: The William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, located at 1306 West Mountain Avenue, is being nominated for Landmark recognition for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C, for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The Jackson/Bailey house is a classic example of the Craftsman style, popular in Fort Collins during the early-twentieth century, with many noteworthy architectural details. Constructed in 1922, the building’s distinctive features include varying colors of brick set in a beautiful Flemish bond, exposed roof elements, a prominent front entry, and a substantial front porch. The first of two automobile garages was constructed in 1942; as a simply designed single-car garage, it illustrates a time when many Americans were purchasing personal vehicles for the first time, and contributes to the significance of the property. The second garage, constructed in 1968, is not considered to be a historically significant element of this property, and is not included in this landmark designation. The current owner, Robert Bailey, has made extensive efforts since his purchase of the property in 2001 to restore the exterior and interior of the home, and is pursuing this Landmark designation. The property’s context is that of an early twentieth century residential neighborhood. Limited alterations to the property and to the surrounding neighborhood have helped to preserve its setting and feeling, and the Jackson/Bailey property relates to and contributes to the neighborhood’s context. COMMISSION ACTION: The Landmark Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the request for Landmark designation of the William and Violet Jackson/Robert Bailey Property, 1306 West Mountain Avenue. REVIEW CRITERIA: Municipal Code Section 14-5, Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts, provides the criteria for determining the eligibility of a property for Landmark designation. It states, “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered.” Standards for determining significance: P la nnning, Development & Transportation ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 204 -2 - A. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. B. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. C. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. D. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Context: The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 205 -3 - context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area…. ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 206 Oakwood School City Park W Oak St Pearl StC i t y P a r k D rLyons StSylvan CtJackson AveN Roosevelt AveLeland Ave N Mckinley AveSheldon DrS Mckinley AveS Roosevelt AveN Mckinley AveW Mountain Ave Laporte Ave ©1306 W Mountain Ave 1 inch = 200 feet Site ATTACHMENT 1ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 207 Front (South) and Side (West) Elevations, July 2014 Side (East) and Rear (North) Elevations, July 2014 THE ROBERT BAILEY PROPERTY, 1306 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 208 Rear (North) Elevation, July 2014 Garages facing North, July 2014 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 209 North and East Elevations, One-car Garage built 1942, July 2014 South and West Elevations, Two-car Garage built 1968, July 2014 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 210 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 211 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 212 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 213 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 214 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 215 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 216 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 217 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 218 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 219 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 220 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 221 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 222 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 223 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 224 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 225 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 226 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 227 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 228 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 229 Application Request for Variance from the Land Use Code The Zoning Board of Appeals has been granted the authority to approve variances from the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall not authorize any use in a zoning district other than those uses which are specifically permitted in the zoning district. The Board may grant variances where it finds that the modification of the standard would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the variance request must meet at least one of the following justification reasons: (1) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, including, but not limited to physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or topography, the strict application of the code requirements would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the occupant/applicant of the property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by an act or omission of the occupant/applicant (i.e. not self-imposed); (2) the proposal will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the variance is requested equally well or better than would a proposal which complies with the standard for which the variance is requested; (3) the proposal will not diverge from the Land Use Code standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered in the context of the neighborhood. This application is only for a variance to the Land Use Code. Building Code requirements will be determined and reviewed by the Building Department separately. When a building or sign permit is required for any work for which a variance has been granted, the permit must be obtained within 6 months of the date that the variance was granted. However, for good cause shown by the applicant, the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider a one-time 6 month extension if reasonable and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. An extension request must be submitted before 6 months from the date that the variance was granted has lapsed. Petitioner or Petitioner’s Representative must be present at the meeting Location: 300 LaPorte Ave, Council Chambers, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Date: Second Thursday of the month Time: 8:30 a.m. Variance Address Petitioner’s Name, if not the Owner City Fort Collins, CO Petitioner’s Relationship to the Owner is Zip Code Petitioner’s Address Owner’s Name Petitioner’s Phone # Code Section(s) Petitioner’s Email Zoning District Additional Representative’s Name Justification(s) Representative’s Address Justification(s) Representative’s Phone # Justification(s) Representative’s Email Reasoning Date ___________________________________ Signature __________________________________________ Updated 02.18.20 If not enough room, additional written information may be submitted 1306 West Mountain Ave Jeffrey J. Schneider Contractor 80521 PO Box 330 LaPorte, CO 80535 Brian & Barbara Berkhausen 1997 970-472-1113 4.7 (D)(6) Jeff@armsteadconstruction.com NCL Please see attached letter 12-29-2020 Jeffrey J. Schneider 2. Equal to or better than 3. Nominal and inconsequential Additional Justification ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 230 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 231 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 232 Site Benchmark:Project Benchmark:GENERAL NOTES:0146*5176*'#569'565%#.'Project Description:IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT CERTIFICATE:ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 233 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 234 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 235 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 236 Historic Preservation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation February 5, 2021 Mr. Ralph Shields, Chair Zoning Board of Appeals 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Request for Variance for 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, a City Landmark Dear Mr.Shields: This letter is regarding the property at 1306 W. Mountain Avenue variance request due for discussion at the Zoning Board of Appeals regular meeting on Thursday, February 11, 2021. The property in question is a City Landmark, designated by City Council on December 2, 2014, and is subject to the requirements of Municipal Code 14, Article IV. The designation includes the full property established by the parcel line, and specifically identifies both the primary residence and the one-car, c.1942 garage as historic resources. The Landmark Preservation Commission is the final decision maker on demolitions, new construction or significant alterations on designated properties. The variance request is part of a larger rehabilitation project proposed by the applicant, which will require both issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and an approved Plan of Protection in order for demolition and building permits to be issued. The LPC typically reviews projects comprehensively, and will be considering the full scope of the project, including the treatment of the existing accessory structures and the design and placement of the proposed accessory building (the subject of this variance request), alongside other proposed additions and alterations to the dwelling. At this time, please note the following: x This project has not received a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmark Preservation Commission. x Historic Preservation staff was not contacted about, or aware of, this project until the applicant submitted demolition permits for the two accessory structures on January 12, 2021. x As noted above, one of those structures affected by the variance, the one-car, 1942 garage is a protected historic structure under Municipal Code and cannot be demolished without Landmark Preservation Commission approval. x the design review process, which includes both a conceptual and final review by the LPC for the full, comprehensive project, has not been completed. x The conceptual review for this project is currently scheduled for the LPC’s March 2021 agenda and will discuss both the alterations to the primary dwelling, but also the proposed treatment and infill construction regarding accessory structures. x Based on preliminary review of the demolition permits, building permit, and Zoning Board of Appeals packet, the project does not meet the Standards in Chapter 14 and is unlikely to be approved by the LPC as submitted, due to several items that are critically inconsistent with the Standards, including: ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 237 o Demolition of the historic, one-car, 1942 garage o The size of the proposed accessory building relative to the site and to the historic structures o Substantial demolition and new construction on elevations of the primary historic residence that are highly visible from public rights-of-way that are out of scale with the historic building. Preservation staff has begun discussing alternatives with the applicant in advance of the March 17, 2021 LPC conceptual review, however, staff anticipates significant changes to this project, including the treatment of the existing accessory structures, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and subsequent issuance of building permits by the City. If you have questions, please contact us at 970-416-4250 or preservation@fcgov.com. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Historic Preservation Planner ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 238 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 239 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 240 Berkhausen Property1306 W. MountainITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5Packet Pg. 241 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5Packet Pg. 242 1306 W. MountainPictures of double-hung windows in deteriorated condition 3/2/21ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5Packet Pg. 243 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 244 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 245 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 246 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 247 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 248 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 249 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 250 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 251 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 252 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 253 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 254 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 255 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 256 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 257 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 258 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 259 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 260 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 261 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 262 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 263 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 264 1 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission - March 17, 2020 1306 W. Mountain Avenue Landmark Design Review - Conceptual 2 1 2 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 265 Role of the LPC • Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation • Provide guidance to applicant about how project can be improved to meet requirements of Municipal Code 14, Article IV 3 Property Background • City Landmark • Designated December 2, 2014 • Standards 3/C • No period of significance defined • 1922 • 1942 • House constructed in c.1922 • Garage in 1942 4 3 4 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 266 Current Review Timeline 5 • January 12, 2021: Demolition permits received for both accessory structures (holds placed, contractor contacted) • January 19, 2021: Building permit requested for main house addition/rehab • February 4, 2021: Video conference with owner and contractor to discuss key conflicts with Standards • February 25, 2021: Follow-up video conference to discuss review process Proposed Project 6 1. Exterior demolition of rear half of east wall and all of the rear wall 2. Construction of a 1,297 square foot addition onto the existing 1,021 square foot home 3. Replacement of all doors and windows on the property exterior 4. Demolition of both accessory structures on the property. 5. Construction of a new 656 square foot garage at the rear of the lot. 5 6 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 267 Proposed Alterations – Site 7 Proposed Alterations – South facade 8 • Window & Door Replacement • Addition extending elevation to east 7 8 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 268 Proposed Alterations – East Elevation 9 Proposed Alterations – West Elevation 10 9 10 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 269 Proposed Alterations – North/Rear Elevation 11 Proposed Alterations – Windows 12 11 12 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 270 Proposed Alterations – Accessory Structures 13 Staff Analysis - Overall • Project does not meet applicable Rehab Standards: • 2 – Preserve historic character • 4 – Preserve historic alterations • 5 – Preserve character-defining features • 6 – Repair first, replace in-kind if needed • 9 – Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate • 10 – Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible 14 13 14 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 271 Staff Analysis – Standards 2 & 4 • 2 – Preserve historic character – not met • Alteration of historic massing • Disruption of historic roofline visible from Mountain Avenue • 4 – Preserve historic alterations – not met • 1942 garage is an historic resource 15 Staff Analysis – Standards 5 & 6 • Standard 5 – Preserve character-defining features – not met: • Significant demolition of brick exterior walls • Standard 6 – Repair first, replace in-kind if needed – not met: • Windows appear in repairable shape; some improvements needed 16 15 16 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 272 Staff Analysis – Standards 9 & 10 • 9 – Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate – not met • Addition is too large, disrupts overall massing and roofline of the property as viewed from Mountain Avenue • New garage location requires demolition of 1942 garage • New garage design would score well with new location • 10 – Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible – not met: • Large scale demolition of historic material on historic house • Demolition of 1942 one-car garage 17 Role of the LPC • Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation • Provide guidance to applicant about how project can be improved to meet requirements of Municipal Code 14, Article IV 18 17 18 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 273 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 3-17-21 Public Comment Log for Item 8 8.1306 W Mountain Conceptual •Citizen emails/letters in support: None •Citizen emails/letters in opposition (Added to the online packet on 3/16/21): 1.Julie St Croix 2.Andrew McMahan 3.Veronica Lim 4.Gina Janett 5.Michelle Haefele 6.Eric Smith 7.Robert and Mary Ann Bjornsen (Forwarded to the Commission on 3/16/21 and added to the packet after the meeting): 8.Wiliam Jacobi 9.Laura Baily 10.Per Hogestad (Forwarded to the Commission on 3/17/21 and added to the packet after the meeting): 11.Carole Hossan 12.William Whitley 13.Nancy York 14.Kendal Stitzel 15.Kevin Cook 9a. Laura Bailey – add’l information added to #9 as #9a. (Received after cut-off on 3/17/21. Would have been read into the record at the hearing, but the item was continued. Will be included in the April packet along with all the others.) 16.Susan Peak 17.Sally Dunphy ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 274 From:Julie St. Croix To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Cc:Laura Bailey Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal Date:Sunday, March 14, 2021 6:32:34 PM Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2021, at 6:30 PM, Julie St. Croix <juliestcroix1@hotmail.com> wrote: To whom it may concern, I believe that it is important for the house at this address be preserved as a historical property. I was privileged to go on the historic home tour in 2008 with my sister Veronica Lim who lives in old town. Please reject this plan for remodeling this home. Thank you for your consideration. Julie St. Croix Sent from my iPhone ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 275 From:Andrew McMahan To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] 1306 w mountain Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 10:39:31 AM Please reject the development proposal for 1306 west mountain avenue. I believe that it is incompatible with the property's historic designation. Andrew McMahan former resident of the Carolyn Mantz Neighborhood, and current resident of a (non officially designated) historic property in north Fort Collins' GMA. 200 gregory rd, fort collins, co 80524 mcmahanaj@yahoo.com ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 276 From:Veronica Lim To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed project at 1306 West. Mountain Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 5:40:07 PM It has come to my attention that the new owners of 1306 West Mountain have intention to add an addition to the home and tear down the two garages, thus changing the home and the property significantly. I am a long-time friend of Bob Bailey, and am an Old Town resident myself. I understand his intention to preserve the home through historic designation. The home is a fine example of a 1922 historic bungalow, and sits on one of our premier historic avenues. It has even been featured in American Bungalow magazine with its small, simple design. It would be a loss to compromise the integrity of historic 1306 West Mountain. Please do not approve the proposed project! Sincerely, Veronica Lim ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 277 From:Gina Janett To:Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Comment for LPC: Please reject conceptual design and garage demo for 1306 W Mountain Ave. Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 6:41:01 PM Attachments:The Sustainable Bungalow American Bungalow Magazine.pdf Comments to LPC on Agenda Item #8 1306 W Mountain Conceptual Review of Proposed Changes I am writing as chair of Protect Our Old Town Homes to provide comments on proposed modifications to the Jackson-Bailey home at 1306 W Mountain Ave. Our group is an association of Fort Collins’ residents living in east and west Old Town neighborhoods who treasure the historical architectural character of our homes and seek to preserve them. This special home is a very important Fort Collins’ resource because it contributes significantly to the historic character of the residential corridor along W Mountain Avenue which is the heart of Old Town and beloved by both visitors and residents city-wide. The home is an excellent example of a 1920’s Bungalow cottage that maintains all the original features and materials that make it especially important as a Fort Collins Historic Landmark. The home has been toured by many historic preservation enthusiasts and local residents during both the Historic Home Tour and private tours conducted by its former owner, Bob Bailey. The home, built circa 1922, is special in part because Bailey restored and maintained the home for many years in as close to its original condition as possible, both inside and out. A tour through his home was like going back in time to the 1920’s to how Fort Collins’ early residents and our grandparents and great grandparents lived. The home even has national significance as it was highlighted as the cover story entitled “The Sustainable Bungalow” in the fall 2011 edition of the American Bungalow magazine. https://www.americanbungalow.com/the-sustainable-bungalow/. See attached article. In the story Bailey described the sustainability of the “ecological design that took the form of large eaves, deep shaded front porches, and generous patio overhangs that sheltered the home from the elements”. The brick walls and attic effectively provide insulation from heat and cold. Over the years of his ownership, Bailey painstakingly worked to undo bad remodel jobs and to restore the home’s original character from plumbing fixtures to paint colors and furnishings. He replaced old aluminum windows and doors with wood ones. As noted by the historic survey completed in 1998, the home is “a superb example of small-scale brick Craftsman dwelling.” And that was BEFORE Bailey restored it to a near original condition. But the point of the story is that the home’s design is sustainable even today and bungalows are “still prized as models of gracious, affordable living, and they have proven to be quaint but durable forerunners of sustainable residential design and construction for the 21st Century.” Because of the home’s significance to our community’s historic character, the proposal to add a very large addition to the side of the building and to demolish the 1942 garage, which was explicitly included as part of the city’s Historic Landmark designation, should be categorically rejected. The City’s staff of historic preservation professionals has provided the LPC with all the specific Secretary ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 278 of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation that the proposed design fails to meet. Protect Our Old Town Homes strongly urges the LPC to reject the proposed design because of the home’s historic character and significance that our community treasures and which provides an exemplary example of Fort Collins early homes. Gina C Janett Chair, Protect Our Old Town Homes 730 W Oak St Fort Collins, CO 80521 970 222-5896 ginaciao@frii.com Att. “The Sustainable Bungalow”, American Bungalow, Fall 2011 Edition Gina C. Janett ginaciao@frii.com 970 222-5896 Att.“The Sustainable Bungalow”, American Bungalow, Fall 2011 Edition ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 279 Attachment to Gina Janett Email ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 280 Attachment to Gina Janett Email ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 281 Attachment to Gina Janett Email ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 282 Attachment to Gina Janett Email ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 283 Attachment to Gina Janett Email ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 284 From:michelle.a.haefele@gmail.com To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Please reject proposal for Jackson-Bailey House Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:36:16 AM To: Landmark Preservation Commission I’m writing to ask that you deny the proposed alteration of the historically designated Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 W. Mountain Ave. This is an iconic house that is one of the few remaining intact examples of a Craftsman Bungalow style which was an important American architectural movement in the 1920s. Few of these houses (built following the first World War) remain in Fort Collins and this is arguably one of (if not the) best examples. Recognized by American Bungalow magazine as an irreplaceable icon, this house was featured as the cover story (written by Bob Bailey himself). The characteristics for which this house was designated as a Fort Collins landmark include it’s small size (a defining characteristic of the style), it’s simplistic rectangular footprint, the well preserved details such as the original brickwork, and the two original structures comprising the entire property. While a modest remodel might be appropriate, the one proposed is not. It is so extensive and so large that it will eliminate the historic character that the designation was intended to preserve. The size of the addition would subsume the small house. The addition on the side and back will be highly visible from the street and will overwhelm the architectural details and characteristics of the original house. The proposal would destroy most of the original exterior brickwork and the essential architectural details that characterize the Bungalow style. The 1942 historic garage (built by the original owner) was one of the explicit features protected in the landmark designation, the demolition of this garage should be denied along with the addition as proposed. As noted in the staff report, this proposed alteration fails to comply with most of the with the standards set by the Secretary or the Interior and going forward with this enormous alteration would be a grievous loss to the community. Dr. Bailey restored the home to its original 1920s style (both inside and outside) and the designation of his home as a city landmark was a great source of pride for him. This designation was a generous gift to the city of Fort Collins and should not be discarded. Please ensure that this legacy continues and that the integrity of the designation is upheld. Thank you, Michelle Haefele “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” –Plato ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 285 From:S Mondia To:Gretchen Schiager; Karen McWilliams Subject:[EXTERNAL] comment on 1306 W Mountain proposal, urging the LPC reject it Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:32:32 AM Comment to the Landmarks Preservation Commission regarding 1306 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO As a resident of West Mountain Avenue and as a supporter of the historic protection programs of Fort Collins, I am writing to comment on the proposed changes to 1306 West Mountain, a designated City Landmark, and to urge you to reject this proposal at the March 17th LandmarksPreservation Commission meeting. The assessment of the city staff is clear and fairly complete. This proposal will destroy most of the elements which made this structure eligible for designation in the first place. Beyond the individual architectural features of this home, its original size, compact form, and simple geometric shape is a key element of this structure. The proposed remodel will eliminate the very essence of this home. I want to emphasize that the damage that these proposed changes will extend beyond the physical impact on this individual home. Mountain Avenue is clearly the premier prewar historic street of Fort Collins, from the downtown, past St Thomas Church, the Avery House, the sugar beet mill era cottages, 1306, and ending at Grandview Cemetery, with the trolley running down most of its distance. The street has always been changing, architecturally, and will continue to change. But so few of the individual homes which have been afforded any recognition, let alone protection. The previous owner of 1306 chose to do the work required to have his home recognized and designated. It is the contribution that 1306 makes to this neighborhood which amplifies its value and which makes its importance really matter. I don’t fully understand the legal and administrative ramifications of a home owner seeking and obtaining City Landmark status for their home, but I’d to like think that it creates a moral, if not legal obligation for the city and the Landmarks Preservation Commission to guard the qualities of the home which made it a Landmark building. The staff report is clear that almost every thing which the current owners propose to change about this structure is incompatible with the historic elements of 1306. They are perhaps more importantly incompatible with the historic neighborhood context in which the home exists. I urge you to reject this proposal at your March 17, 2021 meeting. Eric Smith, 1216 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 286 From:pkclmbr@digis.net To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Cc:pkclmbr@digis.net; laurabailey21@gmail.com Subject:[EXTERNAL] please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:31:04 PM Having been homeowners on West Mountain Avenue since the 1970’s, we take very seriously the historical landmark designation of the City of Fort Collins. We feel this has been a significant benefit to the character of the neighborhood, as well as preserving the distinctive characteristic of this architectural type and period which allowed the 2014 designation of 1306 West Mountain Avenue as a City Landmark. The proposed additions to the side and rear of the house would be highly visible from the street and compromise everything that the historical landmark designation is designed to achieve. With so many homes on West Mountain Avenue having been renovated to the detriment of their original character, it is especially important that houses like 1306 West Mountain Avenue, be preserved. Therefore, please deny the 1306 West Mountain proposal. Robert and Mary Ann Bjornsen ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 287 From:wjacobi@fcconnexion.net To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] 1306 West Mountain Ave Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:52:36 PM Dear Landmark Preservation Commotion Members. I have reviewed all the materials provided by the city on the proposed changes to the home at 1306 West Mountain Ave. I have previously toured this home on historic home tours and found the home a perfect example of an Bungalow that has not been altered over the years. The proposed demolition of parts of this home and the addition of two-story structures to the east and north are not at all in keeping with the original bungalow structure. The home was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark because it was essentially an unaltered home. The submitted plans do not preserve the character of this home and I fully support the city review that states the plans are not acceptable. I strongly urge the Landmark Preservation Commission to deny the current plan for the home at 1306 Mountain thank you. William Jacobi 2725 McKeag Drive 40 year resident of Fort Collins ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 288 From: Laura Bailey <laurabailey21@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:39 AM To: Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com>; Gretchen Schiager <gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: A few more images for 1306 W. Mountain comments Hi Karen and Gretchen, Would it be possible/advisable to add these photos to the other two I sent and have them included in my comment materials for the Commission? If it's not overkill, I think they tell a fuller story of the condition of the home. The images I sent yesterday are great and should be included as well, but these new photos I'm sending are bit more current (from June 2020). I think it's key that there be no mischaracterizations that suggest the home, windows and 1942 garage are in anything but very good condition. So I've included an image of a window that is representative of the character of all the restored windows in the home. These window are beautiful and in good condition with perhaps a few normal imperfections from age (and with the possible exception of some paint needing be cleaned off some of the pull ropes to make closing and opening easier.) Note that the cracked window on page 245-246 of the report was actually in excellent condition when I sold the home last summer so it's impossible to know why it is cracked now. I am including an image of that window here. I've also included a current photo of the 1942 garage that the new owners proposed to demolish. It shows the garage in fine condition and quite visible and adding to the charm of the back alleyway which is also visible from McKinley. Again if this is overkill, please let me know. Otherwise I'd love to include them. Many thanks for your help. See you this evening. Laura Bailey 4731 Crest Rd., Fort Collins 970-430-9493 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 289 From: Laura Bailey <laurabailey21@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:27 PM To: Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com>; Gretchen Schiager <gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: Please reject remodel proposal for 1306 W. Mountain Dear Commission Members: I am the daughter of Dr. Robert Bailey, the community member who owned the Jackson-Bailey home on 1306 W. Mountain for almost two decades until his passing in 2019. I inherited the home and carefully cared for it until July of 2020, at which point I sold it to Brian and Barbara Berkhausen. I am also a long- time Fort Collins resident and a real estate owner with three of my own properties here in Fort Collins. I would like to provide feedback on the proposal to alter the Jackson-Bailey home and ask that you reject the proposal before you and all similar proposals in the future. I speak as a both community member and as someone intimately aware of the value and history of this home. FIrst I'll say that I believe there is plenty of room for new and old homes and large and small houses in our town and for limited remodels in Old Town under appropriate circumstances. That said, the extreme changes being proposed by the new homeowners are boldly incompatible with this home’s historic designation and the obligation the city has to honor the Interior Secretary’s standards for treatment of historic properties. The city report shows the homeowners proposal is deeply and broadly incompatible with those standards. Even a largely scaled back version of this plan would be quite incompatible. This home, a superb example of small-scale bungalow architecture, has become well known as an intact and living reminder of yesteryear. It is so special that the national architectural magazine American Bungalow featured the home as a 12-page cover story. It was also featured in a piece on historic homes in our local Style magazine and was part of the Poudre Landmarks Foundation Historic Home Tour in 2008. This publicity was based on the home and premises being authentic, intact and undiluted by excessive modern architectural changes. My father spent years ensuring the home’s authenticity and made the required effort to earn landmark protections. For that reason, among others, I considered the city’s commitment to adhering to the protective standards as an important factor when deciding to sell the home, vs. keeping it in our family. My strong expectation was that the city would not approve plans that would alter the visual aesthetics of visible portions of the home, the overall integrity of the premises and the protected 1942 garage. I would also like to attest that my realtor ensured we received acknowledgement that the new owners were aware of the historic designation before going under contract. I also personally handed them a copy of the full designation materials and chatted with them about historic designation during the closing. While I respect reasonable homeowner choice when balanced with the good of the community and immediate neighborhood, in this case the new homeowners did have the necessary information to make their choice before purchase of the home. If they felt this home was unacceptable, there were many others without historic landmark designations available on the market last summer, including many in Old Town. I can also attest that the home is in very good shape and the 1942 garage is in good working condition and also quite visible from the public alleyway where many neighborhood residents walk and jog. Older elements, such as windows, are there by design; the beautiful old glass double-paned windows were ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 290 intentionally restored to fit the period. And several prospective buyers and a realtor commented on their special beauty when the home was for sale. (Please note attached images of 1306 W. Mountain for the most accurate representation of the home and garage.) You’ll also notice something special about the lot as well. While it is narrow by today’s standards, it is green and full of nature. The architects of this home would have intended for nature to be a selling point of the design since Bungalow architects wanted to blur the lines between home and nature with the iconic deep-set patios and green space between houses and throughout the yard. The proposed additions would engulf the lot and almost completely consume the side and back yard, permanently altering the overall aesthetic of the property which is currently historically accurate. The new additions are so large, they would dominate and overshadow the original historic elements of the home and profoundly decrease the originality of materials. (Excluding the 1960s garage, the home and premises are probably about 95 percent original). Ironically, this proposal would destroy the very identifiers (the small footprint, quality brickwork, simplicity of the rectangular design, yard-to-house ratio) that makes the home an exemplar of small- scale West Coast bungalow architecture and that earned the home landmark designation in the first place. Those characteristics represent hallmarks of the Bungalow architectural movement that rejected the larger and fussier Victorian homes of the day. The preservation and designation of this gem was a gift to our community, one that has the potential to last and benefit historic Mountain Avenue for future generations while still providing a high-quality living experience for current and future owners. That gift should not be thrown away based on short- term appetites and trends. I support the commission applying the Secretary’s standards and ask that you not approve this plan or any future plans that significantly damage the aesthetics, land-to-hardscape ratio, and original historic materials of the home and historic garage. Sincerely, Laura Bailey, 4731 Crest Rd., Fort Collins ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 291 From: Per Hogestad <per.hogestad@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:41 PM To: Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com>; Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com>; Gretchen Schiager <gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: LPC hearing, 1306 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission, Karen McWilliams, Jim Bertolini, Comments to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission on the proposed modification to the Jackson-Bailey House for commission meeting of March 17,2021 Agenda Item # 8 As a former Longtime Landmark Preservation Commission member, Architect associated with the Design Assistance Program and resident of the Historic Sheely neighborhood I am interested in the preservation of our city’s past and the benefits of preservation to the city. I am concerned with the proposed addition and demolition to the locally designated Jackson- Bailey House, 1306 W. Mountain Ave. If the commission moves to final hearing on this item tonight I urge that the members vote to unanimously deny the application to construct the addition and demolition of the historic garage. In your deliberation please consider that the addition will cause the substantial loss of distinctive historic material and finishes, a loss of historic architectural form and character, and the erosion of context leading to the loss of neighborhood continuity. Further please find that the proposed addition design makes no attempt to relate to the simple rectangular plan of the Bungalow. The simplicity of understated detail of this historic structure is completely lost in the overly complex and overwhelming design. It is rare to find a structure with this level of integrity. This landmark should without question be protected as intended by the existing landmark designation status. It is unusual to be able to definitively date accessory buildings. In many cases the accessory buildings are simply included in the nomination with little documentation. Here is a dated well preserved garage that enhances the understanding and interpretation of the overall site and social context. The proposal to completely demolish this designated structure is at best a total disregard for the designation and the preservation program itself. Proposals of this degree of impact on preservation fortunately do not occur often. In this case the commission must consider the individual structure and the neighborhood impact but also the impact to the city’s landmark preservation program as a whole. Thank you for your participation in the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission and your consideration of this letter. Per Hogestad 1601 Sheely Dr. Fort Collins ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 292 From:MerryRun To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Please reject 1306 W. Mountain Proposal Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:39:49 PM I am writing to urge you to not allow the enlargement of the historic Jackson-Bailey house at 1306 Mountain Avenue. The planned addition would destroy its historic character as a small scale 1920s brick craftsman Bungalow Cottage. This small home is a jewel that was designated as a City Landmark by the Landmark Preservation Commission in 2014. Allowing the Jackson-Bailey house to be enlarged would also set a bad precedent for the enlargement of other small historic homes. The charming 1942 garage is also of historic importance and should not be demolished. Please deny the proposed project plans and all future similar plans. Sincerely, Carole Hossan 504 Edwards Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 merryrun@toadaway.net ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 293 From:William Whitley To:Gretchen Schiager; Karen McWilliams Subject:[EXTERNAL] Please reject the proposal for 1306 W Mountain Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:25:42 PM Regarding the upcoming hearing on 1306 W Mountain: I am asking you to reject the proposed conceptual and project plans for altering the home and demolishing the garages at 1306 W Mountain (item #8 on your agenda). The proposed addition is more like an appendage, and larger than the existing house. The project would require demolition of a significant portion of the original structure, and both garages. This project goes against everything the Landmark Designation was created to protect. This home was meticulously restored by the previous owner over a long period of time, in an effort to save a classic example of a craftsman bungalow cottage and promote sustainable living on a modern scale. Bob was adamant about this. The listing realtor should have taken care to explain the benefits, responsibilities, and limitations of a landmark designation; if not, it was a clear dereliction of their duty, and their responsibility to their profession and the city. This should not be just another old small house that someone can buy and then destroy because it’s too small. If you allow this, you are exposing *every other landmarked structure* in Fort Collins to the same fate. William Whitley 618 W Mountain Ave Fort CollinsCO 80521 (The Crose/Scott/Dickey House) ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 294 From:Nancy York To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:49:40 PM Landmark Preservation Commission Folks, It is inconceivable to me that this historically designated Fort Collins home, which was so expertly and thoroughly restored, would become structurally altered if approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Such a vote would besmirch the very classification of historic designation and undercut the purpose of this Commission. This particular home was legitimately recognized by American Bungalow magazine, Please honor this home and recognize the category of "historic designation.” Best regards, Nancy York ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 295 From:Kendal Stitzel To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Please Reject Proposal for 1306 W. Mountain Ave. Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:13:02 AM To the Landmark Preservation Commission: I have read about the proposed changes to the historic property 1306 W. Mountain Avenue, the so-called Jackson-Bailey home, and I urge you to reject these changes because of the huge adverse impact on a historically designated property. My concerns are as follows: The size of the addition is huge. This scale of change alters the simple and beautiful Craftsman design of the 1922 home. I am told that the house, as is, was once featured in a national architectural magazine as a fine example of this style. It would no longer be such a historic example if these changes are accepted. The large addition would dramatically alter the visual appearance of the house from the sides and even from the street, further violating the historic nature of the property. Lots of the original brickwork would be destroyed. As the owner of a historic property myself, I can attest that modern brickwork can seldom equal the qualities of the original work. Even though they were added later, at least one of the garages in the back yard was part of the historic designation, yet the proposed changes would see it torn down. This proposal seems to "mansionize" most of the historic character out of what is now a beautiful and simple example of Craftsman architecture. If the owners want a large house, it seems there are many alternatives versus destroying the historic nature of an Old Town landmark. There seems little point of a historic designation if such massive changes are permitted for designated homes. Super-sizing a historic home and destroying parts of it is not in keeping with the character of old Fort Collins or in the spirit of the property's historic designation. I hope you will keep the historic and the visual integrity of the Jackson-Bailey home intact by rejecting the proposed changes. Sincerely, Kendal Stitzel 1412 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-214-8279 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 296 From:KEVIN COOK To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Please reject 1306 Mountain Avenue proposal Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:44:38 AM To the Landmark Preservation Committee: I am writing to both ask and to encourage you to decline approval for remodeling the Jackson-Bailey House at 1306 West Mountain Avenue. I met Bob Bailey on a professional basis in 1988. Through our mutual professional interests we developed a close personal friendship that included many hours of conversation about the need to preserve aspects of cultural heritage. Many times Bob posed three rhetorical questions: How do we know how far we have come if we don’t know where we started? How do we know where we are if we don’t know where we started? Is it too much to ask to preserve by reasoned care-taking the historical character of at least one neighborhood out of hundreds? With such points of consideration, Bob worked carefully and deliberately to preserve and to maintain the house he called home and to do so by preserving the structure as a landmark by which future generations could meaningfully engage those questions. Other houses in other neighborhoods have already been modified or have gone without essential maintenance to preserve their original character. Remodeling them would fit more with the neighborhoods they are in and would not betray the good-faith efforts of a man who believed in preserving a special part of history for future generations to embrace. Remodeling the Jackson-Bailey House would destroy an element of cultural history that could never be honestly recovered. For these reasons I encourage you to decline approving the remodeling of the Jackson-Bailey House. Respectfully, Kevin J. Cook (970) 617-4455 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 297 From: Susan Peak <peakandpeak@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:37 PM To: Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bob Bailey's Mtn. Avenue Bungalow Re the expansion of this authentic house on Mountain Ave… What a pity to learn that the new owners of this gem want to move in and undo all of Bob Bailey's restoration work. I don’t understand why people buy these smaller well kept houses along the avenue and then totally remodel and expand them. Perhaps the buyers should have purchased the house right across the street…..all the room anyone could want without destroying a bit of history. Susan Peak 1415 W Mountain Ave. ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 298 1st email from Sally Dunphy: From: Sally Dunphy <sally.dunphy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:46 PM To: Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal While I respect a property owner’s right to live in a home which meets their needs, it seems to me — based on the plans for alteration — the current owners of the historic property at 1306 West Mountain would be better served had they chosen another home to purchase. I see the responsibility of any person who purchases property designed as historically significant as that of a caretaker who, in buying the property, has accepted responsibility to maintain the integrity and features of the property which give it its unique, unspoiled character. I feel strongly that this alteration of 1306 would not merely dilute, but utterly overshadow and therefore destroy the features which make this home a true example of an unspoiled bungalow. Please reject the 1306 West Mountain proposal. -------------------------- 2nd email from Sally Dunphy: From: Sally Dunphy <sally.dunphy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:57 PM To: Gretchen Schiager <gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] please reject 1306 W. Mountain proposal I was dismayed to hear of the plans to alter the home at 1306 West Mountain. I had imagined the historic designation, richly deserved for a home which has been on the local historic home tour and lavishly featured in the national architectural publication “American Bungalow”, indicated a true understanding of the significance of the home as it currently stands. The proposal I viewed would alter the scale of the home (an important aspect of bungalow architecture) and make it a mockery of the movement which inspired its design and scale. I do not mean to sound bitter, but if historic designation is a one-owner-only thing, easily circumvented, why bother? If people buying historic properties can simply treat those properties as if they’ve purchased a lot with a partial tear-down there is a problem. Please reject the 1306 West Mountain proposal. Sally Dunphy 970-217-0871 ITEM 8, ATTACHMENT 7 Public Comment - last updated 3-18-21 Packet Pg. 299