Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/19/2025 - Historic Preservation Commission - AGENDA - Regular Meeting (3)
02/19/2025 Agenda Page 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Online via Zoom or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Council Chambers This hybrid HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION meeting will be available online via Zoom, by phone, or in person at City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00p.m. Participants should join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/97119271921 Webinar ID: 97119271921 (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chairperson 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 +1 720 928 9299 and enter Webinar ID 971 1927 1921. 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 press *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. When you are called, press *6 to unmute yourself. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PERSON: To participate in person, individuals should come to City Hall, 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 and be prepared to follow strict social distancing guidelines. There may be needs to limit the number of individuals in the meeting room, and thus staging for individuals to speak may need to occur in the lobby or outside (weather permitting). Individuals who wish to speak will line up along the northern wall, maintaining physical distancing. The chairperson will call upon each participant to speak. (Continued on next page) Packet Pg. 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the HISTORIC PRESERVATION 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 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, Staff Liaison’s administrative professional needs to receive those materials via the above email address at least 48 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to preservation@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison’s administrative professional will ensure the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 48 hours prior to the meeting. Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Historic Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221- 6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. 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. Packet Pg. 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM Commissioners • 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 • PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW UP FROM COMMISSION • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2025 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Packet Pg. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM • 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. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM 3. 509 REMINGTON ST. (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW This item is to provide a final design review for a rehabilitation project of the historic barn that contributes to the City Landmark at 509 Remington St., the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn. The proposal includes relocation of the barn, some exterior alterations, and a garage addition. The applicant has waived Conceptual Landmark Design Review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Taylor Meyer, VFLA (Applicant); Kevin Buffington (Owner) Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 4. 509 REMINGTON ST. (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) AND 515 REMINGTON ST. (FRED W. STOVER HOUSE, GARAGE, AND SHARED BARN) LANDMARK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The DDA is finalizing the design for its two 2025 alley improvement projects, to include both Chestnut (the alley north of E. Mountain Ave between Chestnut and Jefferson), and East Mulberry (the alley east of S. College Ave between E. Mulberry St and E. Myrtle St.). Both projects include LID treatments, public art, improvement/concentration of trash & utility infrastructure, etc. APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Kevin and Dawn Buffington (owners of 509 and 515 Remington St.) Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner 5. 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE – DEVELOPMENT REIVEW Development application at 300 E. Mountain Avenue to include construction of a new two-story building at the corner of Chestnut and Mountain Avenues, directly abutting the Armory building, an individual City Landmark located outside of the Old Town Historic District boundary. The project includes minor modifications to the west Packet Pg. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2025, 5:30PM – 10:00PM APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF: Mountain 300, LLC, represented by Chris Aronson (design, VFLA) 262 E. Mountain Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80524 Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner • OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION o Commissioners may raise new topics that may properly come before the HPC for consideration. • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 6 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 JANUARY 15, 2025 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. HPC January 15, 2025 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 7 Historic Preservation Commission REGULAR MEETING 15, January 2025 – 5:30 PM Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue And remotely via Zoom •CALL TO ORDER: 5:31 PM •ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – Carlock, Edwards, Gaines, Gibson, Hull b. Board Members Absent – Conway, Rose, Woodlee c.Staff Members Present – Bzdek, Jarvis, Bertolini, Matsunaka d. Guest(s) - None •STAFF AGENDA REVIEW a. Maren Bzdek reviewed the published agenda. •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW a.No items were pulled from consent. •COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS REMAINING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OR ON ITMES NOT ON THE AGENDA a. None •PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW UP FROM COMMISSION a. None •CONSENT AGENDA 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2024. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 18, 2024 regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Carlock moved, seconded by Commissioner Hull, to approve the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Carlock, Conway, Edwards, Gaines, Hull, Gibson. Nays: none. •CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP a. None •STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA a. None •COMMISSIONER REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA a. None •CONSENT AGENDA FOLLOW UP a. None ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 8 • 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). Jim Bertolini, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner, provided an update the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Community Celebration on January 20, 2025. 3. SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING DEMOLITION NOTIFICATION – 1616 S. WHITCOMB ST. DESCRIPTION: Single-unit dwellings that are at least fifty years old and that are proposed for demolition to clear a property for a new single-unit dwelling are subject to the demolition notification process administered by the Historic Preservation staff and the Historic Preservation Commission. Demolition notification in this circumstance provides an opportunity to inform residents of changes in their neighborhood and to identify potentially important historic, architectural, and cultural resources, pursuant to Section 14-6 of Municipal Code. STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, provided context on a Single-Unit Dwelling Demolition Notification. He provided background information on this property. COMMISSION QUESTIONS None. PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. ** Secretary’s Note – The Commission did not take any action on this item. ** 4. 2025 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ALLEY PROJECTS – HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The DDA is finalizing the design for its two 2025 alley improvement projects, to include both Chestnut (the alley north of E. Mountain Ave between Chestnut and Jefferson), and East Mulberry (the alley east of S. College Ave between E. Mulberry St and E. Myrtle St.). Both projects include LID treatments, public art, improvement/concentration of trash & utility infrastructure, etc. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 9 APPLICANT/OWNER PRESENTATION Todd Dangerfield, Project Manager, Downtown Development Authority, discussed the upcoming 2025 Alley Enhancement Projects, including the East Mulberry Street and Chestnut Street Alley Design Development. Mr. Dangerfield discussed the competitive design process and timelines for the alley enhancements. He noted the decorative, traffic rated paving systems, enhanced integrated pedestrian lighting, custom lighting, landscape installations, and screening of trash/recycling in the alleys. John Beggs, RVi Planning, formerly Russel + Mills, discussed the details and site plan of the upcoming projects, noting the unique historical structures in the East Mulberry Street Alley. He noted that the alley design consolidated parking behind the buildings, and that this alley has a pollinator theme, bright and vibrant. Mr. Beggs discussed the current conditions of the Chestnut Street Alley and the site plan for the upcoming project. He noted that the theme for this alley is industrial, including Steampunk Pipes and decorative fence and art installations. Mr. Dangerfield discussed the Plan of Protection for working adjacent to buildings in the alleys, including working with the owners near 509, 515 Remington with the historic carriage house. He noted the development also falls under the Capital Projects Review Process. STAFF PRESENTATION Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner, provided context on the Commission’s role and described the historic resources within the East Mulberry Street Alley project. He noted the Plan of Protection has been drafted. He also discussed the Chestnut Street Alley’s Plan of Protection. He noted that he does not anticipate issuing and Certificates of Appropriateness for this alley project. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Carlock thanked the applicant team for their presentation and noted that she appreciates all the alley projects around town. Commissioner Gaines agreed with Commissioner Carlock. Regarding design for the Chestnut Street Alley, Gaines suggested keeping or adding some softer design elements and keeping the enhancements light and transparent. Commissioner Edwards asked for clarification on the Plans of Protection in the alleys. Mr. Dangerfield discussed the construction phasing and backup plans such as installing curb conditions. They discussed the adjacent property owner engagement process and permanent easements for art installations. Vice Chair Gibson noted that she loves these projects because it gives life to parts of the city. She appreciates how each alley is unique to the neighborhood. Commissioner Gaines noted he likes the movement in the alleys’ designs. PUBLIC COMMENT None. • OTHER BUSINESS a. Vice Chair Gibson noted the Montezuma Fuller Retrospective on February 20, at 6:30- 8:30pm, at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. • ADJOURNMENT a. 6:24pm Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Historic Preservation Commission on February 19, 2025. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRA F T Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF ACTIVITIES SINCE THE LAST MEETING (COVERING JANUARY 2 TO FEBRUARY 5) 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. 11 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 Collins Historic Preservation Commission and Fort Collins Historical Society Part of “The History of Our History” series; presentation from Maren Bzdek 14 Jan. 7, 2025 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Community Celebration CSU pop-up exhibit titled “Profiles in Fort Collins ## Jan. 20, 2025 Saving Places Conference Colorado Preservation, Inc. attendance/participation by staff, commissioners, councilmembers, an community members in ## Jan. 29 – 31, 2025 Staff Design Review Decisions & Reports – Municipal Code Chapter 14 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 223 E. Elizabeth St. (223 E. Elizabeth St.) to egress window. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Jan. 6, 2025 633 Mathews St. (Sperr Residence) shingle). Contributing building to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code Approved Jan. 24, 2025 430 N. College Ave. (Power House) Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Approved Jan. 31, 2025 Selected Staff Development Review Recommendations – Land Use Code 5.8.1 Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision / Recommendation 304 W. Propect (Prospect Plaza Apts) State University Project to demolish 11-building apartment complex and replace with a mixed-use residence Advisory Only – recommended historic survey and adaptive reuse or deconstruction January 7, 2025 Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 1220 N. College Ave. poolhouse at El Palomino Motel; Approve (is a character- defining feature) TBD Historic Property Survey Results City Preservation staff frequently completes historic survey for properties for a number of reasons, usually in advance of development proposals for properties. The table below includes historic property survey for the Address Field/Consultant Recommendation Staff Approved Results? Date Results Finalized 714 W. Prospect Rd Not Eligible Yes 1/24/2025 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 Staff 5G Wireless Facility Summary Note: Co-locations with existing street infrastructure, usually traffic lights, is considered a co-location and not subject to denial due to proximity to properties that meet the City’s definition of historic resources (Sec. 14-3) Due to recent changes in how Preservation staff reviews small cell/5G towers, co-located towers no longer receive substantive review except where historic resources would be impacted directly by the tower’s installation. These types of direct impacts would include potential damage to archaeological resources and/or landscape features throughout the city such as trolley tracks, carriage steps, and sandstone pavers. This report section will summarize activities in this area. Within this period, staff processed a total of 30 5G/Small Cell tower requests total, with 25 seen for the first time. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 13 Headline Copy Goes Here Feb. 19, 2025 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 Education/Outreach Highlight Saving Places Conference, presented by Colorado Preservation, Inc. 1 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 Headline Copy Goes HereDevelopment Review FYI 3 • 1220 N. College, El Palomino Motel • NRHP-Eligible • Vehicle damage to the poolhouse • Staff approving demolition of this feature only Headline Copy Goes Here 4Friend of Preservation Awards Established in 1985, the Friend of Preservation Awards honor people, organizations, or projects for exemplary work in local history, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction. 4 awards are typically given each year. Know someone you think has earned this honor? Nominate them today by following the QR code or by visiting: fcgov.com/historicpreservation/awardsapp! Nominations due Mar. 2 at midnight 3 4 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 Headline Copy Goes Here 5 Upcoming Education/Outreach Opportunities • Building History: The Life and Work of Montezuma Fuller – Feb. 20, 6:30 PM, at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery – SOLD OUT! Stay tuned for info on a repeat event in May for Historic Preservation Month. • Laurel and College Survey Open House – Feb. 26, 4-6 PM, at Avogadro’s Number – Celebrate the completion of the project and share memories of living, working, or enjoying this part of the city! 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. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 509 REMINGTON ST. (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) – FINAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVEIW STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: historic barn that contributes to the City Landmark at 509 Remington St., the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn. The proposal includes relocation of the barn, some exterior alterations, and a garage addition. The applicant has waived Conceptual Landmark Design Review and is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness for their final designs. APPLICANT/OWNER: RECOMMENDATION: US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and recommends the HPC issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. 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 based on the provided information from the Landmark nomination, the applicant’s design review application, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the Municipal Code 14, Article IV and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards) for its final review. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Date of Landmark designation: Oct. 21, 1997 • Summary of proposed work: o Move and raise historic barn onto new foundation to northeast o Door, window, and siding material replacements o New stone veneer in lower wall portion (approx. 2” thickness, locally sourced stone) o Removal of existing north addition and replacement with garage addition o Note: The submitted plans show a lot line adjustment that has already been approved (see attachment), and the plans have also already received a Zoning variance (see attachment). Additionally, the proposed barn relocation would necessitate Landmark Ordinance updates for 509 and 515 Remington St. related to the location of the barn and the legal descriptions of these properties. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The 1997 nomination staff report provides the following architectural description (amended): Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 The Willard and Gladys Eddy House is an excellent example of the American Foursquare architectural style with Italianate features and detailing. Fred W. Stover had this two-story dwelling built in 1904 by Pierce and Loveland, contractors, at a cost of $3,500.00. The house features a coursed, rough cut sandstone foundation, narrow horizontal clapboard walls, and a low, hipped roof with centrally located dormer. Details include broad, flared eaves with decorative block modillions, and a classical pediment adorning the roof of the enclosed entry porch. A two- story side bay is located on the south elevation, and a sleeping porch is located on the rear, or west, elevation. The historic barn is a two-story, gable-roofed, wood frame structure shared with 515 Remington St. Likely built c. 1890 for the William C. Stover Residence at 503 Remington, the barn became associated with 509 and 515 Remington St. when the Stover family constructed houses on the two lots south of 503 Remington St. in 1904. The barn is clad with corrugated metal siding, likely not the historic cladding, and the roof is also corrugated metal. The main barn’s east elevation includes several openings, which include, left to right: a door topped by a three-light transom window; a double door; and another double door with a narrow light in the upper portion of each leaf above two panels. The barn’s south elevation has a Dutch door on its right side with a boarded window opening to its left and another boarded opening in the gable end. The barn’s west elevation, facing the alley, has a double door on the northmost side and a boarded opening at the level of the eaves. The north elevation has another boarded opening in the gable end and is otherwise covered by a one-story frame, shed-roofed addition that is clad in drop-board siding. This addition was built sometime between 1925 and 1943, according to Sanborn Fire Insurance Map records. The addition has a door cut out of the siding on the east and north sides and a small two- light window on the north side. One of the few early barns remaining in the neighborhood, this barn contributes to the historic character of the property. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known exterior alterations of the property to date include (known alterations to barn in italics): Date Permit # Name Notes c. 1890 -- -- Construction of barn; Likely built in association with William C. Stover Residence at 503 1904 -- F.W. Stover 7 room frame cottage, Pierce and Loveland contractors (Fred Stover was the son of William 1925 – 1943 -- -- 1 story addition to barn (based on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for 1925 and the 1943 5/3/1944 7724 Gladys S. Eddy Reroofing 8/18/1954 13864 Eddy Willard Reshingling – “comp, 3 tab, 210 lgs, comp shingles, 6 nails to each shingle. Remove old 11/3/1997 0974346 Gladys Eddy Reroof house and garage with Heritage II (asphalt) shingles HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: This property has undergone Design Review on past occasions for: • 2019 – In-kind roof replacement Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 • 2020 – Replacement of south elevation basement window with egress window and repair of wood windows with installation of interior inserts • 2021 – Site/landscaping work, including installation of window wells, regrading, concrete driveway installation, fence installation, patio installation • 2021 – In-kind roof replacement and installation of gutters/downspouts HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: • 2023 – Design Assistance Program project – Structural Engineering evaluation of barn to determine if move feasible (see attached report) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: • Move barn about 5’ 6” east and 7’ 6” north and raise about 39” onto new concrete foundation • Stone veneer (Edward’s Stone thin stone veneer in Driftwood color; approx. 2” thickness; locally sourced stone) added to lower portion of building, demonstrating raised level and including lower wood wall area removed due to rot • Material replacements o Corrugated metal siding replaced with Hewn (Farm Fleet) horizontal drop-board cedar siding o Boarded window openings opened and aluminum-clad wood windows in dark bronze color installed (2 gable-end window openings on south and north elevations filled with 4-light casements; south elevation window opening left of door filled with 4-light casement; west elevation eave-level window opening filled with 4-light fixed window) o Replacement of doors East elevation – Leftmost door replaced with aluminum-clad wood window in dark bronze color, 3-light upper awning window over 1-light larger fixed window; Central double doors replaced with similar style wooden double doors; Rightmost double-doors replaced with paired aluminum-clad wood windows in dark bronze color, with single- light awning upper window over 1-light larger fixed window over wooden panel. South elevation – Door replaced with wood Dutch door with light in upper half West elevation – Double-door replaced with paired aluminum-clad wood awning windows above two wood panels o Roofing – In-kind replacement (corrugated metal) in dark bronze color or re-use of existing material, if possible • Exterior, downcast lights added to the south and east elevations • Concrete steps lead to the raised level of the doors on the south and east elevations • Sewer line re-routing from house to existing tap at alley • Removal of existing 177 square-foot addition and replacement with new 390 square-foot, single-story, shed roofed garage addition. o Materials include corrugated metal, reused from existing barn roof, if possible, as roofing and as siding in the lower wall area (aligned with stone veneer on historic portion). The siding proposed is the same cedar drop-board siding proposed for the rest of the barn. o The east elevation features an overhead, glass garage door. o The west elevation features another overhead garage door resembling a pair of double doors with narrow light over two wood panel sections. o The north elevation includes a wood door with a light in the upper half to the left side and a centered 4-light casement window of aluminum-clad wood material in dark bronze color. o Exterior, downcast lights are proposed at the north and west elevations of the addition. o There are also flood openings on the north and south sides of the addition. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: • Work Session Requests from Commissioners o Photos of historic house – Provided by applicant team 2/13 (see Att. 12) o What is the distance between the house and the barn’s current location and between the house and barn’s proposed location? – Dimensioned site plan provided by applicant team 2/13 Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 (see Att. 12) Current distance: 44’ 3” Proposed distance: 37’ 10” (to main barn), 33’ 3” (to proposed addition) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY Sandra Eddy, daughter of Willard and Gladys Eddy, for whom this historic property is named, submitted a letter of support for this project, which is attached. No other written or phone public comments have been received to date. 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. This project will alter the historic agricultural use of this building to turn it into a habitable space with garage. The alterations required for this change of use maintain the essential character of the barn, and loss of historic material is limited due to the replacement of historic materials that has already occurred over time. A relocation of the barn is also proposed; the distance moved is about only about nine feet on the diagonal, which allows the barn to continue to communicate its historic relationship with the nearby homes at 503, 509, and 515 Remington St. A previously completed structural evaluation from an engineer (see attachment) also determined that such a move and placement on a new concrete foundation is feasible given the existing condition of the barn. This Standard is met. Y SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn are designated for both architectural and historical significance. Architecturally, the house is an example of an American Foursquare with Italianate details. It has a sandstone foundation, narrow horizontal clapboard siding, and a low-pitched, hipped roof, with details like broad flared eaves, block modillions, and a front-facing pediment. The barn, the subject of this project analysis, contributes to the significance of the property as one of the few remaining early barns in the eastside neighborhood. The two-story, gabled roof structure was most likely built c. 1890 by William C. Stover of 503 Remington St. to the north. Although it has undergone changes over time to materials, likely to door openings, and to its design, with an addition constructed on the north side, it continues to feel like a historic barn from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. This property was also home to Willard and Gladys Eddy, starting in 1941, who were significant to Fort Collins and CSU history. At the university, Willard began offering philosophy courses in the late 1940s and was responsible for the development of the Philosophy Y Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 for Distinguished Faculty and was named a Centennial Professor. In 1978, his contributions at CSU were memorialized in the naming of Willard O. Eddy Hall. Gladys was consistently active in civic and educational causes throughout her life. She was the recipient of the Outstanding Woman Teacher Award from the College of Business and was also given the Community Builder of the Year Award. She served on the Poudre School District Board for twelve years, on the Colorado Association of School Boards for ten years, during which she was elected the first woman president of that board, and on the Colorado State Board of Education from 1987-1995. Additionally, she was a founding member of the local League of Women Voters, among other accomplishments. Briefly leaving Fort Collins after World War II for Willard to earn his PhD in philosophy at the University of Chicago, the Eddys lived at 509 Remington St. until their deaths; Willard passed away in 1993, and Gladys in 2010. Gladys nominated their home for Landmark designation in 1997. The proposed project will not detract from the historic character of this property. The historic house itself is not within the scope of the project. The new location of the barn is just over 9 feet on the diagonal from the original location, which will not disrupt the spatial relationships characteristic to the site and will also move the barn out of the public right-of-way where it currently encroaches. The exterior alterations to the barn include replacement of materials like siding and doors; however, many of these materials, such as the metal wall cladding, are not believed to be historic, and their proposed replacements are consistent with the historic character of the structure. The proposed shed-roofed garage addition is also compatible in design with the historic character of the barn while still being deferential to the historic structure in height. SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken . The design modifications proposed for the historic barn do not create a false sense of historical development. The building is proposed to be raised in height onto a new concrete foundation; raising the structure is required for the safety of the structure in a flood-prone area. By varying the wall material on the raised portion (stone veneer) it suggests the historic level of the barn, whereas using homogenous wall cladding may have created a false impression of the building’s original height. The addition proposed is also sufficiently differentiated from the historic structure, with modern features like overhead garage doors, for example, which prevents it from creating a false sense of historical development. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Although the existing north addition is old, it does not reflect the barn’s significance as an example of a late nineteenth century barn in Y Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 6 demolition conforms to this Standard. SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Character-defining features of this historic barn primarily include the tall, rectangular form, the gabled roof, and the location and types of openings that suggest the historic agricultural use of the building, such as the gable-end and eave-level openings and double-doors. All of these elements will be maintained as part of this project. Although the proposed north addition has a shed roof type rather than a gable roof type, this difference, along with its perpendicular orientation to the historic part of the barn, help offset it as a modern modification to the original barn. Y SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Many of the deteriorated materials on this historic barn are proposed for replacement, but some of these materials are also not likely original to the historic barn or are missing entirely. Because of the lack of photographic, physical, or documentary evidence suggesting the historic siding material, a material consistent with the historic character of the barn was selected, a cedar drop-board siding. Many of the windows or other openings are boarded/missing, and so aluminum- clad wood windows are proposed, which are compatible with the character of the barn. Some of the doors on this barn may be historic, and others were likely added sometime after the date of construction; the existing wood doors are proposed for replacement with either new wood doors or aluminum-clad wood windows that reflect the design of the existing doors. For instance, the existing door on the east elevation south side has a distinctive three-light transom over a single-panel wood door; this pattern is repeated in the proposed replacement window. Y SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Although there is no reason to suspect that encountering archaeological resources is likely to occur during any needed excavation for this project, the applicant team is advised of this Standard. Please contact Historic Preservation Services immediately should any archaeological resources be uncovered at preservation@fcgov.com or 970-224-6078. Y SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall Y Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 7 scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. As noted above, although materials would be lost for the proposed alterations to the barn, some of those materials are non-historic, such as the metal siding, are proposed to be replaced in kind, such as some of the doors, or are proposed to be replaced with compatible alternatives to support the new use of the building, such as the aluminum-clad wood windows. The existing addition proposed for demolition and replacement with a new garage addition was constructed sometime between 1925 and 1943; it does not have any known associations with the Eddy family and is not an original feature of this late nineteenth-century barn, and so its removal still conforms to this Standard. The proposed new garage addition is compatible with the existing structure. The height of the addition would be well below that of the historic barn, and the square-footage of the addition is also less than the historic portion. The shed roof form references the existing addition that would be removed for this project while offsetting it from the gabled roof form of the historic barn. Although the siding is proposed to match the historic barn to tie them together, the use of a different skirt material on the addition, corrugated metal, sets the addition apart from the historic portion of the building, as does the inclusion of a modern, glass, overhead garage door on the east side. Providing another visual reference to the historic portion of the building, the design of the alley-facing overhead garage door matches the design of the double doors on the east elevation of the existing barn, which, although being removed, will be represented on the rehabilitated barn through the design of the windows in the same location and also on the alley-facing west elevation. SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The proposed addition would demolish the existing north addition on the historic barn, which is not considered a character-defining feature, but would otherwise involve very little removal of material for its construction. For this reason, if it were desired in the future, the garage addition could reasonably be removed without impairing the essential form of the historic barn or its environment. Y STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the proposed rehabilitation of 509 Remington St. under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn is a City Landmark, designated by City Council on Oct. 21, 1997. • The proposed rehabilitation of 509 Remington St., overall, meets the Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for this proposal. Packet Pg. 23 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 8 SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington St., because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE AND APPROVE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington St. because the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: • [list conditions] SAMPLE MOTION TO DENY CERTIFICATE AND DENY PROJECT: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work on the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington St. because the work does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. 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 Form 2. Project Description 3. Public Comment – Sandra Eddy Letter of Support 4. Plan Set 5. Photos 6. 1997 Landmark Nomination Form 7. Lot Line Adjustment County Record 8. Land Use Review Commission Minutes (Zoning variance approved for 509 Remington barn) 9. DAP Engineer Evaluation of Barn Relocation 10. Materials Specification Sheets (Hewn cedar siding and Edward’s Stone veneer) 11. Staff Presentation 12. Work Session Request Responses Packet Pg. 24 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 30 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 31 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 32 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 33 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 35 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 36 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 37 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 38 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 39 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 41 North and East Elevations ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 South and East Elevations Packet Pg. 43 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 South and West Elevations Packet Pg. 44 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 North and West Elevations Packet Pg. 45 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 46 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 47 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 48 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 49 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 50 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 51 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 52 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 53 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 54 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 55 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 56 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 57 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 58 Ian Shuff, Chair Dave Lawton, Vice Chair David Carron Nathaniel Coffman John McCoy Philip San Filippo Katie Vogel Council Liaison: Julie Pignataro Staff Liaison: Noa Beals LOCATION: City Council Chambers 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 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. REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 8:30 AM •CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL All Commission members were present. •APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Commission member San Filippo made a motion, seconded by member Coffman, to approve the August 8, 2024, Regular Meeting Minutes. The motion was approved by all members present. •CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Items Not on the Agenda) •APPEALS FOR VARIANCE TO THE LAND USE CODE 1.APPEAL ZBA240021 Address: 914 W Oak St Owner/Petitioner: Zachary and Kathryn Hitchcock Zoning District: OT-A Code Section: 2.1.6 Project Description: This is a request to exceed the maximum allowable rear lot square footage for a proposed garage. The existing house is 1,850 square feet of floor area, of which 567 square feet is located on the rear half of the lot. The maximum allowable floor area for the rear half of this lot is 700 square feet. The applicant is proposing a 336 square foot garage on the rear half of the lot, which would exceed the maximum allowable square feet for the rear half of the lot by 203 square feet. Staff Presentation: Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the property is located on the middle of the block along W Oak St, west of S Washington Ave. Beals MINUTES ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 59 Land Use Review Commission Page 2 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 pointed out via aerial photograph that the original house is in line with most of the other houses on the block. The existing addition sticks further into the rear lot and creates a sort of courtyard. The request today is not to exceed allowable square footage for an accessory building, but instead to increase allowable space on the rear half of the lot. The proposed garage would be located in the northeast corner of the lot and would meet the required setbacks. An existing shed would be removed prior to the construction of the proposed garage. The shed has not been confirmed as counting towards floor area or not; if the applicant chose to keep it and it is confirmed to be over-sized, an additional variance request would be needed. The proposed garage is designed to contain a car lift that allows for the stacking of two vehicles in the footprint of a single vehicle bay. Beals presented photographs of the property taken from street view, in which the rear addition is visible. Photos taken from the alley contain the existing shed and the described location of the proposed garage. Chair Shuff summarized to the Commission his understanding that under the new code, this request only necessitates a variance to rear-lot maximum square footage. Beals confirmed. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Zach Hitchcock, owner, 914 W Oak St, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Hitchcock stated that they are excited about the project after buying the house a few months ago. The seller indicated that a plan had already been drafted for a garage, and Hitchcock found out it would not be appropriately sized. With in-laws coming to move in and a baby on the way, this will help to alleviate congestion of on-street parking. Public Comment: -NONE- Commission Discussion: Commission member Coffman stated that he sees no problem in granting the variance. A block south of this location has an example of similar garage addition that was constructed in the rear half of the lot. This is not out of line of the character of the neighborhood. Coffman supports the request. Vice-Chair Lawton lauded the plan as creative and a unique way to solve parking congestion along the street. Lawton supports the variance. Commission member San Filippo offered agreement with the previous comments and stated that he would support the variance as presented. Member Carron agrees, noting the design solution of stacking cars with a lift on a limited footprint. Chair Shuff concurs with previous comments, noting that he used to live across the street from this property. As presented, the garage would leave ample open space on-site with the courtyard. Shuff stated he would support the variance request as presented. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Carron, to APPROVE ZBA240021 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow the allowable floor area on the rear half of the lot to exceed the maximum of 700 square feet by an additional 203 square feet in order to construct a garage in the OT-A Zone District as shown in the materials for this hearing. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Section 2.1.6 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the following facts: The property still includes back-yard space; the proposed garage is considered one story; and the proposed garage is sized for one car in width. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 60 Land Use Review Commission Page 3 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. 2. APPEAL ZBA240023 Address: 509 Remington St Owner: Kevin and Dawn Buffington Petitioner: Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Interiors Zoning District: OT-C Code Section: 3.1.8, 2.1.6 Project Description: There are two requests associated with this variance application: 1. To exceed the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building (existing barn and proposed attached garage) by 398 square feet. The proposed accessory building will be 998 square feet, and the maximum allowable floor area for an accessory building in the OT Zone Districts is 600 square feet. 2. To encroach the 8-foot minimum garage door setback from an alley by 3 feet. The applicant is proposing to build the garage door 5 feet from the alley. Staff Presentation: *Prior to the staff report, Beals reported that the third variance request that was originally noticed for this project was deemed to be not needed. The application will continue with the two variance requests noted in the Project Description* Beals presented slides relevant to the appeal and discussed the variance request, noting that the existing barn building in question is split along an original shared property line; in time, the current owner of the subject property purchased both lots and have been able to adjust the property line. Now, they would like to move the historic barn structure entirely to 509 Remington. This structure and proposal have been reviewed by Historic Preservation and have been given the ok. The proposal is to move the existing historic barn structure to the north and east. The barn encroaches into the public alley by a few feet and will be moved entirely onto the private property. Due to the barn being within the floodplain, it will also need to be raised up as well in order for people to use and be inside the accessory structure. Beals presented a boundary line adjustment, which has been completed to allow for Parcel 1 to fully contain the barn footprint as it currently sits. This did not create a new non-conformity. A new foundation will be poured for the new addition to the garage. The orientation of the barn will be maintained in order to preserve the historic context of the structure. The variance request also exceeds the maximum allowable square footage with the addition to the garage. Code requires separation of accessory and primary buildings by 10-feet; this would be hard to achieve given the size of the lot. Therefore, the barn/garage and proposed addition will be joined as one structure, which is bigger than the allowable square footage for a single accessory building. The existing structure does have a previous shed addition, that was not part of the original historic barn. This would be removed and replaced with the proposed garage addition. Chair Shuff asked to confirm his understanding of the variance request. Regarding setback requirements, was there a justification for why that could not comply with the 8-foot distance? Perhaps the applicant can provide explanation. Beals noted that preserving the historic spatial context was important. Because the garage door is present, it typically requires an 8-foot setback, but the 5-foot placement reduces encroachment into the back yard. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 61 Land Use Review Commission Page 4 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 Applicant Presentation: Applicant representative Taylor Meyer, VFLA Architecture + Interiors, 419 Canyon Ave #200, Fort Collins, CO, addressed the Commission and offered comment. Meyer noted that his was a very special project with many layers of and many people involved. Meyer explained that the owners approached VFLA years ago with an idea of improving conditions on the lot and of the barn, which was becoming more and more dilapidated over the years. Initially, the property owner explored turning the building into a carriage house and garage. Pursuing that first step, conceptual review process brought up concerns about the feasibility of the project as it would trigger a change of use. Instead, a decision was made to turn the structure into an outdoor/backyard entertainment space, in addition to creating a garage. The property is a historic landmark, and the barn is a contributing factor. The applicants have reached out to Historic Preservation, and due diligence has been performed to preserve that status. Floodplain status also means the floor needs to be raised to 12 inches above flood plain, meaning an overall increase of about 6 inches from current. After revising plans and realizing the barn needed to be lifted, a structural engineer was engaged, and the lifting of the structure was deemed feasible. Building cannot be listed and moved and still leave space for the garage. The current proposal is a compilation of compromise, with many moving parts. The biggest area of improvement is that the barn is overlapping west property line by 6 inches; that will be alleviated by moving the garage 5-feet from the property line. Moving the barn to the north is already consuming some of the existing yard area. At present, the project has been through conceptual review, boundary line adjustment, floodplain review, structural engineering, and historic review. This is last piece. Commission member San Filippo asked about the impact on large evergreen tree on the lot. The barn will be moved farther away from that tree. Arborists were consulted to determine if it would be better to leave the barn where it is or leave close to tree. Arborists determined it was a wash either way. San Philipo asked if trimming would need to occur to allow for the increased height? Tree would be minimally trimmed. Vice-Chair Lawton asked Meyer how much of original structure would be maintained? Are existing materials being used? Meyer explained that the bottom 12 inches of frame walls would be cut off and removed due to wood rot. The entire barn will be refinished inside and out, which is allowed by historic preservation. Original design intent and architectural style of the barn will be maintained. Lawton asked if the intent is to gain vehicular access to the garage from the alley? Meyer responded that alley access will be utilized for garage. That section of alley is deemed to be renovated next spring; that timeline creates a sense of increased urgency to complete portions of the project prior to planned alley improvements. Public Comment: Audience member Sylvia Mucklow, owner, 516 S College Ave, noted a number of concerns. -The adjacent alley is used for commercial deliveries and will have increased public use. -Seems barn is being turned into a “venue” and may increase foot traffic. -Height is a concern, as is the space from the alley. -When the garage is opened up for access from the alley, traffic will be blocked. -Barn may have historic status, but could also encroach more into yard space. -Big City Burrito takes frequent delivery from the alley, directly across from barn location. -Will sight lines be impacted coming off of Mulberry as one enters the alley? -Concerns over increased unauthorized entry into her parking lot. Chair Shuff clarified that there is not a proposed door from the barn leading directly to the alley. Shuff acknowledged the alley is busy, in part due to Big City Burrito and other businesses. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 62 Land Use Review Commission Page 5 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 Commission member Coffman noted that this lot does not allow for commercial use, thus the building cannot be used as a public venue or small-scale reception center per code. However, it is being used to be occupied by people. Commission member Carron believes visibly concerns will be alleviated by moving the barn further away from the alley. By maintaining the existing driveway, vision out to the alley will be maintained. Coffman noted that he understands that the 8-foot garage setback allows for vehicular parking in front of garage. Beals confirms, noting that it allows for safe backing out of a garage as well. Shuff notes that 5 feet is pretty small area to make a turn into a garage; may need to approach from far side of the alley and perform multi-point turn. Coffman, referring to first variance, this this a benefit to the City and alleviates many long-term non- conforming issues. Continuous building is ok, the five-foot distance maintains face of existing barn. Lawton asked Beals for any more information about the alley improvements. Beals stated that he cannot speak for the Engineering Dept, but most of the time alley improvements consist of new asphalt and ensuring that grade directs stormwater off the surface appropriately. Garage will be kept at the grade of the alley, rather than building a ramp up to the raised grade of the barn. San Filippo noted the alley is signed as “No Parking” on either side. Would that change with the 5-foot space proposed? Beals clarified that the space created may be used for approaching cars to pass but is not intended for parking. San Filippo asked if the boundary line adjustment meant that if sold, the barn would be entirely on 509 Remington? Beals noted the boundary line adjustment would recognize the new boundary of adjustment. Sylvia M noted she met with City officials regarding alley improvements. The alley will be brick paved similar to others, with hanging flower baskets and trash receptacles. Utility wires will also be buried. Commission Discussion: Chair Shuff commented that he is struggling a bit with the request. He has no issues with the size of the structure; however, he does have some questions about the balance of setting the garage back and maintaining the historic placement. From an architectural perspective, Shuff can understand the argument to push the structure back. If not for historic considerations, he would not support the 5-foot setback and would ask for the required 8-foot setback. This alley is tight and busy, and a 5-foot setback from garage would be difficult and could lead to traffic backups and increased risk of vehicular accidents. Member Carron noted that Shuff’s comments make sense. Ideally, a new structure would comply with current standards and codes. Carron stated that he was starting to lean towards an 8-foot setback to ensure safety and conformity with code. This would also help to separate new and historic pieces of architecture. Member Vogel referenced the email received in support of the proposal, in which the owner stated they had also constructed a garage and were required to maintain an 8-foot setback. Vogel felt this email offered support for approval of the request. Member McCoy stated he has no problem with the proposed 5-foot setback, which may keep cars from parallel parking on the lot. Saving the barn is admirable. If the 8-foot space is maintained, McCoy feels there is a good chance that vehicles will use it for unauthorized parking from time to time. Vogel frequents this alley, and currently this building does stick out. With the combination of utility poles, navigating this alley can be a challenge. Vogel stated she has no problem with the proposed 5- foot setback, and feels that it will improve overall conditions. Vice-Chair Lawton commented that he likes the continuity of the face of the barn and garage both at the 5-foot setback. Alley improvements will get rid of many of the elements that make current navigation difficult and/or less safe. The project does present a combination of plusses and minuses, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 63 Land Use Review Commission Page 6 APPROVED Minutes – September 12, 2024 but overall improvement created with the proposal. Lawton stated he is in favor of approving the request. Member San Filippo stated his support of the application as presented. Commission member Coffman made a motion, seconded by Lawton, to APPROVE ZBA240023 regarding the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 3.1.8 to allow the allowable floor area for an accessory building to exceed the maximum of 600 square feet by an additional 298 square feet; and the requested variance to Land Use Code Section 2.1.6 to allow an encroachment of 3 feet into the minimum garage door setback requirement of 8 feet, in order to relocate a historic barn and construct an attached garage in the OT-C Zone District, as shown in the hearing materials. The Commission finds that the variance would not be detrimental to the public good; and the variance request will not diverge from Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 except in a nominal and inconsequential way and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code contained in Section 1.2.2 in consideration of the fact that the reduced setback lessens impacts to the barn’s historic character. Furthermore, due to extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, the strict application of Sections 2.1.6 and 3.1.8 would result in undue hardship upon the applicant not caused by an act or omission of the applicant in consideration of the following facts: the historic barn limits the placement of new accessory structures; and the relocation of the barn and raising of the elevation are required. This decision is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion on this item. Further, this Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this variance contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. • OTHER BUSINESS -There was one attempt at decision appeal last month (regarding ZBA240016), but the application was not sufficient as submitted and did not move forward. • ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:41 am Meeting Minutes were approved unanimously during the October 10, 2024 meeting. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 64 www.pen-engineeringllc.com Date of Visit: April 21, 2023 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION – EXISTING BARN 509 Remington Street, Fort Collins ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 65 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 1 August 11, 2023 Jim Bertolini Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Project Name: 509 Remington barn Project Address: 509 Remington Street, Fort Collins Project Number: 23-04007 Dear Mr. Bertolini: Per your request, Wayne Thompson of PEN Engineering visited the subject site on April 21, 2023. The purpose of the visit was to review the structural integrity of the existing barn and determine whether the existing structure can safely be lifted onto a new foundation. The one-story, shed roof portion of the barn at the north end of the structure is anticipated to be removed and was thus omitted from this assessment. According to the Local Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form for this property, the house and barn were both constructed in 1904. Structural System The roof is framed with uniformly spaced batten boards (purlins) bearing on 2x wood rafters. A corrugated metal roof is attached to the batten boards. Collar ties and the ceiling provide lateral restraint for the rafters. Refer to Figure 1. The ceiling / second floor of the barn is constructed with wood boards bearing on 2” x 7 ¾” (actual) joists spaced at 18” on center. Refer to Figure 2. The walls are framed with 2x4 (actual) studs spaced at 24” o.c. Nominal 1” horizontal boards are attached to the exterior face of these studs. In most locations, the bottom of these studs extend below finished grade. Refer to Figure 3. In some locations, a framed wood floor has been constructed at ground level. That floor system appears to consist of wood boards resting on 2x wood joists that fully rest on the ground surface. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 66 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 2 Figure 1: Existing Roof Framing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 67 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 3 Figure 2: Existing Second Floor Structure ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 68 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 4 Figure 3: Wall Framing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 69 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 5 Structural Conditions As can be seen in Figure 1, the roof has been reinforced and possibly re-constructed since original construction. Although there is water staining on some of the structural members, no significant deterioration was observed. The second floor joists also exhibit some water staining, but no apparent loss of integrity. However, some joists have been cut or notched over the years and no longer have their original capacity. Joists that are cut and no longer have their original geometry (e.g. notched, discontinued) should be reinforced before lifting the structure. Along all sides of the barn, it appears that the finished grade has been raised since original construction. It is most apparent along the west side where the alley grade is pushed up against the siding and studs. Deterioration of the bottom of the studs can be observed in multiple locations. Figure 4 shows some areas of deterioration and the built-up grade. Feasibility of Lifting Structure This structure is a good candidate for lifting / moving for the following reasons: The structure is relatively light. The above-grade structural elements are in good condition. Wall and roof finishes can flex without exhibiting major signs of distress. Lifting the structure in its current location will be easier than lifting and moving because it would take less effort to stabilize the base of the walls. Moving the structure would require temporary cross bracing between the bottoms of the walls to prevent lateral spread or distortion. Nevertheless, moving the structure vertically and horizontally is feasible if the walls are properly braced. Anticipated Final Condition Once moved, the structure will be supported on a new concrete foundation. That foundation will need to extend a minimum of 6 inches above final grade to allow for improved grading and good drainage, and prevent future deterioration of the wall framing. This can be achieved by cutting the deteriorated portions of the existing walls (estimated as the bottom 8-12 inches), then attaching the studs to a new treated sill plate bearing on a new foundation wall. If a higher ceiling is desired in the final configuration, the foundation walls could be raised to accommodate. Similarly, the alley-side foundation walls can be raised higher than the others to protect the structure from snow build-up and possible minor snowplow impacts. There is no limit on the height that the structure can be raised, so long as the new foundation supporting it is designed accordingly. Refer to Figure 5 for a schematic of the existing and proposed conditions. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 70 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 6 Figure 4: Base of Framing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 71 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 7 Figure 5: Schematic Sections ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 72 509 Remington barn 23-04007 page 8 Summary There is sufficient structural integrity of the existing barn to allow lifting and possibly moving of the structure, ultimately placing it on a new cast-in-place concrete foundation. Limitations This report is based upon site observations, PEN Engineering’s experience with existing wood structures, and the limited scope of the project. Future use of the structure will need to consider the final use, the capacity of the existing members, and whether interior structural reinforcing may be required. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. With regards, PEN Engineering, LLC Wayne Thompson, PE Principal, Structural Engineer wthompson@pen-engineeringllc.com Figure 6: Alley Side of Barn ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 73 Species: Western Red Cedar Moisture Content: Kiln Dried - Average 10- 14% Class Rating: B (ASTM E 84) V.O.C. Content:15.59 g/L* Nominal Width: 1×4 (3 ½” face) 1×6 (5 ½” face) 1×8 (7 ¼” face) 1×10 (9 ¼” face) 1×12 (11 ¼” face) Grade: STK (Select Tight Knot) Inland Red Cedar, Rustic appearance with sound tight knots Janka Hardness:350 Flame Spread Index:40 (ASTM E 84) Smoke Developed Index:140 (ASTM E 84) Thickness:3/4" to 13/16″ Finish:Renner Hydro Oil Exterior Sealer SpecificationsExterior Cedar Siding © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Revised 4/8/24 Our Exterior Cedar Siding is created using mill-direct Western Red Cedar and a proprietary non-toxic wood treatment process, resulting in a timeless finish. Hewn’s Exterior Cedar Siding is sold as solid 3/4" to 13/16” boards with multiple milling and width options available, and custom thicknesses available upon request. In addition to our catalog colors, we can also match and formulate custom colors to meet the individual needs of our clients. Hewn optimizes this product for Exterior Siding use. Suitable for both Commercial and Residential environments. Applications Technical Specifications Customization Exterior Siding Custom colors and options are available. Hewn’s Sample Approval Process allows for precise alterations to your product prior to ordering. Please refer to your sales representative for further information. Multiple options available Class A Ignition-Resistant options for fire-prone regions are available upon request. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 74 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Texture Options Color Options Heritage Collection Hewn offers a variety of color options for our Exterior Cedar Siding products, In addition to our base colors, Hewn’s color technicians can color-match any of our products to an existing sample, or any material inspiration. Specifications Aloha Barn Red Corral Desert Sand Hewn’s Exterior Cedar Siding is available in two primary textures: Standard and Distressed. Additional texture variations may be available upon request, as part of our sample matching process for custom orders. Standard Distressed Our Standard texture features a brushed, raised- grain surface that highlights the natural texture and tactile variance of the wood. Our Distressed texture builds upon the raised-grain surface of our Standard texture with additional cracks and nail-holes, as well as hand-tooled edges. Continued on next page Exterior Cedar Siding Revised 4/8/24 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 75 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Color Options Heritage Collection Specifications Driftwood Hampton White Mushroom Farm Fleet Graphite Natural Noir 50% Graphite Peppercorn Rustic Natural Rustic Reclaimed Saddle Exterior Cedar Siding Revised 4/8/24 50% Saddle Stone Grey Titanium White Trillium White Continued on next page Continued ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 76 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Color Options Heritage Collection Ohana Collection SpecificationsExterior Cedar Siding Revised 4/8/24 Weathered Grey White Wash Ākala Alani Kāleka Melemele Polūkai Uahi Continued ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 77 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x6 Tongue & Groove Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 78 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x6 Tongue & Groove (Continued) Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 79 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x8 Tongue & Groove Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 80 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x8 Tongue & Groove (Continued) Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 81 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x6 Shiplap Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 82 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x6 Shiplap (Continued) Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 83 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x8 Shiplap Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 84 © 2024 Hewn Elements LLC info@hewn.com · (503) 612-0241 · hewn.com Milling Profiles Specifications 1x8 Shiplap (Continued) Revised 4/8/24 Exterior Cedar Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 85 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 86 509 Remington St. – Final Landmark Design Review 2-19-2025 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 2 Location Map 509 Remington St. – Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn 1925 Sanborn Map 1943 update to 1925 Sanborn Map 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 87 3Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed addition and barn rehab project • 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 • Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn designated as City Landmark Oct. 21, 1997 • Also designated as part of Laurel School Historic District (NRHP) on Oct. 2, 1980 • Architectural Significance – Foursquare house & early and rare barn in neighborhood • Historical Significance – Association with Willard & Gladys Eddy • House built 1904; Barn built c. 1890 4 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 88 Move barn approx. 5 ft. 6 in. east and 7 ft. 6 in. north and raise approx. 39 in. onto new concrete foundation • Currently encroaches on alley right-of-way • Floodplain concerns • Structural engineer confirmed feasibility of move in 2023 5 Proposed Project – Barn Relocation • Convert existing barn to habitable space and construct garage addition to north • Add stone veneer to new foundation to indicate raised level of barn • Replace deteriorated or missing materials • Non-historic metal siding replaced with drop-board cedar siding • Fill boarded openings with aluminum-clad wood windows in dark bronze color • Replace doors (with wood doors in style like existing or with aluminum-clad wood windows with wood paneling designed to resemble existing doors) • Replace roofing in-kind (corrugated metal) • Add downcast lighting at south and east elevation doors • Add concrete steps leading to south and east elevation doors • Demolish existing north addition (177 sq. ft.) • North shed-roofed garage addition (390 sq. ft.) 6 Proposed Project – Barn Rehab 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 89 Rendering of proposed south and east elevations 7South and East Elevations Existing south and east elevations Drawing of proposed north and west elevations 8North and West Elevations Existing north and west elevations 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 90 9Materials Edward’s Stone Thin Stone Veneer (driftwood) Hewn Horizontal Drop- board Cedar Siding (brushed texture, farm fleet) Corrugated Metal (dark bronze; roofing, addition skirt siding, gutters/downspouts) Aluminum-clad wood windows (dark bronze) 10Windows East elevation – Proposed north windows (left); Existing north doors (right) East elevation – Proposed south windows (left); Existing south door and window (right) West elevation – Proposed north windows (left); Existing north doors (right) West elevation – Proposed eave- level window (left); Existing boarded window (right) South and north elevations – Proposed window (left); Existing boarded openings (S. elevation by door; S. and N. elevation gable ends) 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 91 11Doors East elevation – Proposed central wood double doors (left); Existing central double doors (right) South elevation – Proposed wood Dutch door (left); Existing Dutch door (right) Staff Analysis Project is consistent with SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. • Move is structurally feasible • Elevation protects barn in the floodplain • Replaces deteriorated or non-historic materials with compatible new materials • No new exterior openings proposed, minimizing loss of material • North addition proposed for removal does not have known historic significance in its own right • Addition appears compatible with yet distinguishable from the historic barn 12 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 92 13Questions/Requests for Additional Info • Photos of the historic house on this property East Elevation (façade)North and East Elevations South and East Elevations 14Questions/Requests for Additional Info (cont.) • Photos of the historic house on this property (cont.) West Elevation (rear)Rear Yard 13 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 93 15Questions/Requests for Additional Info (cont.) • What is the distance between the existing barn and the house and proposed new location of the barn and the house? • Existing location of barn to house: 44’ 3” • Proposed location of barn to house: 37’ 10” (to main barn), 33’ 3” (to proposed addition) 16Staff Recommendation • Approve and issue Certificate of Appropriateness 15 16 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 94 17Role of the HPC • Provide final design review of proposed addition and barn rehab project • Do the project plans meet the Standards for Rehabilitation? • Issue, issue with conditions, or deny Certificate of Appropriateness under Municipal Code 14, Article IV 509 Remington St. – Final Landmark Design Review 2-19-2025 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 17 18 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 95 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet Pg. 96 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 East Elevation (facade) Packet Pg. 97 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 North and East Elevations Packet Pg. 98 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 South and East Elevations Packet Pg. 99 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 West Elevation (rear) Packet Pg. 100 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12Rear Yard Packet Pg. 101 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 19, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 509 REMINGTON ST. (WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN) AND 515 REMINGTON ST. (FRED W. STOVER HOUSE, GARAGE, AND SHARED BARN) LANDMARK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS STAFF Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: related to a recorded lot line adjustment and proposed relocation of shared barn to 509 Remington St. APPLICANT/OWNER: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution recommending these related Landmark Ordinance updates to City Council to reflect the recorded changes to the legal descriptions of 509 and 515 Remington St. and to reflect the location of the barn within the property boundary of 509 Remington St. COMMISSION’S ROLE: The process for rescinding a Landmark designation or modifying an existing City Landmark is governed by Municipal Code 14-39 and is the process by which the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviews proposed changes or amendments to a Landmark property and its documentation. For these modifications to the designation documentation and ordinance for City Landmarks, the HPC is a recommending authority, and City Council is the decision-maker. If the HPC adopts a resolution making a recommendation to approve this request, this matter is forwarded to City Council. Council will either adopt or not adopt an ordinance amending the Landmark designations for both properties. If the HPC adopts a resolution to deny this request for modifying the landmark boundaries, the process is terminated. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City Council designated the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington St. and the Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn as City Landmarks on Oct. 21, 1997, both for their architectural and historical significance. Under the current Municipal Code, the significance of 509 Remington St. would fall under Standard 2 (Persons/Groups), for association with Willard and Gladys Eddy, significant to Fort Collins and CSU history, and Standard 3 (Design/Construction), for the house’s foursquare architecture and for the shared barn being a rare early example of a barn in this neighborhood. The significance of 515 Remington St. would fall under Standard 2 (Persons/Groups), for association with Fred W. Stover, an early Fort Collins resident, mayor, and judge, and under Standard 3 (Design/Construction), for the house’s Victorian architecture with Colonial Revival details, the brick garage dating to the period of significance, and again for the shared barn. The subject properties underwent a lot line adjustment in 2024, recorded with Larimer County at Reception #20240030529 (attached). This modified the west portion of the property line between the two parcels, Packet Pg. 102 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 specifically the section that intersects the shared barn. This lot line adjustment, along with the proposal to relocate the shared barn several feet north and east, would place the shared barn entirely within the 509 Remington St. parcel and simplify the rehabilitation proposed for the historic barn structure. To accurately reflect the boundaries of the Landmark properties, amendments to the Landmark Ordinances are needed. Additionally, provided that the barn’s relocation to 509 Remington St. is approved by the HPC, the term “shared barn” should be removed from the Ordinance for 515 Remington St., but remain in the Ordinance for 509 Remington St. to indicate the history of the barn as a shared structure. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: The 1997 nomination staff reports provide the following architectural descriptions (amended): 509 Remington St. The Willard and Gladys Eddy House is an excellent example of the American Foursquare architectural style with Italianate features and detailing. Fred W. Stover had this two-story dwelling built in 1904 by Pierce and Loveland, contractors, at a cost of $3,500.00. The house features a coursed, rough cut sandstone foundation, narrow horizontal clapboard walls, and a low, hipped roof with centrally located dormer. Details include broad, flared eaves with decorative block modillions, and a classical pediment adorning the roof of the enclosed entry porch. A two- story side bay is located on the south elevation, and a sleeping porch is located on the rear, or west, elevation. 515 Remington St. The Fred W. Stover house is an excellent example of Eclectic architecture with Victorian massing and predominately Colonial Revival detailing. Stover had this 1 ½-story dwelling built in 1904 by Love and Bain, contractors, at a cost of $5,000.00. The house features a coursed, rough cut sandstone foundation, red brick walls set in stretcher bond, and a steeply pitched gable roof. Details include a Palladian window, tall, corbeled chimneys, and a full-width porch. The porch has Ionic column supports and an open wood balustrade with distinctive top rail. The house exhibits very good architectural integrity, with little change to its original appearance. In the 1950s, the roof and some upper gable ends were covered with asbestos slate shingles. The hipped-roof brick garage is essentially unaltered except for a non-original overhead door. The garage is an example of an early heated garage, with galvanized pipes running across the interior walls in a serpentine manner, providing hot water heat piped in from the main house. The garage dates to the period of significance and contributes to the historical character of the property. Shared Barn The historic barn is a two-story, gable-roofed, wood frame structure shared with 515 Remington St. Likely built c. 1890 for the William C. Stover Residence at 503 Remington, the barn became associated with 509 and 515 Remington St. when the Stover family constructed houses on the two lots south of 503 Remington St. in 1904. The barn is clad with corrugated metal siding, likely not the historic cladding, and the roof is also corrugated metal. The main barn’s east elevation includes several openings, which include, left to right: a door topped by a three-light transom window; a double door; and another double door with a narrow light in the upper portion of each leaf above two panels. The barn’s south elevation has a Dutch door on its right side with a boarded window opening to its left and another boarded opening in the gable end. The barn’s west elevation, facing the alley, has a double door on the northmost side and a boarded opening at the level of the eaves. The north elevation has another boarded opening in the gable end and is otherwise covered by a one-story frame, shed-roofed addition that is clad in drop-board siding. This addition was built sometime between 1925 and 1943, according to Sanborn Fire Insurance Map records. The addition has a door cut out of the siding on the east and north sides and a small two- light window on the north side. One of the few early barns remaining in the neighborhood, this barn contributes to the historic character of the property. EXTERIOR ALTERATION HISTORY: Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 509 Remington St. and Shared Barn (alterations to shared barn in italics) Date Permit # Name Notes with William C. Stover Residence at 503 1904 -- F.W. Stover 7 room frame cottage, Pierce and Loveland contractors (Fred Stover was the son of William 1925 – 1943 -- -- 1 story addition to barn (based on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for 1925 and the 1943 5/3/1944 7724 Gladys S. Eddy Reroofing 8/18/1954 13864 Eddy Willard Reshingling – “comp, 3 tab, 210 lgs, comp shingles, 6 nails to each shingle. Remove old 11/3/1997 0974346 Gladys Eddy Reroof house and garage with Heritage II (asphalt) shingles 515 Remington St. Date Permit # Name Notes 1904 -- W.C. Stover 7 room brick residence, Love & Bain contractors 11/9/1938 5581 Alvin Kezer Repairing house and garage 9/9/1942 7089 Alvin Keger [] Insulate 9/8/1948 10798 Alvin Kezer Re-shingle house and garage 11/3/1997 0974346 Gladys Eddy Reroof house and garage 10/8/2019 B1912888 Troy Jennings Reroof house HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: 509 Remington St. This property has undergone Design Review on past occasions for: • 2019 – In-kind roof replacement • 2020 – Replacement of south elevation basement window with egress window and repair of wood windows with installation of interior inserts • 2021 – Site/landscaping work, including installation of window wells, regrading, concrete driveway installation, fence installation, patio installation • 2021 – In-kind roof replacement and installation of gutters/downspouts 515 Remington St. This property has undergone Design Review on past occasions for: • 2006 – Repair work on back porch/kitchen, fascia, gutters, and brick repointing Shared Barn • 2008 – Roofing • 2025 – Relocation and Rehab Packet Pg. 104 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF CITY FINANCIAL INCENTIVES: Shared Barn • 2023 – Design Assistance Program project – Structural Engineering evaluation of barn to determine if move feasible (see attached report) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a recommendation, via resolution, in support of the following items: • Recommendation of Landmark Ordinance amendments for 509 and 515 Remington St. to reflect changes in boundary/legal description (both), movement of the barn to 509 Remington St., and property name (515 Remington St. to remove “shared barn”). PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposed Landmark Ordinance amendments are necessary to correct what are now errors in the boundary/legal description sections of the Landmark Ordinances for 509 and 515 Remington St. since the boundary adjustment. Additionally, provided that the HPC approves through a Certificate of Appropriateness the relocation of the shared barn and that the work is completed, it is necessary to remove the phrase “shared barn” from the 515 Remington St. Landmark Ordinance to accurately indicate the historic features within the Landmark boundary. Although the barn would no longer cross the property line once moved, retaining the phrase “shared barn” in the 509 Remington St. Landmark Ordinance references the history of the barn as a shared structure and the historical association between the two properties. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the Landmark Ordinance amendments for 509 and 515 Remington St., staff makes the following findings of fact: • The properties at 509 and 515 Remington St. were both designated as City Landmarks in 1997 for their architectural and historic significance. • A lot line adjustment impacting the shared property line between the two parcels was recorded by Larimer County in 2024. • If approved by the HPC through the related Final Landmark Design Review on Feb. 19, 2025, the shared barn will be moved entirely onto the 509 Remington St. parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the HPC adopt a resolution in support of the proposed Landmark Ordinance amendments for 509 and 515 Remington St. because these amendments will clarify the changes in boundaries and legal descriptions for the properties and will also more accurately reflect the relocation of the shared barn to the 509 Remington St. parcel. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution recommending that City Council adopt ordinances to amend the designations of the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington St. and the Frank W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn at 515 Remington St., specifically to: • Strike the phrase “shared barn” from the 515 Remington St. Landmark Ordinance Packet Pg. 105 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 • Update the boundary and legal description on the 509 Remington St. Landmark Ordinance o From: “North forty-five feet of Lot 6, Block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado also known as 509 Remington Street” o To: “North 45 feet of Lot 6 and the South 5 feet of the West 39 feet of Lot 6, and the North 8 feet of the West 39 feet of Lot 5, Block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 509 Remington Street” • Update the boundary and legal description on the 515 Remington St. Landmark Ordinance o From: “Lot 5 and the South 5 feet of Lot 6, Block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado also known as 515 Remington Street” o To: “Lot 5 and the South 5 feet of Lot 6, Except the North 8 feet of the West 39 feet of Lot 5, and Except the South 5 feet of the West 39 feet of Lot 6, Block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also known as 515 Remington Street” I further move that the Commission finds that the proposed amendments are supported by the analysis provided in the staff report, the 1997 Landmark nominations, and the presented evidence at this meeting, that such modifications would not diminish the historic significance or historic integrity of the properties, and finds also that the amended designations would allow the preservation of the properties to remain consistent with the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission adopt a written resolution not supporting the proposed amendments to the designations of the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn at 509 Remington St. and the Frank W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn at 515 Remington St., finding that the proposed amendments would not allow the preservation of the property to remain consistent with the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. [And insert any additional rationale.] SAMPLE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE: I move that the Historic Preservation Commission continue this item to [insert meeting date] to seek additional information regarding the following code requirements: [insert] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Landmark Ordinance Amendment – 509 Remington St. 2. Draft Landmark Ordinance Amendment – 515 Remington St. 3. Landmark Owner Acknowledgement – 509 Remington St. 4. Landmark Owner Acknowledgement – 515 Remington St. 5. Draft HPC Resolution Supporting Landmark Ordinance Amendments for 509 and 515 Remington St. 6. Draft HPC Resolution Not Supporting Landmark Ordinance Amendments for 509 and 515 Remington St. 7. Landmark Nomination – 509 Remington St. 8. Landmark Nomination – 515 Remington St. 9. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 106 -1- ORDINANCE NO. XXX, 2025 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE BOUNDARY OF THE WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN, 509 REMINGTON STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS A.It is a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects, and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. B.It is the policy of the City Council that the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic, architectural, archeological, and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. C.The Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn, located at 509 Remington Street in Fort Collins (the Property) was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 149, 1997 adopted on October 21, 1997, for the Property’s historic and architectural significance (corresponding to City Code Section 14-22(a) under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, for association with Willard and Gladys Eddy, and Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the house’s Foursquare architecture and the barn being an early and rare example of a barn in this neighborhood, historically shared with 515 Remington St.). D.The Property owners have requested an amendment to the existing designation, specifically a modification to the boundary to reflect a lot line adjustment recorded with Larimer County at Reception #20240030529 and the changed location of the barn to be located within the boundary lines of 509 Remington Street. E.The Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the amendment to the Property’s Landmark boundary is consistent with the City’s Policies in City Code Section 14-1 and Purposes in City Code Section 14-2 and would not result in adverse effects to the Property and therefore recommends adoption of this Landmark Ordinance. In light of the foregoing recitals, which the Council hereby makes and adopts as determinations and findings, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. The boundary of the Landmark Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: NORTH FORTY-FIVE FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 107 -2- COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ALSO KNOWN AS 509 REMINGTON STREET is amended to read: NORTH 45 FEET OF LOT 6 AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 6, AND THE NORTH 8 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS 509 REMINGTON STREET Section 2. The criteria contained in Chapter 14, Article IV of the City Code will continue to serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to buildings and structures located upon the above described Property will be reviewed. Section 3. In compliance with Section 14-36 of the City Code, the City shall, within fifteen days of the effective date of this Ordinance, record among the real estate records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder a certified copy of this Ordinance amending the designation of the Property. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading on MONTH ##, 2025, and approved on second reading for final passage on MONTH ##, 2025. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk Effective Date: Approving Attorney: Heather N. Jarvis ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 108 -1- ORDINANCE NO. XXX, 2025 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE BOUNDARY AND ORDINANCE OF THE FRED W. STOVER HOUSE AND GARAGE, 515 REMINGTON STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS A.It is a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects, and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. B.It is the policy of the City Council that the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic, architectural, archeological, and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. C.The Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn, located at 515 Remington Street in Fort Collins (the Property) was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 151, 1997 adopted on Oct. 21, 1997, for the Property’s historic and architectural significance (corresponding to City Code Section 14-22(a) under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, for association with Fred W. Stover, and Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the house’s Victorian architecture with Colonial Revival details, for the brick garage, and for the barn being an early and rare example of a barn in this neighborhood, historically shared with 509 Remington St.). D.The Property owners have requested an amendment to the existing designation, specifically a modification to the boundary to reflect a lot line adjustment recorded with Larimer County at Reception #20240030529 and to the text of the Ordinance to reflect the relocation of the shared barn to entirely within the neighboring parcel (Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn) outside the boundary of 515 Remington Street. E.The Historic Preservation Commission approved relocation of the barn and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness dated February 19, 2025. F.The Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the amendment to the Property’s Landmark boundary and name is consistent with the City’s Policies in City Code Section 14-1 and Purposes in City Code Section 14-2 and would not result in adverse effects to the Property and therefore recommends adoption of this Landmark Ordinance. In light of the foregoing recitals, which the Council hereby makes and adopts as determinations and findings, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 109 -2- Section 1. The boundary of the Landmark Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: LOT 5 AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ALSO KNOWN AS 515 REMINGTON STREET is amended to read: LOT 5 AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF LOT 6, EXCEPT THE NORTH 8 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 5, AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS 515 REMINGTON STREET Section 2. The phrase “shared barn” is stricken from the name of the Landmark as reflected in the title of this Ordinance amending the designation of the Property. Section 3. The criteria contained in Chapter 14, Article IV of the City Code will continue to serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to buildings and structures located upon the above described Property will be reviewed. Section 4. In compliance with Section 14-36 of the City Code, the City shall, within fifteen days of the effective date of this Ordinance, record among the real estate records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder a certified copy of this Ordinance amending the designation of the Property. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading on MONTH ##, 2025, and approved on second reading for final passage on MONTH ##, 2025. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 110 -3- Effective Date: Approving Attorney: Heather N. Jarvis ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 111 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 112 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 113 RESOLUTION 1, 2025 OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS OF THE WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN, 509 REMINGTON STREET, AND THE FRED W. STOVER HOUSE AND GARAGE, 515 REMINGTON STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, it is a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects, and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride, and general welfare of the people; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council that the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic, architectural, archeological, and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets; and WHEREAS, the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn, located at 509 Remington Street in Fort Collins was designated as Fort Collins Landmarks by Ordinance No. 149, 1997, adopted on October 21, 1997, for the property’s historical and architectural significance to Fort Collins (corresponding to Municipal Code Section 14-22(a) under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, for association with Willard and Gladys Eddy, and Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the house’s Foursquare architecture and the barn being an early and rare example of a barn in this neighborhood); and WHEREAS, the Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn, located at 515 Remington Street in Fort Collins was designated as Fort Collins Landmarks by Ordinance No. 151, 1997, adopted on October 21, 1997, for the property’s historical and architectural significance to Fort Collins (corresponding to Municipal Code Section 14-22(a) under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, for association with Fred W. Stover, and Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the house’s Victorian architecture with Colonial Revival details, for the brick garage, and the barn being an early and rare example of a barn in this neighborhood); and WHEREAS, the property owners have requested amendments to the existing designations, specifically a modification to the boundaries to reflect a lot line adjustment recorded with Larimer County at Reception #20240030529 and to the name of the 515 Remington Street Landmark to reflect the relocation of the shared barn to entirely within the 509 Remington Street Landmark; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission approved relocation of the barn and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness dated February 19, 2025; and ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 114 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 1, 2025 WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the amendment to the properties’ Landmark boundaries is consistent with the City’s Policies in Municipal Code 14-1 and Purposes in Municipal Code 14-2 and would not result in adverse effects to the properties’ significance and/or integrity. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins as follows: Section 1. That the Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Historic Preservation Commission hereby incorporates the following findings of fact: a. That the amendments proposed will continue to advance the City of Fort Collins Policies and Purposes for Historic Preservation; and b. That the properties are significant under Municipal Code Section 14-22(a) and will continue to convey that significance after this amendment. c. That the properties possess integrity under Municipal Code Section 14-22(b) and will continue to possess integrity after this amendment. Section 3. That the Landmark boundary of the designated property located at 509 Remington Street in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: NORTH FORTY-FIVE FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ALSO KNOWN AS 509 REMINGTON STREET should be amended to read as follows: NORTH 45 FEET OF LOT 6 AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 6, AND THE NORTH 8 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS 509 REMINGTON STREET Section 4. That the Landmark boundary of the designated property located at 515 Remington Street in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: LOT 5 AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ALSO KNOWN AS 515 REMINGTON STREET should be amended to read as follows: ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 115 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 1, 2025 LOT 5 AND THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF LOT 6, EXCEPT THE NORTH 8 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 5, AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF THE WEST 39 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 125, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS 515 REMINGTON STREET Section 5. That the phrase “shared barn” should be stricken from the name of the 515 Remington Street Landmark. Section 6. That the criteria contained in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code will continue to serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to buildings and structures located upon the above described properties will be reviewed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins held this 19th day of February, 2025. _______________________ Jim Rose, Chair ATTEST: _______________________ Secretary/Staff ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 116 RESOLUTION 1, 2025 OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOT SUPPORTING AMENDMENT OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS OF THE WILLARD AND GLADYS EDDY HOUSE AND SHARED BARN, 509 REMINGTON STREET, AND THE FRED W. STOVER HOUSE, GARAGE, AND SHARED BARN, 515 REMINGTON STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, it is a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects, and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride, and general welfare of the people; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council that the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic, architectural, archeological, and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets; and WHEREAS, the Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn, located at 509 Remington Street in Fort Collins was designated as Fort Collins Landmarks by Ordinance No. 149, 1997, adopted on October 21, 1997, for the property’s historical and architectural significance to Fort Collins (corresponding to Municipal Code Section 14-22(a) under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, for association with Willard and Gladys Eddy, and Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the house’s Foursquare architecture and the barn being an early and rare example of a barn in this neighborhood); and WHEREAS, the Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn, located at 515 Remington Street in Fort Collins was designated as Fort Collins Landmarks by Ordinance No. 151, 1997, adopted on October 21, 1997, for the property’s historical and architectural significance to Fort Collins (corresponding to Municipal Code Section 14-22(a) under Standard 2, Persons/Groups, for association with Fred W. Stover, and Standard 3, Design/Construction, for the house’s Victorian architecture with Colonial Revival details, for the brick garage, and the barn being an early and rare example of a barn in this neighborhood); and WHEREAS, the property owners have requested amendments to the existing designations, specifically a modification to the boundaries to reflect a lot line adjustment recorded with Larimer County at Reception #20240030529 and to the name of the 515 Remington Street Landmark to reflect the relocation of the shared barn to entirely within the 509 Remington Street Landmark; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the amendment to the properties’ Landmark boundaries is not consistent with the City’s Policies in Municipal Code 14- ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 117 1 and Purposes in Municipal Code 14-2 and would result in adverse effects to the properties’ significance and/or integrity. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins as follows: Section 1. That the Historic Preservation Commission hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Historic Preservation Commission hereby incorporates the following findings of fact: a. That the amendments proposed would not advance the City of Fort Collins Policies and Purposes for Historic Preservation as described in Municipal Code 14-1 and 14-2 because [insert rationale]; and b. That the properties are significant under Municipal Code Section 14-22(a) and would, after the proposed amendments not continue to convey that significance, because [insert rationale]; and c. That the properties possess integrity under Municipal Code Section 14-22(b) and would, after the proposed amendments not continue to possess integrity, because [insert rationale]. Section 3. That the criteria contained in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code will continue to serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to buildings and structures located upon the above described properties will be reviewed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Fort Collins held this 19th day of February, 2025. _______________________ Jim Rose, Chair ATTEST: _______________________ Secretary/Staff ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 118 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 119 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 120 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 121 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 122 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 123 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 124 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 125 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 126 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 127 S:\CDNS\HISTORIC-PRESERVATION\1_PROPERTY INFORMATION BY ADDRESS\REMINGTON\500 BLK REMINGTON\515 REMINGTON - FRED STOVER HOUSE\DESIGNATION\REMINGTONST515-DESFORM.DOC Local Historic Landmark Designation FormPage 1 Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 580 Date Determined "Eligible" Fort Collins, CO 80522 Ordinance # (303) 221-6597 Application within last 12 months? Yes No Date Recorded LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOMINATION FORM Date: September 18, 1997 Please type/print all entries LOCATION PARCEL NUMBER: 97132-09-005 Address: 515 Remington Street Legal Description: The residence, garage and shared barn located on lands in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Lot 5 and the South 5 feet of Lot 6, Block 125, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, also know as 515 Remington Street. Property Name (Historic and/or common): Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and shared Barn FORM PREPARED BY: Name/Title: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 128 S:\CDNS\HISTORIC-PRESERVATION\1_PROPERTY INFORMATION BY ADDRESS\REMINGTON\500 BLK REMINGTON\515 REMINGTON - FRED STOVER HOUSE\DESIGNATION\REMINGTONST515-DESFORM.DOC Local Historic Landmark Designation Form Page 2 Phone: (970) 224-6078 Relationship to Owner: None OWNER INFORMATION Name: Carl E. Patton, III Phone:(970)) 223-6288 Address: 619 Skysail Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80525 BOUNDARIES/TYPE OF DESIGNATION __X__ Landmark (improvements only) ____Landmark District (improvement + site/surrounding environment) Further explanation of boundary determination: CLASSIFICATION Category: Ownership: Status: Present Use: X Building Public X Occupied Commercial Entertainment Structure X Private Unoccupied ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 129 S:\CDNS\HISTORIC-PRESERVATION\1_PROPERTY INFORMATION BY ADDRESS\REMINGTON\500 BLK REMINGTON\515 REMINGTON - FRED STOVER HOUSE\DESIGNATION\REMINGTONST515-DESFORM.DOC Local Historic Landmark Designation Form Page 3 Educational Government Site Religious Other: Object X Residential District Existing Designation: X National Register Laurel School National Register District State Register SIGNIFICANCE Architectural: Represents work of noteworthy architect Possesses high artistic value X Represents a type, period, or method of construction Historical: X Associated with significant persons Associated with significant event or historic trend X Contributes to the significance of an historic district Geographical: Related to or part of distinctive area Unique location Further Comments: Please see attached narrative (Add continuation sheet if needed) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 130 S:\CDNS\HISTORIC-PRESERVATION\1_PROPERTY INFORMATION BY ADDRESS\REMINGTON\500 BLK REMINGTON\515 REMINGTON - FRED STOVER HOUSE\DESIGNATION\REMINGTONST515-DESFORM.DOC Local Historic Landmark Designation Form Page 4 HISTORICAL INFORMATION Please attach a narrative of the historical significance of the property. Include a title search if the property is important for its association with a significant person. Further Comments: Please see attached narrative ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 131 S:\CDNS\HISTORIC-PRESERVATION\1_PROPERTY INFORMATION BY ADDRESS\REMINGTON\500 BLK REMINGTON\515 REMINGTON - FRED STOVER HOUSE\DESIGNATION\REMINGTONST515-DESFORM.DOC Local Historic Landmark Designation Form Page 5 ARCHITECTURAL AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Construction Date: 1904 Architect/Builder: Love and Bain, Contractors Building Materials: hard pressed brick walls, sandstone foundation Architectural Style: Eclectic architecture with Victorian massing and predominately Colonial Revival detailing. Special Features/Surroundings: See attached narrative (Add a continuation sheet if needed. Please include black and white photos of each elevation of the property.) Describe any additions to the property: In the 1950s, the roof and upper gable ends were covered with asbestos slate shingles. REFERENCE LIST OR SOURCES OF INFORMATION Fort Collins City Directories Watrous, Ansel: History of Larimer County, Colorado, 1911 Larimer County Assessor’s Office Records Building Permit Records (Add a continuation sheet, if needed) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 132 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 23, 1997 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Local Landmark Designation of the Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and shared Barn, 515 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Carl E. Patton III, Property Owner BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration, the local landmark designation of the historic Fred W. Stover House, Garage and shared Barn, 515 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. The house is significant for its architecture and for its association with Fred W. Stover, a Fort Collins judge and mayor. The hipped-roof brick garage dates to the period of significance and contributes to the historical character of the property. It is also an example of an early heated garage. The barn is a wood framed structure shared with 509 Remington Street. One of the few remaining barns in the Eastside Neighborhood, the barn dates from the period of significance and contributes to the historical character of the property. As such, it is also eligible to be designated as a local landmark. Architectural Importance - The house is an excellent example of Eclectic architecture with Victorian massing and predominately Colonial Revival detailing. Mr. Stover had this 1 ½-story dwelling built in 1904 by Love and Bain, contractors, at a cost of $5,000.00. The house features a coursed, rough cut sandstone foundation, red brick walls set in stretcher bond, and a steeply pitched gable roof. Details include a Palladian window, tall corbeled chimneys, and a full-width porch. The porch has Ionic column supports and an open wood balustrade with distinctive top rail. The house exhibits very good architectural integrity, with little change to its original appearance. In the 1950s, the roof and some upper gable ends were covered with asbestos slate shingles. The hipped-roof brick garage is essentially unaltered except for a non-original overhead door. The garage is an example of an early heated garage, with galvanized pipes running across the interior walls in a serpentine manner, providing hot water heat piped in from the main house. The garage dates to the period of significance and contributes to the historical character of the property. As such, it is also eligible to be designated as a local landmark. The barn is a wood framed structure shared with 509 Remington Street. Likely built circa 1890 for the William C. Stover Residence at 503 Remington, the barn became associated with 509 and 515 Remington when the Stover family built residences on these two lots in 1904. The barn is clad with corrugated metal siding. One of the few remaining barns in the Eastside Neighborhood, the barn dates from the period of significance and contributes to the historical ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 133 character of the property. As such, it is also eligible to be designated as a local landmark. Historical Importance - Fred W. Stover, son of pioneer William C. Stover, was born September 25, 1878 in Fort Collins. He was educated in the Fort Collins schools, then attended the University of Denver and the University of Denver Law School. Stover was appointed to the Colorado bar in 1904, and established a private practice in Fort Collins. In November of 1907, he was appointed Judge of the County Court, the start of a distinguished judicial career. In 1918, Fred Stover became mayor of Fort Collins, serving in this capacity until 1924. Stover was raised in the family home at 503 Remington, but had this house constructed for his marriage to Lucille Timberlake in 1904. The family resided at 515 Remington for about fifteen years, before moving to their new home at 415 South College, where they remained until the late 1960s, when the house was demolished to make way for new business buildings. In the 1920s, the house was owned by the Reverend David Sharp and his wife Edna. By 1940, Alvin and Harriett Kezer were the owners. Alvin, an agricultural consultant and instructor of Agronomy at CSC (now CSU) , and his wife remained in the home through the mid-1950s. In 1959, the occupants were Floyd and Bernice Leidal, followed in the early 1960s by Larry and Rheba Coulter. Larry was a livestock disease inspector for the Colorado Department of Agriculture, while Rheba worked at the University as a lab technician for the Department of Anatomy. In the late 1960s, the home was owned by John and Daphnah Garner, before being purchased in 1971 by its current owner, Carl Patton. Dr. Patton is a professor of Physics at Colorado State University, where he has taught for 26 years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff strongly recommends approving this request for Local Landmark designation of the Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and shared Barn, 515 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 134 509 and 515 Remington St. – Landmark Ordinance Amendment Requests 2-19-2025 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 2 Location Map 509 and 515 Remington St. 1925 Sanborn Map 1943 update to 1925 Sanborn Map 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 135 3Role of the HPC • Municipal Code 14-39 – Amendment of designation (same process as new Landmark) • Recommend or do not recommend Landmark Ordinance amendments to City Council through a written resolution Property Background – 509 Remington St. • Willard and Gladys Eddy House and Shared Barn designated as City Landmark Oct. 21, 1997 • Also designated as part of Laurel School Historic District (NRHP) on Oct. 2, 1980 • Architectural Significance – Foursquare house & early and rare barn in neighborhood • Historical Significance – Association with Willard & Gladys Eddy • House built 1904; Barn built c. 1890 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 136 Property Background – 515 Remington St. • Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn designated as City Landmark Oct. 21, 1997 • Also designated as part of Laurel School Historic District (NRHP) on Oct. 2, 1980 • Architectural Significance – Victorian house with Colonial Revival details, brick garage dating to the period of significance for the property, and early and rare barn in neighborhood • Historical Significance – Association with Fred W. Stover • House built 1904; Barn built c. 1890 5 6Amendment Requests (1/2) • Update Landmark boundaries/legal descriptions to reflect lot line adjustment already recorded with Larimer County 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 137 7Amendment Requests (2/2) • Update name/text of 515 Remington St. (Fred W. Stover House, Garage, and Shared Barn) to strike references to the shared barn to more accurately reflect location of the barn (if relocation approved by HPC through Landmark Design Review) 8Questions/Requests for Additional Info • Do the Ordinance Amendments themselves refer to the history of the shared barn? • Ordinance drafts updated to refer to history of the barn being shared between the 509 and 515 Remington St. properties. 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 138 9Staff Recommendation • Adopt a written resolution recommending City Council approve the Landmark Ordinance amendments proposed 10Role of the HPC • Municipal Code 14-39 – Amendment of designation (same process as new Landmark) • Recommend or do not recommend Landmark Ordinance amendments to City Council through a written resolution 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 139 509 and 515 Remington St. – Landmark Ordinance Amendment Requests 2-19-2025 Yani Jones Historic Preservation Planner 11 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 140 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 Historic Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Jim Bertolini, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: new two-story building at the corner of Chestnut and Mountain Avenues, directly abutting the Armory building, an individual City Landmark located outside of the Old Town Historic District boundary. The project includes minor modifications to the west wall of the Armory to provide access between the two buildings. APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is forwarding this item to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for a recommendation, and suggests that the HPC recommendation include specific guidance and/or conditions for the proposed design of the new construction related to compatible building materials, per the requirements found in Land Use Code 5.8.1(F)(1)(c), Table 1, items 3 and 4. COMMISSION’S ROLE: The application falls under the Basic Development Review process, in which the final decision maker is the City’s Planning staff. The Commission’s role is to provide a recommendation to the decision maker regarding the proposed alterations, relative to their compliance with Section 5.8.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The Commission will also be asked to provide guidance to Historic Preservation staff regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness needed for modifications to the west wall of the Fort Collins National Guard Armory at 314 E. Mountain Ave. Exterior changes to the Armory are subject to landmark design review, as the property is a Fort Collins Landmark designated on April 18, 2000, and is also listed on both the State and National Register of Historic Places. BACKGROUND & SUMMARY: The development site is the former location of two one-story brick buildings that were originally the Fort Collins Automobile Garage and later the Paramont Laundry Drive-Through. Historic survey was completed in 2019 for this site, and it was determined that the site had historic significance, but no longer reflected it via sufficient historic integrity. Based on the survey findings, staff determined that the property was Not Eligible for historic designation at that time. Those buildings were demolished in 2024. This project aims to infill the former site of the Automobile Garage with a two-story commercial/office building filling most of the site. At this time, the expected programming for the building is to provide supportive commercial space for a tenant on the ground floor, with supportive space in the new building’s second and basement floors for the existing performance venue in the abutting historic Armory building. Packet Pg. 141 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 Specific to the historic Armory building, there are proposed changes to its west wall to allow for access between that building and the new construction. Additionally, the two-story new construction will obscure the entire west wall of the Armory, where the second story has historically always been visible. On the matter of visibility, staff informed the applicant that there do not appear to be any character-defining features on the west elevation that need to remain visible, including the existing ghost sign on the wall, since the sign is not directly related to the reason the property is Landmarked and does not fall under the more general protections of the Old Town District Design Standards, since the property is not within the boundaries of the Old Town Landmark District. Furthermore, modifications to side elevations for passageways between buildings are fairly common throughout downtown, including between the Firehouse and the City Hall Annex and between the expanded Silver Grill, both in the Old Town Historic District on Walnut Street two blocks northwest of the development site. Staff has no documented record of public investment of historic preservation funds in the Armory building, although the owner did undertake a major rehabilitation/partial restoration in the early 2000s following historic designation. Often, such projects received local, state, and federal support, such as grants and tax credits. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: There is only one historic resource in the project’s 200-foot area of adjacency, the Armory at 314 E. Mountain Avenue, landmarked in 2000 and listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2002. It will serve as the primary reference for the analysis below. REVIEW CRITERIA AND INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff has provided analysis below for the proposed treatment of the abutting Armory building at 314 E. Mountain, subject to review under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards per Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code, and the proposed new construction, subject to review under the requirements in Land Use Code Section 5.8.1. Staff finds that most of the requirements appear met, with the potential exception of the compatibility requirements related to materials on new construction adjacent to historic buildings. In particular, the use of high-pressure laminate may not meet the City’s definition of a durable material, which is typically considered to be traditional materials like brick, stone, wood, and metal that are generally more appropriate to the building material vernacular in downtown Fort Collins. More importantly, the proposed design of that laminate does not appear to meet any of the compatibility requirements in reference to the Armory’s blonde brick. Staff has requested the following additional information from the applicant: 1. Specifications for the selected high-pressure laminate product, with comparative durability information relative to more traditional durable materials called out in this code section. (Provided 2/10/2025) 2. Specific information about the puncture points into the west wall of the Armory for passageways between the new building and the historic Armory, along with a salvage plan for the removed masonry. (Provided 2/3/2025). Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation NOTE: This section has been completed by staff specific to the Complies/Does Not Comply 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, Y Packet Pg. 142 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 The minor treatments to the historic property support its continued use as a community center/performance venue, similar SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The construction of a two-story building on the Armory’s west side does not appear to alter significant spatial relationships on the property. While the Armory has historically been positioned east of two one-story buildings, this does not appear to be a significant functional relationship. Replacement of one-story buildings with taller, mixed-use structures was fairly common practice in the downtown core during the historic period. Furthermore, the Paramont Laundry sign did not appear to be an historically significant sign related to the history of the Armory. Y SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. The new construction is sufficiently differentiated so as to not appear to be a part of the Armory building. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. There do not appear to be any important historic modifications to the Armory that will be modified/obscured by this project. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Similar to above, no character-defining features appear to be significantly affected by this project. The primary expected modification is removal of some of the existing masonry in the west wall to connect the abutting structures. These masonry alterations will not be visible on the exterior as they will be covered by the new construction. Staff has recommended to the applicant that salvage on-site for potential restoration would be Y SOI #6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. N/A Packet Pg. 143 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 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. Staff has already provided requirements and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for masonry cleaning and repair along the west wall in preparation for the new construction. Y SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. There do not appear to be any archaeological concerns on this site, based on staff’s understanding of the historical progression of this site and the level of disturbance in the soil. Y SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff is not classifying the new construction as an addition. Therefore, design compatibility is being considered under the Land Use Code 5.8.1. An analysis of compliance with the LUC has been provided in the next section. 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. There is some demolition of the west masonry wall proposed to provide access between the historic and new buildings. The applicant will be required to provide more information detailing where and how large the punctures will be. Y Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis – In General Land Use Code 5.8.1(F)(1)(c) NOTE: This section has been completed by staff referencing the historic property, the Armory at 314 E. Mountain Avenue, with Complies/Does Not Comply Massing and Building Articulation 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Y Packet Pg. 144 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 is of primary concern appears to be sufficiently broken up into sections that are similar in width, height, and overall scale, as the historic Armory. The Chestnut Street elevation appears sufficient but could be improved by breaking up the bands of panels in favor of cap-to-grade masonry in those sections. Massing and Building Articulation 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. Since the proposed building matches the abutting historic building in height at two stories, no stepbacks are necessary. N/A Building Materials 3. The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non-EIFS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. The applicant is using brick for several of the façade sections fronting to both Mountain Avenue and Chestnut Street. However, much of the exterior cladding is proposed to be High-Pressure Laminant, which is typically a durable plastic product used for high-traffic areas. Similarly designed recent projects that have met this standard have used metal, rather than HPL, panels. Staff (Historic Preservation and Planning) have concerns about the long-term durability of this material relative to the other material TBD Building Materials 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building, or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5) pattern. The predominate building material on the Armory is blonde brick. The primary materials on the new construction appear to be brick masonry, high-pressure laminate, and glass, although the applicant is arguing that the laminate is not a primary material since it is fewer square feet in coverage than the proposed brick. The use of brick masonry on sections of both the Mountain Avenue and Chestnut Street elevations clearly meets this standard. Staff believes it is unclear if the use of the high- pressure laminate meets any of the five compatibility characteristics in this code section (two are required). Staff would TBD Packet Pg. 145 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 6 to better replicate the pattern, color, or scale of the historic brick on the Armory. Consequently, the staff finding of “TBD” indicates that staff yields to the judgment of the Commission on this requirement. Staff would note that the code does anticipate the presence of multiple “primary” materials on new construction and has not, historically, accepted an interpretation of only one material being primary Fenestration 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. This standard appears met, and potentially exceeded. Options 1 and 3 are clearly met, with the overall window pattern and solid-to- void patterns in the dark brick sections close to matching. In the paneled elements of the building, there is a similar window pattern as the historic armory, with 1-over-1 windows of similar spacing and size. Y Design Details 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. There appear to be several horizontal and vertical references made between the new construction and the historic Armory’s Mountain Avenue elevation. The second story window sills align, and the cornice and dentil molding on the historic Armory roughly align with the upper detailing of the new construction. Compliance with this requirement could be improved by raising the sill height on the first-floor windows to align with the higher sills on the historic Armory, and avoiding the sloping paneling Y Visibility of Historic Features 7. New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The primary elevation of the Armory will remain visible from Mountain Avenue. Staff coordinated with the applicant to determine if the exposed second floor wall of the Armory constituted a character-defining feature. The conclusion was that while the material is character-defining, its visibility from the street is not and therefore a two-story building abutting it to the Y Packet Pg. 146 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 7 5.8.1(F)(3): Plan of Protection The applicant will need to submit a Plan of Protection as a condition of Building Permit release for the new construction. Similar to the demolition permit’s Plan of Protection, the Plan will need to address equipment use and staging to minimize chances of accidental damage to the Armory building. Additional Information Requested by Staff Staff requested additional specifications regarding the proposed Trespa panels and their durability from the applicant. That has been included as Attachment #6. Additional Information Requested by the HPC At its work session on February 12, the Commission requested additional information of both staff and the applicant. Those questions, and responses from staff, are provided below. Questions to Staff: - Regarding LUC 5.8.1(F)(1)(c), Table 1, requirement 3 for use of authentic and durable materials, how is “authentic” typically defined in these cases? o Staff Response: Typical application of this code requirement emphasizes the intention to maintain consistency in the qualities of building materials used in new construction with the existing historic building environment. First, it is intended to support the continued use of more durable and serviceable materials that are used in a typical historic built environment, such as masonry, concrete, and metal. Second, it is intended to avoid “simulated” products in favor of material choices in the same family as the original material itself (i.e., actual stone as opposed to simulated stone, actual brick as opposed to simulated brick, etc.). - How was the ghost sign for Paramount Laundry considered by staff to not be a character-defining feature of the building? o Staff response: In guiding the applicant on building design, one of the first questions to resolve was whether the ghost sign on the historic Armory building at 314 E. Mountain Ave, and the west wall’s visibility itself, were character-defining features or in the case of the ghost sign a standalone historic feature in its own right, that would need preserved. The basis for this analysis was a review of the documented significance of the Armory building, and an assessment of whether the Landmark designation (and National Register of Historic Places designation) would highlight the importance of features on the west wall (see Attachments 3 and 4 in the HPC packet). o Staff’s conclusion was that the recognized historic period for the building, 1907-1930 as defined in the NRHP nomination, corresponds with the use of the building as a civic and entertainment facility, with the commercial use by Paramount Laundry period considered not historically significant (although it is extensive). With that information considered, as well as the restoration work in the early 2000s to return the Armory to its pre-1930 design and use, staff did not consider the ghost sign to be a character-defining feature, nor historic in its own right. Furthermore, the fact that the property lies outside the Old Town Landmark District means that the blanket protection on ghost signs within the District does not strictly apply to this property. o Furthermore, staff would note that staff did consider whether the west wall itself contained any specific character-defining features beyond the brick material. In this case, beyond material Packet Pg. 147 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 8 conservation of the brick, there did not appear to be other character-defining features along this wall, making the infill of the abutting property with a two-story building appropriate provided adequate protections for historic material were in place. - Why was this project classified as an adjacent development (processed under the Land Use Code) rather than as an addition to the Armory building (processed under Municipal Code)? o Staff response: Based on the substance of the project, and the proposed functional relationship between the historic building and the new construction, staff would acknowledge that the distinction between abutting new construction and an addition to a landmark property is less clear in this case. However, after further consideration, there are several reasons staff remains confident that the project should be reviewed as new construction abutting an historic resource (processed under LUC 5.8.1), rather than as an addition processed as Landmark Design Review under the Municipal Code: 1. Landmark Boundary – The primary factor in classifying this as new construction abutting an historic building is the legal boundary of the City Landmark for the Armory, which corresponds to the parcel on which it sits. The City has no jurisdiction to apply the procedural and design compatibility requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, regarding treatment of City Landmarks, outside the legal property boundaries prescribed by City Council for any particular Landmark. Were the applicant seeking a boundary adjustment for the landmark property, that would have required landmark design review approval for both the boundary adjustment and the design of the new construction, but that is not the case in this instance. 2. Parcel boundaries – Typically, historic buildings are designated and treated on the legal parcel on which they sit, with some exceptions. The proposed new building is on a separate parcel than the historic Armory building. 3. Consideration of related program and use – While staff acknowledges the proposed program will function much like an addition to the Armory’s current programming and has the same ownership, the attachment and passageways are not, in and of themselves, permanently restricted to maintaining a programmatic and use relationship over time, and a future use and ownership of the new building could certainly be established independent of the Armory. Passageways are comparatively limited between the two and new punctures are also limited. Furthermore, the practice of connecting and then separating buildings on separate parcels extends throughout the history of the Old Town area. The Silver Grill, which now takes up what were historically four distinct buildings, is another example where this building access has occurred via interior demolition of side/party walls as ownership and use consolidated, and that spatial and legal relationship could change again in the future. - How has staff historically interpreted Item 7 regarding visibility of historic features in this case and others? 1. Staff response: Staff acknowledges that the relationship between the Armory and the neighboring parcel to the west has been a two-story to one-story relationship for most of the life of the Armory building (Armory built in 1907, and the Fort Collins Auto Garage built the same year, slightly after). However, these two buildings did not have a functional relationship until after the historic period once Paramount Laundry began operating out of both properties. Infill construction, both additions and new buildings, that obscure secondary elevations of prominent historic buildings are not uncommon in dense, urban environments like this and do have precedent in the Old Town area. Other examples where such projects have been undertaken include: - 200 E Mountain / 1 Old Town Square – several one-story buildings replaced with the current three-story mixed office/commercial that obscure the historically-exposed west Packet Pg. 148 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 9 wall of the Howard Block (similarly non-distinct other than the brick wall itself). The new building replaced a two-story stone and several one-story brick buildings. - 200 Blk (west) Linden St / 19 Old Town Square – several one-story brick buildings replaced with two-story brick buildings abutting the historic 255 Linden and Whitton Block (223-239 Walnut) buildings. Questions to the Applicant - Can additional information be provided about the Trespa laminate product related to its long-term durability under UV and hail weathering? Especially in relation to performance of materials in the downtown vernacular that are called out in LUC 5.8.1? o Staff note: Staff shares this concern and in addition to the product specifications, is working with the applicant to assess durability of the product on already-installed cases around the city. - Concern that applicant is defining “primary” as just the material with the highest percentage of use on a given elevation, and whether that’s wise or in keeping with past interpretations of the code. o Staff note: As indicated above in the analysis table, the interpretation of the 5.8.1 code requirement to mean only one material with the highest percentage is not an interpretation that has been applied in the past and was deliberately written to allow for scenarios in which there are multiple primary materials if used in roughly equal proportions. In the past, any material with significant use on an exterior elevation has typically been classified as primary including examples where there are multiple “primary” materials. - Can the applicant clarify the joint between the historic Armory building and the new construction on the south/Mountain Avenue wall plane? How are these two buildings being differentiated at that joint? SAMPLE MOTIONS Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval (and approval of Certificate for Armory): “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the two-story commercial/office building at 300 East Mountain Avenue, finding that the proposal complies with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and complies with the design compatibility standards contained in Land Use Code section 5.8.1(F)(1)(c), Table 1., specifically that… [Here, the Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation].” “I further move that the Commission advises staff to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the modifications to the Armory to facilitate connection to the new building, finding that the work meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial (and denial of Certificate for Armory): “I move that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the two-story commercial/office building at 300 East Mountain Avenue, based on the following findings: [insert findings] “I further move that the Commission advises staff to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for the modifications to the Armory to facilitate connection to the new building, finding that the work does not meet the Secretary of Packet Pg. 149 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 10 Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” 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 regarding the following code requirements: [insert] ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application for Development Review (combined architectural and site plans) 2. Historic Survey for 300 E Mountain (now demolished) 3. Historic Designation (City Ordinance) for 314 E Mountain (Armory) 4. Historic Designation (NRHP) for 314 E Mountain (Armory) 5. Applicant presentation 6. Applicant supplementary materials on Trespa panels. Packet Pg. 150 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 300 E Mountain Avenue Basic Development Review | Narrative January 15, 2025 Past Meeting Dates: •Conceptual Review Meeting – 10/03/2024 •Neighborhood Meeting – N/A (not required with BDR process) Owner Info: •Existing owner – MOUNTAIN 300 LLC •Proposed owner - MOUNTAIN 300 LLC General Information The proposed project site is .09 acres, situated on a triangular parcel at the southeast corner of Chestnut St and Mountain Ave. The former building remained unused for several years following the move of longtime tenant, The Lyric, to their new location at North College. Demolition of the building was completed in the summer of 2024, and the site is well positioned for infill development with the opportunity to revitalize this corner of Old Town. This proposal plans to redevelop the site with a new 2-story building for use as offices with a green room to support the Armory next door. There will be a box office and shared bar expansion between the new building and the Armory. The site is located within the Downtown (D) zone district and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, within the Historic Core (H/C) subdistrict. Site Layout & Parking The proposed site plan envisions a building-centric site, with the building being a typical zero-lot-line footprint, typical of Old Town. Given the unique shape and size of the site and proximity to the intersection at Mountain and Chestnut/Walnut, parking will be accommodated on-street and in nearby parking garages. General site circulation will be pedestrian oriented along Chestnut St and Mountain Ave. The applicant has submitted an alternative compliance request to the minimum parking requirements. The previous use did not have any parking on-site; therefore, no parking spaces will be eliminated as part of this project. There is existing on-street parking in front of the site along Mountain Ave and ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 151 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 Chestnut St, in addition to the nearby parking garages available to the public. This plan follows precedence set by surrounding businesses and coordinates with the existing neighborhood that is already pedestrian-friendly with cars parking in garages or on the street. Bike parking also exists along Mountain Ave, which can accommodate 4 bikes for the public. The required enclosed bicycle parking is located inside the building. Design & Architecture The 2-story, 7,370 sq foot building (plus a basement) is designed with purpose and creativity in mind. The design reflects an urban character that aligns with the vision outlined in the Downtown Plan. The building complements the historic character as well, by relation design features, utilizing high quality materials and incorporating transparency on both floors. Design features, such as faceted radial glazing on the corner and cladding patterns create visual interest and ample daylight into the building. The massing and scale of the building has similarity to The Armory building, with high-quality durable materials including laminate cladding, brick, and window glazing. Windows will also be similar in proportion and alignment to the existing windows on the Armory building. The mechanical screening on the roof will be stepped back from the façade to reduce the massing. The architectural roof elements on the Armory building will not be obscured by the new construction of the 300 E Mountain building. Compatibility Historic & Building The architecture will be compatible with the surrounding area, and also will celebrate the lot’s triangular shape and corner presence, while acknowledging the adjacent historic structure, the Armory. The building will incorporate the historic requirements and guidelines from the code, which will be reviewed by the HPC. Along with the historical compatibility, the height and use are also compatible for the area. The 2-story height and massing aligns with the adjacent Armory building and with the surrounding 2-4 story buildings within the area. The mix of building heights creates variety in the architectural landscape and supports a dynamic urban environment with a mix of uses. Downtown Plan According to the Downtown Plan, this area has many “creative industries” that are significant to the culture and economy. The Armory falls into this category as a music venue and with ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 152 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 several other creative industries located nearby, it makes this building an ideal addition to the area. The music marquee and box office are functional, while also adding character and complementing the artistic nature of the block. The Downtown Plan outlines 6 topic areas that help guide and enhance the vision of the area. For this project at 300 E Mountain, here are the policies that align with the intent of the plan: • Urban Design o Policy UD 1b: Transitions between Character Subdistricts. Provide appropriate transitions in building mass, bulk and scale between character subdistricts that have a different desired building scale, at the edge of Downtown adjacent to the Old Town Neighborhoods, and along the Poudre River Corridor o As a two-story building, with surrounding 2-4 story buildings, it is part of the transition in scale within the subdistricts of Old Town. o Policy UD 2d: Building Massing. Mitigate the impacts of larger buildings and additions through massing techniques that respond to positive, defining patterns in the surrounding area o Two story buildings are inherently compatible with the other buildings in the Historic Core due to the similar building heights. With the height consistent across the building frontage along Mountain Ave, this building won’t have any massing impacts on the other buildings. o Policy UD 3a: Context Sensitive Building Design. Clarify City requirements for the design character of new buildings to be context sensitive, drawing on existing patterns, terms of typology, building proportions and massing in the surrounding area o The proposed building will be sensitive to the surrounding context through articulation that is similar in mass and scale, materials will have similar type and scale, window proportions will have a similar pattern to the adjacent Armory building and the alignment will create continuity along the frontage. o Policy UD 3b: Building Materials and Fenestration. Clarify City requirements for building material and fenestration compatibility, while acknowledging the need for designs that exemplify the contemporary era of development o High-quality materials on the façade ensure that the building is compatible with other buildings, while some of the architectural features also showcase the artistic spirit of the area. o Policy UD 4a: New Buildings/Additions to Designated and Significant Buildings. Design new construction adjacent to historic buildings and additions to be ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 153 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and local preservation standards o The design of the building will adhere to historic preservation standards and will not impact or impede nearby historic resources. The architectural details will relate to the adjacent building and ensure that the historical significance of other buildings is not compromised. o Policy UD 5a: Street Level Interest. Street level space should be activated with building entrances, openings, windows and outdoor spaces for people o The building incorporates elements of transparency with many windows, high-quality materials, and a box office window that activates the street level and creates a place that people want to be. o Policy UD 5b: Streetscape Design. Continue a program of improving sidewalks along Downtown streets with paving details, street trees, pedestrian and landscape lighting, benches, planters, and other street furnishings appropriate to each character subdistrict o The sidewalks will remain accessible with existing street trees and bike racks, and the streetscape will ensure a safe and accessible pedestrian experience. o Policy UD 5e: Access Management. Limit curb cuts, driveways and drop-off areas, and restrict drive-through facilities that interrupt the continuity of pedestrian movements. o There are no proposed curb cuts, driveways or drop-off areas with this project, therefore the project aligns with this policy to limit these things and manage access to properties. • Transportation and Parking o Policy TB 2a: Bicycle Parking. Provide and manage easy-to-use, convenient bicycle parking that adequately accommodates existing and future demand. o There are convenient bicycle parking spaces located along Walnut and along Mountain that have availability to accommodate the existing uses as well as the proposed office and bar uses. • Market and Economy o Policy ME 1b: Commercial Space. Increase the supply of high-quality commercial space in the Downtown area. o The proposed office and Armory enhancements align with this policy in that it provides high-quality commercial space Downtown and is complementary to other surrounding uses. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 154 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 o Policy ME 1c: Employment. Strengthen primary employment, innovation, creative business and entrepreneurship in the Downtown area. o The office and Armory enhancements in the proposed project at 300 E Mountain will strengthen employment by providing additional office space Downtown. The project also fosters innovation and creative business because it supports to the Armory building next door, which is known for its cultural significance, creativity, and innovation. • Arts & Culture o Policy AC 1a: Networks. Establish and sustain networks for artists and creatives. o The greenroom proposed with this project will provide space for artists and creatives to work and the building will encourage as well as sustain networks for those artists by providing a place that furthers creativity and collaboration and provides additional accessibility with ramps and elevator for artists and staff. o Policy AC 1b: Around the Clock. Recognize and support Downtown’s 24-hour creative economy. o This project aligns with this policy in that it directly impacts the creative economy by increasing support for musical talent, providing more space for musical artists to create, and locating the project next to The Armory where artists can perform their work. • Energy and Environment o Policy EE 3b: Tree Canopy. Maintain and expand the Downtown tree canopy. o The existing trees along the adjacent streets will remain and the tree canopy will not be affected. o Policy EE 3c: Night Sky Protection. Reduce the impact of Downtown lighting on dark night skies, human health and wildlife habitat. o All proposed lighting will be Dark Sky compliant and will follow the requirements in the Land Use Code. By proposing these types of fixtures, the project will minimize the impact on human health and wildlife, while also enhancing safety onsite. Utilities The proposed project will be installing a new 6” Fire Service line off Mountain Avenue. An HDPE storm line will be installed within Chestnut Street that will route our downspout runoff to the existing storm line in Chestnut Street. The proposed project plans on utilizing the existing water meter pit/service ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 155 MINIMAL RISK. PAINLESS PROCESS. BEAUTIFUL SPACES. o: 970.224.5828 | w: ripleydesigninc.com RIPLEY DESIGN, INC. | 419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 200 | Fort Collins, CO 80521 line and existing sanitary service line. Overall, there is very minimal utility work associated with this project. Drainage & Grading The proposed project is going to be maintaining existing drainage and grading patterns. Because existing runoff rates and existing impervious values are being maintained no detention is required. The applicant team has worked with City Leadership on a payment in-lieu for a 50-year life cycle analysis using Urban Drainages (MHFD) model for regional LID requirements. These funds would be used for larger regional projects, like the Oak Street stormwater gardens or the wetland improvements that treat stormwater from downtown. Therefore, no LID will be installed with the proposed project. Impact to Natural Features There will be no impact to natural features or trees. The applicant team has met with Forestry onsite to discuss tree impacts and there will not be any tree removal or mitigation required. During construction, proper care will be taken to ensure that existing trees are minimally impacted, and all Forestry department requirements will be met. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 156 DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE Pl o t t e d B y : H a i l e y J o r g e n s e n La y o u t : C 0 C O V E R Pr i n t e d O n : 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 4 8 A M Fi l e N a m e : L 0 . 0 1 C O V E R . d w g ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER EPS GROUP Blaine Mathisen 301 N Howes St #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 VFLA ARCHITECTS Chris Aronson 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.1191 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com MOUNTAIN 300, LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.490.2626 OWNER/APPLICANT COVER BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE 01.15.2025BDR SUBMITTAL #101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ R24-002 C0 NORTH VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX SCALE: NTS LEGAL DESCRPTION SITE PLAN NOTES 1. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL PLANS. AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS. 2. REFER TO FINAL UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION FOR STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, UTILITY MAINS AND SERVICES, PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND UTILITY PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EASEMENTS, LOTS, TRACTS, STREETS, WALKS AND OTHER SURVEY INFORMATION. 4. ALL ROOFTOP AND GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS. IN CASES WHERE BUILDING PARAPETS DO NOT ACCOMPLISH SUFFICIENT SCREENING, THEN FREE-STANDING SCREEN WALLS MATCHING THE PREDOMINANT COLOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED. OTHER MINOR EQUIPMENT SUCH AS CONDUIT, METERS AND PLUMBING VENTS SHALL BE SCREENED OR PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING BUILDING SURFACES. 5. ALL CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED IN ONE PHASE UNLESS A PHASING PLAN IS SHOWN WITH THESE PLANS. 6. [IF APPLICABLE -- INCLUDE LANGUAGE FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED WITH PDP/ODP]. 7. [IF APPLICABLE] ALL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE GARAGE DOOR STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN 3.5.2(E) OF THE LAND USE CODE. 8. [IF APPLICABLE] A MINIMUM OF (NUMBER TBD) HOUSING MODELS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SHALL BE REQUIRED. THESE HOUSING MODELS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARDS AS OUTLINED IN 3.5.2(C) OF THE LAND USE CODE. 9. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING PROVIDED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOOT-CANDLE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.2.4 OF THE LAND USE CODE AND SHALL USE A CONCEALED, FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT SOURCE WITH SHARP CUT-OFF CAPABILITY SO AS TO MINIMIZE UP-LIGHT, SPILL LIGHT, GLARE AND UNNECESSARY DIFFUSION. 10. SIGNAGE AND ADDRESSING ARE NOT PERMITTED WITH THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY SEPARATE CITY PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SIGNS MUST COMPLY WITH CITY SIGN CODE UNLESS A SPECIFIC VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE CITY. 11. FIRE HYDRANTS MUST MEET OR EXCEED POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY STANDARDS. ALL BUILDINGS MUST PROVIDE AN APPROVED FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM. 12. ALL BIKE RACKS PROVIDED MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED. 13. ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. ACCESSIBLE RAMPS MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL STREET AND DRIVE INTERSECTIONS AND AT ALL DESIGNATED ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES. ACCESSABLE PARKING SPACES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:48 IN ANY DIRECTION. ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES MUST SLOPE NO MORE THAN 1:20 IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND WITH NO MORE THAN 1:48 CROSS SLOPE. 14. COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHT OF WAYS, STREET MEDIANS, AND TRAFFIC CIRCLES ADJACENT TO COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY A PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION. THE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL ADJACENT STREET SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALKS IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AREAS. AND, IF APPLICABLE: 15. THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL ON ALL STREET SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT. 16. PRIVATE CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R'S), OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IMPOSED ON LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, MAY NOT BE CREATED OR ENFORCED HAVING THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING OR LIMITING THE INSTALLATION OF XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING, SOLAR/PHOTO-VOLTAIC COLLECTORS (IF MOUNTED FLUSH UPON ANY ESTABLISHED ROOF LINE), CLOTHES LINES (IF LOCATED IN BACK YARDS), ODORCONTROLLED COMPOST BINS, OR WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL LOT BE PLANTED IN TURF GRASS. 17. ANY DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, DESTROYED, DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, SHALL BE REPLACED OR RESTORED TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS STANDARDS AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 18. FIRE LANE MARKING: A FIRE LANE MARKING PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WHERE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL, APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING FIRE LANE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS TO IDENTIFY SUCH ROADS OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF. THE MEANS BY WHICH FIRE LANES ARE DESIGNATED SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CLEAN AND REVISED NOVEMBER 12, 2015 3 LEGIBLE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AD BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VISIBILITY. 19. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: AN ADDRESSING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE PRIVATE DRIVE IS NAMED, MONUMENT SIGNAGE MAY BE REQUIRED TO ALLOW WAY-FINDING. ALL BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE, VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY, AND POSTED WITH A MINIMUM OF EIGHT-INCH NUMERALS ON A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND. WHERE ACCESS IS BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD AND THE BUILDING CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT, POLE OR OTHER SIGN OR MEANS SHALL BE USED TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURE. * REQUIRED SPACES ARE CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS: 5 SPACES PER 5,000 SQFT OF BAR AREA 1 SPACES PER 1,000 SQFT OF OFFICE AREA BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED REQUIRED ENCLOSED 1 EXISTING 8 8 LAND USE SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING D GROSS/ NET ACREAGE AREA (SF)% BUILDING COVERAGE 3875 100.00 DRIVES AND PARKING (EXCLUDES PUBLIC ROW, INCLUDES PRIVATE STREETS) 0 0.00 OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPE (EXCLUDES PUBLIC ROW, INCLUDES NHBZ) 0 0.00 HARDSCAPE (EXCLUDES PUBLIC ROW)0 0.00 TOTAL GROSS COVERAGE 3,875.00 SF (0.09 AC)100 AREA COVERAGE LAND USE CHART * REQUIRED BICYCLE SPACES ARE CALCULATED AS FOLLOWED: 1 BIKE PARKING SPACE PER 500 SQFT BAR AREA (MINIMUM 4) 1 BIKE PARKING SPACE PER 4,000 SQFT OF OFFICE AREA (MINIMUM 4, 2O% ENCLOSED) REQUIRED PARKING TOTAL SQFT PARKING REQUIRED (SPACES) LAND USE GENERAL OFFICE 9570 10 BAR 340 5 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED:15 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED:18 PROVIDED PARKING STANDARD 18 100% HANDICAP 0 TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 18 100% PLANNING CERTIFICATE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON THIS ________ DAY OF ________, 20__. DATE THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ADDRESS THIS DAY OF MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: AS . 20 .A.D., BY THE UNDERSIGNED DOES/DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THIS SITE PLAN AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I/WE ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON SAID SITE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Director Signature OWNER (SIGNED) NOTARY PUBLIC (PRINT NAME) LOTS 19 AND 20, BLOCK 11 OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS PLAT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO. 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW E MOUNTAIN AVE. CHE S T N U T S T . N. C O L L E G E A V E . RIVE R S I D E A V E . JEF F E R S O N S T . E MULBERRY ST. OT-C D OT-B POL D D RL D Sheet Number Sheet Title C0 COVER LS100 SITE PLAN LP100 LANDSCAPE PLAN LP300 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS LP301 TREE MITIGATION PLAN A1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A2 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES A3 EXTERIOR MATERIALS BOARD PH0.01 PHOTOMETRICS BUILDING METRICS BUILDING MAX HEIGHT 32'-0" ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 157 14 .... 1 1 1 1 1 14 4 11 4 11 4 # 4 4 PREPARED BY: Pl o t t e d B y : La y o u t : 1 Pr i n t e d O n : 11 4 1 1 4 Fi l e N a m e : 1 4 ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N 41 1 4 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER 1#1 1 141 41 1 4111 411 4 4 4 OWNER/APPLICANT 11#11 4 1 1 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 158 FIRST FLOOR100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR113' - 3" ARMORY T.O. PARAPET129' - 7" 300 E. MOUNTAIN (NEW CONSTRUCTION) FACADE FRONTAGE 74' - 4" (FOR REFERENCE) EXISTING 314 E. MOUNTAIN (THE ARMORY) FRONTAGE 49' - 11" (BEYOND / FADED): MECHANICAL SCREEN STEPPED BACK FROM FACADE HIGH-PRESSURE LAMINATE (HPL) CLADDING SYSTEM (BEYOND / FADED): EXISTING SKYLIGHT ASSEMBLY 30 ' - 0 " REFERENCE FOR 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE EXISTING F.D.C. FOR 314 E. MOUNTAIN AVE. SIGNAGE AREA: BY SEPARATE PERMITSIGNAGE AREAS: BY SEPARATE PERMIT BUILDING ADDRESS NUMERALS (FOR REFERENCE) 334 E. MOUNTAIN AVE. VERTICAL RUNNING BOND BRICK ACCENTS, TYP. PRECAST SILLS, TYP. FACETED GLASS CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM SPANDREL GLASS UPPER GLASS STOREFRONT, TYP. AWNING (24" PROJECTION) EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES, TYP. RECESSED ALCOVE (30") TYP. HEIGHT = 28' - 10" PEAK HEIGHT = 31' - 10" 3" EXPANSION JOINT TRANSACTION WINDOW S-CURVE FEATURE CORNICE FIRST FLOOR100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR113' - 3" 300 E. MOUNTAIN (NEW CONSTRUCTION) FACADE FRONTAGE 116' - 10" (FOR REFERENCE) EXISTING 314 E. MOUNTAIN (THE ARMORY) PROPERTY FRONTAGE 73' - 4" (BEYOND / FADED): MECHANICAL SCREEN STEPPED BACK FROM FACADE EXISTING NORTHWEST FACE OF ARMORY LIMITED TO NARROW CORNER WALL WITH INACTIVE DOOR.EXISTING NORTHERN FACES OF ARMORY ARE FEATURELESS STUCCO, AND DO NOT DEFINE HISTORIC CHARACTER (E) NW FACE 8' - 4"EXISTING SCREEN WALL, WITH FUTURE DESIGN DEPICTED RECESSED ALCOVE (36") 30 ' - 0 " REFERENCE FOR 30 FEET ABOVE GRADE PLANE WROUGHT-IRON LOOK SWING GATES OVER RECESSED ELECTRICAL GEAR SEMI-RECESSED GAS METER F.D.C.KNOX BOX @ RETURN WALL EMER.-ONLY EXIT DOOR FIRE RISER ACCESS DOORMAIN ENTRY DOORS EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES, TYP. EXISTING ELEC. TRANSFORMER TO SERVE NEW 300 E. MOUNTAIN BUILDING EXISTING ARMORY TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA OF 314 E. MOUNTAIN AVE. TO INCLUDE TRASH FOR NEW 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVE. BUILDING CANOPY (36" PROJECTION) SIGNAGE AREAS BY SEPARATE PERMIT (BEYOND / FADED): (E) ARMORY ROOF & SKYLIGHT SIGNAGE AREA: BY SEPARATE PERMIT TO EXISTING ALLEY CORNICE PEAK HEIGHT = 31' - 10" TYP. PARAPET HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE PLANE = 28' - 10" BRICK SOLDIER COURSE CORNICE AND HEADERS, TYP. EXISTING BUILDINGS BEYOND EXISTING BRICK WALL S-CURVE FEATURE CORNICE PRIMARY EXTERIOR FINISHES MODULAR BRICK: "GRAPHITE VELOUR" BY ENDICOTT. HORIZONTAL RUNNING BOND. HIGH-PRESSURE LAMINATE (HPL): "COPPER YELLOW" WITH "ROCK" FINISH BY TRESPA. SKEWED JOINT PATTERNING. ARCHITECTURAL METAL: METAL WALL PANEL "COR-TEN AZP RAW" BY BERRIDGE. 8" HORIZONTAL SEAMS ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER EPS GROUP Blaine Mathisen 301 N Howes St #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 VFLA ARCHITECTS Chris Aronson 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.1191 MOUNTAIN 300, LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.490.2626 OWNER/APPLICANT 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORT COLLINS, CO 01 BDR SUBMITTAL #1 01.08.2025 2023-53 419 Canyon Ave Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 970.224.1191 | www.VFLA.com Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SA R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R S VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 1/ 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 4 3 : 4 7 A M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 3 0 0 & 3 1 4 E M o u n t a i n A v e / 3 0 0 - 3 1 4 E M o u n t a i n _ V F L A_ R 2 4 . r v t 1/8/2025 11:43:47 AM A1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTHWEST 0' SCALE: 4' 8' 1/8" = 1'-0" 16'32' 0' SCALE: 4' 8' 1/8" = 1'-0" 16'32' ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 159 PRIMARY EXTERIOR FINISHES MODULAR BRICK: "GRAPHITE VELOUR" BY ENDICOTT. HORIZONTAL RUNNING BOND. HIGH-PRESSURE LAMINATE (HPL): "COPPER YELLOW" WITH "ROCK" FINISH BY TRESPA. SKEWED JOINT PATTERNING. ARCHITECTURAL METAL: METAL WALL PANEL "COR-TEN AZP RAW" BY BERRIDGE. 8" HORIZONTAL SEAMS ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER EPS GROUP Blaine Mathisen 301 N Howes St #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 VFLA ARCHITECTS Chris Aronson 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.1191 MOUNTAIN 300, LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.490.2626 OWNER/APPLICANT 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORT COLLINS, CO 01 BDR SUBMITTAL #1 01.08.2025 2023-53 419 Canyon Ave Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 970.224.1191 | www.VFLA.com Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SA R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R S VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 1/ 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 4 4 : 1 6 A M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 3 0 0 & 3 1 4 E M o u n t a i n A v e / 3 0 0 - 3 1 4 E M o u n t a i n _ V F L A_ R 2 4 . r v t 1/8/2025 11:44:16 AM A2 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES EXT. PERSPECTIVE - MOUNTAIN AVE VIEW EXT. PERSPECTIVE - CHESTNUT ST VIEW EXT. PERSPECTIVE - MOUNTAIN AVE INTERSECTION VIEW EXT. PERSPECTIVE - OVERVIEW ALL SIGNAGE DEPICTED IS FOR PURPOSE OF EXAMPLE ONLY. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE BY SEPARATE PERMITS. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 160 PRIMARY EXTERIOR FINISHES MODULAR BRICK: "GRAPHITE VELOUR" BY ENDICOTT. HORIZONTAL RUNNING BOND. HIGH-PRESSURE LAMINATE (HPL): "COPPER YELLOW" WITH "ROCK" FINISH BY TRESPA. SKEWED JOINT PATTERNING. ARCHITECTURAL METAL: METAL WALL PANEL "COR-TEN AZP RAW" BY BERRIDGE. 8" HORIZONTAL SEAMS ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER EPS GROUP Blaine Mathisen 301 N Howes St #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 VFLA ARCHITECTS Chris Aronson 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.1191 MOUNTAIN 300, LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.490.2626 OWNER/APPLICANT 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORT COLLINS, CO 01 BDR SUBMITTAL #1 01.08.2025 2023-53 419 Canyon Ave Suite 200, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 970.224.1191 | www.VFLA.com Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SA R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R S VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARONSON ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 1/ 8 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 4 4 : 1 6 A M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 3 0 0 & 3 1 4 E M o u n t a i n A v e / 3 0 0 - 3 1 4 E M o u n t a i n _ V F L A_ R 2 4 . r v t 1/8/2025 11:44:16 AM A3 EXTERIOR MATERIALS BOARD EXTERIOR MODULAR BRICK CHARCOAL TONE WITH INTEGRALLY-COLORED MORTAR HIGH-PRESSURE LAMINATE COPPER YELLOW TONE WITH TEXTURED SURFACE METAL WALL PANEL PREFINISHED WITH SYNTHESIZED COR-TEN PATTERN ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 161 W G SS UE M ST ST OE OE G SS SS W W UT UT CTVU CTVU UE F F = PROPERTY BOUNDARY = STORMWATER UTILITY = WATER UTILITY = GAS UTILITY = SANITARY SEWER UTILITY = EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY = MITIGATION TREE = EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY = EXISTING STORMWATER = EXISTING GAS LINE = EXISTING SANITARY UTILITY = EXISTING WATER LINE = EXISTING TELEPHONE UTILITY = EXISTING CABLE = PLANTING BED, SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH = UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC = FIRE SERVICE LINE = EXISTING TREE = STREETLIGHT = SIGN = BIKE RACK (4 SPACES) = PROPOSED STREET TREE = MOVABLE PLANTERS, TYP. X X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G TT T T T T T T VAULT ELEC ELEC TRAFFIC VAULT VAULT ELEC CONTROL IRR CONTROL IRR CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M CO M M CO M M COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W ELE C BRK R G F.O. C.O.V.P. CSC S WV WV D D S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W G G CO M M WV WV G ELE C T T F.O.VAULT ELEC G ELEC F.O. VAU L T W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S PH-199 PH-198 PH-197 PH-196 PH-193 PH-194 PROPOSED BUILDING - 3875 SQFT 2 STORY ADJACENT PROPERTY: FORT COLLINS ARMORY 2 STORY 6 - MS 1 - SR 2 - JB 6 - SD F FDC EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE (110'-0 R.O.W.) EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE (113'-0 R.O.W.) ADJ A C E N T P R O P E R T Y : ELIZ A B E T H H O T E L 4 S T O R Y CHESTNUT ALLEY (20' R.O.W.) (ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS) PROPOSED TREE GRATES, TYP. PROPOSED TREE BY OTHERS CHE S T N U T S T R E E T (63 ' R . O . W . ) SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT CAL TREES SR 1 SYRINGA RETICULATA / JAPANESE TREE LILAC B & B 2" SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE SHRUBS JB 2 JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'BLUE CHIP' / BLUE CHIP CREEPING JUNIPER 5 GAL PERENNIALS SD 6 SEDUM SPURIUM 'DRAGON'S BLOOD' / DRAGON'S BLOOD TWO ROW STONECROP 5 GAL ORNAMENTAL GRASS MS 6 MISCANTHUS SINENSIS 'ADAGIO' / ADAGIO EULALIA GRASS 5 GAL DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE Pl o t t e d B y : H a i l e y J o r g e n s e n La y o u t : L P 1 0 0 L A N D S C A P E P L A N Pr i n t e d O n : 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 4 8 A M Fi l e N a m e : L P 1 0 0 L a n d s c a p e . d w g ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 MOUNTAIN 300, LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.490.2626 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER EPS GROUP Blaine Mathisen 301 N Howes St #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 VFLA ARCHITECTS Chris Aronson 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.1191 OWNER/APPLICANT 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com LANDSCAPE PLAN BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE 01.15.2025BDR SUBMITTAL #101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ R24-002 0 05 10 20 SCALE: 1"=10'-0" LP100 NORTH LEGEND ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 162 SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT CAL TREES SR 1 SYRINGA RETICULATA / JAPANESE TREE LILAC B & B 2" SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE SHRUBS JB 2 JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'BLUE CHIP' / BLUE CHIP CREEPING JUNIPER 5 GAL PERENNIALS SD 6 SEDUM SPURIUM 'DRAGON'S BLOOD' / DRAGON'S BLOOD TWO ROW STONECROP 5 GAL ORNAMENTAL GRASS MS 6 MISCANTHUS SINENSIS 'ADAGIO' / ADAGIO EULALIA GRASS 5 GAL DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE Pl o t t e d B y : H a i l e y J o r g e n s e n La y o u t : L P 3 0 0 L A N D S C A P E N O T E S & D E T A I L S Pr i n t e d O n : 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 4 8 A M Fi l e N a m e : L P 3 0 0 N o t e s . d w g ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER EPS GROUP Blaine Mathisen 301 N Howes St #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 VFLA ARCHITECTS Chris Aronson 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.1191 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com MOUNTAIN 300, LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 p. 970.490.2626 OWNER/APPLICANT LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE 01.15.2025BDR SUBMITTAL #101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ R24-002 LP300 1.PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT. 2.IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 3.TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 4.SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132. 5.INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6.MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION. 7.REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS. 8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES: 40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES 6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES. 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES 9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(A). 10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE 12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -- AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. 14. IRRIGATED TURF SHALL BE TEXAS BLUEGRASS/KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS HYBRID REVEILLE OR APPROVED EQUAL. 15. EDGING BETWEEN GRASS AND SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE 18" X 4" ROLLED TOP STEEL SET LEVEL WITH TOP OF SOD OR APPROVED EQUAL. 16. STRAW / COCONUT SOIL RETENTION BLANKET SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL SEEDED AREAS ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1. GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES STREET TREE NOTES 1. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. 5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -- STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND SITE LIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS. TREE PROTECTION NOTES 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW: 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. OVERALL PLANT LIST TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 OVER 19 15 SHOULD DISCREPANCIES BE FOUND BETWEEN THE QUANTITIES LISTED IN THE PLANT TABLE AND THE QUANTITIES GRAPHICALLY SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, THEN THE QUANTITIES SHOWN BY GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS SHALL CONTROL. Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment. 4' - 0 " Maintain existing grade with the tree protection fence unless otherwise indicated on the plans. 2" x 6' steel posts or approved equal. Tree Protection fence: High density polyethylene fencing with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; Color- orange. Steel posts installed at 8' o.c. 5" thick layer of mulch. Notes: 1- See specifications for additional tree protection requirements. 2- If there is no existing irrigation, see specifications for watering requirements. 3- No pruning shall be performed except by approved arborist. 4- No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal. 5- See site preparation plan for any modifications with the Tree Protection area. SECTION VIEW KEEP OUT TREE PROTECTION AREA 8.5" x 11" sign laminated in plastic spaced every 50' along the fence. TREE PROTECTION 3/16" = 1'-0"OP-EA3-021 PRUNING NOTES: 1. DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE SHRUB AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. 2. IF FORM IS COMPROMISED BY PRUNING, REPLACE SHRUB GENERAL NOTES: 1. SET SHRUB PLUMB. SPACE PLANTS, AND PLACE FOR BEST EFFECT. 2. SET SO THAT TOP OF ROOT FLARE IS 1-2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE. 3. ECOLOGICALLY SOUND, BIODEGRADABLE WEED BARRIER SHALL BE USED. BLACK PLASTIC (POLYETHYLENE) SHALL NOT BE USED AS WEED BARRIER FABRIC. SCARIFY SIDES AND USE 1:1 SLOPE MULCH RING; REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MULCH MATERIAL. APPLY MULCH AT 1.25 CU. YARDS PER 100 SQ. FEET AT A DEPTH NO LESS THAN 4 INCHES. PLACE ON GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH CANE AND STEMS. REMOVE CONTAINER (INCLUDING FIBER CONTAINERS), BASKETS, WIRE, ETC. FROM THE ROOT BALL. BREAK UP ENCIRCLING ROOTS WITH SHARP KNIFE OR SPADE. SPLIT BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL. PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT. PRIOR TO MULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE SHRUB. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAX. 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL. WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS 2 X BALL DIA. 4" HIGH WATER SAUCER SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: NTS3 L-PL2-PLA-14 PRE V A I L I N G W I N D GENERAL NOTES: 1. SET SO THAT TOP OF ROOT FLARE IS 1-2" HIGHER THAN FINISHED GRADE. 2. MARK NORTH SIDE OF TREE IN NURSERY AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 3. SCARIFY SIDES OF HOLE LEAVING 1:1 SLOPE. 4. TREE RINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL TREES WITHIN TURF & NATIVE AREAS. 2 STRAND 12 GAUGE GAL. WIRE (TWIST TO TIGHTEN) & GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS THREE (3) SIX INCH STEEL T-POSTS (TO BE SUPPLIED BY CITY OF GREELEY) REMOVE ALL WIRE, TWINE BURLAP, MESH AND CONTAINERS FROM ENTIRE ROOT BALL AND TRUNK PLAN VIEW - THREE STAKES 3 X BALL DIA. TREE PLANTING DETAIL - STEEL POSTS SCALE: NTS ROUND TOPPED SOIL BERM 4" HIGH X 8" WIDE ABOVE ROOT BALL SURFACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE ROOT BALL. BERM SHALL BEGIN AT ROOT BALL PERIPHERY. (OMIT IN TURF AREAS) BACKFILL WITH BLEND OF EXISTING SOIL AND A MAXIMUM 20% (BY VOL.) ORGANIC MATERIAL PLACE FIRMLY BUT DON'T TAMP OR COMPACT AROUND ROOT BALL. WATER WATER THOROUGHLY TO SETTLE AND REMOVE AIR POCKETS. PRIOR TO MULCHING, LIGHTLY TAMP SOIL AROUND THE ROOT BALL IN 6" LIFTS TO BRACE TREE. DO NOT OVER COMPACT. WHEN THE PLANTING HOLE HAS BEEN BACKFILLED, POUR WATER AROUND THE ROOT BALL TO SETTLE THE SOIL. ORGANIC WOOD MULCH RING; TO BE APPLIED AT 1.25 CU. YARDS PER 100 SQ. FEET AT A DEPTH NO LESS THAN 4 INCHES. RING TO BE A MINIMUM OF 6' IN DIAMETER. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL RESTS ON EXISTING OR RECOMPACTED SOIL L-PL2-PLA-023 MATCH GRADE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE. TREE GRATE 1" = 1'-0" 8'-0" 334" 2" EXISTING GRADE TO REMAIN OVER ROOTS 1 3/4" x 1 3/4" x 1/4" ANGLE IRON 1/2" NELSON STUD WELDED TO FRAME 3' MIN. CRUSHED STONE TO DRAIN WOOD MULCH NOTE: KEEP SUBGRADE COMPACTION TO A MINIMUM. EXCAVATE BY USING WATER SPADE. BACKFILL WITH STRUCTURAL SOIL OP-EA3-052 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 163 COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M COM M CO M M CO M M COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E G G G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W ELE C BRK R G F.O. C.O.V.P. CSC S WV WV D D S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W G G CO M M WV WV G ELE C T T F.O.VAULT ELEC G ELEC F.O. VAU L T W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S PH-199 PH-198 PH-197 PH-196 PH-193 PH-194 X X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G TT T T T T T T VAULT ELEC ELEC TRAFFIC VAULT CONTROL IRR CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV CTV PROPOSED BUILDING - 3875 SQFT 2 STORY ADJACENT PROPERTY: FORT COLLINS ARMORY 2 STORY PROPOSED BUILDING - 3875 SQFT 2 STORY #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE (110'-0 R.O.W.) ADJ A C E N T P R O P E R T Y : ELIZ A B E T H H O T E L 4 S T O R Y EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE (113' R.O.W.) CHE S T N U T S T R E E T (63 ' R . O . W . ) CHESTNUT ALLEY (20' R.O.W.) (ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS) PROPOSED TREE GRATES, TYP. PROPOSED TREE BY OTHERS #6 FDC W G SS UE ST ST OE OE G SS SS W W UT UT CTVU CTVU UE F F = PROPERTY BOUNDARY = STORMWATER UTILITY = WATER UTILITY = GAS UTILITY = SANITARY SEWER UTILITY = EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY = EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITY = EXISTING STORMWATER = EXISTING GAS LINE = EXISTING SANITARY UTILITY = EXISTING WATER LINE = EXISTING TELEPHONE UTILITY = EXISTING CABLE = UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC = FIRE SERVICE LINE = EXISTING TREE DRAWING NUMBER: ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE Pl o t t e d B y : H a i l e y J o r g e n s e n La y o u t : L P 3 0 1 T R E E M I T I G A T I O N P L A N Pr i n t e d O n : 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 4 8 A M Fi l e N a m e : L P 1 0 1 M i t i g a t i o n . d w g ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTIT L E M E N T DRAW I N G S NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Klara Rossouw 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 BUSINESS NAME Contact Person 1234 Anywhere St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 012.345.6789 ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / LAND PLANNER EPS GROUP Blaine Mathisen 301 N Howes St #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.221.4158 VFLA ARCHITECTS Chris Aronson 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.1191 OWNER/APPLICANT 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com TREE MITIGATION PLAN BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 300 EAST MOUNTAIN AVENUE 01.15.2025BDR SUBMITTAL #101 FORT COLLINS, CO KR HJ R24-002 LP301 NORTH 0 05 10 20 SCALE: 1"=10'-0" TREE DBH CONDITION KEEP / SAVE 1.HONEY LOCUST 0'-10" FAIR +KEEP 2.SHUMARD OAK 1'-0"FAIR KEEP 3.SHUMARD OAK 1'-0" FAIR +KEEP 4.SHUMARD OAK 0'-10"FAIR +KEEP 5.SHUMARD OAK 0'-8" FAIR -KEEP 6. CRABAPPLE 0'-5"FAIR KEEP LEGEND ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 164 OAHP1403 Official Eligibility Determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible - NR Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Determined Not Eligible - NR Determined Eligible - SR Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible - SR (Page 1 of 22) Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. Identification 1.Resource Number:5LR14682 2.Temporary Resource Number: Not Applicable 3.County:Larimer 4.City:Fort Collins 5.Historic Building Name:Fort Collins Automobile Garage Paramont Laundry Drive-Through 6.Current Building Name:Not Applicable 7.Building Address:300 E. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 8.Owner Name & Address:Mountain 300 LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 165 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 2 of 22) II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6th Township 7 North Range 69 West SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 12 10. UTM Reference Zone: 13 Easting: 493780 Northing: 4492945 11. USGS Quad Name: Fort Collins, Colorado Year: 1960 (revised 1984) Map scale: 7.5' 12. Lot(s): 19-20 & Part of Vacated Block: 11 Chestnut Street Addition: Fort Collins Original Townsite Year of Addition: 1873 13. Boundary Description and Justification: This lega lly defined parcel (97123-09-017), clearly delineated by an urban lot and block description, includes the historic commercial building that is built out to the property lines. III. Architectural Description 14. Building Plan: Triangular Plan 15. Dimensions in Feet: 55' x 60' x 75’ (appx.) 16. Number of Stories: 1 17. Primary External Wall Material(s): Brick, Stucco 18. Roof Configuration: Flat Roof 19. Primary External Roof Material: Unknown 20. Special Features: Glass Block 21. General Architectural Description: This one-story commercial building is of brick construction and has a triangular footprint measuring approximately 55’ x 60’ x 75’. It rests upon a concrete foundation, the exterior walls are clad in stucco, and the roof is flat. Facing toward the south and southwest, the building has primary entries on both of these walls due to a cutaway corner on the southwest that is located below a cantilevered canopy. Exterior alterations dating from different periods along the Mountain Avenue façade make it currently appear as if this were two buildings. However, its history of development and use show that this in fact a single building and it is treated as such in this site form. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 166 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 3 of 22) South Wall (front): The south façade appears to be two different buildings due to a remodel of the eastern half that was completed in recent years. The stuccoed wall on the eastern half of the facade holds a central entry containing a commercial glass door flanked by sidelights and with a transom light above. On either side of the entry are fixed four-light windows. Horizontal stone banding is present below the windows and above the entry and windows are three metal canopies supported by metal rods. The upper wall has three horizontal bands of glass block windows and diamond-shaped ceramic tile ornaments. The wall is capped with metal flashing. All of these features are modern and were installed over a decade ago, resulting in a complete redesign of the historic façade. The west half of the building has a south-facing entrance that contains a commercial glass door with a transom above. Along the stuccoed wall east of this entry is a band of three large single-light fixed windows set at an angle into wood frames. Facing toward the southwest in the cutaway corner under the canopy is the main entrance into this area of the building. This holds a pair of commercial glass doors with tall sidelights. Flanking the doors are two single- light fixed windows. The open southwest corner of the building outside the southwest entrance is formed by a cantilevered roof, or canopy, that extends to the corner of the property. This has a concrete floor and the roof is supported by four metal pipe posts. Three slender metal pipe posts with rails and legs have been installed to provide additional support. The south-facing upper wall spanning the west half of the building is finished with metal paneling with a vertical ribbed pattern. Horizontal metal flashing is present above and below this paneling. A simple theater marquee is present on the face of this wall. East Wall (side): This side wall holds no entries or windows. It is completely obscured from view by the abutting two-story building to the east. According to historic records, the west wall of the adjacent building actually forms the east wall of the building under study. Northwest Wall (side): This wall runs along the Chestnut Street side of the building. Present along its length are two entries that contain metal slab doors, one with a small square light. Toward the north end of the building are two windows. One of these is a pair of louvered windows, each with five horizontal lights set in metal frames. The other is a small single-light fixed window with a wood frame that is set high in the wall. 22. Architectural Style / Building Type: Commercial ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 167 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 4 of 22) 23. Landscaping or Special Setting Features: This building is situated on a downtown commercial property and occupies the entire lot. It is surrounded by streets, wide sidewalks, and commercial buildings in all directions. While some of these buildings are historic, others are not. The adjacent two-story building to the east at 314 E. Mountain Ave. is the historic and National Register-listed Fort Collins Armory, which also served as the home of Paramont Laundry and Cleaners for many years (5LR1546). At its southwest corner, the building at 300 E. Mountain Ave. faces onto the complex intersection of Mountain Avenue with Chestnut Street, Walnut Street, and Mathews Street. 24. Associated Buildings, Features or Objects: Not Applicable IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1907 Actual: Source of Information: “Will Build a $6,000 Garage,” Fort Collins Courier, 26 June 1907, p. 1 26. Architect: Unknown Source of Information: Not Applicable 27. Builder/Contractor: Merritt G. Conley Source of Information: “Will Build a $6,000 Garage,” Fort Collins Courier, 26 June 1907, p. 1 28. Original Owner: Samuel H. Clammer and F. A. Carleton Source of Information: “Will Build a $6,000 Garage,” Fort Collins Courier, 26 June 1907, p. 1 29. Construction History: Archival documentation shows that the commercial building on this property was constructed during the summer of 1907. It appears to have remained largely unchanged for almost two decades after it was built. In 1925, the building was expanded with a triangular addition to the west, taking it to its current footprint, which occupies all of lots 19 and 20 along with a small vacated portion of Chestnut Street. Additional remodeling of the exterior occurred in 1947-1948 and between 1956 and 1969. Today these would be considered historic alterations to the building. Since the 1990s, the building has experienced additional changes to its exterior, the most notable of which is a complete remodel of the façade on the eastern area of the building. 30. Original Location: Yes ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 168 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 5 of 22) V. Historical Associations 31. Original Use(s): Commerce / Specialty Store 32. Intermediate Use(s): Commerce / Specialty Store Recreation / Theater 33. Current Use(s): Vacant / Not in Use 34. Site Type(s): Auto Sales and Service Garage, Drive-Through Laundry, Movie Theater 35. Historical background: Although lots 19 and 20 in block 11 were situated along Mountain Avenue on the eastern side of Fort Collins’ expanding downtown commercial district, they remained vacant until shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. By the early 1900s, the two lots were owned together with the adjacent vacant lots 17 and 18 to the east by prominent Boulder banker, property investor, and philanthropist Charles Buckingham. Over the following four decades, the ownership history of these four lots would be tied together although their uses soon diverged. Buckingham appears to have been sitting on the vacant property for years, and in February 1907 he sold the lots to Sam H. Clammer and Frank A. Carleton for $2,500. At that time, Clammer was a banker, property investor, and mayor of Fort Collins. Carleton’s identity remains unclear and it is unknown if he ever lived in the city. Clammer and Carleton arranged to lease lots 17 and 18 for ten years at a rate of $1,800 per year to the State of Colorado. On those lots, the owners agreed to erect a two-story armory for Company F of the Colorado National Guard, which had been meeting in an inadequate space downtown. Ground was broken in early March 1907 and the armory was completed by the end of July. On June 26, the Fort Collins Courier reported that Clammer and Carleton had awarded a contract worth about $6,000 to Merritt G. Conley for the construction of an automobile garage on vacant lots 19 and 20 that would abut the west wall of the armory. Conley was in demand as a local builder and was starting to wrap up his work on the armory, allowing him to shift resources to the garage project. The newspaper also reported that a five-year lease would be taken out on the garage by the Fort Collins Automobile Company. The new firm was formed by local residents Lawrence Nightingale, Dr. C. Mackay Smith and F. D. Giddings, together with Denver auto racer and “automobile expert” Arthur E. Evans. The partners planned to use the Fort Collins Automobile Garage for sales and repair services. They would also provide an electric charger, allowing Fort Collins residents to purchase electric cars for the first time. According to several newspaper articles from the early 1900s, this building was the first automotive sales and service garage to open in the city. Archival research supports the assertion that it was certainly one of the first as at least one other shop opened that same year. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 169 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 6 of 22) Construction took about one month and the Fort Collins Automobile Garage opened for business by early August 1907 with a capacity of twelve cars. On August 7, the Courier reported that the new garage’s main room measured 50’ x 93’ and was equipped with “the most modern machinery, run by a five horse power motor. Every part of an automobile can be made in this shop, from the engine up, and there is nothing in the repair line that cannot be attended to.” Autos offered for sale included models produced by Oldsmobile, Ford and Buick, along with Columbus, the Thomas Flyer, and the Columbia electric car. The repair shop was initially managed by Arthur Evans, and in January 1908 he purchased the business (but not the property) with partner C. G. Andrews. They continued to operate as the Fort Collins Automobile Garage and that month announced the arrival of a Mercury Arc Rectifier that would charge the batteries used in customers’ electric and internal-combustion vehicles. By the beginning of 1909, the garage was operating under the same name under the management of local machinists and automotive repair experts William G. Bell and Richard A. Bradley. In March 1911, the Courier reported that Bell had closed a deal with the Estes Park-Fort Collins Transportation Company, which used the garage to house and maintain its fleet of Stanley Steamers. The firm transported passengers between the two communities, using the building as its Fort Collins base through at least 1913 and possibly into early 1916. The garage faced south onto Mountain Avenue, with a back wall running along the diagonal Chestnut Street frontage. Off the west side of the building was a small vacant triangular piece of property that was platted as part of Chestnut Street. In February 1908, the Courier published an article about this parcel, writing that “it isn’t much bigger than the sole of a shoe, and is of no earthly value for any building purpose, there being hardly room enough on it for a shoe blacking stand, but there is ample space for a public flagstaff, something the city lacks.” The local George H. Thomas post of the Grand Army of the Republic (G.A.R.) offered to erect a flagpole, referred to as a Liberty Pole, on the property, with Company F of the Colorado National Guard providing the flag. City council considered the matter in early May and voted to approve the request. The flagpole would be erected, and plans (apparently unfulfilled) called for two cannon and a stack of cannon balls to be placed at its base. A brass plaque honoring veterans would also be installed on the pole. Rushing matters was the fact that a three-day encampment, or reunion, of the G.A.R. was scheduled to take place in Fort Collins in a couple weeks, with events centered around the armory. As the city prepared for the influx of hundreds of veterans from across the state, buildings around town were decorated with flags and patriotic bunting. On May 20, the Courier reported that attendees would be directed to the armory by the city’s new landmark, the 77’-tall flagpole that had been installed at Mountain and Chestnut. All of the expenses for the pole, the flag, and their installation were covered by the local G.A.R. post. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 170 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 7 of 22) The flagpole remained at this location for more than a decade. In November 1917, the city vacated the triangular property, finding that the survey lines there were incorrect. Yet the flagpole continued to stand. A few years later, in April 1920, the pole was removed and the Courier lamented that it was “now lying in the dust, forsaken and forgotten.” With the space open and available for new use, the newspaper informed its readers that the Fort Collins Garage planned to extend its building into the space through the construction of a triangular addition. However, the building was not enlarged until several years later. Ownership of the property, complete with the armory and garage, began to change not long after the buildings were constructed. With each transaction, they were sold as a single property that included both buildings occupying all of lots 17 to 20. In December 1907, Samuel Clammer sold his one-half interest in the property to farmer Sidney W. Clark for $12,500. One year later, in November 1908, Clark sold this same share to Rev. George P. Avery for $15,000. Avery held onto the property for just under two years before selling it for $15,000 to farmer and stockman Thomas H. Hale in September 1910. Hale sold his ownership share in January 1911 to Nettie M. Russell for $15,000. Married to concrete contractor Loren Russell, in July 1912 she transferred the property to farmer Lemuel N. Ward and his wife Ida. The other one-half ownership in the armory and garage property was sold by Frank Carleton in June 1908 to businessman George E. Toomey for $15,000. Over one year later, in September 1909, Toomey sold his share to Lemuel and Ida Ward for $16,500. Through these various transactions, between 1909 and 1912 the Wards came to own the entire property occupied by the Fort Collins Armory and the Fort Collins Automobile Garage. They held onto the buildings through January 1914, when they sold them to Chicago men’s clothing wholesaler Edward G. Tallburg. How he came to be involved with the property from such a distance is unclear. Sometime between 1914 and 1916, Lemuel and Ida Ward and Edward and M. N. Tallburg defaulted on a loan they had taken out against the property. As they went through foreclosure, the property was seized by the Larimer County sheriff. In February 1917, the court judgement was issued and the sheriff sold the property at public auction to Fort Collins banker, irrigation executive, and land developer L. C. Moore. During the summer of 1916, the building was first occupied by the Fort Collins Garage operated by Ed Morrison and his son Harvey, who had arrived from Durango, Colorado. They specialized in the sale and repair of Chevrolet automobiles. In December 1919, Moore sold the property to insurance man Edwin A. Schlichter and realtor William P. Withrow, who would hold onto the buildings for more than five years. Around that time, the Fort Collins Garage was under the ownership of father and son, Lucius and Lionel Brunton, who operated it as the Fort Collins Garage and Machine Company. They provided repair services for both automobiles and tractors. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 171 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 8 of 22) In 1921-1922, the Fort Collins Garage and Machine Company was operated by Charles C. Allbritten, who had recently moved to the city. He initially provided welding, machining and repair services, along with parts for all makes of automobiles. However, the garage was soon converted to a self-service facility, where owners could bring their cars and the shop provided tools and expert guidance for all types of repairs. One advertisement in the Courier in February 1922 referred to it as an “Automobile Cafeteria.” Between the summer of 1922 and spring of 1923, the garage was operated by two sets of partners. The first of these were named Gordon and Goodrich, and they were replaced by Wilkin and Anderson. The armory on East Mountain was heavily used over the years by the National Guard and the Fort Collins community. By the early 1920s, it was hosting prizefights, wrestling matches, basketball games, dances, roller skating and other community events. It was also in regular use by Company H of the Colorado National Guard, a unit that focused upon machine gun training. In 1922, a new armory was constructed on South College Avenue east of the college campus and the building on East Mountain ceased to be used for its original purpose. Although abandoned by the National Guard, the building continued to serve as an entertainment and recreation venue. Its use was about to change again, eventually impacting use of the garage building next door. In March 1925, Edwin Schlichter sold the armory and garage buildings on lots 17 to 20 to Ralph H. Sims, the latest owner of the Fort Collins Garage. Included in the sale for the first time was the triangular piece of vacated Chestnut Street to the west that for many years had held the city’s prominent flagpole. Shortly after purchasing the building, Sims had the garage enlarged with a triangular cinder block addition that occupied the western parcel. In addition to the Fort Collins Garage, the building was occupied by G. Earl Mendenhall auto repairs and J. E. Lesher, who was an agent for Studebaker motor cars. Transfers of the armory and garage continued for many years. Ralph Sims sold the property in May 1929 to coal merchants Joseph H. Irwin and Wayne H. Hackett (he later became the US Commissioner stationed at Rocky Mountain National Park). The partners brought ownership stability to the property for the first time in its history as they held onto it for sixteen years. However, the garage’s occupants continued to change frequently. Their first tenant was the Henderson Motor Company, owned by J. Ray Henderson, selling and servicing automobiles manufactured by Studebaker, Erskine and Hupmobile. By 1933, the property was occupied by the E. R. Hopper Motor Company, owned by Everett R. Hopper. Around 1936, Wayne Hackett opened the Mountain Motor Company, offering sales and service of DeSoto and Plymouth model cars, along with Diamond T trucks. The Mountain Motor Company remained there for a number of years. Around 1936, the western corner of the building held the Deines Service Station managed by Leland E. Karst, and by 1940 this was known as the Karst Service Station. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 172 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 9 of 22) The post-World War II era brought continued change to the garage at Mountain and Chestnut in terms of its ownership and use. In March 1945, Irwin and Hackett sold the property to Samuel Day. Consisting solely of lots 19 and 20 along with the vacated area of Chestnut, this transfer marked the first separation of the garage from the adjacent armory building. Day used the garage to operate the Mountain Motor Company, which sold new and used cars in addition to providing repair services. He also completed another remodel and addition in 1947-1948. In September 1950, Day sold the garage to Holt Chew, owner of the Holt Chew Motor Company, a Chrysler and Plymouth dealership at 1971 Downing Street in Denver. It appears that Chew did not use the building in Fort Collins for his own dealership but instead rented it to a tenant. Between 1950 and 1952, the garage was occupied by a Hudson dealership called Moss Motors, owned by Greeley auto dealer Lionel “Shorty” Moss. A county assessor’s photograph of the building dating from 1950 shows that the Mountain Avenue frontage consisted of the original repair garage on the east and the enclosed showroom addition on the west. The garage space had two vehicle entrances along with a band of four showroom windows. The building also featured a decorative stepped parapet wall faced with geometric banding. To the west, the showroom addition also had a band of four south-facing showroom windows and possibly more on the west side. Holt Chew held onto the garage until November 1953, when he sold it to Herbert R. and Ilda M. Ricker. Herbert was in business with his brother Kenneth and they owned and operated the Ricker Brothers Wholesale Candy & Tobacco Company. Presumably they used the building as a warehouse and distribution facility. In August 1956, the Rickers sold the property to Harold H. and Goldie M. Howe, who in 1945 had purchased the former armory building next door. Once again, the two adjacent properties were under single ownership. Harold and Goldie Howe, together with partners Robert and Charleen Howe, owned Paramont (often misspelled Paramount) Laundry and Cleaners, which started in the basement of the former armory building in 1930. With the Great Depression and WWII over and prosperity and growth returning to Fort Collins and the surrounding region, they were looking to expand their operating space. They achieved this by purchasing the adjacent garage building. In April 1962, the Howes transferred the building to Paramont Laundry and Cleaners. By the mid-1960s, Paramont Laundry and Cleaners was under the management of J. D. Waldron, president, along with vice-president Ralph M. Tryon. Within a few years, Ralph Tryon had become president and treasurer and his wife Carolyn served as secretary. Ralph became a full partner in the business in 1962. Sometime between 1956 and 1961, the garage was heavily remodeled on the exterior, including removal of the western addition’s exterior walls to create a drive-through for the convenience of customers. By 1969, dark metal wall panels and windows had also been installed on the original building’s facade that obscured its historic features. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 173 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 10 of 22) Paramont Laundry and Cleaners, fully owned by Ralph Tryon starting in 1971, held onto the property and continued to operate there until February 1994, when the firm sold the buildings to Earnest and Marilyn Garner, owners of the Furniture Broker. Over the following years, the former garage building at 300 East Mountain Avenue housed the independent Lyric Cinema and Café, which moved to a new location on North College Avenue in 2017. Since the 1990s, the eastern half of the building has experienced two additional façade remodels, neither of which exposed any of its original architectural details. The property is currently vacant and awaiting redevelopment or a new occupant. 36. Sources of information: City of Fort Collins Building Permits, 300-304 East Mountain Avenue, 1925-1953. Denver City Directories, Listings for Holt Chew, 1948-1957. Fire Insurance Maps of Fort Collins, Sanborn Map Company, 1886-1961. Fort Collins City Directories, Listings for 300 East Mountain Avenue, 1902-1972. Fort Collins Topographic Quadrangle Maps, US Geological Survey (1908, 1960, 1969, 1984) Fort Collins Coloradoan “Local Family Hangs It Up After 44 Years In Laundry Business,” 8 February 1994, p. D6. Fort Collins Courier and Weekly Courier “Real Estate Transfers,” 13 March 1907, p. 8. “Real Estate Transfers,” 18 September 1907, p. 8. “Handsome Armory for Co. F, C. N. G.,” 6 March 1907, p. 5. “Will Build a $6,000 Garage,” 26 June 1907, p. 1. “Automobile Races Are Being Talked Of,” 7 August 1907, p. 17. “Change of Firm,” 29 January 1908, p. 13. “The city owns a small triangular piece of ground…,” 12 February 1908, p. 2. “Soldiers Granted Use of Triangle,” 13 May 1908, p. 10. “Veterans Coming on Today’s Trains for Encampment,” 20 May 1908, p. 11. “Automobile Delivery Car Now In Service,” 26 May 1909, p. 11. “Windstorm Does Great Damage All Over City,” 17 February 1910, p. 9. “Estes Park Line Secures Garage,” 17 March 1911, p. 5. “Flag Raising Tuesday,” 25 February 1916, p. 2. “Carbon Trouble Eliminated,” 24 March 1916, p. 5. “Mr. Ed Morrison and son…,” 11 August 1916, p. 7. “Triangular Corner Ordered Vacated,” 30 November 1917, p. 5. “Mrs. Carleton is Dead in California,” 22 March 1919, p. 8. “The Fort Collins Garage and Machine Company,” (advertisement) 29 March 1919, p. 5. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 174 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 11 of 22) “Historic Flag Pole Will No Longer Fly Flag of America,” 17 April 1920, p. 4. “The Flag Pole,” 22 April 1920, p. 8. “The Fort Collins Garage and Machine Company,” (advertisement) 6 October 1921, p. 6. “Fort Collins Garage and Machine Company,” (advertisement) 4 November 1921, p. 5. “Announcement: An Automobile Cafeteria,” 6 February 1922, p. 4. “Fort Collins Garage and Machine Company,” (advertisement) 7 February 1922, p. 4. “Gordon-Goodrich Garage Co.,” (advertisement) 15 August 1922, p. 6. “Fort Collins Garage and Machine Company,” (advertisement) 8 March 1923, p. 6. Greeley Daily Tribune “Shorty Moss Returns to Run Car Sales Lot,” 17 April 1952, p. 16. Larimer County Assessor, Real Estate Appraisal Cards and Photographs, 300 East Mountain Avenue (parcel 97123-09-017), County Assessor’s Office and Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives, 1950-2019. Larimer County, Clerk & Recorder’s Office, Title Records (Lots 19-20, Block 11, Original Fort Collins Townsite) Warranty Deed (lots 17-20), Charles G. Buckingham to Sam H. Clammer and Frank A. Carleton, 27 February 1907 (reception #105381) Warranty Deed (1/2 interest in lots 17-20), Sam H. Clammer to Sidney W. Clark, 4 December 1907 (book 235, page 299) Warranty Deed (1/2 interest in lots 17-20), Frank A. Carleton to George E. Toomey, 26 June 1908 (reception #118388) Warranty Deed (1/2 interest in lots 17-20), Sidney W. Clark to George P. Avery, 10 November 1908 (reception #119234) Warranty Deed (1/2 interest in lots 17-20), George E. Toomey to Lemuel N. and Ida M. Ward, 4 September 1909 (reception #126848) Warranty Deed (1/2 interest in lots 17-20), George P. Avery to Thomas H. Hale, 27 September 1910 (reception #138034) Warranty Deed (1/2 interest in lots 17-20), Thomas H. Hale to Nettie M. Russell, 3 January 1911 (reception #138036) Warranty Deed (1/2 interest in lots 17-20), Nettie M. Russell to Lemuel N. Ward and Ida M. Ward, 19 July 1912 (reception #148577) Warranty Deed (lots 17-20), Lemuel N. Ward and Ida M. Ward to Edward G. Tallburg, 14 January 1914 (reception #157639) Sheriff’s Deed (lots 17-20, settlement of loan foreclosure), Larimer County Sheriff to L. C. Moore, 8 February 1917 (reception #178019) Warranty Deed (lots 17-20), L. C. Moore to E. A. Schlichter and W. P. Withrow, 1 December 1919 (reception #203830) Warranty Deed (lots 17-20 and vacated portion of Chestnut Street), E. A. Schlichter to Ralph H. Sims, 30 March 1925 (reception #296331) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 175 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 12 of 22) Warranty Deed (lots 17-20 and vacated Chestnut), Ralph H. Sims to Wayne H. Hackett and Joseph H. Irwin, 3 May 1929 (reception #353825) Warranty Deed (lots 19-20 and vacated Chestnut), Wayne H. Hackett and Joseph H. Irwin to Sam Day, 6 March 1945 (reception #547719) Warranty Deed (lots 19-20 and vacated Chestnut), Sam Day to Mountain Motors, 26 February 1947 (reception #579340) Warranty Deed (lots 19-20 and vacated Chestnut), Mountain Motors to Sam Day, 20 December 1947 (reception #591796) Warranty Deed (lots 19-20 and vacated Chestnut), Sam Day to Holt Chew, 14 September 1950 (reception #631981) Warranty Deed (lots 19-20 and vacated Chestnut), Holt Chew to Herbert R. and Ilda M. Ricker, 2 November 1953 (reception #673247) Warranty Deed (lots 19-20 and vacated Chestnut), Herbert R. and Ilda M. Ricker to Harold H. and Goldie M. Howe, 24 August 1956 (reception #716750) Warranty Deed (lots 17-20 and vacated Chestnut), Harold H. and Goldie M. Howe to Paramont Laundry and Cleaners Inc., 1 April 1962 (reception #872075) Warranty Deed (lots 17-20 and vacated Chestnut), Paramont Laundry to Earnest and Marilyn Garner, 1 February 1994 (reception #19940013592) McWilliams, Carl. Fort Collins Armory (5LR1546), 314 E. Mountain Ave., National Register of Historic Places Nomination, 17 May 2002. “Sugar Beets, Streetcar Suburbs, and the City Beautiful, 1900-1919.” Fort Collins History and Architecture, Fort Collins History Connection, Located at www.history.fcgov.com/contexts/sugar. United States Federal Census Records, C. C. Allbritton, Illinois, AR, 1920. United States Federal Census Records, Edward G. Tallburg, Chicago, IL, 1910- 1920. United States Federal Census Records, George P. Avery, Fort Collins, CO, 1900. United States Federal Census Records, Joseph H. Irwin, Fort Collins, CO, 1920- 1930. United States Federal Census Records, Lemuel and Ida Ward, Fort Collins, CO, 1910. United States Federal Census Records, Merritt G. Conley, Fort Collins, CO, 1900- 1910. United States Federal Census Records, Nettie M. Russell, Fort Collins, CO, 1910. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 176 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 13 of 22) United States Federal Census Records, Richard A. Bradley, Fort Collins, CO, 1910. United States Federal Census Records, Sidney W. Clark, Fort Collins, CO, 1910. United States Federal Census Records, Wayne H. Hackett, Fort Collins, CO, 1930 and Estes Park, CO, 1940. United States Federal Census Records, William G. Bell, Fort Collins, CO, 1910. United States Federal Census Records, William P. Withrow, Fort Collins, CO, 1920. Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: The Courier Printing & Publishing Company, 1911. VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Applicable Fort Collins Criteria (Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Section 14-5) A. Events: Associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation (a specific event or pattern of events) B. Persons/Groups: Associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented C. Design/Construction: Embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or part of a recognizable and distinguished group of properties D. Information potential: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history X Does not meet any of the above Fort Collins designation criteria Analysis of Fort Collins Significance: In Fort Collins, a property may be eligible for local designation even when it is found to be ineligible for the more stringent State and National Registers of Historic Places. However, it still needs to meet essential standards of age, significance and integrity. In this case, the property at 300 E. Mountain Ave. has been altered to the point where it is no longer able ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 177 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 14 of 22) to convey a clear sense of its architecture and history of use. The extent and impact of these alterations is described below in the section on integrity. Due to the non-historic alterations, it is not eligible for local landmark designation. 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable 40. Period of significance: Not Applicable 41. Level of significance: National No State No Local No 42. Statement of significance: Based upon the extensive archival research and field documentation completed for this project, this property was found to have been developed in 1907, during a period of economic expansion and population growth in Fort Collins. It was also developed in response to the need and corresponding business opportunity for automotive sales and service garages to open at a time when the first wave of automobiles was coming onto the market. The building was used for this purpose from 1907 to 1953. It was then used as part of a commercial laundry operation, housing a drive-through customer station, from 1956 to 1994. If it retained a high level of architectural integrity, the building would likely be eligible for the National Register or Colorado State Register in association with either or both of these historic uses. However, the building has been substantially altered and little is left of its design and appearance dating back to the period over fifty years ago. Consequently, the property is not individually eligible for the National Register or Colorado State Register under any of the significance criteria. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 178 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 15 of 22) 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The historic automotive garage on this property was constructed in 1907 and appears to have remained largely unaltered over the following two decades. In 1925, it was expanded to the west with a triangular addition and other historic remodels to the exterior occurred between the 1940s and 1960s. Since the 1990s, the building has experienced additional changes. The eastern area of the building has sustained the most substantial change to its historic appearance. There the original automotive garage entries have been closed, a new centered entry along with windows and awnings have been installed, and the historic façade has been completely obscured by modern stucco and other finishes. Nothing of the original façade remains visible on this part of the building. To the west, the building retains some of its historic architectural features dating from the 1960s. These include the entry and band of windows on the south wall, the projecting open canopy supported by metal pipe posts on the west corner, and the metal facing on the upper wall. The entry to the building that is located under the canopy is a non-historic alteration of the drive-through windows that were once located there. The automotive garage is in its original location and continues to stand adjacent to the historically associated armory and laundry building to the east. In terms of the larger setting, while it remains in the downtown commercial district, many of the surrounding properties have been redeveloped over the past two decades. The building retains a few of its historic features, most of which date from the 1960s when it was in use as a laundry facility. However, it is substantially modified since that era and exhibits a diminished level of integrity in relation to the aspects of design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Little of the earlier automotive garage remains visible today other than the building’s location, general shape and massing, and a handful of windows. Overall, the property exhibits a much diminished level of integrity, damaging its ability to clearly convey its origins in the early twentieth century, its historic architectural design, and its history of use. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Not Eligible 45. Is there National Register district potential? No Discuss: This property is not in a location that holds an adequate number of historic buildings that maintain architectural integrity to potentially form a National Register District. If there is National Register district potential, is this building contributing: N/A 46. If the building is in an existing National Register district, is it contributing: N/A ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 179 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 16 of 22) VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: #7705-7730 Negatives filed at: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522 48. Report title: Intensive-Level Documentation of the Property at 313 Edwards Street, Fort Collins, CO 49. Date(s): 22 October 2019 50. Recorder(s): Ron Sladek, President 51. Organization: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. 52. Address: P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522 53. Phone number(s): 970 / 221-1095 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 180 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 17 of 22) Site Location Map USGS Fort Collins 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle 1960 (photorevised 1984) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 181 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 18 of 22) Aerial Site Diagram ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 182 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 19 of 22) Historic Photographs Historic View of the Garage at 300 E. Mountain Ave., 1950 Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Historic Assessor’s Card View to the Northwest ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 183 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 20 of 22) Historic Photographs Historic View of the Commercial Laundry at 300 E. Mountain Ave., 1969 Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Historic Assessor’s Card View to the Northeast ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 184 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 21 of 22) Current Photographs Southwest Corner of the Building from the Street Intersection View to the Northeast Mountain Avenue Frontage (Same View as 1950 Assessor’s Photo) View to the Northwest ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 185 Resource Number: 5LR14682 Address: 300 E. Mountain Ave. Architectural Inventory Form (Page 22 of 22) Current Photographs Chestnut Street Frontage (Back of Building) View to the Southeast ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 186 ORDINANCE NO. 31, 2000 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE FORT COLLINS NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY, 314 EAST MOUNTAIN A VENUE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation ofhistoric landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated March 22, 2000 the Landmark Preservation Commission ("Commission") has determined that the Fort Collins National Guard Armory has architectural importance to the City as a good example of vernacular masonry civic architecture, and as an example of the work of noted Fort Collins architect Arthur M. Garbutt. The building also has historical significance to the City, as the oldest, and only remaining National Guard Armory in Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the Code and is eligible for designation as a local landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a local landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property has consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a historic landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the building historically known as the Fort Collins National Guard Armory, located on lands in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Original Town Plat, also known as 314 East Mountain Avenue, be, and hereby is, designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 187 Section 2. That the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Revised 1983) will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of April, A.D. 2000, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of April, A.D. 2000. Mayor ATTEST: ~oJloj-y\ .. ~~tgn~ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 18th day of April, A.D. 2000. Mayor ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 188 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 189 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 190 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 191 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 192 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 193 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 194 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 195 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 196 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 197 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 198 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 199 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 200 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 201 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 202 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 203 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 204 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 205 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 206 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 207 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 208 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE | MEETING 1 | 01.27.25 PACKET 1 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 209 SITE SITE CONTEXT 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 SITE ELIZABETH HOTEL MOUNTAIN AVE. OLD TOWN SQUARE CO L L E G E A V E . HISTORIC ARMORY MUSIC VENUE 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 210 ZONING MAPS 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 211 Project Summary The proposed project is a new two story building that will serve as interior enhancements to the Armory and a secondary office tenant. The office tenant is undetermined at this time. The construction will include a basement level. One of the main drivers of the project is to provide an ADA green room for performers and an expanded bar space to serve patrons during concerts and events. Building Size Overall, the building is a very small footprint of 3,650 sf and the entire project consists of 11,000 sf. Existing Conditions The existing site contained a one story building that previously housed an independent movie theater. It was deemed non-historic and it was demolished in the summer of 2024. The site currently contains no structures and is covered in gravel. Parking Parking is provided with existing on-street parking and the adjacent Firehouse Parking Garage. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Plan The site is a very small lot at 3,650 sf. The building occupies the entire lot from property line to property line. Insets are created at the main entry and ticket window to create covered areas for people during inclement weather. The sidewalk will be updated along Chestnut and Mountain Avenue as we anticipate damage to the sidewalk concrete during construction. The Chestnut sidewalk will mirror characteristics of the new adjacent alley by the DDA. The existing trees are planned to remain and will be protected during construction. Architecture The proposed two story building has an architectural style and of the adjacent Armory Building (1907). The building is clad in full depth brick, rainscreen Trespa panel, faux weathered corten steel panel, and storefront glass. The gentle arch of the cornice of the building is meant to create a transition of height from the two story Armory to the adjacent 5 story buildings that surround the proposed building. 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 212 CORNER OF MOUNTAIN & CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN AVENUE CHESTNUT STREET ELEVATION SITE CONTEXT MOUNTAIN AVENUE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AFTER DEMOLITION 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 213 ARMORY MOUNTAIN AVENUE ELEVATION MOUNTAIN AVENUE ELEVATION 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 214 ARMORY CHESTNUT SIDE CHESTNUT ELEVATION 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 7 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 215 ADJACENT BUILDING CHARACTER HAHN PLUMBING ELIZABETH HOTEL AND FIREHOUSE PARKING GARAGE VIBRANT CHARACTER FRONT ROW AND ELEVATIONS CREDIT UNION BUILDING ORGANIC ALTERNATIVES BLACK TIMBER BUILDERS 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 216 DDA ALLEY IMPROVEMENT RUSTIC AESTHETIC We have met with the DDA about the Chestnut Alley improvement project and are actively coordinating the two projects. Some of the materials are being coordinated to create a cohesive aesthetic. 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 9 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 217 SITE PLAN 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 218 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE MOUNTAIN AVENUE 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 11 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 219 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE CHESTNUT STREET 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 220 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE AERIAL 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 13 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 221 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MOUNTAIN AVENUE ELEVATION CHESTNUT STREET ELEVATION - - - 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 222 PROPOSED BUILDING MATERIALS BROWN GREY BRICK MATERIALS AT ARMORY BUILDING FAUX CORTEN STEEL PANEL TRESPA RAINSCREEN PANEL METEON METALLIC EXTERIOR DOWN LIGHT ARMORY BRICK BLACK STOREFRONT FRAMES 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 15 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 223 FLOOR PLANS MOUNTAIN AVENUEFIRST FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ARMORY ARMORY 300 MOUNTAIN 300 MOUNTAIN 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 224 FLOOR PLANS SECOND FLOOR PLAN ARMORY 300 MOUNTAIN 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 17 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 225 DESIGN TEAM APPROACH LAND USE CODE 5.8.1 (FORMER 3.4.7) MASSING AND BUILDING ARTICULATION - 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective or the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. 2. Stepbacks must be located on new buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley. Response to #1. The proposed massing of the building is to compliment and acknowledge the two story Armory Building. The building is zoned for four stories and the team strategically selected two stories to be mindful of the existing Armory Building. Response to #2. No stepbacks are provided since the proposed building is the same height as the historic resource. 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 18 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 226 Response to #3. Since the building is only 2 stories, no stepbacks are proposed on the facades of the building. The roof screen is off set from the edge of the building to minimize the view from the street. Response to #4. Nominal size grey/brown brick is used throughout the elevations of the proposed building. The scale of the proposed brick matches the scale of the brick on the Armory. Brick details of soldier courses, headers and vertical running stack bond will be used as details on the brickwork. ENDICOTT BRICK MAGNESIUM VELOUR ARMORY BRICK LAND USE CODE 5.8.1 (FORMER 3.4.7) 3. The lower story facades until any step-backs (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any step-backs. Type, scale, color, 3D texture, pattern. DESIGN TEAM APPROACHBUILDING MATERIALS MATERIAL PALETTE WITH ARMORY BRICK 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 19 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 227 TRESPA PANEL COPPER YELLOW ROCK FINISH LAND USE CODE 5.8.1 (FORMER 3.4.7) TRESPA PANEL HIGH PERFORMANCE LAMINATE 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 20 TRESPA ON THE LINCOLN CENTER CLASS A 50 YEAR PRODUCT HIGH PERFORMANCE RAINSCREEN TRESPA ON WINDSOR FIRE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 228 LAND USE CODE 5.8.1 (FORMER 3.4.7) MATERIAL PERCENTAGES 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 21 BRICK: 752 SF = 35% GLASS: 617 SF = 28% TRESPA: 515 SF = 23% METAL PANEL: 305 SF = 14% MOUNTAIN AVE. ELEVATION ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 229 Response to #5. We utilized the window proportion and spacing for a portion of the proposed building. This solid and void pattern was used on the portion of the building next to the -- LAND USE CODE 5.8.1 (FORMER 3.4.7) 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) Similar window pattern 2) Similar window proportion of height to width 3)Similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. DESIGN TEAM APPROACHFAÇADE DETAILS - 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 22 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 230 Response to #6. The benefit of the finish floors aligning within the building, is that windows and massing lines can align is strategic locations. The cornice of the proposed building sits slightly lower to give the Armory prominence on the elevation. Window heads and sills align to create a cohesive solid and void pattern along the façade. LAND USE CODE 5.8.1 (FORMER 3.4.7) 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and belt courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley. DESIGN TEAM APPROACHFAÇADE DETAILS 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 23 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 231 Response to #7. The primary façade facing Mountain Avenue will remain in full view and will not be covered up by the proposed building. The west elevation will be covered by a two story new building, but that side of the Armory has no contributing historical client has hired a mason to fix holes in the existing brick wall. Matching brick was selected to replace areas that were damaged or in need of repair. LAND USE CODE 5.8.1 (FORMER 3.4.7) 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 1.27.25 7. New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features, of historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley DESIGN TEAM APPROACHVISIBILITY OF HISTORIC FEATURES PREVIOUS ONE STORY BUILDING ON SITE PROPOSED TWO STORY BUILDINGCURRENT CONDITION OF SITE 24 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 232 THANK YOU. 300 E. MOUNTAIN AVENUE | 01.27.25 25 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 233 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 234 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 235 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 236 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 237 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 238 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 239 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 240 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 241 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 242 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 243 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 244 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 245 Headline Copy Goes Here February 19, 2025Senior Historic Preservation Planner Jim Bertolini 300 E. Mountain Ave: Development Review Headline Copy Goes Here 2 HPC Role •Conceptual Review (waived) – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 5.8.1 •Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (Community Development Director) regarding compliance with Section 5.8.1 of the land use code. 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 246 Headline Copy Goes HereProject Summary 3 •Mixed Office/Commercial ‒ 2 stories ‒ 31 ft at tallest (cornice peak at corner) ‒ 1 commercial space on ground floor ‒ Office/Armory venue support; basement & 2nd floor Headline Copy Goes HereSite 4 Historic Area of Adjacency (200ft) 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 247 Headline Copy Goes HereHistoric Survey – 300 E Mountain Ave 5 • Surveyed in advance of this application, issued October 23, 2019 • Not Eligible (loss of integrity) • 1907-1953 – Auto Garage • 1907-1929 – Fort Collins Garage • 1929-1953 – various dealerships/service garages • 1953-1994 - Laundry • 1994 – becomes Lyric Cinema (now on N. College) • Significant – one of, if not the, first auto garage in Fort Collins (including electric vehicles) • Heavily altered over time. Garage, 1950 Laundry, 1969 (vacant) Lyric Theater, 2019 Headline Copy Goes Here314 E Mountain Ave – Armory – Historic Significance 6 • Built 1907 • Landmarked 2000 • NRHP 2002 • Significance? • Military history • Entertainment/Recreation (event space) • Architecture •Civic design; Garbutt • Key features • Blonde brick walls • Dentil molding and castellated cap • Symmetrical one-over-one wood windows • Arched entryway 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 248 Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Floor Plan 7 Headline Copy Goes HereProposed Floor Plan 8 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 249 Headline Copy Goes Here 9 Concepts Headline Copy Goes HereLUC 5.8.1(F) Item #1, Width & Massing – Staff Analysis 10 • Proposed bldg. – Approx 74ft wide (Mountain) • Staff Analysis • Met; façade massing broken up into similar height and width as historic armory • 314 E Mountain. – Approx 49ft wide 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 250 Headline Copy Goes Here 11 LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #2, Stepback – Staff Analysis •Not applicable – matching height of historic building Headline Copy Goes Here 12 LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #3, Durable Materials – Staff Analysis • Staff analysis: • Unclear • Unsure if high-pressure laminate qualifies as high quality/durable/authentic. Not traditionally how this code section is interpreted. 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 251 Headline Copy Goes Here 13 LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #4, Dominant Materials – Staff Analysis • Staff analysis: • Brick meets this in part, but potentially 2 primary materials on new building • Unclear if met. IF the laminate paneling qualifies as durable, applicant is arguing that square footage of laminate is less than the brick so should not be considered a primary material. Staff would note this is not a traditional interpretation of this code requirement (code language, and past application acknowledge multiple primary materials). Headline Copy Goes Here 14 LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #5, Windows/Fenestration – Staff Analysis • Staff Analysis • Only 1 provision needs met; Appears exceeded • Appears all 3 are met to varying degrees •Window proportion (height to width) •Window pattern •Solid-to-void pattern 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 252 Headline Copy Goes Here 15 LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #6, Horizontal/Vertical Alignment – Staff Analysis • Staff Analysis • Complies • Alignment of building top/cornice and 2nd story window sill lines • Vertical references in central crenelation feature on both historic and new massing. • Could be improved with more symmetrical vertical alignment (avoiding angled features) Headline Copy Goes Here 16 LUC 5.8.1(F) Item #7, Visibility – Staff Analysis • Primary perspective of concern is from Mountain Ave. itself; While the second floor side wall will be obscured fromview, the primary viewpoint of concern is to the Mountain Ave façade, which will remain fully visible. • Staff Analysis • Complies 15 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 253 Headline Copy Goes Here 17 HPC Requests for Information – for Staff -How is “authentic” typically defined for these purposes? (Material requirement #3) -This typically references existing historic vernacular nearby, and avoidance of simulated materials. -How was ghost sign considered not to be a character-defining feature by staff? -Related to the significance of the Armory and that the building is outside the Old Town Landmark District. -Why was the project classified as a new building rather than an addition? -Related to legal limitations of Landmark boundary of Armory, parcel line, (lack of) historically significant relationship, etc. -How has staff interpreted Item 7 on visibility of historic features in this case and others (related to changing two-story to one-story relationship to a two-story to two-story)? -Not many similar cases in this kind of urban, higher-density context. Projects farther west on Linden and Mountain may be instructive. -Not uncommon to allow this type of abutting infill in denser, urban environments Headline Copy Goes Here 18 HPC Requests for Information – for Applicant -Requests for additional clarity on expected long-term (i.e., 50-100yr) durability of Trespa/HDL product -Staff note: product specifications added to packet as attachment 6. -Concern on definition of “primary materials” claimed by applicant -Staff note: Applicant’s interpretation is not consistent with past interpretations, and code language itself, that allow for multiple “primary” materials on new construction, all of which should reference the historic building in question. -Clarification and additional detail on joint between historic and new building on Mountain Ave. 17 18 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 254 Headline Copy Goes Here 19 Potential Discussion questions • Is the laminate material convincingly durable to meet that Standard (which is reinforced in the general Downtown Zone District standards)? • Is the combination of materials on the new construction sufficiently compatible to meet the material compatibility requirements for dominant/primary materials? • Does the overall project meet the requirements of LUC 5.8.1 for design compatibility and treatment of historic buildings? Headline Copy Goes Here 20 HPC Role •Conceptual Review – Provide initial design feedback under LUC 5.8.1 •Final Review - Provide a recommendation to the decision maker (Community Development Director) regarding compliance with Section 5.8.1 of the land use code. 19 20 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 255 Headline Copy Goes Here 21 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 256 1 Jim Bertolini From:Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> Sent:Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:54 PM To:Kai Kleer; Jim Bertolini Cc:Maren Bzdek Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed building at the former Lyric location To Kai Kleer, Jim Bertolini and members of the Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing to address a question regarding the building proposed west of the local and state landmarked Armory building presented at yesterday’s HPC meeting: Is it a separate building or an addition/support space for the primary entertainment use of the this question, whether the project review should be tempered appropriately both at the planning and Historic Preservation Commission levels. Based on my understanding of definitions, this proposed building is clearly an addition to the Armory because it provides uses that directly support the Armory building’s entertainment functions to wit: 1. The addition links/connects to the Armory via doorways or broad openings on every level 2. The functions and their configurations in the addition are clearly intended to support the entertainment functions of the Armory: a box oAice a green room a bar (with its seating accessed via a broad opening in the Armory itself) storage oAice support space etc. Many of the items above would likely not be provided in the proposed building—particularly in their proposed configurations—if the Armory did not exist. 3. the Armory which creates multiple eAiciencies justified only by deference to the primary use. 4. Even the multiple façade marquees on the addition are intended to advertise events at the Armory. 5. to the operation of the Armory. addition acknowledging “This proposal plans to redevelop the site with a new 2-story building for use as oAices with a green room to support the Armory next door. There will be a box oAice and shared bar expansion between the new building and the Armory.” Furthermore, if it is in fact a separate building it should not share functions with the Armory noted above even down to the services/utility level by providing: separate water tap, separate electrical meter, separate mechanical systems, separate controls, etc. and should therefore in the future be able to be severed from the Armory without eAect. ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 257 2 As such, I believe you and the HPC need to evaluate this project as an addition rather than as an “adjacent” building. Per the Duck Test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck…then it probably is a duck. As an addition, the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards are diAerentiated from and have higher standards than simply a “building next door to a historic building” in that: 1. Additions must be “diAerentiated” from the historic building while being “compatible” in terms of massing, scale, and materials. (I believe preservation staA makes the following error in their report based on my notes above: "StaA is not classifying the new construction as an addition. Therefore, design compatibility is being considered under the Land Use Code 5.8.1. An analysis of compliance with the LUC has been provided in the next section."). Because it is in fact an addition to a listed local and review standard than LUC 5.8.1 and should likely be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission rather than at the Basic Review planning level. 2. The addition should be designed so that it can be removed in the future without damaging the historic fabric. In this case, any future alteration would be minor and inconsequential as all alterations occur along a featureless former party wall. 3. New construction should avoid covering or removing significant historic features. the staA analysis that no significant features are impacted. 4. The addition should be “subordinate” to the historic building, meaning it should not overpower or visually dominate the original structure. (Preservation Guidelines for the SOI standards say: "New additions and related new construction that meet the Standards can be any architectural style—traditional, contemporary, or a simplified version of the historic building. However, there must be a balance between diAerentiation and compatibility to maintain the historic character and the identity of the building being enlarged. New additions and related new construction that are either identical to the historic building or in extreme contrast to it are not compatible. See specific recommendations on pages 156-158 of the SOI Standards here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/treatment-guidelines-2017-part1-preservation- rehabilitation.pdf ) Several years ago I was involved in the addition to the Rialto Theater in Loveland and this proposal shares many similar characteristics. The Rialto Theater addition provided spaces critical to the function of the theater and is also architecturally subordinate to the historic building without mimicking its design. You might have a look at it as a comparison: https://auworkshop.co/rialto- theater-center 5. While distinct, the addition must work within the constraints of the historic building’s structural and material characteristics. Because the addition is freestanding and occurs along a former party wall, I believe this item is minor and inconsequential. ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 258 3 Items 1 and 4 above are, in my opinion, the keys to a compatible solution: The addition should be visually quieter and architecturally subordinate to the Armory while still having elegant detailing and high-quality materials. And future evaluation should be driven by this criterion. It should be noted that the proposed project massing—particularly addressing the “flatiron” corner site, the placement of one third of the building area below grade and its general street friendliness is much appreciated. Best regards, RANDY SHORTRIDGE AIA NCARB LEED AP [au]workshop architects + urbanists 401 Linden Street 2-221 Fort Collins, CO 80524 c: 970.818.1589 auworkshop.co ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 259 1 Jim Bertolini From:Laurie Davis <ldavis@davisdavisarch.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:33 PM To:Jim Bertolini Cc:Maren Bzdek; Bob Davis Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed Building at 300 E Mountain Avenue (PRIVATE) Hi Jim, Hope you are well. I don’t often take a position on other architects work in Fort Collins, but this letter is to comment on what I see as a missed opportunity for an addition to The Armory building. I believe an addition to such a fine historic downtown building, which this building certainly is even if code requirements suggest otherwise, should be subservient, deferential and in simpatico. new building could strive for a better balance between being different and being compatible. Thank you for your dedication to historic standards! Best, Laurie Laurie Perriello Davis, AIA, LFA mobile: (619) 200-8997 DAVIS DAVIS ARCHITECTS 221 E. Oak Street Unit A Fort Collins, CO 80524 Tel 970-482-1827 www.davisdavisarch.com www.lavenirliving.com ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 260 1 Jim Bertolini From:Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> Sent:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:58 PM To:Jim Bertolini Cc:Maren Bzdek; Kai Kleer Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Proposed building at the former Lyric location Thanks Jim, see my thoughts below in blue ALL CAPS RANDY SHORTRIDGE AIA NCARB LEED AP [au]workshop architects + urbanists 401 Linden Street 2-221 Fort Collins, CO 80524 c: 970.818.1589 auworkshop.co From: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 2:21 PM To: Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> Cc: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>; Kai Kleer <kkleer@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: RE: Proposed building at the former Lyric locaon Randy, I’ll point you to the language in our staA Agenda Item Summary that was updated over the weekend regarding that definition, since a member of the HPC asked the same question. The full AIS is available as part of the HPC packet for tomorrow night, HERE. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thanks! “Why was this project classified as an adjacent development (processed under the Land Use Code) rather than as an addition to the Armory building (processed under Municipal Code)? StaA response: Based on the substance of the project, and the proposed functional relationship between the historic building and the new construction, staA would acknowledge that the distinction between abutting new construction and an addition to a landmark property is less clear in this case. However, after further consideration, there are several reasons staA remains confident that the project should be reviewed as new construction abutting an historic resource (processed under LUC 5.8.1), rather than addition processed as Landmark Design Review under the Municipal Code: o Landmark Boundary – on which it sits. The City has no jurisdiction to apply the procedural and design compatibility requirements of Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, regarding treatment of City Landmarks, outside the legal property boundaries prescribed by City Council for any particular Landmark. Were the applicant seeking a boundary adjustment for the landmark property, that would have required landmark design review approval for both the boundary adjustment and the design of the new construction, but that is not the case in this instance. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT REGARDING PROPERTY LINES IF THE NEW BUILDING/ADDITION WAS NOT SHARING SO MANY CRITICAL FUNCTIONS AS I NOTED IN MY PREVIOUS EMAIL. REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL BOUNDARY THE NEW BUILDING/ADDITION IS PROVIDING IMPORTANT SUPPORT AREAS FOR THE ARMORY AS NOTED. o Parcel boundaries – Typically, historic buildings are designated and treated on the legal parcel on which they sit, with some exceptions. The proposed new building is on a separate parcel than the ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 261 2 historic Armory building. THAT IS, IN MY OPINION A MERE TECHICALITY SINCE THE TWO BUILDINGS WILL SHARE SO MANY FUNCTIONS. o Consideration of related program and use – While staA acknowledges the proposed program will function much like an addition (YOUR ‘MUCH LIKE AN ADDITION LANGUAGE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE DUCK TEST IN MY PREIOVUS EMAIL) to the Armory’s current programming and has the same ownership, the attachment and passageways are not, in and of themselves, permanently restricted to maintaining a programmatic and use relationship over time, (BUT THEY CLEARLY DO) and a future use and ownership of the new building could certainly be established independent of the Armory. HERE IT WILL BE “WHAT IS DONE CANNOT BE UNDONE” Passageways are comparatively limited between the two and new punctures are also limited. Furthermore, the practice of connecting and then separating buildings on separate parcels extends throughout the history of the Old Town area. The Silver Grill, which now takes up what were historically four distinct buildings, is another example where this building access has occurred via interior demolition of side/party walls as ownership and use consolidated, and that spatial and legal relationship could change again in the future.” THE SILVER GRILL COMPARISON IS NOT RELEVANT AS THERE ARE NO EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS. FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE APPLICANT IS TRYING SO HARD TO HAVE THIS ADDITION CALLED A SEPARATE BUILDING SINCE THE NEW PART IS CLEARLY PROVIDING EXPANDED SERVICES FOR THE ARMORY. THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION I CAN SEE IS THAT IT IS STRATEGIC BECAUSE THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR A SEPARATE BUILDING IS NOT AS RIGOROUS AS WOULD BE AN ADDITION TO A LISTED BUILDING. JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Senior Historic Preservation Planner Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolini@fcgov.com From: Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 12:35 PM To: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Cc: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>; Kai Kleer <kkleer@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Proposed building at the former Lyric locaon Hi Jim, I understand you have information from the city attorney on whether, in their opinion, this is an addition or a separate building. Can you please share this opinion with me ASAP? Thanks! RANDY SHORTRIDGE AIA NCARB LEED AP [au]workshop architects + urbanists 401 Linden Street 2-221 Fort Collins, CO 80524 c: 970.818.1589 auworkshop.co From: Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:54 PM ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 262 3 To: 'Kai Kleer' <kkleer@fcgov.com>; 'Jim Bertolini' <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Cc: 'Maren Bzdek' <mbzdek@fcgov.com> Subject: Proposed building at the former Lyric locaon To Kai Kleer, Jim Bertolini and members of the Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing to address a question regarding the building proposed west of the local and state landmarked Armory building presented at yesterday’s HPC meeting: Is it a separate building or an addition/support space for the primary entertainment use of the this question, whether the project review should be tempered appropriately both at the planning and Historic Preservation Commission levels. Based on my understanding of definitions, this proposed building is clearly an addition to the Armory because it provides uses that directly support the Armory building’s entertainment functions to wit: 1. The addition links/connects to the Armory via doorways or broad openings on every level 2. The functions and their configurations in the addition are clearly intended to support the entertainment functions of the Armory: a box oAice a green room a bar (with its seating accessed via a broad opening in the Armory itself) storage oAice support space etc. Many of the items above would likely not be provided in the proposed building—particularly in their proposed configurations—if the Armory did not exist. 3. The floor levels in the addition vary over its footprint in order to align with the existing floor levels in the Armory which creates multiple eAiciencies justified only by deference to the primary use. 4. Even the multiple façade marquees on the addition are intended to advertise events at the Armory. 5. The above elements when constructed will make these new features inseparable from and critical to the operation of the Armory. addition acknowledging “This proposal plans to redevelop the site with a new 2-story building for use as oAices with a green room to support the Armory next door. There will be a box oAice and shared bar expansion between the new building and the Armory.” Furthermore, if it is in fact a separate building it should not share functions with the Armory noted above even down to the services/utility level by providing: separate water tap, separate electrical meter, separate mechanical systems, separate controls, etc. and should therefore in the future be able to be severed from the Armory without eAect. As such, I believe you and the HPC need to evaluate this project as an addition rather than as an “adjacent” building. Per the Duck Test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck…then it probably is a duck. ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 263 4 As an addition, the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards are diAerentiated from and have higher standards than simply a “building next door to a historic building” in that: 1. Additions must be “diAerentiated” from the historic building while being “compatible” in terms of massing, scale, and materials. (I believe preservation staA makes the following error in their report based on my notes above: "StaA is not classifying the new construction as an addition. Therefore, design compatibility is being considered under the Land Use Code 5.8.1. An analysis of compliance with the LUC has been provided in the next section."). Because it is in fact an addition to a listed local and review standard than LUC 5.8.1 and should likely be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission rather than at the Basic Review planning level. 2. The addition should be designed so that it can be removed in the future without damaging the historic fabric. In this case, any future alteration would be minor and inconsequential as all alterations occur along a featureless former party wall. 3. New construction should avoid covering or removing significant historic features. the staA analysis that no significant features are impacted. 4. The addition should be “subordinate” to the historic building, meaning it should not overpower or visually dominate the original structure. (Preservation Guidelines for the SOI standards say: "New additions and related new construction that meet the Standards can be any architectural style—traditional, contemporary, or a simplified version of the historic building. However, there must be a balance between diAerentiation and compatibility to maintain the historic character and the identity of the building being enlarged. New additions and related new construction that are either identical to the historic building or in extreme contrast to it are not compatible. See specific recommendations on pages 156-158 of the SOI Standards here: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/treatment-guidelines-2017-part1-preservation- rehabilitation.pdf ) Several years ago I was involved in the addition to the Rialto Theater in Loveland and this proposal shares many similar characteristics. The Rialto Theater addition provided spaces critical to the function of the theater and is also architecturally subordinate to the historic building without mimicking its design. You might have a look at it as a comparison: https://auworkshop.co/rialto- theater-center 5. While distinct, the addition must work within the constraints of the historic building’s structural and material characteristics. Because the addition is freestanding and occurs along a former party wall, I believe this item is minor and inconsequential. Items 1 and 4 above are, in my opinion, the keys to a compatible solution: The addition should be visually quieter and architecturally subordinate to the Armory while still having elegant detailing and high-quality materials. And future evaluation should be driven by this criterion. It should be noted that the proposed project massing—particularly addressing the “flatiron” corner site, the placement of one third of the building area below grade and its general street friendliness is much appreciated. ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 264 5 Best regards, RANDY SHORTRIDGE AIA NCARB LEED AP [au]workshop architects + urbanists 401 Linden Street 2-221 Fort Collins, CO 80524 c: 970.818.1589 auworkshop.co ITEM 5, PUBLIC COMMENT Packet Pg. 265