Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/2015 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 February 25, 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 25, 2015 5:30 p.m.  CALL TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. 430 N. COLLEGE, POWER PLANT/ENGINES & ENERGY LAB - REVIEW OF HOPPER DESIGN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to review the proposed design for the hopper, and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny, the application. APPLICANT: Jeff Jensen, JPL Development 2. 2015 LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM The purpose of this item is to introduce the 2015 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program and discuss procedural items for design review and project prioritization. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 3. 424 WEST OLIVE STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of the Building’s Front Porch APPLICANT: Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani 4. 314 EAST MULBERRY - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation and Repair of Mortar Joints in Foundation APPLICANT: Carolyn and Jane Goodwin 5. 629 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of East and West Elevation Brick Walls, Double-hung Window Rehabilitation, Storm Window Rehabilitation, Construction of New Storm Windows, Window Well Rehabilitation, Basement Window Rehabilitation. APPLICANT: David Haimson and Susan Rogers 6. 1530 REMINGTON STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of Western and Southern Elevation Terra Cotta Tile Roof. APPLICANT: David and Rita Merck 7. 321 NORTH WHITCOMB STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of Historic Wood Windows. APPLICANT: Kate Polk 8. 220 REMINGTON STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of Historic Windows and Cellar. APPLICANT: Colleen Scholz 9. DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY REVISIONS 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 and the February 11, 2015 Regular Meeting. 10. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2015 ELECTION OF OFFICERS The purpose of this item is to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson for the 2015 term, as provided for in Sec. 2-279 of the Municipal Code.  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 430 N. COLLEGE, POWER PLANT/ENGINES & ENERGY LAB - REVIEW OF HOPPER DESIGN STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to review the proposed design for the hopper, and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny, the application. APPLICANT: Jeff Jensen, JPL Development OWNER: City of Fort Collins; leased to CSU for its PowerHouse Energy Campus RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the project, finding that it does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The historic Power Plant Building, located at 430 North College Avenue, was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in September 1987 by Ordinance No. 121, 1987. The building was recently rehabilitated, and an addition built, for use as CSU's Powerhouse Energy Campus. The rehabilitation involved several meetings with the Landmark Preservation Commission during 2011 and 2012 on the character of the addition and rehabilitation of the historic building. As part of the design, it was discussed that wind turbines resembling the original smoke stacks could be installed on the building, and that the coal hopper could be recreated and used for signage. The design team has now submitted plans for the wind turbine and hopper. These turbine plans were reviewed by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS), under the Administrative Approval Process for designated properties (Municipal Code Section 14-49). The wind turbines closely match the design conceptually approved by the Commission in 2012, and the application was approved by the CDNS Director. The design team is now submitting an application for the hoppers, for review by the Commission under Section 14- 46, "Work requiring a Building Permit." The application proposes converting the hopper into a greenhouse through the installation of several translucent panels. Except for the translucent panels, the design mimics the size, scale, location and similar materials that were used for the original coal hopper. Section 14-48 provides the criteria by which alterations and additions to designated Landmark properties are reviewed; these are included in your packet. Upon review, staff feels that the proposal to add translucent panels to the hopper significantly changes the appearance of the designated Landmark building, and confuses the historical purpose of the hopper. Staff believes that this proposal would not comply with Rehabilitation Standard 3, which states, "Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical 1 Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 2 development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken." ATTACHMENTS 1. Original Power Plant Rendering-photo (PDF) 2. LPC Wind Stack Submittal 2.10.15 (DOCX) 3. Rendering With Non Windowed Hopper (DOCX) 4. Rendering With Windowed Hopper (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 4 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Original Power Plant Rendering-photo (2945 : 430 N. College, Power Plant/Engines & Energy February 10, 2015 Karen McWilliams Historic Preservation Planner City of Fort Collins RE: Engines and Energy Conservation Laboratory (EECL) SUBJ: Wind Stack & Hopper Design Submittal Dear Ms. McWilliams: Please see the attached design documents for the Wind Stack and Hopper elements at the recently remodeled Energy and Engines Conservation Laboratory (EECL), now known at the Powerhouse Energy Campus located at 430 South College. As you may know the original building included a coal hopper that was used to store coal for the power plant. Our design team has mimicked the size, scale, location and similar materials that were used for the original coal hopper. The intent of this submittal is for the Historic Preservation Commission to consider the addition of translucent panels at the hopper. In lieu of creating a non-usable element to the historic facility, the user would like to utilize the hopper as a functioning greenhouse in the near future; thus the addition of the translucent panels to allow natural daylight into the hopper. Please see the attached hopper drawings that depict the new hopper. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeff Jensen JPL Development CC: Nancy Hurt - CSURF 1.b Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LPC Wind Stack Submittal 2.10.15 (2945 : 430 N. College, Power Plant/Engines & Energy Lab - Review of Hopper Design) Rendering With Non Windowed Hopper 1.c Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Rendering With Non Windowed Hopper (2945 : 430 N. College, Power Plant/Engines & Rendering With Windowed Hopper 1.d Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Rendering With Windowed Hopper (2945 : 430 N. College, Power Plant/Engines & Energy Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 2015 LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION The purpose of this item is to introduce the 2015 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program and discuss procedural items for design review and project prioritization. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A landmark rehabilitation grant program was established in 1994 based on a recommendation of the Historic Resources Preservation Program Plan (1994). The Plan … recommends that the City provide direct financial support to owners of historic properties who wish to pursue local landmark designation…In addition to the State program, a local grant program for rehabilitation is recommended. The local program would be simple to apply for and easy to administer. A local grant program provides the City with the opportunity to show financial support for preservation and enlisting the community’s support…The program will also create local jobs and increase property values, resulting in generating additional income to the City. The Plan also described a Revolving Loan Fund option, which was not implemented at the time (but has since replaced the original grant program). The purposes of the program, then, was to encourage the local landmark designation of historic properties in Fort Collins and to help ensure that appropriate historic materials, methods, and techniques are used in the rehabilitation of structures. The program provided grants for qualified historic preservation projects from 1995 - 2000. The City’s General Fund was the primary source of funds for the program and the historic allocation has been between $20,000 - $25,000 per year. The program was very successful, with 51 grants awarded for a total of $141,104 in City funds, matched by over $2 million in non-City funds. In 2000, the program was converted to a zero-interest revolving loan program. The intent was to 2 Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 enhance the long-term funding of the program Article 5 of the City Code (see Appendix A) authorizes the City Manager to establish and administer Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program (LRLP). The City Manager has delegated the power of administration to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Section 14-82 authorizes the promulgation of procedural rules and regulations for the efficient administration of the program. Section 14-83 provides criteria for the award of loan funds. On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 the Landmark Preservation Commission will be providing design review of applications received for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program. Following the design review, the Commission will rate and rank the projects according to established criteria. In the past, the LPC was provided the opportunity to provide funding recommendations as part of the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program. However, due to State Statute (Sec. 12-61-902 through 904) which prohibits unlicensed residential mortgage loan negotiation, neither the LPC nor City staff can allocate loan funding. The Commission can rate and rank projects based on established criteria in order to prioritize funding. You will notice that all financial information is blacked out. This is to ensure that the City complies with the State Statute and to remove any issues related to funding allocation. A loan originator from Funding Partners will make the official funding allocations following the February 25 hearing. Hard copies of the ranking worksheets will be provided for use at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2015 LPC Rankings Worksheet (PDF) 2. Rating Criteria (DOC) 2 Packet Pg. 10 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Landmark Preservation Commission Design Review Property Address Description of Proposed Work Criteria A - Match Criteria B - Preservation Necessity Criteria C - Work Quality Total Rank 1 424 West Olive Rehabilitate front porch 5 2 629 West Mountain Avenue Rehabilitate east and west elevation brick walls 5 3 Rehabilitate double-hung windows 5 4 Rehabilitate storm windows 5 5 Construct new storm windows 5 6 Rehabilitate window wells 5 7 Rehabilitate basement windows 5 8 1530 Remington Street Rehabilitate terra cotta tile roof 1 9 321 North Whitcomb Street Rehabilitate double-hung windows 3 10 220 Remington Street Rehabilitate wood windows in rear porch 5 11 Replace cellar door and rebuild cellar support walls 5 12 314 East Mulberry Street Rehabilitate foundation 1 2.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 2015 LPC Rankings Worksheet (2923 : 2015 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program) 1 2015 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Rating Criteria A. Match (points automatically awarded based upon applicant submittal) Points: 1 100% - 150% match 2 151% - 200% match 3 201% - 250% match 4 251% - 300% match 5 301%+ match B. Preservation Necessity Points: 0 – 1 Degree of threat is minimal due to all of the following reasons: 1) alterations have not significantly diminished the structure’s appearance; 2) the structure does not need any significant repair due to neglect, 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions do not adversely effect the structure or its setting; 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs would not significantly diminish the livability, economic viability, or integrity of the structure. 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to certain structures do not significantly affect the character of the structure or its setting. 2 – 3 Degree of threat is moderate due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) alterations have diminished the structure’s appearance but could be corrected; 2) the structure has one or more significant defects constituting a dangerous, unhealthy or unsightly habitat which could be corrected and made sound. 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions present that moderately affect the structure or setting. 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs could significantly diminish the livability, economic viability, or integrity of the structure. 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to certain structures could significantly affect the character of the structure or its setting, but can be reasonably mitigated. 4 – 5 Degree of threat is severe due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) structure has been significantly altered or the historical features have been covered up which have resulted in the loss of some or all of its significant historic characteristics; 2) the structure is no longer safe or adequate for use; 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions present that 2.b Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Rating Criteria (2923 : 2015 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program) 2 significantly affect the structure or setting and will eventually lead to its destruction or demolition; 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs will likely lead to the destruction or demolition of the historic structure; 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to the structure will significantly 10 affect the structure and will eventually lead to its destruction or demolition. C. Work Quality Points: 0 – 1 The historic appearance of the resource will not be restored or questionable preservation practices will be employed. 2 - 3 The historic appearance will be restored adequately and preservation practices proposed are adequate. 4 - 5 The effort to restore the resource to its historic appearance will be exceptional; preservation practices proposed are excellent. 2.b Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Rating Criteria (2923 : 2015 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 424 WEST OLIVE STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of the Building’s Front Porch APPLICANT: Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property at 424 West Olive Street, was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on December 6, 2011. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items are proposed as part of this project:  Rehabilitate Front Porch. o Restore or replace wood on porch as needed. o Add concrete pad. o Replace concrete stairs with wood. o Add code-compliant wood railing to stairs and porch. o Eliminate sag and separation gaps in porch. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and 3 Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s 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. EVALUATION: As proposed, Staff believes that the project would not affect the historic and architectural integrity of the building’s character-defining features or primary elevations. Staff finds that the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the project will uphold a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission 3 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved, finding that such work would meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work complies with. If, at Final Review, the Commission does not wish to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is not approved, finding that such work would not meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work does not comply with. ATTACHMENTS 1. 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (PDF) 2. Olive pg.1 (PDF) 3. Olive pg.2 (PDF) 4. Olive pg.3 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 16 3.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 424 W Olive - Scanned Info.docx (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 3.b Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Olive pg.1 (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project) 3.c Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Olive pg.2 (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project) 3.d Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Olive pg.3 (2924 : 424 West Olive Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 314 EAST MULBERRY - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation and Repair of Mortar Joints in Foundation APPLICANT: Carolyn and Jane Goodwin EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property at 314 East Mulberry Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on February 1, 1994. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items are proposed as part of this project:  Repointing of approximately 50 square feet of missing or eroded mortar joints in the stone water table foundation. o Joint treatment to match existing convex bead. o Mortar samples will be applied one week prior to commencing work to match color - an exact match is unlikely. o Mortar is to be compatible in hardness and permeability to existing mortar. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and 4 Packet Pg. 39 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s 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. EVALUATION: As proposed, Staff believes that the project would not affect the historic and architectural integrity of the building’s character-defining features or primary elevations. Staff finds that the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the project will uphold a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved, finding that such work would 4 Packet Pg. 40 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work complies with. If, at Final Review, the Commission does not wish to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is not approved, finding that such work would not meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work does not comply with. ATTACHMENTS 1. 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (PDF) 2. 314 E Mulberry Supp Images (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 41 4.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Scanned Info.docx (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Supp Images (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Supp Images (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Supp Images (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 4.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 314 E Mulberry Supp Images (2925 : 314 East Mulberry - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 629 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of East and West Elevation Brick Walls, Double-hung Window Rehabilitation, Storm Window Rehabilitation, Construction of New Storm Windows, Window Well Rehabilitation, Basement Window Rehabilitation. APPLICANT: David Haimson and Susan Rogers EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property at 629 West Mountain Avenue was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on November 19, 1991. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items, according to the attached LRL application, are proposed as part of this project:  Double-Hung Windows: The original double hung windows are in reasonably good condition, but need work. In two of the windows, the bottom sash rail has partially detached from the sash, and will require repair or replacement. The finish and glazing on all the sashes is in poor condition. We plan to restore and refinish all the windows, reusing the original glass, and adding t-rail weather stripping. We also plan to restore or replace brick mold and other exterior window framing as necessary once the masonry has been stabilized.  Existing Storm Windows: There are two existing storm windows at the north-west corner of the house, which we leave on the windows all year. The finish and glazing on these is in poor condition. We plan to restore and refinish these storm windows.  New Storm Windows: The other five windows have, in winter, home-made storm windows, of 1x2 lumber with clear plastic sheeting stapled to them. In summer, they have aluminum screens. We plan to have wood combination storm/screen windows fitted.  Window Wells: Both basement windows have deteriorated concrete window wells with shallow concrete floors immediately below each window. Because of the solid floors, these wells provide very poor drainage. We plan to replace these with corrugated metal window wells, with proper drainage.  Basement Windows: One of the basement windows is missing, with a piece of plywood blocking the opening. The other has a fixed sash that was apparently wedged in place, directly on the ground, when the coal chute became obsolete. We plan to have modern wooden windows of traditional appearance installed.  Paint: The window and storm window repair and replacement will all require painting. The wooden trim on the original part of the house also requires painting, and some carpentry and preparation work. We plan to 5 Packet Pg. 59 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 paint the whole house as part of this project, including also the 1998 addition. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s 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. 5 Packet Pg. 60 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 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: As proposed, Staff believes that the project would not affect the historic and architectural integrity of the building’s character-defining features or primary elevations. Staff finds that the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the project will uphold a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved, finding that such work would meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work complies with. If, at Final Review, the Commission does not wish to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is not approved, finding that such work would not meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work does not comply with. ATTACHMENTS 1. 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (PDF) 2. Combined Photos - Set 1 (PDF) 3. Combined Photos - Set 2 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 61 5.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 629 W Mountain - Scanned Info.docx (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark 5.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 1 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan 5.c Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Combined Photos - Set 2 (2926 : 629 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1530 REMINGTON STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of Western and Southern Elevation Terra Cotta Tile Roof. APPLICANT: David and Rita Merck EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property at 1530 Remington Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on February 21, 2006. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items, according to the attached LRL application, are proposed as part of this project:  Terra cotta roof tile rehabilitation on west and south elevations: o Tiles will be lifted and retained for re-use. o Felt will be removed and discarded. o New base felt will be installed over entire roof. o Ice and water guard will be installed along the eaves as required. o A new metal drip edge will be installed around the entire roof perimeter. o All pipe jacks, vent jacks, valley flashings, counter flashings and step flashing will be replaced as needed. o New hip and ridge nailers will be installed on the entire roof. o Roof tiles will then be replaced, adhering to matching color scheme. o Pipes will be painted to match roof tiles. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; 6 Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s 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. EVALUATION: As proposed, Staff believes that the project would not affect the historic and architectural integrity of the building’s character-defining features or primary elevations. Staff finds that the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the project will uphold a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is 6 Packet Pg. 104 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved, finding that such work would meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work complies with. If, at Final Review, the Commission does not wish to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is not approved, finding that such work would not meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work does not comply with. ATTACHMENTS 1. 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 105 6.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark 6.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 1530 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2927 : 1530 Remington Street - Landmark Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 321 NORTH WHITCOMB STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of Historic Wood Windows. APPLICANT: Kate Polk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property at 321 North Whitcomb Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on November 18, 2014. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items, according to the attached LRL application, are proposed as part of this project:  Rehabilitate Historic Wood Windows o Make sashes operable. o Add weather stripping. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic 7 Packet Pg. 117 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s 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. EVALUATION: As proposed, Staff believes that the project would not affect the historic and architectural integrity of the building’s character-defining features or primary elevations. Staff finds that the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the project will uphold a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved, finding that such work would 7 Packet Pg. 118 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work complies with. If, at Final Review, the Commission does not wish to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is not approved, finding that such work would not meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work does not comply with. ATTACHMENTS 1. 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (PDF) 2. Supplemental Images (DOCX) 7 Packet Pg. 119 7.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 7.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 321 Whitcomb - Scanned Info.docx (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark 321 North Whitcomb Landmark Rehabilitation Loan – Supplemental images 7.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Supplemental Images (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project) 321 North Whitcomb Landmark Rehabilitation Loan – Supplemental images 7.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Supplemental Images (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project) 321 North Whitcomb Landmark Rehabilitation Loan – Supplemental images 7.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Supplemental Images (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project) 321 North Whitcomb Landmark Rehabilitation Loan – Supplemental images 7.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Supplemental Images (2928 : 321 North Whitcomb Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 220 REMINGTON STREET - LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROJECT STAFF Josh Weinberg, City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of Historic Windows and Cellar. APPLICANT: Colleen Scholz EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property at 220 Remington Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on October 7, 2014. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items, according to the attached LRL application, are proposed as part of this project:  Rehabilitate Eight Historic Wood Windows in Rear Porch: o Clean, seal, prime bare wood. o Build and install storm windows. o Replace Cellar Door and Rehabilitate Cellar Support Walls.  Replace deteriorated exterior basement “cellar door” with two lighter doors; covering half of opening each. Doors will be similar in look to period doors. o Rebuild Cellar Door support walls. Work includes demolition of existing wood members; remove old door; rebuild walls with treated materials as needed; anchor new walls to existing foundation; siding; primer on bare wood as needed. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, 8 Packet Pg. 135 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s 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. EVALUATION: As proposed, Staff believes that the project would not affect the historic and architectural integrity of the building’s character-defining features or primary elevations. Staff finds that the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and that the project will uphold a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if 8 Packet Pg. 136 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 3 upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved, finding that such work would meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work complies with. If, at Final Review, the Commission does not wish to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is not approved, finding that such work would not meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” and specify those Standards, including any Secretary of Interior Standards, that the work does not comply with. ATTACHMENTS 1. 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (PDF) 2. Proposed Cellar Door Photo (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 137 8.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 220 Remington - Scanned Info.docx (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation 8.b Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Proposed Cellar Door Photo (2929 : 220 Remington Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM POLICY REVISIONS 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 and the February 11, 2015 Regular Meeting. 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. Consultants on the list have demonstrated competency in promoting design compatibility within historic contexts. Please review the program policies below and note the revisions and additions (in RED) based on Commission discussions from the January 28 Work Session and the February 11 Regular Meeting. 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 applicants must agree to 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 9 Packet Pg. 159 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 be any application periods; rather the program will be continually available depending on remaining funds. Funds are available once per project, unless otherwise specified by the Commission. 3. Projects covered by the program are typically additions to existing buildings and new construction within in the above defined areas. Assistance amounts are intended to provide applicants with conceptual plans, not fully engineered or buildable drawings. 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. Projects covered by the program are typically additions to existing buildings and new construction within in the areas defined below. Projects not covered include, for example: engineering, landscaping, and designs determined to not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 3. 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. 4. Assistance amounts are intended to provide applicants with conceptual plans and/or sketches, not fully engineered or buildable drawings. 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. 9 Packet Pg. 160 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 3 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. 9 Packet Pg. 161 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 25, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT Landmark Preservation Commission 2015 Election of Officers EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson for the 2015 term, as provided for in Sec. 2-279 of the Municipal Code. 10 Packet Pg. 162