The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/21/2022 - 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, 300 LaPorte Meg Dunn And remotely via Zoom Walter Dunn Jenna Edwards Bonnie Gibson Staff Liaison: Eric Guenther Maren Bzdek Anne Nelsen Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting September 21, 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 hybrid Historic Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone and in person. The online meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join online or in person at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. IN PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to queue at the podium to indicate you would like to speak at that time. You may speak when acknowledged 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 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 mmatsunaka@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 mmatsunaka@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 AUGUST 17, 2022. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 17, 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. 1113 MATHEWS – SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION/NEW CONSTRUCITON – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to demolish the existing buildings on the property that contribute to the Laurel School Historic District and construct a new single-family dwelling. APPLICANT: Marc Leblond and Rachel Bedard 4. 723 W OLIVE – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed rear addition and detached garage/studio for the City Landmark at 723 W. Olive St., the Parsons/Morgan House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT: Chris Orton 5. 113 N SHERWOOD – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW 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. Packet Pg. 3 Page 4 6. LUC UPDATE – FORMAL RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION: As a follow up to the discussion at the August 2022 Historic Preservation Commission meeting regarding the proposed Land Use Code Phase One Update, City staff will provide an updated overview of the key proposal details and a request for a recommendation to City Council, based on the anticipated impact of the changes on the recognition and protection of historic resources. The draft code sections are currently posted for public review at https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager • 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. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 4 Date:Roll CallMargo CarlockMeg DunnWalter DunnJenna EdwardsBonnie GibsonEric GuentherAnne Nelsen Jim RoseKurt KnierimVotePresent Present Present Present Absent Absent Absent Present Absent5 Present, 4 AbsentConsent Agenda: 1) MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2022 Bonnie GibsonMeg DunnMargo CarlockJim RoseEric GuentherAnne NelsenWalter DunnJenna EdwardsKurt KnierimDiscussion Agenda: 3) 1113 MATHEWS - SF DEMO - NEW CONSTRUCTIONMargo CarlockEric GuentherAnne NelsenWalter DunnJenna EdwardsMeg Dunn Jim RoseBonnie GibsonKurt Knierim5 yes, 0 NoYes - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - - 4) 723 W OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEWEric GuentherAnne NelsenWalter DunnJenna EdwardsMeg Dunn Jim RoseBonnie GibsonMargo CarlockKurt Knierim5 yes, 0 No - - Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes - 5) 113 N SHERWOOD- FINAL DESIGN REVIEWMeg DunnWalter DunnJenna EdwardsAnne NelsenJim RoseBonnie GibsonMargo CarlockEric GuentherKurt Knierim5 yes, 0 NoYes Yes Yes - Yes - Yes - - 6) LUC UPDATE FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONWalter DunnJenna EdwardsAnne NelsenJim RoseBonnie GibsonMargo CarlockEric Guenther Meg DunnKurt Knierim5 yes, 0 NoYes Yes - Yes - Yes - Yes - Roll Call & Voting RecordLandmark Preservation Commission9/21/2022 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 21, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 17, 2022 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 17, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC August 17, 2022 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 August 17, 2022 Kurt Knierim, Chair City Council Chambers Jim Rose, Vice Chair City Hall West Margo Carlock 300 Laporte Avenue Meg Dunn Fort Collins, Colorado And Remotely Via Zoom Walter Dunn Eric Guenther Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Vacant Seat Regular Meeting August 17, 2022 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Knierim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Meg Dunn, Eric Guenther, Kurt Knierim, Anne Nelsen, Jim Rose ABSENT: Walter Dunn STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Jim Bertolini, Claire Havelda, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Maren Bzdek provided an update on the new HPC members. She discussed a proposed Executive Session and staff retreat in October to coincide with the scheduled Work Session. Member Carlock noted that combing both events would be efficient. Member M. Dunn suggested that HPC policies, procedures, and processes could be discussed at the Executive Session. She also suggested a review of Chapter 14 and Standard 3.4.7 would be helpful. Ms. Bzdek clarified format and proposed purpose of October staff retreat. Member Guenther would like to discuss goals and purpose of HPC. Historic Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 6 Historic Preservation Commission Page 2 August 17, 2022 He would like to submit questions for dialogue. Chair Knierim would be interested in attending this meeting. Member Carlock had questions about budget requests. Ms. Bzdek discussed that the next opportunity to provide input is when the City Manager presents the recommended budget. Claire Halveda, CAO, noted that the first public budget hearing is September 6th. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:41 p.m.] 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2022 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 20, 2022 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. 1316 WHEDBEE STREET - SINGLE-FAMILY DEMOLITION NOTICE The purpose of this item is to approve the Single-Family Demolition Notice for 1316 Whedbee Street. Jim Rose moved that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the July 20, 2022 regular meeting as presented. Meg Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:42 p.m.] • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. REPORT ON STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING DESCRIPTION: 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). STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Mr. Bertolini reported on the activities on the past couple of weeks. He provided Education and Outreach highlights, such as the Civil Rights Community Meeting, Museo Adobe remudding, and the upcoming Women’s Suffrage Events. Ms. Bzdek discussed her gratitude for the internal partners that worked together to have successful community events such as the Museo remudding project. She asked HPC members for ideas about other buildings in the community that the HPC may be involved in for the next round. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 7 Historic Preservation Commission Page 3 August 17, 2022 Mr. Bertolini provided a Design Review Highlight for 425 E. Laurel Street. He indicated that the J.M. Glick House was a successful landmark loan applicant and completed a porch repair, which included trim and fascia. Mr. Bertolini provided an update on the City’s landmark rehab loan program. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn asked for clarification on the budget for the Museo project. Ms. Bzdek discussed that there was budget support from the internal partners, such as the Equity Office, Parks, Facilities, Operation Services, Museo Board, Historic Preservation, and Neighborhood Services. Member M. Dunn asked about the remudding cycle. Ms. Bzdek replied that the recommendation is every two to three years. She indicated that the consultants suggested a remudding cycle of every five to eight years due to successful drainage mitigation, a new roof, and gutters. She discussed that the cycle may be moved up due to vandalism and other issues with the building. [Timestamp: 5:58 p.m.] 4. 723 W OLIVE - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition and detached garage/studio for the City Landmark at 723 W. Olive St., the Parsons/Morgan House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the HPC. APPLICANT: Chris Orton Staff Report Yani Jones presented the staff report. noting the applicant is seeking the Commission’s input regarding the design’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. She detailed the architecture and history of the building and showed several photos of the building and surrounding properties. She noted Ms. Jones mentioned certain aspects of the proposal and noted staff’s recommendations are included in the staff report and they have particularly highlighted the rear addition, including the expansion of the existing mudroom and addition of a new master bedroom and bathroom for an additional four hundred twenty-seven (427) square feet. She discussed that Phase 2 of the project would include a new detached 1.5 story, two-car garage with studio above. It would be an ally-loaded garage at the south end of the lot. She discussed information related to specific items on which staff is recommending the Commission focus its discussion. She stated that the primary questions from the staff for the Commission is to provide informative feedback for the owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Knierim asked the Commission to discuss the Secretary of Interior Standards in order. For Standard 1, Chair Knierim does not see any different proposed use from the historical use. Regarding Standard 2, Chair Knierim sought input on whether the historic character of the property would be retained and preserved. Member M. Dunn asked if the historic garage will be keeping the front door or is being changed. John Litschert, architect for the Applicant, replied that the project will be keeping a garage door and may restore to historic imagery. It will not be changed to a man door. Member M. Dunn asked if the short addition on the rear will be preserved. Mr. Litschert replied that it will become part of the master bedroom. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 8 Historic Preservation Commission Page 4 August 17, 2022 For Standard 3, Chair Knierim asked the Commission if the project will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use, or give a false sense of history. No Commission comments. For Standard 4, Chair Knierim asked if the changes to a property that have acquired historical significance will be retained and preserved. No Commission comments. Regarding Standard 5, Chair Knierim asked for comments regarding distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques being preserved. Member M. Dunn asked if the project is losing any windows other than those on the rear of the property. Mr. Litschert answered that they are not losing any windows and may salvage them if they’re in good shape. Member M. Dunn asked it there will be any repair on the historic windows. Mr. Litschert replied that they are leaving the windows for now as they are in good shape. He indicated that all of the windows on the northeast and west sides have storm windows which are in good shape. For Standard 6, Chair Knierim commented that they have discussed whether deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Regarding Standard 7, Chair Knierim discussed that this standard does not really apply, where chemical or physical treatments will be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Regarding Standard 8, Chair Knierim asked whether archaeological resources will be protected and preserved. He noted that unless the excavation for the garage and studio reveals archaeological resources, this standard should just be noted. For Standard 9, Chair Knierim asked for comments or concerns on whether the new additions, exterior alterations, or related new constructions 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. Member Carlock asked for clarification about the square footage of the main house. Mr. Litschert noted that the main house is listed at 1315 square feet. Minus the mudroom, he noted that it’s about 1100 square feet. Member Rose had a concern with massing and overall scale of the garage and proximity to the house. He noted that the additional attachments helped with understanding of the overall massing. He also had concerns that the garage could pull away from the house a bit more for better differentiation but may not be practical due to the narrow lot and alley. He commented that the dominant view from the street is still the historic house, so his concerns are largely mollified. Member M. Dunn agreed with Member Rose that having the garage and house on the historic building be the dominant view from the street will help conceal most of the new construction. She has a concern about the roof form. She wondered if the roof form can be simplified. She commented that Old Town seems to have mostly simple historic buildings, and additions and new construction seems to be too complex. Member Nelsen commented that she understood how the roof form took shape based on the constraints of the site. Mr. Litschert clarified that they were trying to preserve exterior seating space and it made the most sense to have that on the east side to connect to the kitchen/living space. They moved the addition to the west side. He noted the trouble with attaching a new roof to a historic building. Their approach to match the existing roof lines, slope, and gable, seems like the best way to keep historic features visible while still getting the addition on. He noted that they could drop roof slope on the garage to match the main house. Member Nelsen commented that the difference between 9:12 and 8:12 at the back of the lot is not significant considering it’s located at the back of the lot. Member M. Dunn asked about the possibility of the addition by the historic garage having a hipped roof. Member Nelsen commented that a hipped roof is probably not doable on the north side. Mr. Litschert indicated it is possible on the south side. Member Nelsen noted that they may have trouble meeting R-value for insulation but may be doable depending on approach. Mr. Litschert will explore bringing the roof line down a bit. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 9 Historic Preservation Commission Page 5 August 17, 2022 Member Rose commented that changing roof slope on new garage is not critical. He would like distinction from house and addition. He commented a distinct roof pitch helps with distinction. He is supportive of keeping the gables throughout since that’s the dominant roof form and use other methods to differentiate. Member Nelsen asked Member Rose for clarification about his comments. Member Rose noted that his comments were all pertaining to the new, stand-alone garage addition. Member Guenther commented that he agrees with Member Rose that the project is integrated yet distinct both with the main structure roof line variations and the distinct set up with the addition. He noted that the site flows very smoothly. He had concerns about the position of the addition and if it could be pushed farther back, but the site constraints seem to rule that out. Chair Knierim agreed that the Applicant has met Standard 9 and appreciated the thoughtfulness and engagement with the standards. Member M. Dunn asked if the Applicant will need to get a variance for the back 50% Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Mr. Litschert indicated that this project clears. The head height ratio is too low to count against FAR. Regarding Standard 10, the reversibility of this project, Chair Knierim asked for comments and suggestions. Member M. Dunn commented that she liked the studio with the new garage as great way to add space on historic property without adding onto the historic building. Member Nelsen agreed with Member M. Dunn. Chair Knierim reviewed the questions Ms. Jones suggested. Member M. Dunn asked if the siding will be the same or differentiated. Mr. Litschert replied that the siding will be a little different. The siding will be lapsiding but not metal. It will likely be 1x6 with 5” reveal. Member M. Dunn commented that that will differentiate but still fits the theme. Chair Knierim asked for any questions about materials. Member M. Dunn has questions about the metal-clad windows on the new addition. Chair Knierim noted that the metal-clad windows are on the new addition and differentiated so he is ok with it. Member Carlock had concerns with the size of the new addition in comparison to the property and crowding the tiny lot. Mr. Litschert noted that remaining exterior space will remain. Member M. Dunn commented that she is 98% this meets the Standards. She is interested in roof alternatives. Member Rose commented that with the additional information provided and the challenges related to the site, it meets the Standards very well. Chair Knierim agreed with Member Rose. Member Guenther agreed that it is very reasonable adaptation and done thoughtfully. Member Guenther would like to explore options of moving the garage closer to the alley to increase the usability of the green space. Public Input None Commission Deliberation [Secretary’s Note: Member Rose’s Motion and Member Guenter’s Second, was withdrawn after Commission Discussion and advice by Ms. Havelda, CAO.] 723 W Olive will proceed to Final Design Review before the HPC. [Timestamp: 6:58 p.m.] ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 10 Historic Preservation Commission Page 6 August 17, 2022 5. MCDOUX SHF CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION: This will be a short presentation to introduce the Commission to the background, methodology, and timeline that will be used to carry out the Fort Collins Civil Rights Historic Context project over the next two years. The City has received a grant of $86,600 from the State Historical Fund to support the work. After the overview, there will be an open discussion about how the Historic Preservation Commission can contribute to the project outcomes to better serve Fort Collins residents and ensure their heritage and historic places are recognized, preserved, and shared with the broader community. STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager McDOUX: Steph McDougal, McDoux Preservation, LLC Jenn Beggs, McDoux Preservation, LLC Commission Questions and Discussion Member M. Dunn had questions about the time period covered. She thought that one hundred sixty years seems like a lot. Ms. McDougal noted that discrimination is still happening, and the time period covered in the study will shape the understanding of the present. Member M. Dunn had concerns that the recent items aren’t in the purview of the HPC. Ms. Bzdek described the broader applicability of the project beyond just historic preservation. Ms. Bzdek noted that the HPC can recognize buildings that are less than fifty years old. The City is not limited to fifty years on historical interpretation. Member M. Dunn asked about the funding. Ms. Bzdek indicated that the City’s funding match comes from the general appropriation specific to this project. Member M. Dunn was curious about the final product. Ms. McDougal noted that they don’t know what the final product will look like. They can only report on what they do find, go where the data takes them. She indicated that education discrimination is going to be a larger theme. Member M. Dunn asked if they visited the school district archive. Ms. McDougal discussed that they had visited the archive not but may need access during the project. [Timestamp: 7:50 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Knierim mentioned that the Friend of Preservation Awards ceremony the previous evening was wonderful, and the Honorees felt grateful to be honored. Member Guenther asked if the Coloradoan would have coverage of the event. Member M. Dunn indicated that they have the information. Ms. Bzdek noted that staff is working on expanding the permanent presence on the website for the awardees. Ms. Bzdek discussed that Saving Places Conference during the first week of February 2023, has been moved to Boulder. It will be a hybrid conference, with one more month to submit proposals for agenda items. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 11 Historic Preservation Commission Page 7 August 17, 2022 • ADJOURNMENT Chair Knierim adjourned the meeting at 7:53p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Kurt Knierim, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 21, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING AUGUST 4, 2022 TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2022) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 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 August 4, 2022 to September 7, 2022. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting items and events from the previous month. Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 Education & Outreach Activities Part of the mission of the Historic Preservation Services division is to educate the public about local, place- based history, historic preservation, and preservation best practices. Below are highlights from the last month in this area. Program Title Sponsor- Audience-Partner Description # of Attendees Date of Event/Activity Women’s Suffrage Walking Tour Poudre River Library District Open to the public; tour of downtown suffrage sites 24 August 24, 2022 Black and Hispanic Heritage Walking Tour City of Fort Collis Planning Staff Planning team walk of Washington Park & Holy Family areas 20 August 25, 2022 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 417 Locust St. (417 Locust St.) New garage at rear of property. Contributing property to Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved August 5, 2022 503 Mathews St. (William B. Miner Property) Removal and replacement of rear entry. Contributing property to Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved August 5, 2022 228 Whedbee St. (E.L. Brawner Property) Exterior painting, porch roof repair, and gutter replacement. Local Landmark and contributing property to Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved August 17, 2022 527 Mathews St. (Steudler Residence) In-kind roof repair. Contributing property to Laurel School NRHP District. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved August 22, 2022 218 Linden St. (Philippi Harness Shop) Re-roofing. Contributing property in Old Town Landmark and NRHP Districts. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14, Article IV. Approved August 31, 2022 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 3.4.7 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 113 Peterson St. Conceptual review; conversion to cafe N/A; concept generally meets Standards August 11, 2022 325 W Mulberry St. Conceptual review; demolition for new duplex N/A; historic survey required August 11, 2022 825 N College Ave Conceptual review; demolition for new car wash N/A; historic survey from CDOT to be updated August 18, 2022 6801 S. College Ave Preliminary Design Review; single- & multi-family development; demolition of 2-3 properties over 50 yrs included. N/A; historic survey required September 6, 2022 Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 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 301 E. Olive St. Fort Collins Landmark eligible and contributing to district (in Laurel School Historic District) Yes August 30, 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. Within this period, staff processed a total of 30 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 17 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 15 Staff Activity Report September 21, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner &Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Education and Outreach Highlights Women’s Suffrage Walking Tour, partnered with Poudre River Public Library District (August 24, 2022) Black and Hispanic Heritage Walking Tour for City Planning Staff (August 25, 2022) 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Historic Survey • 301 E. Olive St. • Eligible under Standard 3, Design/Construction • House w/ Commercial Addition • Significant under Standard 2, Persons/Groups • Samuel Webster, local rancher • Too much loss of integrity 3 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 STAFF REPORT September 21, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1113 MATHEWS ST., THE HARLEY KIMBLE RESIDENCE – DEMOLITION AND NEW SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION – DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to demolish the existing buildings on the property that contribute to the Laurel School Historic District and construct a new single-family dwelling. APPLICANT/OWNER: Marc Leblond and Rachel Bedard RECOMMENDATION: Proposal does not meet the Standards; New construction is generally consistent with Standard 9 calling for compatible but distinguishable new construction on historic properties, including infill in historic districts. ROLE OF HPC: Design review in this case is required and governed by the City’s Municipal Code under Sec. 14-54(b). In cases where a property’s historic designation does not come from Fort Collins City Council (i.e., listings in the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic Places), a report must be prepared documenting whether the project meets or does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). This report is typically issued by staff in most cases – currently staff forwards reports to the Historic Preservation Commission when alterations do not meet the Standards to a degree that threatens the historic designation of the property, including demolition. In these cases, the Commission’s role is to review the drafted report, provide additional comment regarding how the project does or does not meet the Standards and what effect the project will have on the historic status of the property, and issue the report. Reports, once issued, are not subject to appeal. Additionally, under Municipal Code Sec. 14-31(a), in addition to the owner of a property, any Councilmember by written request, the HPC by motion, or any three (3) or more residents of Fort Collins can initiate a designation procedure. If an initiation of the designation process is not moved by the Commission, the role of the HPC is to comment on whether the new construction constitutes compatible infill under the Standards. Staff has drafted the report called for under Chapter 14, Article IV for the Commission’s review of the demolition and new construction. This is provided in place of an analysis in the staff report to avoid unnecessary duplication. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Harley Kimble Residence at 1113 Mathews St. was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District. It was constructed in 1905 by A. Kimble. It is not a City Landmark. The applicant is proposing complete demolition of the property as well as new Item 3, Page 1 Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 construction of a single-family home. Review by either staff or the Commission is required under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Staff has forwarded this application for review to the Commission since the historic property is proposed for demolition. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The 1998 survey documentation has been attached for the Commission’s review; the architectural style is noted as Folk Victorian. ALTERATION HISTORY: The property does not appear to have undergone design review before the Commission in the past. The following is a record of known alterations to the property: DATE NAME DESCRIPTION 12/27/1905 A. Kimble Notice of completion of property (“5 room frame cottage”) in newspaper, A. (Alfred?) Kimble owner and builder 9/15/1927 Mrs. H.A. McHone Garage, 18x18, shingle roof, drop siding 10/26/1928 H.A. McHone Rear porch 7/16/1945 H.A. McHone Reshingling 8/17/1973 Gladys McKinzie Reroof (garage) 8/22/2007 Marc LeBonde Reroof - tear off layer composite, layer wood Windows, such as those on the façade shown on the 1998 survey form, were replaced at an unknown date. The shed roofed addition at the rear of the property was also added at an unknown date. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report regarding: 1.Demolition of the 1905 house and garage; 2.Construction of a new single-family dwelling REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: 1.An updated design review application form The applicant provided additional information and photographs to staff on August 5, 2022. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. The property had a sign posted prior to the HPC hearing. EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff has provided an analysis of the applicable review criteria in the attached draft report. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations to 1113 Mathew St., staff makes the following findings of fact: •The property at 1113 Mathew St. is not a City Landmark but is designated as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places. •Upon review, the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, primarily due to the demolition of the historic residence on the property. •Upon review, the new construction generally meets Rehabilitation Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel School Historic District. RECOMMENDATION: Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 Staff recommends the Commission issue the attached draft report as final, documenting the project’s effects on the historic property and the Laurel School Historic District. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTIONS: Project does not meet Standards; New Construction Meets Standard 9 I, (Name), move that the Historic Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alterations to the Harley Kimble Residence at 1113 Mathew St. as presented do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that the new construction does generally meet Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel School Historic District, and that our findings shall be provided to the owner and potentially transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the property’s historic status. Project does not meet Standards; New Construction Does Not Meet Standard 9 I, (Name), move that the Historic Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alterations to Harley Kimble Residence at 1113 Mathew St. as presented do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, including the new construction, in relation to the Laurel School Historic District, and that our findings shall be provided to the owner and potentially transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer to update the property’s historic status. Project does meet Standards; Revise report I, (Name), move that the Historic Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alterations to the Harley Kimble Residence at 1113 Mathew St. as presented meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and that our findings shall be provided to the owner and potentially transmitted to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer. Initiate Designation Procedure I, (Name), move that the Historic Preservation Commission initiate the designation procedure for 1113 Mathews pursuant to City Code Section 14-31 on the grounds that: a.Recitation of Eligibility finding? b.Reasons why designation is important? ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft SHPO Report 2. Design Review Application and supplemental information from applicant 3.1998 Survey Form and 2022 City Directory Search 4.Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 20 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services REPORT OF ALTERATIONS TO DESIGNATED RESOURCE Site Number/Address: 1113 Mathews St. Laurel School National Register Historic District ISSUED: 9/21/2022 Magnolia Rose Rentals LLC 707 W. Magnolia St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Marc Leblond and Rachel Bedard: This report is to document proposed alterations to Harley Kimble Residence, at 1113 Mathews St., pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, made by the Historic Preservation Commission at their September 21, 2022 meeting. A copy of this report may be forwarded to the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. More specifically, the Commission commented on the following work items: 1. Demolition of the 1905 historic house and garage 2. Construction of a new single-family dwelling Note Regarding Demolition of Historic Structures: Generally, the demolition of properties that contribute to designated historic districts such as the Laurel School Historic District, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. However, because the historic property is not a City Landmark and not protected under City Code, the analysis below does not address Standards 1-7 and 10 as those pertain to preservation of the historic structure. The analysis focuses only on Standards 8 and 9 as they relate to new construction in the Laurel School Historic District. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis (Rehabilitation) Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; N 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. N ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 - 2 - 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 SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. N SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 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. N SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The applicant understands that should excavation for the new construction reveal archaeological resources, they shall be protected and preserved in place and that mitigation measures must be undertaken should they be disturbed. Y ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 - 3 - 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. 1. Demolition of Historic Structures – The demolition of the historic residence and its associated garage do not meet this Standard. However, it should be noted that the applicant does intend to attempt to salvage materials either for re-use on the site or donation and divert some materials from the landfill through recycling; this includes: the oak and maple hardwood flooring, the windows, the boiler; any concrete, Douglas fir dimensional lumber, material from a walnut tree removed from the property in 2012, bricks from the chimney, and porcelain from toilets and sinks. 2. New Construction in Historic District – a. Compatibility - Overall, the property appears compatible and differentiated from surrounding historic buildings and the larger district. The proposed new house would have setbacks compatible with nearby properties. Its front yard setback of 15 feet is like nearby properties, such as the neighboring houses to the south and north (approx. 15 feet) and to the east (approx. 10 feet); side yard setbacks for the proposed construction are 5 feet or greater, which are similar to other historic buildings in the district. The proposed house is larger than many other homes in the district, especially compared to the 1-1.5 story houses in the area, but there are some 2-story houses in the district near this property, such as the houses on the northeast and southeast corners of Mathews and Edwards Street. The new house alludes to design elements from nearby homes but is clearly distinguished from the historic buildings in the area by modern elements. The steeply pitched roof and shed roof forms are seen on a number of homes in the district; for instance, the house up the block at 302 Garfield St., in the English Norman Cottage style, has a steeply pitched gable roof, and the house across the street at 1112 Mathews St. has a shed-roofed addition. The prominence of the porches on the proposed house could be considered a modern interpretation of the wrap-around verandas seen 1. N 2. Y ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 - 4 - on Victorian houses in the district. Window patterns as currently presented are somewhat compatible with surrounding historic patterns, although sash windows are generally more common; the plans show a mixture of single-light windows, two-light windows, and casement windows. There are visual connections to other buildings nearby in the district, but the proposed house is clearly a modern design. In terms of materials, the primary cladding, clapboard siding, reflects historic materials used elsewhere in the district. Modern materials used include the cement fiber siding used to visually connect the rear and front porches, the charred/stained wood siding within the porch inset areas and south elevation, as well as the standing seam metal roof. The garage structure is a simple structure with two bays that uses wall and roof materials like those on the house. It is located at the rear of the property and is accessed by the alley like many other garage structures in the neighborhood. b. Distinguishability – The use of modern materials and streamlined versions of multiple historic styles renders the property distinguishable from its historic neighboring buildings. Although the charred/stained wood siding and cement fiber accent panels are not traditional materials in this district, they do underscore that these buildings are modern and distinguished from the historic. 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. Demolition of the historic building constitutes a permanent alteration that destroys historic fabric. N The Commission found that the proposed work does not meet the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. However, absent the demolition of a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, the new construction generally meets Standards 9 regarding new construction. Based on the demolition, it is expected that the property will no longer contribute to the district. This will prohibit current and future owners from leveraging financial incentives for historic preservation and reduces the proportion of contributing resources in the Laurel School Historic District. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 - 5 - Notice of the completion of this report has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. Please note that all ensuing work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming alterations are subject to stop- work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration requirements and penalties. If you have any questions regarding the Commission’s report, or if we may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at preservation@fcgov.com or 970-658-0263. Sincerely, Kurt Knierim, Chair Historic Preservation Commission ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence)State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence)State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. Reminders: Complete application would need all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing and proposed. The following attachments are REQUIRED: Ƒ Complete Application for Design Review Ƒ Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) Ƒ Color photos of existing conditions Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate demolition application will need to be approved. Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense). Marc Leblond 970-988-5875 970-988-5875 707 West Magnolia St, Fort Collins CO 80521 MLeblond72@gmail.com N/A The project includes a full demolition of the existing property and constuction of a new single family residence with a detached garage. The proposed demolition would commence in the first quarter of 2023 with a targeted completion at the end of 2023. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 26 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Deconstruction Notes: Our proposed home intends to achieve near Passive House standards regarding energy efficiency and embodied carbon. To that end we are very sensitive to minimizing what materials are sent to the landfill. Here are some materials we are intend to divert from the landfill. 1) We will attempt to salvage the oak and maple hard wood flooring. After re-milling this stock, we would likely use it in cabinetry, trim, and soffits. 2) All windows will be donated to ReSource or Craiglisted. The one original window with diamond shaped muntins will be integrated into a transom in the new design. 3) A new boiler was installed in 2020. This will be removed and Craigslisted as the new house will not have a gas service. 4) Any concrete will be recycled at Barker construction. 5) As a woodworker, I am hopeful to repurpose as much of the original old growth Doug Fir dimensional lumber. 6) In 2012 I removed a walnut tree from the property and milled that lumber. I intend to use that stock for trim and cabinetry. 7) Bricks recovered from the chimney will be used in landscaping. 8) Porcelain toilets and sinks will be crushed and recycled. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 27 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product specification sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. Ƒ Partial or full demolition is a part of this project. Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition. Signature of Applicant Date 05Aug2022 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 28 *UHJ')LVKHU__$UFKLWHFW/HEORQG_%HGDUG5HVLGHQFH 0DWKHZV6WUHHW__)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR $XJXVW__ 6RXWKHDVW3HUVSHFWLYH ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 0DWWKHZV6WUHHW*DUDJH +RXVH F D D E DSRUFK ESDWLRFRQILJXUDWLRQ7%' FFRQFUHWHSDYHUDSURQ GH[LVWLQJKRPHWREHUHPRYHGGDVKHGUHGOLQHVHH[LVWLQJJDUDJHWREHUHPRYHGGDVKHGUHGOLQHVIZDONZD\DOOH\ 1( 6: 1( 6:H G IURQWVHWEDFNUHDUVHWEDFN VLGHVHWEDFNVLGHVHWEDFNI I *UHJ')LVKHU__$UFKLWHFW/HEORQG_%HGDUG5HVLGHQFH 0DWKHZV6WUHHW__)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR $XJXVW__ 1RUWK 6LWH3ODQ )ORRU$UHD *DUDJH 6) 0DLQ/HYHO 6) 8SSHU/HYHO 6) 7RWDO 6) )$5/LPLWIRUJDUDJH 6) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg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acket Pg. 31 GQ 0DVWHU%U [ &ORVHW [ %DWK [ D D E F DGHFN EVHDWLQJDUHD FVKRZHUVHDW GOLYLQJZDOO G XS )OH[ [ 6WRUDJH [ %HGURRP [ &ORVHW [ 0HFK [ %DWK [ DD EE EE DGHFNDERYH EZLQGRZZHOO FGLVSOD\QLFKH F *UHJ')LVKHU__$UFKLWHFW/HEORQG_%HGDUG5HVLGHQFH 0DWKHZV6WUHHW__)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR $XJXVW__ /RZHU 8SSHU/HYHO )ORRU$UHD *DUDJH 6) 0DLQ/HYHO 6) 8SSHU/HYHO 6) 7RWDO 6) 1RUWK )$5/LPLW 6) /RZHU 8SSHU 6) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 32 VRODUDFFHVVOLPLWDWLRQ PD[LPXPZDOOKHLJKWOLPLWDWLRQ FKDUUHGRUVWDLQHGZRRGYHUWLFDO VLGLQJW\S FHPHQWILEHUVLGLQJSDQHODFFHQW FODSERDUGVLGLQJZLWKFRUQHUWULP W\S VWHHOJXDUGUDLOW\S GDUNVWDLQHGZRRGSRVWVW\S IORZHUER[W\S PD[LPXPKHLJKWOLPLWDWLRQ W\S VRODUDFFHVVOLPLWDWLRQ IORZHUER[W\S PD[LPXPKHLJKWOLPLWDWLRQ *UHJ')LVKHU__$UFKLWHFW/HEORQG_%HGDUG5HVLGHQFH 0DWKHZV6WUHHW__)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR $XJXVW__ (OHYDWLRQV :HVW (DVW ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 33 FKDUUHGRUVWDLQHGZRRGYHUWLFDOVLGLQJW\S FHPHQWILEHUVLGLQJSDQHODFFHQW FODSERDUGVLGLQJZLWKFRUQHUWULP W\S VWHHOJXDUGUDLOW\S GDUNVWDLQHGZRRGSRVWVW\S VWDQGLQJVHDPPHWDOURRIW\S VRODUSYSDQHOV *UHJ')LVKHU__$UFKLWHFW/HEORQG_%HGDUG5HVLGHQFH 0DWKHZV6WUHHW__)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR $XJXVW__ (OHYDWLRQV 6RXWK 1RUWK ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 35 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 36 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 37 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 38 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 39 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 43 City Directory Search – 1113 Mathews St. (Completed Sept. 2022) *h or o indicates person in household noted as owner in City Directory YEAR 1113 Mathews NOTES 1902 1903 1904 1906 Harley (Mamie) Kimble Carpenter 1907 -- -- 1908- 1909 Mrs. Elizabeth K. Miner/Neil K Miner Teacher/student/CAC student/student 1909- 1910 Mrs. E.K. Miner/Willis B Miner/Neil K Miner/Welsey E. Veeder Teacher/student/CAC student/student 1910- 1911 Oliver J. and Cynthia Rambo/Willis B. Miner/Mrs. Mary Shaffer xx/laborer, rms/xx 1913- 1914 Vacant 1917 Mrs. Mary E. Benell/Emily H. Benell/Orril Benell/Otto E. Benell/Emily E. Helin xx/Student/CAC student/CAC student/CSA student (rms) 1919 William H. and Strancie Jennings laborer 1922 Henry and Margaret Volz/Leslie Griffith Henry - painter (h)/student 1925 Henry and Margaret Volz Henry - painter (h) 1927 Henry and Margaret Volz Henry - painter (h) 1929 James A. and Elsie Hoskins James - High School teacher (h) 1931 Emmett R. and Mabel Wales Emmett - Painter (h) 1933 William and Marie E. Egan Wm - Laborer (h) 1934 -- 1936 Palmer H. and Bertha M.Nelson/Ethel Nelson Palmer - Auto repair (h)/student 1938 Donald E. and Lois F. Murray Donald - Fountain manager student union CSC (h) 1940 W.L. and Avis Culver (Payy and Bob children)/Jane Burr W.L. - Linotype Operator Express Courier/Student 1948 Paul V. and Jean S. Christofferson (o) Paul - student Colo A&M 1950 Joseph S. and Marie McSherry (o) Jos - Salesman at International Harvester Co. 1952 Wilfred H. and Mary B. Howarth Wilfred - Carpenter 1954 Robert H. and Vivienne A. Wissing Rob - Mech Oakes Motors 1956 George H. and Lillian M. Burke Geo - Tinsmith Ft. Collins Sheet Metal Works ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 44 City Directory Search – 1113 Mathews St. *h or o indicates person in household noted as owner in City Directory YEAR 1113 Mathews NOTES 1957 Robert D. and Leah M. Brown Rob - Helper Noble Drug Inc. 1959 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech Markley Motors 1960 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech Houska Garage 1962 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech Houska Garage 1963 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech Houska Garage 1964 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech Houska Garage 1966 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech Smokey's Auto Repair 1968 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms/Dan C. Abrahms Chris - Mech Ghent Motors, Mabel - Avon Rep/Student Lutheran Seminary 1969 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms/Dan C. Abrahms Chris - Mech Ghent Motors, Mabel - Avon Rep/Student Lutheran Seminary 1970 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech Ghent Motors, Mabel - Avon Rep 1971 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms Chris - Mech, Mabel - Avon Rep 1972 Chris F. and Mabel L. Abrahms retired 1973 NL 1975 Lois McKenzie ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 45 Design Review (NRHP) – Demolition and new SF Construction, 1113 Mathews St. September 21, 2022 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner Commission’s Role Review proposed alterations and issue report. Provide additional comment regarding: • Effects of demolition to the Laurel School Historic District • Whether new construction meets Rehabilitation Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel School Historic District Staff issues report on behalf of the HPC • The Commission has the option to initiate a designation procedure 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 46 Existing Property Background • House constructed in 1905 • Garage constructed in 1927 • Harley Kimble (carpenter) first resident • 1980: Harley Kimble Residence listed in National Register (contributing to Laurel School Historic District) • 1943 Sanborn Map (above) • 1995 photo (right) 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 47 Existing Property and Proposed Alterations • Demolition of 1905 house and 1927 garage • Construction of new single- family residence Neighboring Properties 1117 Mathews St. (south) 1112 Mathews St. (east) 1109 Mathews St. (north) 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 48 1100 Block Mathews St. New Construction Site Plan and Materials • Siding • Clapboard siding • Charred/stained wood siding • Cement board accent panels • Roof • Standing Seam Metal • Windows • Not specified 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 49 Elevations (Mathews St.) Elevations 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 50 Staff Findings of Fact The property at 1113 Mathew St. is not a City Landmark but is designated as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Upon review, the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, primarily due to the demolition of the historic residence on the property. Upon review, the new construction generally meets Rehabilitation Standard 9 in relation to the Laurel School Historic District. Would the HPC like to see any changes to these findings documented in the Draft SHPO Report? 11 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 51 Agenda Item 4 STAFF REPORT September 21, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 723 W. OLIVE ST. (PARSONS/MORGAN HOUSE & ATTACHED GARAGE) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVEIW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a final design review of a proposed rear addition and detached garage/studio for the City Landmark at 723 W. Olive St., the Parsons/Morgan House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT/OWNER: Chris Orton RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed plans meet the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and recommends the Certificate of Appropriateness. 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 consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). In this hearing, the Commission shall conduct a final review of proposed plans and based on the provided information from the 2007 Landmark nomination, the applicant’s design review application, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the Municipal Code 14, Article IV and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards) for its final review. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Date of Landmark designation: October 16, 2007 • Built in 1924 by G.B. Irwin • Proposed work includes a rear frame addition of 427 square feet, removing the garage bump-out and expanding the existing mudroom. The proposed addition design has gabled roofs with a product simulating the appearance of cedar shingles in the gable ends, lap siding, a sliding glass door exiting into the backyard, and simple awning and double-hung windows. Also proposed, for the second project phase, is a 1.5-story, gabled 2-car garage with upper studio. The design includes simple fixed, horizontal sliding, and sash windows as well as four-light windows in two dormers and a skylight. The siding appears to mimic that on the proposed rear addition, and other features like the belly band are carried over into the garage from the addition. There are also solar panels shown in the design. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Staff note: The original text has been modified to account for the actual construction date of the house and garage from building permit records and for clarity. Item 4, Page1 Packet Pg. 52 Agenda Item 4 The 2007 nomination provides the following description (amended): The Parsons/Morgan House is a Bungalow that was built in 1924.0F1 It is a one story, wood-framed, side-gabled building and rests on a concrete foundation. The siding material is metal, but it most likely has wood siding underneath. The roof is covered with non-historic composition shingles and is at a shallow pitch. The front and rear eaves, as well as the side overhangs, protrude roughly one-and-a-half feet beyond the exterior walls of the building and are boxed. A beige brick chimney, located on the northeast corner of the house, protrudes roughly four feet above the roof. Prominently featured on the north side of the house, directly over the front door, is a small gable- and-valley porch cover. Evenly spaced on either side of the front door are matching sets of three double-hung windows. The eastern exterior wall displays three windows of varying styles and sizes, as well as an exposed chimney. The western exterior wall displays five windows of varying styles and sizes, three of which are located on a distinctive hipped bay. The southern façade includes a mudroom of unknown age (not shown on 1943 Sanborn map). The house is accessed in the front by a concrete staircase flanked by decorative iron handrails and posts, an alteration from the original Craftsman timbers. The house also features a small garage located on the southwest corner of the building, which was built soon after the house in 1924. This is a front-gabled, single car garage with horizontal siding and a composition shingle roof. This historic garage dates to the home’s period of significance, and was a part of the designation application The origins of the Bungalow can be traced to the American and English Arts and Crafts Movements of the 1880s and 1890s. Bungalows made their first appearance in the United States on the eastern seacoast. Initially they were popular as inexpensive summer cottages. This building form spread throughout the country throughout the first three decades of the twentieth century. The most prominent advocate for this movement in America was Gustav Stickley (1858-1942). Stickley was an architect and furniture designer as well as the publisher of a monthly magazine called The Craftsman. Stickley’s ideas would become the guidelines for American Bungalows of all styles, including the Craftsman style. The buildings were modest in size and scale. Typically, the buildings were wood framed and one to one-and-a-half-stories tall. The buildings emphasized their horizontal elements and remained grounded with low-pitched roofs and wide rectangular or square footprints. Often, a large front porch was included. Typically, the exterior walls and gable ends were composed of different materials to add contrast and visually break up the otherwise simple structure. The most-used materials for this purpose were stucco, horizontal lap siding, or shingles. As a further holdover from the early Arts and Crafts movement, Bungalows were composed of regional materials matching the colors and tones of the surrounding environment. With all or most of these features included, the final result was a building which “stressed comfort and utility…and a lack of pretension” (Colorado’s Historic Architecture, pg 40). 723 W. Olive holds true to many of these criteria. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property to date include: •1925 – Barn constructed on property (demolished, date unknown) •1970 – Re-roof (wood shingles to composition) •1986 – Re-roof (ashphalt shingle over existing) •2013 – Re-roof (asphalt shingles) •2019 – Re-roof (asphalt shingles) •Date unknown – Mud room (not shown on 1943 Sanborn map) •Date unknown – Garage bump-out at rear (garage aligns with original building permit dimensions without the bum-pout) HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: 1 The original building permit describes the house as “Colonial” – The porch columns were removed sometime between 1948 and 1968, based on Tax Assessor photos. Item 4, Page2 Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 4 This property has undergone Design Review on past occasions for in-kind roof replacement. In 2019, an exploratory removal of a section of the metal siding was approved through Design Review, but that project was not completed. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: None DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for a proposed rear addition, including 427 square feet and a detached 1.5 story garage/studio. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: • Visuals to include example siding/window/door types and info on over-framing shown in plans (requested by staff on 7-6-2022 and received on 7-15-2022) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: [be sure to provide direction about the most salient Standards to help direct discussion] Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The property is retaining its historic use. 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. Elements of the property that will be altered, obscured, or removed by the addition are on the rear of the property and are not considered character-defining to the property’s architectural importance. Y 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 addition will have sufficiently differentiated materials and window patterning to make it distinguishable from the historic building via simplified window configurations and use of siding with a wider reveal. Y Item 4, Page3 Packet Pg. 54 Agenda Item 4 Similar choices in the design of the proposed garage/studio keep it from being mistaken for a historic alley-loaded garage. SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The mudroom that is proposed to be expanded and modified as part of this addition is not a character-defining feature of this property and was added at an unknown date. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Character-defining features of this property are predominantly on the front of the building. Although historic materials would be removed as part of this project, including siding and several windows, as well as the mudroom and garage bump-out, these rear-facing elements are not character-defining to the Bungalow type, for which this property is significant. Y SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. N/A SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. It is unlikely that excavation for the proposed addition or garage/studio will reveal archaeological resources, but the applicant/owner should note this requirement. Y 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. As noted above, although historic materials would be removed to allow for the proposed addition, these materials and features are located on the rear and are not character-defining in relation to the significance of the property. The proposed addition is differentiated via simplified window patterns and different lapboard reveal. In general, the addition appears compatible with the architectural features, scale, and massing of the property and its environment, being largely screened from view from West Olive Street by the historic portion of the house and garage. The project could improve its differentiation from the historic house and garage by incorporating a clearer distinction between the new/old rooflines. Y Item 4, Page4 Packet Pg. 55 Agenda Item 4 Because of its placement behind the original garage and house and because the new construction adds 427 square feet to a 1,194 square- foot house (approx. 35%), the addition would be subordinate to the historic structure. The proposed addition is also slightly inset from the east and west elevations of the historic house and garage, minimizing the appearance of the addition from the street. The proposed garage/studio building is 30” taller than the ridge of the existing house according to submitted materials – Because of the location of this proposed structure at the back of the lot, moved 2-feet closer to the alley in plans updated since the conceptual review, it has minimal impact on the appearance of the historic home from the street. 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 addition is located on the rear of the existing house and would not remove character-defining features or elements that would be difficult to reconstruct if the addition were reversed in the future. Elements that would be removed to accommodate the proposed addition include six-light windows, the siding material, and the mudroom and garage bump-out of unknown date. The design currently includes an added beam and post at the east side of the garage to prevent need to deconstruct the garage roof, and the design also uses or enlarges several existing window/door openings for entries. The proposed new garage/studio would not impact the integrity of the historic property if removed in the future. Y INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY None FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the proposed rehabilitation of 723 W. Olive St. under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage is a City Landmark, designated by City Council on October 16, 2007. • The proposed rehabilitation of 723 W. Olive St., overall, meets the Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for this proposal. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage at 723 W. Olive St., because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage at 723 W. Olive St., because the work complies with the Secretary Item 4, Page5 Packet Pg. 56 Agenda Item 4 of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION TO DENY CERTIFICATE AND DENY PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Parsons/Morgan House and Attached Garage at 723 W. Olive St., because the work does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design Review Application Form 2. 2022 Proposed Plans 3. 2007 Landmark Nomination Form 4. Photos of Property 5. Staff Presentation Item 4, Page6 Packet Pg. 57 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. Reminders: Complete application would need all of checklist items as well as both pages of this document. Detailed scope of work should include measurements of existing and proposed. The following attachments are REQUIRED: □Complete Application for Design Review □Detailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) □Color photos of existing conditions Please note: if the proposal includes partial or full demolition of an existing building or structure, a separate demolition application will need to be approved. Additional documentation may be required to adequately depict the project, such as plans, elevations, window study, or mortar analysis. If there is insufficient documentation on the property, the applicant may be required to submit an intensive-level survey form (at the applicant’s expense). Chris Orton 723 W Olive St,Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 chris.orton@colostate.edu N/A The project has two phases. Phase 1 is building a master suite on the back of the existing house and enlarging the existing mudroom in order to bring the stairs to the basement into code compliance. Phase 2 consists of building an alley loaded detached garage with an art studio above. These will be under 2 seperate permits but their construction timing would ideally overlap. We would like to start both projects this fall and have them finished by spring 2023. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 58 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. Mudroom Mudroom expansion The existing mudroom will be expanded to the south approximately 3 feet. The expansion will require the removal of the existing roof and ceiling structure and the existing south wall, both the foundation wall above grade and the frame wall. We will preserve the east and west walls. The primary reason for the expansion is to increase the safety of the stairs to the basement. They are currently extremely steep with treads that measure approximately 7”. We are unable to expand them into the basement because of headroom constraints. It is unclear whether the mudroom is an original feature of the house. It was likely added to the house later to enclose a set of exterior stairs to the basement. New Master Bedroom & Bath New master bedroom and bath addition The house is currently a one-bedroom house with a non- conforming bedroom in the basement. We are proposing to add a new master bedroom and bath to the rear(south) of the house and existing garage. The addition will have similar roof lines as the existing structure but will be easily distinguishable. For example, the original siding and trim material has been covered with a metal siding that looks like lap siding (from a distance) but we plan to use a modern equivalent of lap siding with a different reveal pattern than the existing. We also plan to use cedar shingles (or a paintable equivalent) in the gables of the addition which the current structure does not have. The overall size and massing of the addition is in keeping with the existing house. The roof lines are similar but slightly lower so when viewed from the street or alley the addition will not overwhelm the original the house. The addition is being designed in such a way that if desired, it could be removed and the original structure could be restored. We will over-frame a portion of the east side of the garage roof but we will not deconstruct the roof. The east wall of ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 59 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Property Name_____________________ Extra Worksheet Page Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) [Continuation Sheet] If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide individual costs for each feature. Feature __ Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature __ Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. New Master Bedroom & Bath(continued) New master bedroom and bath(continued) the garage will not be removed. It will act as an interior wall between the master closets and the garage but will only support the garage roof. And finally, by adding this new bedroom and bath it will make the house more functional for this owner and other owners in years ahead. It is common in Old Town Fort Collins for these older homes with few bedrooms to be turned into short term rentals because they become impractical for a family of average size to live in. By adding this bedroom, it will help to keep it functioning in its historic purpose as a family residence. Detached Garage & Art Studio New detached garage and studio The proposed garage with art studio above is phase 2 of this project but will get underway shortly after phase 1 is started. It will be under a separate building permit. The proposed garage will also expand the functionality of the property for the current owner and for future owners. Most families have multiple cars and the existing garage, while historic, is not very functional for modern cars except for the most compact. It will be converted to a bike garage and still maintain its historic features. The new structure will use the same materials on the exterior as the addition in features A & B and will have similar roof and eave details. The main ridge of the roof will be approximately 30” higher than the main ridge of the house but because it is located at the rear of the lot it will not be visible from most locations on the street and sidewalk. Orton Residence B C ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 60 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 61 SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALKEXISTING PATIO EXISTING GARAGE LOT LINELOT LINELOT LINE LOT LINE 5'-0"5'-0"5'-0" WEST OLIVE STREET ALLEY15'-0"VERIFY4'-2" 47'-6"140'-0"Site Plan - Existing 1 A2Site 1 SETBACK LINESETBACK LINESETBACK LINE KITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM BATH MASTER BATH BEDROOM OFFICE FIREPLACEMUDROOM 25'-3"40'-9"7'-0"2'-0"10'-10"12'-5"14'-0"13'-3"11'-0"2'-6"2'-0"2'-10 1/2"10'-3"21'-3"3'-0"W/D 18'-9"EXISTING GAZEBO & CONCRETE PAD 11'-6" X9'-6"22'-6"29'-6"35'-0"EXISTING PINE TREE 16'-0"EXISTING HOUSE 18'-0" UNUSED TELEPHONE POLE AC ELEC METER 60'-6 1/8"20'-0"7'-10" SHARED ENTRY RAMP TO DRIVEWAY N scale: 1" = 20' Orton Residence 723 West Olive St Fort Collins, CO 6/29/2022ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 62 REMOVE/RE-USE EXISTING GAZEBO SIDEWALK CURB & GUTTER SIDEWALKEXISTING GARAGE LOT LINELOT LINELOT LINE LOT LINE 5'-0"5'-0" WEST OLIVE STREET ALLEY15'-0"VERIFY47'-6"140'-0"5'-0" PHASE 2: NEW 23' X 26' GARAGE W/ STUDIO ABOVE PHASE 1: APPROXIMATE ADDITION FOOTPRINT (427 SQFT) NEW PATIO AREA 5'-0"15'-0"NEIGHBORS GARAGE 717 W OLIVE 25'-0" NEIGHBORS GARAGE Site Plan-W/New Garage & Addition Footprints 1 A2Site 2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 717 WEST OLIVE HOUSE SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEKITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM BATH MASTER BATH BEDROOM OFFICE FIREPLACEMUDROOM GARAGE 25'-3"40'-9"7'-0"2'-0"10'-10"12'-5"14'-0"13'-3"11'-0"2'-6"2'-0"2'-10 1/2"10'-3"21'-3"3'-0"W/D 18'-9"EXISTING HOUSE 13'-0"10'-0"15'-6"6'-0"PINE TREE TO BE REMOVED 13' DRIVEWAY N ADDITION WILL NEED TO ADHERE TO CURRENT SIDE SETBACK OF 5'. WILL BE OFFSET FROM EXISTING GARAGE BY APPROXIMATELY 10"26'-0"FENCE FENCE EXISTING GARAGE TO THE WEST AT 725 W OLIVE 28'-0"AC Orton Residence 723 West Olive St Fort Collins, CO 8/23/2022scale: 1" = 20'4'-0"SETBACK LINE41'-6"-INCLUDES MASTER SUITE, MUDROOM EXPANSION, AND NEW HALL TO EXISTING GARAGE CAN WE REMOVE THIS POLE? DOES NOT APEAR TO BE IN USE ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 63 1A8KITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM EXISTING MASTER BATH BEDROOM OFFICE FIREPLACEGARAGE/BIKE STORAGE MOVE DOORLOT LINE7'-10"VERIFY 4'-0"EXPANDMUDRMNEW PATIO AREA NEW MASTER SUITE Main Suite Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'A1 1 Existing House & Garage: 1315 sqft New Master Suite: 427 sqft Total with Addition: 1742 sqft 24'-3"19'-1" DOWN CLOSET 6'-0"18'-3"9'-6" 36"X72" SHOWER LINEN CAB BELOW WINDOW 13'-9"CLOSET SHLVS SHLVSEXISTING GARAGE BUMPOUT GIVEN TO MASTER BATH 13'-0"10'-5"9'-3"9'-10" HIGH AWNING WINDOW 7'-0" vanity SHLVS 8'-4"X4'-2" 8'-4"X4'-7" W/D 4'-2" 10'-3"LOT LINEREMOVE EXISTING SHOWER AND REPLACE WITH W/D & UTILITY SINK MASTER BATH 25'-3" N 10" SHELVES ABOVE SINK DBL BARN DOOR SLAB ON GRADE IN THIS AREA ONLY COAT HOOKSFRAME FLOOR WITH CRAWLSPACE BELOW VAULTED CEILING LOCATE ON DEMAND WATER HEATER & PASSIVE RADON VENT HERE CONVERT FULL BATH TO 1/2 BATH REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW CRAWLSPACE BELOW FLAT CEILING 4'Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO8/23/2022 EXISTING SIDEWALKFRAME FLOOR IN HALLWAY A1 FLOOR PLAN NEW POSTS AND BEAM TO CARRY NEW ROOF SYSTEM. MINIMIZE LOAD ON GARAGE 30"x42" DH WINDOWS 72"X84" SLIDING DOOR 36"X24" AWNINGWINDOW 7'-0"A B C D D STUDIO TO BE HEATED AND COOLED BY MINISPLIT UNIT. EXTERIOR UNIT LOCATED ALONG WEST WALL. EXACT LOCATION TBD. INTERIOR UNIT LOCATED IN ATTIC 3'-0"FULL LITE DOOR WITH TRANSOM ABOVE 1 A1 4'-0"EXPANDMUDRMDOWNUTILITY CLOSET COAT HOOKS1 STEP(MAX)4' AC UNIT 7'-0"EDOWN TO BASEMENT9 steps3 steps7'-11"6'-10 1/2"5'-2 1/2"4'-4 3/8"BENCH CUBBIES HALF WALL SLAB ON GRADE 4'-1 1/2"EXISTING DOOR TO KITCHEN 1'-7" ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 64 Existing-Viewed from Southeast 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA2 1 New Master Suite & Extended Mudroom-Viewed from southeast1 A2 SCALE: NTSA2 2 View From Street directly in front of Garage 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA2 3 MAIN ROOFLINE IS SETBACK FROM GARAGE FACE APPROXIMATELY 18' MASTER SUITE ADDITION EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING MUDROOM EXPANDED MUDROOM NEW ROOFS OVER MASTER SUITE AND MUDROOM MATCH EXISTING ROOF SLOPE (EITHER 7/12 OR 8/12) EXISTING ROOF PATIO AND SIDEWALKS NOT SHOWN MATCH EAVE DETAILS OF EXISTING ROOFS MATCH EAVE DETAILS OF EXISTING ROOFS DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALKS NOT SHOWN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE APPEARED TO HAVE CEDAR SHINGLES IN THE GABLES SO WE WOULD LIKE TO CREATE A SIMILAR LOOK ON THE ADDITION USING A PAINTABLE JAMES HARDIE PRODUCT. EXISTING HOUSE Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, COOVER FRAME ON EAST SIDE OF GARAGE IS SET BACK FROM FACE OF GARAGE 3' 1X6 LAP SIDING WITH 5" REVEAL 1X10 BELLY BAND 1X4 CORNER BOARDS AND TRIM 2X6 WINDOW SILLS W/TOP SURFACE SLOPED FOR DRAINAGE THE WEST FACE OF THIS ROOF IS IN SAME PLANE AS THE EXISTING ROOF. WE CONSIDERED DROPPING IT BELOW THE EXISTING FASCIA AND SOFFIT BUT IT CREATES AN UNDESIRABLE DRAINAGE CONDITION. SEE ROOF PLAN, SHEET A3. NOTE: THIS VIEW IS WHAT A 6' TALL PERSON WOULD SEE STANDING AT THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY. 7/15/2022 A2 BUILDING IMAGES 30"X42" DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS (NO GRIDS) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 65 RIDGERIDGERIDGE8/128/12 8/12RIDGE 8/128/12 RIDGE VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEY8/12 OVER FRAME THIS SECTIONRoof Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'A3 1 NEW BEAM AND POSTS ADJACENT TO EXISTING GARAGE WALL TO CARRY NEW ROOF SYSTEM. ONLY WEIGHT OF OVERFRAME TO BE ADDED TO GARAGE ROOF AND WALL.NEW BEAM AND POSTSOVER-FRAME THIS AREA TO SHED WATER OUT OF HORIZONTAL VALLEY Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022 Perspective of Roof from South1 A2 SCALE: NTSA3 2 MATCH PLANE OF EXISTING ROOF HERE OVER FRAME THIS SECTION EXISTING GARAGE ROOF EXISTING HOUSE ROOF A3 ROOF PLAN EXISTING GARAGE ROOF EXISTING HOUSE ROOF EXISTING RIDGEOVERFRAMING TO SHED WATER FROM VALLEY ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 66 SubaruForesterNew Garage Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1' A4 1 Footprint: 598 sqft **Ceiling ht of upper floor needs to be under 7'-6". Also restrictions on east and west wall ht's and eaves.Chevy Colorado26'-0"23'-0" 8'X7' GARAGE DOOR 7'-9 1/2" KILN UP TO STUDIO 3'-1"11'-8"9'-7"1A5SECTION LINE 6'-4"LOCATE DOOR ON EAST SIDE OF GARAGE SO THERE IS A STRAIGHT SHOT UP STAIRS AND BETTER SNOW MELT DURING WINTER MONTHS N LANDING 26'-0"23'-0" DOWN TO GARAGE 9'-9"6'-6"9'-9"546 SQFT ART STUDIO CEILING SLOPES DOWN TO 3'-10 1/2" 2'-0" 5 1/2" 8'X7' GARAGE DOOR New Studio Plan 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1' A4 2 Area: 546 sqft1A55'-6 1/2"11'-0"5'-6 1/2"DORMER WINDOWSSHED ROOF BELOW DORMER WINDOWS SOUTH FACING WINDOWS 1'-6"1'-6"5'-11"NON-COMBUSTIBLE WALL SURFACES HERE. CAN PUT THE KILN WITHIN 18" OF THE WALL. IN SOME CASES CAN GET AS CLOSE 9"BEAMBEAM 6'-6"DORMER WINDOWSTHIS DORMER MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. NEED TO CHECK WITH FC PLANNING CEILING HEIGHT OVER TOILET = ~6'-4" 7'-9" COUNTER 7'-6" CEILING HEIGHT CEILING SLOPES DOWN TO 3'-10 1/2" 2'-0"2'-0"2'-6"8'-3"8'-3"Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022 A4 GARAGE & STUDIO PLANS 1/2 BATH NEW GARAGE 596 SQFT ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 67 9 12 GRADE 7'-6"GARAGE ART STUDIO Garage Section A2A5 1 scale: 1/8" = 1' EXISTING GRADE SLAB ON GRADE EAST FACING DORMER CEILING HT.DORMER WALL RECESSED 2' 2'-0" ENGINEERED TRUSSES 2'OC 3'-10 1/2"6"13'-0"8'-0"2'-6" ROOF UNDER DORMER WINDOWS.2'-6"6"1'-0 5/8"RIDGE VENT 23'-0"9'-0 5/8"3'-10 1/2"MAX EAVE HT.23'-0 3/8"(24' MAX)3'-1" MAY NEED TO CLIP THE CORNER OF THIS DOOR DOOR TO STAIRSWEST FACING DORMER CAN PROBABLY REDUCE FLOOR JOISTS TO 9.5" TJI Garage from SE1 A2A5 3 Garage from NW1 A2A5 2 Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO7/15/2022 A5 GARAGE SECTION & IMAGES ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 68 View from Northwest after both phases completed 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA6 2 ~30" EXISTING HOUSE @ 723 W OLIVE ST PROPOSED NEW GARAGE WITH ART STUDIO ABOVE PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING HOUSE PHASE 1: PHASE 2: HEIGHT DIFF BETWEEN GARAGE AND EXISTING HOUSE View from Southeast after both phases completed 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA6 1 Orton Residence 723 West Olive St Fort Collins, CO8/12/2022A6Lot PerspectiveNEW ROOF OVER PROPOSED ADDITION TO HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE @ 723 W OLIVE ST PROPOSED NEW GARAGE WITH ART STUDIO ABOVE EXISTING GARAGE ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 69 View from West Lot Line at Street 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA7 1 NEW GARAGE ROOF AND NORTH DORMER NEW ROOF OVER MASTER BATH AND BEDROOM BUILDINGS ON LOT TO THE WEST View from End of Driveway 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA7 2 NEW GARAGE ROOF AND NORTH DORMER NEW ROOF OVER MASTER BATH AND BEDROOM EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING GARAGE Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO8/12/2022 A7 Views from Street View from Mid Lot at Street 1 A2 SCALE: NTSA7 3 GENERAL NOTES: 1) THIS VIEWS ARE WHAT A 6' TALL PERSON WOULD SEE AT EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS. (1) WEST LOT LINE AT STREET (2) END OF DRIVEWAY AT STREET (3) MIDDLE OF LOT AT STREET 2) VIEWS FROM EAST LOT LINE & STREET NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE PROPOSED GARAGE AND ADDITION ARE NOT VISIBLE. **NEW GARAGE AND ADDITION NOT VISIBLE FROM THIS LOCATION EXISTING GARAGE BUILDINGS ON LOT TO THE WEST BUILDINGS ON LOT TO THE WEST ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 70 Building Section Thru Master Bath & Bedroom 8'-0"2'-9"2'-5 1/2"8'-1 1/8"1'-2"DIFFERENCE IN ROOF HEIGHTS BETWEEN NEW MASTER BATH AND EXISTING GARAGE MINIMUM TRUSS HEEL HEIGHT FOR NEW INSULATION CODE FRAME FLOOR - ADDITION NEW CRAWLSPACE EXTERIOR GRADEEXTERIOR GRADE CEILING HEIGHT- MASTER SUITE ENGINEERED TRUSSES EXISTING GARAGE FLOOR LEVEL EXISTING GARAGE OUTLINE SHOWN IN RED NEW ROOF OVER MASTER BATH AND BEDROOM ADDITION MAIN FLOOR LEVEL OF EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE ROOF BEYOND MUDROOM ROOF BEYOND 7 127 12 Orton Residence723 West Olive StFort Collins, CO8/23/2022 A8 Building Section 1 A2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'A8 1 COMMENTS: THIS IS A BUILDING SECTION CUTTING THRU THE NEW MASTER BATH AND BEDROOM LOOKING NORTH TOWARD THE EXISTING HOUSE AND GARAGE. THE RED LINES SHOW THE EXISTING GARAGE LOCATION AND HEIGHT RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ADDITION. IN THE LAST MEETING ONE COMMISSIONER ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DROP THE ROOF OVER THE PROPOSED MASTER BATH TO MATCH THAT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE. I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THE DIFFERENCE IN FLOOR HEIGHTS BETWEEN THE ADDITION AND EXISTING GARAGE. THERE IS APPROXIMATELY A 2'-9" DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FLOOR ELEVATIONS WHICH MAKES IT IMPRACTICAL TO DROP THE ROOF OVER THE MASTER BATH TO MATCH THE GARAGE. THIS WOULD CREATE AN EXTREMELY LOW CEILING HEIGHT ON THE WESTSIDE OF THE BATHROOM. WE WANT TO KEEP PROPOSED BEDROOM AND BATH FLOOR LEVELS THE SAME AS THE REST OF THE HOUSE SO THERE ARE NO INTERNAL STEPS ON THE MAIN FLOOR. DIFFERENCE IN FLOOR HEIGHT BETWEEN BATH & EXISTING GARAGE5'-3"ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 71 $&#"%""#)' "*&$#$ &$ %%& '%$%"", "$ #"$%#"#$ $(" <78#$&+ ''-" "$ #+($" ",$.$ $" ", ,, "$%#"$% #$"$ 6 ' 792(792 <1.5 955"#" #$ #$"$ 6 ' 8;2(792 <1.5 955"# #$"" 6 $ " <72(=92 <1.5 ** #$"" 7 852(972 <1.5 ."# %" 6 "8;2(=9 <1.5 *&$#$"%%+ "+6(;!#'$:2"&/%#$""! ""$0 "+"## "#"$"" #" #$"$#$%-$!+6(9" " "#) %+7(;!$# !$ # #$%" # #$%+$(#$ ) "' '$" " ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 73 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 74 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 75 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 76 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 77 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 78 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 79 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 80 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 81 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 82 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 83 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 84 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 85 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 86 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 87 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 88 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 89 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 90 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 91 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 92 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 93 Packet Pg. 94 Packet Pg. 95 Packet Pg. 96 Packet Pg. 97 723 W. Olive St. – Rear Addition and Garage/ Studio - Landmark Final Design Review September 21, 2022 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 2Location Map – 723 W. Olive St. / Parsons-Morgan House & Attached Garage 1943 Sanborn Map 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 98 3Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed addition • Do the project plans meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation? • Issue, issue with conditions, or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV Property Background • City Landmark • Parsons/Morgan House & Attached Garage designated October 16, 2007 • Standard 3 • Bungalow • Period of Significance undefined (1924) • House & Garage constructed in 1924 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 99 Rear (south) addition proposed, including expansion of existing mudroom and addition of new master bedroom and bathroom (427 sq. ft.) 5 Proposed Project – Phase 1 New detached 1.5 story, 2-car garage with studio above proposed – At south end of lot, alley-loaded 6 Proposed Project – Phase 2 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 100 7Site Plan – Existing 8Site Plan - Proposed 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 101 9Proposed Floor Plan 10Building Section Through Master Bath & Bedroom 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 102 11Exterior Model – Rear Addition Existing Proposed 12Exterior Model – Views from Street 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 103 13Model and Plan – Addition Roof 14Exterior Model – Detached Garage/Studio 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 104 15Site Model – Proposed Alterations 16Materials Siding – 1x6 lap siding with 5” reveal (Hardiplank or Smart Siding) Gable Siding – Cedar Shingles or similar from James Hardie Corner Boards and Trim – 1x4 hardboard Window Sills – 2x6 painted and sloped to shed moisture Windows – Metal clad on the exterior and wood on the interior, no grilles 15 16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 105 Staff Analysis Project is generally consistent with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Appears to be: • Compatible • Distinguishable • Generally reversible (related to character-defining features) • Subordinate Addition portion of project could be improved with clearer distinction between new/historic rooflines. 17 18Staff Recommendation • Approve and issue Certificate of Appropriateness 17 18 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 106 19Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed addition • Do the project plans meet the Standards for Rehabilitation? • Issue, issue with conditions, or deny Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV 723 W. Olive St. – Rear Addition and Garage/ Studio - Landmark Final Design Review September 21, 2022 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 19 20 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 107 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 21, 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 Brava synthetic (composite polymer) shingles. 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 conditional approval with a waiver of conditions, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Standards contained in Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV (specifically Rehab Standard #5 that calls for preservation of distinctive historic materials that characterize a property), but that the substitute material would come reasonably close to replicating a wood shingle roof, reduce the maintenance frequency by installing a more durable product that will provide improved hail protection, and provide better fire protection for the structure and “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.” Staff has made a similar consideration in reference to the use of stone-coated metal on a City Landmark, specifically 530 Smith Street. Staff’s recommendation acknowledges that no substitute is ideal for this property based on the shingle roofing being a character-defining feature, but that climate change- related considerations are making innovation in terms of roofing a necessity for the overall health of historic buildings. Packet Pg. 108 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 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 (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 the 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. Since that time, staff has conducted significant background research related to alternative roofing products that would be aesthetically compatible with historic wood and asphalt shingle roofs. This research was in response to several factors, most notably: - The likely increase in hail intensity in northern Colorado that will reduce the service life of traditional roofs, leading to a significant increase in municipal solid waste from roofing materials and significant increases in maintenance cost for property owners. Documented research about the likelihood of more severe and more frequent hail storms includes the following paper: https://cslc.colorado.edu/2020- trends/hail-size-is-getting-bigger-and-more-frequent - Related to wood shingle roofs in particular, the increasing risk of catastrophic fire events in urban areas previously considered protected from wildfire, and the critical nature of roofing material in influencing the fire risk to individual buildings. - The creation of a growing array of substitute roofing products that simulate wood and asphalt shingle roofing while using more durable and fire-resistant materials, such as plastic polymers (TPO or Packet Pg. 109 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 equivalent) and stone-coated metal. While staff’s conclusions related to recommended substitute roofing are still pending, staff has generally seen good performance in terms of building health and aesthetic design from various polymer and stone-coated metal products. While at present, no product represents an ideal substitute, there are products that are reasonably effective at replicating a wood shingle roof to a degree that staff would make it reasonable to entertain their installation on historic buildings. Staff has found the following factors to be helpful when assessing a substitute product for a wood shingle roof based on Preservation Brief 4, Roofing for Historic Buildings: 1. Texture – how well does a substitute product replicate the texture of a wood shingle roof? This includes the grain and sawcut pattern common of saw-cut shingles. It is important to note here and elsewhere the difference between “shakes” and “shingles” in relation to Fort Collins architectural history. Shakes were typically hand-split with an axe and typically used where there was no sawmill nearby, while shingles were sawcut and more appropriate for most urbanized areas. In nearly all contexts, outside of agricultural and pre-1870 properties, a shingle product should be selected rather than a shake. Unfortunately, those terms are often used interchangeably in the roofing industry, so specifications and samples are helpful. 2. Dimensions – Are the dimensions of the product reasonably close to the historic material? Again, the difference between shakes and shingles is important, as well as understanding that a product need not be an exact replica of the historic roofing material’s dimensions, but should convey the general appearance by dimension. 3. Color – How well does the color of the product convey the historic material for which it substitutes? This is especially important for wood shingle roofs that typically weather of their service life – a substitute material should likely replicate a new wood roof with a yellow/tan/orange color. 4. Durability/Longevity – Wood shingle roofs have historically been a very durable product capable of lasting for 30-50 years if well-cared for. However, as the quality of lumber diminishes and the frequency of extreme weather increases, this has become less so. In hail-prone areas like Colorado, the lifespan of a typical asphalt shingle roof is 7-10 years. That can be extended with the use of Class IV impact-resistant asphalt shingles, or wood shingles, that continue to have a 15-30 year expected service life depending on conditions and care. Anecdotally from recent wood-shingle roof replacements on historic buildings, Fort Collins’ replacement schedule appears closer to the fifteen year mark. The expected longevity of a substitute materials’ service life may beyond that of a typical wood roof is an important factor to consider, with a longer service life (thus, fewer chances to damage the rest of the historic building during reroofing) considered more beneficial. 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. 110 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 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. 111 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 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. 112 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a final design review for the following items: 1. Replacement of the wood shingle roof with Brava 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 There are no known installations of the Brava polymer product in Fort Collins but the applicant provided several examples known throughout the northern Colorado region. Those known addresses with installed products are attached as relevant correspondence. Staff considers the Brava product superior to the formerly submitted F-wave and equivalent to stone-coated metal since Brava’s product is an actual shingle and replicates the dimensions of a saw-cut shingle much better than the thinner F-wave. It still has some weaknesses, specifically a glossy look in direct sunlight due to the polymer, but performs as good as available stone- coated metal products on texture and better than those products on color. - 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 by 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? o From staff’s review of the product specifications and installation guide, this product installs similarly to a wood shingle roof, and could receive isolated repairs as needed. 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, Brava polymer remains unproven due to its limited installation and short time on the market. Its limited warranty covers a 50 year period. Assuming Class IV hail ratings are accurate and the warranty considers that, the Brava product would triple to quadruple the service life between reroofing from the existing wood product. • 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 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 solid landfill waste in Larimer County). Clean metal products can be, and usually are, recycled, with stone-coated metal being recyclable depending on the intake quality standards of the recycler (many scrap metal recyclers will accept up to 50% contamination). The Brava polymer product, as a plastic polymer, claims to be recyclable and Packet Pg. 113 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 7 may be as a plastic polymer, but the market for, and facilities in which to complete, that recycling remain limited. 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, 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 fire risk as opposed to other roofing materials and their durability is diminishing due to poorer quality lumber and increased severity of climate change-related extreme weather. 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. While none of the recommended circumstances from the National Park Service seem to apply in this case, staff would remind the Commission that Brief 16 was published in 1988 and since that time, climate change has required transformation in how projects on historic buildings are reviewed. The Commission may find that a durable product with a possibility of recycling at the end of a long service life, that reasonably replicates the historic material, is an overall better choice for the health and protection of the historic building, especially where roofing is concerned. Furthermore, Preservation Brief 4 regarding Roofing for Historic Buildings notes that substitutes may be considered in certain cases. The brief notes that “in a rehabilitation project, there may be valid reasons for replacing the roof with a material other than the original. The historic roofing may no longer be available, or the cost of obtaining specially fabricated materials may be prohibitive. But the decision to use an alternative material should be weighed carefully against the primary concern to keep the historic character of the building. If the roof is flat and is not visible from any elevation of the building, and if there are advantages to substituting a modern built-up composition roof for what might have been a flat metal roof, then it may make better economic and construction sense to use a modern roofing method. But if the roof is readily visible, the alternative material should match as closely as possible the scale, texture, and coloration of the historic roofing material." In this case, the roof is highly visible and is a character-defining feature of the building related to its architectural significance as an important reflection of the Shingle-style of architecture in Victorian-era Fort Collins. Any substitute should very closely match the historic material. Packet Pg. 114 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 8 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. The Brava product appears comparable to wood shingle roofing in terms of its physical properties, and performance, and in some aspects of appearance (dimensions). It seems to also perform well on color and texture, where other products such as F-wave do not. While specific photographs would be helpful, staff considers the Brava cedar substitute product promising under this Standard. TBD 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 SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. N (with a Packet Pg. 115 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 9 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. However, as noted previously in this report, the City’s decisions must be based in the Standards, subject to interpretation based on local needs, environment, and challenges. The HPC may entertain a waiver of conditions considering the importance of a well-maintained and durable roof to the protection of the historic building, the ability of the substitute to accurately replicate the character of the historic wood shingles, and the diminishing viability of wood shingle roofing in the northern Colorado climate that will be increasingly prone to severe weather events such as hail. qualification) 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. Standard 6 provides requirements that materials match as closely as possible the historic roof in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. The synthetic Brava product proposed appears to be similar in its design, closely matching the visible dimensions of a wood shingle roof. It appears to have promise in terms of texture and color as well. Photographic evidence of other installations in direct sunlight would be helpful to determine if this Standard would be met sufficiently. TBD 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. 116 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 10 FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the roof replacement with substitute Brava synthetic 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 a Brava plastic polymer shingle roof at the Boughton House at 113 N. Sherwood Street appears not to meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically Standard 5. • A waiver of conditions under Municipal Code 14-5 in this case may be warranted due to several factors, including the importance of a well-maintained roof to overall building health, the risks inherent in modern wood roofing, and the reasonable substitute offered by the Brava polymer product. RECOMMENDATION: If photographic evidence from other Brava synthetic roof installations shows a good replication of texture, without the “glossiness” of the previously considered F-wave product, the staff may recommend a waiver of conditions for Standard 6 and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for this product. Staff would recommend the HPC include a condition with such waiver of conditions, limited the selected color to the Aged, Aspen, Canyon Grey, Natural, New Cedar, or Sierra colors. Limitations on colors are especially important due to the expected long service life of the roof that will not age and change color over time like a wood shingle roof. 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. Staff recognizes that the use of a substitute on the Boughton House, which is a prominent and rare example of its architectural type, with the shingle roof being part of that, is not ideal. Staff’s recommendation is based on currently available information that balances the need for an historically-appropriate substitute with the projected risks to the health and maintenance of the building if the current material is in place. Staff is considering the Brava product as an appropriate substitute equivalent to stone-coated metal already approved with good results at 530 Smith Street, although each product performs more strongly in different categories. 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 Brava synthetic shingles 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. Packet Pg. 117 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 11 SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with Brava synthetic shingles 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 Brava synthetic shingles 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 Brava synthetic shingles 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 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. National Register Nomination (1978) 2. Subdivision Plat, including Site & Utility Plan w/ Preservation notes 3. Applicant submission materials 4. Relevant Correspondence 5. Original Design Review application 6. Staff Presentation 7. Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 118 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 SECTIONSQname 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 FORSURVEY RECORDSColorado Historical Society; 1300 Broadway CITY, TOWN --. Denver STATE Colorado 80203 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 119 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 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 120 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 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 121 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 ^1ZONE 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 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 122 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 123 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 124 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 125 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 126 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 127 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 128 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 129 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 130 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 131 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 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 132 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 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 133 NATIONAL REGISTER DATA SHEETJtNATJE iis it appnars on federal register: Bouton, Jay H., House NiTimi lUisni Hdioiic fiistituttt3ns................- ^ l-t.'CA'l'iON .t& number 113 N. Sherwood St^_______X city / town ^OTHER names.of *‘rYt r V 1[/^county co^*- . _ 0£C 18 1Q7R 064-vicinity of state county 1 w ' ,1 s no __ Larimer IMid Continent I OVWNt R ME 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. ■ist mSOURCE of NOMINATION ® administrator □ STATE □ FEDERAL. (^CONDITION □ excellent □ good □ fair □ deteriorated □ ruins □ unexposed □ unexoavated □ altered □original site □ unaltered □ moved □ reconstructed Punknown □ excavated II stale who prepareci loim ' □local DPRIVATE ORGAmZATIQN (^features: ^□SUBSTANTIALLY INTACT-1 ^DSUBSTAMTIALLY INTACT-2 ^asUBSTAMTIALLY INIACT-3 QGnot imt act -o 2g not INIACT-O “□UNRNOlNN-4 “□UNKMOlNN-5 50 UHRNOYIIN-6 SPNOT APPLICABLE-8 ^ □ **0T APPLICABLE - 9 OPNOT INTACT -OB SPNOT APPLICABLE-7 lAOAPTIVE USE OTES PNo I^SAYED? DYES | IS pr 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’ □ ^functions WHEN 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-UP reviewers initiels.IIP ADDITIONAL SPACE NEEDED NUMBER t PUT ON REVERSEI ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 134 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 135 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 136 Brava Cedar Shake Duela Cedar Brava Beautifully authentic high-performance roofing.Techos de alto rendimiento hermosamente auténticos. Truly realistic Verdaderamente realista Our proprietary process creates the most authentic- looking cedar shake on the market. Nuestro proceso exclusivo crea las duelas de cedro de aspecto más auténtico del mercado. Enhanced curb appeal Atractivo exterior mejorado Curb appeal directly correlates with owner satisfaction and higher property value. El atractivo exterior se correlaciona directamente con la satisfacción del propietario y el mayor valor de la propiedad. Maintenance free Sin mantenimiento Brava’s proprietary formulation ensures extreme durability. La formulación exclusiva de Brava garantiza una durabilidad extrema. Complete Completa Brava offers a complete line of accessory tiles. Brava ofrece una línea completa de tejas accesorias. Color technology Tecnología de color Brava’s proprietary multi-coloring process means you get the authentic appearance of a natural product, complete with variegated colors throughout the entire product. El proceso multicolor exclusivo de Brava significa que usted obtiene el aspecto auténtico de un producto natural, junto con colores variados por todo el producto. Superior performance Rendimiento superior Brava is designed to withstand even the most severe weather, boasting the highest hail resistance rating in the industry. Brava está diseñada para soportar incluso el clima más severo, y presume del mayor valor nominal de resistencia al granizo de la industria. Fully sustainable Totalmente sostenible Brava uses recycled material to create a roof that is fully recyclable. Brava utiliza material reciclado para crear un techo que es totalmente reciclable. Brava Cedar Shake Aged Duela Cedar Brava Envejecida The beautiful look of a cedar shake roof without the maintenance. El bello aspecto de un techo de duelas de cedro sin necesidad de mantenimiento. Brava Cedar Shake Sierra Duela Cedar Brava Sierra Onyx Ónix Weathered Desgastado Arendale Arendale Aged Envejecido Aspen Aspen Natural Natural Light Arendale Arendale claro Sierra Sierra Lake Forest Bosque del lago ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 137 bravarooftile.com • (844) 290-4196 • info@bravarooftile.com© Brava 2021 CS.ESSS.V2.921 Shake Field Tile 5" Teja de campo de duelas 5” 5" x 22"; 10" Exposure 5" x 22"; Exposición de 10"1.3 lbs. 1.6 lbs. 2.65 lbs. 2.0 lbs. 1.9 lbs. 4.25 lbs. Low Bajo Not Prohibited in Many Jurisdictions No prohibidas en muchas jurisdicciones Factory-Collated Color Blends Mezclas de colores intercaladas de fábrica Authentic Look Aspecto auténtico Starter Bocateja 12" x 14" 5 3/8 “ x 6” x 14” Impact Resistance: Class 4 Resistencia a impactos: Clase 4 Mineral-Infused Process for Authentic Color Proceso de infusión con minerales para un color auténtico Shake Field Tile 7" Teja de campo de duelas 7” 7" x 22"; 10" Exposure 7" x 22"; Exposición de 10" Varies by manufacturer Varía según el fabricante Natural shake is vulnerable to hail Las duelas naturales son vulnerables al granizo Varies by manufacturer; needs treatment with corrosive chemicals Varía según el fabricante; necesita tratamiento con sustancias químicas corrosivas High; shakes too narrow or broken during installation must be discarded Alto; las duelas demasiado estrechas o rotas durante la instalación deben desecharse Requires replacement of individual shakes throughout life cycle Requiere el reemplazo de duelas individuales durante todo el ciclo de vida Fire Retardant: Class A or Class C Resistente al fuego: Clase A o Clase C Factory-Collated Widths Anchos intercalados de fábrica Estimated Waste Factor Factor de desperdicio estimado 5/8" to 1" Thickness 5/8" a 1" de espesor Hip/Ridge Caballete/cumbrera Freeze/Thaw Resistant Resistente al congelamiento y deshielo Color-Fast Color resistente Shake Field Tile 12" Teja de campo de duelas 12” 12" x 22"; 10" Exposure 12" x 22"; Exposición de 10" Wind Resistance: 110+ mph Resistencia al viento: Más de 110 mph Hand Split - True-to-Life Texture Dividido a mano - Textura fiel a la naturaleza Solid Shake Accessory Accesorio sólido de duelas 12" x 22"; 10” Exposure 12” x 22”; Exposición de 10” Maintenance Free No necesita mantenimiento Hail Warrantied Garantizado contra granizo Description Descripción Performance Rendimiento Installation Instalación Aesthetics Estética Weight Peso Brava Shake Duela Brava Brava Shake Duela Brava Brava Shake Duela Brava Dimensions Dimensiones Natural Shake Duela natural Natural Shake Duela natural Natural Shake Duela natural Unparalleled Performance Desempeño sin paralelo Class 4 hail rating Clasificación de granizo clase 4 Resistencia al fuego clase A disponible Class A fire rating available Tolerances + or - 1/2". All specifications subject to change without notice. The printed colors shown may vary from actual colors. Before making a final selection, be sure to review actual material samples and roof installations. Please contact your salesperson for further assistance. In order to achieve certain fire and wind ratings, special installation instructions may be required. Please reference Brava Roof Tile installation manuals at www.BravaRoofTile.com for more details. Tolerancias + o - 1/2". Todas las especificaciones están sujetas a cambios sin previo aviso. Los colores impresos mostrados pueden diferir de los colores reales. Antes de realizar una selección final, cuide de revisar muestras reales del material e instalaciones de techos. Póngase en comunicación con su vendedor para obtener más ayuda. Con el fin de lograr ciertos valores nominales de incendios y vientos, pueden ser necesarias instrucciones especiales de instalación. Consulte los manuales de instalación de Brava Roof Tile en www.BravaRoofTile.com para obtener más detalles. 312 lbs./sq.Weight Per Square peso por cuadrado ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 138 White Paper - How Homeowners Associations Can Benefit from the Authentic Adva nta ges of Synthetic Roofing Ma teria ls By: Adam Brantman CEO, Bra va Ro of Tile Background There are over 370,000 homeowners associations in the U.S., representing more than 40 million households. Or, put another way, 58% of homeowners in the nation. That’s a lot of homes and a lot of roofs. Every HOA is different, with its own set of regulations a nd g uid e line s. Roofing covers approximately 40% of a home’s exterior and, in addition to providing aesthetic value, roofing plays a significant role in protecting a home against the elements. Ensuring a roof is up for the job is not only critical for the property’s appearance, but it’s equally important for protecting the home and valuables from outside forces such as extreme winds, hurricanes, hail, snow, rain, UV impact, and fire. For these reasons and more, it is critical to consider looking beyond tra d itiona l roofing m a te ria ls a nd ta king a c lose r look a t synthe tic s. A sm a rt a lte rna tive , synthe tic roofing materials have effectively revolutionized the world of exterior design by providing an eco- frie nd ly op tion tha t d e live rs a whole ne w le ve l of p e rformance, durability, and longevity with excellent resistance to severe weather. In this white paper, we’ll look at the effects of weather on roofing and how synthetic roofing tiles effectively respond to the challenge. Keeping Strength Top of Mind Synth etic roofing materials typically contain impact modifiers to help withstand storm and weather damage. Extremely durable, they are certified for Class 4 impact resistance, which is the highest level roofing materials can achieve, and offer protection from ha il, ra in, ice , a nd debris. Made from a variety of composites, including rubber, plastic, polymers, fiberglass, and asphalt, synthetic roofing tiles provide the color, look, and texture of natural materials such as slate and wood, yet are proven to be stro ng e r, fire -resistant, UV fade -re sista nt, a nd ea sier to maintain. They also boast a significantly longer life expectancy and can include a 50-year warra nty. Standing Up to Mother Nature When exposed to continual sunlight and UV rays, asphalt and natural wood tiles fade over time, losing their original color sharpness. However, synthetic tiles do not naturally degrade over time because UV protection is built into each tile. What’s more, they are an eco-frie nd ly solution because synthetic materials don’t deplete natural resources, such as quarries for slate, or lumber for wood shakes. Synthetic roofing materials are a great option, not only for their green capabilities, but also because they can mirror the look of materials such as wood, ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 139 slate, concrete, terra -cotta, and more. Dura bility Tha t La sts Synthetic roofing tiles are often less expensive than most traditional options and can cost less to install. There’s nothing fake about the performance of synthetic roofing tiles, too. Because of the nature of the m aterial, they are far more durable and guaranteed to arrive undamaged. Synthetic roofing tiles also require significantly less maintenance than their natural alternatives. Real Curb Appeal A property’s value increases with its appeal, durability, and overall longevity. For an HOA, this is especially important when attracting new residents. To that point, synthetic shingles bring better value for homes and greater curb appeal for HOAs by offering options that are just as aesthetically and architecturally pleasing as asphalt shingles, concrete tiles, slate, shake, and cla y tile s. A sp e c ia l molding process is used to create tiles that meet the look of natural m aterials but are far stronger. Some manufacturers even match virtually any solid color or utiliz e an innovative multi-coloring process to blend Spanish tile, slate, or shake colors together to produce variation throughout the entire tile, matching the authentic look of their natural counterparts. Winds of Change Every year, the U.S. endures numerous storms, including hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, flooding, winter storms, and other extraordinary weather events. Even damaging hail is on the upswing. While scientists debate why these storms occur, no one argues that they cause extensive property damage. A lot of states are all too familiar with the costly effects of severe weather, including Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas. In the last 20 years, Florida alone has been hit by 79 hurricanes. As a result, building codes throughout Florida have underg one sig nific a nt c ha ng e s, p a rtic ula rly to Hig h -Ve locity Hurrica ne Zone s (HVHZs), sp e c ifica lly in Mia m i-Dade and Broward counties. Many other states reference the requirements set in the Florida Building Codes (FBC) or have developed their own requirements. Ca lm in the Storm Synthetic roofing tiles have been extensively tested and, in addition to being certified for Class 4 impact resistance, they also meet Miami-Dade County acceptance for high-velocity hurricane winds, proving that the roofing tiles can withstand hurricane-force winds. In fact, ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 140 independent laboratory testing has confirmed that some synthetic roofing tiles can exceed the 156 mph winds of a Category 5 hurricane. Unrivaled Performance When the Heat Is On Dry w e a the r m ixe d with strong wind s is the p e rfe ct re cip e for wild fire s. Ac cord ing to Ve risk’s 2019 Wildfire Risk Analysis, some 4.5 million U.S. homes were identified at high or extreme risk of wild fire , with m ore tha n 2 m illion in Ca lifornia a lone . Unfor tunately, the prediction of extreme wildfires increasing happened shortly thereafter. For example, in September 2020, the governor of California declared an emergency proclamation for the counties of Napa, Sonoma, and Shasta due to the Glass and Zogg fires, which burned tens of thousands of acres, destroyed homes, and caused the evacuation of tens of thousands of residents. A month later, the Glass Fire in Napa County and Sonoma County burned about 67,500 acres and destroyed 1,555 structures; 70,000 residents of Sonoma and Napa counties were ordered to evacuate, including the entire city of Calistoga in Napa Valley. With the occurrence of wildfires growing, it makes more sense than ever to help protect homes with synthetic roofing tiles that won’t promote flame spread. Designed with high fire resistance, synthetic roof tiles can self-extinguish and create minimal heat transfer, preventing the spread of flames across the surface of the roof. As a result, the potential for wild fire s in d ry a re a s a cross the United States increases the value of a roof made of fire- re sista nt synthe tic roofing tile s. Synthe tic tile s a re Cla ss A Fire ra te d , which is the hig he st fire rating available for a roof. A roofing product that has Class A Fire rating must meet three requirements. These include the ability to resist spreading of flames on surface, ability to resist fire penetration from the exterior to the underside of the rock deck, and ability to resist recurring intermittent flame. In many cases, the only homeowners experiencing peace of mind are those who made the investment in Class A synthetic roofing tiles. Getting Approval from an HOA to Replace Roofing While an HOA will not usually prevent homeowners from getting a new roof, they will have certain rules in place pertaining to the style, color options, and materials that can be used. To that point, homeowners need to familiarize themselves with their loca l HOA standards. If they fail to ask for approval before having a roof replaced, they may end up breaking HOA rules, and the board could force the homeowner to redo the work. Homeowners should start with getting a copy of the most up-to-date Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Then, review the document and the specific guidelines for roofing material and colors before making any decisions regarding the new roof. Next, they should fill out any necessary forms due to their HOA before proceeding with any actions. Having a sample of the roofing material and plans from the contractor will help the HOA decide as well. The contractor should also be kept in the loop and know of any changes in timelines for approval and the start of the proje ct. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 141 The Botto m Line on Synthetic Roofing The ultimate shield to protect any home or building, synthetic roofing tiles are designed to meet the highest standards for wind, fire, and impact. They are beautiful, virtually maintenance-fre e , lig htwe ig ht, susta ina b le , hig hly durable, and can also be affordable. Today’s manufacturers of synthetic roofing tiles offer a wide variety of styles that fit nearly any house and style. For HOAs looking to maintain property values and keep homes looking great, it’s time to consider synthetic roofing . ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 142 Atkinson-Noland & Associates 2619 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 303.444.3620 32 Old Slip, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 917.647.9530 ana-usa.com LETTER – 113 N Sherwood St Roofing Replacement August 8, 2022 Devin Odell Homeowner 113 N Sherwood St Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.231.6725 devinodell@comcast.net Cc: Jim Bertolini, jbertolini@fcgov.com Re: 113 N Sherwood St Roofing Replacement ANA Job No. 22-142 Introduction At your request, Atkinson-Noland & Associates (ANA) is providing this report of findings related to structural aspects of a proposed roofing replacement at the historic residence located at 113 N Sherwood Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of the ANA investigation was to evaluate the feasibility of replacement of the existing wood shingles with an alternate roofing system. Ideally, this replacement could be made without significant structural modifications to the roof framing. An overall view of the structure, including the existing wood shingles is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Overall view of residence at 113 N Sherwood Street. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 143 113 N Sherwood St Roofing Replacement Pg. 2 8/8/2022 Atkinson-Noland & Associates The existing wood shingles consist of natural wood slats generally ranging in width from approximately 3 to 10 inches with a thickness of approximately 3/8 inch (Figure 2). The shingles are lapped in a fashion that generally results in approximately three layers of shingles overlapping. Figure 2. Close-up view of existing wood shingles. The existing roof framing consists of plank wood decking (approximately 3 to 6 inches wide by 7/8 inch thick) over nominal 2x6 rafters at approximately 20 inches on-center spacing (Figure 3). Figure 3. View looking up of existing roof framing and decking from attic interior. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 144 113 N Sherwood St Roofing Replacement Pg. 3 8/8/2022 Atkinson-Noland & Associates The proposed replacement roofing material considered in this investigation were the Revia Hand-Split Shake Synthetic Shingles by F-Wave. These shingles mimic the appearance of natural wood shingles but are manufactured from a non-absorptive synthetic material (Figure 4). Figure 4. View of product information related to the tested proposed replacement roofing material. Analysis and Conclusions The weights of both kinds of shingles (the existing natural wood shingles and the proposed synthetic shingles) were evaluated in the ANA laboratory. In order to measure the material properties, samples of both types of shingles were collected from the homeowner during the ANA site visit. Three samples of each material were measured and weighed in the saturated condition. Weights of the materials were found to be as follows: Wood Shingle Saturated Weight (lb) per square foot for 1 inch thickness Synthetic Shingle Saturated Weight (lb) per square foot Sample 1 2.98 1.98 Sample 2 3.00 1.99 Sample 3 2.62 2.06 AVERAGE 2.87 2.01 Since the existing wood shingle installation generally measured approximately 1 inch thick in the field of the roof, the synthetic shingles are approximately 0.86 pounds per square foot lighter than the wood shingles they would be replacing. The existing plank decking has several structural concerns due to the small gaps between planks. This can affect uplift resistance if roofing nails are not well-embedded in the decking material. A ¼” overlay is ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 145 113 N Sherwood St Roofing Replacement Pg. 4 8/8/2022 Atkinson-Noland & Associates recommended to ensure proper roofing attachment. The weight of plywood is around 0.69 pounds per square foot for 1/4"-thick sheets. Oriented strand board (OSB) is slightly heavier than plywood and less resistant to moisture damage. The cumulative weight of the replacement synthetic shingles and the ¼” plywood overlay would be less than the design weight of the existing natural wood shingles. Therefore, no strengthening or modification to the roof framing would be required if these materials are used. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this matter. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. The information contained in this report is based on the information available or collected at the time that this report was prepared, and we reserve the right to modify this report as additional information becomes available. Our services were performed using the degree of skill normally exercised by our professional peers and our findings were reached with a reasonable degree of engineering certainty. Sincerely, Donald Harvey, P.E. Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 146 1 Jim Bertolini From:Jim Bertolini Sent:Friday, September 2, 2022 10:25 AM To:Tom Stoffel; Devin Odell Cc:Maria Fernandez-Gimenez Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: 113 N Sherwood-Reroofing project-materials for 9-21-22 meeting Tom and Devin, Thanks for the addresses – I’d say if it’s convenient for you to stop by any of these properties between now and 9/21 to take a few daytime photos (as direct sunlight as possible), that’d be helpful. Another option is to bring a product sample to the HPC meeting if you’re able to attend in person. You can also drop a sample off at our office at 281 N College Ave – I think we still have an F-wave sample you left that we could return to you as well if you give me a heads up when you’d be dropping by. 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: Tom Stoffel <tom@coloradonativegc.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:36 AM To: Devin Odell <devinodell64@gmail.com> Cc: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com>; Maria Fernandez-Gimenez <maria.fernandez-gimenez@colostate.edu> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: 113 N Sherwood-Reroofing project-materials for 9-21-22 meeting Hey Gentlemen, I have received some addresses that have the wood shake Brava product installed in our local market. I do not hae any pictures of these homes in particular, but we can drive by and look at them if you would like. Natural Shake 16696 County Road Greeley, CO 80631 Aged 4501 S. Vine Street Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Aged Shake 7331 S. Meadow Court Boulder, CO 80301 Weathered Shake ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 147 2 3805 Norwood Court Boulder, CO 80304 Aged Shake (Rotunda building at the school) 1600 Pierce Street Lakewood, CO 80214 Aspen Shake 1853 S. Robb St. Lakewood, CO 80232 Aspen Shake 2392 Terraridge Drive Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 Spanish New Aged Terra Cotta 1500 Teakwood Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 Spanish Vintage Clay 3735 Dorshire Lane Timnath, CO 80547 Tom Stoffel Owner / CEO Colorado Native Roofing & Construction p: (970) 888-1699 m: (303) 249-2115 w: ColoradoNativeGC.com e: tom@coloradonativegc.com On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 9:25 AM Devin Odell <devinodell64@gmail.com> wrote: Jim: I am confirming that we plan to attend the September meeting. I've attached additional materials, including Donald Harvey's engineering letter, an information sheet on the Brava product (which I think you already have), and a white paper on the benefits of the product. We are still working on getting some photographs and/or addresses of installations of the product around Northern Colorado. We also hope to have a representative of the product available at the meeting to answer questions. Thanks for your help with this. Best regards, ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 148 3 Devin Odell and Maria Fernandez-Gimenez -- Please note my new email: devinodell64@gmail.com. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 149 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 150 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 151 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 152 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 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 153 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 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 154 - 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 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 155 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 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 156 113 N. Sherwood, Boughton House, current photos East façade from Sherwood St., looking west. South elevation, looking north ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 157 North elevation, looking southwest Rear elevation, looking north ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 158 Aerial, showing roof Current roof conditions ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 159 Product Samples (other properties) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 160 220 E. Elizabeth, F-wave installation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 161 1 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission – September 21, 2022 113 N. Sherwood St. – Boughton House Landmark Design Review – Final Maps 2 113 N. Sherwood St – Boughton House 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 162 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 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 163 5 113 N. Sherwood – Boughton House – Existing Conditions Proposed Project 6 1. Replacement of wood shingle roof with Brava synthetic (composite polymer) product to replicate wood shingles 2. Anticipated gutter and wood fascia repair/replacement Sample – Aged color 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 164 Sample – Aspen color 7 Sample – Lake Forest color 8 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 165 Sample – Aspen color 9 Sample – Natural color 10 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 166 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 11 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; NPS Preservation Brief 4 on Historic Roofing provides some expanded flexibility 12 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 167 Qualification on Substitutes National Park Service Brief 16 was published in 1988 Since that time, several factors have changed related to the 4 circumstances: 1. The unavailability of historic materials; -Due to diminishing quality of lumber, wood roofs do not have the same durability as previously and wear out more quickly (15-20 years based on recent roofing permits). 2. The unavailability of skilled craftspeople; -Fort Collins still has access to roofers experienced in wood roofing; substitute products represent a concern on installation since they are new and often require specialized training. 3. Inherent flaws in the original materials; -With roofing, except in rare cases such as historic metal or tile roofs, the historic material is long gone and wears out by nature. 4. Code-required changes; -Although nothing formal has been stated yet, we can anticipate code changes will require ending the use of non-durable and/or flammable materials like wood shingles. -Our region can expect to see increased fire risk due to climate change, with wood shingles being among the worst roofing types for that scenario, increasing risk that the full resource will be lost. 13 Staff Analysis – Standard 2 • 2 – Preserve historic character – appears met • Wood shingle roof is a character-defining feature • Brava roof product appears close enough in texture, dimensions, and overall design (depending on color selected) • Additional photographs of existing installs would be preferred 14 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 168 Staff Analysis – Standard 5 • Standard 5 – Preserve character-defining features – not met: • Wood shingle roof is a character-defining feature • This Standard is unambiguous in terms of preserving historic materials • Waiver of conditions could be considered • Brava roof product appears close in texture and overall design (depending on color selected) • Additional photographs of existing installs would be preferred 15 Staff Analysis – Standard 6 6. Repair or, if necessary, replace in-kind, appears to be met: • Wood shingle roof is a character-defining feature • Brava roof product appears close enough in texture and overall design (depending on color selected) • Additional photographs of existing installs would be preferred 16 15 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 169 Substitute Roofing – Ft Collins 17 220 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 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 • Stone-coated metal can be recycled, but depends on recycler • Plastic polymers recyclability currently limited, but could improve • Wood shingle roofs, even to a Class A rating, carry increased fire risk • Substitutes often will not qualify for historic preservation incentives • Most substitutes fall short of good replication of historic materials on at least one meaningful count: color, texture, dimensions 18 17 18 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 170 Staff Recommendation • Pending consideration of photographic evidence from existing installs, staff Recommends a conditional approval, including a waiver of conditions for Standard 5, for the project, with a condition related to color. • The HPC may consider a Waiver of Conditions under Sec. 14-5 if it feels this is warranted in this circumstance • Staff would qualify this recommendation to acknowledge that, while some experimentation with substitute roofing is necessary in the immediate future, this particular property is difficult because of how significant the roof shingling is to conveying the architectural style and significance of the property. 19 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. 20 19 20 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 171 21 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Commission – September 21, 2022 113 N. Sherwood St. – Boughton House Landmark Design Review – Final 21 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 172 Packet Pg. 172-1 DATE: STAFF: September 21, 2022 Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager REGULAR SESSION ITEM 6 Historic Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Land Use Code Phase 1 Update – Request for Recommendation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a follow up to the discussion at the August 2022 Historic Preservation Commission meeting regarding the proposed Land Use Code Phase One Update, City staff will provide an updated overview of the key proposal details and a request for a recommendation to City Council, based on the anticipated impact of the changes on the recognition and protection of historic resources. The draft code sections are currently posted for public review at https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates. Phase 1 code revision details of particular relevance to the preservation and management of historic resources include the following: •As part of the structural reorganization to improve clarity and accessibility, Section 3.4.7 in the current land use code has moved to Article 5 – “General Development and Site Design” and is now included as Section 5.8.1 in the revised code. The code section is largely unchanged, with the following exceptions: o References to the Landmark Preservation Commission have been changed to Historic Preservation Commission. o Section 5.8.1 (B), “Jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC),” has been added to clarify that the HPC is the decision maker for landmark properties and districts that are involved in review processes under the land use code; therefore Chapter 14 requirements, i.e. review of proposed work against the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, must be satisfied before proceeding through the full development review process. o For infill development within 200 feet of historic resources, the design compatibility requirements relative to those historic properties will remain unchanged. Those are now found in 5.8.1 (F)(1)(c) Table 1: Requirements for New Construction Near Historic Resources. •ADUs will be allowed in all zone districts. Per Section 5.8.1 (B), the HPC will remain the decision maker for proposed ADUs on landmark properties as well as any other proposed alterations to landmark properties. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed updates to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code based on the following finding(s): [List findings as they relate to requirements for the protection of historic resources, e.g. the proposed changes will allow for an increase in overall housing capacity and housing affordability while continuing to allow for preservation of historic resources.] SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed updates to the City of Fort Collins land use code, provided the following conditions are met: [List condition(s) in detail and reason for concern, e.g. “Revise the proposed language in Section xx to clarify the following in regards to historic resources . . .” Item 6, Page 1 Packet Pg. 173 SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend denial of the proposed updates to the City of Fort Collins land use code based on the following findings: [List findings as they relate to requirements for the protection of historic resources, e.g. “The proposed changes do not continue to provide for the recognition and preservation of historic resources due to the following concerns . . .”] ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff PowerPoint Presentation Item 6, Page 2 Packet Pg. 174 Housing Strategic Plan Implementation LUC Phase 1 Updates: Proposed Code Changes August 22nd, 2022Noah Beals | Development Review Manager Meaghan Overton | Housing Manager ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 175 Purpose of the Land Use Code Updates: To Align the LUC with Adopted City Plans and Policies with a focus on: •Housing-related changes •Code Organization •Equity 2 ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 176 3 •LIV 2: Promote infill and redevelopment •LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community grows •LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices •LIV 6: Improve access to housing …regardless of race, ethnicity, income, age, ability, or background •T 5.2: Plan to implement BRT and high-frequency transit-service …along major transportation corridors as land-use densifies and mobility demands increase City Plan Alignment ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 177 4Transit Plan Alignment ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 178 “Everyone in Fort Collins has healthy, stable housing they can afford” Housing Strategic Plan Alignment 5 ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 179 6 LUC Phase 1 updates support Big Move 5: Live, Work and Play Nearby and Big Move 7: Healthy, Affordable Housing •LWPN2: Evaluate opportunities to better encourage the development of “complete neighborhoods” that include a variety of housing options, access to services and amenities, and proximity of housing to jobs •LWPN4: Increase density and mixed uses through the land use code as guided by City Plan •HAH3: Increase the number and diversity of housing types and allow more homes per lot (density) via an update to the LUC •HAH9: Strengthen incentives for mixed-use development along the MAX corridor to encourage more housing Our Climate Future Alignment ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 180 7Our Climate Future Alignment Critical path: •100% renewable electricity •Expanding local and regional public transit coverage and frequency •Community-wide organic waste diversion ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 181 FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES These Guiding Principles (presented to City Council on November 9, 2021) provide the foundation for the LUC Updates Diagnostic and Approach and will inform all proposed code changes with emphasis on Equity. 1.Increase overall housing capacity (market rate and affordable) and calibrate market-feasible incentives for Affordable (subsidized/deed restricted) housing 2.Enable more affordability especially near high frequency/capacity transit and priority growth areas 3.Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and/or future priority place types 4.Make the code easier to use and understand 5.Improve predictability of the development permit review process, especially for housing ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 182 Summary: Code Reorganization 9 Make the code easier to use and understand Key Proposals: •Change name to “Land Development Code” (Recommendation 14) •Reorganize content so the most used information is first in the Code •Reformat zone districts with consistent graphics, tables, and illustrations (Recommendation 12) •Consolidate form standards in new Article 3 –Building Types (Recommendation 11) •Consolidate use standards into table in new Article 4 –Use Standards (Recommendation 13) •Update definitions and rules of measurement for consistency (Recommendation 13) •Rename some zones and create subdistricts to consolidate standards (Recommendation 15) Improve predictability of the development review process, especially for housing ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 183 Summary: Housing choice, compatibility, and diversity 10 Allow for more diverse housing choices that fit in with the existing context and/or future priority place types Key Proposals: •Allow ADUs in all residential and mixed-use zones (Recommendation 1) •Create a menu of building types and form standards to guide compatibility (Recommendation 1) •Update Land Use Table to permit more housing types through BDR (Recommendation 1) •Adjust standards to enable more small-lot infill development and “missing middle” housing types. (Recommendation 2) •Update use standards, rules of measurement, and definitions to align with new building types and standards. (Recommendation 3) ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 184 Summary: Housing capacity 11 Increase overall housing capacity (market rate and affordable) Key Proposals: •Target increases in housing capacity to zones in transit corridors and zones with the greatest amount of buildable land (Recommendation 8) •Increase maximum density in the LMN zone from 9 to approximately 12 dwelling units per acre (Recommendations 4, 5, and 8) •Reduce parking requirements for studio, one-and two-bedroom units in multi-unit developments (Recommendations 4, 9, and 10) •Regulate building size through maximum floor area and form standards instead of units per building (Recommendation 5) •Regulate density through form standards and building types instead of dwelling units per acre (Recommendation 5) Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and priority growth areas ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 185 12 HOUSING CAPACITY REPORT CARD PERFORMANCE METRIC EXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE % CHANGE Total Housing Capacity Estimated number of units possible to build under zoning standards 25,959 dwelling units 39,725 dwelling units ⬆53%Housing Capacity as Percent of Projected 20 - Year Housing Need Estimated capacity compared to total projected housing demand through 2040.1 85% of 30,480 units 130% of 30,480 units Housing Capacity in Transit Corridors Estimated number of units possible to build under zoning standards within 5 minute walk of existing and future transit corridors. 5,104 dwelling units 8,299 dwelling units ⬆63% 1 Source: City Plan Trends and Forces Report (2017) ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 186 Summary: Housing Affordability 13 Key Proposals: •Expand affordable housing incentives (Recommendations 6 and 9) •Modify income criteria to address the most critical shortages (Recommendations 6 and 9) •Raise the density bonus incentive in the LMN zone (Recommendations 6 and 9) •Create height bonus and parking reduction incentives (Recommendations 6 and 9) •Require 50-60 years of deed restriction instead of the current 20 years •Continue to require a minimum 10% of units to be affordable for development seeking incentives •Update definitions for affordable housing, review for consistency (Recommendation 7) Calibrate market-feasible incentives for affordable housing Enable more affordability, especially near high frequency transit and priority growth areas ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 187 14 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REPORT CARD PERFORMANCE METRIC EXISTING CODE PROPOSED CODE % CHANGE Capacity for Affordable Units with Bonus Incentives Estimated number of deed-restricted affordable units possible to build if bonus incentives are used in all projects. 1,590 dwelling units (LMN Zone) 4,677 dwelling units (multiple zones)⬆194%Capacity as Percent of Affordable Rental Unit Shortage Estimated capacity compared to total estimated shortage of rental units affordable to households earning less than 60% of AMI.1 23% of 6,787 units 68% of 6,787 units Total Housing Capacity with Bonus Incentives Estimated number of total units (market rate and affordable) possible to build if bonus incentives are used in all projects. 32,394 dwelling units 53,106 dwelling units ⬆64% 1 Source: Housing Strategic Plan (2021) ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 188 15Reorganization The Land Development Code: •Article 1 –General Provisions •Article 2 –Administration •Article 3 –General Development Standards •Article 4 –Districts •Article 5 –Terms and Definitions The Land Use Code: •Article 1 –General Purpose and Provisions •Article 2 –Zone Districts •Article 3 –Building Types •Article 4 –Use Standards •Article 5 –General Development and Site Design •Article 6 –Administration and Procedures •Article 7 –Rules of Measurement and Definitions Existing Code Proposed Code ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 189 1 6Article 1 -General Purpose and Provisions Summary of Changes •NEW Format •Existing Code Provisions •Applicability of Housing Policies ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 190 1 7Article 1 -General Purpose and Provisions 1.3.4 -CONFLICTS WITH PRIVATE HOUSING COVENANTS SEVERABILITY No person shall create, cause to be created, enforce or seek to enforce any provision contained in any restrictive covenant which has the effect of prohibiting or limiting the City’s regulations to implement its housing policies, as supported by the Housing Strategic Plan, including but not limited to increased density, height and occupancy. Applicability of Housing Policies ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 191 1 8Article 2 –Zone Districts Summary of Changes •Moved Zone Districts to the Front of the Code •Renamed the N-C-L, N-C-M, and N-C-B districts to Old Town District OT-A, OT-B, and OT-C •Organized Zone Districts in General Categories •Formatted into 2 columns •Highlighted Sections Breaks •Added Graphics and Tables •Removed list of Uses •Introduced allowed Building Types ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 192 1 9Article 2 –Zone Districts New Format 19 ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 193 2 0Article 2 –Zone Districts New Graphics and Images ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 194 2 1Article 3 –Building Types Summary of Changes •NEW Building Types •10 Residential Building Types •Building Design Requirements •New Tables •Dimension Standards identified on New Graphics ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 195 2 2Article 3 –Building Types Increase in Housing Choices ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 196 2 3Article 3 –Building Types Increase in Housing Choices ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 197 24Article 4 –Use Standards Summary of Changes •NEW Land Use Table •Change of Review Process for Residential Use •Expanding Accessory Dwelling Unit •New Tables •Consolidating Use Standards ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 198 25Article 4 –Use Standards Residential Uses Review Changes RESIDENTIAL USES Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Single Unit Dwelling ◪■◪■▨■◪■■ ■ ■ ■ Single Unit Attached Dwelling ◪ ◪ Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■ Two Unit Dwelling/ Duplex ◪ ◪ Not Allowed ■■ ■ Multi-Unit Dwelling ▨■ Mixed-Use Dwelling Units Accessory Dwelling Unit Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■◪■◪■Not Allowed ■ Short Term Primary Rentals ▣ ▣▣ ▣ Short Term Non- Primary Rentals Extra Occupancy Rental Houses ◪ ◪ Manufactured Housing ◪ ◪ Group Homes ◪ ◪ ▨ ▨ ▨ ▨ ▨ ▨ ◪ ◪ ◪ ◪ Shelter for victims of domestic violence ■ ■ ■ ■ ◪ ◪ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ OT-B RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS UE RF RL OT-A MHRUL ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 199 26Article 4 –Use Standards MIXED -USE DISTRICTS LMN MMN HMN OT -C NC RESIDENTIAL USES Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Single Unit Dwelling ◪■◪■■■ Single Unit Attached Dwelling ◪■◪■■■◪◪ Two Unit Dwelling/Duplex ◪■◪■◪■◪◪ Multi-Unit Dwelling ◪■◪■◪■◪■ Mixed-Use Dwelling Units ◪■◪■◪■ Accessory Dwelling Unit Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■ Short Term Primary Rentals ▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣ Short Term Non-Primary Rentals Extra Occupancy Rental Houses ◪◪■■■■■■■■ Manufactured Housing ▨▨ Group Homes ▨▨▨▨▨▨◪◪◪◪ Shelter for victims of domestic violence ■■■■■■■■ Residential Uses Review Changes ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 200 27Article 4 –Use Standards Residential Uses Review Changes COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS CC CCN CCR CG CG-CAC RESIDENTIAL USES Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Single Unit Dwelling ◪▨▨◪◪ Single Unit Attached Dwelling ◪◪◪◪◪◪◪◪ Two Unit Dwelling/Duplex ◪◪◪◪◪◪◪◪ Multi-Unit Dwelling ▨▨▨▨▨▨▨▨ Mixed-Use Dwelling Units ◪■◪■◪■◪■◪■ Accessory Dwelling Unit Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■ Short Term Primary Rentals ▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣▣ Short Term Non-Primary Rentals ▣▣ Extra Occupancy Rental Houses ■■■■■■■■ Manufactured Housing Group Homes ◪◪◪◪◪◪◪◪▨▨ Shelter for victims of domestic violence ■■■■■■■■ ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 201 28Article 4 –Use Standards Residential Uses Review Changes COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS CS NC CL (RA)CL (OA)HC RESIDENTIAL USES Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Single Unit Dwelling ◪◪■■■■ Single Unit Attached Dwelling ◪◪◪◪■■■■▨▨ Two Unit Dwelling/Duplex ◪◪◪◪■■▨▨ Multi-Unit Dwelling ▨▨▨▨ Mixed-Use Dwelling Units ◪■◪■◪■◪■◪■ Accessory Dwelling Unit Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■Not Allowed ■ Short Term Primary Rentals ▣▣▣▣▣▣ Short Term Non-Primary Rentals Extra Occupancy Rental Houses ■■■■■■ Manufactured Housing Group Homes ◪◪◪◪■■▨▨ Shelter for victims of domestic violence ■■■■ ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 202 29Article 5 –General Development and Site Design Summary of Changes •New Affordable Housing Incentives •Reorganization •Multi-Unit Parking reduction •Consolidating Existing Code Standards ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 203 30 Existing Code vs. Proposed Code PARKING Requirements ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 204 31Article 5 –General Development and Site Design Affordable Housing Incentives ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 205 32Article 6 –Administration and Procedures Summary of Changes •Existing Review Procedures •Reorganization (Putting Frequent Review Processes First) •Establish a Notification Area for ADU •Minor Amendment Review For City Projects ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 206 33Article 7 –Rules of Measurement and Definitions Summary of Changes •New Rules and Measurements •New Graphics •Existing Definitions ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 207 34Article 7 –Rules of Measurement and Definitions ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 208 Next Steps 35 1.Public Review Draft & Public engagement and testing –Summer / Fall 2022 •Virtual engagement opportunities to educate, seek input, test code changes, and keep the public informed. More details at https://www.fcgov.com/housing/lucupdates •Workshops and presentations with a range of City departments •Presentations to multiple Boards and Commissions •Dialogues with community groups and members of the public •Advisory meetings with the LUC Phase 1 Working Group 2.Consideration of Adoption –Fall 2022, First Reading October 18, 2022 ITEM 6, ATTCHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 209