Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2024 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular MeetingPage 1 Commissioners: Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair This meeting will be held Margo Carlock In person at Chambers, 300 LaPorte Ave. Chris Conway And remotely via Zoom Jenna Edwards Jeff Gaines Aaron Hull Staff Liaison: David Woodlee Maren Bzdek Vacant Seat Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 5:30 PM AGENDA determined that the prudent format for HPC meetings will be in person meetings that also make use of remote technology. 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/98864384557 . (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 98864384557. 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 preservation@fcgov.com at least 48 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 preservation@fcgov.com at least 48 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 Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 2-174. 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. Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible. A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible. 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 • STAFF REVIEW OF AGENDA o This review provides an opportunity for Staff to review the posted meeting and agenda and provide the Commission with any last-minute updates that may affect the order of agenda items. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW o The Chair will invite public requests for a Commissioner to “pull” any items off the Consent Agenda. This is not the time for public comment on the item. o Any Commissioner, at the Commissioner’s own prerogative or in response to a request from the public, may “pull” an item off the Consent Agenda to be considered as a separate item. o Pulled Consent Agenda items will have the opportunity for public comment and will be considered before scheduled discussion items. • COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS REMAINING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Packet Pg. 2 Page 3 • PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW UP FROM COMMISSION • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2024 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 21, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. • ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP o This is an opportunity for Commissioners to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Agenda. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA o This is an opportunity for staff to provide updates on general activities at the City of Fort Collins related to the work of the Commission. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA o This is an opportunity for Commissioners to share individual activities and updates related to the work of the Commission. • CONSIDERATION OF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS o Any agenda item a Commissioner pulled from the Consent Agenda will be given time for a staff presentation on the item, public comment, and discussion, and the Commission will act on the item at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA Each item on the Discussion Agenda will be given time for a staff presentation, public comment, and discussion, and the Commission will act on the item in its agenda order. 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 and outreach programming. This report will provide highlights for the benefit of Commissioners and the public, and for transparency regarding decisions made without the input of the Historic Preservation Commission. Packet Pg. 3 Page 4 3. PROPOSED POLICY ADOPTION: EXPANDED ROOFING OPTIONS FOR PROJECTS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS DESCRIPTION: would expand the allowable installation materials and methods, and allow residents to more heavily weight fire prevention, material durability, and recyclability as factors when selecting roofing on historic buildings. STAFF: 4. 1316 W. OAK ST. (JASPER LOOMIS PROPERTY)– FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: on the Jasper Loomis Property at 1316 W. Oak St. The owner has waived conceptual design review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work. APPLICANT: STAFF: 5. EDUCATION WORKSHOP – HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORY PRIMER DESCRIPTION: Hispanic American History in Fort Collins from the 186 presentation is being given at a regular meeting as opposed to a work session to make it available to the attending public in person and online and via the meeting recording. September 15 to October 15 is Hispanic Heritage Month in the United States. STAFF: • OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION O Commissioners may raise new topics that may properly come before the HPC for consideration. • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission STAFF Melissa Matsunaka, Sr. Project Coordinator SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 21, 2024 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 21, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC August 21, 2024 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 Page 1 Jim Rose, Chair Location: Bonnie Gibson, Vice Chair Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Margo Carlock And remotely via Zoom Chris Conway Jenna Edwards Jeff Gaines Aaron Hull Staff Liaison: David Woodlee Maren Bzdek Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting August 21, 2024 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Rose called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Margo Carlock, Jenna Edwards, Jeff Gaines, Bonnie Gibson, Jim Rose, David Woodlee ABSENT: Chris Conway and Aaron Hull STAFF: Maren Bzdek, Heather Jarvis, Jim Bertolini, Yani Jones, Melissa Matsunaka •AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek reviewed the published agenda. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON ITEMS ON OR NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. •CONSENT AGENDA 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2024. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 17, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Historic Preservation ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 6 Page 2 Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carlock, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an update on the landmark nomination for the Chavez/Ambriz/Gonzales property at 724 Martinez Street. Jones stated Council adopted the first reading of the landmark ordinance last night and will consider the item on second reading on September 3rd. • COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP None. • 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). Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, discussed some of the staff activities that have occurred since the last meeting, including design reviews for 2300 West Mulberry Street, the Ricketts Farmhouse, and 215 Whedbee Street, the EJ Gregory Property. Ms. Jones provided an update on the repairs to the Johnson Barn and a reminder about the Historic Preservation newsletter. Commissioner Woodlee commended the work on the Johnson Barn and asked how long the repairs took. Ms. Bzdek replied the photos were sent about a week and a half ago, though it is likely the repairs were completed prior to that. 3. 130 S. WHITCOMB ST. (KLURE/WILLIAMS PROPERTY) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: on the Klure/Williams Property at 130 S. Whitcomb St., which contributes to the Whitcomb Street Landmark District established in 2013. The owner has waived conceptual design review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work. APPLICANT: STAFF: STAFF PRESENTATION Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner, showed maps and images of the property and outlined the role of the Commission. Ms. Jones noted the property was designated as a contributing part of the Whitcomb Street Historic District, which was designated in January of 2013, and she discussed the history of the home and its residents. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 7 Page 3 Ms. Jones outlined the proposed project to change the existing wood shingle roof to a Malarkey Vista asphalt shingle product due to a requirement from the property owner’s insurance company related to the need for fire resistant materials. Ms. Jones stated the conformance of this proposed project with the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation depends upon whether the wood material of the roof is considered to be a character-defining feature of the home, and staff has found that the home includes many of the character-defining features of Queen Anne style architecture; therefore, the home’s ability to convey its architectural significance does not depend on the shingle roof being of a wood material. Ms. Jones stated staff is recommending the Commission issue a certificate of appropriateness. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Nancy York stated her parents bought the home at 130 South Whitcomb in 1938. She stated the roof has deteriorated, though there have been no leaks. She expressed the desire for the shingles to be durable and long-lasting. PUBLIC INPUT Kevin Murray noted this home can not be insured unless this roof is replaced and stated there is only one cedar roof left in the neighborhood. COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION Chair Rose asked if the low-sloped roof over the porch currently has cedar shingles and whether the proposed product would function in that space. Mr. Murray replied the front porch roof does have cedar shingles and, if replaced, an ice and weather shield for low-pitch will be installed. Commissioner Carlock made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gibson, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposal to replace the wood shingle roof with asphalt shingles at the Klure/Williams property at 130 South Whitcomb Street as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. Vice Chair Gibson stated the home has many character-defining features and concurred with staff that the material of the roof is not a character-defining feature. Commissioner Carlock stated there is some discussion about revising the Secretary of the Interior standards related to replacing roofing material with the same, particularly considering wildfire threats. Commissioner Edwards concurred with the previous statements and suggested the new shingles should be in the dark brown or grey family. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Woodlee, and Rose. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. 4. 201 LINDEN ST. (LINDEN HOTEL) – DESIGN REVIEW (CONTINUED FROM JULY 17, 2024) DESCRIPTION: replacement of the historic windows on the second and third floors of the building. APPLICANT: 148 Remington Street, Ste 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 STAFF: Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, noted this item was continued from the July hearing and noted this item is a request for a final design of the proposed request for window replacement on the upper story windows of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street. He noted the updated window study completed by Deep Roots Craftsmen is in the packet and stated the primary takeaway from that study was that the windows are candidates for either significant repair or replacement. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 8 Page 4 Mr. Bertolini discussed the history of the building and its restoration over time. Additionally, he detailed the character-defining features of the building, which include the windows. Mr. Bertolini noted the standards focus on repair rather than replacement due to the connection to historic craftsmanship and historic materials as well as material conservation. Additionally, many windows can be retrofitted to meet modern energy performance requirements in the Energy Conservation Code; however, it is notable that windows only account for about ten percent of a building’s energy loss. In terms of window replacement, it is only approved once replacement is either not possible or practical. Mr. Bertolini outlined the tiered approach utilized for preservation which places more emphasis on street-facing windows and street level windows. Replacement standards typically call for replacement in-kind with some exceptions on dimensions, materials, and the like. Mr. Bertolini provided information on the Commission’s questions from the previous meeting and reiterated that all second and third story windows are being requested to be replaced with the metal clad product previously discussed by the applicant. Mr. Bertolini outlined the additions that have been included in the Commission’s packet since the previous meeting and discussed the conclusions from the window study report, primarily that the windows are in need of serious repair or replacement. He stated staff’s analysis is that the window sashes are compromised and significant intervention, including potential replacement, is warranted. Mr. Bertolini provided an analysis of a waiver of conditions and stated staff does not believe the requirements for a waiver based on nominal and inconsequential is met due to the Old Town Design Standards requirement for substitute materials to be in-kind unless unavailable, and in this case, wood windows are still in common use and are relatively easy to manufacture. Mr. Bertolini stated staff’s recommendation matches that of Deep Roots Craftsmen’s primary recommendation, option C, which is a partial replacement of the windows to repair and stabilize the upper sashes, and option F, which would replace in-kind the lower sashes with a newly designed and installed storm window. Additionally, Mr. Bertolini noted full in-kind window replacement would also meet the Old Town Design Standards and would be warranted as a consideration. Mr. Bertolini stated the recommendation is for the treatment to apply to all second and third story windows and clarified that the Old Town Design Standards do allow for exterior storm windows even on buildings that may not have had them historically as long as the glazing pattern matches. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Claire Havelda, attorney representing the applicant team, expressed concern about the Deep Roots Craftsmen’s report stating it includes the false narrative that the owners failed to take care of the building which is why the windows are in such a state of disrepair. Ms. Havelda noted there was no attempt to speak with the owners who would have been able to attest to the fact that there were virtually no pulleys or ropes left in the windows well in advance of 2018 when they purchased the building. Additionally, Ms. Havelda noted the window that fell out of the building was the result of the upper sash failing and the Deep Roots report does not include recommendations for the repair of the upper sashes. Ms. Havelda reiterated the fundamental design flaw of the windows, that they are too small for their casings, and noted there is no analysis of that issue in the Deep Roots report. Additionally, she stated the addition of storm windows would be incredibly difficult for windows this size and stated most storm windows are inoperable which would negate the operability of the regular window. Ms. Havelda also stated her reading of the Old Town Design Standards is that storm windows would not be allowed because they did not exist previously. Ms. Havelda also expressed concern the Deep Roots report is devoid of analysis of how the repairs would meet climate action goals or the rights of the property owners. Additionally, she stated the cost analysis provided in the report was confusing, contradictory, and devoid of an inflation factor. Mark Wernimont, Colorado Sash & Door, detailed the proposed replacement windows and reiterated that the upper sashes are failing and need to be replaced. He also discussed the costs that will be associated with replacement and noted there is a wood window replacement option. He commented on historic buildings with both the wood and aluminum clad windows he has installed. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 9 Page 5 Ms. Havelda stated the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission must be taken into consideration as the Commission makes this determination, and its job is to stabilize and improve the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of historic sites and structures. She stated the Deep Roots report fails to improve aesthetics by recommending exterior storm windows and fails to improve the economic vitality of the historic site by recommending extremely costly repairs. Ms. Havelda stated the proposed replacement windows are visually identical from the street level and stated this process these owners have been through does not encourage people to purchase historic buildings. PUBLIC INPUT Karen McWilliams, former City Historic Preservation Manager, stated this building is designated as an individual Fort Collins landmark for its history and architecture, every part of which goes into making up the building. McWilliams stated wholesale window replacement is not appropriate as it starts to chip away at the historic fabric of the building and stated replacement should be considered only when repair is not possible, and if some of the windows cannot be repaired, only those should be replaced. McWilliams also stated metal clad windows are never appropriate for historic buildings such as this one. Additionally, McWilliams read the Old Town Design Standard related to storm windows, which she stated would be allowed, and stated the owners’ failure to come before the Commission in 2018 prior to doing renovations at that time has led to the current issues. Ms. Havelda objected to the length of time Ms. McWilliams was allowed to speak and to her comments, stating in particular that the last comment was based on conjecture and should be struck from the record. Chair Rose stated this is not a legal proceeding and stated the comments will be included in the minutes; however, in terms of it being struck, that will be at the discretion of the conclusion of the meeting in terms of the outcome. Kevin Murray discussed his experience rehabbing historic windows. He stated the Deep Roots report was very in depth and covered everything it should have and discussed window rehabilitation in the building in 2005 that was completed by the previous owner. Additionally, Murray stated maintenance should have been done on the windows and he commented on participating in a seminar with Mark Wernimont and Utilities regarding retrofitting historic windows to accomplish energy efficiency goals. David Diehl, OneSeven Advisors, owner’s representative, stated the proper steps were followed with Historic Preservation in 2018 and stated the Secretary of the Interior standards were updated over thirty years ago; therefore, they include no anticipation of new materials, processes, or abilities. He stated the owners have approached this with the best of intentions for historic preservation as well. (**Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess at this point in the meeting to inspect a sample replacement window that was brought into Chambers.) Chair Rose reviewed questions that were asked when looking at the window, including where the screen belongs. Mr. Wernimont replied screens are not being proposed at this point, though it has been suggested to the owners that they raise the lower sash and install an expandable screen which can be painted to match the building under the sash should screens be desired. Additionally, Mr. Wernimont noted there were no screens originally. Chair Rose asked about the size of the check rail. Mr. Wernimont replied what is seen when looking at the window is what is referred to as the check rail, and that includes where the top of the lower sash and the bottom of the upper sash come together. He stated the new windows are bigger by about 3/8 to 1/4 of an inch over a 104-inch-tall window to meet the required wind loading and have a place to hold the weather stripping. He stated the distance between the edge of the brick and the edge of the glass is within a quarter of an inch of the existing and stated double-hung windows are preferred so service work can be done from the interior. Commissioner Gaines asked about the lining on the head of the window. Mr. Wernimont replied the sample that is present has pieces that are beige in color; however, if they were installed in the building, those pieces would be black, which is the same color as the inside of the window. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 10 Page 6 Commissioner Woodlee asked if the tape balance system is more or less appropriate in terms of being a retrofit for a weighted rope pulley system which has been removed from the windows. Mr. Wernimont replied the piece was developed to replace the pulley and ropes which fail over time, and it is almost impossible to buy as good of a sash cord today as it was ten to thirty years ago. He detailed the operation of the tape balance system. Commissioner Woodlee asked if the windows have already been purchased for this project. Mr. Wernimont replied two or three were already installed in the building on the alley side. APPLICANT RESPONSE Ms. Havelda stated these owners are not in any way attempting to chip away at historic character and are trying to keep visual conformity with the historic aspects of the building while also taking care of its structural integrity. Additionally, Ms. Havelda stated there is no situation in which the Historic Preservation Department and Commission would have allowed the owners to do what they wished with the building in 2018 as was previously suggested. Ms. Havelda also stated the statement that metal clad windows are never appropriate does not consider climate action goals and forward-looking nature the owners have of attempting to care for the building for the next hundred years. Ms. Havelda reiterated her statement that the Old Town Design Standards would require the storm windows to be placed on the interior of the building and stated the Historic Preservation Commission does not have the authority to regulate the building’s interior. STAFF RESPONSE Mr. Bertolini stated staff understands that metal clad windows are approved on many preservation projects and are a standard replacement product in commercial rehabilitation environments; however, the main nuance in this case relates to the Old Town Landmark District and Old Town Design Standards, which include a much narrower path to using substitute materials. Jon Sargent, Deep Roots Craftsmen, outlined the findings of his report and reiterated his belief that the windows can be salvaged. COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION Commissioner Carlock requested additional information as to the energy efficiency aspect of each window. Mr. Wernimont discussed the importance of thermal performance of the windows given that 30% of the wall is window and stated a standard piece of glass has an R value of 1, a basic insulated piece of glass has an R value of 2, and a new window with gas and the latest low E coatings can bring it to an R value of 5. The proposed window would have an R value of 3.2. He noted window replacement with insulated glass should only occur after other energy efficiency tasks have been completed, including insulating the roof, which has already been done in this building. Mr. Sargent concurred with much of what Mr. Wernimont stated and noted exterior storm windows could be seen as being potentially as energy efficient as full replacement windows. Commissioner Gaines requested additional information from Mr. Wernimont regarding the new windows. Mr. Wernimont further detailed the window formation. Mr. Sargent stated leaving the upper sashes in place would simplify things. Mr. Wernimont stated he is of the opinion that the upper sashes need to be replaced because that is the piece that failed. He questioned how to rebuild the lower sashes and repair the sash that has failed. Commissioner Gaines asked about the risks of window replacement. Mr. Wernimont replied the openings may not be square, which needs to be planned for ahead of time to ensure the windows can be operated properly, and he detailed the procedure. Commissioner Gaines asked if Mr. Wernimont anticipates having to oversize the brick mold. Mr. Wernimont replied he would always oversize the brick mold to ensure he has the ability to ensure the window operates and seals properly. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 11 Page 7 Commissioner Gaines asked Mr. Sargent if he sees any risks to the building from window replacement. Mr. Sargent replied any of the replacement options are dependent on proper installation and it may be that other alterations to the building are required, but that cannot be known at this time. Commissioner Carlock asked how many of the windows failed. Mr. Wernimont replied there was one instance of the glass hitting the street and he believed there was one other failure though the glass did not fall out. Additionally, he stated he saw two other check rails that were probably not repaired during the last work that need to be done at this time. Ms. Havelda stated Mr. Diehl just informed her there have been at least three failed windows. Commissioner Gaines asked about the costs of wood replacement windows versus extensive repair and necessary replacement. Mr. Wernimont replied he provided cost information for both the aluminum clad and wood windows in his rebuttal report and also included maintenance costs for the wood product. He also stated he included costs for adding storm windows to the Deep Roots estimates and the cost of both replacement with aluminum clad and wood, including maintenance, was lower than the Deep Roots estimate. Commissioner Woodlee asked about the implicit failures that could occur with the proposed replacement windows. Mr. Wernimont replied the company that he is working with has been in business for over 70 years and he has been distributing the product for over 30 years, and there are windows in the this area that have been here over 50 years that his company is still servicing. He stated some weather stripping may need to be replaced with the new windows, though the insulated glass has a 20-year warranty and is easily replaceable and the balance mechanisms can still be purchased for the 50-year-old windows. He stated he believes the windows would easily last 30 to 40 years without significant restoration if properly painted and maintained. Commissioner Carlock asked about the functionality of the tape balance system. Mr. Wernimont replied there is only one company still making them and they are limited in their size and weight capabilities. He stated he uses the spiral balances as they are made by multiple companies and are serviceable in the future. Commissioner Carlock asked if there is a system other than the tape balance that could be used if the windows were to be repaired according to option C or replaced according to option B with wood windows. Mr. Sargent replied the only other option would be going back with weights, but that would involve cutting open the jams, removing the insulation, rebuilding the jams, and going back in with the original weights and pulleys, which would be the most historically accurate, but substantially more expensive. Mr. Wernimont noted this size of commercial window historically frequently had chains rather than ropes, which could be a better solution, though going back into the weight pocket for replacement would not likely be a good solution. Chair Rose asked Mr. Sargent about the difference between options D and E, one to build new windows precisely like the existing windows, and one to use manufactured windows. Mr. Sargent replied the manufactured windows represent acquiring windows from a larger corporation type manufacturer versus a smaller custom shop which would construct all wood windows. He stated the proposed replacement windows would fall under option E. Chair Rose stated he does not believe exterior storm windows are a good solution as they would not preserve the character-defining feature that exists in the windows. Vice Chair Gibson concurred and stated wholesale replacement is also not the best option. She stated she would prefer to identify the windows that must be replaced and do so with in-kind windows. Commissioner Woodlee concurred and stated the fact that there are differing opinions and it is not the majority of windows that pose a safety risk. He also stated he does not disagree with the applicants in terms of what the Commission can regulate regarding interior storm windows. Commissioner Gaines also concurred that storm windows are not appropriate, nor are aluminum clad replacement windows. He acknowledged there is a concern for the owner with doing this process in a piecemeal fashion. He stated the issue is whether new manufactured windows would be appropriate as an in-kind replacement. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 12 Page 8 Vice Chair Gibson concurred exterior storm windows should not be pursued and expressed concern about the wholesale manufactured aluminum clad replacement windows, though she also concurred piecemeal repairs would not be advantageous or cost-effective for the owner. She expressed support for replacement in-kind and allowing the owners to do a full replacement should they wish. Commissioner Carlock stated she understood the alternative that included replacement and repair to not necessarily be piecemeal but would involve restoration of the upper sashes and replacement of the lower sashes on all windows. Chair Rose replied the distinction is that not every window is in the same condition; therefore, it is piecemeal in that every window must be evaluated individually and a strategy has to be developed to be appropriate for every window. Mr. Bertolini clarified that both the applicant proposal and staff recommendation are both for a one- time repair or replacement, not to be done over time. Chair Rose questioned whether there is a sufficient distinction to merit to try to do a very careful restoration by reconstructing with new material versus using a manufactured product. He concurred with the previous comments about aluminum clad windows being inappropriate. Commissioner Woodlee noted both Mr. Wernimont and Mr. Sargent expressed concern about the depth of the sash being inadequate for a window this size and stated it feels a bit absurd to mandate the windows be replaced in-kind. Commissioner Carlock noted this is an iconic building and stated she is not as concerned about energy efficiency in terms of completely changing the historic fabric of the windows. Chair Rose stated he is not as concerned about saving all the fabric as he is about conserving energy in the building over the next 50 years. Commissioner Carlock concurred energy efficiency is important; however, she stated she does not believe these windows will make or break that issue. Commissioner Woodlee stated the Commission does not want to be seen as an obstruction body that is holding the arguably reasonable building improvement project hostage. He questioned whether the Commission could ask the applicant to return with future replacements that are more appropriate in construction, material, and color. Vice Chair Gibson stated she would like the applicant to not have to return to the Commission and would prefer the Commission require an in-kind replacement allowing the applicant to work with staff to develop that solution. Chair Rose stated he would need a clearer definition of in-kind prior to making that requirement, particularly noting an identical replacement would not be energy efficient. He also noted the windows are second and third story and stated it makes the most sense to do what is going to work best. Commissioner Woodlee asked if there are other instances wherein the Commission has had to consider energy efficiency versus the potential loss of historic materials. Commissioner Carlock replied there have been instances the topic has been brought up; however, it has not been the deciding factor. Chair Rose concurred. Commissioner Woodlee questioned what this decision may look like in 50 years and stated the new era of climate conversations could help to sway the decision to permit the window replacement. Vice Chair Gibson expressed support for climate initiatives; however, she noted this is the Historic Preservation Commission, not the Energy Commission, and while both topics must be considered, she must put more emphasis on the preservation of a historic property and what is best for its fabric. Commissioner Carlock questioned whether the new windows will be vastly better from an energy perspective. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 13 Page 9 Chair Rose stated the litany of challenges cited by both Mr. Wernimont and Mr. Sargent suggest that this is not going to be an easy job with any of the proposed solutions. However, it seems most prudent to do it in a way that involves industry tested means. He also noted the Secretary of the Interior standards allow for window replacement as it is sometimes the best solution. Vice Chair Gibson commended the property owners for trying to do what is best for the building, but stated she believes the replacement or repairs could be done another way. Commissioner Gaines made a motion, seconded by Chair Rose, that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the window amelioration on the second and third floors of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street as described in the applicants’ proposal for the wood window unit, finding that the proposed work meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation based on the information in the staff report and attachments, and the presentation and information received during the July and this continued hearing. Yeas: Gaines and Rose. Nays: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson and Woodlee. THE MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Gaines expressed hesitation about directing the applicants toward a different specific option and stated it seems the best next step would be for the applicant to propose another option to staff and then return to the Commission. Chair Rose suggested the other way to move forward would be to deny the request and allow the applicants to appeal to City Council. Commissioner Carlock asked if the applicant would be required to move forward with a different option if recommended by the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis replied that recommendation would allow the applicant to move forward with that approach or appeal that decision. Ms. Havelda stated the applicants have not had the opportunity to work through the proposed solutions in the rebuttal report and there are concerns with implementation of those options. She stated even if the Commission put forth a recommendation, another full hearing would be necessary to allow the applicant team to speak to those recommendations. She concurred that the cleanest thing to do would be to deny the request and allow the applicants to appeal. Vice Chair Gibson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Edwards, that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the request for approval of the plans and specifications for the window replacement on the second and third floors of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation nor the Old Town Design Standards based on the information in the staff report and attachments, and the presentation and information received during this hearing. Yeas: Carlock, Edwards, Gibson and Woodlee. Nays: Gaines and Rose. THE MOTION CARRIED. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Rose adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Minutes prepared by and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 14 Page 10 Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Jim Rose, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING AUGUST 8 TO SEPTEMBER 4) STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Rebekah Schields, Historic Preservation Specialist Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager INFORMATION Staff are 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). For cases where a project can be reviewed/approved without referral to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) through the issuance of 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 are also 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. There is a short staff presentation this month highlighting recent items and events. Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 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 Program Title Description Women’s Suffrage Walking Tour Poudre River Public Library District featuring sites related to the history of women’s suffrage 19 Aug. 17, 2024 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 313 Edwards St. (Henry and Elizabeth Maxon meet Standards, but compliance is not Approved 8/8/2024 Rear deck structural repair Approved 8/9/2024 (Sears/Cooper/Bales/Schild Addition and deck; replacement of non- historic rear window and door Approved 8/20/2024 311 E. Magnolia St. (A.C. Nelson Property) carriage house to convert first floor into Approved 8/20/2024 Re-roofing (flat roof, TPO) Approved 8/22/2024 Short iron fence circling front yard Approved 8/23/2024 (Maneval/Mason/Sauer In-kind replacement of non-historic window Approved 8/23/2024 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 5.8.1 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation Mountain Vista & Timberline (S to Canal) re-activate. Large-scale housing/mixed use development. 2 older farms on Historic survey of both farmsteads will be required. 8/14/2024 1516 Remington St. Conceptual Development Review: Fraternity or Multi-family reuse historic in 2019; adaptive 8/15/2024 638 Whedbee St Project Development Plan: Demo of garage; construction of new carriage house Landmark; HPC approval will be needed (schedule 8/28/2024 Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 220 E Oak / East Oak Townhomes development rights); 3-to-4-story remain met; ready for 8/28/2024 1830 W. Laporte Ave / Salud Expansion Final Development Plan for new health center; plans approved in 2019; existing facility has historic value (former Forney workshop); will 8/28/2024 Buckingham & 3rd / Tapestry Project Development Plan: Affordable Multi-family adjacent to Buckingham historic neighborhood requirements met; Staff will provide recommendation due to Affordable nature of 9/4/2024 4000 Kechter Rd detached single-unit houses on cul-de-Historic survey required if filed after Jan. 1, 2025 9/5/2024 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 Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized N/A 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 Lead Agency & Property Location Description of Project Staff Comment Date Comment None Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 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 3 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 3 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 19 Headline Copy Goes Here September 18, 2024 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation PlannerYani Jones, Historic Preservation PlannerRebekah Schields, Historic Preservation SpecialistMaren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Manager Historic Preservation Commission Staff Activity Report Headline Copy Goes Here 2 Design Review Highlight 100 First St. (Maneval/Mason/Sauer Property) • In-kind replacement of non-historic window • Staff completed “Character-Defining Features Worksheet” to help guide this and future design review 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Development Review Highlight Tapestry Affordable Housing Project Adjacent to Buckingham (Tres Colonias) neighborhood Headline Copy Goes HereHistoric Survey – Strategy Highlight 4 Current • Laurel & College Commercial node • North College Avenue Planned • Holy Family Neighborhood (after context) • Washington Park Area • Holy Family Neighborhood – Historic Context • Hispanic History Context update – follow up from 2003 • Tres Colonias Follow-up Survey (1940s-1980s including HUD era) • Agricultural Context & Survey – follow up from 1994 In-House Projects Contracted/Grant Projects 3 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 Headline Copy Goes Here 5 Education/Outreach Highlight Women’s Suffrage Walking Tour • August 17, 2024 • Poudre River Public Library District • Participants surveyed about types of educational programs they prefer, reason for attending program, and historic places • Staff plan to collect feedback at future programs Opera House Business Block, c. 1908 Headline Copy Goes HereJoin Our Newsletter! 6 • Get monthly updates and information from Historic Preservation Services directly in your inbox such as: • Upcoming events/activities • Historic Preservation Commission agenda overviews • Notification of historic surveys in progress and completed • Notification of single-family residential demolitions • Local preservation financial support program open/close notifications • Landmark spotlights • And more! • Scan the QR Code, or go to https://www.fcgov.com/subscriptions/#group_id_2, to sign up by toggling on the “Historic Preservation Matters” newsletter! 5 6 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME PROPOSED POLICY ADOPTION: EXPANDED ROOFING OPTIONS FOR PROJECTS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: that would expand the allowable installation materials and methods, and allow residents to more heavily weight fire prevention, material durability, and recyclability as factors when selecting roofing on historic buildings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the policy COMMISSION’S ROLE: City staff are consulting with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on this revised policy and seeking adoption via motion by the HPC. The primary reason for seeking an HPC motion adopting the policy is due to the proposed additional flexibility beyond what the federal guidelines adopted by the City currently advise, and because the HPC retains authority to approve or deny modifications to designated historic properties falling under its jurisdiction as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 14. Additionally, the HPC’s 2024 work plan has identified as a priority strengthening the program’s “connection to climate resilience work.” In this case, staff is seeking flexibility both in City policy, and it what City staff may approve without referring to the HPC, although monthly reporting on roofing decisions to the HPC via the Staff Activity Report would continue as with all project reviews on historic properties. BACKGROUND: As noted in the policy document being considered for adoption, the City of Fort Collins (the City) prioritizes climate action and climate resiliency through its adopted plans and policies, including the Our Climate Future plan adopted by City Council in 2021 and consistently current adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) along with other building codes. In relation to historic and cultural resources, the City recognizes that: 1. Climate change represents an existential threat to cultural resources across the globe, including here in Fort Collins, and; Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 2. With few exceptions, roofing is by definition a replacement product, typically having a service life of five (5) to one hundred (100) years, which indicates a need to prioritize the responsible management of replacement materials, including waste management and durability, and; 3. Newer roofing materials can generally be applied to historic properties without causing harm to those properties or disruption to the property’s overall historic integrity as required by Municipal Code Chapter 14. The City has adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the basis for approving or denying projects on properties that qualify as historic resources under Municipal Code 14-3 “Historic resources” (Adopted under Municipal Code 14-53). The National Park Service has issued guidance under the Rehabilitation treatment method related to repairing or replacing roofs on historic buildings. That documentation includes: - NPS Preservation Brief 4, Roofing for Historic Buildings, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-04-roofing.pdf - Other material-specific briefs and bulletins, including for wood shingle and clay tile roofing found on occasion in Fort Collins, including this online exhibit, From Asbestos to Zinc, Roofing for Historic Buildings: https://www.nps.gov/crps/tps/roofingexhibit/introduction.htm The City has also adopted rigorous climate action and resilience objectives for both new and existing buildings as part of the City’s climate action plan, Our Climate Future, adopted by City Council on March 16, 2021, and adoption of current iterations of the IECC. Among the supporting actions is “Big Move 3: Climate Resilient Community,” which emphasizes preparing people, buildings, watersheds, and ecosystems for climate-related disasters and disruptions; “Big Move 6: Efficient, Emissions Free Buildings, which recognizes the importance of investing in building performance improvements and upgrades for existing structures; and “Big Move 10: Zero Waste Economy,” which recognizes the importance of a circular economy that relies on preserving the value of materials and prioritizing the retention and improvement of existing buildings. In October 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission held a retreat to identify core initiatives that would increase relevance of the Commission’s work to Council and community priorities in multiple areas, including Our Climate Future. As a result, the 2023 and 2024 work plans identify “strengthen connection to climate resilience work” as one of four primary initiatives. While the work plan specifically calls for supporting methods for maintaining and improving ongoing energy performance of historic buildings, roofing plays a role in both energy performance and construction waste reduction as roofing wears out and is replaced. Why the Request? Context on Climate Action & Historic Resources This request to expand the materials and methods available to property owners/managers for roof replacement is being submitted to the HPC for approval based on recent evolutions in best practices in historic preservation. While the federal guidelines from the National Park Service have not yet been updated, several local governments, sustainability advocates in historic preservation, and other government agencies that implement federal historic preservation policy have noted the need for greater flexibility for historic properties where Rehabilitation is the appropriate/selected treatment under the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In general, those preservation partners have noted the following: 1. Preserving historic buildings is, by itself, a significant contribution to climate action by reusing existing buildings, avoiding the need to extract, process, transport, and assemble new building materials, this does not excuse the need to make our existing buildings more energy efficient. All buildings have both embodied energy (from their construction) and operational energy (expended over the life of the building). This policy would seek to help reduce the operational energy consumption of historic buildings in Fort Collins by improving roofing durability; Packet Pg. 24 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 2. Providing greater durability against hail storms, which will continue to be severe and frequent in northern Colorado for the foreseeable future, by using newer, more durable roofing products that have a higher likelihood of being recycled, and specifically when Rehabilitation is the treatment method, will help reduce the overall solid waste and new material extraction required to maintain roofing – a critical component of a “healthy” historic building; 3. Aesthetic concerns related to newer or synthetic roofing materials or methods can often be mitigated by selecting newly available roofing materials that mimic the historic material (usually wood shingles) reasonably well and do not have as significant of an effect on historic character as previously assumed; 4. Failure to allow more durable roofing materials and energy-conscious methods on historic buildings can represent a barrier to equity goals, in part, because the negative effects of climate change have been, are, and are likely to continue to affect communities with a higher percentage of historicallymarginalized people, many of whom live in historically significant sections of our communities. Using existing policy documents and design standards/guidelines from other municipalities, and consulting with other City staff who implement roofing and energy conservation policy in Fort Collins, the City’s Preservation staff have developed this proposed new policy. It seeks to continue to preserve key historic features of historic properties, while reducing the priority of in-kind roof material replacement on historic buildings. While the policy still privileges and encourages projects that meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards or Rehabilitation (the Standards), it includes specific provisions that extend beyond the guidelines that accompany the Standards. Some key elements that extend beyond the specific federal guidance include: 1. For Asphalt and Wood Shingle Roofs, Eliminating the Requirement for In-kind Materials – The proposed policy’s greatest deviation from the current federal standards and guidelines is to embrace newer substitute technologies that provide added durability to the roofing system, and perform reasonably well in terms of replicating the historic wood or asphalt roofing material’s aesthetic qualities. Most also have limited or no change in their physical properties that might affect abutting historic features or materials. Historic metal and clay tile roofing would be maintained by requiring repair or, when necessary, in-kind replacement, as necessary, due to the inherent durability and climate resilient properties of those materials. 2. Clarifying the Definition of “Character-Defining Feature” Related to Roofs – Subject to certain conditions, most properties’ roofing material is not a character-defining feature – its texture, pattern, and form may be key components of a building’s historic integrity, but the material itself often is less important. Most of Fort Collins’ pre-1940 buildings were originally built with wood shingle roofs, which have proven problematic from a fire safety perspective. Most post-1940 buildings, especially residential, have asphalt shingles, which have a significantly short lifespan in hail-prone Colorado. While the shingle pattern itself may be a character-defining element of many of these buildings, the asphalt or wood material is not and it’s aesthetic qualities can be adequately replicated via similar, more durable materials. In rare cases where the wood or asphalt shingling is a character-defining feature, substitutes can still replicate much of the material’s aesthetic properties sufficiently to justify replacement. Since the HPC is granted decision-making authority over exterior projects on designated City Landmarks, this proposed policy is being routed to the HPC for approval. By establishing a clear process for approval by City staff, the proposed policy also attempts to provide a clear, objective, and responsive process for approving new types of roofing installations on historic buildings in the future. If adopted as written, staff would continue to refer projects that don’t meet the requirements of the proposed policy to the HPC for a decision, and may refer potentially controversial applications to the HPC even if they are consistent with the policy. However, unless the HPC would prefer to retain decision-making authority over certain scenarios, this proposed policy would generally remove roofing project approvals on historic resources from the HPC’s routine docket. More Information Packet Pg. 25 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 This staff request, including the policy memorandum for adoption, and this staff report, referenced this existing federal report: - Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Report and Recommendations on the Application and Interpretation of Federal Historic Preservation Standards, March 1, 2024, https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/StandardsReportWithAppendices.pdf, accessed March 27, 2024. Historic Preservation Services staff also worked with other subject matter experts at the City and completed industry research to develop the following cost/benefit analysis chart for selecting different types of roofing to consider substitutes. The key takeaways from that exercise are that both polymer synthetic and stone-coated metal options (especially newer stone-coated metal products) seem to be the best performers when it comes to more hail-durable, fire-resistant, recyclable products that also replicate wood and asphalt shingles sufficiently. No roofing material is perfect – First, identify what the current and/or historic roofing material is. This table can help sort out the best option for a specific circumstances. Material Type (Decking requirements Environmental +/- Historic Character +/- Economic +/- Wood shingles (solid or spaced sheathing) Be n e f i t s Wood material is renewable. Low environmental cost of production per square foot. In most homes built prior to 1940, wood shingles are the most accurate replacement for original/historic roof shingles. Longer service life compared to asphalt; life-cycle cost is comparable to typical asphalt shingle roof. Dr a w b a c k s Fire retardant treatment of wood shingles is mandatory and requires landfilling at end of service life. No possibility of composting or downcycling. With some exceptions, not appropriate for properties constructed after 1940. Even with fire retardant and urban environment, carries a fire risk (retardant delays ignition but does asphalt shingle roof. City Code requires Class B installation at minimum. Class A preferred. Shingles/Asphalt membrane (solid sheathing) Be n e f i t s Asphalt can technically be recycled for second-tier uses such as road re-paving, new shingle production, energy production. Common roofing material alteration 1930s-1950s; original roofing material post-1940. “Architectural” shingles can mimic historic wood shingles with varying Actual recycling rates are very low in Colorado due to massive turnover from frequent severe hailstorms. Manufacturing is energy intensive; petroleum-based inputs. Shorter service life, especially in products are adequate replicas of wood shingle texture. May end up costing more than other, more durable, roofing types over life of building. Especially a concern in Colorado where asphalt roofing can last as short as 10-15 years (or less). (solid or spaced sheathing) Be n e f i t s Fairly durable, semi-permanent roofing material. For properties that have clay tile roofs, retaining original and partial replacement in-kind is easier. If maintained, ongoing costs are repair and spot-replacement; can be a semi-permanent roof material. Dr a w b a c k s High initial environmental cost of production (mitigated by re- using historic tiles). Not a common roofing material in Fort Collins; only appropriate on a limited number of historic roofs. High cost of installation compared to other roof types (4 to 8 times cost of asphalt roof). High cost of repair due to labor (most material is salvaged/reinstalled). Packet Pg. 26 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 (Decking requirements from IRC R905 included) Environmental +/- Metal (standing seam/corrugated) (solid or spaced sheathing) Be n e f i t s Extremely durable. Easily recyclable - strong market for scrap metal. Comparatively low environmental cost of retain where it was installed historically. Longer service life. Life-cycle cost is comparable to asphalt shingles (usually less than due to protection against hail damage). Dr a w b a c k s Potential for water pollution from run-off. While occasionally appropriate on some agricultural properties, generally not appropriate for historic buildings in Fort Collins. Ventilation is critical to mitigate for moisture build-up in attic/rafter than standard asphalt shingle (anywhere from 1.5 times to 5 times cost). (solid or closely fitted sheathing) Be n e f i t s Extremely durable. Easily recyclable - strong market for scrap metal. In most cases, strong substitute for design of historic wood or asphalt shingles or shakes, depending on brand, color, and historic roof material. Low installation cost (slightly higher than asphalt shingles) Most cost-effective over time due to long expected life-cycle. Dr a w b a c k s Stone (asphalt) coating increases environmental cost of production (mid-range compared to other materials). Asphalt coating will chip in hail, leading to some run-off and cosmetic damage (early removal) Recyclers vary on whether they will accept (contamination from material historic feature, not an appropriate solution. Ventilation is critical to mitigate for moisture and heat build-up in attic/rafter space. Cost highly variable based on quality of materials. Cost is roughly double a conventional asphalt shingle roof in Colorado. (Brava, F-Wave, etc.) Be n e f i t s Durable and longer service life than typical wood or asphalt products. Recyclable (in theory-new product) Some product lines do well in replicating historic wood shake or asphalt shingle (less good on replicating wood shingles). Cost-effective over expected life-cycle. Dr a w b a c k s Frequently use “virgin” petroleum in production. Unsure of practical recyclability due to short time on market. Limited wood shingle varieties on market. Quality of wood shake substitute products varies significantly. Higher up-front cost (around double a typical asphalt shingle roof) tile/Cement Fiber shingle (solid or spaced sheathing) Be n e f i t s Durable and long-lasting.In most cases, reasonable substitute for design of historic wood or asphalt shingles, depending on brand, color, and historic roof material. Cost-effective over expected life-cycle. Dr a w b a c k s Energy-intensive to manufacture. Some long-term performance issues in climates with high temperature variation. Cement fiber tiles have almost no recycling market at the end of roof framing due to weight. Requires skilled contractor to install properly to ensure performance. High up-front cost. Packet Pg. 27 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 6 SAMPLE MOTIONS Sample Motion for Adoption: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the proposed policy regarding roofing installation and methods on historic resources in Fort Collins, finding that the proposed policy remains reasonably consistent with the intent of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, supports the City’s historic preservation policies and priorities in Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2, and supports the City’s broader sustainability and climate action goals.” Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. Sample Motion for Adoption w/ Modifications: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the proposed policy regarding roofing installation and methods on historic resources in Fort Collins, finding that the proposed policy remains reasonably consistent with the intent of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, supports the City’s historic preservation policies and priorities in Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2, and supports the City’s broader sustainability and climate action goals, subject to the following modifications: - [list modifications to the document]” Sample Motion for a Continuance: “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this item to the next meeting in order to seek additional information, specifically: [insert information needs] ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRAFT Policy Memorandum for Roofing on Historic Buildings 2. NPS Preservation Brief 4 – Roofing for Historic Buildings 3. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 28 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Parties FROM: Kim Meyer, Interim Director, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Services Manager DATE: September 18, 2024 SUBJECT: Administrative Interpretation 2024-2 of Section 14-53 of the Municipal Code regarding the installation of substitute roofing materials on historic resources. BACKGROUND: The City of Fort Collins (the City) prioritizes climate action and climate resiliency through its adopted plans and policies, including the Our Climate Future plan adopted by City Council in 2021. In relation to historic and cultural resources, the City recognizes that: 1. Climate change represents an existential threat to cultural resources across the globe, including here in Fort Collins, and; 2. Resilient and durable roofing technologies with higher reuse/recyclability options are an important component of a comprehensive climate action and resilience, and of a waste diversion policy that reduces the periodic landfilling of non-recyclable, or difficult to recycle roofing products, and; 3. Many substitute roofing technologies can typically be incorporated into historic properties without causing harm to the cultural resources on those properties. The City has adopted the federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the basis for approving or denying projects on properties that qualify as historic resources under Municipal Code 14-3 “Historic resources” (Adopted under Municipal Code 14-53). The National Park Service has issued guidance under the Rehabilitation treatment method related to roofing on historic buildings. That documentation includes: - NPS Preservation Brief #4, Roofing for Historic Buildings: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-04-roofing.pdf - NPS Preservation Brief #16, The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-16-substitute- materials-2023.pdf ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 2 POLICY STATEMENT: As a result of the need for evolution related to the subject of climate resiliency for cultural resources in the face of climate change, and evolving understandings of the importance of historic integrity as traditionally interpreted, the City of Fort Collins makes the following statements related to roof replacements on historic resources: 1. The federal U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards), and supporting guidelines for roofing, will remain a basis for decision-making on historic resources in city limits or owned by the City of Fort Collins, consistent with Municipal Code 14-53. 2. Acknowledging that the Standards include four treatment methods (Rehabilitation, Preservation, Restoration, and Reconstruction), when Rehabilitation is the appropriate/selected treatment method (which will be true of most cases), the following practices are adopted related to common roofing types on historic buildings in Fort Collins: a. In most cases, shingle roofs of any type may be replaced with any wood, asphalt, or polymer roofing material that is, or simulates, shingles. This includes newer, more durable shingle-style products such as stone-coated metal, or polymer shingle panels such as F-wave, Brava, etc. In general, concrete or cement fiber and standing seam/corrugated metal roofing will not be approved as a substitute for shingle roofs outside of specific cases where a Waiver of Conditions is warranted under Municipal Code 14-5 (please consult Preservation staff). This is due to the additional structural load and limited options for waste diversion for concrete and cement fiber, and the fact that corrugated metal and standing seam are generally not compatible with the historic integrity of b. most historic buildings in Fort Collins. Such replacements will be subject to administrative approval only by Preservation staff, and generally not referred to the HPC. c. Wood shingle roofs will not be required to be maintained, although owners may elect to retain them provided replacements meet applicable, current building and roofing codes. In rare cases where the wood shingle roof is a character-defining feature for the property, the wood shingles may still be replaced with a substitute material but an appropriate substitute shall be used to accurately simulate a wood shingle roof. Such replacements will be subject to administrative approval only by Preservation staff, and generally not referred to the HPC. d. In general, for flat roofs, with or without a parapet, substitute roofing of any kind that does not create a material preservation concern for the overall building or character-defining features will be allowed provided the roof remains flat or appears so from the public right-of-way. This includes the replacement of older tar-and-gravel or ballast systems with membrane roofs. Use of roofing materials such as concrete as a substitute would remain prohibited due to concerns with structural load and the interplay of such a roofing system with historic materials ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 3 that may be damaged by high heat-coefficient materials like concrete. Such replacements will be subject to administrative approval only by Preservation staff, and generally not referred to the HPC. e. Specialized roofing types such as clay tile that are character-defining features generally shall be preserved and repaired as outlined in the Standards and their supporting guidelines. Non-historic/anachronistic clay tile roofing can be removed. Such replacements or repair/rehabilitation will be subject to administrative approval only by Preservation staff, and generally not referred to the HPC. 3. Where the other three federal treatment methods are appropriate/selected (Preservation, Restoration, Reconstruction), typically in museum environments and often where the City is the owner of the property (e.g., the Avery House, Elizabeth Stone’s Cabin, etc.), the original/historic roofing material shall be preserved/replaced in kind and substitutes will generally remain an inappropriate treatment. In select cases, under the Preservation, Restoration, or Reconstruction treatment methods, the Historic Preservation Commission or City staff may approve a Waiver of Conditions pursuant to Municipal Code 14-5. 4. In general, installation of roof vents, including eave, edge, or traditional “turtle” vents are all appropriate and will be approved via a staff-issued Certificate of Appropriateness. Balancing ventilation with insulation in roofing systems remains a key factor in the health of historic buildings to avoid heat damage to historic building materials. The addition of larger rooftop features such as skylights, dormers, or large (i.e. industrial) vents remains subject to City Preservation review (Municipal Code 14, Article IV) and must meet the Standards. Such modifications will generally be subject to administrative approval only by Preservation staff, and generally not referred to the HPC. 5. Addition of insulation above the roof sheathing that adds no more than 4 inches to the height of the roof at the eave will be approved via a staff-issued Certificate of Appropriateness, provided that: a. A plain flat fascia is used to cover the added height at the eave; b. The added height matches the historic roof pitch, with allowances for tapering toward the eaves; and c. For buildings with parapets, no specific height limit for new insulation will be enforced on the condition that the new roof top remains at or below the historic parapet. New roof height above a parapet is generally prohibited, but an owner/applicant can apply for a Waiver of Condition to be issued by the Historic Preservation Commission under Municipal Code 14-5. 6. Gutters & Downspouts – Gutters and downspouts remain a critical element of good building care and are encouraged in all cases. Where historic gutter and downspout systems exist and are character-defining features, they will be required to be maintained. In most cases, gutters and downspouts are not a character-defining feature. Such ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 4 modifications will generally be subject to administrative approval only by Preservation staff, and generally not referred to the HPC, provided they meet the following review: a. Gutters should not obscure any character-defining features, such as decorative eaves or fascia. In these cases, half-round gutters, or shallow, plain gutters that are installed above any character-defining design features, such as A, B, F, H, or I- style gutters, will be permitted. In some cases, added roof height for insulation may provide the added eave width to accommodate new/replacement gutters without obscuring character-defining eave trim, fascia, etc.; b. Downspouts should not obscure any character-defining features such as quoins, decorative porch posts, windows, eave trim, vergeboards, spindle work, etc.; c. Downspouts should be located with extenders or splashpads to funnel water away from the foundation; and d. It is strongly recommended that gutter and downspout work be accompanied by any necessary site work (informed by a civil engineer, if necessary), to ensure stormwater from the roof drains adequately away from the building to nearby bioswales, raingardens, or public stormwater infrastructure to avoid moisture build-up and related structural damage to the historic building. 7. Other roof-related repair work such as repair or replacement of decorative eaves, fascia, cornices, addition of new rooftop features such as dormers or skylights, or work affecting or repairing a chimney, remains subject to City Preservation review under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV and, where those features are considered “character- defining,” treatment must meet the Standards. a. Solar installations are governed by a policy issued by the Historic Preservation Commission on April 17, 2024, available online, HERE. AVAILABLE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES: In some cases, roof replacements on historic properties can qualify for historic preservation incentives such as the Colorado Historic Tax Credit or the Federal Historic Tax Credit. Use of substitute materials may qualify, although strict adherence to the Standards would be necessary. Please note: The flexibility of interpretation offered under City policy may not align with State or federal interpretation of the Standards for the incentive programs linked above. There may be cases where the City approves a substitute roof replacement under this policy that will not qualify for a state or federal tax credit. Please consult with City Historic Preservation staff and/or the staff of those state/federal programs before beginning a project if intending to leverage these preservation incentives to fund the project. The City does offer financial incentives to support replacement of specialized historic roofing types that are character-defining features of an historic property (i.e., essential parts of its historic character). These would typically include wood shingle or clay tile roofing, where there is ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 5 limited availability of qualified contractors, and specialized expertise is needed to ensure, for example, a proper underlayment for wood shingle roofs to allow for adequate moisture release, or to ensure a high retention rate (90% or more) of clay tiles during removal for roof repair, improvement, and re-installation. For more information about Landmark Rehabilitation Loans, please visit: https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/landmark-rehabilitation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 e 4 PRESERVATION BRIEFS Ro o fing for Historic Buildings Sarah M. Sweetser U.S . Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resourc es Heritage Preservation Services Significance of the Roof A weather-tight roof is basic in the preservation of a struc­ ture, regardless of its age, size, or design. In the system that allows a building to work as a shelter, the roof shed s the rain, shades from the sun, and buffers the weather. During some periods in the history of architecture, the roof imparts much of the architectural character. It defines the style and contributes to the building's aesthetics . The hipped roofs of Georgian architecture, the t urrets of Queen Anne, th Mansard roofs, and the graceful slopes of the Shingle Style and Bungalow designs are examples of the use of roofing as a major design feature. But no matter how decorative the patterning or how com­ pelling the form, the roof is a highly vulnerable element of a shelter that will inevitable fail. A poor roof will permit the accelerated deterioration of historic building materials­ masonry, wood, plaster, paint-and will cause general di s­ in tegration of the basic structure. Furthermore , there is an urgency involved in repairing a leaky roof since such repair costs will quickly become prohibitive. Although such action is desirable as soon as a failure is discovered, temporary pa t ch ­ ing methods should be carefully chosen to prevent inadvertent damage to sound or historic roofing materials and related features . Before any repair work is performed , the histor ic value of the materials used on the roof should be under stood . Then a complete internal and external inspection of the roof should be planned to determine all the causes of failure and to identify the alternatives for repair o r replacement of the roofing . Historic Roofing Materials in America Clay Tile: European settlers used clay tile for roofing a s earl y as the mid-17th century; many pantiles (S-curved tiles), a s well as flat roofing tiles, were used in Jamestown , Virginia . In some cities such as New York and Boston, clay was popularly used as a precaution against such fire a s those that engulfed London in 1666 and scorched Boston in 1679. Tiles roofs found in the mid-18th century Moravian sett le­ ments in Pennsylvania closely resembled those found in Ger­ many . Typically, the tiles were 14-15 " long, 6 -7" wide wi t h a curved butt. A lug on the back allowed the tiles to hang on the lathing without nails or pegs. The tile s urface was usually scored with finger marks to promote drainage, In the South­ west, the tile roofs of the Spanish missionaries (mission tiles) were first manufactured ( ca. 1780) at the Mission San An­ tonio de Padua in California. These semicircular tiles were Repairs on this pantile roof were made with new tiles held in place with metal hangers. (Main Building, Ellis Island, New York) made by molding clay over sections of logs, and they were generally 22 " long and tapered in width . The plain or flat rectangular tiles most commonly used fro m the 17th through the beginning of the 19 th century measured about 10" by 6" by½", and had two holes at one end for a nail or peg fastener. Sometimes mortar was applied between the courses to secure the tiles in a heavy wind . In the mid-19th century, tile roofs were often replaced by sheet-metal roofs, which were lighter and easier to install a nd maintain . However, by the turn of the century, the Romanes­ que Revival and Mission style buildings created a new demand and popularity for this picturesque roofing material. H A BS Slate: Another practice settlers brought to the New World was slate roofing. Evidence of roofing slates have been fo u nd also among the ruins of mid-I 7th-century Jamestown. But because of the cost and the time required to obtain the materia l, which was mostly imported from Wales , the use of slate was initially limited. Even in Philadelphia (the second largest city in the English-speaking world at the time of the Revolution) slates were so rare that "The Slate Roof House" distinctly referred to William Penn's home built late in the 1600s. Sources of native slate were known to exist along the eastern seaboard from Maine to Virginia, but difficulties in inland transporta­ tion limited its availability to the cities, and contributed to its expen se . Welsh slate continued to be imported until the development of canals and railroads in the mid-19th century made American slate more accessible and economical. Slate was popular for its durability, fireproof qualities , and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 34 I The Viclorians loved 10 used different colored slates to create decoralive pallerns on their roofs, an effect which cannot be easily duplicated by substilute materials. Before any repair work on a roof such as this, !he slate sizes, colors, and position of the pallerning should be carefully recorded to assure proper replacement. (Ebenezer Maxwell Mansion, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, photo courtesy of William D. Hershey) aesthetic potential. Because slate was available in different colors (red, green, purple, and blue-gray), it was an effective material for decorative patterns on many I 9th-century roofs (Gothic and Mansard styles). Slate continued to be used well into the 20th century, notably on many Tudor revival style buildings of the 1920s. Shingles: Wood shingles were popular throughout the country in all periods of building history. The size and shape of the shingles as well as the detailing of the shingle roof differed ac­ cording to regional craft practices. People within particular regions developed preferences for the local species of wood that most suited their purposes. In New England and the Del­ aware Valley, white pine was frequently used: in the South, cypress and oak; in the far west, red cedar or redwood. Some­ times a protective coating was applied to increase the durabil­ ity of the shingle such as a mixture of brick dust and fish oil, or a paint made of red iron oxide and linseed oil. Commonly in urban areas, wooden roofs were replaced with more fire resistant materials, but in rural areas this was not a major concern. On many Victorian country houses, the practice of wood shingling survived the technological ad­ vances of metal roofing in the I 9th century, and near the turn of the century enjoyed a full revival in its namesake, the Shingle Style. Colonial revival and the Bungalow styles in the 20th century assured wood shingles a place as one of the most fashionable, domestic roofing materials. Metal: Metal roofing in America is principally a 19th­ century phenomenon . Before then the only metals commonly 2 Replacement of particular historic details is important to the indi­ vidual hisloric characler of a roof, such as the treatment at the eaves of this rounded butt wood shingle roof Also note that the surface of the roof was carefully sloped to drain water away from th e side of the dormer. In the restoration, thisfunclion was augmented with the ad­ dition of carefully concealed modern meta/flashing. (Mount Vernon, Vir2inia) Galvanized sheet-metal shingles imilating the appearance of pantiles remained popular from !he second half of the /9/h century into the 20th century. (Episcopal Church, now the Jerome Historical Society Building, Jerome, Arizona, 1927) used were lead and copper. For example, a lead roof covered ''Rosewell," one of the grandest mansions in I 8th-century Virginia. But more often, lead was used for protective flashing.Lead, as well as copper, covered roof surfaces where wood, tile, or slate shingles were inappropriate because of the roof's pitch or shape. Copper with standing seams covered some of the more notable early American roofs including that of Christ Church (1727-1744) in Philadelphia. Flat-seamed copper was used on many domes and cupolas. The copper sheets were imported from England until the end of the 18th century when facilities for rolling sheet metal were developed in America. Sheet iron was first known to have been manufactured here by the Revolutionary War financier, Robert Morris, who had a ro lling mill near Trenton, New Jersey. At his mill Morris produced the roof of his own Philadelphia mansion, which he started in 1794. The architect Benjamin H. Latrobe used sheet iron to replace the roof on Princeton's "Nassau Hall," which had been gutted by fire in 1802. The method for corrugating iron was originally patented in England in 1829. Corrugating stiffened the sheets, and allowed greater span over a lighter framework, as well as reduced installation time and labor. In 1834 the American architect William Strickland proposed corrugated iron to cover his design for the market place in Philadelphia. Galvanizing with zinc to protect the base metal from rust was developed in France in 1837. By the 1850s the material was used on post offices and customhouses, as well as on train sheds and factories. In 1857 one of the first metal roofs in the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 35 Repeated repair with asphalt, which cracks as it hardens, has created a blistered surface on this sheet-metal roof and built-in gutter, which will retain water. Repairs could be made by carefully heating and scraping the surface clean, repairing the holes in the metal with a flexi­ ble mastic compound or a metal patch, and coating the surface with a fibre paint. (Roane County Courthouse, Kingston, Tennessee, photo courtesy of Building Conservation Technology, Inc.) South was installed on the U.S. Mint in New Orleans. The Mint was thereby "fireproofed" with a 20-gauge galvanized, corrugated iron roof on iron trusses. Tin-plate iron, commonly called "tin roofing," was used extensively in Canada in the 18th century, but it was not as common in the United States until later. Thomas Jefferson was an early advocate of tin roofing, and he installed a standi ng-seam tin roof on "Monticello" (ca. 1770-1802). The Arch Street Meetinghouse (1804) in Philadelphia had tin shingles laid in a herringbone pattern on a "piazza" roof. However, once rolling mills were established in this country, the low cost, light weight, and low maintenance of tin plate made it the most common roofing material. Embossed tin shingles, whose surfaces created interesting patterns, were popular throughout the country in the late 19th century. Tin roofs were kept well-painted, usually red; or, as the architect A. J. Davis suggested, in a color to imitate the green patina of copper. Terne plate differed from tin plate in that the iron was dipped in an alloy of lead and tin, giving it a duller finish. Historic, as well as modern, documentation often confuses the two, so much that it is difficult to determine how often actual "terne" was used. Zinc came into use in the 1820s, at the same time tin plate was becoming popular. Although a less expensive substitute for lead, its advantages were controversial, and it was never widely used in this country. A Chicago firm's catalog dated 1896 illustrates a method of unrolling, turning the edges, and finishing the standing seam on a metal roof Tin shingles, commonly embossed to imitate wood or tile, or with a decorative design , were popular as an inexpensive, textured roofing material. These shingles 8.325inch by 12 .5 inch on the exposed surface) were designed with interlocking edges, but they have been repaired by surface nailing, which may cause future leakage. (Ballard House, Yorktown, Virgina, photo by Gordie Whittington, National Park Service) Other Materials: Asphalt shingles and roll roofing were used in the 1890s. Many roofs of asbestos, aluminum, stainless steel, galvinized steel, and lead-coated copper may soon have historic values as well. Awareness· of these and other tradi­ tions of roofing materials and their detailing will contribute to more sensitive preservation treatments. Locating the Problem Failures of Surface Materials When trouble occurs, it is important to contact a profes­ sional, either an architect, a reputable roofing contractor, or a craftsman familiar with the inherent characteristics of the particular historic roofing system involved . These profes­ sionals may be able to advise on immediate patching pro­ cedures and help plan more permanent repairs. A thorough examination of the roof should start with an appraisal of the existing condition and quality of the roofing material itself. Particular attention should be given to any southern slope because year-round exposure to direct sun may cause it to break down first. Wood: Some historic roofing materials have limited life expectancies because of normal organic decay and "wear." For example, the flat surfaces of wood shingles erode from exposure to rain and ultraviolet rays. Some species are more hardy than others, and heartwood, for example, is stronger and more durable than sapwood. Ideally, shingles are split with the grain perpendicular to 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 36 the surface. This is because if shingles are sawn across the grain, moisture may enter the grain and cause the wood to deteriorate. Prolonged moisture on or in the wood allows moss or fungi to grow , which will further hold the moisture and cause rot. Metal: Of the inorganic roofing materials used on historic buildings, the most common are perhaps the sheet metals: lead, copper, zinc, tin plate, terne plate, and galvanized iron. In varying degrees each of these sheet metals are likely to deteriorate from chemical action by pitting or streaking . This can be caused by airborn pollutants; acid rainwater; acids from lichen or moss; alkalis found in lime mortars or portland cement, which might be on adjoining features and washes down on the roof surface; or tannic acids from adjacent wood sheathings or shingles made of red cedar or oak . Corrosion from" galvanic action" occurs when dissimilar metals, such as copper and iron, are used in direct contact. Corrosion may also occur even though the metals are physi­ cally separated; one of the metals will react chemically against the other in the presence of an electrolyte such as rain­ water. In roofing, this situation might occur when either a copper roof is decorated with iron cresting, or when steel nails are used in copper sheets. In some instances the corrosion can be prevented by inserting a plastic insulator between the dissimilar materials. Ideally, the fasteners should be a metal sympathetic to those involved. Iron rusts unless it is well-painted or plated . Historically this problem was avoided by use of tin plating or galvinizing. But this method is durable only as long as the coating remains intact. Once the plating is worn or damaged, the exposed iron will rust. Therefore, any iron-based roofing material needs to be undercoated, and its surface needs to be kept well-painted to prevent corrosion. One cause of sheet metal deterioration is fatigue. Depending upon the size and the gauge of the metal sheets, wear and metal failure can occur at the joints or at any protrusions in the sheathing as a result from the metal's alternating move­ ment to thermal changes. Lead will tear because of" creep," or the gravitational stress that causes the material to move down the roof slope. Slate: Perhaps the most durable roofing materials are slate and tile. Seemingly indestructable, both vary in quality. Some slates are hard and tough without being brittle. Soft slates are more subject to erosion and to attack by airborne and rain- This detail shows slate delamination caused by a combination of weathering and pollution. In addition, the slates have eroded around the repair nails, incorrectly placed in the exposed surface of the slates. (Lower Pontalba Building, New Orleans, photo courtesy of Building Conservation Technology, Inc.) 4 water chemicals, which cause the slates to wear at nail holes, to delaminate, or to break. In winter, slate is very susceptible to breakage by ice, or ice dams. Tile: Tiles will weather well, but tend to crack or break if hit, as by tree branches, or if they are walked on improperly. Like slates, tiles cannot support much weight. Low quality tiles that have been insufficiently fired during manufacture, will craze and spall under the effects of freeze and thaw cycles on their porous surfaces. Failures of Support Systems Once the condition of the roofing material has been deter­ mined, the related features and support systems should be examined on the exterior and on the interior of the roof. The gutters and downspouts need periodic cleaning and maintenance since a variety of debris fill them, causing water to back up and seep under roofing units. Water will eventually cause fasteners, sheathing, and roofing structure to deteri­ orate . During winter, the daily freeze-thaw cycles can cause ice floes to develop under the roof surface. The pressure from these ice floes will dislodge the roofing material, especially slates, shingles, or tiles. Moreover, the buildup of ice dams above the gutters can trap enough moisture to rot the sheathing or the structural members. Many large public buildings have built-in gutters set within the perimeter of the roof. The downspouts for these gutters may run within the walls of the building, or drainage may be through the roof surface or through a parapet to exterior downspouts. These systems can be effective if properly main­ tained; however, if the roof slope is inadequate for good runoff, or if the traps are allowed to clog, rainwater will form pools on the roof surface . Interior downspouts can collect debris and thus back up, perhaps leaking water into the sur­ rounding walls. Exterior downspouts may fill with water, which in cold weather may freeze and crack the pipes. Con­ duits from the built-in gutter to the exterior downspout may also leak water into the surrounding roof structure or walls. Failure of the flashing system is usually a major cause of roof deterioration. Flashing should be carefully inspected for failure caused by either poor workmanship, thermal stress, or metal deterioration ( both of flashing material itself and of the fasteners). With many roofing materials, the replacement of flashing on an existing roof is a major operation, which may require taking up large sections of the roof surface. Therefore, the installation of top quality flashing material on Temporary stabilization or "mothballing" with materials such as plywood and building paper can protect the roof of a project until it can be properly repaired or replaced. (Narbonne House, Salem, Massachusetts) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 37 These two views of the same house demonstrate how th e use of a s ubstitute material can drastically affect the overall character of a structure. The textural interest of the original tile roof was lost with the use of asphalt shingles. Recent preservation efforts are replacing the tile roof (Frank House, Kearney, Nebraska , photo courtesy of th e Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, Nebraska) a new or replaced roof should be a primary consideration. Remember, some roofing and flashing materials are not compatible. Roof fasteners and clips should also be made of a mate r ial compatible with all other materials used, or coated to prevent rust. For example, the tannic acid in oak will corrode iron nails. Some roofs such as slate and sheet metals may fail if nailed too rigidly. If the roof structure appears sound and nothing indicates recent movement, the area to be examined most closely is the roof substrate-the sheathing or the battens . The danger spots would be near the roof plates, under any exterior patches, at the intersections of the roof planes, or at vertical surfaces such as dormers. Water penetration, indicating a breach in the roofing surface or flashing, should be readily apparent, usual­ ly as a damp spot or stain. Probing with a small pen knife may reveal any rot which may indicate previously undetected damage to the roofing membrane. Insect infestation evident by small exit holes and frass (a sawdust-like debris) should also be noted. Condensation on the underside of the roofing is undesirable and indicates improper ventilation. Moisture will have an adverse effect on any roofing material; a good roof stays dry inside and out. Repair or Replace Understanding potential weaknesses of roofing material also requires knowledge of repair difficulties. Individual slates can be replaced normally without major disruption to the rest of the roof, but replacing flashing on a slate roof can require substantial removal of surrounding slates . If it is the substrate or a support material that has deteriorated, many surface materials such as slate or tile can be reused if handled care­ fully during the repair . Such problems should be evaluated at the outset of any project to determine if the roof can be effec­ tively patched, or if it should be completely replaced. Will the repairs be effective? Maintenance costs tend to multiply once trouble starts. As the cost of labor escalates , repeated repairs could soon equal the cost of a new roof. The more durable the surface is initially, the easier it will be to maintain. Some roofing materials such as slate are expen­ sive to install, but if top quality slate and flashing are used , it will last 40-60 years with minimal maintenance. Although the installation cost of the roof will be high, low maintenance needs will make the lifetime cost of the roof less expensive . Historical Research In a restoration project, research of documents and physical investigation of the building usually will establish the roof's history. Documentary research should include any original plans or building specifications, early insurance surveys, newspaper descriptions, or the personal papers and files of people who owned or were involved in the history of the building. Old photographs of the building might provide evidence of missing details. Along with a thorough understanding of any written history of the building, a physical investigation of the roofing and its structure may reveal information about the roof's construc­ tion history. Starting with an overall impression of the struc­ ture, are there any changes in the roof slope, its configura­ tion, or roofing materials? Perhaps there are obvious patches or changes in patterning of exterior brickwork where a gable roof was changed to a gambrel, or where a whole upper story was added. Perhaps there are obvious stylistic changes in the roof line, dormers, or ornamentation. These observations could help one understand any important alteration, and could help establish the direction of further investigation. Because most roofs are physically out of the range of careful scrutiny, the "principle of least effort" has probably limited the extent and quality of previous patching or replac­ ing, and usually considerable evidence of an earlier roof sur­ face remains . Sometimes the older roof will be found as an underlayment of the current exposed roof . Original roofing may still be intact in awkward places under later features on a roof . Often if there is any unfinished attic space, remnants of roofing may have been dropped and left when the roof was being built or repaired . If the configuration of the roof has been changed, some of the original material might still be in place under the existing roof. Sometimes whole sections of the roof and roof framing will have been left intact under the higher roof. The profile and / or flashing of the earlier roof may be apparent on the interior of the walls at the level of the alteration. If the sheathing or lathing appears to have survived changes in the roofing surface, they may contain evidence of the roofing systems. These may appear either as dirt marks, which provide "shadows" of a roofing material, or as nails broken or driven down into the wood, rather than pulled out during previous alterations or repairs . Wooden headers in the roof framing may indicate that earlier chimneys or skylights have been removed. Any metal ornamentation that might have existed may be indicated by anchors or unusual markings along the ridge or at other edges of the roof. This primary 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 38 evidence is essential for a full understanding of the roofs history. Caution should be taken in dating early'' fabric'' on the evidence of a single item, as recycling of materials is not a mid-20th-century innovation. Carpenters have been reusing materials, sheathing, and framing members in the interest of economy for centuries. Therefore, any analysis of the mate­ rials found, such as nails or sawmarks on the wood, requires an accurate knowledge of the history of local building prac­ tices before any final conclusion can be accurately reached. It is helpful to establish a sequence of construction history for the roof and roofing materials; any historic fabric or pertinent evidence in the roof should be photographed, measured, and recorded for future reference. During the repair work, useful evidence might unexpectedly appear. It is essential that records be kept of any type of work on a historic building, before, during, and after the project. Photographs are generally the easiest and fastest method, and should include overall views and details at the gutters, flash ­ ing, dormers, chimneys, valleys, ridges, and eaves. All photographs should be immediately labeled to insure accurate identification at a later date. Any patterning or design on the roofing deserves particular attention. For example, slate roofs are often decorative and have subtle changes in size, color, and texture, such as a gradually decreasing coursing length from the eave to the peak. If not carefully noted before a project begins, there may be problems in replacing the sur­ face. The standard reference for this phase of the work is Recording Historic Buildings, compiled by Harley J. McKee for the Historic American Buildings Survey, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., I 970 . Replacing the Historic Roofing Material Professional advice will be needed to assess the various aspects of replacing a historic roof. With some exceptions, most historic roofing materials are available today . If not, an architect or preservation group who has previously worked with the same type material may be able to recommend sup­ pliers. Special roofing materials, such as tile or embossed metal shingles, can be produced by manufacturers of related products that are commonly used elsewhere, either on the ex­ terior or interior of a structure . With some creative thinking and research, the historic materials usually can be found. Because of the roof's visibility, the slate detailing around the dormers is important to the character of this structure. Note how the slates swirl from a horizontal pattern on the main roof to a diamond pattern on the dormer roofs and side walls. ( 18th and Que Streets, NW, Washington, D.C.) 6 Craft Practices: Determining the craft practices used in the in­ stallation of a historic roof is another major concern in roof restoration. Early builders took great pride in their work, and experience has shown that the" rustic" or irregular designs commercially labled "Early American" are a 20th-century in­ vention. For example, historically, wood shingles underwent several distinct operations in their manufacture including splitting by hand, and smoothing the surface with a draw knife . In modern nomenclature, the same item would be a "tapersplit" shingle which has been dressed. Unfortunately, the rustic appearance of today's commercially available ''hhandsplit'' and re-sawn shingle bears no resemblance to the hand-made roofing materials used on early American buildings . Good design and quality materials for the roof surface, fastenings, and flashing minimize roofing failures. This is essential on roofs such as on the National Cathedral where a thorough maintenance inspec­ tion and minor repairs cannot be done easily without special scaf­ folding. However, the success of the roof on any structure depends on frequent cleaning and repair of the gutter system. (Washington, D. C., photo courtesy of John Burns, A .I.A.) Early craftsmen worked with a great deal of common sense; they understood their materials. For example they knew that wood shingles should be relatively narrow; shingles much wider than about 6 " would split when walked on, or they may curl or crack from varying temperature and moisture. It is im­ portant to understand these aspects of craftsmanship, re­ membering that people wanted their roofs to be weather-tight and to last a long time. The recent use of'' mother-goose'' shingles on historic structures is a gross underestimation of the early craftsman's skills. Supervision: Finding a modern craftsman to reproduce his­ toric details may take some effort. It may even involve some special instruction to raise his understanding of cer­ tain historic craft practices. At the same time, it may be pointless ( and expensive) to follow historic craft practices in any construction that will not be visible on the finished product. But if the roofing details are readily visible, their appearance should be based on architectural evidence or on historic prototypes. For instance, the spacing of the seams on a standing-seam metal roof will affect the building's overall scale and should therefore match the original dimensions of the seams . ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 39 Many older roofing practices are no longer performed because of modern improvements . Research and review of specific detailing in the roof with the contractor before begin­ ning the project is highly recommended. For example, one early craft practice was to finish the ridge of a wood shingle roof with a roof "comb"-that is , the top course of one slope of the roof was extended uniformly beyond the peak to shield the ridge, and to provide some weather protection for the raw horizontal edges of the shingles on the other slope. If the ''comb'' is known to have been the correct detail, it should be used. Though this method leaves the top course vulnerable to the weather, a disguised strip of fflashing will strengthen this weak point. Detail drawings or a sample mock-up will help ensure that the contractor or craftsman understands the scope and special requirements of the project. It should never be assumed that the modern carpenter, slater, sheet metal worker, or roofer will know all the historic details. Supervision is as important as any other stage of the proces s . Special problems inherent in the design of an elaborate historic roof can be controlled through the use of good materials and regular maintenance. The shape and detailing are essential elements of the building's historic character, and should not be modified, despite the use of alternative surface materials. (Garn well House, Bellingham, Washington) Alternative Materials The use of the historic roofing material on a structure may be restricted by building codes or by the availability of the materials, in which case an appropriate alternative will have to be found. Some municipal building codes allow variances for roofing materials in historic districts. In other instances, individual variances may be obtained. Most modern heating and cooking is fueled by gas, electricity, or oil-none of which emit the hot embers that historically have been the cause of roof fires . Where wood burning fireplaces or stoves are used, spark ar­ restor screens at the top of the chimneys help to prevent flam­ ing material from escaping, thus reducing the number of fires that start at the roof. In most states, insurance rates have been equalized to reflect revised considerations for the risks in­ volved with various roofing materials . 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 ob­ taining 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 advan­ tages to substituting a modern built-up composition roof for what might have been a flat metal roof, then it may make bet­ ter 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. Asphalt shingles or ceramic tiles are common substitute ma­ terials intended to duplicate the appearance of wood shingles, slates, or tiles. Fire-retardant, treated wood shingles are cur­ rently available. The treated wood tends, however, to be brit­ tle, and may require extra care ( and expense) to install. In some instances, shingles laid with an interlay of fire-retardent building paper may be an acceptable alternative. Lead-coated copper, terne-coated steel, and aluminum/ zinc-coated steel can successfully replace tin, terne plate, zinc, or lead . Copper-coated steel is a less expensive ( and less durable) substitute for sheet copper. The search for alt(;,rnative roofing materials is not new. As early as the 18th century, fear of fire cause many wood shingle or board roofs to be replaced by sheet metal or clay tile. Some historic roofs were failures from the start, based on over­ ambitious and naive use of materials as they were first devel­ oped . Research on a structure may reveal that an inadequately designed or a highly combustible roof was replaced early in its history , and therefore restoration of a later roof material would have a valid precedent. In some cities, the substitution of sheet metal on early row houses occurred as soon as the rolled material became available. Cost and ease of maintenance may dictate the substitution of a material wholly different in appearance from the original. The practical problems (wind, weather, and roof pitch) should be weighed against the historical consideration of scale, texture, and color . Sometimes the effect of the alter­ native material will be minimal. But on roofs with a high degree of visibility and patterning or texture, the substitution may seriously alter the architectural character of the building. Temporary Stabilization It may be necessary to carry out an immediate and temporary stabilization to prevent further deterioration until research can determine how the roof should be restored or rehabili­ tated, or until funding can be provided to do a proper job. A simple covering of exterior plywood or roll roofing might pro­ vide adequate protection, but any temporary covering should be applied with caution. One should be careful not to overload the roof structure, or to damage or destroy historic evidence or fabric that might be incorporated into a new roof at a later date. In this sense, repairs with caulking or bituminous patching compounds should be recognized as po­ tentially harmful, since they are difficult to remove, and at their be st , are very temporary. Precautions The architect or contractor should warn the owner of any precautions to be taken against the specific hazards in install­ ing the roofing material. Soldering of sheet metals, for in­ stance, can be a fire hazard, either from the open flame or from overheating and undected smoldering of the wooden substrate materials. Thought should be given to the design and placement of any modern roof appurtenances such as plumbing stacks, air vents, or TV antennas. Consideration should begin with the placement of modern plumbing on the interior of the build­ ing, otherwise a series of vent stacks may pierce the roof mem­ brane at various spots creating maintenance problems as well as aesthetic ones . Air handling units placed in the attic space will require vents which, in turn, require sensitive design. In­ corporating these in unused chimneys has been very successful 7 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 40 in the past. Whenever gutters and downspouts are needed that were not on the building historically, the additions should be made as unobtrusively as possible, perhaps by painting them out with a color compatible with the nearby wall or trim. Maintenance Although a new roof can be an object of beauty, it will not be protective for long without proper maintenance. At least twice a year, the roof should be inspected against a checklist. All changes should be recorded and reported. Guidelines should be established for any foot traffic that may be required for the maintenance of the roof. Many roofing materials should not be walked on at all. For some-slate, asbestos, and clay tile-a self-supporting ladder might be hung over the ridge of the roof, or planks might be spanned across the roof surface. Such items should be specifically designed and kept in a storage space accessible to the roof. If exterior work ever requires hanging scaffolding, use caution to insure that the anchors do not penetrate, break, or wear the roofing surface, gutters, or flashing. Any roofing system should be recognized as a membrane that is designed to be self-sustaining, but that can be easily damaged by intrusions such as pedestrian traffic or fallen tree branches. Certain items should be checked at specific times. For example, gutters tend to accumulate leaves and debris during the spring and fall and after heavy rain. Hidden gutter screening both at downspouts and over the full length of the gutter could help keep them clean. The surface material would require checking after a storm as well. Periodic checking of the underside of the roof from the attic after a storm or winter freezing may give early warning of any leaks. Generally, damage from water or ice is less likely on a roof that has good flashing on the outside and is well ventilated and insulated on the inside . Specific instructions for the maintenance of the different roof materials should be available from the architect or contractor. Summary The essential ingredients for replacing and maintaining a historic roof are: • Understanding the historic character of the building and being sympathetic to it. • Careful examination and recording of the existing roof and any evidence of earlier roofs. • Consideration of the historic craftsmanship and detail­ ing and implementing them in the renewal wherever visible. • Supervision of the roofers or maintenance personnel to assure preservation of historic fabric and proper under­ standing of the scope and detailing of the project. • Consideration of alternative materials where the origi­ nal cannot be used . • Cyclical maintenance program to assure that the staff understands how to take care of the roof and of the par­ ticular trouble spots to safeguard. With these points in mind, it will be possible to preserve the architectural character and maintain the physical integrity of the roofing on a historic building. This Preservation Brief was written by Sarah M. Sweetser, Architec­ tural Historian, Technical Preservation Services Division. Much of the technical information was based upon an unpublished report pre­ pared under contract for this office by John G. and Diana S. Waite. Some of the historical information was from Charles E. Peterson, FAIA, "American Notes," Journal of the Society of Archi1ec1ural Hislorians. The illustrations for this brief not specifically credited are from the files of the Technical Preservation Services Division. T his publication was prepared pursuant to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment ," which directs the Secretary of the Interior to "develop and make available to Federal agencies and State a nd local governments information concerning professional methods and tech- 8 Decorative features such as cupolas require extra maintenance. The flashing is carefully detailed to promote run-off, and the wooden ribb­ ing must be kept well-painted. This roof surface, which was originally tin plate, has been replaced with lead-coated copper for maintenance purposes. ( Lyndhurst, Tarrytown, New York, photo courtesy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation) niques tor preserving, improving, restoring and maintaining historic proper­ ties." The Brief has been developed under the technical editorship of Lee H. Nelson, AIA, Chief, Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service , U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D .C. 20240 . Comments on the usefulness of this information are welcome and can be sent to Mr. Nelson at the above address. This publication is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the author and the National Park Service are appreciated. February 1978. Additional readings on the subject of roofing are listed below. Boaz, Joseph N., ed. Archilec/Ural Graphic S1andards. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. (Modern roofing types and detail­ ing) Briggs, Martin S. A Sharl Hislory of the Buildin g Crafts. London: Oxford University Press, 1925. (Descriptions of hi storic roofing materials) Bui/el in of the Association for Preservation Technology. Vol. 2 (nos. 1-2) 1970. (Entirely on roofing) Holstrom, Ingmar; and Sandstrom, Christina. Maintenance of Old Buildings: Preservation from the Technical and Antiquarian Stand­ point. Stockholm: National Swedish Building Research, 1972. (Conta in s a section on roof maintenance problems) Insall, Donald. The Care of Old Buildings Today. London: The Architectural Press, 1972 . (Excellent guide to some problems and solutions for historic roofs) Labine, R.A. Clem. "Repairing Slate Roofs." The Old HouseJour­ nal3 (no. 12, Dec . 1975): 6-7. Lefer, Henry." A Birds-eye View." Progressive Architecture. (Mar. 1977), pp. 88-92. (Article on contemporary sheet metal) National Slate Association. Slate Roofs. Reprint of 1926 edition, now available from the Vermont Structural Slate Co., Inc ., Fairhaven, VT 05743. (An excellent reference for the many designs and details of slate roofs) Peterson, Charles E. "Iron in Early American Roofs." The Smith­ sonian Journal of History 3 (no. 3). Edited by Peter C. Welsh . Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1968, pp. 41-76. Waite, Diana S. Nineteen1h Century Tin Roofing and its Use at Hyde Hall. Albany: New York State Historic Trust, 1971 . . "Roofing for Early America." Building Early America. Edited by Charles E. Peterson. Radnor, Penn .: Chilton Book Co., 1976. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 41 Headline Copy Goes Here Senior Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini Proposed Policy Adoption: Expanded Roofing Options for Projects on Historic Buildings April 17, 2024 Headline Copy Goes HereWhy the Proposed Modification to Policy? 2 • Climate change is an existential threat to cultural resources everywhere, including Fort Collins • Growing body of policy documents and public officials calling for modification of Rehabilitation standards related to climate action • This includes the chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation • Consistent with new City policies and goals: • Our Climate Future •Big Move #3 – Climate Resilient Community •Big Move #6 – Efficient, Emissions Free Buildings •Big Move #10 – Zero Waste Economy • HPC 2024 work plan initiative: “strengthen connection to climate resiliencework” • City Preservation staff research on Fort Collins-specific climate changescenarios re: roofing • Address one of northern Colorado’s climate resilience challenges: hailstorms and roofing • While not code-required (IECC), aiming to support IECC goals 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 42 Headline Copy Goes Here 3 Sustainability - Definitions • “Triple bottom line” approach • Social • Connect people with history • Consider owner/resident needs (rehabilitation) • Consider local knowledge & craftsmanship • Economic • Boosts to local job growth • Small business incubation •Environmental •Embodied energy •Reduce, reuse, recycle (in that order) (National Park Service) Headline Copy Goes HereEmbodied Energy 4 4 Buildings have two significant energy costs 1. Construction 2. Operations (lighting, heating, etc.) Embodied energy includes full supply chain Costs of raw material extraction Costs of material manufacture/processing Costs of transportation Costs of physical construction Best practice to consider demolition energy costs as well Materials - Architectural 50% Materials - Utilities 20% Fuel & Transport 17% Business Services 11% Furnishings 1% Machinery 1% Typical Embodied Energy Distribution U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Use for Building Construction. 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 43 Headline Copy Goes HereEnergy – Embodied vs. Operating 5 • Ratio of embodied energy vs. annual operating energy varies depending on building • 5:1 up to 30:1 • Historic buildings (especially pre-1950) often have bulkier, more durable materials in larger volumes (higher ratio). • A holistic approach can often result in a greater net environmental benefit than high-efficiency new construction. • Sensitive improvements can have a significant environmental benefit. • Best to target building envelope & utilities. • Improvements focused on material preservation can be cost-effective. MIT Energy Initiative Headline Copy Goes Here • Pass a motion to adopt the policy expanding roofing options for historic properties in Fort Collins • Pass as proposed; OR • Pass with modifications; OR • Do not take up a motion (if the HPC disagrees with the policy) 6 Role of the HPC 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 44 Headline Copy Goes HereExisting Roofing Policy: SOI Standards 7 • SOI Guidelines • Rehabilitation Standards – specifically address roofing • Preservation Brief #4 – Roofing for Historic Buildings •Other material-specific guidance • Generally recommends in-kind replacement if visible • Main exception is commercial buildings where roof is not visible – substitutes common Headline Copy Goes Here 8 Roofing on Historic Buildings in Hail-Prone Areas Economic +/-Historic Character +/-Environmental +/-Material Type (Decking requirements from IRC R905 included) Longer service life compared to asphalt; life-cycle cost is comparable to typical asphalt shingle roof. In most homes built prior to 1940, most accurate replacement for original/historic roof shingles. Material source is renewable. Low environmental cost of production per square foot.Be n e f i t s Wood shingles (solid or spaced sheathing)Initial cost 2-4 times a typical asphalt shingle roof. City Code requires Class B installation at minimum. Class A preferred. With some exceptions, not appropriate for properties constructed after 1940. Even with fire retardant and urban environment, carries a fire risk (retardant slows but does not prevent fire). Fire retardant treatment requires landfilling at end of service life. No possibility of composting or downcycling. Dr a w b a c k s Low up-front cost of installation.Common alteration 1930s-1950s; original roofing material post-1940. “Architectural” shingles can mimic historic wood shingles with varying accuracy. Material can technically be recycled for second-tier uses such as road re-paving, new shingle production, energy production (actual recycling rates in Colorado are close to zero).Be n e f i t s Asphalt Shingles/Asphalt membrane (solid sheathing) May end up costing more than other, more durable, roofing types over life of building. Especially a concern in Colorado where asphalt roofing can last as short as 10-15 years (or less). Not all “architectural” shingle brands are equal for replicating wood texture. Actual recycling rates are very low in Colorado due to massive turnover from frequent severe hailstorms. Energy intensive; petroleum-based inputs. Shorter service life, especially in hail- prone areas like Colorado.Dr a w b a c k s 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 45 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Roofing Tradeoffs (cont) Economic +/-Historic Character +/-Environmental +/-Material Type (Decking requirements from IRC R905 included) If maintained, ongoing costs are repair and spot-replacement; can be a semi- permanent roof material. For properties that have clay tile roofs, retaining original and partial replacement in- kind is easier. Fairly durable, semi-permanent roofing material. Be n e f it s Clay tile (solid or spaced sheathing) High cost of installation compared to other roof types (4 to 8 times cost of asphalt roof). High cost of repair due to labor (most material is salvaged/reinstalled). Not a common roofing material in Fort Collins; only appropriate on a limited number of historic roofs. High initial environmental cost of production (mitigated by re-using historic). Dr a w b a c k s Longer service life. Life-cycle cost is comparable to asphalt shingles (usually less than due to protection against hail damage). Corrugated metal is appropriate to retain where it was installed historically. Extremely durable. Easily recyclable - strong market for scrap metal. Comparatively low environmental cost of production. Be n e f i t s Metal (standing seam/corrugated) (solid or spaced sheathing) More expensive up-front cost than standard asphalt shingle (anywhere from 1.5 times to 5 times cost). While occasionally appropriate on some agricultural properties, generally not appropriate for historic buildings in Fort Collins. Ventilation is critical to mitigate for moisture build-up in attic/rafter space. Potential for water pollution from run- off. Dr a w b a c k s Headline Copy Goes Here 10 Roofing Tradeoffs (cont 2) Economic +/-Historic Character +/-Environmental +/-Material Type (Decking requirements from IRC R905 included) Cost-effective over expected life-cycle.Some product lines do well in replicating historic wood shake or asphalt shingle (less good on replicating wood shingles). Durable and longer service life than typical wood or asphalt products. Recyclable (in theory)Be n e f i t s Synthetic Shingles (Brava, F-Wave, etc.) Higher up-front cost (around double a typical asphalt shingle roof) Limited wood shingle varieties on market presently. Quality of wood shake substitute varies heavily. Frequently use “virgin” petroleum in production. Unsure of practical recyclability due to short time on market.Dr a w b a c ks Cost-effective over expected life-cycle.In most cases, reasonable substitute for design of historic wood or asphalt shingles, depending on brand, color, and historic roof material. Durable and long-lasting. Be n e f i t s Concrete tile/Cement Fiber shingle (solid or spaced sheathing) Requires skilled contractor to install properly to ensure performance. High up-front cost. May require structural reinforcement of roof framing due to weight. Energy-intensive to manufacture. Some long-term performance issues in climates with high temperature variation. Cement fiber tiles have almost no recycling market at the end of service life.Dr a w b a c k s Cost-effective over expected life-cycle (50- 100 years) Newer products are starting to get very close on replicating wood shingle texture and pattern Durable and very long-lasting Generally recyclable Be n e f i t s Metal (stone-coated panels) High up-front cost.High heat-gain potential – need improved ventilation and expansion joints Energy-intensive to manufacture Asphalt coating will chip in hail, leading to some run-off and cosmetic damage (early removal)Dr a w b a c ks 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 46 Headline Copy Goes HereWhat Would the Proposed Policy Do? 11 • Significantly expand scenarios where substitute roofing material could be approved on historic buildings in Fort Collins •Most specifically, wood and asphalt • Encourage use of durable substitutes to wood and asphalt (polymer synthetics, stone-coated metal, etc.) • Establish City staff as the approving authority on most roofing on historic buildings •Already there, mostly Headline Copy Goes HereKey Policy Changes Proposed 12 • Allows most shingle roofs to be replaced with newer, more durable/recyclable substitutes w/ staff-only review when Rehabilitation is the treatment method. • Retains SOI guidelines on already durable historic materials (clay tile, metal, etc.) • Concrete generally prohibited as a substitute roofing product • Provides formal guidelines for rooftop features • Allows most types of roof venting, although ridge or edge vents are encouraged • Allows adding 4” of roof height for insulation above the decking; calls for flat fascia along the eave • Gutters & downspouts generally allowed & encouraged where not obscuring important detailing along eaves or corners 530 Smith St. – stone-coated metal; City Landmark Image of a typical edge vent, mid-slope (can also be installed at eave edge or along roof ridge) 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 47 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 Questions for the HPC • Any general concerns with the proposed policy? • Are there specific scenarios, when Rehabilitation is the treatment method, where the HPC would prefer to retain decision-making authority for roofing decisions on historic buildings rather than allowing staff to approve? Headline Copy Goes Here 14 Role of the HPC • Pass a motion to adopt the policy expanding roofing options for historic properties in Fort Collins • Pass as proposed; OR • Pass with modifications; OR • Do not take up a motion (if the HPC disagrees with the policy) 13 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 48 From:Erin Valenti To:Historic Preservation Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re-Roofing policy amendment statement Date:Wednesday, September 4, 2024 2:57:50 PM Hello, I work for a local Nonprofit in town and we are located in a Historic Landmark home. One of our buildings has original wooden shingles on the roof. When gathering quotes to see how much it would cost to replace, one of the roofers was shocked to see wood and mentioned that it's not even sold in Colorado anymore due to the warping the snow causes, and the fire risk it poses. We need a new roof in order to maintain our operations in a safe manner, and to not destroy the building if it were to start leaking etc. We also need a new roof to make our property more appealing to future buyers, as we are running out of space and need to make a location move soon. This could cause a hindrance in that process if we are not able to get a practical and working roof. I am in full support of this policy amendment to make a re-roofing process be in alignment with CO weather patterns and needs. Thank you for your time, Erin Valentishe/herOffice Manager The Crawford Child Advocacy Center_______________________________________ Phone: (970) 407-9739 www.crawfordcac.org | Address/Map ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 49 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1316 W. OAK ST. (JASPER LOOMIS PROPERTY) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: material on the Jasper Loomis Property at 1316 W. Oak St. The owner has waived conceptual design review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work. APPLICANT/OWNER: RECOMMENDATION: about the relative importance of roofing material as a character-defining feature on this property versus the shingle form. Staff finds that the wood material of the roof does not appear to be a character-defining feature of this mixed-style Craftsman residence, and stone-coated steel roofing (Westlake Cottage Shingle) maintains the appearance of the roof and the character of the house overall. Staff also recommends approval of the in-kind replacement of the modified bitumen material on the flat-roofed front porch. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Landmark 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 2013 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 designation: July 4, 1994 • Summary of proposed work: Change deteriorated wood shingle roof to Westlake Cottage Shingle stone- coated steel roof in Ironwood color (house and accessory building); re-roof flat-roofed front porch with modified bitumen material ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The house located at 1316 West Oak was built in 1919 from plans drawn by Lester L. Jones, an architect who practiced in Fort Collins from about 1917 through 1925. Packet Pg. 50 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 This rectangular, two-story house has a mixed style, including elements from Craftsman, Colonial Revival, and Greek Revival architecture. This symmetrical residence has a hipped roof, clapboard siding on the first story and stucco on the second story, and the exposed foundation is red brick. Craftsman details on the home include the wide, overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends and the wide front porch with large, square columns and trellised roof. Although hipped roofs, like the shallowly pitched roof of this residence, are uncommon on Craftsman homes, they can be found more widely on Colonial Revival or Greek Revival houses. The front porch is the most prominent feature on the facade. The nearly full-width, flat-roofed porch with wide sections of trim in the cornice line includes multiple square columns and pilasters, a simple balustrade and railing, a concrete deck, exposed rafter ends, and a short, decorative balustrade crowning the center portion of the roof. This design, along with the all-white color scheme, evokes Greek Revival or Colonial Revival style. Greek Revival buildings often feature a full-façade porch supported by square or round columns topped by wide trim at the cornice like an entablature with a flat roof rather than a pediment, according to Virginia McAlester’s A Field Guide to American Houses and the State Historic Preservation Office’s “Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering.” Similar portico-like porches can be found among examples of the Colonial Revival style. Additional Colonial Revival details that can be seen on this residence are the house’s symmetry, its shallow hipped roof with full- width porch, the 8-pane windows, and the central front door flanked by sidelights, according to McAlester and the State Historic Preservation Office’s guidance. There is also a detached garage on the northwest corner of the lot, to the rear of the house. A solar addition was added to this garage in 1983. The garage is a non-contributing feature on this property. ALTERATION HISTORY: Building-permitted exterior alterations and other alterations undergoing Landmark Design Review to date include: DATE PERMIT # NAME NOTES Design Review? To make two car garage out of one car beam repair; interior repair of rotted flooring in bathroom and kitchen and other floor Packet Pg. 51 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 11/21/2023 B2308760 Brian Stephenson for Mary HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: • State Tax Credits for repair work above dated 5/14/1994 • Landmark Rehab Loan for egress window project above dated 11/21/2023 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following items: • Re-roofing house and shed (non-contributing): Wind-damaged wood shingles replaced with stone- coated steel roofing (Westlake, Cottage Shingle, Ironwood) 1. Removal of all wood shingles and underlayment. 2. Underlayment replacement with minimum 30 lb. synthetic underlayment and ice and water barrier where code requires. 3. Roofing replacement with stone-coated steel roofing panels. • Re-roofing flat-roofed front porch: In-kind replacement of leaking modified bitumen material PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY: None STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Applicable Code 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 house will retain its historic use as a single-family residence. 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. Although the wood shingle roof material is reflective of the historic roofing material that was used at the date of construction and in subsequent re- roofing jobs, guidance on styles reflected in this residence (Craftsman, Greek Revival, Colonial Revival), excerpts attached, do not identify the wood shingle roof material as character-defining or distinctive. Staff finds that the proposed Westlake Cottage Shingle stone-coated steel roofing in Ironwood color would not compromise the historic character of the property and is a reasonable and sensitive material change. Staff suggests the Commission evaluate this finding to determine whether the roofing material is a character-defining feature of this mixed-style house. If the wood material is not a character-defining feature of this historic residence, then this Standard would be met. The in-kind replacement of the damaged modified bitumen roofing on the flat-roofed front porch of this house meets 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 N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Packet Pg. 52 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. As noted under SOI Standard #2, if the Commission disagrees with the staff finding that the wood shingle material of the roof is not a character-defining feature of the property, then this standard would not be met. However, if the Commission finds that the material of the shingle roof is not a character- defining feature, then the proposed material change would be acceptable, and this Standard would be met. The in-kind replacement of the damaged modified bitumen roofing on the flat-roofed front porch of this house meets TBD SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. The existing roof of the house and shed have been experienced wind damage, as shown in some of the attached photos, and need to be replaced. If the shingle form of the roof material is considered character- defining rather than the material the shingles are made from, then the design, color, and texture of the proposed stone-coated steel roofing can be considered a reasonable substitute for a wood shingle product, and this Standard would also be met. The in-kind replacement of the damaged modified bitumen roofing on the flat-roofed front porch of this house meets 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 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. Because roofs are intended to be replaced as they are damaged over time, roofing projects are reversible; the material could be changed back to wood at a later date, if such a change is desired and allowable in the future, and the in-kind replacement of the damaged modified bitumen roofing on the Y STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the roof replacement with the proposed stone-coated steel roofing, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The property at 1316 W. Oak St. was designated as a City Landmark on July 4, 1994. • Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness is required to allow exterior alterations to Landmark properties, as described in Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 If the wood material were considered a character-defining feature of the Jasper Loomis Property, the proposed use of Westlake Cottage Shingle stone-coated steel roofing in Ironwood color would not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. However, unlike the roof form itself or its shingled appearance, the roofing material for a mixed-style residence like this (Craftsman, Greek Revival, Colonial Revival details) is not a character-defining feature, which is supported by the State of Colorado’s field guide to historic architectural building styles and types and Virginia McAlester’s A Field Guide to American Houses. Therefore, the proposal to replace the wood roof with the identified stone-coated steel product alternative that will approximate the appearance of a wood roof in a sympathetic manner appears to be in compliance with the Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission approve the proposal based on Commission findings about the relative importance of roofing material as a character-defining feature on this property. Staff finds that the wood material of the roof does not appear to be a character-defining feature of this mixed-style residence, and the selected stone-coated steel roofing product will maintain the shingled appearance of the roof and the character of the house overall. Staff also finds that the in-kind replacement of the modified bitumen material on the flat-roofed front porch of the home conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposed re-roofing project at the Jasper Loomis Property at 1316 W. Oak St. as presented., including the replacement of the wood shingle roof with the selected stone-coated steel roofing product, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the proposed re-roofing project at the Jasper Loomis Property at 1316 W. Oak St. as presented., including the replacement of the wood shingle roof with the selected stone-coated steel roofing product, 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 proposed re-roofing project at the Jasper Loomis Property at 1316 W. Oak St. as presented., including the replacement of the wood shingle roof with the selected stone-coated steel roofing product, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this item to the next meeting in order to seek additional information regarding the following code requirements: [insert] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design Review Application and Scope Details 2. Photos 3. Proposed Material Product Sheet and Images 4. Nomination Form 5. “Field Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering” (excerpts on Craftsman, Greek Revival, Colonial Revival) 6. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 54 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) 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 may 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). ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 55 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. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 56 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 57 Scope of Work Agreement Customer Name: George Burnette Email Address:georgeburnette@gmail.com Address:4420 Bingham Hill Rd - Fort Collins, CO 80521 # Of Buildings being Produced: 2 Building Names: Dwelling Roof, Shed Roof Trades being Produced: Trade Insurance Coverage Insurance Supplement Status Notes Dwelling Roof TBD Replace wood shakes with Stone Coated Steel Shed Roof TBD Roofing components will be matched to dwelling Project Specifications: Trade Y/N Type Color Size Dwelling and Shed Roofs Y Stone Coated Steel Engineered Galvanized Steel. Embedded 3M Ceramic Stone granule. Gray (Ironwood) Notes: 30 LB Synthetic Underlayment And heat rated Ice and Water Barrier. Or 100% Heat rated Ice and Water Barrier per customer choice. Flat Roofing Modified Bitumen N/A (not visible)5.0 MM Thick ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 58 Financial Information: Fixed Bid Has Mortgage signed oon the first check?Yes ___No ___N/A Assurance’s contract provides a 10 year workmanship warranty. We are planning to begin work within approximately 30 days. We will make more exact plans as soon as we have approval from the FCPS as well as a confirmed material ship date. Additional Special Instructions: We will coordinate and communicate our work schedule with all concerned parties. Operations and Communication Policy Your roof installation will be scheduled in accordance with weather conditions, crew availability, and material delivery lead time from our suppliers. We do our best to have the materials delivered 1-2 days prior to your scheduled roof installation. However, sometimes they may be delivered earlier. Our operations team will keep you informed via phone and/or email of any changes as appropriate. If you have questions about your down payment, please contact your sales representative. Permits/Inspections Your home is a part of the Fort Collins Preservation Society. Most cities and counties in Colorado require a permit and inspections to complete a roof installation and in some cases, solar detach and reset. We will take care of coordinating with the municipality on all of the permits and inspections needed for your roof. Your project manager will provide updates and keep you informed of any necessary actions that may require your attention. All work will comply with manufacturer install requirements and City of Fort Collins permits and code requirements. Trades Policy Please note that only trades explicitly listed in this document are considered within the scope of work for Assurance Contractors. Any trade not mentioned herein is not included. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 59 Customer Name George Burnette Signature ______________________________ Date: ___________________ Representative Name _Steve Arends Signature ____ Date: 8-26-24___________ ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 60 Precise Aerial Measurement Report Prepared for you by Assurance Roofing Company 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Assurance Contractors Inc. 333 W. Drake Rd Ste. 44 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Team Assurance tel. 970-797-2502 email: Assurance@AssuranceContractors.com www.AssuranceContractors.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 61 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. Measurements provided by www.eagleview.com In this 3D model, facets appear as semi-transparent to reveal overhangs. Claim Information PONumber: 4596 PREPARED FOR Contact:Steve Arends Company:Assurance Contractors Inc. Address:333 W Drake Rd Ste 44 Fort Collins, CO 80526-2883 Phone:800-992-7231 TABLE OF CONTENTS Images .....................................................................1 Length Diagram.........................................................4 Pitch Diagram............................................................5 Area Diagram ............................................................6 Notes Diagram...........................................................7 Report Summary........................................................8 Total Roof Area =2,313 sq ft Total Roof Facets =13 Predominant Pitch =5/12 Number of Stories >1 Total Ridges/Hips =169 ft Total Valleys =27 ft Total Rakes =0 ft Total Eaves =295 ft MEASUREMENTS ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 62 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 IMAGES © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 1 The following aerial images show different angles of this structure for your reference. Top View ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 63 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 IMAGES © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 2 North Side South Side ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 64 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 IMAGES © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 3 East Side West Side ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 65 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 LENGTH DIAGRAM © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 4 Note: This diagram contains segment lengths (rounded to the nearest whole number) over 5.0 Feet. In some cases, segment labels have been removed for readability. Plus signs preface some numbers to avoid confusion when rotated (e.g. +6 and +9). Total Line Lengths: Ridges = 20 ft Hips = 149 ft Valleys = 27 ft Rakes = 0 ft Eaves = 295 ft Flashing = 67 ft Step flashing = 27 ft Parapets = 0 ft 15 20 43 20 28 20 20 28 43 20 16 12 +6 +6 20 8 13 13 11 16 12 13 13 18 11 13 11 13 11 +9 11 11 +9 11 SN W E ©20 2 4 E a g l e V i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . , A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 66 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 PITCH DIAGRAM © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 5 Note: This diagram contains labeled pitches for facet areas larger than 20.0 square feet. In some cases, pitch labels have been removed for readability. Blue shading indicates a pitch of 3/12 and greater. Gray shading indicates flat, 1/12 or 2/12 pitches. If present, a value of "F" indicates a flat facet (no pitch). Pitch values are shown in inches per foot, and arrows indicate slope direction. The predominant pitch on this roof is 5/12 3 3 5 F 3 3 5 3 F 3 5 5 F SN W E © 20 2 4 E a g l e V i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . , A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 67 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 AREA DIAGRAM © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 6 Note: This diagram shows the square feet of each roof facet (rounded to the nearest Foot). The total area in square feet, at the top of this page, is based on the non-rounded values of each roof facet (rounded to the nearest square foot after being totaled). Total Area = 2,313 sq ft, with 13 facets. 87 335 94 40 205 439 101 426 101 205 142 +99 40 SN W E © 20 2 4 E a g l e V i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . , A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 68 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 NOTES DIAGRAM © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 7 Note: This diagram also appears in the Property Owner Report. Roof facets are labeled from smallest to largest (A to Z) for easy reference. C K D B J M F L G I H E A SN W E © 20 2 4 E a g l e V i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . , A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 69 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 REPORT SUMMARY © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 8 All Structures Areas per Pitch Roof Pitches Area (sq ft) % of Roof 0/12 3/12 5/12 336.7 699.9 1275.6 14.6%30.3%55.1% The table above lists each pitch on this roof and the total area and percent (both rounded) of the roof with that pitch. Structure Complexity Simple Normal Complex Waste Calculation NOTE: This waste calculation table is for asphalt shingle roofing applications. All values in table below only include roof areas of 3/12 pitch or greater. For total measurements of all pitches, please refer to the Lengths, Areas, and Pitches section below. Waste %0%7%12%17%20%22%24%27%32% Area (Sq ft)1976 2115 2214 2312 2372 2411 2451 2510 2609 Squares *20.00 21.33 22.33 23.33 24.00 24.33 24.66 25.33 26.33 Measured Suggested * Squares are rounded up to the 1/3 of a square Additional materials needed for ridge, hip, and starter lengths are not included in the above table. The provided suggested waste factor is intended to serve as a guide—actual waste percentages may differ based upon several variables that EagleView does not control. These waste factor variables include, but are not limited to, individual installation techniques, crew experiences, asphalt shingle material subtleties, and potential salvage from the site. Individual results may vary from the suggested waste factor that EagleView has provided. The suggested waste is not to replace or substitute for experience or judgment as to any given replacement or repair work. All Structures Totals Total Roof Facets = 13 Ridges = 20 ft (2 Ridges) Hips = 149 ft (8 Hips). Valleys = 27 ft (2 Valleys) Rakes† = 0 ft (0 Rakes) Eaves/Starter‡ = 295 ft (18 Eaves) Drip Edge (Eaves + Rakes) = 295 ft (18 Lengths) Parapet Walls = 0 (0 Lengths). Flashing = 67 ft (8 Lengths) Step flashing = 27 ft (4 Lengths) Predominant Pitch = 5/12 Total Area (All Pitches) = 2,313 sq ft Longitude = -105.1001707 Latitude = 40.5859418 Notes This was ordered as a residential property. There were no changes to the structure in the past four years. SN W E ©20 2 4 E a g l e V i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . , A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . † Rakes are defined as roof edges that are sloped (not level). ‡ Eaves are defined as roof edges that are not sloped and level. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 70 Premium Report 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 9 Online Maps Online map of property http://maps.google.com/maps?f=g&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1316+West+Oak+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521 Directions from Assurance Contractors Inc. to this property http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=333+W+Drake+Rd+Ste+44,Fort+Collins,CO,80526- 2883&daddr=1316+West+Oak+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 71 Legal Notice and Disclaimer 4/26/2024 1316 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 58505616 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER © 2008-2024 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. Notice and Disclaimer No Warranty: The Copyrighted Materials are provided to you "as is," and you agree to use it at your own risk. EagleView Technologies makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise, including but not limited to, content, quality, accuracy, completeness, effectiveness, reliability, fitness for a particular purpose, usefulness, use or results to be obtained from the Copyrighted Materials. Contractors agree to always conduct a preliminary site survey to verify Roof Report ordered. In the event of an error in a Report, your sole remedy will be a refund of the fees paid by you to obtain this Report. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 72 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street FORT COLLINS, CO 80521 VIEW 3D MODEL © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 73 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... ROOF SUMMARY Roof Area Total Length Roof Facets 831 ft²4 - Ridges / Hips -3 53' 5" Valleys -0 - Rakes -4 35' 3" Eaves -4 101' 3" Flashing -1 10' 10" Step Flashing -0 - Drip Edge/Perimeter --136' 6" Roof Pitch*Area Percentage 5 / 12 728 ft²87.61% 1 / 12 103 ft²12.39% Example Waste Factor Calculations Zero Waste +5%+10%+15%+20% Area 831 ft²873 ft²914 ft²956 ft²997 ft² Squares 8⅓9 9⅓9⅔10 The table above provides the total roof area of a given property using waste percentages as noted. Please consider that area values and specific waste factors can be influenced by the size and complexity of the property, captured image quality, specific roofing techniques, and your own level of expertise. Additional square footage for Hip, Ridge, and Starter shingles are not included in this waste factor and will require additional materials. This table is only intended to make common waste calculations easier and should not be interpreted as recommendations. © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 74 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... FOOTPRINT N E S W Number of Stories: 1 Footprint Perimeter: 111' 8" Footprint Area: 634 ft² © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 75 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... SOFFIT Soffit Summary Depth Type Count Total Length Total Area 0" - 1"rakes 2 12' 4"0 ft² 12" - 18"rakes 4 19' 11"27 ft² eaves 3 80' 9"106 ft² 18" - 24"eaves 1 12' 7"22 ft² Totals 125' 6"155 ft² © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 76 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... SOFFIT Soffit Breakdown num Type Depth Length Area Pitch 1 eave 15"33' 2"41 ft²5 / 12 2 eave 15"14' 4"23 ft²5 / 12 3 eave 15"33' 2"41 ft²5 / 12 4 rake 16"4' 5"6 ft²5 / 12 5 rake 0"6' 7"0 ft²1 / 12 6 rake 16"6' 2"8 ft²5 / 12 7 eave 21"12' 7"22 ft²1 / 12 8 rake 16"6' 2"8 ft²5 / 12 9 rake 0"5' 9"0 ft²1 / 12 10 rake 16"3' 2"4 ft²5 / 12 Feature is too small to label on the plan diagram © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 5 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 77 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... ROOF MEASUREMENTS Roof Length Ridges (RI)25' 1" Hips (H)28' 3" Valleys (V)- Rakes (RA)35' 3" Eaves (E)101' 3" Flashing (F)*10' 10" Step Flashing (SF)*- Transition Line (TL)- *Please view the 3D model for more detail (e.g. flashing, step flashing and some other roof lines may be difficult to see on the PDF) © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 78 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... ROOF FACETS Roof Facets Facet Area Pitch RF-1 314 ft²5/12 RF-2 103 ft²1/12 RF-3 314 ft²5/12 RF-4 100 ft²5/12 © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 7 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 79 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... ROOF AREA Roof Facets Total Total 4 831 ft² © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 80 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... ROOF PITCH Roof Pitch Area Percentage 5 / 12 728 ft²87.61% 1 / 12 103 ft²12.39% © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 9 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 81 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... PHOTOS © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 82 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... PHOTOS © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 11 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 83 Roof Measurements 1326 West Oak Street, Fort Colli... PHOTOS © 2024 HOVER Inc. All rights reserved. This document and the images, measurement data, format and contents are the exclusive property of HOVER. HOVER is the registered trademark of Hover Inc. All other brands, products and company names mentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Use of this document is subject to HOVER's Terms of Use and is provided “as is.” HOVER makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, arising by law or otherwise relating to this document or its contents or use, including but not limited to, quality, accuracy, completeness, reliability, or fitness for a particular purpose. PROPERTY ID: 13251555 BURNETT SHED 12 AUG 2024 Page 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 84 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Facade/South Elevation Packet Pg. 85 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 West and South Elevations Packet Pg. 86 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 East and South Elevations Packet Pg. 87 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rear/North Elevation Packet Pg. 88 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Shed/garage (non-contributing) Packet Pg. 89 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Roof (south and west) Packet Pg. 90 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Roof (north 1/4) Packet Pg. 91 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Roof (north 2/4) Packet Pg. 92 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Roof (north 3/4) Packet Pg. 93 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Roof (north 4/4) Packet Pg. 94 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Roof Damage Close-up (1/2) Packet Pg. 95 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Roof Damage Close-up (2/2) Packet Pg. 96 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Shed/garage Roof (non-contributing) Packet Pg. 97 PRODUCT INFORMATION Product Name:COTTAGE Shingle - Ironwood HD SKU Number:4DCP95325HD Product Type:Lightweight Color:Grey Installation Type:Direct (Only) Pallet Layout:Left-to-Right (Only) Fastening:Exposed Batten Spacing:N/A .Available Regions: Nationwide Reflectivity:0.11 Aged Ref. (3 yr):n/a Emmisivity:0.89 Aged Em. (3 yr):n/a SRI:7 Aged SRI (3 yr):n/a Product Specifications: Coverage:14 x 47.875 in (356 x 1216 mm) Panels per 100 Sq Ft:22 Sq M per Panel:0.43 Sq M per Pallet:173 Pallets per Full Truck:15 Squares per Full Track:300 Panels per Container Size 20ft (6.1M) With Accessories:5600 No Accessories:6400 Pallets per Container Size 20ft (6.1M) With Accessories:14 No Accessories:16 The printed color shown here may vary from actual available tile color and should not be used to color match. Please contact your local Sales Representative for actual tile samples.800.658.8004 www.WestlakeRoyalRoofing.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 98 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 99 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 100 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 101 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 102 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 103 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 104 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 105 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 106 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 107 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 108 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 109 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 110 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 111 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 112 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 113 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 114 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 115 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 116 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 117 1625 FIELD GUIDE TO COLORADO’S HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 118 Colonial Revival Denver There are three types of Colonial Revival buildings in Colorado: "historically accurate" reproductions of the seventeenth-century Georgian and Federal style; Colonial or Classical elements applied to basically Victorian or Post-Victorian buildings; and very simple houses with a few Colonial details. Colonial Revival buildings are usually brick and include residences, churches and hotels. The First Baptist Church in Denver is an example of the first type in that it is a fairly accurate rendition of a Wren inspired New England church. There are also Federal and Georgian examples of homes scattered around Denver. Styles First Baptist Church, Denver The Fleming House in Denver represents the second type. In this case a classical portico is placed on a somewhat typical late Queen Anne building. These Neo- Classical elements lead to confusion and the temptation to place these structures in the Classical Revival category. To avoid this problem, residences with classical elements are considered to be Colonial Revival. The third type of Colonial Revival house is the most common. These are the simple gabled houses with several Colonial elements such as broken pediments, eight-over-eight sash windows, fanlights, and sidelights, and shutters. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 119 Colonial Revival Boulde Denver Common elements: Styles • broken pediments • 8-over-8 sash windows • portico • fluted columns • Doric columns • Corinthian columns • pediments • fanlight • sidelight • shutters • dormer • eyebrow dormer Colorado Springs Estes Park ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 120 Craftsman Denver The Craftsman style structure emerged from the Arts and Crafts movement of the early twentieth century, a philosophy which stressed comfort and utility through the use of natural materials and a lack of pretension. Exposed rafter ends, overhanging eaves, clipped gables, and large porch columns replaced the more delicate and intricate detailing of the Victorian period. In addition to these characteristics, windows consisted of divided lights in the upper sash and a single light in the lower sash. Some Craftsman houses display a small amount of false half-timbering (not to be mistaken for the Tudor Revival style which has significant amounts of half-timbering). Confusion may result between the Craftsman style and the Bungalow form. Bungalows are one to one-and-one-half story houses which most often employ the elements of the Craftsman style. The Craftsman style may be utilized on any size building and is often found on apartment buildings as well as houses. Styles Durango Common elements: • exposed rafter ends • clipped gable • false half-timbering • knee braces at eaves • divided upper window lights • large porch columns • battered porch columns • overhanging eaves ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 121 Craftsman Denve Grand Junction Boulder Styles Holyoke ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 122 Greek Revival Central City Greek Revival is very rare in Colorado and the few examples that exist date from between 1860 and the mid-1870s. The style is more appropriately called Greek "Survival" because it is an un- usually late appearance of a style that began in the Eastern United States in the 1820s and fell out of favor by 1860. Colorado examples represent a late adoption of the style. Elements characteristic of Greek Revival in Colorado include pedimented lintels and architraves over windows and doors, pilaster boards at the corners, engaged piers, transoms and sidelights surrounding entrances, and slim, refined Doric or Tuscan columns. Most all Greek Revival buildings are wood-frame and clapboard sided, and they are predomi- nately residential. Most are found in the state’s early mining towns. Styles Common elements: • pediment-shaped window head • transom • sidelights • pilaster corner boards • Doric or Tuscan columns Denver ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 123 Greek Revival Central City Central City Paonia Styles ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 124 Jasper Loomis Property (1316 W. Oak St.) Final Landmark Design Review Sept. 18, 2024 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 2Location Map – 1316 W. Oak Street 1943 amendment of 1925 Sanborn Map Aerial Image 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 125 3Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed roofing material substitution • 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 • Jasper Loomis Property designated as a City Landmark July 4, 1994 • Standard 3: Architectural Significance • Built 1919 • Designed by architect Lester L. Jones • Mixed-style Craftsman, Colonial Revival, Greek Revival 4 1948 Tax Assessor Photo 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 126 5Proposed Project • Change existing wood shingle roof to Westlake Cottage Shingle stone-coated steel roofing in Ironwood color • Roofing in-kind replacement for flat-roofed front porch (modified bitumen) 6Photos Façade/South Elevation West and South Elevations 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 127 7Photos East and South Elevations Rear/North Elevation 8Photos Shed/garage (non-contributing)Shed/garage Roof 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 128 Photos 9 House Roof (rear)House Roof (west and south) Photos 10 Damage Close-ups 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 129 11Work Session Requests for Additional Information (to be added) Q: A: Staff Analysis The consistency of this project with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation is dependent on whether the roofing material (wood) is considered a character-defining feature. Staff find that the Jasper Loomis House’s ability to convey its architectural significance as an architect-designed mixed-use house with Craftsman, Colonial Revival, and Greek Revival influences does not depend on the shingle roof being of a wood material. For this reason, Staff recommend the HPC approve this proposal by issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness. 12 Craftsman details on this house include: • Wide overhanging eaves • Exposed rafter ends • Large front porch with large square columns and trellis roof Greek Revival details on this house include: • Shallow hipped roof • Wide front porch with columns • Entablature-like cornice on porch Colonial Revival details on this house include: • Shallow hipped roof • Symmetrical, rectangular plan • Wide front porch with columns • 8-pane windows • Central door with sidelights 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 130 13Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed roofing material substitution • 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. Jasper Loomis Property (1316 W. Oak St.) Final Landmark Design Review Sept. 18, 2024 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 131 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission SUBJECT EDUCATION WORKSHOP – HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORY PRIMER STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner SUMMARY Staff will provide a brief summary of known history and historic places related to Hispanic American History in Fort Collins from the 1860s and beyond. This presentation is being given at a regular meeting as opposed to a work session to make it available to the attending public in person and online and via the meeting recording. September 15 to October 15 is Hispanic Heritage Month in the United States. More information about Hispanic American history can be found on our website, here: https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/latinx Packet Pg. 132 Headline Copy Goes Here Senior Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini Hispanic History in Fort Collins Sept. 18, 2024 Headline Copy Goes Here 2 A note on terminology Hispanic Heritage Month • September 15-October 15 • Coincides with independence days in several countries that were former European colonies •Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, Sept. 15, 1821 •Mexico, Sept. 16, 1810 (Sept. 27, 1821) •Chile, Sept. 18, 1810 •Belize, Sept. 21, 1981 Terms • U.S. Census Bureau “Hispanic” • Broad but sometimes academic “Latino/a/e/x • Specifically of Mexican descent and reject colonial/Spanish ancestry Chicano/a Mexican American • Common for early settlers in New Mexico & southern Colorado whose settlement predates US colonization Spanish 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTAHCMENT 1 Packet Pg. 133 Headline Copy Goes Here Hispanic History in Place: National/State NPS Theme Study 3 Cesar Chavez Dolores Huerta Headline Copy Goes HereHispanic History in Place: Regional Landmarks 4 • Limited Spanish settlement, mostly in southern CO along the Rio Grande • Significant Mexican American settlement by 1840s/1850s • Agricultural history of the Front Range 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTAHCMENT 1 Packet Pg. 134 Headline Copy Goes HereGeography of Hispanic Heritage in Ft Collins 5 Headline Copy Goes Here Latinx Properties in FoCo – Agriculture & Industry 6 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTAHCMENT 1 Packet Pg. 135 Headline Copy Goes Here Latinx Properties in FoCo – Business & Social 7 Headline Copy Goes Here Latinx Properties in FoCo – People (West) 8 Joe Cienfuegos, 326 Wood St William Lopez 229 N. Sherwood St. Librado & Eva Martinez 728 Sycamore St. 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTAHCMENT 1 Packet Pg. 136 Headline Copy Goes Here Latinx Properties in FoCo – People (East) 9 Guillermo Godinez 405 Linden St. George & Inez Romero 425 10th Street Jovita Vallecillo Lobato 402 Pine St Headline Copy Goes Here Latino/a/x & Chicano Civil Rights 10 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTAHCMENT 1 Packet Pg. 137 Headline Copy Goes HereNext Steps 11 • Addressing social inequity •History as a context for social change • New stories for historic places •Many existing Landmarks have Hispanic connections • Crowdsource info • Website & Walking Tours • Landmarks •Extremely underrepresented, with only 2 Landmarks that specificallyrecognize Hispanic history ⎻425 10th St, Romero House/Museo de las Tres Colonias ⎻724 Martinez • Momentum for formal context report • Define Holy Family Neighborhood • Explore Chicano Civil Rights on/off campus Headline Copy Goes HereYou’re Invited! Hispanic Heritage Month Celebration 12 •When?: October 5 from 12-4pm •Where?: Gardens on Spring Creek, 2145 Centre Ave •What?: •Artmaking activities •Live music •Dancing and performances •Food from local culinary artists •A local business market •AND your very own HP staff repping Hispanic historic places in Fort Collins! 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTAHCMENT 1 Packet Pg. 138