HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2022 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1
Kurt Knierim, Chair Location:
Jim Rose, Vice Chair This meeting will be held
Margo Carlock in person at Chambers,
Meg Dunn 300 LaPorte Ave and
Walter Dunn remotely via Zoom
Eric Guenther
Anne Nelsen Staff Liaison:
Vacant Seat Maren Bzdek
Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager
Regular Meeting
April 20, 2022
5:30 PM
Historic Preservation Commission
AGENDA
Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 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 Historic 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://fcgov.zoom.us/j/99525863329. (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 995 2586 3329. 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 abrennan@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 abrennan@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.
Pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 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 hybrid Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available in person at Council Chambers, online via Zoom or
by phone. Members of the public may attend in person. The online meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m.
Online participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time.
IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Members of the public that feel comfortable may appear in person at Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, and address
the Commission when recognized by the Chair.
ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at
https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/99525863329. (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 to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE:
Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 995 2586 3329. 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 abrennan@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting.
Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform, participate in
person or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to abrennan@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 Historic 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 MARCH 16, 2022
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 16, 2022 regular meeting of the
Historic Preservation Commission.
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 with Commission-pulled
items considered before Discussion Items and Citizen-pulled items considered after Discussion 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.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSION-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a Commission member will be discussed at this
time.
DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING
Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review
decisions on historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City
organization, and education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the
benefit of Commission members and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made
without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
3. COMMUNICATING THE QUEER PAST – CSU STUDENT PRESENTATION
DESCRIPTION: Staff has collaborated with Dr. Thomas Dunn, Monfort Professor at Colorado
State University and Associate Professor of Communication Studies, with his
SPCM 380.A5 class, Communicating the Queer Past. The students have been
completing research and developing a timeline for Queer history in Fort
Collins. The students will provide a summary of their project and findings and
be available to answer questions from the HPC.
PRESENTERS: Student presenters (TBD)
Dr. Thomas Dunn, Monfort Professor/Associate Professor of Communication
Studies, Colorado State University
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner (support only)
4. 113 N. SHERWOOD ST – DESIGN REVIEW: SUBSTITUTE ROOFING MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for changing a roof on a
designated property from wood shingle to a synthetic roofing product that
simulates the appearance of wood shingles. Associated fascia and gutter work
is expected. The alterations are proposed for the Boughton (Bouton) House,
113 North Sherwood Street.
APPLICANT: Devin Odell and Maria Fernandez-Gimenez, Owners
5. CARNEGIE CENTER FOR CREATIVITY, SITE IMPROVEMENTS (200 MATHEWS ST) –
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive rehabilitation of the Carnegie Center for Creativity, formerly
the Carnegie Library, at 200 Mathews, designated as part of a small Landmark
District in the southwest corner of Library Park. The project includes work to
the windows, masonry, former historic entry, new south entry, and some
sitework modifying the gate entry.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins, Cultural Services
CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda by a member of the public will be discussed at
this time.
Packet Pg. 3
Page 4
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Packet Pg. 4
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
Packet Pg. 5
Agenda Item 1
Item 1, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 20, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
STAFF
Aubrielle Brennan, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 16, 2022 REGULAR MEETING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 16, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. HPC March 16, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT
Packet Pg. 6
DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 1 March 16, 2022
Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers
Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West
Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue
Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado
Walter Dunn And Remote Via Zoom
Eric Guenther
Anne Nelsen
Vacant Seat
Vacant Seat
Regular Meeting
March 16, 2022
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Walter Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Jim Rose
ABSENT: Anne Nelsen
STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Aubrie Brennan
Chair Knierim read the following legal statement:
“We are holding a hybrid 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 as a hybrid was made in compliance with City Council Ordinance 79 2020.”
AGENDA REVIEW
Mr. Bertolini stated there were no changes to the posted agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW
No items were pulled from consent.
STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
Historic
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 7
DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 2 March 16, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
[Timestamp: 5:32 p.m.]
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2022
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 16, 2022 regular meeting of the
Historic Preservation Commission.
2. SINGLE FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 323 S. WASHINGTON AVE
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 Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC). Community residents can contact staff or attend the HPC 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.
Member M. Dunn moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent
Agenda of the March 16, 2022 regular meeting as presented.
Vice Chair Rose seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
[Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.]
DISCUSSION AGENDA
3. 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 Historic 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.
Mr. Bertolini discussed a rehabilitation project for two buildings near the corner of Linden and Jefferson
Streets. He commented on the current uses of the two buildings and discussed the extent of the
rehabilitation. He stated staff did not forward the decision to the Commission because the majority of
the work is repair work that does meet the Secretary of the Interior standards.
Member M. Dunn asked if tax credits are being used for the rehabilitation. Mr. Bertolini replied in the
affirmative.
Member M. Dunn commented on the history of the buildings.
4. THE OVERLANDER AT BALFOUR (3733 E. HARMONY) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of a five-acre site at the southeast corner of Harmony and
Cinquefoil Lane for a senior living community with independent living, assisted
living, and memory care. Project includes adaptative reuse of four historic
farmstead structures and construction of a 246,040 square-foot new building.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 8
DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 3 March 16, 2022
Development site is in the Harmony Corridor; the decision maker for this Type
2 Review will be the Planning and Zoning Commission.
APPLICANT: Balfour Senior Living, Louisville, CO
Lee Payne, DTJ Designs, Inc.
Staff Report
Senior Historic Preservation Planner Bertolini presented the staff report. He noted this is a development
review and he outlined the role of the Commission to provide a recommendation to the decision maker
regarding compliance with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. He stated the Commission is not being
asked to make that recommendation this evening as this item is to serve as more of a conceptual
review.
Mr. Bertolini discussed the proposed project which is a mixture of adaptive reuse of four historic
buildings and the construction of a large new building. The four historic structures include two
farmhouses, a barn, and a granary. He went on to detail the location of the project and discussed the
historic documentation of the property. Mr. Bertolini noted the property was found to be eligible as a
City landmark under standard 1, events and trends, specifically for agricultural history.
Mr. Bertolini discussed the proposed site plan and the proposed treatment for each of the historic
buildings.
Applicant Presentation
Michael Schonbrun of Balfour briefly introduced Balfour as a Colorado company. He discussed other
Balfour sites that have included restored historic structures and stated the company is excited to utilize
the historic structures on this site as they lend character to the development. He discussed Balfour’s
approach to combining historic structures with new development.
Lee Payne of DTJ Designs gave the Applicant presentation and showed a three-dimensional model of
the proposed development. He discussed the intent for adaptive reuse and historic preservation. He
noted the barn is intended to be restored for use by the entire community. He discussed the reasons
for bringing the historic building closer together on the site to create a village feel and detailed the
architectural elements of the new building that provide an interpretive relationship to the historic
structures.
Mr. Payne discussed the dimensions of the buildings and relationship of them to one another.
Additionally, he noted the entry signage is approximately ten feet from the southern façade of the
secondary farmhouse and is scaled to not overshadow the farmhouse.
Mr. Payne stated the landscape design will mitigate the loss of the unwell trees currently on the property
while still meeting the specific landscape requirements of the Harmony Corridor setback area. Due to
the setback requirement and significant landscape buffer, the buildings are not likely to be very visible
from Harmony Road.
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Member Guenther asked about the intended use of the farmhouse. Mr. Payne replied they will be
adaptively reused as independent living cottages.
Chair Knierim asked about the proposed use of the granary. Mr. Payne replied it is likely to be used
as a gear garage for storing chairs or pickleball equipment.
Member M. Dunn expressed support for the project and its embracing of the history of the property.
She stated she believes the moving of the structures is fine as long as the original farm context is
maintained. She asked if the new white residential building is board and batten and questioned the
use of vertical elements. Mr. Payne replied there is horizontal siding, board and batten, and two or
three color schemes to provide a mixture of materials and variations in massing.
Member M. Dunn asked if all the white on the new building is either horizontal or vertical wood. Mr.
Payne replied in the affirmative. He stated the first level has a collection of decorative shutters and
windows, board and batten to the ground, horizontal siding, and stone veneer.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 9
DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 4 March 16, 2022
Member M. Dunn asked if there is any stone on any of the historic buildings. Mr. Payne replied the
farmhouse foundations include stone; unfortunately, it is painted.
Member M. Dunn asked about the location of brick on the new construction. Mr. Payne replied the only
brick on the project will be the existing brick on the primary farmhouse which will be lightly cleaned and
repainted.
Member M. Dunn commented the Code Section 3.4.7.4 which states the new project needs to reference
one or more of predominate materials on historic resources. She stated the predominate material being
referenced appears to be the wood. She asked if there is anything on the new building that references
the studs out construction of the granary. Mr. Payne replied in the negative stating it is very difficult to
treat buildings thermally with that construction.
Member Carlock stated the vertical siding on the new building could be seen as mimicking the studs
out construction.
Member M. Dunn asked for Commissioners’ thoughts on Section 3.4.7.2 regarding stories being one
level taller than historic structures.
Member Carlock asked if the plan to paint the barn is common for barns in the west. Mr. Payne replied
the proposed color scheme picks up on the existing colors and he noted the barn changed from white
to red over time in the historic photos. Mr. Bertolini stated the paint scheme has varied over time based
on the owners and their tastes and histories.
Member M. Dunn liked the use of the whimsical sheep stating they are educational and do not affect
the historic integrity of the building.
Mr. Payne commented on the likelihood the windmill will end up being an interpretive rather than literal
component which will help draw a distinction between the old and new.
Chair Knierim suggested opening Commission discussion by starting with Section 3.4.7 and Member
M. Dunn’s concerns regarding scale and massing.
Member M. Dunn stated this area provides a good opportunity to build the density needed by Fort
Collins; however, she noted Section 3.4.7 discusses massing, building articulation, and gradual
massing transitions between new development and historic resources. Mr. Bertolini noted there will be
some interplay between this standard and density requirements from Planning staff.
Member M. Dunn commented on the appropriate transition between the Elizabeth Hotel and a one-
story historic structure. She stated the larger gap between the new and historic buildings on this site
is helpful and she commended the design for this particular site; however, she would not like to see
this as a precedent for dealing with this Code section in the future.
Member Rose stated he was not as sure the proposed design works. He expressed concern about the
proximity of the new building to the historic structures and about the new building dwarfing the barn in
size. He appreciated the fact the buildings are being restored; however, he suggested more could be
done to scale back the mass of the new building.
Member M. Dunn commented on the roof line coming down to the top of the second story, which makes
the building feel more like a two-story building.
Member Guenther expressed support for the scale and massing and commended the fact that the
historic structures are being saved and showcased. Chair Knierim concurred and stated the proposed
relocation of the historic buildings makes sense for the site layout.
Member M. Dunn asked Commissioners to discuss Section 3.4.7.1 regarding articulated similar widths.
Member Rose commented on the roof forms not being reflective of the structures on the site.
Member Carlock stated she has no issues with the gambrel roof and stated another pitched roof would
make the building look too institutional. Member Guenther agreed and commented on Fort Collins’
eclectic architecture.
Member M. Dunn stated she does not see much echoing of the widths of the houses and barn aside
from some of the side gables. She suggested the applicant look at the articulation being better aligned
with the widths of the historic buildings. She suggested moving the gambrel roofs and creating some
Harmony Road-facing gabled sections. She commented on not being able to think of any barns in Fort
Collins with a gambrel roof; however, she stated the typology fits the feel of the project. She suggested
it be used in another location on the project rather than being next to the barn.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 10
DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 5 March 16, 2022
Member M. Dunn asked Commissioners for thoughts on the window patterning. Member Carlock stated
she likes the dormer windows on the gambrel building stating they help to alleviate the massing issue.
Member Rose questioned the use of shutters stating they are not typically found on farmsteads.
Member Guenther stated the shutters are probably meant to soften the building and he supported their
use. He stated he believes Section 3.4.7 is met.
Member M. Dunn suggested changing the windows to four light windows would help better meet the
Code requirement.
Member W. Dunn stated the Code is met based on the doors.
Chair Knierim discussed the possibility of removing some of the shutters. Member Carlock replied that
would eliminate some of the symmetry. Member Rose agreed removing some of the shutters could be
an improvement.
Chair Knierim requested the Commissioners discuss materials.
Member M. Dunn commented on the Code language which states the predominant material only needs
to be on the lower story façade until any stepbacks. Additionally, she stated other colors could be used
based on the Code language.
Member Guenther noted the shutters help to soften the all-white building façade. He commented on
the wide variety of patterns used.
Member M. Dunn commented the stone helps address Section 3.4.7.3. She asked if the stone is real
or simulated. Mr. Payne replied the stone is manufactured in a field stone pattern with a variety of
colors.
Chair Knierim stated the stone fits with the overall character of the project given the thoughtfulness of
using field stone rather than a cut stone. Member M. Dunn stated the simulated stone would need to
be evaluated to determine whether it is an authentic, durable, and high-quality material per the Code.
Member M. Dunn stated she did not have any concerns about the Secretary of the Interior standards
as related to the historic buildings. Chair Knierim agreed.
Member Rose noted there was a question from staff about the fenestration on the barn, though he
stated he did not have any concerns about that as the new construction on the barn will bring it back to
a form more like the original.
Member M. Dunn commended the use of the murals as they are just paint, and they add a whimsical
farm sense. She suggested a more simple design for the barn doors as there is no evidence of what
they were originally.
Chair Knierim stated moving the buildings is not an issue as the original locations are close and moving
them does not create a false sense of history.
Member M. Dunn stated she was concerned about the entrance gate towering over the house. Mr.
Bertolini stated that item would fall under the Secretary of the Interior standard 9 dealing with design
compatibility.
Member Carlock noted those types of signs are common for ranches.
[Timestamp: 7:30 p.m.]
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 11
DRAFTHistoric Preservation Commission Page 6 March 16, 2022
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Knierim thanked Member M. Dunn for organizing the awards.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________.
_____________________________________
Kurt Knierim, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 12
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 1
STAFF REPORT April 20, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING MARCH 3, 2022 TO APRIL 6, 2022
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
INFORMATION
Staff is tasked with an array of different responsibilities including code-required project review decisions on
historic properties, support to other standing and special work groups across the City organization, and
education & outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commission members
and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC).
Specific to project review, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC), 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 HPC 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 HPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within
two weeks of staff denial.
Beginning in May 2021, to increase transparency regarding staff decisions and letters issued on historic
preservation activities, this report will include sections for historic property survey results finalized in the last
month (provided they are past the two-week appeal deadline), comments issued for federal undertakings
under the National Historic Preservation Act (also called “Section 106”), and 5G wireless facility responses for
local permit approval.
The report below covers the period between March 3, 2022 to April 6, 2022.
There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting items and events from the previous month.
Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14
Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision
5529 S. Timberline Rd
– Gill-Nelson Farm
Masonry repair on main house and installation
of 3 helical piers under south bay window. City
Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved March 15, 2022
328 Remington St –
First Baptist Church
In-kind roof replacement (EPDM membrane)
on flat roof sections only. City Landmark.
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved March 24, 2022
Packet Pg. 13
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 2
100 1st St. –
Maneval/Mason/Sauer
Property
Paint main house exterior. City Landmark.
Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14,
Article IV.
Approved March 30, 2022
817 W. Mountain Ave
–
Trimble/Taylor/Dixon
Property
Sidewalk repair/replacement (wider
dimensions). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved March 30, 2022
123 N. College Ave –
Opera House block
Roof modifications and repair to non-historic
additions along rear of property. Listed in
National Register of Historic Places in 1985.
Reviewed by staff under Land Use Code 3.4.7.
Approved April 1, 2022
250 N. Mason St –
C&S RR Freight
Depot
Route sign on west wall facing bus stops. City
Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved April 5, 2022
232 Walnut Street –
Firehouse
After-the-fact approval of a mural on the
northwest stucco wall. Contributing property to
Old Town Landmark District. Reviewed by staff
under Municipal Code 14, Article IV.
Approved April 5, 2022
246 Pine Street
After-the-fact approval of a mural on the
northeast stucco wall (installed in 2021).
Contributing property to Old Town Landmark
District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal
Code 14, Article IV.
Approved April 5, 2022
Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7
Property Address Description of Project Staff
Decision
Date of Decision /
Recommendation
Impala Village /
2240 W Mulberry
Housing Catalyst (affordable housing) project on
Impala Circle and replacement of non-
historic/relocated residence at 2240 W Mulberry
St. Reviewed by staff under Land Use Code 3.4.7.
Recommend
3.4.7
requirements
appear met.
March 9, 2022
945 E. Prospect
Rd.
Review of new fueling station on this corner (949 E
Prospect). 945 Property determined Landmark
eligible (2020). Project appears to have adequate
design compatibility and buffering to historic house
at 945. Reviewed by staff under Land Use Code
3.4.7.
Recommend
3.4.7
requirements
appear met.
March 30, 2022
112 W. Laurel St. –
College Electric
Shoe Shop
Property determined Landmark-eligible. Waiver
issued by staff to allow for ADA ramp on main,
south entry. Reviewed by staff under Land Use
Code 3.4.7.
Approved
(Waiver
granted)
April 1, 2022
Historic Property Survey Results
City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in
advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the
reporting period for any historic survey for which the two-week appeal period has passed.
Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved
Results?
Date Results
Finalized
2240 W. Mulberry
St.
Not Landmark Eligible (not significant; building
relocated) Yes 3/8/2022
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 2
Item 2, Page 3
326 Walnut Street –
Reingold House &
Store
Landmark Eligible: Ethnic History – Jewish;
Commerce; Architecture
(owner has appealed)
Yes 3/9/2022
2302 W. Mulberry
St.
Not Landmark Eligible (not significant; building
relocated) Yes 3/11/2022
2315 W. Mulberry
St. – Maul
Residence
Landmark Eligible: Architecture Yes 3/11/2022
834 E. Myrtle St. Not Landmark Eligible (not significant) Yes 3/31/2022
112 W. Laurel –
College Electric
Shoe Shop
Landmark Eligible: Architecture Yes 4/1/2022
National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued
The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services
division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings
within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement
from a federal agency.
Note: Due to changes in how Preservation staff process small cell/5G wireless facilities, staff does not provide
substantive comments on those undertakings (overseen by the Federal Communications Commission) and do
not appear in the table below.
National Historic Preservation Act – Staff Comments Issued
The City of Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government, which provides the Historic Preservation Services
division and Landmark Preservation Commission an opportunity to formally comment on federal undertakings
within city limits. This includes actions that are receiving federal funding, permits, or have direct involvement
from a federal agency.
Lead Agency & Property
Location Description of Project Staff Comment
Date
Comment
Issued
N/A
Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary
Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not
subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3)
Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer
receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower’s installation.
These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape
features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers. This report section will
summarize activities in this area.
Between March 3, 2022 and April 6, 2022, staff processed a total of 3 5G/Small Cell tower requests. All were
revised applications from previous submissions, and all were to replace existing street lights.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Presentation – To be added at a later date
Packet Pg. 15
Agenda Item 3
Item 3, Page 1
Agenda Item Summary April 20, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
ITEM NAME
COMMUNICATING THE QUEER PAST – CSU STUDENT PRESENTATION
STAFF
Student presenters (TBD)
Dr. Thomas Dunn, Monfort Professor/Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State
University
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner (support only)
INFORMATION
Staff has collaborated with Dr. Thomas Dunn, Monfort Professor at Colorado State University and Associate
Professor of Communication Studies, with his SPCM 380.A5 class, Communicating the Queer Past. The
students have been completing research and developing a timeline for Queer history in Fort Collins. The
students will provide a summary of their project and findings and be available to answer questions from the
HPC.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Student Presentation
Packet Pg. 16
4/21/2022
1
Communicating the Queer Past:
Timeline Project
Caroline Hall, Payton Donahue, Bianca Rinaldi
What is the project?
Payton Donahue
1
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 16-1
4/21/2022
2
How did we do it?
Caroline Hall
The Highlights
Bianca Rinaldi
3
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 16-2
4/21/2022
3
The Highlights
Bianca Rinaldi
11
22
55
33
44
Grace Espy Patton
LGBTQ+ party houses/safe social spaces around Fort Collins
LGBTQ+ Metropolitan Community Church
People’s Bar Fire
Founding of Sagebrush, Lambda Community Center, A Quiet
Corner
Questions?
5
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 16-3
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 20, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for changing a roof on a
designated property from wood shingle to a synthetic roofing product that
simulates the appearance of wood shingles. Associated fascia and gutter work is
expected. The alterations are proposed for the Boughton (Bouton) House, 113
North Sherwood Street.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Devin Odell and Maria Fernandez-Gimenez, Owners.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacing the
wood shingle roof with F-Wave synthetic shingle panels.
COMMISSION’S ROLE:
Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) 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 HPC 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 final design review of proposed plans and is requesting a Certificate
of Appropriateness so a Roofing Permit can be issued by the City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to request a Certificate of Appropriateness for a change of materials on the historic
Boughton (Bouton) House. Staff is recommending denial, finding that the proposed work does not meet the
Standards contained in Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Boughton (Bouton) House property was owned by Jay H. Boughton, who was admitted to the bar in 1870.
Upon relocating to Fort Collins in 1871, Mr. Boughton served as the first town attorney, the county attorney, the
county judge, the President of the Board of Education, and also served as an alderman and member of the
Fort Collins City Council. Interested in public education, he was instrumental in introducing what is reputed to
be the first kindergarten west of St. Louis and secured passage of a law incorporating kindergarten into
Colorado’s public-school systems. In 1893, Boughton turned to local architect Harlan Thomas to design his
home, an outstanding example of the Victorian Shingle Style.
On December 18, 1978, the Boughton House property, containing the main house, carriage house, and root
cellar, was individually designated on the National Register of Historic Places (5LR.465) and subsequently
listed on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties. The house was listed under Criterion B
Packet Pg. 17
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 2
(Persons/Organizations) in the areas of Education and Law, for association with Jay Boughton, and under
Criterion C in the area of Architecture as one of Fort Collins’ most distinctive examples of Shingle-style
Victorian architecture.
In describing the house, the National Register nomination notes, “The roof, covered with cedar shingles, is a
combination of hip and gable forms that has much more variety than the square floor plan of the structure
would suggest.…Important to the setting are the carriage house [now addressed as 117 N. Sherwood St.] and
root cellar located to the west of the house. Built in 1904, the carriage house is L-shaped, in good condition,
and retains its original appearance. A frame structure, it has clapboard siding and a [cedar] shingled roof with
gables. A cupola lies in the center of the roof apex. The root cellar, built before 1900, is made of native rubble
sandstone…” and as is evident from the photographs accompanying the designation, the tall gable roof of the
root cellar is also clad in wood shingles.
In 2014, Randy Everett applied to subdivide the Boughton property into a parcel containing the primary house
(113 N. Sherwood) and the parcel consisting of this carriage house and the root cellar (117 N. Sherwood). A
key concern staff expressed was the buildings would likely fall under different ownership and could potentially
be modified in ways that would erode their historic connection and weaken the property’s high degree of
significance and integrity. To allay this concern, Mr. Everett placed a restriction on the properties that requires
that any and all future exterior improvements receive a report of acceptability (a Certificate of Appropriateness)
from the City of Fort Collins, similar to City Landmarks. This restriction is recorded as a note on the approved
Project Development Plan and carries forward through any subsequent changes in ownership.
In June 2019, staff processed a request to reroof the Carriage House at 117 N. Sherwood with stone-coated
metal instead of the existing wood shingles. On September 18, 2019, the Landmark Preservation Commission
denied that request, requiring the installation of wood shingles. At the time, the availability of wood shingles
and design differences between saw-cut wood shingles and the stone-coated metal product were the primary
factors in the LPC’s rejection of the substitute material. Concern about inconsistency between the Carriage
House at 117 N. Sherwood and the primary Boughton residence at 113 N. Sherwood was also a concern.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
Character-defining features for this property are not discussed in the nominating ordinance. Staff is recommending
the following features be considered character-defining:
Rectangular footprint and massing with two full stories and a half attic with expressed gables and
dormers, with the east/primary elevation divided into three vertical sections, two gable sections
flanking the entranceway.
Distinctive front porch that wraps around to the south elevation, including a pediment over the
centered entry and large Doric columns, with a second-story enclosed porch above the entry with
multi-light wood windows.
Wood sash windows, generally one-over-one throughout, generally paired or in sets, along with
Palladian windows in both of the 2.5 story attic-level gable ends.
Cedar shingle-clad hipped roof with a central gable-roof dormer with decorative ventilation and multi-
light wood window.
Wood shingle siding interrupted by bands of solid horizontal wood siding
Sandstone foundation.
Packet Pg. 18
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 3
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD (FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY ARCHIVES):
H05826, C.1895, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/34385/rec/4
H08539, C.1895, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/34386/rec/5
Packet Pg. 19
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 4
H01875, 1924, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/34388/rec/13
ALTERATION HISTORY:
Known alterations to the Boughton House to date include:
1893 – house constructed with design by local architect Harlan Thomas
1924 – remodeling & repairing for bathroom
1931 – reshingle porches
1932 – repair baron on rear of lot damaged by felled tree
1936 – remodeling
1937 – 18x20 frame addition to barn (carriage house)
1949 – reshingle house
1953 – fence rear yard
HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW:
Since the development plan approval, this property has undergone comparatively little design review on the
main house, with most design review on the separate carriage house at 117 N. Sherwood:
2017 – 117 N. Sherwood (Carriage House) – Comprehensive rehabilitation for conversion to single-
family dwelling
2019 - 117 N. Sherwood (Carriage House) – Reroof – Wood shingle to stone-coated metal denied;
later approved for in-kind wood replacement.
HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES:
The property appears to have leveraged the Colorado Historic Tax Credit over 1996-1997 to rehabilitate the
Carriage House prior to subdivision. The property does not qualify for local financial incentives as it is not a
City Landmark.
Packet Pg. 20
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 5
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a final design review for the following items:
1. Replacement of the wood shingle roof with F-wave plastic polymer product to simulate the existing
wood shingle roof.
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Staff has been discussing this project with the applicant/owner for some time, including correspondence over
early 2022 that has been included in the HPC packet. Key questions staff has asked of the applicant include:
Regarding primary historic preservation concerns:
- How well does the new product replicate the texture, design, and visual features of the historic material
(wood)? Does this change based on distance (i.e., 1-story, easily visible roof vs. 2-story mansion like
the Bouton House)?
o Staff observed the only other known installation of F-wave on an historic building in Fort
Collins at 220 E. Elizabeth in the Laurel School Historic District. The product scores generally
well on shape and texture. However, it presents two key issues in terms of replicating the
historic material: first, it tends to “shine” to a small degree in bright, direct sunlight (this may be
mitigated by a well-shaded property); and second, like most substitute materials, the color is
noticeably too uniform compared to wood shingle materials. In consultation with other
jurisdictions including the Denver Landmarks Commission, which has already approved
several substitutes for wood shingle roofs, distance from viewable areas appears to matter a
great deal with these substitutes, whether they are metal, asphalt, or a plastic polymer. The
220 E. Elizabeth property has a smaller setback from the sidewalk, and is a one-story cottage
– upon close inspection, the roofing is a close substitute but is recognizable as a substitute
plastic roof and not wood shingle. An installation on the Boughton House may be less easily
identified since the roof is on the second floor, and building set back significantly more from
Sherwood Street.
- How does the product perform in terms of building health concerns like heat gain in the attic, attic
ventilation & insulation, etc.?
o Product specifications have been included from the applicant
- How is the product repaired if an isolated section (i.e., 1-2 panels) is damaged but the rest of the roof
is intact?
Regarding ancillary concerns (i.e., not specific to historic preservation)
Polymer products, like asphalt, typically have a higher environmental cost to produce compared to
traditional wood shingles – how does this product compare in terms of environmental footprint to
produce per unit/square?
o Research here is highly dependent on the product selected, and must be measured against
expected/proven longevity of the product. In terms of longevity, F-wave remains unproven due
to its limited installation and short time on the market.
[Staff] expect concerns from the HPC about the advertised “self-healing” nature of the product – since
preservation is concerned with long-term building health, part of the concern here is this sounds like a
product that performs very well in the short term but it may break down in the long run. Any projections
on long-term aesthetics or performance will be helpful.
As with all substitute products, there will be concern about the likelihood of recycling the product at the
end of its service life.
o Staff conferred with recycling professionals in the region, including the City of Fort Collins
Environmental Compliance specialists dedicated to waste diversion. Recyclability around
roofing materials is a quickly evolving topic, with the likelihood of any roofing materials being
recycled under current conditions being low. Wood cannot be recycled/downcycled due to the
Packet Pg. 21
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 6
fire-retardant treatment required by Code and must be landfilled. Colorado does not have
active recycling of asphalt products, which are also landfilled (and constitute one of the largest
contributors to landfill waste in Larimer County). Clean metal products can be, and usually are,
recycled, although stone-coated metal complicates this due to the asphalt coating and level of
contamination (no more than fifty percent contamination can be accepted by most scrap metal
recyclers). The F-Wave product, as a plastic polymer, claims to be recyclable and may be as a
plastic polymer, but the market for, and facilities in which to complete, that recycling remain
limited.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
1. How does this case compare with the rejection of stone-coated metal on the Carriage House in 2019?
o In terms of staff analysis and recommendation, there is not a significant difference between
the 2019 carriage house request and this request for the main residence. Staff is
recommending denial for the same reasons (Standards do not appear to be met in relation to
substitute materials and the building’s character-defining features).
o However, what staff did not include in 2019 and is including now, is more context about the
difficulties of roofing historic buildings as climate change increases in severity in the twenty-
first century. Staff has completed a significant amount of research and consultation with
partners and City staff in Building Code, waste diversion, sustainability, etc., and
acknowledges the hardships associated with preserving certain roof types. For that reason,
staff is highlighting the Waiver of Conditions option in Sec. 14-5 as an option for the HPC. This
will likely lead to a similar approach in the near future for the Carriage House at 117 N.
Sherwood.
2. Is more information available from F-Wave about the chemical makeup, fire rating, etc. for their
product?
o Yes, the F-Wave website provides significant information regarding the performance of their
product under certain conditions. Those details are available in video format, here:
https://fwaveroofing.com/videos/, including videos on hail testing, wind testing, fire testing, and
scratch testing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY
At the time of drafting this staff report, no public comments have been received. The property has been posted.
One request for information was received via phone on April 13.
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 that the most relevant review criteria
under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 5, and 6.
As noted in National Park Service Brief 16 regarding the Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building
Exteriors, in general, four circumstances warrant the consideration of substitute materials:
1. The unavailability of historic materials;
2. The unavailability of skilled craftspeople;
3. Inherent flaws in the original materials;
4. Code-required changes;
In this case, none of the four circumstances appear to be met. Fire-treated wood shingles are available
although the cost is significantly higher, in both material and insurance costs, than other roofing materials.
Larimer County has several roofers qualified to install wood shingle roofs to a Class A fire rating required by
the Chief Building Official and Municipal Code. Wood shingle roofs do not have inherent flaws and are typically
slightly more durable than the more common asphalt shingle roofs – they do however still pose an increased
Packet Pg. 22
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 7
fire risk as opposed to other roofing materials. Finally, at this time, the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, and
Poudre Fire Authority have no immediate plans to ban the use of wood shingle roofs. However, the possibility
that such a move is made in the future, either to mitigate fire risk or in an effort to reduce construction waste
from roofing, remains a possibility. Other jurisdictions in northern Colorado, such as Boulder County have
banned the use of wood shingle roofs, largely due concerns of fire risk.
The City of Fort Collins adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards of the Treatment of
Historic Properties both as a requirement to maintain a federal certification for the City’s historic preservation
program and as a way to establish a consistent and predictable methodology for how exterior projects can be
approved on City Landmarks. With adaptive reuse being the most common treatment of historic buildings in
Fort Collins, almost all projects, including this one, are reviewed under the Standards for Rehabilitation. Those
Standards, and their accompanying, recently updated guidelines from the National Park Service, provide a
framework for decision-making that recommends certain types of actions and recommends against certain
types of actions, based on the historic significance of a property and the needs arising from the modern use of
that property. The Standards are intentionally not prescriptive in approach due to the diversity of historical
significance, diversity of historic features, and broad range of potential project types that may come forward for
review. The Standards instead create consistency and predictability through a standardized decision-making
process that preserves the essential historic characteristics and features of a property while accommodating
changes both minor and major on an historic property.
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 building retains its historic use as a single-family 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 cedar shingle roof is identified in the 1978 National Register
nomination as a distinctive feature of the building, which will generally be
the case with well-preserved Shingle-style buildings. In this case, care must
be taken to ensure a substitute material reasonably reflects the historic
material in all other aspects, specifically appearance (color & texture),
physical properties, and performance expectations. While the F-wave
product appears comparable to wood shingle roofing in terms of its
physical properties, and performance, and in some aspects of appearance
(dimensions), it performs poorly on color and texture.
N
SOI #3
Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
N/A
SOI #4
Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved. N/A
Packet Pg. 23
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 8
SOI #5
Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard, which is
unambiguous regarding retention of historic materials, stating that
distinctive character-defining features, including their materials and
construction techniques, “will be preserved.” The applicant’s proposal to
change the roof’s materials do not preserve the property’s distinctive
materials and finishes as defined in the 1978 National Register nomination,
and as appropriate historic materials are available, does not meet the
standard.
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.
Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard. Standard 6
provides requirements that materials match as closely as possible the
historic roof in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. While
the F-wave product may be similar in its design, closely matching the
visible dimensions of a wood shingle roof, the proposed change of
materials does not meet the standard. Staff observation of other
installations suggests that the F-wave product does not appear sufficiently
similar in color and texture to wood shingle roofing to meet the Standard.
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. 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.
N/A
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 proposed synthetic roof is reversible and could be removed in the
future without impairment to the historic building.
Y
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY
N/A
Packet Pg. 24
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 9
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In evaluating the request for the roof replacement with substitute F-wave product at the Boughton House at
113 North Sherwood Street, staff makes the following findings of fact:
The property at 113 N. Sherwood Street was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on
December 18, 1978.
As a result of subdivision of the property, the City of Fort Collins approved the Bouton House
Subdivision plat which includes Historic Preservation notes recorded on the approved site and
utility plan, approved June 24, 2015.
The proposed project for roof replacement of the existing wood shingle roof with an F-wave
plastic polymer at the Boughton House at 113 N. Sherwood Street appears not to meet the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff cannot recommend the approval of the F-wave product for this property as the Standards for
Rehabilitation and supporting guidelines do not appear met sufficiently to approve the substitute.
The Commission may consider a Waiver of Conditions under the provisions in Sec. 14-5 of Municipal Code.
Such waivers require that at least one of the following conditions be met:
1. The requested waiver is the minimum necessary to accommodate exceptional physical conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the affected property, which may include, but
are not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography,
and such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; and/or
2. The requested waiver as submitted will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of this
Chapter except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance the purposes of
this Chapter.
The HPC is required to support such a decision with specific findings regarding the information above.
SAMPLE MOTIONS
This is being presented to the Commission as a Final Design Review. The Commission may consider a motion
to approve, approve with conditions, or deny.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the
proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with F-wave plastic polymer at the Boughton House at 113 North
Sherwood Street 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 Historic Preservation Commission
approve the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with F-wave plastic polymer at the Boughton House at
113 North Sherwood Street 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 Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for
approval for the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with F-wave plastic polymer at the Boughton House
at 113 North Sherwood Street as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Standards for
Rehabilitation.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF A WAIVER OF CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation
Commission approve a waiver of conditions under Municipal Code 14-5, permitting the proposal to replace the
wood shingle roof with F-wave plastic polymer at the Boughton House at 113 North Sherwood Street as
presented, finding that, although the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Packet Pg. 25
Agenda Item 4
Item 4, Page 10
Rehabilitation, the project does meet the criteria for a Waiver of Conditions, specifically that [please specify the
criteria along with any supporting justification]:
(1) The requested waiver is the minimum necessary to accommodate exceptional physical conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the affected property, which may include, but
are not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography,
and such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; AND/OR
(2) The requested waiver as submitted will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of this
Chapter except in nominal and inconsequential ways and will continue to advance the purposes of this
Chapter.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the application for re-roofing the Boughton
Carriage House at 113 North Sherwood Street with a synthetic material, finding that there is no basis for
approval based on the following findings of fact:
That the Boughton House is subject to review by the Historic Preservation Commission and
compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation by virtue of a recorded note on the PDP for the
subdivision;
That the proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, because it fails to
satisfy all applicable Standards for Rehabilitation, as required for approval. Specifically, the proposed
work fails to meet Standards 2, 5, and 6;
That wood shingles that would closely match the existing wood shingles in materials, texture, design
and appearance are available for purchase; and
That wood roofs are currently allowed on historic properties and comply with the City’s building codes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. National Register Nomination (1978)
2. Subdivision Plat, including Site & Utility Plan w/ Preservation notes
3. Applicant submission materials
4. Relevant correspondence between applicant and City staff
5. Staff Presentation
6. Applicant Presentation
Packet Pg. 26
Form No. 10-300 REV. (9/77)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
A3 s
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
FOR NFS USE ONLY
received
_OCT ^ 1978DATE ENTERED utC i f B78
SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN //OW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS
TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS
Qname
HISTORIC
Jay H. Bouton House
AND/OR COMMON
Hlocation
STREETS NUMBER
113 North Sherwood Street —NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CITY, TOWN
Fort Collins
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
___VICINITY OF 4
STATE
Colorado CODE COUNTY CODE08 Larimer 064
'1
■I
CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORY
—DISTRICT
-Xb UILDING(S)
—STRUCTURE
—SITE
—OBJECT
OWNERSHIP
—PUBLIC
]Lpr ivat e
—BOTH
PUBLIC ACQUISITION
—IN PROCESS
—BEING CONSIDERED
STATUS
J?OCCUPIED
—UNOCCUPIED
—WORK IN PROGRESS
ACCESSIBLE
—YES: RESTRICTED
-Xy ES: unr estricted
—NO
PRESENT USE
—AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM
—COMMERCIAL —PARKX,—EDUCATIONAL ^iPRIVATE RESIDENCE
—ENTERTAINMENT —REUGIOUS
—GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC
—INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION
—MILITARY —OTHER:
OWNER OF PROPERTY
NAME
Mr. & Mrs. J. Golden Tavlor y
STREETS NUMBER
113
CITY, TOWN
Fort Collins VICINITY OF
STATE
Colorado
LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COURTHOUSE.
REGISTRY OF DEEDS,ETC.Larimer County Courthouse
STREETS NUMBER
200 West Oak Street
CITY, TOWN
Fort Collins
STATE
Colorado
REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS
TfTLE
Colorado Inventory of Historic Sites
DATE
(35/07/0002)
Ongoine —FEDERAL iisTATE —COUNTY —LOCAL
DEPOSITORY FOR
SURVEY RECORDSColorado Historical Society; 1300 Broadway
CITY, TOWN --.
Denver
STATE
Colorado 80203
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 27
DESCRIPTION
CONDITION
EXCELLENT
—GOOD
—FAIR
-DETERIORATED
—RUINS
—UNEXPOSED
CHECK ONE
JkjNALTERED
—ALTERED
CHECK ONE
Jk)RIGINALSITE
—MOVED DATE-
DESCRIBETHE PRESENT ANDORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
Located on a beautifully landscaped lot at 113 North Sherwood Street in Fort Collins,
the Jay H. Bouton House is a fine exam ple of Victorian Shingle Style architecture.
The structure itself is a single detached building m ade of wood over a balloon fram e.
The building is basically square in shape with two full stories and a half attic
expressed in gables and dormers. The front of the building is divided into three
vertical sections—two gable sections fram ing the entrancew ay. A portico signifies
the main entrance and the enclosed protruding porch above. Of special note in the
ground floor porch are the Doric colum ns, the decorative urn finials used in the
balustrade, and the clock in the center of the portico. The triangle of the two
gable ends which are decorated with Palladian windows are echoed by the sm all tri
angular dormer in the roof. Each floor is expressed by an overhang that extends
beyond the floor below. The roof, covered with cedar shingles, is a com bination of
hip and gable forms that has much more variety than the square floor plan of the
structure would suggest. The striking impression the building presents is created by
the use of wood, and the variety and shapes of the windows, porches, and decorative
elem ents.
The Interior has three floors and a partial basem ent which create over 4000 square
feet of living space. The main floor includes a large entrance hall, dining room ,
living room , kitchen, breakfast nook, and bathroom . A central stairway leads from
the entrance hall to the second floor. Off the central hall are four bedroom s, two
bathroom s, and a sun room . The stairway continues to the third story which has four
room s, one in each gable. The basem ent' is reached through an outside entrance and
has three room s plus a bathroom and furnace room . The ceilings are ten feet high on
the first floor, nine feet on the second, and eight feet on the third. The original,
narrow, pine floors are in excellent condition, and the woodwork in the dining room ,
entrance hall, and stairway have the original unpainted appearance.
Im portant to the setting are the carriage house and root cellar located to the west
of the house. Built in 1904, the carriage house is L-shaped, in good condition, and
retains its original appearance. A fram e structure, it has clapboard siding and a
shingled roof with gables. A cupola lies in the center of the roof apex. The root
cellar, built before 1900, is m ade of native rubble sandstone set in a random pattern
with mortar. An outside stairway leads down to the entrance along the south facade.
ed. JEF 6/78
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 28
El SIGNIFICANCE •-j'
PERIOD
—PREHISTOHIC
—1400-1499
—1500-1599
—1600-1699
—1700-1799
X.1800-1899
2Ll900-
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE - CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW
—ARCHEOLOGY-PREHISTORIC
—ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC
—AGRICULTURE
J^ARCHITECTURE
—ART
—COMMERCE
—COMMUNICATIONS
—COMMUNITY PLANNING
—CONSERVATION
—ECONOMICS
J^EDUCATION
—ENGINEERING
—EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT
—INDUSTRY
—INVENTION
-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREXlaw
—LITERATURE
—MILITARY
—MUSIC
—PHILOSOPHY
—POLITICS/GOVERNMENT
—RELIGION
—SCIENCE
—SCULPTURE
—SOCIAiyHUMANITARIAN
—THEATER
—TRANSPORTATION
—OTHER (SPECIFY)
SPECIFIC DATES 1895-present BUILDER/ARCHITECT John C. Davis/Harlan Thom as
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Bouton House is significant for its association with both Jay H. Bouton, an
important attorney, politician, judge, and businessm an in northern Colorado; and
Harlan Thom as, an important western architect in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. The structure is also notable.for its outstanding architectural
features and fine craftsm anship.
Jay H. Bouton played an active role in Colorado for more than half a century. He
cam e to Fort Collins from Cortland, New York, in 1872. He opened a law office upon
his arrival, but he soon m ade his mark elsewhere. Almost immediately, he becam e
secretary of the town, then city attorney, city alderm an, and member of the city
council. Interested in public education, he served eighteen years as president of the
school board; during this time he was instrum ental in introducing what is reputed to
be the first kindergarten west of St. Louis, and he played a role in securing passage
of a law incorporating kindergarten into Colorado's public school system . During
these years Bouton held several judgeships, the most important being the six-year term
he served as Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, which included five counties in
northern Colorado. He also invested in real estate in and around Fort Collins and
joined F.C. Avery and C.R. Welch in developing the O pera House Block and the Welch
Block, both now pending inclusion in the National Register as properties contributing
to the Old Town Historic District in Fort Collins.
It was in 1893 that Bouton turned to Harlan Thom as to design a hom e in Fort Collins.
Thom as was a local architect so young that he would not graduate from Colorado
Agricultural College (now Colorado State University) for another year. Bouton's
choice proved fortuitous for Thom as was on the threshold of an exceptional career in
architecture. After designing the m agnificent shingle style structure for Bouton,
Thom as left Fort Collins to open a practice in M ontclair, then a suburb of Denver.
He served three terms as mayor of M ontclair, then moved on to Seattle, Washington,
where he ultimately becam e Director of the School of Architecture at the University
of Washington. His Corner Public Market Building is now listed in the Register as
part of the Pike Place Public Market Historical District.
Architecturally, the Bouton House is a fine exam ple of the Victorian Shingle Style.
While builders erected m any such structures in the East, they built com paratively few
in Colorado. The aesthetically pleasing lines, fine landscaping, and excellent
craftsm anship make this one of Fort Collins' most distinguished hom es.
ed. JEF 6/78
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 29
Imajor bibliographical references
Hartshorn, Helen. Fort Collins, Colorado. Interview. April, 1977.
Scully, Vincent J. The Shingle Style. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955.
Swanson, Evadene. "Bouton Solid Part of County," Triangle Review (Fort Collins,
Colorado), October 24, 1974.
Colorado
1911.
. Fort Collins, Colorado: T
QUADRANGLE SCALE 1:24000
b | , 1 1 1 1 1 . , 1 1 . 1 . 1 . , 1
ZONE EASTING NORTHING
d I , 1 1 . 1 t 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 I 1
F 1 1 1 1 . . 1 . 1 1 . . 1
h 1 1 1 !Mil 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
EJgeographical data
ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY.0.75 acres
QUADRANGLE NAME Fort Colllns. Colorado
UTM REFERENCES , r;
! "1 -'I 1 1 '1 '-'1 1 '1 '1 ^1
ZONE 1
1 1
EASTING NORTHINGLl1 1 1 1 11 1 .. 1 . . 1
1 . 1 u < 1 , . 1 1 .I 1 . 1 1
LJ 1 1 1 1 1 , I 1 I 1 i
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
East 92 feet of north 50 feet of lot 1, all of lot 2, and that part of lot 9 east of
Arthur Ditch. All in Block 61 in the city of Fort Collins, Colorado.
LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
[FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE
Miriam T. Hoff / graduate student nORGANIZATION
Colorado State University
DATE
February 1, 1978
STREETS NUMBER
747 Ada.nis Av0nu0
TELEPHONE
(303) 669-3255
CITY OR TOWN
Loveland
STATE
Colorado
Estate historic preservation officer cer t ifica t ion
THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS:
LOCAL XNATIONAL.STATE.
As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), I
hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the
criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park S^
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNATURE
TITLE
State Historic Preservation Officer
DATE October 13, 1978
FDR NPS USE ONLY
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
%EPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER
DATE
ATTEST:DATil-'
GPO 921 803
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 30
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 31
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 32
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 33
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 34
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 35
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 36
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 37
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 38
TELEPHONE REPORT
O ffice of A rcheology and H istoric P reservation
P roject;
To /From : W fjjj^D ate : /V'i/75'
A ddress: C^.
S taff M ember :
Phone:39V
Division :
Repor t :
UTM _
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 39
ENTRIES IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
STATE COLORADO
Date Entered JS-
OECIS B78
Nciroe Location
Colorado National G uard Armory
Bouton, Jay H., House
Golden
Jefferson County
Fort Collins
Larimer County
Vail Hotel
Highland School
Spring Valley School
Pueblo
Pueblo County
Boulder
Boulder County
Larkspur vicinity
Douglas County
Also Notified
Honorable Gary W. Hart
Honorable William L. Armstrong
Honorable Timothy E. Wlrth
Honorable Jam as P. (Jim) Johnson
Honorable Ray Kogovse
Honorable Ken Kram er
State Historic Preservation Officer
Mr. Arthur C. Townsend
Colorado Heritage Center
1300 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80203
L Byers/bjr 1/11/79
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 40
NATIONAL REGISTER DATA SHEETJtNATJE iis it appnars on federal register: Bouton, Jay H., HouseNiTimi lUisni Hdioiic fiistituttt3ns................-^ l-t.'CA'l'iON.t& number113 N. Sherwood St^_______Xcity / town^OTHER names.of *‘rYt r V 1[/^county co^*-. _ 0£C 18 1Q7R064-vicinity ofstatecounty1 w' ,1sno__ LarimerIMid ContinentI OVWNt RME aMONICIPU nCOUNTY OtIUUIPlE nfEOERAL iJien:® EXISMnc, :u <vt y;- □HIBS PHiER □NHl|@PONPEP'? DYES □no]^CONC.r ess. DISTRICT 4^WITHIN MTilNM Httrwre ukomadk? n m. ■istmSOURCE of NOMINATION® administrator□ STATE □ FEDERAL.(^CONDITION□ excellent□ good□ fair□deteriorated□ruins□ unexposed□ unexoavated□ altered□original site□ unaltered□ moved□reconstructed Punknown□excavatedII stale who prepareci loim '□local DPRIVATE ORGAmZATIQN(^features: ^□SUBSTANTIALLY INTACT-1 ^DSUBSTAMTIALLY INTACT-2 ^asUBSTAMTIALLY INIACT-3QGnot imtact-o 2g not INIACT-O“□UNRNOlNN-4 “□UNKMOlNN-5 50 UHRNOYIIN-6SPNOT APPLICABLE-8 ^ □ **0T APPLICABLE - 9OPNOT INTACT -OBSPNOT APPLICABLE-7 lAOAPTIVE USE OTES PNoI^SAYED? DYES | ISpr oper t y a histor ic DlSTRICT?PyesPno(^ACCESS □ YES - Restf icied □ YES-Unrestricted□No Access □Unknown@ AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE :□ ARCHEOLOGY-preliisloric-2 DCOMMERCE-B□ ARCHEOLOGY-historic-1□AGRICUlTURE-3□ARCHITECTURE-4□ART-5□COMMUNICATIONS-?□CONSERYATION-i□ECONOMICS-9□EDUCATION-10□ENGINEERING-II□ENTERTAINMENT-26□EXPLORATION -12□HEALTM-27□INDUSTRY-13□INYENTION-14□LANDSCAPE ARCH.- 15□LAW-16□LITERATURE-1?□MILITARY- 18□MUSIC- 19□PHILOSOPHY-20□POLITICS/GOYT.- 21□ RECREATION -28□RELIGION-22□SETTLEMENT-29□SCIENCE- 23□ URBAN PLANNING-31□SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN-24 □ OTHER (SPECIFY)□SOCIAL / CULTURAL-30______________□TRANSPORTATION-25 _______^CLAIMS: explain ^first’G‘oldest’□ ‘only’ □^functionsWHEN HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT:CURRENTLY:^dates tl initial canstrnctiH: major altaratiint:Hittaric a«ant$:A ETHNIC GROUP^ASSOCIATION^architectural style(s):^architect:^master builder:^engineer:^landscape architect / garden designer:^interior decorator:^ artist:partisan:^builder/contractor:j^NAMES give role A date'^PERSONAL:EYENTS:INSTITUTIONAL:^NATIONAL REGISTER WRITE-UPreviewersinitiels.IIPADDITIONALSPACENEEDEDNUMBERtPUTONREVERSEIITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 41
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 42
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 43
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 44
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 45
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 46
Colorado Native Roofing & Exteriors
Phone: 970-888-1699
Company Representative
Tom Stoffel
Phone: (970) 888-1699
tom@coloradonativegc.com
Colorado Native Roofing
& Exteriors Scope of
Work
03/24/2022
Remove & replace existing roof and gutter systems.
Devin Odell
113 North Sherwood Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970) 231-6725
Job: Devin Odell - Roofing & Gutters
Colorado Tough Roofing System™
Remove existing roof and install an all-new Colorado Native™ Colorado Tough Roofing System™. Built to our BuiltRight Roofing System™
Standards - to or above local building code and manufacturer specifications, and Colorado Native™ standards. Includes class 4 IR F-Wave
Hand-Split Shake Synthetic Shingles and a custom tailored Lomanco® ventilation system.
Pre-Production:
- Hang Catch-All® nets around home.
- Lay down drop nets around home.
- Move or cover furniture and mechanical units with nets.
- Cover all gardens and/or move plants away from home.
Production:
- Remove all existing roofing material down to decking.
- Re-nail or remove all nails and re-nail any loose decking.
- Inspect all decking for dry or rotten sheets, or skip decking. Any decking needing to be replaced will be re-decked at current market value.
- Install 2 courses of Malarkey Arctic Seal® Ice & Water Shield on all eves and one course on all rakes, valleys and around all penetrations.
- Install RhinoRoof® UDL20 Synthetic Underlayment (UDL 30 on all steep slopes) to keep roof dry and the crew safe.
- Install powder coated galvelume gutter apron and rake flashing on all eaves and rakes respectively.
- Install F-Wave REVIA Designer Starter along all eves and rakes.
- Install F-Wave REVIA Hand-Split Shake per manufacturer specifications and Colorado Native standards, using 1¼” roofing nails, 6 nails per
shingle for highest wind rating.
- Install F-Wave Revia Hand-Split Shake Hip and Ridge cap.
- Install Mule-Hide Base Sheet on low slope section.
- Install Mule-Hide Cap Sheet on low slope section per manufacturer specifications and Colorado Native standards.
- Install all Lomanco ventilation to “Ventilation Diagram” specifications in order to maintain all manufacturers warranties (if applicable).
- Install all new bathroom vents, pipejack boot flashing, chimney flashing, and furnace vents (if applicable).
- Paint all roof accessories to customers chosen color (if applicable).
Post-Production:
- Clean up all job site nets.
- Clean property of all debris and nails.
- Replace all moved furniture.
Warranty:
- All REVIA Synthetic Roofing Shingles come with the WeatherForce™ Advantage — 50 years of warranted coverage which includes 15 years of
non-prorated material and labor coverage against manufacturing defects, along with installed performance coverage that includes 15 years of
non-prorated material and labor coverage for 130-mph Wind Resistance and 5-Year Class IV Hail Impact Resistance for single-family detached
homes. The WeatherForce Advantage Standard Product Limited Warranty also provides limited coverage for Algae Resistance and Color Fade
Resistance. Read the full WeatherForce Advantage Standard Product Limited Warranty for specific warranty terms, limitations and coverage
periods.
- Colorado Native LifeTime Workmanship Warranty
Qty Unit
Materials
F-Wave™ REVIA™ Hand-Split Shake
Combining the elegant look of shake with REVIA performance, REVIA™ Hand-Split Shake shingles are
even better than the real thing. They’re incredibly durable and cost far less than typical hand-split wood
shakes. It’s the perfect combination of a natural shake look with the long-lasting performance and
beauty of REVIA™ Synthetic Shingles.
53.20 SQ
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 47
Tech Spec's:
- TAS-100 - Wind-Driven Rain
- ASTM D3161 & D7158 - Wind Resistance Class F & Class H
- ASTM D3462 & D228 - Fastener Pull-Through Resistance
- ASTM D3462 & D228 - Pliability
- ASTM E108 & UL790 - Class A Fire
- UL-2218 & FM-4473 - Class 4 Hail Resistance
- ASTM D1922 & D228 - Tear Strength
- ASTM G155 & D638 - Accelerated Aging
F-Wave™ REVIA™ Starter Shingle 11.72 BD
F-Wave™ REVIA™ Hand-Split Shake Hip and Ridge Cap 14.89 BD
Mule-Hide® SBS SA Cap Sheet 0.80 SQ
Mule-Hide® SBS SA Base Sheet 0.80 SQ
RhinoRoof® UDL30 Synthetic Underlayment 48.80 SQ
Malarkey Arctic Seal® Ice & Water Shield 1139.51 LF
Lomanco® BIB-12 Internal Brace Turbine Vent 3.00 EA
Lomanco® OmniRidge® Ridge Vent 22.00 LF
Lomanco® C816 Soffit Vent With Screen 24.00 EA
Galvanized Steel 28GA Base Pipe Flashing - 1 1/2"-3"2.00 EA
Galvanized Steel 28GA Base Pipe Flashing - 3"-4"1.00 EA
Galvanized Steel 120 Degree Gutter Apron - 28GA - 2"x4"357.76 LF
Galvanized Steel 90 Degree Rake Edge - 28GA - 2"x4"257.05 LF
Galvanized Steel W Valley Metal - 26GA - 24"182.11 LF
Plastic Underlayment Cap Nails - 1"2.96 BX
Electro-Galvanized, Smooth Shank Roofing Coil Nails - 1 1/4"4.27 BX
7/16” OSB Roofing Decking - 4’x8’1.00 BRD
Geocel 2300 Construction TriPolymer Sealant 4.00 EA
Roof Accessory Paint 2.00 EA
Labor
Remove Existing Roof & Install Colorado Tough Roofing System™48.80 SQ
Steep Charge 12/12 +24.85 SQ
No Access - 2nd Story Access Charge 24.64 SQ
Remove Cedar Shake Shingles 44.36 SQ
Cut & Install Whirlybirds 3.00 EA
Cut & Install Ridge Vent 22.00 EA
Cut & Install Soffit Vent 24.00 EA
Re-Flash Skylight / Solar Tube 2.00 EA
Remove Existing Gutters 90.00 LF
BuiltRight Gutter System™
Remove existing gutter system and install an all new Colorado Native™ BuiltRight Seamless Gutter System™. Built to our BuiltRight Gutter
System™ Standards - to or above local building code, manufacturer specifications, and Colorado Native™ standards. With 5" seamless
galvalume powder coated gutters, 2”x3” galvalume powder coated down spouts and zip hinges on downspouts.
Pre-Production:
- Remove any and all furniture or other items that could be damaged or cause a safety risk while in production.
Production:
- Measure and roll all gutters on site.
- Hang seamless gutters to code with positive drain to ensure no damning or pooling.
- Install 2"x3" downspouts at all applicable locations.
- Install zip hinges on applicable downspouts for clean and easy folding.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 48
- Silicone all miters and end caps to ensure no leaks.
Post-Production:
- Clean all production debris.
- Run magnet to ensure all nails and screws are picked up.
- Replace all furniture and other items that were moved.
Warranty:
- Aluminum Lifetime Warranty (gutters)
- 40 Year Limited Parts Warranty (gutter guards)
- Colorado Native™ LiteTime Workmanship Warranty
Qty Unit
5” Seamless Galvalume Powder Coated Gutters
Includes All Material & Labor.
5” Seamless Gutters - 1st Story 165.50 LF
5” Seamless Gutters - 2nd & 3rd Story 103.00 LF
1st Story Downspout - 2”x3”7.00 EA
1st to 2nd Story Downspout - 2”x3”3.00 EA
2nd Story Downspout - 2”x3”2.00 EA
Miter Corners 19.00 EA
All crews are Colorado Native™ and manufacturer certified installers.
Colorado Native™ and our crews are fully licensed.
Colorado Native™ and our crews are fully insured with workman’s comp and general liability up-to $2,000,000.
Crews will maintain safety requirement at all times during all production processes.
All estimates include our exclusive BuiltRight Guarantee™:
•InsuranceAssurance™
•BetterProduct Promise™
•BetterExperience Commitment™
•LifeTime Workmanship Warranty
•LifeTime Material Warranty
•PriceMatch Guarantee™
All roof estimates Include our exclusive BuiltRight Roofing System™:
•ProfessionallyBuilt Guarantee™
•NoLeak Promise™
•NoNail Pledge™
•PropertyProtection Commitment™
*Pricing is subject to change in the event of material or labor price increases.
*Credit card transactions are subject to a 4% processing fee.
*ACH payments are subject to a 2% processing fee.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 49
Premium Synthetic Roofing
Shingles
with a Class 4 Hail Warranty
Authentic wood shake
appearance
Resistant to cracking and
fading
(with warranted coverage)
Green & Sustainable
Design
Class 4 hail rated
(with warranted
coverage)
130-mph wind
rated
(with warranted
coverage)
Class A fire
rated
AVAILABLE IN THREE NATURE-INSPIRED
COLORS
Castlewood
Brown
Mountain
Cedar
1-888-GO-FWAVE ||
FWAVEROOFING.COM HSS0930
20
Lakeshore
Gray
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 50
113 N. Sherwood, Boughton House, current photos
East façade from Sherwood St., looking west.
South elevation, looking north
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 51
North elevation, looking southwest
Rear elevation, looking north
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 52
Aerial, showing roof
Current roof conditions
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 53
Product Samples (other properties)
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 54
220 E. Elizabeth, F-wave installation
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 55
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Jim Bertolini
Sent:Wednesday, March 16, 2022 10:10 AM
To:Devin Odell
Cc:Tom Stoffel; d.vandale@fwaveroofing.com
Subject:113 N. Sherwood - Historic Preservation review - roof follow-up
Devin,
Thanks for you and everyone’s time last Friday to talk over the F-wave product and options for the roof. I do need to
check in with a few of our partner city agencies about some of the information on the F-wave polymer but wanted to
send on a few preparatory questions and details for you if you’re intending to request approval from the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC). If you have questions about anything below, please let me know:
Review Process – As a condition recorded on the subdivision plat, exterior alterations are reviewed by the City
and must meet the historic preservation standards similar to City Landmarks. In this case, while roofing is
typically a routine, same-day staff approval, changing a roofing material, especially wood to synthetic, and on a
building of this prominence, is an item we refer to the HPC for approval. Until that approval is given, the City
cannot issue a roofing permit for the work. Meetings are the 3rd Wednesday at 5:30pm. Applications for the
upcoming meeting are usually due the last Monday of the preceding month.
Roofing Preservation Standards & Guidelines – The City uses the federal Standards for Rehabilitation along with
supporting guidance to make decisions in these cases. Most relevant in this case is this brief on roofing:
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/4-roofing.htm
Top Preservation Questions and Concerns – Especially with a product like roofing that will wear out regardless of
repair, substitutes can be entertained. Top historic preservation concerns relate to how well a substitute would
match the historic material aesthetically, and how it will (or won’t) support long-term building health. We
already discussed most of this on Friday, but so you have them for reference:
o How well does the new product replicate the texture, design, and visual features of the historic material
(wood)? Does this change based on distance (i.e., 1-story, easily visible roof vs. 2-story mansion like the
Bouton House)?
o How does the product perform in terms of building health concerns like heat gain in the attic, attic
ventilation & insulation, etc.?
o How is the product repaired if an isolated section (i.e., 1-2 panels) is damaged but the rest of the roof is
intact?
Secondary Questions/Concerns - Secondary preservation concerns (i.e., will be considered but aren’t the
primary decision-making factors) here in Fort Collins focus on supporting environmental sustainability, which
deals with manufacture, service life/durability, and waste processing at end-of-service life.
o Polymer products, like asphalt, typically have a higher environmental cost to produce compared to
traditional wood shingles – how does this product compare in terms of environmental footprint to
produce per unit/square?
o I’d expect concerns from the HPC about the advertised “self-healing” nature of the product – since
preservation is concerned with long-term building health, part of the concern here is this sounds like a
product that performs very well in the short term but it may break down in the long run. Any projections
on long-term aesthetics or performance will be helpful.
o As with all substitute products, there will be concern about the likelihood of recycling the product at the
end of its service life.
JIM BERTOLINI
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 56
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 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 57
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Historic Preservation
Sent:Monday, February 14, 2022 11:47 AM
To:DEVIN ODELL
Cc:Tom Stoffel
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re: roof - 113 N. Sherwood
Devin,
Just giving you a follow-up on this item and am copying Tom Stoffel as well to cover both of your inboxes. Based on
some discussion with City staff in a few departments, I’d say the plastic F-wave product is not something we’d
recommend for use on an historic building at this time. Based on what we know of products like this, while it is
technically recyclable, we have some reservations about product performance long-term, especially considering our
ultra-violet exposure and hail storm frequency in Larimer County, which both tend to accelerate the deterioration of
plastic products. We also have some concerns on how likely recycling is to actually occur at the roof’s end of service life
based on limited facilities to handle that in the region. If we’re going to sacrifice the historic material (wood shingles) for
a substitute, we do want to be confident that the selected substitute will provide a net gain in terms of City
sustainability goals.
For that reason, a stone-coated metal product is likely a better substitute, since metal has a high recycling demand on
the market and that’s not likely to change in the foreseeable future. There are several companies that make decent
stone-coated metal products – the 530 Smith Street example is a Decra shingle that does well on replicating wood
shingle texture, although the color could be better. As noted previously, making sure there’s adequate ventilation in the
roof system via ridge, edge, and/or “turtle”/box vents is important since the system is likely to increase heat gain with
the metal shingles. I would also suggest trying to find a color that is closer to that of a new wood roof instead of the
weathered rust red or grey available from some manufacturers.
I’m happy to work with you further to refine a product selection before scheduling this for an Historic Preservation
Commission approval. Please let me know if you have other questions. Cheers!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
From: DEVIN ODELL <devinodell@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 10:46 AM
To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Re: roof - 113 N. Sherwood
Jim:
Thanks for the prompt reply. I am working with Tom Stoffel. I would be very interested in any metal
product that would work and I'll check out 530 Smith St and ask Tom and others about that--the
ventilation may be an issue for us as well. I am also very interested in the recycling aspect (another
reason I am trying to avoid using wood, as you mention). Tom tells me that the product he is
suggesting is recyclable, but I haven't done any independent research on that.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 58
2
Thanks also for the site plan documents.
Best regards,
Devin
On 02/08/2022 10:28 AM Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com> wrote:
Devin,
Thanks for following up! We still haven’t been able to finalize and publish an updated policy statement
on roofing (we’ve lost some staff over the last year), but we hope to do that this year. A change in roof
type on a building of this prominence would require Historic Preservation Commission approval.
To that end, depending on the product selection, staff may be able to recommend approval to the
Commission. Are you, by chance, working with a Tim Stoffel of Colorado Native Roofing? He’s been
checking in on a plastic polymer product which we’re admittedly more skeptical about. However, we’ve
seen good results with stone-coated metal, which was recently approved on a City Landmark at 530
Smith Street, while there could have been a better color selection, and I’m not clear the 530 Smith
Street property has adequate ventilation for the product (it tends to gain more heat and needs solid
ventilation), but otherwise it’s a solid substitute for the former wood shingles, has a long service life,
and is recyclable with a high demand for the scrap metal. If you’ve got some products in mind, we can
give you some advice in advance before moving forward for approval. The main two conditions we’d be
looking for are:
1. Does the substitute product reasonably reflect the historic material in design, texture, and
appearance?
2. Does the substitute product help the City realize other, preservation-related goals such as waste
reduction? One of our factors in allowing substitutes recently has been the potential of reducing
landfill waste associated with asphalt and wood shingles, wood being non-compostable due to
the fire retardant, and asphalt rarely being recycled due to the current glut in the asphalt
market from the 2017 hail storms. For that reason, metal appears to be a promising product due
to the long service life and high demand for scrap metal once the roof wears out.
On designation, your house is not a City Landmark but is listed in the National Register of Historic Places
and as a result of the 2015 replatting of the property, exterior modifications to the main house at 113
and the carriage house at 117 require approval from the City’s Historic Preservation Commission (or
Preservation staff for smaller projects). I’ve attached a copy of the subdivision plat and site plan
(specifying review requirements) for your records. The main thing you and your neighbors in the
carriage house are missing out on without actually designating the property as a City Landmark is access
to the City’s 0% interest rehabilitation loans.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 59
3
If you have other questions, or would like to move forward on a roof replacement request, please let me
know. Thanks!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
From: Devin Odell <devinodell@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: roof - 113 N. Sherwood
Jim:
I am again looking at re-roofing our house at 113 N. Sherwood. The cost of cedar is prohibitive. The state
tax credit of 20 percent would be completely inadequate to cover the difference between wood and
another material, currently about double. In addition, after the Marshall Fire, I am very reluctant to use
wood on the roof—my concerns have only increased. So, a couple of questions:
(1) Has there been any progress on allowing substitute roofing materials over the last year? I have seen
several products that are indistinguishable in appearance from the street (or even the front yard).
(2) Am I correct that our house (The Bouton House) is not a Fort Collins designated landmark?
Thanks for your assistance,
Devin Odell
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 60
4
On Oct 27, 2020, at 11:39 AM, Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com> wrote:
Devin,
I can’t guarantee any specific outcomes for substitute materials. This is in part because I
don’t know if we’ll have new guidance adopted by the spring, and because we consider
each property’s unique history and importance when approving projects, so a substitute
that may be appropriate for one property isn’t always appropriate for another. In this
case, it’s unlikely that something other than a wood shingle roof would be approved in
part because of the prominence of the roof in the historic character of the property, and
to maintain the relationship with the former carriage house at 117 N. Sherwood. I’m
happy to keep you informed on the City’s progress on this front in case that what path
and material you’d like to pursue. I can say confidently that if you were planning to use
the State Historic Tax Credit to help offset the cost of replacement, the State rarely
approves substitutes so an in-kind wood shingle replacement would be the safer bet
there.
On contractors, while we can’t recommend anyone specific, I do see in our records that
we’ve worked with some contractors familiar with wood shingle roof systems which I’ve
provided below, although there’s likely other roofers out there who can do this work.
I’m happy to chat on the phone about specific experiences we’ve had in design
review/Landmark incentive programs, if applicable.
Ziegler Construction (Shawn Ziegler, owner), shawnzeigler@gmail.com, 970-
481-4765
Lifetime Construction (Jed Dart), jed@lifetimeconstruction.org, 970-231-8006
Artisan Roofing (Sean Jensen), www.artisanroofrepair.com, 970-223-9500
Elite Roofing (Box Sexton), 970-658-0589
Wolf Roofing (Jeff Wolf), wolfroofing@aol.com, 970-493-7472
Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 61
5
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: Devin Odell <devinodell@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 6:34 PM
To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:
Jim:
Thanks for the information. A couple of questions: 1) Do you think that the other
materials might be approved prior to the spring? We would be interested in considering
more durable, fire-resistant options, if possible. 2) Do you have a list of contractors who
do this kind of roofing on older homes that have worked in the city in the past? Our
neighbors got somebody down in Denver, but they were somewhat slow and inefficient.
Many thanks,
Devin
On Oct 19, 2020, at 5:26 PM, Historic Preservation
<preservation@fcgov.com> wrote:
Devin,
Thanks for getting in touch. The Bouton House at 113 N. Sherwood, and
the barn associated with it now at 117 N. Sherwood, are both listed in
the National Register of Historic Places. The two properties are subject
to the City’s Design Review and approval process for historic buildings
as a result of the subdivision of the property, although they are not Fort
Collins Landmarks. This does mean you qualify for state-level incentives
such as the Colorado State Historic Tax Credit, which could provide a
state income tax credit on 20-25% of the cost of roof replacement.
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 62
6
I think in this case, your safest and fastest route forward to ensure City
approval as well as qualification for the State tax incentive would be to
replace in-kind with wood shingle roofing. The City does require
residential wood roofing systems to meet an enhanced Class B fire
rating, but they are allowed. While we’re exploring the possibility of
approving substitute materials such as stone-coated metal and concrete
tile roofing systems that mimic wood and asphalt shingles, we’ve not
yet finalized a policy for under what circumstances we could approve
substitute materials. At the moment, the City is forwarding requests for
substitute materials to the Landmark Preservation Commission for
approval. The LPC has been hesitant to approve substitutes thus far,
including a request in late 2019 from your neighbors at 117 N.
Sherwood to replace the wood shingling with stone-coated metal,
which the LPC denied (the owners later installed wood shingle
replacement roofing instead).
In most cases, simple in-kind roof replacements do not require advance
approval from Preservation. A contractor can just submit for a Roofing
Permit from the Permit Desk and be sure to include details on their
wood shingle product with their application. Preservation can usually
have that permit request cleared within 48 hours. If you have other
questions, would like to discuss details, or would like assistance with a
state tax credit application, you can contact me directly at the
information below. Thanks!
JIM BERTOLINI
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
Visit our website!
<image001.png>
“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 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 63
7
From: DEVIN ODELL <devinodell@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:55 PM
To: Historic Preservation <preservation@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Question re roof replacement
Dear Preservation Dept.:
We own a historic home (Bouton House, 113 N. Sherwood)
and will likely need to replace our wood shake roof in the
coming year. We would like to discuss our options with
somebody. Also, it is our understanding that we need to do
something to be eligible for any benefits associated with the
historic designation, as that was transferred to the barn that
used to be part of the same property when the property was
subdivided (before we purchased it). Could you please have
the appropriate person contact me?
Many thanks,
Devin Odell
(970) 231-6725
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 64
4/7/2022
1
1
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Historic Preservation Commission – April 20, 2022
113 N. Sherwood St. – Boughton House
Landmark Design Review – Final
Maps 2
113 N. Sherwood St – Boughton House
1
2
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 65
4/7/2022
2
Role of the HPC
• Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
• Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve
w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness.
3
• Construction:
• 1893
• Commissioned by Jay H.
Boughton
• Harlan Thomas, architect
• Applicable NRHP Criteria:
• B – Education and Law
• Jay H. Boughton, as an
important local legal figure,
and education advocate
• C – Design
• Shingle Style
• NRHP Listed in 1978
• Under local historic preservation regulation
via subdivision plat, 2015
4
113 N. Sherwood – Boughton House – History & Significance
Left: Image of Boughton House, 1924; Top right: Jay H. Boughton, Sr.; Bottom right:
Celestia Nixon Boughton
3
4
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 66
4/7/2022
3
5
113 N. Sherwood – Boughton House – Existing Conditions
Proposed Project
6
1. Replacement of wood shingle roof with F-wave polymer product to
replicate wood shingles
2. Anticipated gutter and wood fascia repair/replacement
5
6
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 67
4/7/2022
4
Staff Analysis - Overall
• Project does not meet applicable Rehab Standards
• Standards respond to project in relation to building’s “character-
defining features.”
• Key Standards are:
• 2 – Preserve historic character
• 5 – Preserve character-defining features
• 6 – Repair or, if necessary, replace in-kind
7
Guidelines regarding substitutes
National Park Service Brief 16 regarding the Use of Substitute Materials on
Historic Building Exteriors
4 circumstances warrant the consideration of substitute materials:
1. The unavailability of historic materials;
2. The unavailability of skilled craftspeople;
3. Inherent flaws in the original materials;
4. Code-required changes;
8
7
8
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 68
4/7/2022
5
Staff Analysis – Standard 2
• 2 – Preserve historic character – not met
• Wood shingle roof is a character-defining feature
• Guidelines regarding substitutes are not met
• Replacement material does not appear to sufficiently replicate
color, texture, and physical appearance
9
Staff Analysis – Standard 5
• Standard 5 – Preserve character-defining features – not
met:
• Wood shingle roof is a character-defining feature
• Guidelines regarding substitutes are not met
• Replacement material does not appear to sufficiently replicate
color, texture, and physical appearance
10
9
10
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 69
4/7/2022
6
Staff Analysis – Standard 6
6. Repair or, if necessary, replace in-kind
• Wood shingle roof is a character-defining feature
• Guidelines regarding substitutes are not met
• Replacement material does not appear to sufficiently replicate
color, texture, and physical appearance
11
Substitute Roofing – Ft Collins
12
220 E. Elizabeth Street, replaced asphalt
shingles with F-Wave polymer; contributing
property in Laurel School Historic District
(NRHP)
530 Smith Street, replaced wood shingles with Decra
stone-coated metal (2020); City Landmark1016-1018 Morgan St, replaced tar-and-gravel
with TPO membrane, City Landmark
11
12
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 70
4/7/2022
7
Roofing Challenges on Historic Buildings
• Triple-bottom line analysis, no roof is perfect
• Climate change makes asphalt and wood especially problematic
• Except for uncoated metal, waste diversion is unreliable
• Wood shingle roofs, even to a Class A rating, carry increased fire risk
• Most substitutes fall short of good replication of historic materials on at
least one meaningful count: color, texture, dimensions
13
Staff Recommendation
• Staff Recommends denial of the project
• The HPC may consider a Waiver of Conditions under Sec. 14-5 if it feels this
is warranted in this circumstance
14
13
14
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 71
4/7/2022
8
Role of the HPC
• Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
• Pass motion under Municipal Code 14, Article IV to approve, approve
w/ conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness.
15
16
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Historic Preservation Commission – April 20, 2022
113 N. Sherwood St. – Boughton House
Landmark Design Review – Final
15
16
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 72
1
The Bouton House
113 N. Sherwood St.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Roofing Project Design Review Presentation
1
2
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 73
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
2
3
4
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 74
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
3
Our
Criteria for
the Material
for the
New Roof
Maintains historic appearance
Sustainably produced and can by recycled
Durable, long‐lasting material that will withstand hail and
wind
High fire‐resistance
Lightweight to preserve the structure
Easy to install correctly
Reasonably priced
Top Preservations & Concerns
Esthetics of F‐Wave?
-Compared to wood shake
What is the durability & longevity of F‐Wave?
-Compared to other substitute products
What is the repairability of F‐Wave?
-Compared to other substitute products
Secondary Preservations & Concerns
Environmental Costs / Footprint of F‐Wave?
-Compared to other substitute products
Recyclability of F‐Wave?
-Compared to other substitute products
5
6
4/21/2022ITEM , ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 75
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
4
Aethstetics of F‐Wave?
Aesthetics of F‐Wave vs Wood Shake?
7
8
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 75-1
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
5
What is the durability & longevity of F‐Wave?
Guaranteed for 50 years!
Certifications:
-Synthetic Roofing Products Standard – AC513
-Asphalt Roofing Products Standard – AC438
-Alternative Roof Coverings Standard – AC-07
-Fire Resistance: Class A (Highest Rating) – ASTM E – 108
-Hail Resistance: Class 4 (Highest Rating) 2″ Steel Ball Impact – UL2218
-Hail Resistance: Class 4 (Highest Rating) 2″ Ice Ball Impact – FM4473
-Wind Rating: Class F (Highest Rating) 100 MPH – ASTM D3161
-Wind Rating: Class H (Highest Rating) 190 MPH – ASTM D7158
-Wind Driven Rain Test (Highest Rating) – TAS-100
What is the durability & longevity of F‐Wave?
Fire Test:
9
10
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 75-2
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
6
What is the durability & longevity of F‐Wave?
Wind Test:
What is the durability & longevity of F‐Wave?
Hail Test:
11
12
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 75-3
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
7
What is the durability & longevity of F‐Wave?
Self‐Healing Test:
F‐Wave Vs Stone‐coated Steel
13
14
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 75-4
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
8
What is the repairability of F‐Wave?
F‐Wave:
-Just like asphalt Shingles ‐One at a time
Stonecoated Steel:
-Much more difficult (needing to remove whole courses to get to
damaged pieces)
-Constantly changes size and need to replace whole roof
Environmental Footprint & Recyclability of F‐Wave?
Fully Recyclable
Safe for the Environment
Highly hail resistant (5 year hail warranty)
15
16
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 75-5
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
9
Questions?
17
4/21/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Pg. 75-6
ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 1
STAFF REPORT April 20, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission
PROJECT NAME
CARNEGIE CENTER FOR CREATIVITY, SITE IMPROVEMENTS (200 MATHEWS) – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
REVIEW
STAFF
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive rehabilitation of the Carnegie Center for Creativity,
formerly the Carnegie Library, at 200 Mathews, designated as part of a
small Landmark District in the southwest corner of Library Park. The
project includes work to the windows, masonry, former historic entry, new
south entry, and some sitework modifying the gate entry.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins, Cultural Services
RECOMMENDATION: TBD
COMMISSION’S ROLE:
Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) 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 HPC 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 former Fort Collins Public Library/Carnegie Library/Fort Collins Museum was designated as a contributing
resource to a small City Landmark District, “Heritage Court,” on August 20, 1985.1 The Landmark District
includes the former Library, as well as several relocated buildings to the south including the Elizabeth Stone
Cabin, Janis Cabin, Upper Boxelder School, and Franz Smith Cabin. The ordinance did not specify any
specific significance to the property. However, staff would recommend that the former Library building be
considered significant under Standard 1 in the area of Education as a reflection of the importance of libraries to
the culture and social life of communities like Fort Collins, and under Standard 3 in the area of Architecture as
one of the most prominent examples of Mediterranean Revival architecture in Fort Collins.
The proposed project includes a comprehensive rehabilitation of the former Carnegie Library, and
modifications to the site.
1 The District was originally designated by City Council in 1978 but was incorrectly completed as a resolution not an
ordinance. The 1985 designation ordinance superseded and corrected the 1978 resolution.
Packet Pg. 76
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 2
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
Character-defining features for this property are not discussed in the nominating ordinance. Staff is recommending
the following features be considered character-defining:
A low pitched, hipped roof with clay tile sheathing and copper gutters/downspouts.
Overall rectangular massing, with symmetrical massing to the front/west elevation on Mathews Street
to include two hipped-roof bays with a flat roof entry in the center.
Red sandstone coursed and square cut masonry walls.
Centered entry with a flat roof and arched, off-center entry with a smooth, Classical-style lintel and a
flat pediment that reads “PUBLIC LIBRARY.”
Arched window openings on the main (elevated) floor with styled arched lintels and flat stone sills, with
three-over-three wood sash windows and arched, three-light transoms.
Rectangular window openings in the lower/basement level with stone lintels and sills and two-over-two
sash windows.
HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS (FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY ARCHVES):
1910 postcard, H03578A, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/47002/rec/26
C.1920 postcard, H07717, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/20645/rec/46
Packet Pg. 77
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 3
1937 (rear/east of original section), H24318,
https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/30715/rec/357
c.1937 drawing of 1939 rear/east addition to original library, H24316 & H24317
(https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/30713/rec/355 &
https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/30714/rec/356)
Packet Pg. 78
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 4
ALTERATION HISTORY:
The Public Library was originally addressed at 214 Mathews Street – it was later renumbered to 200 Mathews
along with the rest of the relocated buildings on the site.
Known alterations of the property to date include:
1903 – construction by Butler & McDaniel, a local contracting firm, using the plans of Albert Bryan of
Denver.
1938 – relocation & restoration of the Janis Cabin in Library Park (east side by former Pioneer
Museum) (WPA project)
1939 – construction of the rear addition, roughly doubling the size of the building
1959 – Elizabeth Stone/Pioneer Cabin relocated to Lincoln Park (east side by former Pioneer
Museum)
1970 – Library – window torn out and replaced with fire door
1970 – Library – steel stairs added
1975 – footing & foundation for log cabin (Janis or Stone)
1976 – Library building remodeled into Pioneer Museum
1977 – footing & foundation for relocated building
1980 – Library – minor roof repair
1983 – log structure relocated to site
1985 – addition
1989 – Library? – remove rotted wood floors, add concrete slabs, and burr out walls
1998 – Library - flat roof section re-roofed w/ membrane product
2000 – new footing and foundation for relocated historic cabin (Franz Smith Cabin)
2003 – Library - remodel for Fort Collins Museum
2004 – Cabin – rehabilitation & restoration to 1920s (replacement of logs, windows, and doors)
2021 – Library – In-kind replacement of membrane roof portions and replacement of copper gutters &
downspouts
HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW:
Since designation in 1978, this property has undergone regular design review for projects listed above.
HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES:
It does not appear that financial incentives have been leveraged to support work on this building.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for the following items:
1. Rehabilitate soffits
2. Rehabilitate windows to include insulated glazing and removing plywood
3. Lighting modifications
4. Rehabilitate stone masonry
5. Add security bars to west entry archway
6. New signage to main entry on south elevation
REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Staff has passed on several questions for the applicant to consider in preparation for both this conceptual
review, and final design review once the project plans are complete:
1. What is meant by “renovate” the soffits? Facilities recently replaced the copper gutters – will that work
be affected by this project?
a. Answered 4/11 by design lead; minor repairs and repaint
2. Can you elaborate on what you mean by “renovate” the windows? Have you completed a window
study to identify best treatments on each window? Will you be retrofitting the existing sashes for
Packet Pg. 79
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 5
insulated glazing or adding appropriate storm windows? Or a mix-and-match of treatments as needed
for each window?
a. See 4/11 response for clarification; window work is largely rehab work based on condition,
with addition of thermal glazing expected.
3. For windows covered in plywood, are the historic windows still there underneath? If not, are they on
site somewhere (basement, etc.)?
PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY
At the time of drafting this staff report, no public comments have been received. The property has been posted.
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 that the most relevant review criteria
under the Standards for Rehabilitation are Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10.
The City of Fort Collins adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards of the Treatment of
Historic Properties both as a requirement to maintain a federal certification for the City’s historic preservation
program, and as a way to establish a consistent and predictable methodology for how exterior projects can be
approved on City Landmarks. With adaptive reuse being the most common treatment of historic buildings in
Fort Collins, almost all projects, including this one, are reviewed under the Standards for Rehabilitation. Those
Standards, and their accompanying, recently updated guidelines from the National Park Service, provide a
framework for decision-making that recommends certain types of actions, and recommends against certain
types of actions, based on the historic significance of a property, and the needs arising from the modern use of
that property. The Standards are intentionally not prescriptive in approach due to the diversity of historical
significance, diversity of historic features, and broad range of potential project types that may come forward for
review. The Standards instead create consistency and predictability through a standardized decision-making
process that preserves the essential historic characteristics and features of a property while accommodating
changes both minor and major on an historic property.
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 use as a cultural center.
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.
Overall the project appears to meet this Standard. Key historic elements are
remaining in place and are to be repaired. The modifications to the south
entry are on a secondary elevation and do not appear to have a disruptive
effect on the Library building’s overall character or that of the Landmark
District.
Remaining questions to determine if this Standard is met include:
1. What is the scope of work for the rehabilitation and thermal retrofit
of the windows? (More planning is needed to determine best path
forward for retrofit)
Packet Pg. 80
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 6
2. What additional landscape features such as light fixtures and
wayfinding signs will be added and where will they be placed in
order to avoid over-cluttering the landscape?
Will the addition of a metal gate enclosure on the historic main/west
entry disrupt the entry feature too greatly to comply with 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.
The added features, specifically the new gate and new entry canopy on the
south entry are modern features with a streamlined and modern design.
They should be easily recognizable as new features.
SOI #4
Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.
The project scope, as described, does not appear to be affecting any
historic alterations on the property, such as the rear WPA addition from
1939. The fence surrounding the Landmark District is not an historic
feature.
SOI #5
Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The majority of work described appears to meet this Standard, focusing on
repair and rehabilitation of historic features, including the distinctive red
sandstone masonry. Key questions to consider under this Standard
include:
1. What is the scope of work for the rehabilitation and thermal retrofit
of the historic windows? (More planning is needed to determine
best path forward for retrofit)
2. Will the addition of a metal gate enclosure on the historic main/west
entry disrupt the entry feature too greatly to comply with this
Standard?
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.
Overall, the project appears to involve very little alteration of historic
materials, with focus on rehabilitation of character-defining features, in
particular the distinctive red sandstone masonry. However, certain aspects
of the project scope remain unclear. Specific questions to consider under
this Standard include:
1. What is the scope of work for the rehabilitation and thermal retrofit of
the historic windows? (More planning is needed to determine best path
forward for retrofit)
TBD
Packet Pg. 81
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 7
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.
Repair/rehabilitation of the masonry will meet this Standard provided it
conforms with the following National Park Service Briefs:
‐ Brief 1: https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1-cleaning-
water-repellent.htm
‐ Brief 2: https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2-repoint-
mortar-joints.htm
TBD
SOI #8
Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
No significant excavation is proposed as part of this project, and the site
itself has been heavily disturbed due to periodic construction in the area
since the building’s 1903 construction.
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 project involves addition of three new features, as currently described:
a new gate entry at the southwest corner of the Library building, a new
canopy over the south (now primary) entrance to the building, and an iron
security gate over the former/historic entry on the west elevation.
Both new features appear to be sufficiently compatible with,
distinguishable from, and subordinate to the historic building to meet this
Standard as currently designed.
A key question for the Commission to consider under this Standard is
whether the addition of a metal gate enclosure on the historic main/west
entry disrupt the entry feature too greatly to comply with this Standard?
TBD
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.
Construction details regarding the south entry canopy as well as
installation of the metal gate on the front/west entry need provided in order
to understand if this item is fully reversible without damaging the historic
building. Otherwise, all modifications appear to be detached from the
building.
TBD
Packet Pg. 82
Agenda Item 5
Item 5, Page 8
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY
N/A
FINDINGS OF FACT:
In evaluating the request for the alterations, addition, and new construction at the Public Library and Heritage
Court Landmark District at 200 Mathews Street, staff makes the following findings of fact:
The properties at 200 Mathews Street were designated as a City Landmark District by City
Council ordinance on August 20, 1985.
The proposed project for rehabilitation, and minor alterations to the site and south entry of the
Library building at 200 Mathews Street, appear to generally meet the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, although more information will be needed before a final
decision can be rendered.
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A – This is a conceptual review and no final decision is being made by the Commission.
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 Historic Preservation Commission
move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Heritage Court Landmark District at 200 Mathews Street.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans
and specifications for the alterations to the Heritage Court Landmark District at 200 Mathews Street 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 Historic Preservation Commission
approve the plans and specifications for the alterations to the Heritage Court Landmark District at 200
Mathews Street 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 Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for
approval for the plans and specifications for the alterations to the Heritage Court Landmark District at 200
Mathews Street as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Landmark Designation ordinance (1985)
2. Applicant submission materials
3. 2022-4-11 responses from [au]Workshop on project scope
4. 1998 historic survey form for the Carnegie Library
5. Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 83
Ott!JJER- !Ar( Opfoz, UJ_LJ AbORDINANCE NO. 82 , 1985 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF FORT COLLINS DESI GNATING THE FORT COLLINS MUSEUM, JANIS CABIN, AUNTIE STONE CABIN, AND UPPER BOXELDER SCHOOLHOUSE AS A LANDMA RK DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section 69-7(G) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that " ••• the Council may by ordinance designate property as a landmark or landmark district."; and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 1978 the Fort Collins Museum, Janis Cabin and Auntie Stone Cabin were designated as a Landmark District by Resolution 78-1 which is not in compliance with the provisions of §69-7(G) of the Codeof the City of Fort Collins and, therefore, needs to be corrected toprovide designation by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the passage of Resolution 78-1, the Upper Boxelder Schoolhouse was moved onto the site of this landmark district and since designation of a "district" includes the actual land area as well as the structures in the designation, the Upper Boxelder Schoolhouse should be incorporat ed into the district; and
WHEREAS, since this designation is being done as a correction to the original, no new application for landmark designation is required; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1935 the Cultural Resources Board voted to recommend approval of the Fort Collins Museum, Janis Cabin, Auntie Stone Cabin, Upper Boxelder Schoolhouse Landmark District designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That that certain property know as the Fort Collins Museum, Janis Cabin, Auntie Stone Cabin and Upper Boxelder Schoolhouse be, and it hereby is, designated as a Historic Landmark District pursuant to Chapter 69 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Section 2. That said :iistrict shall be known as the Fort Collins Museum, Janis Cabin, Auntie Stone Cabin, Upper Boxelder Schoolhouse Landmark District.
Section 3. That this designation shall take effect at such time as a certified copy of this Ordinance has been recorded in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of August, A.O. 1985, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of August, A.O. 1985.
Assis tan t Mayor
�:;o •0"OC >-3 t'1 z< :i:,,* z G) CX)... U1 0 :;o U1 trl 1.0 0 I-' 0 U1 :;o U1 0 tr:] :;o I-' I I-' "'t'1 I-' :i:,, 1.0 :;o "'H 00 I 3: U1 trl :;o
0 I-' 0 U1 C •• z.;.. >-3 CX) t-< •• ... .;,. -.J 0 0 .
00 On::l 0 •"O:i:,,t"Ij G) tr:] tr:] tr:] C/l I
N
t"Ij -{/} trl •tr:]001
-{/}
O'\
0 0
._ ..... Zrce J■--
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Pg. 84
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 85
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 86
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 87
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 88
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 89
Fort Collins, ColoradoMARCH 28, 2022CARNEGIE CENTER FOR CREATIVITYEXTERIOR UPDATESITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 90
EXTERIOR PROJECT GOALS:RESTORATION OF EXTERIOR WINDOWSIMPROVE EXTERIOR LIGHTINGINSTALL NEW SECURITY GATES AT ORIGINAL FRONT DOORREPAIR OF EXTERIOR SOFFITSRESTORE AND REPAIR EXTERIOR MASONRYREPLACE EXISTING GATE WITH UPDATED WAYFINDINGADD NEW CANOPY AT LOWER-LEVEL SOUTH ENTRYITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 91
BUILDING UPDATESITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 92
ABRENOVATE WINDOWS WITH NEW INSULATED GLAZINGCDREFURBISH WINDOW FRAMESRENOVATE SOFFITSREPLACE/IMPROVE LIGHTINGREMOVE PLYWOOD FROM WINDOWSADD SECURITY BARS TO MAIN ENTRY ARCHWAYEFRESTORE & REPAIR MASONRY GREPLACE EXISTING GATEHIMPROVE WAYFINDING TO MAIN ENTRYIITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 93
ABRENOVATE WINDOWS WITH NEW INSULATED GLAZINGCDREFURBISH WINDOW FRAMESEREPLACE/IMPROVE LIGHTINGRESTORE & REPAIR MASONRY RENOVATE SOFFITSITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 94
ABRENOVATE WINDOWS WITH NEW INSULATED GLAZINGCDREFURBISH WINDOW FRAMESREPLACE/IMPROVE LIGHTINGERESTORE & REPAIR MASONRY RENOVATE SOFFITSITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 95
ABRENOVATE WINDOWS WITH NEW INSULATED GLAZINGCADD NEW ENTRY CANOPY AT SOUTH ENTRY DOORDREFURBISH WINDOW FRAMESEGREPLACE/IMPROVE LIGHTINGRESTORE & REPAIR MASONRY FIMPROVE WAYFINDING TO SOUTH ENTRYRENOVATE SOFFITSITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 96
SITE ADDITIONSNEW GATEITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 97
EXISTING GATE CONDITIONWest façade showing existing gate and signage to be removedView beyond gate headed towards south entry.View looking towards south entry from sidewalk.West façade showing existing gate and signage to be removedITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 98
GATE VIEW ONE [OPEN]GATE MATERIALS“CAR PAINT” PAINTED STEEL (GRAY & ORANGE)RED SANDSTONE TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGPOWDER COATED STEEL SLIDING GATES W/ PERFORATED INFILL ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 99
GATE VIEW ONE [CLOSED]ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 100
GATE VIEW TWO OPENITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 101
GATE VIEW TWO CLOSEDITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 102
GATE VIEW THREE OPENITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 103
GATE VIEW THREE CLOSEDITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 104
GATE PLAN VIEWITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 105
SITE ADDITIONSNEW ENTRY CANOPYITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 106
NEWOFFICESEXISTING SOUTH ENTRY CONDITIONITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 107
SOUTH ENTRY CANOPY – LOOKING WESTITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 108
SOUTH ENTRY CANOPY – LOOKING EASTITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 109
SOUTH ENTRY CANOPY – LOOKING EASTITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 110
Fort Collins, ColoradoMARCH 28, 2022CARNEGIE CENTER FOR CREATIVITYEXTERIOR UPDATESITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 111
1
Jim Bertolini
From:Jim Bertolini
Sent:Wednesday, April 13, 2022 8:47 AM
To:Jason Kersley
Cc:Jim McDonald; Maren Bzdek; Randy Shortridge; Mark McLean; Brian Hergott
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Carnegie Building - HPC concept review
Thanks Jason! If there’s other questions from the HPC at tonight’s work session, I’ll pass those on by tomorrow morning
(you can also attend the work session tonight and listen if you like – agenda w/ Zoom link is HERE). With the intent being
to keep the sashes but add thermal glazing to them, the following National Park Service (short) guidance should be
helpful, likely more for developing a contractor specification later on:
NPS Tech Note 11 on adding thermal glazing to existing window sashes (most applicable; I’m not sure if the plan
for the Carnegie is to replace all the glazing or keep the existing glass but this tech note would cover either
scenario.
NPS Tech Note 8 may also be helpful – this would cover installing a piggyback storm panel on the window
interiors as an alternative to replacement glazing. With multi-light windows like those on the Carnegie, this can
sometimes be helpful to reduce the risk of damaging muntins while grouting out the seating for the extra glazing
and air gap.
Of course, with any option, light rehabilitation is expected with sanding, weatherstripping, and insulation around
the window frame/wall joint to get the energy performance up.
If any questions come up before next Wednesday, please let me know. Also, any additional info or presentation
materials you’d like the HPC to receive should be submitted to our office by Monday (4/18) at 5pm. Cheers!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
970-416-4250 office
jbertolini@fcgov.com
From: Jason Kersley <jkersley@auworkshop.co>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:44 PM
To: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com>
Cc: Jim McDonald <jmcdonald@fcgov.com>; Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>; Randy Shortridge
<rshortridge@auworkshop.co>; Mark McLean <mmclean@fcgov.com>; Brian Hergott <bhergott@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Carnegie Building - HPC concept review
Jim, please see our responses below.
Thanks,
JASON KERSLEY AIA LEED AP
[au]workshop | architects+urbanists
401 Linden St; Suite 221 Fort Collins, CO 80524
c: 970.430.5220 auworkshop.co
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 112
2
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:37 PM Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> wrote:
Jason,
In drafting my staff report for this item I do have a couple of questions that are coming up that would be good to have
answers or alternatives prepared for. As a reminder, the hearing on April 20 th is just a conceptual review to get
feedback and have a more open discussion with the HPC. This is in advance of returning to the HPC for final Design
Review approval (via a Certificate of Appropriateness). That means you don’t necessarily need to provide answers on or
before April 20 (although if you have responses, please send on), but you’ll want to be prepared to discuss these topics
and perhaps have a few alternatives prepared if you can:
What is meant by “renovate” the soffits? Facilities recently replaced the copper gutters – will that work be
affected by this project? - soffit renovation will consist of minor repairs if needed and repainting
the same color
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “renovate” the windows? Have you completed a window study to
identify best treatments on each window? Will you be retrofitting the existing sashes for insulated glazing or
adding appropriate storm windows? Or a mix-and-match of treatments as needed for each window? - A
window study has not been completed. The intent is to renovate existing sashes with new
insulated glazing.
For windows covered in plywood, are the historic windows still there underneath? If not, are they on site
somewhere (basement, etc.)? - As far as we know the historic windows exist under the plywood
but until the plywood is removed we do not know the condition of the historic windows. We are
hopeful they are in good condition and can be renovated in the same manner as the exposed
windows.
Some other items to reference as you finalize the project scope and develop specifications for a contractor:
Masonry repair must be consistent with NPS Briefs 1 and 2 regarding the cleaning and repair of masonry:
o Brief 1: https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1-cleaning-water-repellent.htm
o Brief 2: https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm
The wood window treatments will need to generally conform to the following guidance:
o NPS Brief 9, Repair of Wooden Windows: https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-
windows.htm
o Depending on the method for thermal glazing, there’s some other guidance that may apply.
Feel free to call if you’d like to discuss anything in advance of the 20 th. Cheers!
JIM BERTOLINI
Pronouns: he/him/his
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Pg. 113
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 114
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 115
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 116
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Pg. 117
1
Historic Preservation Commission
April 20, 2022
Carnegie Center for Creativity – Public Library, 200 Mathews
Design Review - Conceptual
Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Role of the HPC
• 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
2
1
2
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 118
Property Background
• City Landmark
• Built in 1903
• Albert Bryan (architect)
• Butler & McDaniel (builders)
• Part of Heritage Court Landmark District
• Resolution in 1978 (not binding)
• Designated August 20, 1985
• No nomination form
• Likely significance:
• Standard 1 (Events/Trends) for Education
• Standard 3 (Architecture) for
Mediterranean Revival
3
Proposed Project
4
1. Rehabilitate soffits
2. Rehabilitate windows to include insulated glazing and removing plywood
3. Lighting modifications
4. Rehabilitate stone masonry
5. Add security bars to west entry archway
6. New signage to main entry on south elevation
3
4
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 119
Proposed Alterations – Site
5
Proposed Alterations – West facade
6
• Addition extending elevation to east
by 7.75 ft
5
6
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 120
Proposed Alterations – South Elevation
7
Proposed Alterations – New West Gate
8
• Powder coated steel sliding gates
w/ perforated infill
• Red sandstone pillar near building
7
8
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 121
Staff Analysis - Overall
• Project appears to meet applicable Rehab Standards
• Standards respond to project in relation to building’s “character-defining features.”
• Key Standards are:
• 2 – Preserve historic character
• 5 – Preserve character-defining features
• 6 – Repair first, replace if necessary and in-kind
• 9 – Additions/exterior alterations should be compatible, distinguishable, and subordinate
• 10 – Additions/exterior alterations should be reversible
9
HPC ?’s from WS
• For applicant
• Motivation for new entry gate
• South entry awning attachment
• For staff
• Is Franz Smith Cabin Landmarked?
• Yes, designated individually in 2000
10
9
10
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 122
Recommended ?’s for Discussion
1. What is the scope of work for rehabilitation of the soffits?
• Note 4/11 response – minor repairs and repainting
2. What is the scope of work for the rehabilitation and thermal retrofit of the windows?
• Note 4/11 response – rehab & retrofit for insulated glazing
3. What additional landscape features such as light fixtures and wayfinding signs will be
added and where will they be placed in order to avoid over-cluttering the landscape?
4. Will the addition of a metal gate enclosure on the historic main/west entry disrupt the
entry feature too greatly to comply with this Standard?
11
Role of the HPC
• 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
12
11
12
ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Pg. 123