Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/2015 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 February 11, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Maren Bzdek City Hall West Meg Dunn 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison 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 February 11, 2015  CALL TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 2. 618 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT FINAL REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Built in 1906-07, the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 018, 2013, adopted on February 19, 2013. The property was found to qualify for landmark status for both its association with Newton and Louise (Avery) Crose, and as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture. The building had been renovated several times during its more than 100-year history, before being purchased in 2012 by William and Kathleen Whitley. The Whitleys have done extensive work to restore and rehabilitate the home to its current showcase condition. APPLICANT: William and Kathleen Whitley 3. FINAL REVIEW — PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT REVIEW FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REHABILITATION OF THE BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final Review — Part 2 State Tax Credit Review for Interior and Exterior Rehabilitation of the Building APPLICANT: Craig Hahn and Pete Turner, Owners 4. DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY CLARIFICATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to take action on aspects of the Design Assistance Program discussed at the Commission’s January 28, 2015 Work Session. 5. LOOMIS ADDITION PROJECT: CONTEXT FINAL PRESENTATION AND LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SURVEY GRANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final Report of the Loomis Addition Context Certified Local Government Grant Project; Request for Letter of Support for a State Historical Fund Grant for Survey of the Loomis Addition APPLICANT: Humstone Consulting, Mary Humstone, Project Director; Karen McWilliams, Preservation Division Manager 6. 1ST BANK, 100 S. COLLEGE AVE., LPC DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Following their December 10, 2014 meeting with the LPC’s Design Review Subcommittee (DRS), the applicants have requested another DRS meeting to discuss modifications to the large window panes. APPLICANT: Adam Snyder, 1st Bank; Jim Cox and Don Bernholtz, Architecture Plus 7. 222 LAPORTE AVENUE - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR RELOCATION OF HISTORIC CREAMERY LABORATORY (BUTTERFLY BUILDING) AND CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Fort Collins, is requesting a Final Recommendation to Decision Maker on its project to relocate the historic creamery laboratory (Butterfly Building) and construct a new Utility Customer Service Building at 222 Laporte Avenue. APPLICANT: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager, City of Fort Collins  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 11, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 14, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. DRAFT LPC January 14, 2015 Minutes (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 3 Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 January 14, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Maren Bzdek City Hall West Meg Dunn 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Alexandra Wallace on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison 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 January 14, 2015 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bzdek, Dunn, Hogestad, Gensmer, Zink, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused) STAFF PRESENT: McWilliams, Weinberg, Schiager Chair Sladek welcomed new Commission Member, Per Hogestad, who briefly introduced himself. Mr. Weinberg noted that agenda items 3 & 4 would be postponed to another meeting.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: DRAFT LPC January 14, 2015 Minutes (2875 : Minutes of January 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 2  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 10, 2014 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 10, 2014 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Ms. Bzdek moved to approve the minutes from the December 10, 2014 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission as presented. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 5:37 p.m.] 2. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - UTILITY ADMIN BUILDING AND CREAMERY LABORATORY BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Update on Utility Administration Building and Old Creamery Laboratory Building (Butterfly Building) – 222 LaPorte Avenue APPLICANT: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hergott gave a presentation and update on the progress of the project. Public Input Amanda Quijano, 2005 Ridgewood Road, commented that she couldn’t help but think of an ice cream shop with a giant sign. Commission Questions and Discussion Members talked about the character of the sign. It was unknown whether Dairy Gold still exists. It was noted that the sign could be used as a sculptural piece even without that brand name. Members said they would like to see the structure of the sign reconstructed, ideally with the Dairy Gold name on it. If Dairy Gold is a trade name that cannot be used, then the sign should make an announcement of what is happening in the building. Members asked whether there has been any exploration on what is under the paint, and the Applicant stated the building is constructed of 4” x 8” concrete utility block. Members discussed the paint colors, noting that they liked the lighter colored body with the darker trim, but without being more specific about the colors. Members asked for clarification as to the stairs and sidewalk configuration leading up to the building. The Applicant pointed out where they intend to place a plaque commemorating the original location, and Members said they like the idea of using pavers to mark the original footprint of the building. Members asked if there were any interior features that would or should be retained. The interior walls are dry wall, with a steel column supporting the roof. These would need to be reinstalled in the new location. There is also a restroom and an office with a small sink. Chair Sladek said someone should look at the interior to see if anything should be retained. The Applicant noted the building is 20 square feet. The ideas of a coffee shop or a utilities information center have been discussed as possible uses for the building. Chair Sladek asked if it would be helpful for the Applicant to meet with some of the historic preservation architects on the Commission to look at the interior. The Applicant indicated it would be helpful to do that prior to issuing an RFP. A Member brought up the diagonal orientation of the sidewalks and the idea of using some of the original brick from the creamery building, but noted there wasn’t anything in the Utilities Building itself to reflect the Butterfly Building. The Applicant stated that the Googie style of the building stands out on its own, and they had thought using the landscaping to highlight that might be better than trying to bring too many of the design features into the Utilities Building. 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: DRAFT LPC January 14, 2015 Minutes (2875 : Minutes of January 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 3 A Member suggested taking care not to obstruct the view of the building with the landscaping. The building was meant to be visible from any direction, particularly the roofline. The building should be thought of as a billboard that needs to stick out, so one wouldn’t plant trees in front of it. The colors should also be distinctive enough to catch the eye and not really blend in. In this design, it seems to be tucked back where it takes effort to walk up to it. A suggestion was made that stairs from the sidewalk straight up to the building would be good. The elevation is 3 feet, so they have the horizontal distance for steps. Another Member preferred approaching the building from the front, rather than the side. Chair Sladek asked if any of the designers on the Commission would be able to assist. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Zink volunteered, indicating that meeting on the afternoon of the 26th would work. Members asked about next steps in the process. Ms. McWilliams said the project will come back to a work session, probably later this month, and then will also come back for a final review. 3. FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE COLLAMER/MALABY HISTORIC DISTRICT AT 303, 305, 313, AND 315 NORTH MELDRUM STREET This item has been postponed. 4. FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE KRAMER/BARRAZA PROPERTY AT 520 NINTH STREET This item has been postponed. [Timestamp: 6:15 p.m.] 5. FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE LONGYEAR PROPERTY AT 719 REMINGTON STREET PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Longyear Property located at 719 Remington Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standards B and C. APPLICANT: James Danella, Property Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Danella spoke to the Commission. He talked about the construction they have been doing on the home, which he hopes to complete in the next few months. He mentioned the home had shingles and siding that was removed. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Members asked about the shingles that were removed. The Applicant stated that only the gable ends and the dormers in the front and back were shingled. He said there was 1” x 12” pine and pink paper sheathing under the shingles. He explained that the flashing was the biggest issue. A Member noted that Forester was spelled wrong throughout the application, and then asked whether the garage is also being designated. Mr. Weinberg said the entire property would be designated, and that the two-bay garage was specifically mentioned in the staff report due to its uniqueness. A two- bay garage at a time when most people only has one is significant. The use of stucco on the garage was also mentioned in relation to the Spanish Revival style. Members encouraged the Applicant to keep the garage in place. The Applicant noted that the garage was identical to another one down the street at the Jacob Center, and wondered whether they were built by the same person. He said there was even a mechanic’s pit inside. He said it was probably built in 1929. A Member noted that since Frank Giddings was around at that time, owned the home, and would have been likely to have worked on his own cars, he may have actually lived there. If so, that should be added to the statement of significance for Standard B. Mr. Weinberg said he would look into that and verify it. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: DRAFT LPC January 14, 2015 Minutes (2875 : Minutes of January 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 4 In response to a Commission question, the Applicant stated that all the siding and windows were original. The front porch posts have been changed from round to square due to a structural requirement. Members asked about the mural on the back of the garage, noting it is now a very prominent feature. The Applicant stated the mural was painted about two years ago by an artist friend of his in an effort to address the graffiti problem. Members indicated that since it could be painted over at some point, it would not impact the designation. A Member inquired as to whether there were any original trees on the property. Applicant stated that the property is barren, and there are currently no trees. Chair Sladek mentioned that if Giddings were found to have lived at the property, adding a few sentences about that to the nomination would be adequate. He also suggested possibly adding Giddings to the name of the property, but left that decision up to Staff. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Longyear Property at 719 Remington Street as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14-5 under designation standards B and C. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Chair Sladek thanked Staff for their work on the application, noting that all of the applications in the meeting packet, including those that were postponed, were very well written. [Timestamp: 6:33 p.m.] 6. FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE HOLMES/MANGES PROPERTY AT 1202 LAPORTE AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Holmes/Manges Property located at 1202 Laporte Avenue. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standard C. APPLICANT: Sharon Manges, Property Owner Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Ms. Manges spoke to the Commission. She stated they had lived there for 40 years. She talked about raising her family in the home. When they purchased the home it needed updating, including a second bathroom. Adding the bathroom and remodeling the kitchen were the only two major projects. The dormer created a second bedroom. She said it has been a good house. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member pointed out that Ansel Watrous was misspelled in the application. He also stated this was a great example of a Classic Cottage, if you imagine it without the front porch. He recommended changing the language in the application to Classic Cottage rather than Victorian. There were no objections. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Holmes/Manges Property at 1202 Laporte Avenue as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14-5 under designation standard C. Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 8-0. [Timestamp: 6:44 p.m.] 7. FINAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OLD TOWN SQUARE RENOVATION 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: DRAFT LPC January 14, 2015 Minutes (2875 : Minutes of January 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority is seeking a final design review from the Commission on the proposed renovation project of Old Town Square, within the Old Town Historic District. APPLICANT: Matt Robenalt and Todd Dangerfield, Downtown Development Authority Staff Report Mr. Weinberg presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Robenalt from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) introduced himself and the other members of the team, including DDA Project Manager Todd Dangerfield, Principal Designer Jim Leggitt from Studio Insight and Keith Meyer from Ditesco Services, who serves as their Construction Quality Assurance Professional. He noted the DDA had also recently hired Mortensen Construction for this project. He spoke about the US Department of Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, and pointed out the matrix included in the packet that demonstrates this final design’s compliance with those guidelines. Mr. Leggitt gave a detailed presentation on the project design. Construction is scheduled to begin later this month or early February. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek explained that the Commission is only voting on the design presented tonight, and that any additions or changes (such as an information kiosk, artwork, etc.) would come back at a later time. Mr. Weinberg confirmed that was the case. A Member asked about the height and materials of the canopy over the stage, as well as its location relative to historic structures. The Applicant explained that the stage roof was supported by four steel tubular columns, pitched up at a five degree angle for drainage and sound projection. The stage framing was tubular steel to prevent birds from nesting as they would in I-beams. Acoustic framing was utilized to absorb sound. Translucent skylights are integrated into the roof. A pipe overhead allows performers to clip on lighting, speakers, curtains, banners, etc. The canopy is 12’ at its lowest point, 16’ at its highest point, and cantilevers out beyond the front of the stage by 8’. He also spoke about the technical requirements for the stage design with regard to sound and electrical. The stage area can be used like a picnic pavilion when not in use for a performance. He also mentioned that the Linden Hotel is the backdrop to the stage. A Member commented that the placement of the stage does not block the view of historic structures. The Applicant noted that pedestrian flow to Linden and Walnut is uninterrupted, flowing along the edges close to the storefronts and restaurants. The plan works to maintain the quirky character of Old Town. In a discussion about the height of the lighting, the Applicant explained the festoon lighting is 24’ high. The current tall pole lights around the stage are 22’ tall and will be removed. Pedestrian lighting will be replaced with more contemporary lights that would not obscure the historic facades. The Applicant noted that seven new shade trees will be introduced as a result of public outreach. The existing pine tree is not in good shape, and will be removed. Its original purpose was to block the view of the north 200 block of Linden, and the intent now is to open up that view. A Member also commented that the existing pine tree poses a safety hazard to pedestrians. Members inquired about what would happen to existing dining patios at Coopersmith’s, etc. The Applicant explained that the rails will be deconstructed while the paving is being replaced, but the boundaries and existing patio spaces will be preserved after the paving is completed. Additionally, there is space reserved between the store fronts and the pedestrian sidewalk for patios, retail space, rack sales, etc. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: DRAFT LPC January 14, 2015 Minutes (2875 : Minutes of January 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 6 Chair Sladek asked if any Members had concerns with regard to Municipal Code Section 14-48, the Old Town Design Standards and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. A Member expressed concern that the design of the edge treatment of the circular portion of the stage appears heavy and clunky. It appears that while it is transparent, it still blocks some of the views of the surrounding buildings, particularly the Miller Block. While the depth of it is probably structurally and technically necessary, perhaps they could find a way to feather to a lighter edge treatment to be more unobtrusive. Members questioned how much the view of the Linden Hotel would be obscured by the stage from some angles, but said it is better than what is there now and is clearly a necessary improvement. The Applicant explained balancing the technical needs of the stage with the desire to avoid blocking views. They also noted that shop owners were worried about how the stage design would impact storefront visibility, making the dominant transparency issue at ground level. The profile is as thin as possible, but they may be able to taper it or lighten it visually in some way. Members discussed balancing shade needs with views of the Miller Block. The Applicant explained that the trees are 30 feet apart, and that comfort is an important driver in designing a people-oriented space. There was some discussion as to whether the trees could be placed in front of the newer buildings, rather than the historic buildings. The Applicant said there are many considerations with regard to the tree placement, and pointed out that there are more opportunities to view the Miller Block with this design than the current configuration. Another Member noted that if this were still a functional street, the City would have planted street trees on 30-foot centers 20 years ago. It was also pointed out that the best views of the Miller Block are from the Trimble Court area by the fountain and from Walnut Street. Members mentioned similarities to Pearl Street in Boulder and Larimer Street in Denver, which both have shade trees, yet the buildings are still visible. A Member commented that the stage was a structural element that would not fall under the “Building and Roof Forms” section of the Old Town Historic Guidelines. Members then discussed signage and kiosks, noting the need for wayfinding and interpretive signage in Old Town Square. Members referenced relevant information in the Guidelines with regard to signs on pages 112 and 106. However, signage is not part of the design at this point, and could be a topic for another meeting. One Member pointed out pages 73-75 of the Guidelines with regard to outdoor use areas, noting there were some applicable elements in that section. The Applicant addressed a few miscellaneous topics, such as bike parking, efforts to fund the restoration of the ghost sign in the alley, and moving the trash enclosures from the alley to other side of the plaza. Chair Sladek commended the Applicant’s work on the matrix about cultural landscapes. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority final design review is in compliance with Municipal Code Section 14-48 including Approval of Proposed Work, the Secretary of Interior Standards and the Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 8-0. Chair Sladek thanked the Applicant for their great work on this project.  OTHER BUSINESS None  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m. 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: DRAFT LPC January 14, 2015 Minutes (2875 : Minutes of January 14, 2015) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 618 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE, PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT FINAL REVIEW STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Built in 1906-07, the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 018, 2013, adopted on February 19, 2013. The property was found to qualify for landmark status for both its association with Newton and Louise (Avery) Crose, and as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture. The building had been renovated several times during its more than 100-year history, before being purchased in 2012 by William and Kathleen Whitley. The Whitleys have done extensive work to restore and rehabilitate the home to its current showcase condition. APPLICANT: William and Kathleen Whitley OWNER: William and Kathleen Whitley EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORITY: The Colorado Tax Credits for Historic Preservation Program provides a tax incentive of 20% to property owners of designated historic properties for work that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. One of the optional duties that may be performed by a Certified Local Government is the local review and approval of these State Tax Credit applications. Alternatively, applications may be reviewed by History Colorado. Work on designated landmarks may occur prior to submitting a State Tax Credit application, as long as it occurs after the designation is final. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: The requirements to apply for the State Tax Credits are: the property must be at least 50 years old, and designated on the State Register or landmarked by a Certified Local Government; a minimum of $5,000 in costs must be incurred; the project work needs to be completed with 24 months of application; the Part 2 of the state tax credit application must be submitted within 60 days of the completion of the project; and the work must meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Some components of the overall work may be approved and others rejected; however, if a rejected component will or has had an adverse effect on the property’s integrity and/or could affect its eligibility, the entire application is usually rejected. PROJECT: Built in 1906-07, the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 018, 2013, adopted on February 19, 2013. The property was found to qualify for landmark status for both its association with Newton and Louise (Avery) Crose, and as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture. The building had been renovated several times during its more than 100-year history, before being purchased in 2012 by William and Kathleen Whitley. The Whitleys have done extensive work to restore and rehabilitate the home to its current showcase condition. 2 Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 REVIEW CRITERIA: The applicable criteria for State Tax Credit reviews are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 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. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. MOTION: This is a Final Review for State Tax Credits. If the Commission finds that the work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission, as a reviewing entity under CRS Section 39-22-514, grants Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation approval of the rehabilitation and restoration work on the Crose-Scott-Dickey House at 618 West Mountain Avenue. If the Commission finds that any of the work fails to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission does not approve that work, and state the reasons why. ATTACHMENTS 1. 618WM Photos (PDF) 2. 618WM floor plan drawings (PDF) 3. ORDINANCE_NUMBER_018_FEB-19-2013 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 11 Photo 0.1 Southeast view c. 1927 (earliest known photo) Photo 0.3 Southeast view c.2014 Photo 0.2 Southeast view c. 2012 Note solar collector 2.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 0.4 Front facade Southwest view Photo 0.5 Rear facade Northeast view Photo 0.6 Rear facade North view 2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 0.7 West facade showing AC compressor (note the “birds-mouth” rafter tails) 2.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 1.1 Upstairs hallway, with glued carpet in place Photo 1.3 Mastic removed, floor patched and sanded. Photo 1.2 Glued carpet removed, carpet backing and mastic still on the floor 2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo1.4 Finished floor Photo 1.6 Example of structure under raised floor (note Romex run through notched sleepers without nail guards) Photo 1.5 Example of raised floor in second floor bedrooms 2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 1.8 Foyer tile floor before rehabilitation Photo 1.9 Foyer wooden floor after rehabilitation Photo 1.7 Example of structure under raised floor, over Linoleum glued to original flooring 2.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 2.1 Radiators after sandblasting, being inspected, and fittings cleaned out Photo 2.2 Radiator being cleaned out after powder coating Photo 2.3 Unloading Radiators for delivery. 2.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 2.5 Baseboard convector in bedroom Photo 2.6 Radiant floor in kitchen Photo 2.4 Finished radiator in place (American Radiator “Aetna Flue” model) 2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) 2.7 Pass-through grill and NEST thermostat 2.8 HVAC  return upstairs, before painting Photo 2.9 HVAC  Return downstairs 2.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 2.12 High velocity air handling unit in mechanicall room Photo 2.10 Boiler room as found Photo 2.11 Boiler room with new supply lines and controls 2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 2.13 New ductwork for High velocity AC 2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 3.1 Parlor as found. (note false beams, solid pane glass) Photo 3.2 Example of sagging behind dropped ceiling over dining room note tapering sleepers Photo 3.3 Example of “stacked” 2x4 joists above dining room. Also note gas line, knob and tube wiring 2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 3.5 Ceiling plaster removed. Note sagging on single supporting 2x4 rafters Photo 3.6 Example of floor drop in upstairs front room after removal of raised floor Photo 3.4 Ceiling plaster removed parlor and dining area 2.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 3.7 Microllam® LVL supports above West side of house Photo 3.9 Gusseted joists above DR & Parlor Microllam® LVLs Photo 3.8 Microllam® LVL supports above kitchen area 2.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 3.10 additional framing for coffering Photo 3.12 Finished coffered ceiling, columns cased. note restored casements Photo 3.11 coffering in progress 2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 4.1 Bow window in Dining Room (note false beams, curved convector Photo 4.3 Laminating curved molding boards for bow window Photo 4.2 Rehabilitated Bow window in Dining Room (note refurbished radiator) 2.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 4.4 MBR wood trim, note reuse of original door casings Photo 4.6 Refreshed original trim in foyer (note PB switches) Photo 4.5 new oak casings in Parlor with temporary MBR door 2.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 4.7 Bookcase installation Parlor and dining room Photo 4.9 Bookcase shelf adjustment system Photo 4.8 Finished Bookcases in Parlor and dining room 2.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 5.1 Old plumbing stacks in MBR Photo 5.3 New rough-in below Master Bath Photo 5.2 New rough-in Master Bath 2.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 5.4 Old plumbing stacks separated for recycling Photo 5.6 New Laundry Room Photo 5.5 New plumbing rough forLaundry Room 2.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 5.9 New Master Bath Photo 5.7 Upstairs bathroom before upgrade Photo 5.8 Upstairs bathroom after upgrade 2.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 5.10 New Powder Room off rear hall 2.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 6.3 Existing electrical panel 3 - in cellar Photo 6.2 Existing electrical panels 1 & 2 on main floor Photo 6.1 Existing electrical code violation 2.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 6.4 Old electrical panels 1 & 2 Photo 6.5 New electrical panel Photo 6.6 Antique ceiling fixture installed in foyer 2.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 6.7 Original PB switch, knob and tube wiring Photo 6.7 New switches in original plates in foyer Photo 6.8 New switches in original plates 2.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 7.1 Kitchen before upgrade Photo 7.3 Kitchen North wall before upgrade Photo 7.2 Kitchen Northeast corner before upgrade 2.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 7.5 Kitchen Northeast corner after upgrade Photo 7.6 Kitchen North wall after upgrade Photo 7.4 Kitchen after upgrade 2.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 8.2 Solar collector removed, siding restored Photo 8.1 Site-made solar collector (non-functional) 2.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Photo 9.3 Restored casements flanking the fireplace Photo 9.2 3 of 4 original casements found Photo 9.1 “Modernized” windows flanking the fireplace 2.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 618WM Photos (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) KITCHEN DINING ROOM PARLOR BED CHAMBER BATH BED CHAMBER FOYER PORCH PORCH 1907.1 MAIN FLOOR: 1907 CLOSET 2.b Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) 1907.2 SECOND FLOOR: 1907 ATTIC WITH OPEN RAFTERS GAS LIGHT LINES 2.b Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) KITCHEN DINING ROOM PARLOR BED CHAMBER BATH BED CHAMBER FOYER PORCH ? STAIRS PORCH 1922.1 MAIN FLOOR: 1922 2.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) KITCHENETTE ? BATHROOM BEDROOM PARLOR ? DINING ROOM ? CLOSET 1922.2 SECOND FLOOR: 1922 CLOSET CLOSET VOID VOID VOID HALLWAY 2.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) KITCHEN DINING ROOM PARLOR BEDROOM BATH BEDROOM FOYER PORCH ? STAIRS 1948.1 MAIN FLOOR: 1948 2.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BATHROOM CLOSET 1948.2 SECOND FLOOR: 1948 STORAGE CLOSET CLOSET VOID VOID VOID HALLWAY 2.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) KITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM BEDROOM BATH BEDROOM FOYER PORCH OFFICE STAIRS 1960.1 MAIN FLOOR: 1960-2008 2.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) BATHROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM CLOSET 1960.2 SECOND FLOOR: 1960-2008 STORAGE CLOSET CLOSET VOID VOID VOID HALLWAY 2.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) KITCHEN DINING ROOM PARLOR BED CHAMBER BATH FOYER PORCH CLOSET PANTRY PR L AC STAIRS 2014.1 MAIN FLOOR: 2014 2.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) BATHROOM LIBRARY & BEDROOM MEDIA ROOM (OFFICE) BEDROOM (STUDIO) BEDROOM CLOSET 2014.2 SECOND FLOOR: 2014 STORAGE CLOSET CLOSET VOID VOID VOID HALLWAY 2.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 618WM floor plan drawings (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) 2.c Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: ORDINANCE_NUMBER_018_FEB-19-2013 (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) 2.c Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: ORDINANCE_NUMBER_018_FEB-19-2013 (2872 : 618 West Mountain Avenue, Part 2 State Tax Credit Final Review) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME FINAL REVIEW — PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT REVIEW FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REHABILITATION OF THE BUILDING STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final Review — Part 2 State Tax Credit Review for Interior and Exterior Rehabilitation of the Building APPLICANT: Craig Hahn and Pete Turner, Owners EVALUATION: Staff has carefully reviewed the documentation provided by the applicants, and has toured the property. Staff believes that all of the work contained in the application meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and qualifies for the State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission, as a reviewing entity under CRS Section 39-22-514, grant Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation approval of the rehabilitation and restoration work on the building at 320 Walnut Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Colorado Tax Credits for Historic Preservation Program went into effect in 1990. The program provides a tax incentive of 20% to property owners of designated historic properties for work that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. One of the optional duties that may be performed by Certified Local Governments is the local review and approval of these State Tax Credit applications. Alternatively, these applications may be forwarded to History Colorado for review. Depending upon the availability of staff, the Landmark Preservation Commission has at various times agreed to add tax credit review to its work program. The review of state tax credit applications was a component of the 2015-2016 Budget for the Historic Preservation Division. The requirements to apply for the State Tax Credits are: the property be at least 50 years old and designated on the State Register or landmarked by a Certified Local Government; a minimum of $5,000 in costs must be incurred; the project work needs to be completed with 24 months of application; the Part 2 of the state tax credit application must be submitted within 60 days of the completion of the project; and the work must meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Work may be undertaken on designated landmarks prior to application and submitted after the fact, as is the case with much of the work in this application. Property owners pay a fee of between $250 and $1,000, depending upon 3 Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 the amount of costs, paid to the reviewing entity (either History Colorado or the City’s Historic Preservation Division). Some components of the overall work may be approved and others rejected; however, if a rejected component will or has had an adverse effect on the property’s integrity and/or could affect its eligibility, the entire application is usually rejected. As permitted by the State Tax Credit program, the owners have elected to skip the Part 1 Application, and instead proceed to the Final, Part 2 Review. PROJECT: The building at 320 Walnut Street, formerly the Goodwill Building, is located within the National, State, and local Historic Old Town District. This simple one story blonde brick façade building was likely constructed as an automotive garage. In 1933, it was the Fort Collins Rubber Company, followed in 1935 by the Farr-King Implement Company. In the late 1940s, it became the Montgomery Ward Farm Store and Warehouse, a use it fulfilled until circa 1965, when it became Goodwill Industries. For the last few years, the building has been vacant. Building permits exist for unspecified remodeling work in 1924 and 1929. In 1936, when it was the Farr-King Implement Company, the building’s rear door was enlarged to 12’ x 12’, housing an overhead wood door. A new chimney was built in 1938, and another, unspecified, remodel occurred in 1948. A final “front facing remodel” took place in 1959. At some point in its history, the garage bay openings on either side of the central door were turned into storefront windows. As depicted in the 1950 Assessor’s photograph, the entry with three transom lights above, may still retain much of its original configuration. A detailed architectural description of the building is contained within the State Tax Credit Application. A variety of features of the building have been rehabilitated, converting it to a restaurant and bar space that houses the “Illegal Pete’s” business. Please reference the attached tax credit application for detailed descriptions of the rehabilitation work. REVIEW CRITERIA: The criteria that apply to State Tax Credit reviews are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, most commonly the Standards for Rehabilitation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 3 Packet Pg. 54 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 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. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. EVALUATION: Staff has carefully reviewed the documentation provided by the applicants, and has toured the property. Staff believes that all of the work contained in the application meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and qualifies for the State Tax Credits for Historic Preservation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission, as a reviewing entity under CRS Section 39-22-514, grant Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation approval of the rehabilitation and restoration work on the building at 320 Walnut Street. MOTION: This is a Final Review and Approval for State Tax Credits. If the Commission finds that the work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission, as a reviewing entity under CRS Section 39-22-514, grants Part 2 State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation approval of the rehabilitation and restoration work on the building at 320 Walnut Street. If the Commission finds that any of the work fails to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission does not approve that work, and state the reasons why. ATTACHMENTS 1. 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (PDF) 2. 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (DOC) 3 Packet Pg. 55 320 Walnut Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Illegal Pete’s 2014 State Tax Credit Application Ca. 1950, Southwest Elevation 3.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 1, Before, Southwest Elevation Photo 2, After, Southwest Elevation 3.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 3, Before, Southwest Elevation Photo 4, After, Southwest Elevation 3.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 5, Before, Southwest Elevation Photo 6, After, Southwest Elevation 3.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 7, Before, Northeast Elevation Photo 8, After, Northeast Elevation 3.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 9, Before, Northwest Elevation Photo 10, after, Northwest Elevation 3.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 11, Before, Southeast Elevation Window Photo 12, After, Northeast Elevation Window 3.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 13, Before, Northeast Elevation Window Photo 14, After, Northeast Elevation Window 3.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 15, Before, Northeast Elevation Photo 16, After, Northeast Elevation 3.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 17, Before, Roof Looking South Photo 18, After, Roof Looking South 3.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 19, Before, Roof Looking North Photo 20, Before, Roof Looking North 3.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 21, Before, Interior Ceiling Photo 22, After, Interior Ceiling 3.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 23, Before, Interior Photo 24, After, Interior 3.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 25, Before, Interior Ceiling Photo 26, After, Interior Ceiling 3.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Photo 27, Before, Interior Ceiling and Front Entry Photo 28, Before, Interior Ceiling and Front Entry 3.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) 3.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 320 Walnut Street_B&A_Photos (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation History Colorado Publication #1322c Instructions APPLICATION FOR COLORADO STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Pursuant to House Bill 90-1033 (CRS 39-22-514) I N S T R U C T I O N S PART 1 -- PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Part 1 should be completed prior to start of a restoration, preservation or rehabilitation project for which a taxpayer requests a state income tax credit. (PLEASE NOTE: Work completed prior to obtaining preliminary approval may not qualify for the tax credit. Ask History Colorado for details.) The completed form should be sent to your local government if listed below or to History Colorado if your community is not listed: NOTE: (Please consult OAHP Publication #1568 for local government contact information) 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION. Provide the name and address, including street, city, county and zip code, as well as the legal description of the property. Provide the name of the historic district if the structure is located within a designated historic district. Be sure to specify both the general type of property -- personal, business or investment (rental), as well as the specific use -- residential, retail, wholesale/manufacturing, office, etc. 2. APPLICANT INFORMATION. Provide the name of the taxpayer filing the application. Include the required information for both business and residence as well as the taxpayer identification number or social security number of the applicant. If more than one taxpayer intends to claim the credit, include on a separate sheet the name, address and taxpayer ID number for all taxpayers intending to claim the credit. 3. OWNER INFORMATION. If the owner is someone other than the applicant, include this information. If it is the same, write "same." 4. PROJECT CONTACT. Specify the contact person for the project (may be applicant, owner, or a third party). 5. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. Provide a brief description of the property. Include a description of the exterior and any significant interior details: number of stories, basic floor plan, construction materials and details. Also describe distinctive architectural features, such as hardware, woodwork and trim, stairways and fireplaces. 6. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING. Provide photographs to adequately show all sides of the structure(s)as well as close up photographs showing details. Interior photographs are also required for any interior rehabilitation work that will be claimed for tax credit. Photos must be at least 3" x 5" and may be either black & white or color. 7. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REHABILITATION/PRESERVATION WORK. In the numbered blocks, provide a description of the project. A separate block should be used to describe work on a specific feature (use as many additional sheets as necessary). Describe each feature and include its present condition, then describe the proposed work and the impact to the feature. Include labeled and numbered photographs of each feature. Use as many blocks as needed to completely describe the entire project. Examples of such features are: stairways, windows, doors, roofing, chimneys, floors, exterior and interior finishes, major spaces, etc. Drawings, if available, must be keyed to the descriptions. All proposed work on the project must be described, whether or not it is a qualified cost for the credit. For example, neither additions nor landscaping costs are allowable for the credit, nevertheless proposed additions and Aspen, Aurora, Berthoud, Black Hawk, Boulder, Boulder County, Brighton, Carbondale, Castle Rock, Central City, Crested Butte, Cripple Creek, Denver, Durango, Erie, Fort Collins, Fort Lupton, Georgetown, Gilpin County, Golden, Greeley, Idaho Springs, Lake City, Littleton, Longmont, Manitou Springs, Pagosa Springs, Park County, Saguache, Steamboat Springs, Telluride, and Westminster. List current as of March 2013 If your community is not listed, send to: History Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 3.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation History Colorado Publication #1322c Instructions landscaping should be described. 8. COST ESTIMATE OF PROPOSED WORK. To the best of your knowledge, provide an estimate of the costs of the proposed work. List separate costs as closely as possible to the features described in No. 7 of this application; however, only qualified costs on qualified rehabilitation work need be itemized. In addition to providing the total for qualified costs, include an estimate of the total cost of the entire project, including the cost of work that does not qualify for the tax credit such as additions, landscaping, site work, architect fees, etc. 9. PROJECT STARTING DATE AND PROJECT COMPLETION DATE. The work must be completed in a 24- month period. 10. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE. Provide signatures of all taxpayers claiming the credit (use additional sheets if necessary). PART 2 -- FINAL APPROVAL Part 2 must be submitted within 60 days of the completion of the project. The completed form should be sent to your local government if listed below or to History Colorado if your community is not listed: NOTE: (Please consult OAHP Publication #1568 for local government contact information) 1 - 4. Other than the name of the property, which must be indicated, these sections should be completed only if the information varies from that provided in Part 1. Wherever the information is the same, write "see Part 1," but be sure to include all new or differing information (see Part 1 for instructions). 5. PROJECT STARTING DATE AND COMPLETION DATE. Provide accurate starting and completion dates of project under consideration. 6. PHOTOGRAPHS OF COMPLETED WORK. Provide numbered and labeled photographs documenting all completed work. The photographs should as clearly as possible show all features described in No. 7 in Part 1. Photographs of the completed features should closely duplicate the "before" photographs provided with Part 1. 7. PROJECT COSTS. Provide the actual costs of the completed project for all qualified costs. List costs as closely as possible to the categories used under No. 8 in Part 1. Provide the total of all qualified costs on qualified rehabilitation. Also provide the total cost of the project including non-qualified costs. 8. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE AND DATE. Provide a signature and date for all taxpayers claiming the credit. - If your community is not listed, send to: History Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Aspen, Aurora, Berthoud, Black Hawk, Boulder, Boulder County, Brighton, Carbondale, Castle Rock, Central City, Crested Butte, Cripple Creek, Denver, Durango, Erie, Fort Collins, Fort Lupton, Georgetown, Gilpin County, Golden, Greeley, Idaho Springs, Lake City, Littleton, Longmont, Manitou Springs, Pagosa Springs, Park County, Saguache, Steamboat Springs, Telluride, and Westminster. List current as of March 2013 PLEASE NOTE: History Colorado recommends that all applicants consult CHS Publication 1322b (Colorado Historic Preservation Income Tax Credit) prior to completing this application. This publication contains information on: - Eligibility requirements for properties and taxpayers. - Required review fees and project time limits. - How to determine which costs are “qualified expenditures,” and how to claim the tax credit. - Frequently asked questions (FAQs) concerning the credit. 3.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit APPLICATION FOR COLORADO STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Pursuant to House Bill 90-1033 (CRS 39-22-514) PART 1 -- PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION Name of Property Montgomery Ward Farm Store and Warehouse/Goodwill Address 320 Walnut Street City/Town Fort Collins County Larimer Zip 80524 Name of Registered Historic District Old Town Historic District Property Type: personal business X investment (rental) Use of Property: Current Commercial After Rehabilitation Commercial Legal Description: 5LR.13313: Lot 12 and Block 12. The property’s western boundary is Walnut Street, the Reingold Junk Shop (OAHP site no. 5LR.2059) is to the south; Seckner Alley runs the length of the building to the north and the “Old Fireman’s Alley” parallels the building to the east. The boundary description dates to the 1910s. 2. APPLICANT INFORMATION (taxpayer claiming the credit) Name Illegal Pete’s Inc Type of Entity: Individual Partnership: General Limited Corporation: Regular Subchapter S X Limited Liability Company Name of authorized company official (if applicant is not an individual): Pete Turner, President Business address: 240 Broadway City/Town Denver State CO Zip 80203 Telephone ( 303-733-3035 ) Residential address: City/Town State Zip Telephone ( ) Taxpayer Identification Number (or Social Security Number): 84-1372292 Applicant is: (check one) owner tenant X If more than one taxpayer intends to claim the credit, include on a separate sheet the name, address and taxpayer ID number for all taxpayers intending to claim the credit. 3. OWNER INFORMATION, if applicant is other than owner (if owner is applicant, write "same") Name Fort Walnut LLC Address 19088 Eagle Ridge Dr City/Town Golden State CO Zip 80401 Telephone ( 303-956-2194 ) 3.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit 4. PROJECT CONTACT X Applicant Owner Other (specify below) Name Craig Hahn Address 240 Broadway City/Town Denver State CO Zip 80203 Telephone ( 303 )7333035 5. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (see instructions) The commercial property at 320 Walnut was constructed in 1911. This is the first inventory of 5LR.13313 for either the National Register of Historic Places or the Fort Collins Register. The Fort Collins Old Town Neighborhood was designated to the National Register of Historic Places in August 1978. The District's boundary is 5LR.13313 southern property line. Therefore, this structure was not inventoried as part of that survey. An August 2014 search of the OAHP Compass database confirms this structure was never documented. Western elevation: In August 2014, the building's western elevation was covered by a sheet of plywood. The following description is based on images provided by the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office and Xancreative of Denver before renovations. The western elevation faces Walnut Street. In February 2014, the current owners presented images of the renovated building as part of a conceptual review to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission. The exterior wall is blond brick. The building's main entry is a recessed entrance in the elevation's center. In the center of entry was a glass door with metal frame and hinges. A pair of stationary windows flanked the doors. A three pane transom window ran above the door and open, vertical windows framed the entrance. At sidewalk level stood a pair of painted "kickplate" coverings. Large stationary single pane windows flank the main entry to the north and south. A decorative concrete strip runs the length of both the top and bottom of both windows. When Goodwill Industries occupied this building, a rectangular marquee ran approximately 20 feet above the main entry and along the facade. The concept drawings indicate that renovations will not significantly alter the historic window and door configuration. Southern Elevation: A party wall blocks the view of the building from the southwest corner and to the east for approximately 64 feet. The exterior brick along this elevation has not been upgraded in any way. A large, multi-pane metal frame window is a few feet to the east from where the Gough House (5LR.2060) meets 5LR.13313. Decorative Rowlock brick detail is above the window. The elevation features a series of pilasters along its length. The pilasters are two feet wide, 26 feet high and spaced 16 feet apart. The pilaster extends from the foundation to the roof. Approximately 50 feet from the previously described fenestration are a pair of small multi-pane windows. The windows are in close proximity to each other and both feature decorative brick arches. Eastern elevation: When the building was an automobile repair shop and thrift store, the eastern elevation featured a large garage door opening in its approximate center. The opening is square and extends from ground level to the roofline. A pair of brick pilasters frames the garage opening. During the summer of 2014, plywood covered the entire length of the opening. The opening is flanked by a pair of multi-pane metal framed windows headed by a brick segmented arch. There is a decorative Rowlock brick pattern above the windows. Both windows also feature a concrete lintel. Northern elevation. Seckner Alley runs the length, and extends to the east, of this elevation. Approximately six feet from the building's northwest corner is a multi-pane window with a Rowlock brick detail above the windows and a chiseled stone lintel. This window pane is covered in dark paint. There are ten additional windows of identical style and materials between the pilasters along the length of the Northern elevation. Metal bars cover the fenestrations. Similar to southern elevation, the brick pilasters are two feet wide, stand 26 feet high and are spaced 16 feet apart. At the time of the August 2014 field survey, construction equipment blocked sections of the alley making it difficult to photograph the building's north side. Original Date of construction: 1911 6. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE INCLUDED (see instructions) (if drawings are available, they should also be included) 3.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit 7. DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION Architectural Feature: Roof Repair and Rebuild Describe feature and its condition: Structural integrity of roof had to be maintained. The top of the parapet walls were covered with a cementitious material that was cracking and chipping away. Describe work/impact on feature: The existing roof required new concrete pads (18 in total) and new steel columns for support in order to maintain structural integrity. A portion of the old roof wood framing and sheathing had to be replaced. In addition, the brick parapet wall on the roof had to be reinforced with new flashing. The parapet cap on the Walnut Street elevation is built-up with additional wood nailers so that the extension does not conceal the existing brick cornice. Photo no. 17-28 Drawing no. Architectural Feature: New Store-Front Door and Windows Describe feature and its condition: Storefront elements – doors and glazing – were non-historic and deteriorating. Describe work/impact on feature: Installed new store-front doors with period hardware (8 in total). In addition, 1,500 square feet of new store-front windows were installed. The design maintains the original brickwork including the rowlock cornice detailing on the facade at Walnut Street. Volumetrically, the design maintains the historic openings. The recessed entry on Walnut Street remains in place preserving the historic façade composition. In place of the non- historic and poorly maintained commercial storefront entrance, the rehabilitated storefront meets current energy code requirements with a door in a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. Photo no. 1-4, 27, 28 Drawing no. Architectural Feature: New Overhead Doors Describe feature and its condition: Non-historic storefront system was in disrepair in need of rehabilitation. Describe work/impact on feature: New overhead doors were installed (5 in total). Door frames were rebuilt and all-new hardware was installed. As part of the design, roll-up doors contain a grid pattern of horizontal mullions and vertical muntins that match the proportion of the roll-up door pictured in the circa 1950 historic photograph. Below the roll-up doors is a storefront frame with recessed metal panels. The design goal was to maintain the pattern of the roll-up doors above and the original design presented in the circa 1950 photograph. The basis of design for the storefront frame is EFCO model S433 and includes a profile that aligns the glass to the exterior of the frame, matching the historic profile. The recessed panel fits into the storefront frame and matches the storefront color and finish. The basis of design is model Mapes-R panel by Mapes Architectural Panels. Photo no. 1,2,5,6 Drawing no. 1. 2. 3. 3.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit Architectural Feature: Window Replacement and Painting Describe feature and its condition: Many of the building’s original wood windows were in need of rehabilitation, with broken panes of glass and deteriorating wood sashes and frames. Describe work/impact on feature: A total of 27 windows panes were replaced and all existing outside wood frame windows were rehabilitated and painted. This is applicable to all windows in the Seckner Alley and Old Firehouse Alley. This also includes the existing transom above the entry on Walnut Street. Photo no. 9-16 Drawing no. *** The items below were part of the rehabilitation project, but are submitted as “qualified costs” for the tax credit application. Architectural Feature: Roof Addition Describe feature and its condition: To activate the building and the surrounding public ways, a rooftop addition and patio was constructed. Describe work/impact on feature: In consideration of the design criteria, the contemporary addition is set back from the primary façade on Walnut by 35’-5” and from Seckner Alley by a distance of 6’-8”. The goal was to minimize visibility of the new structure from Walnut Street and the surrounding alleys. Moreover, the new addition is differentiated from the older structure by use of contemporary building materials including the use of standing seam metal panels to contrast the older structure. The color and finish of the standing seam metal panels and coping is to match the storefront ‘Ultralock Light Bronze’ by EFCO. By matching the bronze color of the flashing and the storefront, the dark color allows the addition to appear further recessed minimizing its presence, preserving the traditional character of the existing structure. While essential to the function of the restaurant, the design of the new rooftop addition minimizes its impact to the existing building. Photo no. Drawing no. Architectural Feature: Roof Guardrails Describe feature and its condition: To accommodate the rooftop addition and patio, a railing was installed. Describe work/impact on feature: The guardrail parallel to Walnut Street is offset 2’-6” from the Walnut Street façade. Guardrails parallel to Seckner alley are located inside of the parapet. Structural connection details have been included in the submitted drawing package. The anchors into the existing parapet wall will are located on the inside portion of the parapet, concealed from view from the public streets and alleys. Photo no. Drawing no. Architectural Feature: Lighting on Walnut Street Elevation Describe feature and its condition: The pre-rehabilitation, the Walnut Street façade included 4 globe sconce light fixtures. The circa 1950 photograph does not include any light fixtures. The addition of the globe light fixtures sometime after 1950 included junction boxes and disturbances to the original brick façade. By replacing the lights, the new fixtures conceal this latter improvement while reducing their significance and presence on the Walnut Street 4. 5. 6. 7. 3.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit façade. Describe work/impact on feature: The rehabilitated design replaces the globe light fixtures with a new fixture: “STONCO VW-1-GC EXTERIOR SCONCE.” The Stonco light sconce is the preferred exterior sconce fixture used by all Illegal Pete restaurants. The fixture is appropriate for the Walnut Street façade in that it is minimal and industrial in appearance. The original use of the utilitarian building was a garage. The design of the light fixture includes a wire cage, reminiscent to what one might find in garages of this time. Furthermore, the smaller size of the proposed light fixture coupled with its transparent cage and glass minimize the presence of the fixtures on the building. Photo no. Drawing no. Architectural Feature: Signage on Walnut Street Facade Describe feature and its condition: Signage was added to the Walnut Street elevation to convey the name of the business, “Illegal Pete’s.” Describe work/impact on feature: Sign elements are pin-mounted into the mortar joints so as to minimize impact to the existing brick. If the sign was to ever be removed, only minimal repair to the mortar would be required to restore the mortar to the original design. Photo no. Drawing no. 8. 3.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit 8. COST ESTIMATE OF PROPOSED WORK Itemized: 1. Roof Repair and Rebuild $ 164,042.00 2. New Store Front Doors and Windows 37,200.00 3. New Overhead Doors 31,350.00 4. Window Replacement and Painting 5,940.00 $ 238,532.00 Estimated total qualified costs $ 256,532.00 Estimated total project cost 9. PROJECT STARTING DATE 4/1/2014 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 11/1/2014 10. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE I hereby apply for preliminary approval to proceed with the above described work for which I intend to claim a state income tax credit for historic rehabilitation. I attest that I am the property's owner or a qualified tenant with a lease of five or more years and that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct. I hereby agree to allow representatives of the Reviewing Entity access to the property as may be necessary and reasonable for the review and approval of this application. Name Date ____________________________________ Name Date ____________________________________ CERTIFICATIONS 3.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit (for official use only) Name of Property Applicant The Reviewing Entity certifies that this property: is individually listed in the State Register of Historic Places. is a local landmark designated by a certified local government. is located in a historic district that is: on the State Register of Historic Places locally designated by a certified local government; and this property contributes does not contribute to the significance of the district. is not listed in the State Register of Historic Places nor is it a local landmark designated by a certified local government. The Reviewing Entity has reviewed the application and: approves the application as submitted and grants preliminary approval authorizing the owner to proceed with the proposed work. approves the application with the conditions stated below and grants preliminary approval authorizing the owner to proceed with the work with the understanding that these conditions shall be met. rejects the application for the following reason(s): tables the application and requests the following additional information before the application will be reconsidered: Reviewing Entity: City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission (specify SHPO or name of CLG town) Date 3.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit APPLICATION FOR COLORADO STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Pursuant to House Bill 90-1033 (CRS 39-22-514) PART 2 -- FINAL APPROVAL 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION Name of Property Montgomery Ward Address 320 Walnut Street City/Town Fort Collins County Larimer Zip 80524 Name of Registered Historic District Old Town Historic District Property Type: personal business X investment (rental) Use of Property: Current Commercial After Rehabilitation Commercial Legal Description: 5LR.13313: Lot 12 and Block 12. The property’s western boundary is Walnut Street, the Reingold Junk Shop (OAHP site no. 5LR.2059) is to the south; Seckner Alley runs the length of the building to the north and the “Old Fireman’s Alley” parallels the building to the east. The boundary description dates to the 1910s. 2. APPLICANT INFORMATION (taxpayer claiming the credit) Name Illegal Pete’s Inc Type of Entity: Individual Partnership: General Limited Corporation: Regular Subchapter S X Limited Liability Company Name of authorized company official (if applicant is not an individual): Pete Turner, President Business address: 240 Broadway City/Town Denver State CO Zip 80203 Telephone (303-733-3035 ) Residential address: City/Town State Zip Telephone ( ) Taxpayer Identification Number (or Social Security Number): 84-1372292 Applicant is: (check one) owner tenant X If more than one taxpayer intends to claim the credit, include on a separate sheet the name, address and taxpayer ID number for all taxpayers intending to claim the credit. 3. OWNER INFORMATION, if applicant is other than owner (if owner is applicant, write "same") Name Fort Walnut LLC Address 19088 Eagle Ridge Dr City/Town Golden State CO Zip 80401 Telephone (303 ) 956-2194 3.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit 4. PROJECT CONTACT X Applicant Owner Other (specify below) Name Craig Hahn Address 240 Broadway City/Town Denver State CO Zip 80203 Telephone ( 303 )7333035 5. PROJECT STARTING DATE PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 6. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE INCLUDED (see instructions) 7. PROJECT COSTS Itemized: 1. Roof Repair and Rebuild $ 164,042.00 2. New Store Front Doors and Windows 37,200.00 3. New Overhead Doors 31,350.00 4. Window Replacement and Painting 5,940.00 $ 238,532.00 Total qualified costs $ 256,532.00 Total project costs 8. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE I hereby attest that I am the property's owner or a qualified tenant with a lease of five or more years, that all work on this project has been completed and executed according to the proposed project description as stated in Part 1 and approved by the Reviewing Entity, and that all itemized costs are allowable to claim for tax credits under CRS 39-22-514 (12)(e)and(g). I hereby agree to allow representatives of the reviewing entity access to the property as may be necessary and reasonable for the final approval of the completed work. Name Date CERTIFICATION (for official use only) 3.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit Name of Property Applicant The Reviewing Entity has reviewed this application and: Approves the completed work Does not approve the completed work Returns the application and requests additional information as stated below before the application will be reconsidered. Other TOTAL APPROVED AMOUNT FOR REHABILITATION Reviewing Entity: (specify SHPO or name of CLG town) Date **** N O T I C E T O T A X P A Y E R **** DO NOT FILE THIS FORM WITH YOUR TAX RETURN 3.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Colorado Historic Income Tax Credit VERIFICATION OF QUALIFIED NATURE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXPENDITURES (To Be Filed With Tax Return) QUALIFIED PROPERTY Name of Property _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________________________________________________________ City/Town_________________________________________________________County__________________________ Historic District Name (if applicable) _____________________________________________________________________ TAXPAYER Colorado Taxpayer ID Number (or SSN) _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Name ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________________ Phone ( ) City/Town _____________________________________________________State _____________ Zip __________ QUALIFIED COSTS AND AMOUNT OF TAX CREDIT Total Qualified Cost For Project: $ 238,532.00 Maximum Tax Credit for Project: $ 47,706.40 Maximum Tax Credit for this Taxpayer: $ 47,706.40 PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: ________________________________________________ REVIEWING ENTITY Name: City of Fort Collins Authorized Official: Josh Weinberg Address: PO Box 580 Phone: 970-221-6206 City/Town: Fort Collins State: Colorado Zip: 80522 I, the duly, authorized official of the above named Reviewing Entity, hereby verify that the above named property is a qualified property pursuant to CRS 39-22-514(12)(h) and that the completed qualified rehabilitation meets the provisions of CRS 39-22- 514(3)(a)(III)(A)(B)(C). By: Date (signature of official) 3.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 320 Walnut CO Tax Credit Application (2) (2879 : 320 Walnut Street, State Tax Credit Review) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY CLARIFICATIONS STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to take action on aspects of the Design Assistance Program discussed at the Commission’s January 28, 2015 Work Session. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: Instituted by City Council in 2011, the Design Assistance Program (DAP) aims to help property owners minimize the impacts of additions, alterations, and new construction on neighbors and on the overall character of the historic Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Council recognized the usefulness of such a program following the first round of the Eastside/Westside Character Study that took place in 2010, looking for an educational solution for many of the problems with design compatibility in those areas. The program is designed to utilize the expertise of qualified consultants with documented experience in compatible historic design, for the design of new construction and alterations, as well as for providing expert assistance during the project planning stages. Consultants on the list need to demonstrate competency in promoting design compatibility within historic context. Please review the program policies below and note the revisions and additions (in RED) based on discussions from the January 28 Work Session. DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GUIDELINES: Assistance Amounts 1. The city will provide a maximum of $2,000 for design assistance. Depending on the scope of the project, the entire fee may be more, which will be the responsibility of the property owner to fund. Upon approval of the design plans, the City will reimburse the contractor up to $2,000. The City reserves the right to reject plans that do not meet the intention of this program, which is to facilitate contextually compatible design, or which do not meet building codes or permit requirements. The program is based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and projects must meet the Standards in order to receive funding. 2. Funds are allocated on an annual basis, and are available on a first come, first served basis. There will not be any application periods; rather the program will be continually available depending on remaining funds. Funds 4 Packet Pg. 85 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 are available once per project, unless otherwise specified by the Commission. Who May Apply 1. The applicant shall be the owner of the structure. 2. Design Assistance Program funding can be applied for different aspects of the same project, i.e. mortar analysis and design work can be applied for independently, with two separate consultants, working on the same project. Or, design work for a front porch and rear addition can be applied for separately within the same year. 3. If the structure is sold, the new owner may apply for Design Assistance Program funding. 4. Owners of multiple structures may apply for Design Assistance Program funding for once per structure per year, unless otherwise approved by the Commission. Type of Projects 1. Design Assistance Program funding is intended to provide homeowners with technical design assistance for projects that will impact a building’s exterior, particularly those elevations that are visible from public streets. Secondary buildings such as garages and carriage houses are included. 2. Properties must be generally located within the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods, Sheely Drive Neighborhood, the Historic Old Town commercial district, be a designated Landmark, or have the potential to affect a designated Landmark. Additional projects/properties can be approved by the Commission. 3. Design Review assistance will provide guidance on exterior alterations and/or new construction. Application Process 1. Meet with city historic preservation staff for an initial discussion. Receive/download Application Form and list of design assistance professionals. 2. Contact, interview, and select consultant. 3. Submit completed Application Form including property location, nature of project, property owner name and contact information, consultant selected, and full amount of anticipated charges. Staff will review and set aside money for the project if available. 4. At the LPC’s discretion, the owner shall submit a draft of plans, or report, and meet with the Commission - or subcommittee - for a complimentary, no obligation design review. 5. Submit conceptual plans or a copy of the report developed by the consultant (the “deliverables”) for approval, and provide a copy of the consultant’s paid invoice. 6. The City will pay the Design Assistance Program funds to the contractor directly for the agreed amount, up to a maximum of $2,000. Commission Action: If the Commission finds the revised program guidelines acceptable, the Commission should adopt a motion approving the changes identified in the staff report. If the Commission wishes to modify the guidelines from the staff report, the Commission should note the specific revisions in the motion. 4 Packet Pg. 86 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME LOOMIS ADDITION PROJECT: CONTEXT FINAL PRESENTATION AND LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SURVEY GRANT STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final Report of the Loomis Addition Context Certified Local Government Grant Project; Request for Letter of Support for a State Historical Fund Grant for Survey of the Loomis Addition APPLICANT: Humstone Consulting, Mary Humstone, Project Director; Karen McWilliams, Preservation Division Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2014, the City of Fort Collins received a Certified Local Government (CLG) grant from History Colorado to develop a historic context for the Loomis Addition. Humstone Consulting was selected to undertake this project, which is nearing completion. Mary Humstone, Humstone Consulting, will present a final report on the context, and discuss her firm’s findings. Additionally, staff is requesting a Letter of Support from the Landmark Preservation Commission to accompany a request for a State Historical Fund grant for a survey of the Loomis Addition. Fewer than 2,500 of Fort Collins’ 19,000 older buildings and structures have been surveyed; further compounding this problem, a large number of these surveys date back to the 1980s and 1990s. The City has committed matching funds to undertake a program of ongoing survey. The Loomis Addition was selected to be surveyed for a variety of reasons. Annexed to the original Fort Collins town site in 1887, the 15-block area is illustrative of our community’s development patterns and architecture, and contains some of the oldest residential building stock still in existence in Fort Collins. Unfortunately, this desirable neighborhood is also the location of some of Fort Collins’ greatest development pressures: in the last 10 years, permits for 19 demolitions and 65 alterations were issued in this neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC Letter Support Loomis Addition Survey (DOCX) 2. Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (PPTX) 5 Packet Pg. 87 11 February 2015 Steve Turner, Director State Historical Fund History Colorado Center 1200 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Turner: As Chair of the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission, I would like to strongly recommend approval of this State Historical Fund grant request to survey the Loomis Addition in Fort Collins. This request, which follows upon the successful completion of a comprehensive historic context of this area, would provide the matching funds needed to allow the City of Fort Collins to hire a consulting firm to professionally document the more than 300 properties in this neighborhood. Fewer than 2,500 of Fort Collins’ 19,000 older buildings and structures have been surveyed; further compounding this problem, a large number of these surveys date back to the 1980s and 1990s. To rectify this lapse, the City has committed matching funds to undertake a program of ongoing survey. The Loomis Addition was selected to be surveyed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is its interested and active citizenry. Annexed to the original Fort Collins town site in 1887, the 15- block area is illustrative of our community’s development patterns and architecture, and contains some of the oldest residential building stock still in existence in Fort Collins. Unfortunately, this desirable neighborhood is also the location of Fort Collins’ greatest development pressures: in the last 10 years, permits for 19 demolitions and 65 alterations were issued in this neighborhood. This project will pay for a professional preservation consulting firm to complete Architectural Survey Forms for 312 properties. Once completed, a copy of each survey form will be provided to the property’s owner, generating awareness of the neighborhood’s history and an interest in designation. In addition to public meetings, Fort Collins’ young historic preservation advocacy organization, Protect Our Old Town Homes (POOTH), along with the City’s Historic Preservation Division, will host a community workshop for all citizens, to train individuals and groups in how to research a property’s history, and to encourage the protection of our historic resources through individual and district designations. I ask that the State Historical Fund provide the full amount of financial assistance that is being requested for this very worthy project. Sincerely, Ron D. Sladek, Chair Landmark Preservation Commission Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 9 0 9 4 fc 5.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: LPC Letter Support Loomis Addition Survey (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Presentation and Letter of Support for Loomis Addition Historic Context 5.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Loomis Addition: platted 1887 Abner Loomis, c. 1911 (Local History Archive). 5.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final (left) Plat of Loomis Addition (City Engineering Dept); (below) Loomis Addn today (City of Fort Collins). 5.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final “Drawing of Fort Collins, Colorado,” M.D. Houghton, 1899 (Local History Archive) 5.b Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Trolleys on College and Mountain avenues, c. 1910 (Courtesy of Rheba Massey) 1900 - 1919 5.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final House construction by decade (Carly Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Row of Classic Cottages, 600 Block of Laporte (Carly Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Queen Anne Cottage, 117 S. Whitcomb, 1894 (Carly Ann Anderson) Queen Anne Cottage, 125 N Grant, 1895 (Carly Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final 5.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final 5.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Life in the Loomis Addition S.C. Case House, 145 N. Loomis, c. 1900 (Local History Archive) 5.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Craftsman Bungalow, 319 S. Grant St., 1924 (Carly-Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Classic Cottage, Queen Anne Cottage, Craftsman Cottage (Meg Dunn, Carly Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final 5.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final From Small Homes of Architectural Distinction (1929). 5.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Minimal Traditional Houses at 218 S. Grant, 1937 (above); 229 S. Loomis, 1935 (right) (Carly Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Advertisement in Fort Collins Courier, May 4, 1945. 5.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Assessor’s photo of 85 Circle Drive, 1954 (Local History Archive) 5.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Post-war, 1945 - 1964 323 S. Grant Ave., 1951 (left); 231 S. Whitcomb, 1964 (right) (Carly Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Home restored by Ralph and Cheryl Olson c. 2000 at 730 West Olive (Carly-Ann Anderson) 5.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final 5.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Workshop sponsored by POOTH and City of Fort Collins, November, 2014 (Meg Dunn) 5.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Questions? Mary Humstone Humstone Consulting humstone@gmail.com 5.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Humstone PP for LPC meeting 2-11-15 (2874 : Loomis Addition Project: Context Final Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1ST BANK, 100 S. COLLEGE AVE., LPC DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Following their December 10, 2014 meeting with the LPC’s Design Review Subcommittee (DRS), the applicants have requested another DRS meeting to discuss modifications to the large window panes. APPLICANT: Adam Snyder, 1st Bank; Jim Cox and Don Bernholtz, Architecture Plus OWNER: First Bank Colorado EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AUTHORITY: The bank building at 100 South College Avenue has been found to be eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark as an excellent example of mid-century commercial architecture. Plans for alteration of the building were reviewed by the LPC Chair and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services in October 2014, and were referred to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). As provided for in Municipal Code 14-72(c), the applicants requested a review of their plans by the LPC’s Design Review Subcommittee. The applicants met with the LPC Design Review Subcommittee on December 10, 2014. Following a review of the plans and discussion, the Subcommittee did not take any formal action. The applicants have since modified their plans and have requested another Design Review Subcommittee meeting to discuss their proposal. At this meeting, the Design Review Subcommittee shall explore with the applicant all means for substantially preserving the eligibility of the structure which would be affected by the requested permit. If the Design Review Subcommittee unanimously agrees on alternative plans acceptable to the applicant, it shall provide the Director with approval of such plans. If the Design Review Subcommittee does not unanimously agree to the plans, then the application shall instead be subject to the standard process for the demolition or alteration of eligible buildings. PROPOSAL: The plans are to retain the existing glass and to provide new horizontal steel bracing behind the glass. The applicants feel that by using this method, the daytime visual appearance of the bracing (when reflections are heaviest) will be minimal. The applicants are also proposing to apply new break metal to the existing window frame systems, in an anodized aluminum color to match the existing metal. This covering will be designed to be removed if needed. The applicants feel that this covering will give a cleaner appearance to the existing window framing, as the exterior finish is damaged in areas. REVIEW CRITERIA: The review criteria are established in 14-72(d)(1), which states: In making a determination concerning the proposal, the Subcommittee shall consider the following criteria: 6 Packet Pg. 112 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 a. The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; b. The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the landmark or the sites, structures and objects in the district; c. The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; d. The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and e. The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. ATTACHMENTS 1. 1st bank images (DOCX) 6 Packet Pg. 113 6.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 1st bank images (2867 : 1st Bank, 100 S. College Ave., LPC Design Review Subcommittee Review) 6.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 1st bank images (2867 : 1st Bank, 100 S. College Ave., LPC Design Review Subcommittee Review) 6.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 1st bank images (2867 : 1st Bank, 100 S. College Ave., LPC Design Review Subcommittee Review) 6.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 1st bank images (2867 : 1st Bank, 100 S. College Ave., LPC Design Review Subcommittee Review) 6.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 1st bank images (2867 : 1st Bank, 100 S. College Ave., LPC Design Review Subcommittee Review) 6.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 1st bank images (2867 : 1st Bank, 100 S. College Ave., LPC Design Review Subcommittee Review) 6.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 1st bank images (2867 : 1st Bank, 100 S. College Ave., LPC Design Review Subcommittee Review) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 11, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 222 LAPORTE AVENUE - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR RELOCATION OF HISTORIC CREAMERY LABORATORY (BUTTERFLY BUILDING) AND CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE BUILDING STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Fort Collins, is requesting a Final Recommendation to Decision Maker on its project to relocate the historic creamery laboratory (Butterfly Building) and construct a new Utility Customer Service Building at 222 Laporte Avenue. APPLICANT: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager, City of Fort Collins OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Renderings of the proposed Utility Customer Service Building and details of the new location and site design for the Butterfly Building are included in your packet. Codes and Guidelines: In its consideration of the approval of plans that contain or are adjacent to designated or individually eligible properties, the Decision Maker shall consider the written recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Codes and guidelines include Chapter 14 of the City Code, especially the review criteria in Section 14-48(b) which contains, in part, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; and the City’s Land Use Code, principally Section 3.4.7. These are provided in your packet. Commission Action: This is a request for a Final Recommendation on this development proposal. If the Commission desires, it may adopt a resolution providing a recommendation on the plans for consideration by the Decision Maker (in this instance, an Administrative Hearing Officer). ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC Packet Information (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 121 Utilities Building Design Modifications for approval to allow the Old Creamery Laboratory building to be relocated. 1. Laboratory building is elevated out of the floodplain and in prominent location. 2. Asymmetrical design on the new building to create a tie with the Laboratory building. 3. The colors for the relocated Laboratory building will have the main structure light with the trim being a darker color and the colors will tie in back to the new building. 4. Landscaping around the south side of the new building is on the same orientation as the Laboratory building to help tie the two buildings together. 5. Sign be re‐constructed on the relocated building similar to the old sign previously shown in a past phot from the early 1960’s. 6. Have the previous building location identified with signage to tell the story behind this relocated building. 7. Added a set of steps from the mid‐street crossing up to the patio area around the Laboratory building. 8. Made modifications to the trees plantings so they will not block the view of the building but provide shade for those using the patio area around it. 7.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: LPC Packet Information (2901 : 222 Laporte Avenue - Final Recommendation to Decision Maker) 7.a Attachment: LPC Packet Information (2901 : 222 Laporte Avenue - Final Recommendation to Decision Maker) 7.a Attachment: LPC Packet Information (2901 : 222 Laporte Avenue - Final Recommendation to Decision Maker) 7.a Attachment: LPC Packet Information (2901 : 222 Laporte Avenue - Final Recommendation to Decision Maker) 7.a Attachment: LPC Packet Information (2901 : 222 Laporte Avenue - Final Recommendation to Decision Maker) 7.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: LPC Packet Information (2901 : 222 Laporte Avenue - Final Recommendation to Decision Maker) 7.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: LPC Packet Information (2901 : 222 Laporte Avenue - Final Recommendation to Decision Maker)