The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/12/2014 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingCommunity Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting City Council Chambers - 300 Laporte Avenue February 12, 2014 5:00 p.m. Commission’s Dinner 5:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda Approval of Minutes: January 8, 2014 Elections for 2014 Chair and Vice Chair Rehabilitation Loan Program Conceptual/Final Design Reviews and Allocation of Funding:  1108 W. Mountain Ave, Gillian Bowser  719 E. Prospect Road, Carlos Gallegos and Laura Quattrini  315 Whedbee Street, Maggie and Bryan Dennis  108 S. Whitcomb Street, Veronica Lim Conceptual Review:  320 Walnut Street - Goodwill Building: Second Floor Addition, Tim Politis, One Line Studio LLC for Illegal Pete’s Conceptual/Final Design Review:  1544 W. Oak Street - Paramount Cottage Camp: Rehabilitation of Siding, Windows, and Concrete - Bobby Kahn, Owner; John Williams, Contractor Other Business: Packet information is available at http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php, or by contacting Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078 or kmcwilliams@fcgov.com 1 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting 300 Laporte Avenue January 8, 2014 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Sladek with a quorum present. Members present were Maren Bzdek, Meg Dunn, Doug Ernest, Kristin Gensmer, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Alexandra Wallace, and Belinda Zink. Staff present was: Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Joshua Weinberg and recorder Angelina Sanchez-Sprague. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of October 9, 2013. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). Landmark Preservation Commission minutes of November 20, 2013 were approved by acclamation. Members suggested changes to the December 11, 2013 minutes. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of December 11, 2013 as amended. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion. Motion passed: (8- 0-1) with Mr. Lingle abstaining. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission: • Approved October 9, November 20, and December 11, 2013 Minutes • Recommended to Council the Landmark Designation of 139 North McKinley, the Humphrey Property • Approved Conceptual and Final Design Review for Changes to the Dock Platform, Downtown Transit Center/Historic C&S Freight Depot, 136 Laporte Avenue • Approved W.J. “Bud” Frick, W.J. Frick Design Group, and Thomas Tisthammer, Andrew P. Carlson, and Byron McGough of Wattle & Daub Contractors for the Design Assistance Program Consultants List. • Reviewed Updates for: o Proposed Revisions to the Municipal Code and Land Use Code – Phase 2, Historic Preservation Process Improvements Study o Massing, Setback and Height Studies, Old Town Historic District. 2 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 2 - CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW: CHANGES TO DOCK, DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CENTER/HISTORIC C&S FREIGHT DEPOT, 136 LAPORTE AVENUE. Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner; Emma Belmont, Transfort; and Derek Getto, DDA. Mr. Weinberg introduced the item and presented the staff report. This is a request for a bike display on the west facing Downtown Transit Center (DTC) dock. Mr. Getto provided a history of the bike library and the collaborative effort of FCMoves, Transfort and the DDA to move the current Fort Collins Bike Library to the DTC. As part of this effort, a bike display is proposed on the west facing DTC dock. The display is intended to draw attention from alighting MAX and Transfort passengers and from general passersby. Mr. Getto said the dock would be accessed by Transfort or Bike Library staff only, through a secure gate. Mr. Getto showed historic and current photos and a photo simulation of the proposed dock. Changes being proposed are: • A 42” railing to be installed around the bike display area. • The proposed railing is 3/8” diameter stainless steel cable rail with 4” posts every 8’; the posts will match the existing rail posts at the DTC in color and style. This style was selected to limit visual impact to the historic dock structure as much as possible. • The railing is proposed to be anchored in the ground using concrete footings, limiting impact to the historic dock material. • Installation of an access gate between the existing DTC main entrance and the dock. • An existing railing will be replaced with a gate to allow access on and off of the dock. • The gate will match the existing railing and will have a secure locking feature that can only be opened by approved personnel of Transfort or the Bike Library. He said signage, similar to what’s on the site currently, is being proposed and they will work with the city’s sign process for that, returning to the Commission if necessary. Public Input: None Commission Questions/Comments: Mr. Lingle said it appears the extent of the fencing goes down the platform to the north end of the building and then turns back into the corner. Mr. Getto said correct. Mr. Lingle said it would appear that access would be via the handicapped ramp; do they envision a problem with pedestrians? Mr. Getto said they are working to keep the majority of bikes in a rack system to be located south of the transit center, so this would be more of an overflow area. Mr. Lingle said relative to their proposal for replacing boards on the dock, will they be using the same general species? Ms. Belmont said Risk Management requested the boards be replaced and that this area accessible only to staff. Mr. Lingle said his position is as long as the replacement timbers are of the same general species and dimensions that would be 3 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 3 - acceptable. He also thought the open railing system is appropriate because you can see through it. Ms. Bzdek asked about overnight storage of the bikes. Mr. Getto said they would be locked between the brick columns, creating three separate sections of bicycles. There would be a rod that goes through the bikes and they would be locked together. Ms. Bzdek said she wondered if there would be a scenario in which people might try to see how well the bikes are secured, and might damage the building in the process. Ms. Belmont said they currently have cameras that monitor that area, and hopefully people will notice the cameras and that would act as a deterrent. Ms. Bzdek asked if theft and vandalism had been a problem in the current (Old Town Square) location. Mr. Getto said no. Ms. Wallace asked if there any plans for additional lighting. Mr. Getto said no. The commission discussed the smaller size of the replacement board and whether the board should be weathered. Standard 6 outlines texture and color characteristics but is open for interpretation. Standard 6 does note ‘where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.’ Some thought it could be similar without being exact and because it’s a single board and not the entire platform it is minor relative to Standard 9 (exterior alterations). Mr. Getto said they will try and match it to the best of their ability. Ms. Bzdek asked how the gate will be attached to the brick. Ms. Belmont said the railing currently exists and the attachment is in place. Ms. Dunn asked about the fencing on the north end of the dock. Mr. Getto said they propose a flat metal piece that would attached to the mortar joints. He said it could be removed so the cable could go to that piece on the building. Mr. Sladek asked, if someone were to try and climb the unit and place their weight on those cables, would it have the potential to loosen that plate and damage the brick work. Mr. Getto said they’d have to make sure it was not engineered in a fashion where damage could be caused. Ms. Dunn said it appears there are two posts on the northwest corner of the building that go through the dock. Mr. Getto said while the rendering shows that, only one post would be there. He said they should be able to span that distance (8’ on center – the width of the dock). Mr. Sladek asked if it could be bolted into the dock floor. Ms. Dunn asked if a center post would take some of the pressure off the brick. Mr. Sladek said he thought it would. Ms. Zink said she could support drilling a hole in the wood decking. She believes it would be better to shorten the span and lighten the load. In an industrial setting, if you need to drill a hole to make it work, it likely would have been done in the ‘old days’. Mr. Sladek suggested setting a post rather than attaching the railing to the building. Mr. Lingle said if you used posts it would be more easily reversed. The posts could come down, sit on the plate, and the plate bolted to the timber platform. He said it might be less intrusive than cutting holes. Sladek agreed especially if that was in lieu of attaching to the brickwork. 4 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 4 - Mr. Sladek confirmed that this that might be the commission’s preference. Mr. Getto said they would be open to their ideas. Mr. Sladek asked for any comments on the signage. Mr. Getto said their intent is to use minimal anchorage to the building. Any design would be submitted through the city’s sign process. Ms. McWilliams said signage could be approved administratively if the Commission is good with that. Ms. Wallace said she really appreciates how the proposal maintains that congruency of transportation. She thought it was a very innovative incorporation of that idea to maintain at the transit center. Mr. Sladek said he heard the commission is fine with the wire cable railing; the primary posts along the front will be mounted in the ground. The posts on the return side (northwest corner of building) would be mounted on the platform (with no attachment to the actual brickwork) and that signage we can be taken care of administratively by staff with the understanding that the commission’s preference is to have minimal impact to the brickwork. Commission Deliberation: Mr. Ernest said he was prepared to make a motion and wondered if the Commission wanted the motion with conditions. Mr. Sladek said there’s been a clear discussion of some straightforward issues in which final details could be handled administratively. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Conceptual and Final Design Review for the Downtown Transit Center/Historic C&S Freight Depot, 136 Laporte Avenue, Dock Platform finding that it meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM –APPROVAL OF APPLICANTS FOR CONSULTANTS LIST. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Ms. McWilliams said the Design Assistance Program aims to help property owners minimize the impacts of additions, alterations, and new construction on neighbors and on the overall character of Fort Collins historic neighborhoods. The program pays for up to $2000 per property per year, for consultation, mortar analysis, and design, construction and engineering services. Properties that qualify for assistance include Fort Collins Landmarks and adjacent properties, as well as those properties located in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. She said owners choose from a list of consultants with proven experience in contextually compatible historic design, approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Design Assistance consultants apply to the City of Fort Collins to be part of the 5 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 5 - program. Consultants on the list need to demonstrate competency in promoting design compatibility within the existing historic context. Consultants meeting the criteria, as determined by the Landmark Preservation Commission, are placed on a list that is provided to the public. She said the approval criteria are listed in the staff reports. The following applications are being considered tonight:  W.J. “Bud” Frick, W.J. Frick Design Group  Thomas A. Tisthammer, Wattle & Daub Contractors  Andrew P. Carlson, Wattle & Daub Contractors  Byron R. McGough, Wattle & Daub Contractors Public Input: None Commission Questions/Comments: Mr. Sladek asked if there were any question or comments related to Mr. Frick’s application, noting that he was a former LPC member who had served for several terms. There were none. Mr. Sladek said his impressions are that Mr. Frick’s qualifications are outstanding as far the Design Assistance Program goes. He’s participated in many design assistance meetings in the past. He thinks he’s eminently qualified to be approved for the list. Ms. Bzdek said she reviewed the criteria and there are none he does not meet. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC find that W.J. Frick of Design Group meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Examples of 1, compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings, are included in the specifics of 2, professional qualifications. A specific example is 214 Walnut Street, the Silver Grill. Ms. Gensmer seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). Mr. Sladek asked if there were any questions or comments related to Wattle and Daub Contractors staff members Thomas Tisthammer, Andrew Carlson, or Byron McGough. Ms. Tvede said she has the impression that all three consistently work together. Mr. McGough agreed and said they work as a team. Ms. Tvede asked Mr. Sladek if they could be considered as individuals with one motion. Mr. Sladek said he does not see why not as long as everyone is comfortable with the qualifications of all three. Mr. Lingle said he’s personally worked with Mr. Carlson and Mr. McGough and he’s familiar with Mr. Tisthammer’s work. He thinks they are all equally qualified and should be approved for the program. Mr. Ernest said he’s familiar with Mr. Tisthammer and Mr. McGough through work on the Water Works Stabilization Project. 6 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 6 - Mr. Sladek said all the projects they presented in their application are prominent, important projects in our area and the commission is likely familiar with all of them. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC find that Thomas A. Tisthammer, Andrew P. Carlson, and Byron R. McGough of Wattle and Daub Contractors, all of whom work as an integrated team, meet the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Examples of 1, compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings, are included in the specifics of 2, professional qualifications. A specific example is the Avery Building exterior and restoration. Mr. Lingle seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). Mr. McGough said he’d like to extend appreciation for the opportunities they have in Fort Collins to work on historic structures. Not many communities have the resources and the focus to do it according to the Standards. He said given the opportunity, they love working with city projects. He said outside of city projects, they have the guidance of the LPC and it’s a win/win situation. He said they feel fortunate to be a part of that. Mr. Lingle wanted to point out page 62 of the agenda in which the chicken coop and barn are a good example of what was discussed about the Dock Platform regarding Standard 6– the mixture of old and new materials in rehabilitation. It’s all consistent in material but it’s clear what’s new and what’s original. DISCUSSION: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE CODE – PHASE 2, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS STUDY – Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner The purpose of this item is to inform the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) of the results of this two-phase study, and to seek the Commission’s comments on proposed code changes to the Municipal and Land Use Codes. Staff will then return to the Commission at a later date for a formal recommendation. Phase 1 of this review resulted in two changes to the Municipal Code, adopted in August 2012: • An appeal process for determinations of eligibility, and for the determination of the effect of proposed work on this eligibility; and • Added more specificity to LPC member requirements, ensuring compliance with Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. Phase 2 has involved a more comprehensive look at the Historic Preservation Program, including a comparison of historic preservation best practices, an on-line survey of property owners and their neighbors who had gone through a Demolition/Alteration Review, and a blue-ribbon panel representing major stakeholders who served as a Citizens Review Committee. Based upon Council’s 7 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 7 - direction, staff is working with the City Attorney’s Office to draft the code language to implement these changes. Council action is set for April 1, 2014. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Municipal Code revisions and improvements are contained in Chapter 2, “Administration,” and in Chapter 14, “Landmark Preservation.” Changes include: • A re-organization of Chapter 14, so that the steps of each process are better grouped and occur in sequential order; • The addition of explanations for clarity and understanding and references to the corresponding criteria and standards of the Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service; • The inclusion of a building’s context as a consideration in determining eligibility; and making determinations valid for five years rather than the current one year; • Adding a requirement that a minimum of three citizens must sign an application for a non-consensual landmark designation. More changes include changes to existing procedures to expedite the review process: • Add the ability for the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director to be able to approve minor building alterations and signage on landmark properties administratively; • Add the ability for the LPC Design Review Subcommittee to be able to provide a recommendation to the CDNS Director on buildings undergoing Historic Review. Currently, the Subcommittee may review plans and provide suggestions to the applicant. However, even if plans that are acceptable to all parties are identified, the application is still forwarded to the full LPC for action. This change would enable the Subcommittee, if there is unanimous agreement of review criteria, to provide a recommendation for approval to the CDNS Director who could then approve the plans administratively. Ms. McWilliams said in the context of determining eligibility, the changes will increase predictability for affected parties. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE: Land Use Code changes are contained in Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources”: • Add the ability for the LPC to review those development projects affecting individually eligible and designated historic properties, and provide a recommendation to the decision maker (typically the Hearing Officer or the Planning and Zoning Board) on the project’s effects on historic properties. This action would provide important evidence on projects that are subject to both historic preservation and development code requirements; and would comply with federal Certified Local Government requirements, which recognizes the LPC as the City’s qualified historic review board. This change would require a corresponding revision to the LPC duties in Municipal Code Section 2-278, “Functions.” 8 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 8 - • Make changes to 3.4.7(F), “New Construction,” to better clarify adjacent properties to be considered when evaluating the compatibility of new structures. This is especially important when a project involves irregular shaped parcels or other land that has not been platted in a standard grid pattern. Ms. McWilliams said staff will be going to the Planning and Zoning Board on February 13, 2014. At their work session in January, she said the Planning and Zoning Board members generally supported the proposed changes. She said public outreach continues, with an Open House on January 28 and upcoming meetings with the Board of Realtors and the other groups. City Council’s First Reading is set for April 1, 2014. Public Input: None Commission Feedback: Ms. Dunn said for the record she’s attended a public meeting and participated in a survey. Ms. Dunn asked about the reference to ‘three people’ mentioned in Ms. McWilliams presentation but was not in the agenda packet materials. Ms. McWilliams said that was a suggestion made at the Planning and Zoning Board at their work session. She said these draft codes are constantly being revised so there will be more changes before staff returns with a final version on which a formal recommendation will be requested. Ms. Bzdek said to reiterate, the Planning & Zoning Board suggestion are not currently on the handouts – we’ll be seeing those later. Ms. Bzdek asked where the number three came from. Ms. McWilliams said a majority of project participants thought it should require more than 1 person to make application for landmark designation, when that person is not the owner. Ms. McWilliams said there could be a case when a neighbor who is fighting with the affected property owner might use this in a punitive fashion. “Three unrelated” was suggested at the Planning and Zoning Board work session, as there is already precedence for this in the Land Use Code, with definitions. Ms. Bzdek asked if staff had seen analogs for best practices. McWilliams said it’s mixed. Many communities require more than one person to sign for a non-consensual designation; a few do not. Staff recommends at least three signatures before the start of consideration for landmark designation; she feels that this would be an enhancement to the current program. Mr. Ernest said the code currently states applications can come from the property owner, the LPC, or from a citizen. This past year when a citizen who was not the property owner proposed designation, it did create issues. Mr. Ernest thinks, however, we always want to have a citizen-at-large option. He thinks having three is a step in the right direction. He thinks adding the word unrelated is a good idea. Mr. Lingle said the three unrelated code section is completely different in terms of occupancy of a property. He’s not sure that saying three in this instance is the correct number. 9 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 9 - Ms. Gensmer said she thought it should include unrelated and of separate households. She said we can still have three unrelated people living in the same household who could potentially ‘gang up’ (for lack of a better term) on their neighbor. Mr. Ernest said in general there are a lot of good things that have happened with these proposed code changes. He’s wondering about intent relative to making the determination of eligibility for five years rather than the current one year. He’s wondering what impact it will have on staff and on the LPC. Ms. McWilliams said this is something that came out of the Citizen Advisory Committee. The message heard consistently was the need for predictability. She said the current one year eligibility might lapse in the middle of a project because many projects take more than one year. She said by expanding the eligibility period, it gives everyone (developer and neighborhood) more predictability. Mr. Ernest said with regard to the Design Review Subcommittee change, is that the subcommittee that normally includes the CDNS Director and the Chair or is it the committee that does complimentary reviews? Ms. McWilliams said it’s the latter – the LPC subcommittee made up of commission members whose purpose is to provide complimentary design review. Mr. Ernest said because the membership floats, all commission members have an opportunity to participate. He said it may need to be a little bit more formalized than what it’s been in the past. Mr. Ernest said he noticed that sometimes ‘decision maker’ is capitalized and in other cases it’s not. He’d like to see some consistency—does it imply a formality? Is there a formal definition someplace? Ms. McWilliams said the decision maker is defined in the Land Use Code. Mr. Ernest thinks it’s a good idea and wondered if Ms. McWilliams had any idea of how many projects would be affected. Ms. McWilliams said they are trying to quantify that. The estimate is that the Commission may be reviewing one or two projects per month. She said the vast majority of projects affecting historic buildings have no major issues that would require commission involvement. She said should the commission identify a project they’d want to review, it certainly could come to the commission for their review. Ms. McWilliams said staff intends to improve linkages so that the commission will be apprised of the projects being considered. She stressed that the LPC’s comments were only a recommendation and not binding on the decision maker. Mr. Lingle asked how the threshold of ‘minor” building alterations would be determined. Ms. McWilliams said minor will be projects that affect no more than one aspect of integrity. Mr. Sladek said it concerns him that minor is linked to one aspect of integrity; for instance, relocation could have a major impact to a property. Ms. McWilliams said that’s a good point in that they’ve taken out references to relocation in the code because relocation itself is a near impossibility in Fort Collins, and the code covers it under demolition of all or a portion of the property. She said in reference to Mr. Sladek’s example, there would be many other processes they’d have to go through, including demolition/alteration review and building or development permitting. Mr. Sladek said he just wants to be careful that we are not opening the door by setting up the code to claim only one aspect of integrity is being impacted. Ms. McWilliams suggested that staff look into this and it be further discussed at the next work session. Mr. Sladek agreed. 10 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 10 - Mr. Sladek asked if the term “minor” (building alterations) is defined elsewhere either geographically or in some other setting from which we could learn. He said maybe other than aspects of integrity, it could be tied to some other measure in an analogous way. Mr. Sladek said in the environmental field they use the term ‘de minimis’ impacts as a way of measuring small impacts. Is that something we can adapt to what we are trying to achieve? Mr. Ernest said he thinks relocation might be a last option in some situations and he would not like to see its total elimination. He used as an example the last remaining ‘beet shack’. He said we need to have a procedure that addresses something like that. Ms. Bzdek said with the addition of the concept of context (Page 77 of the agenda packet) and its application (in terms of the scarcity or profusion of a particular structural type) that might potentially be a place to consider special consideration. She interprets that as overall context in the community in terms of the community’s overall resources. Ms. Bzdek said that brings her to a second question about context – she wondered where the definition comes from and she’s wondering if it is detailed enough? Ms. McWilliams said it comes out of one of the bulletins published by the National Park Service and that it was modified slightly to fit our purpose. Ms. Bzdek said she’d like to consider the possibility of adding some modifiers to it to make its intent more clear. She asked what does the “sum of the existing buildings and spaces” in the context of preservation mean. What kinds of qualities are being measured? Mr. Lingle said he’d like more time to consider the removal of relocation. Mr. Ernest agreed. Mr. Ernest asked about the new section (page 89 of the agenda packet) on Resolution Hearings. Ms. McWilliams said that this is code language that currently exists, but has been relocated to a different area of the code because of the reorganization of materials. Ms. Bzdek commended staff on their work. Mr. Sladek said it looks like we’ll have a little more time for further discussion. Prior to City Council’s April 1, 2014 First Reading, the Commission will be asked to make a formal recommendation. DISCUSSION: MASSING, SETBACK AND HEIGHT STUDIES, OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT – Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner Mr. Weinberg said the objective of this project is to create updated Fort Collins Old Town Historic District design standards and guidelines to guide property owners, staff, and the LPC’s in reviewing alterations, additions, and new construction within the District. Staff is requesting the Commission’s review of a supplemental document that includes potential massing, setback, and height scenarios for building additions on various lot configurations within the historic district. Staff is asking if it should be 11 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 11 - included as an appendix to the final design standards/guidelines for the Old Town Historic District. Mr. Weinberg reviewed Old Town new mid-block addition scenario graphics. Mr. Sladek said the graphics are showing different perspectives but they aren’t making any commentary on what is or is not preferable. Mr. Weinberg said, rather than the consultants’ opinions, it is up to the commission to determine which scenarios, if any, should be added. Ms. Tvede asked if the graphics included in the document mean they are acceptable choices and if that decision had to be made tonight. Mr. Weinberg said no, these are just studies showing different massing. The commission does not need to decide tonight Ms. Dunn asked if the zoning in Old Town allowed 4 stories Mr. Weinberg said four or five stories are allowed in the downtown. He said the Mitchell Building is one of the tallest in Old Town and it abuts the district. Mr. Lingle said if we can decide what is or is not appropriate in the guidelines; it would be a valuable addition. He said a developer would need the same kind of graphic as staff or the commission to understand what the concepts being discussed really mean. He said seeing it graphically helps. Mr. Lingle said from his perspective, if we could take one half an hour in a work session at the end of this month to dive into this a little more it would be helpful. Ms. Tvede wondered if maybe it would be better for the applicant to present their ideas without this guidance, so that there is not an implied approval of a certain height. Ms. Bzdek said in reviewing the draft guidelines for building mass, scale, and height, she’s thinking the guidelines have been drafted with a preference, for example, for setbacks. She said when we’re thinking about how we want to present this (good examples versus bad examples), don’t we need to be consistent with what’s currently in the draft and how to best illustrate that. Mr. Weinberg agreed. He said setbacks are a standard in the preservation field. To meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards, you want to differentiate the old from the new, and maintain the street level view. Mr. Weinberg said the one story character of so many of the buildings is one of the character defining features of this district. Mr. Lingle said looking at page 126 of the agenda packet (the corner block scenario), he thinks there would be a difference between whether it’s a contributing building or not. If it was not contributing, he doesn’t know if we want to impose setbacks. An option for that owner is to demolish and to build new. Mr. Lingle said he thinks the commission needs to talk through all those things. Mr. Weinberg agreed. 12 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 12 - Ms. McWilliams suggested rather than stories, we should consider using measurements, and gave as an example the shorter stories on the four-story Northern Hotel building which is far lower than a typical four-story building today. Mr. Weinberg noted the document addresses the importance of maintaining the historic height and alignment of the building levels. Mr. Sladek said the commission will be revisiting this topic at the next work session. LANDMARK DESIGNATION: 139 N. MCKINLEY, THE HUMPHREY PROPERTY -- Curt and Debbie Clausen, Owners; Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner. Mr. Weinberg reviewed photographs of the property and said the Humphrey Property is significant under Landmark Designation Standard 3, as an excellent example of one-story Craftsman style residence. Ms. Dunn said she walked past the property this past week. Mr. Ernest said he drove by. He said looking at the list of landmarks; he noticed that the properties at 140 N. McKinley (across the street) as well as two or three others in that area are landmarks. He asked if this is an area that might lend itself to landmark designation if enough of the property owners in that area are interested. Mr. Weinberg said there is a potential for district designation in that area. Ms. Dunn said she knows two property owners in that area that may be interested. What is the process for district designation? Ms. McWilliams said typically it’s a movement by the neighborhood. She said the area proposed would be defined by the neighbors – it could be ½ block, a full block, or three blocks. The neighbors would do the research and bring forward a nomination. Staff takes the nomination and starts the process of bringing it to the LPC. A part of that process is to do extensive neighborhood outreach so all neighbors are well informed. Mr. Ernest said it’s a grassroots effort -- it comes from interested parties in the neighborhood who talk extensively with their neighbors. Mr. Sladek said the better time to do that is before there’s a threat to the neighborhood. Mr. Sladek said with reference to the chronology on the application (page 29 of the agenda packet) there were some overlap in dates. For example, it said the Humphreys lived there from 1929 to 1959 but in the next paragraph it states others lived there from 1955 to 2007. Mr. Sladek suggest this property is also eligible under Standard 2 because its association with Dr. Humphrey. He read into the record information about Dr. Humphrey from Touching Lives, a History of Medicine in Fort Collins. Mr. Sladek asked that information be added to the document. He said he would strongly argue in favor of adding Standard 2. Ms. Bzdek agreed, as did Mr. Ernest. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC recommend that City Council pass an ordinance designating the Humphrey Property at 139 N. McKinley as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under designation Standard 2 and 3 and that the nomination includes biographical information about Dr. Humphrey. Ms. Gensmer seconded the motion. Motion passed: (9-0). 13 Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 - 13 - Mr. Sladek thanked Mr. Weinberg for his work. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Ernest said he had several copies of an excellent article on the use of architectural renderings in real estate from the New York Times. He had passed copies out to the commission last summer and he had copies now for the new members. Mr. Sladek welcomed new members Meg Dunn and Kristin Gensmer. He said the commission looks forward to working with them. He asked them to share information on their background and their interest in the LPC. Ms. Gensmer said she is an archeologist. She has an undergraduate and graduate degree from CSU. As an undergraduate she minored in history. She said she really likes Fort Collins and enjoys the historic character of the town. Serving on the LPC fits well with her interest and her profession. Ms. Dunn said she got interested in preservation when the Whitcomb District was under discussion and before the historic house was demolished. She lives two blocks from there and learned a lot about the process then. She said Ordinance 33 and the Eastside/Westside discussion got her involved with her neighbor in “Protect Our Old Town Homes.” She said joining LPC seemed like a natural move. Mr. Sladek adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Angelina Sanchez-Sprague 14 Community Development & Neighborhood 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 1108 West Mountain Avenue - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Gillian Bowser, Owner REQUEST: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Historic Roof Restoration and Rehabilitation BACKGROUND: The property at 1108 West Mountain Avenue, known as the George W. and Estella Bell House and Garage, was designated as an individual Fort Collins Landmark on June 3, 2008 under Landmark Standard 3, as a good example of Late 19th – Early 20th Century Vernacular Domestic Architecture. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following item is proposed as part of this project: • Restore original wood roof, which is preserved under at least two layers of asphalt roofing. In areas where the historic wood roof cannot be restored, add new matching fire retardant wood shingles. The existing chimney will be repointed, and galvanized half- round gutters with downspouts will be added. 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. 15 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: Staff believes that the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The intent to retain historic wood roof shingles were possible promotes Historic Preservation’s goal of sustainability and upholds 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. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Community Development & Neighborhood 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 719 East Prospect Road - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Carlos Gallegos and Laura Quattrini REQUEST: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Restoration of 8 Double Hung Windows and Storm Windows BACKGROUND: The property at 719 East Prospect Road, known as the Rush & Jean C. Locke House, was designated as an individual Fort Collins Landmark on 11/3/1998. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items are proposed as part of this project: • Install eight Marvin self-storing storm/screen combination wood windows with period- style hardware • Restore eight double-hung wood windows according to Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, repairing jambs, frames, and glazing 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, 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. 52 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 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 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. At least one construction bid. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you. Drawing with dimensions. Spec sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. PHOTOS: Quattrini_A: Nface_window_rotted_wood Quattrini_B: Nface_window_paneglass_exposed Quattrini_C: Nface_window_paneglass_exposed2 Quattrini_D: nostormwindow Quattrini_E: Nfacewindows Quattrini_F: 2Nface_window Quattrini_G: 2Nface_window_rotted_wood Quattrini_H: 2Nface_window_rotted_wood2 Quattrini_I: Eface_window_broken_glass Quattrini_J: Wface_window_no_seal Quattrini_K: Wface_window_no_ropes Quattrini_L: Sface_window_no_storm Quattrini_M: North side of house Quattrini_N: West side of house Quattrini_O: South side of house Quattrini_P: East side of house City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 4 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Community Development & Neighborhood 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 315 Whedbee Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Maggie and Bryan Dennis REQUEST: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Rehabilitation of Chimney and Foundation Mortar BACKGROUND: The property at 315 Whedbee Street, the Mark and Effie Miller Property, was designated as an individual Fort Collins Landmark on 11/19/2013. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items are proposed as part of this project: • Grind foundation mortar on northern and southern elevations to ¾” depth. Repoint with Type-N buff colored mortar. • Repoint Chimney above roof. Grind existing mortar to depth of 1” and repoint with white 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 (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. 97 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 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. 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 Community Development & Neighborhood 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 108 South Whitcomb Street - Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Project STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Veronica Lim REQUEST: Conceptual/Final Design Review — Proposed Work Includes Restoring 11 Double-Hung Windows and Replacement of Non-historic Picture Window with Double-hung Window Pair BACKGROUND: The property at 108 South Whitcomb Street, was designated as a contributing element of the Whitcomb Street Fort Collins Landmark Historic District on 1/15/2013. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The following items are proposed as part of this project: • Cut pocket door in 11 double-hung historic windows and restore window weights and ropes. • Replace non-historic front elevation picture window with historically appropriate pair of double-hung windows. These Kolbe wood framed, six-light sash double-hung windows will be identical to the pair of windows installed on northern portion of front elevation in 2010. 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. 112 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 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. 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 12, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 320 Walnut Street CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Tim Politis, One Line Studio LLC REQUEST: Conceptual Review of Alterations to 320 Walnut Street BACKGROUND: 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. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) The applicant is requesting to construct a second story addition to the building, which will be set back nearly half the length of the existing building, largely out of public view. It will be clad in materials such as standing-seam metal siding. There is an awning structure proposed on the southern portion of the addition, covering the rooftop portion of the existing building to be used as a patio. The applicant has indicated that the awning material has not been determined yet. A railing is proposed to enclose the space between the addition and the edges of the existing building. 2) On the western elevation, an existing window opening is proposed to be lengthened to accommodate a new door for egress. 3) The front elevation windows are proposed to be replaced with aluminum framed roll-up doors. Kickplates will remain, but with a simplified design, beneath the new rollup doors. A photograph from 1950 shows rollup doors flanking the building’s front entrance. The proposed rollup doors for these openings more closely represent what was there historically, than the glazing currently in place. The historic configuration, however, consisted of 6-light over 6-light doors in approximately 2/3 of the space, with the remaining 1/3 (located near each end of the elevation) devoted to advertising panels. A vertical 129 post separated the doors from the panels. While kickplates are not present in the historic photograph, the applicant proposes to retain the existing in place. 4) The windows and door of the recessed front elevation entry feature are also proposed to be replaced with the same type of aluminum framed storefront system as the proposed rollup doors. This alteration would take the entry back to a similar configuration as the 1950 historic photo, but with large single-light window panes flanking the door, rather than the historic divided light pattern. If possible, in addition to the aluminum storefront, the applicant will retain the historic wood-framed transom window above the front entry. 5) A new storefront entry is proposed for the rear elevation. It would include transom windows and a single door with sidelights, while utilizing existing side frames and cornice elements. This alteration would be a departure from the current sliding door configuration, making it more similar to what would be seen on a primary elevation of a commercial building. The applicant has indicated flexibility in this proposal, as there might be possibility in recreating the appearance of the overhead door referenced in a 1936 building permit. Please reference the enclosed packet from the applicant for elevations, photographs, and narrative regarding the proposal. The applicant’s narrative contains a project description and specific responses to many of the provisions outlined in the draft Design Standards for the Old Town Historic District. The narrative also contains responses to Section 14-48 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Review Criteria at time of Final Review: While this is a Conceptual Review, at time of Final Approval, alterations to properties in Fort Collins Landmark Districts are reviewed for compliance with Municipal Code Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work,” the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for Rehabilitation, and the Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. The Commission may also reference the draft update to the Design Guidelines for suggestions, but not for a motion. Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. 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; (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. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. - 2 - 130 • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. - 3 - 131 Linden Street Old Firehouse Alley Seckner Alley Walnut Street Tenant 1 Entry Tenant 2 Entry Demising Wall Proposed Rooftop Addition Proposed Rooftop Patio 50.0’ 180.1’ 320 Walnut Street Proposed Use: Restaurant | Bar To Be Determined Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D 0’ 100’ N Orientation Plan | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 Alley Entry 9 Indicates Image Number and View Vantage Point. Images can be found on the proceeding pages. 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 1 11 10 132 Building from Old Firehouse Alley Seckner Alley from Walnut Street Building from Walnut Street Existing Photos | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 The existing building is characterized by brickwork with entrances and storefronts in disrepair. Openings have been covered particularly on the back alley side of the building. The existing paint colors on the storefront entrances include blue and white, colors that are not traditional to the historic district but rather match the color scheme of the logo from the previous tenant, Goodwill. 133 Image 1 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 The recessed entry on Walnut is to remain in place preserving the historic façade composition. The existing commercial storefront entrance is not original and has been poorly maintained. The Storefront will be replaced to meet current energy code requirements with a door in a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. The proposed design complies with guidelines for ‘Contemporary Storefront Design’ indicated in the Old Town Historic District Design Standards - Fort Collins, Colorado, dated 4 November 2013. As part of the design, roll-up doors are proposed with a grid pattern of horizontal mullions and vertical muntins that match the proportion of the existing window pattern located in the transom above the entry. Existing Condition Proposed 134 Existing Condition Image 2 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from Walnut Street looking southeast. Note that the proposed addition is stepped back from the street and concealed from view. Trees in the ROW further serve to conceal the new structure. Visible from the street is a new rooftop guardrail located at the inside edge of the parapet. The guardrail will be designed minimally in an attempt to limit its visible signiﬁ cance and impact to the existing structure. Shade on the patio is essential to the function of the space and due to the potential wind loads, will have to be mounted to structure. The proposed shade structure is stepped back from the street edge by one full structural bay and will utilize a translucent shade fabric. Proposed 135 Image 3 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from Walnut Street looking northwest. Note that the proposed addition is stepped back from Walnut Street and is visible due to the open parking located southeast of the existing building. When these parcels become developed, the new addition will be concealed from street view. Proposed 136 Image 4 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from Walnut Street looking northeast through Seckner Alley. The rooftop addition is primarily concealed from view. A new recessed opening is proposed. To minimize impact to the existing structure, the design includes removal of one window and sill allowing the extension of the opening to grade. The opening will allow access to an exterior covered alcove that leads to a door under the existing roof. The door and alcove is required to meet the egress requirements for the building and to meet the code requirements indicating that an exit door may not cross over the property line. It is the intent that a locking gate may be placed at the new opening for added security. Existing Condition New Opening Proposed 137 Image 5 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley looking southwest through Seckner Alley. The rooftop addition aligns with an existing wooden lightpole helping to conceal its view from the alley. The addition will also be concealed from view by an existing chimney (not shown in the image above) Existing Condition Proposed 138 Image 6 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley looking southeast. Note that the rooftop addition is not visible. Proposed 139 Image 7 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley at the intersection with Seckner Alley. A new storefront is to be added. The storefront entrance will be an interpretation of a traditional entrance utilizing the existing side frames and cornice elements. The new storefront would include transom windows, a single door entry with sidelights. The intention is to create an entry to the rear tenant space while maintaining the character typical of rear alleys in the district. Existing Condition Proposed 140 Image 8 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley looking northwest. Note that the rooftop addition is not visible. Proposed 141 Image 9 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from Walnut Street looking northwest. Note that the rooftop addition and shade structure is stepped back from the street will be concealed by a street tree. Existing Condition Proposed 142 Image 10 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View across the street on Walnut. Note that the addition is concealed from view. The shade structure will be visible, but will be designed to be minimal and will be recessed from the building edge preserving the traditional character of the existing structure. Note that signage is conceptual and will need to meet city requirements. Existing Condition Proposed 143 Existing Condition Image 11 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 31 January 2014 View from the sidewalk fronting the building on Walnut Street. Note that from the sidewalk, the rooftop addition is not visible. Furthermore, the entrance has been revitalized and includes the refurbishment of the existing light ﬁ xtures. Proposed 144 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com One Line Studio LLC 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 31 January 2014 Landmark Commission City of Fort Collins Project: 320 Walnut Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Dear members of the Landmark Commission and city staff, Preserving the built environment and the character built upon generations of development is essential to establishing a sense of place. As a sustainable practice, the reuse and adaptation of historical elements equates to being respectful of the local environment, being part of a community and being a good neighbor. At 320 Walnut Street, the proposed design aims to:  Maintain the original character of the brick building while refurbishing the entrances which have been left to neglect and modified from their original historic character.  Activate the streets and alleys surrounding the building in the historic district by adding an entrance off of Seckner Alley and providing a tenant space with primary access to the Old Firehouse Alley.  Establish an active district destination by adding a second floor structure and rooftop patio that is designed to be concealed from view at the street level in respect of the contributing character that the structure at 320 Walnut provides to this historic district. Following this cover letter, we have included a narrative describing how the proposed design meets the goals set forth by the City of Fort Collins, the Landmark Commission, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. We appreciate the opportunity to submit improvements to 320 Walnut Street for your review and request your approval to proceed with the proposed design. Respectfully, Tim Politis, AIA, LEED AP One Line Studio LLC 145 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com Narrative: The following items are referenced from the ‘Old Town Historic District Design Standards - Fort Collins, Colorado,’ dated 4 November 2013. Note that sections that are not applicable to the project have been omitted from the narrative. Architectural Details Architectural details help convey the historic and architectural significance of historic properties, and should be preserved. The method of preservation that requires the least intervention is preferred. 3.1 Maintain significant architectural details. Response: The proposed design maintains the original brickwork including Rowlock details over the alley windows and the Rowlock cornice detailing on the facade at Walnut Street. Volumetrically, the design maintains the historic openings including entrances on Walnut, windows in Seckner Alley, and Entrances and windows in Old Firehouse Alley. Materials and Finishes Historic materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible. If the material is damaged, limited replacement to match the historic should be considered. Historic building materials should never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments. Preserving historic building materials and limiting replacement to only pieces which are deteriorated beyond repair also reduces the demand for, and environmental impacts from, the production of new materials and therefore supports the city’s sustainability objectives. 3.4 Maintain historic building materials. 3.7 Preserve the visibility of historic materials. Response: In addition to maintaining the historic brickwork, the proposed design looks to replace some of the elements in the entrances off of Walnut Street and Old Firehouse Alley. The entrances have been modified from the original design over the years and the original mullion patterns of the glass and large portions of the openings have been covered with painted plywood. The proposed design aims to replace these elements with new painted wood trim, aluminum storefront, and roll-up doors with a grid pattern that is a contemporary interpretation of the historic design character of the building. The proposed materials including wood, metal clad materials and paint are consistent with historic materials used in the original construction. Windows Historic windows help convey the significance of historic structures, and should be preserved. They can be repaired by re-glazing and patching and splicing elements such as muntins, the frame, sill and casing. Repair and weatherization also is often more energy efficient, and less expensive than replacement. If a historic window cannot be repaired, a new replacement window should be in character with the historic building. 3.8 Maintain and repair historic windows. 146 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com Response: Existing windows will either be repaired or replaced with Storefront to match the traditional character. Doors and Entries The design, materials and location of historic doors and entries help establish the significance of a historic structure and should be preserved. When a new door is needed, it should be in character with the building, especially when it is located on a primary wall. 3.15 Maintain historic primary entrances. 3.17 When necessary, locate and design a new door and entry to preserve the historic façade composition. 3.19 Replace storefront features to match historic features if necessary. 3.20 Reconstruct a missing storefront to match the character, scale and materials of the historic. 3.21 A simplified contemporary interpretation of a historic storefront may be considered where the historic storefront is missing and no evidence of it exists. Response: The historic recessed entry on Walnut is to remain in place preserving the historic façade composition. The existing commercial storefront entrance is not original and has been poorly maintained. The Storefront will be replaced to meet current energy code requirements with a door is a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. The proposed design complies with guidelines for ‘Contemporary Storefront Design’ indicated in the Old Town Historic District Design Standards - Fort Collins, Colorado, dated 4 November 2013: Contemporary Storefront Designs When a historic storefront is largely missing, it may be appropriate to design a replacement that is a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. A contemporary replacement design should:  Promote pedestrian interest and an active street-level façade  Use high-quality, durable materials that are similar in type and scale to traditional materials  Be located within the historic structural frame of sidewalls and lintel or cornice that spaces the storefront opening  Convey the characteristics of typical historic storefronts  Include traditional storefront elements such as a bulkhead and transom  Maintain the transparent character of the display windows  Provide a recessed entry  Use a simple and relatively undecorated design  Relate to traditional elements of the façade above  Preserve early storefront alterations Historic Roofs Many roofs in the Old Town Historic District are flat and are concealed from view, where changes may not affect the integrity of the structure. For those that are visible, the form, 147 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com shape and materials of a historic roof help define the character of a historic structure as it is perceived from the public way and should be preserved. 3.22 Preserve the historic roof line on a historic structure. Response: The existing parapet surrounding the building on four sides including the stepped parapet located on the Seckner Alley is to be retained as is. Color Choosing the right combination of colors for a historic rehabilitation project can unify building elements with the façade and highlight important architectural detailing. Paint color selection should be appropriate to the architectural style and complement the building and its surroundings. Using the historic color scheme is an option, but new schemes that are compatible are also appropriate. 3.27 Retain historic colors whenever possible. 3.28 Use a color scheme that is compatible with the historic character of the structure. Response: The existing paint colors on the storefront entrances include blue and white, colors that are not traditional to the historic district but rather match the color scheme of the logo from the previous tenant, Goodwill. As a result, we are proposing a new color scheme. The storefront and windows will be Dark Bronze and a subtle, lighter complementary color is proposed on the wood paneling. The goal is to provide a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront design. New Additions and Accessory Structures A new addition or accessory structure that is compatible with the historic building and surrounding historic context may be appropriate. It is important to consider its design and placement, as well as its relationship to the surrounding historic context. The design standards for new construction also apply to the design of a new addition or accessory structure. 3.31 Design an addition or accessory structure to be compatible with the historic structure.  Design an addition or accessory structure to be visually subordinate to the historic building (It should not replicate the design of the historic building.)  Use materials that are of a similar color, texture, and scale to materials in the surrounding historic context.  Design an addition or accessory structure to be compatible with the scale, massing and rhythm of the surrounding historic context.  Incorporate windows, doors and other openings at a consistent solid-to-void ratio to those found on nearby historic buildings.  Use simplified versions of building components and details found in the surrounding historic context. This may include: a cornice; a distinctive storefront or main door surround; window sills or other features.  Do not use replicas of historic building components and details that would convey a false history or that would draw undue attention to the addition. 148 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 3.32 Design an addition or secondary structure to be subordinate to the historic building.  Place an addition or secondary structure to the side or the rear of the historic structure when possible.  Place a rooftop or upper-story addition to the rear to minimize visual impacts from public streets.  Do not locate an addition on a primary façade. 3.33 Clearly differentiate an addition from the historic structure.  Use changes in material, color and/or wall plane.  Consider using a lower-scale connecting element to join an addition to a historic structure.  Consider using contemporary architectural styles or materials in an addition (a simplified version of the architectural style of the historic structure may also be appropriate). 3.34 Do not try to make an addition or secondary structure appear older than it is. 3.35 Do not damage the historic fabric of the historic building when adding an addition. Response: To activate the building and the surrounding public ways, a rooftop addition and patio is desired. In consideration of the design criteria, the contemporary addition will be set back from the primary façade on Walnut. The goal is 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. Note that the proposed design includes a new opening on Seckner Alley. To minimize impact to the existing structure, the design includes removal of one window and sill allowing the extension of the opening to grade. The opening will allow access to an exterior covered alcove that leads to a door under the existing roof. The door and alcove is required to meet the egress requirements for the building and to meet the code requirements indicating that an exit door may not cross over the property line. It is the intent that a locking gate may be placed at the new opening for added security. 149 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com The following criteria and responses are referenced from the Fort Collins City Code Sec. 14-48 Approval of Proposed Work: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; Response: In respect of the historic landmark district, design emphasis has been placed on eye level views from surrounding public ways. The improvements to the property are proposed to compliment the traditional historic district at the street level. A new addition on the roof is designed to screen mechanical equipment from view and is stepped back from the existing building edge in a way to minimize its visibility and maintain the historic character of the 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; Response: The proposed improvements to the street level facades include a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront designed to complement the traditional character of the brick building and maintain the original intent for massing, scale, and transparency. (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; Response: The intent of the proposed design is to maintain the existing character of the site and structure. Whenever possible, connections to the existing structure are made behind the parapet and concealed from view. New supports for shade structures are proposed to be largely concealed from view by the existing brick pilasters. (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; Response: As the proposed addition is set back from the primary facades, the design minimizes the visual impact on the landmark district. The design team envisions that the enhanced entries and uses of this building can serve to further active the public ways surrounding the building in the historic district. (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. Response: The following Section outlines responses to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 150 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com The following criteria and responses are referenced from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Response: The proposed design maintains the existing brick features, spatial relationships and features of the original design. The storefront entries are being improved to a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront per the guidelines established by the City of Fort Collins and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for Rehabilitation. As part of the proposed design, opening that had previously been covered will be restored. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Response: The proposed design attempts to maintain the existing materials and relationships. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Response: The new rooftop addition uses contemporary materials such as standing seam metal panels to contrast the older structure. The proposed design does not create a false sense of historical development; rather, it builds upon the character of the existing building. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Response: Noted. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Response: The evident craft most pronounced in the existing structure’s brick detailing, is to be maintained as is. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Response: The historic recessed entry on Walnut is to remain in place preserving the historic façade composition. The existing commercial storefront entrance is not original and has been poorly maintained. The Storefront will be replaced to meet current energy 151 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com code requirements with a door in a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. The proposed design complies with guidelines for ‘Contemporary Storefront Design’ indicated in the Old Town Historic District Design Standards - Fort Collins, Colorado, dated 4 November 2013. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Response: Noted. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Response: Not applicable. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Response: To activate the building and the surrounding public ways, a rooftop addition and patio is desired. In consideration of the design criteria, the contemporary addition will be set back from the primary façade on Walnut. The goal is 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. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Response: Noted. Being set back from the parapet and concealed from view, should the proposed addition be removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 12, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 1544 West Oak Street, Paramount Cottage Camp CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Bobby Kahn, Owner; John Williams, Contractor REQUEST: Conceptual and Final Review of Alterations for Rehabilitation BACKGROUND: Constructed in 1928, the Paramount Cottage Camp is comprised of two one story wood framed rectangular buildings, each containing eight connected cottages or units. The property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in September 2009, under Landmark Standard 1, as a locally rare, representative example of the tourist camp industry in Colorado, utilized to promote tourism and community growth; and Standard 3, as an intact example of a cottage camp, embodying the distinctive characteristics of this unique property type. In 2010 and 2011, the Cottage Camp received State Historic Fund (SHF) grants, resulting in a 20 year covenant. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is proposing additional work to the property, which is summarized here. Additional details are contained in the Mr. Williams’ narrative, attached: #1 Concrete Work: The existing concrete is in poor condition, with gaps, cracks, and broken sections. The applicant proposes to remove all existing sidewalk and curb, and replacing with new. The existing sidewalk is 3’6” wide by 4” thick, and extends from the north ends of the units south to Oak Street. The curb is 5” wide and 5½” thick. The proposal is to match the width, length and height of the existing sidewalk and curbs in all locations. A proposed change is to add a three-foot- wide walk from each unit’s door to the curb, in sixteen locations. These walks would extend through the existing historic planters. Currently, the occupants of each unit have dealt with the lack of a walk in their own way, through having no walk to various manner of stepping stones, flagstone, tiles, or concrete steps. #2 Siding: The backs of both buildings have not been rehabilitated, and the non-historic vertical press-board siding is in poor condition. From the photographs and file material, it appears that the non-historic siding was installed over historic horizontal wooden siding, which apparently still exists under the vertical siding. The proposal is to cut through both siding materials at 2 feet from the bottom and remove both layers, to allow for R13 insulation to be pushed up into the walls to a height of about 4 feet from the base. The lower 2 feet of each building would then be repaired by installing new vertical siding to match the non-historic siding over OSB board, built up to equal the current thickness. #3 Windows: Windows on the back elevations of the two buildings are a pattern of vertical wooden one-over-one double-hung, vertical vinyl clad two-light casements, and horizontal wooden two-light single hung. While the double and single hung windows and openings appear to be historic, the 163 vinyl windows are much smaller than the original windows, and the openings have been patched with pressed-board siding. The window casings were removed when these window were installed, and these windows not cased. The applicant proposes to case the windows to match the originals using 2 by material. #4 Paint and Caulk: The east side of the east building and the west side of the west building will be painted to match the other elevations. The applicant proposes to power wash and scrape all loose paint. All cracks, windows, siding seams, etc., will be caulked prior to being painted. REVIEW CRITERIA: Alterations to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work”: Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. 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; (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. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new - 2 - 164 feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. - 3 - 165 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Dept. SHF Grant Application: 10/01/09 Paramount Cottage Camp, 1544 W. Oak St. across from the City’s Municipal Cottage and Camp Ground, looking north, picture post card circa 1930. Paramount Cottage Camp, 1544 W. Oak St. today, looking north, photographer: Carol Tunner 166 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 1544 W. Oak, 08/09, east building, looking NE, photographer: AE Design 1544 W. Oak, 08/09, west building, looking NW, photographer: AE Design 167 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 168 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 169 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 170 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 171 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 172 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 173 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 Paramount Cottage Camp east building, 1964, County Assessor’s records, looking northeast from Oak St. Paramount Cottage Camp west building, 1964, County Assessor’s records, looking northwest from Oak St Paramount Cottage Camp east building, 1970, County Assessor’s records, looking northeast from Oak St. Paramount Cottage Camp west building, 1970, County Assessor’s records, looking northwest from Oak St HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPHS 174 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 The City’s Municipal Cottage Camp In City Park, looking north, circa 1930s. This cottage camp, along with the Paramount Cottage Camp across the street at 1544 W. Oak Street, was the City’s effort from about 1927 to 1942 at auto touring accommodations. HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY Kitchen The existing kitchen from the Municipal Cottage Camp showing original wood windows and drop siding, looking NE, 09-20-09, photographer: Carol Tunner 175 Project: Paramount Cottage Camp Rehabilitation Applicant: City of Fort Collins-Advance Planning Department State Historical Fund Grant Application: October 1, 2009 Picture of the historic sign from the 1930 postcard, and the proposed reconstruction of the sign. Courtesy of Dan Seese Designs, Inc. 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 SUMMARY Board and Commission Staff Liaison Meeting January 22, 2014 215 N. Mason, Community Room Presenters: Wanda Nelson, City Clerk Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson, Change Management Analyst Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager Attendees: Sue Beck-Ferkiss, Affordable Housing Board; Dianne Tjalkens, staff support to 7 Boards; Melissa Hovey, Air Quality Advisory Board; Ellen Martin, Art in Public Places Board; Sharon Thomas, Community Development Block Grant Commission; Ethan Cozzens, Commission on Disability; Cheryl Donaldson, Cultural Resources Board; SeonAh Kendall, Economic Advisory Commission; Steve Catanach, Energy Board; Harriet Davis, staff support to Energy Board and Water Board; J.R. Schnelzer, Golf Board and Parks & Recreation; Melissa Herzog, Human Relations Commission; Cindy Cosmos, staff support to Landmark Preservation Commission and Planning & Zoning Board; Susie Gordon, Natural Resources Advisory Board; Randy Hensley, Parking Advisory Board; Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Retirement Committee; Mark Jackson, Transportation Board; Kevin Gertig, Water Board; Suzanne Jarboe-Simpson, Women's Commission; Megan Greer, Youth Advisory Board; Peter Barnes, Zoning Board of Appeals Staff presented a brief history of the charge to restructure and improve the Boards and Commissions process. Included was a summation of the City Council discussion at the November 2013 retreat. The direction given is to restructure the current Boards and Commissions system to align with the City’s 7 Key Outcome areas.  Currently the structure is not optimal to obtain input for the outcome areas.  Aligning the Boards and Commissions work plans to the City Council work plans  Possible use of Ad Hoc Committees to address single topics, disband after Council assignment has been completed. Be clear that it is a temporary role.  Micro-volunteerism  Quasi-Judicial boards will not be changing.  Fewer Boards and Commissions will be an result  Standardize Boards and Commissions staff support A plan is not yet developed. We are in need of staff liaison and board and commission members input and assistance. Staff Liaison Comments/Questions: How are Boards and Commissions going to be told about this plan?  We will invite all staff liaisons and Board and Commission members to a discussion at the Lincoln Center on Monday, February 24. The steering team will utilize the staff liaisons to invite the board and commission members.  The steering team will be speaking with the Futures Committee on Monday, January 27. Once we receive their input and guidance we will submit to Boards and Commissions: o A letter from Darin and Mayor Weitkunat regarding restructuring the current Boards and Commissions system we anticipate being able to send this on 01/28/14. The letter will: 1). Request each member complete a survey to start them thinking about where their respective Board or Commission most appropriately fits into the 7 outcome areas and their thoughts on strategy. 2). Invite them to the February 24, 2014 meeting.  The steering team will provide speaking points to the staff liaisons. 192 What is the reason for restructuring the Boards and Commissions? If it is not broken why try to fix it? Message should solid to the Boards and Commission members. How will the citizens be able to connect to the issues that are important to them? Find ways to connect. Boards and Commissions fear being overlooked. The Boards and Commissions have been creating their 2014/2015 work plans. Do we stop this process? We expect the Boards and Commissions to continue to work on their work agendas. We desire assistance from the board and commission members in creating the new system. The implementation will take time and once a fully vetted plan is created, we can then present an expected timeline. Will there be a process for Board and Commission members to advocate to “Stay the Same?” We expect some feedback from the survey. During the February 24, 2014 meeting we will build in time to hear member thoughts, opinions and feelings. It would be helpful to have the reasons that certain boards were created. Will this change/or assist the staff liaison directing what role the boardmembers serve and the type of work that should be handled? Policy versus Operational. Will the City Charter/Code be reviewed? Need to address what items are required to be processed through Boards and Commissions. Include triple bottom line in new Charter language to reach HRC, COD, etc. issues. We should consider how this would affect staff support. Could there be Co-Liaisons? How are/will Boards and Commission members be chosen/appointed? Who would be the stakeholders for ad-hoc “special” topics? Who would be responsible for created the ad-hoc committees? How will technical expertise be utilized/captured? Perhaps create a speakers bureau to lend expertise. Consolidating Boards and Commissions could create increased staff work and meetings? In order for changes to take place we need a strong mandate. The message should be clear and there should be true Council commitment. Share the project timeline. 193