No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/2016 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingCommunity Development & Neighborhood Services 281 N. College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2740 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com BUILDING REVIEW BOARD March 7, 2016 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm Council Chambers 300 Laporte Ave AGENDA 1. Coy-Hoffman Silos - Woodward Inc. second round appeal to Building Review Board as remanded by City Council on January 19, 2016 (Case #2015-02) City Council January 19, 2016 Meeting – Woodward Silos (Link to material that was presented to BRB 10-29-2015 and City Council 01-19-2016) http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php *** Check back for updates 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 Services Building Review Board March 7, 2016 Reference: Coy-Hoffman Barn Silos 1041 Woodward Way Fort Collins, Colo. 80524 On January 19, 2016 the Fort Collins City Council, having heard Woodward’s appeal to the Building Review Board’s (BRB) October 29, 2015 decision to uphold the building official’s declaration that the Coy/Hoffman silos are “dangerous” and not an “imminent danger”, remanded the case back to the BRB. The remand is for the BRB …to receive and consider evidence and analysis regarding the effects of natural conditions and events of a one in ten-year probability on one or both of the silos to consider whether one or both poses an imminent threat or danger as that term is defined in the International Property Maintenance Code. The engineering firms of JVA and Exponent have completed and submitted their analysis. Both firms agree that of the natural events that Council asked to be reviewed, wind is the likely force that would have the greatest impact on the structures. While JVA voices concerns over the general condition of the silos, Exponent believes that the silos will resist the one in ten-year probability of a wind event. The adopted 2012 International Building Code (IBC) is the general building code of the City of Fort Collins and lists all administrative sections and references to all other construction related codes, IBC 104.1 states: “104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.” The building official’s classification that the silos are dangerous vs imminent danger is based on the definitions provided in the adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). The IPMC provides terms, that the building official uses to classify a structure’s stability. From the least concerning to the most concerning, in terms of the life, health, and safety of the occupants or the public, the terms are: Building Review Board Woodward Coy-Hoffman Silos March 7, 2016 - 2 - 108.1.1 Substandard structures. A substandard structure is one that may pose a risk to the life, health, property or safety of the occupants thereof or the public, even though it does not constitute a dangerous structure as defined in Section 108.1.5, either because the structure lacks the equipment necessary to protect or warn occupants in the event of fire, or because it contains substandard or missing equipment, systems or fixtures, or is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, or structurally unsound. Chapter 2 Definitions SUBSTANDARD. Condition(s) that through neglect, deterioration, or damage no longer meet the minimum requirements of the currently adopted code as it relates to the specific condition(s) identified. Even though such condition(s) may not be found dangerous at the time of their discovery, such condition(s), if not corrected, may pose a risk to the health and safety of the public, the occupants or property thereof pursuant to Section 108.1.5. 108.1.5 Dangerous structure or premises. A structure or premises is dangerous if any part, element or component thereof is no longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit state as defined in this code or, when considered in totality, the structure or premises pose an imminent threat to the health and safety of the public or the occupants of the structure or premises as referenced in Appendix A of this code. Chapter 2 Definitions LIMIT STATE. A condition beyond which a structure or member becomes unfit for service and is judged to be no longer useful for its intended function (serviceability limit state) or to be unsafe (strength limit state). Chapter 2 Definitions IMMINENT DANGER. A condition which could cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time. Within the definition of “dangerous” the first part describes the limit state condition, while the second part applies a higher standard of hazard, that being when considered in totality; the structure poses an imminent threat. Imminent danger is not interpreted to be a condition that could happen at some point in time and under various conditions, but rather a condition so hazardous that it could cause injury or death at any time. Having reviewed the latest engineering reports I find no information that would change the classification dated September 18, 2015, that the silos are dangerous and not an imminent danger. Therefore, my original classification dated September 18, 2015, remains in effect and I am not taking any action to modify or change it. The remand hearing will be a continuation of Woodward’s original Notice of Appeal to the BRB dated September 28, 2015, that the building official failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code, and the Charter. Specifically Section 14-71(b) of the City Code; Section 5-47(15) of the City Code, amending Section 111 of the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code Failure Analysis Associates Evaluation of Woodward Silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm 1041 Woodward Way Fort Collins, Colorado First Supplemental Report 1505711.000 - 0075 Evaluation of Woodward silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm 1041 Woodward Way Fort Collins, Colorado First Supplemental Report Prepared for Mike Gebo City of Fort Collins Chief Building Official 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Prepared by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates 2595 Canyon Blvd, Suite 440 Boulder, CO 80302 February 29, 2015  Exponent, Inc. 1505711.000 - 0075 ii Contents Page Acronyms and Abbreviations iii Limitations iv 1 Introduction v 1.1 Purpose v 2 Exponent Response to JVA Calculations 1 3 Exponent’s Structural Analysis 3 3.1 Rain Loading 3 3.2 Hail Loading 3 3.3 Snow Loading 3 3.4 Flood 3 3.5 Freeze/Thaw and Frost Depth 3 3.6 Vibrations 4 3.7 Seismic 4 3.8 Wind 4 3.8.1 Analysis 4 3.8.2 Historic Wind Data 5 4 Summary 7 Appendix A Calculations Appendix B Colorado State University Wind Speed Records 1505711.000 - 0075 iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ACI American Concrete Institute ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ICC International Code Counsel IBC International Building Code IPMC International Property Maintenance Code UBC Uniform Building Code SPCC 2008 City of Fort Collins Structure and Premises Condition Code 1505711.000 - 0075 iv Limitations This investigation addressed specific concerns at the subject property, and may not be adequate for other purposes. Use of the findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented herein for any other purpose is at the sole risk of the user. Exponent has no direct knowledge of, and offers no warranty regarding, the condition of concealed construction. Comments regarding concealed construction are professional opinions, derived in accordance with current standards of professional practice based on our engineering experience and judgment. Changes in the conditions of the subject property may occur with time due to natural processes or works of man. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond our control. Recommendations for repair of damage have been developed with the objective of restoring safety, serviceability, and appearance, utilizing established methods and materials. Implementation of the repairs recommended herein may require additional architectural, engineering, and/or regulatory considerations, development of design drawings and specifications, and compliance with local building codes. The findings herein are made to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty based on information available to Exponent as of the date of this report. Exponent may supplement this report to expand or modify our findings based on review of additional information as it becomes available. Due to the limited scope of this investigation and the fact that the review of an existing building requires that certain assumptions be made regarding existing conditions, and because some of these assumptions may not be verifiable without expending significant sums of money or destroying otherwise adequate or serviceable portions of the building, this report shall not be considered a guarantee or warranty of the current or future behavior of the structure. The opinions and comments formulated during this assessment are based on observations and information available at the time of the investigation. No guarantee or warranty as to future life or performance of any reviewed condition is expressed or implied. 1505711.000 - 0075 v 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose At the request of the City of Fort Collins Building Department, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates (Exponent) conducted an evaluation of two historic concrete silos at the new Woodward, Inc. (Woodward) corporate campus under construction at 1041 Woodward Way in Fort Collins, Colorado. The objective of our retention was to evaluate the historic silos for visual indications that they are unsafe or dangerous. Exponent’s scope of services included document review, site observations, and report preparation. On August 13, 2015 Exponent issued a report of findings regarding the silos. Significant opinions from that report are as follows:  The silos are in poor condition and have experienced significant deterioration.  Based on the observed and reported conditions, it is our opinion that the existing conditions more likely than not meet the requirements of dangerous from both the SPCC and the 2012 IBC  The deteriorated and displaced wood framing along the side of the CIP concrete silo, and at the top between the two silos, create falling-object hazards. (SPCC Appendix A, A104.3)  The erosion and deterioration of the base material will eventually lead to collapse, or partial collapse, under the self-weight (dead load) of the unreinforced/lightly reinforced concrete itself. (SPCC Appendix A, A104.5)  The conditions pose a significant risk of imminent collapse under design-level wind loads. (SPCC Appendix A, A104.4)  As long as people are not allowed to occupy the fall zone of the silos (this can be accomplished to some extent by appropriately fencing off the silos and replacing vegetation with maintenance-free landscaping), then a life safety hazard would not exist.  The silos are exempt from repair or replacement requirements as long as the life safety hazard is mitigated. Temporary shoring and bracing, or other protective measures, should be considered when personnel enter the fall zone. Subsequent to our report we issued several emails to Mike Gebo, CBO. Significant opinions from those emails are as follows:  While the swiss hammer readings are helpful we do not often rely on them for actual concrete strength numbers without lab testing to corroborate the results. We have seen the reported compressive strength numbers differ greatly from hammer readings.  Without performing any analysis it is likely that the silos cannot resist modern day design forces from wind or seismic events. Further, it is likely that when the silos were newly built they could not resist modern day design forces. This is true for older structures all over the USA but we don’t have a habit of bulldozing them or claiming 1505711.000 - 0075 vi “imminent danger” until there is a real risk of collapse under self-weight or every day loads.  Adhering to the imminent danger definition in the IPMC “IMMINENT DANGER. A condition which could cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time”, Exponent finds that imminent danger does not exist. JVA’s conclusion that the silos could collapse under 120-130 mph wind speeds does not meet the required criteria of “any time” since the chances of design wind speeds occurring at any time are relatively slim. There is a risk, however slim, the silos could collapse at any time and it is for this reason that the silo collapse zone should be fenced off as we recommended in our report The City of Fort Collins has recently requested that Exponent perform structural analysis on both silos to determine the likelihood of failure in loading events that have a 10 year recurrence interval. The loading events Exponent was asked to consider are as follows: rain, hail, snow, wind, seismic, flood, and vibration, as well as freeze/thaw action. Further, Exponent was asked to review and comment on calculations performed by Woodward’s structural engineer, JVA Consulting Engineers (JVA). The purpose of this supplemental report is summarizing the findings from our structural analysis and to comment on JVA’s calculations. 1505711.000 - 0075 1 2 Exponent Response to JVA Calculations Exponent was provided with a 35-page package of calculations prepared by JVA, dated January 20, 2016, which analyzed the stave silo under wind speeds having approximately1 10-, 300-, and 700-year return periods. JVA appears to have made some errors in their calculations, including the use of incorrect reduction factors, misapplication of an air density reduction ratio, and a novel application of the code’s wind load provisions. However, the errors generally cancel each other out, and JVA arrived at compressive stresses in the silo walls very similar to those determined by Exponent for winds having 10-, 300-, 700-, and 1700-year return periods. Exponent and JVA also arrived at similar estimates of the compressive stresses due to the silo self-weight, which were roughly 2.5 to 3-times the 10-year wind stresses. JVA has not provided Exponent with calculations for the cast-in place (CIP) silo, although it is understood that such calculations exist. Although Exponent and JVA generally agree upon the stresses the silos will be subjected to under self-weight and wind loading, there is a difference in opinion regarding the strength or capacity of the silo walls to resist those stresses. JVA’s analysis method shows that the stave silo is overstressed, and therefore likely to collapse, during a 10 year wind event. JVA’s analysis of the stave silo’s ability to resist the applied loads generally follows methods used for new structures. Such analyses are intrinsically very conservative to address uncertainty and provide high reliability for long service lives, and were made even more so with JVA’s use of overly-conservative assumptions and input.2 While perhaps appropriate (if still highly conservative) for new structures, Exponent’s experience performing analysis of in-service, damaged structures has shown that such “design” calculations are not necessarily good predictors of actual structural behavior. This finding is confirmed by simply taking JVA’s analysis and inputting loads that the silo is known to have resisted in the recent past (last 60 days). JVA’s analysis that they use to show the stave silo to be unsafe in a 10-year wind event likewise predicts that the silo would have collapsed during recent wind gusts of nearly 40 miles per hour recorded at nearby Fort Collins-Loveland airport. Although simplified analytical methods can provide some insight into structural behavior, they often ignore structure’s inherent redundancy and result in conservative predictions. Although it may appear to be a simple structure, the behavior of the stave silo under wind loads is expected to be complex, and more-advanced techniques than those employed by JVA are required to accurately predict failure. In the absence of rigorous testing and a detailed computer model, it is Exponent’s opinion that an accurate analysis of the safety and stability of the silos should 1 The Colorado front range is identified as a special wind study area, and wind maps are available through the Structural Engineers Association of Colorado that identify wind gusts of 10-, 300-, 700-, and 1700-year return periods for the Fort Collins area. JVA’s selected wind speeds are close, but not equal to, these wind speeds, and therefore the return periods are approximate. 2 JVA’s analysis focuses on localized, inward buckling of individual concrete staves near the base of the silo as their predicted failure mechanism. It is Exponent’s opinion that JVA has misapplied code equations and made several highly conservative assumptions in making this prediction, including ignoring that the loss of section on the interior of the staves tends to preclude inward buckling under compression. 1505711.000 - 0075 2 consider their observed behavior and their proven ability to resist known loads in the recent past. 1505711.000 - 0075 3 3 Exponent’s Structural Analysis 3.1 Rain Loading The building codes require rain loading be considered for structures that can hold rain (like a building with a roof) and possibly cause a collapse. Exponent determined that since the silos do not have a roof there is no possibility that the weight of rain could adversely affect the silos. Another possible collapse scenario due to rain is long term deterioration of the structure due to prolonged rain exposure. Deterioration due to rain is a very long-term phenomenon that can be mitigated by properly maintaining the silos. 3.2 Hail Loading While structures have been known to collapse due to hail events, the collapse mechanism is due to inadequate roof overflow drains and hail blocking primary roof drains thereby allowing water to pond on a structure and collapse the roof, as opposed to physical impact loads. Thus, this loading scenario is similar to rain which Exponent concluded that there is no possibility that the weight of hail could adversely affect the silos due to the absence of a roof. 3.3 Snow Loading While structures can collapse due to snow events, the collapse mechanism is due to structural overload by accumulating snow. The silos do not have the surface area or irregularities that would allow significant accumulation of snow. Thus, Exponent concluded that there is no possibility that the weight of snow could adversely affect the silos. 3.4 Flood In their meeting the City Council contemplated flood loading scenarios on the silos and the possibility of the silos being in the 10-year floodplain. Exponent has not researched the floodplain for this site. However, Woodward’s representative stated that the silos are not within 100-year floodplain and that currently there is a pending action with FEMA to revise the floodplain maps to reflect this. It follows that the silos would not be affected by a 10-year floor event. 3.5 Freeze/Thaw and Frost Depth In a recent meeting with Woodward and JVA, Exponent was asked to consider freeze/thaw action on the silos and the possibility of frost heave at the foundation level. In order to consider the possibility of frost heave affecting the silos Exponent requires more information as to the depth and dimensions of the silo footings. Given the age of the silos it is unlikely the footings meet current foundation depth requirements associated with potential frost heave. Frost heave causes movement of the ground that can raise and lower a structure. If such movement is not uniform across the structure due to uneven soil conditions, temperature and 1505711.000 - 0075 4 moisture exposure, structures could become out of level. The finding that the silos have successfully resisted frost heave for over 100 years is evidence of their ability to reliably resist this mechanism. Further, frost heave is an unlikely scenario to cause collapse of a silo. Freeze/thaw action in concrete is a well-known deterioration mechanism that can result in surface scaling and a gradual reduction in the thickness of an exposed element. Northern Colorado has some of the highest levels of freeze/thaw cycles in the United States. Freeze/thaw action is a long-term phenomenon that can be mitigated by properly maintaining the silos. As stated in our prior report, if the silos are not repaired and maintained they will continue to deteriorate and will collapse at some point. However, Exponent determined that there is not an immediate threat of failure from freeze/thaw. 3.6 Vibrations In their meeting the City Council contemplated vibrations from nearby roadways and the possibility that those vibrations could cause the silos to collapse. Exponent finds that the silos are not in a precarious situation such that vibrations could cause their demise. The vibrations from the use of heavy construction equipment at the nearby (within 100 feet) campus, including vibrations induced by the use of a core drill to extract concrete samples from the silo walls, likely outweigh vibrations from the nearest roadways (over 500 feet), and the silos have successfully resisted those vibrations. Vibrations from roadways are not a cause of structural failure and are not a loading scenario considered by building codes or industry standards. 3.7 Seismic New structures are typically designed to remain “life-safe” in a seismic event having roughly a 500-year return period. Both JVA and Exponent found the design earthquake loads to be less than the wind loads from a 300-year wind event. Ground accelerations for return periods other than 500-years can typically be estimated from data available from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). However, in a low-seismic area such as Colorado, a 10-year event is so small that ground motions are not documented by USGS. The shortest return period for ground motions documented in the Fort Collins area is 20 years, which corresponds to an acceleration of less than 0.5-percent of gravity. Therefore a seismic event of 10-year return period poses no threat to the silos. 3.8 Wind 3.8.1 Analysis Since Fort Collins and the rest of the Colorado Front Range is located in a “special wind study” area, Exponent used design wind speed maps available from the Structural Engineers Association of Colorado in its analysis. In addition to the typically used design wind speeds for new structures (300-, 700-, and 1700-year return periods), these maps include 10-year return period gusts, which are estimated at 85 miles per hour for the Woodward site. Based on this wind speed and using the same general, simplified technique used by JVA in their analysis, Exponent has estimated that a compressive stress of up to 50 psi could be produced at the base of the stave silo in a 10-year wind event, which would be added to a compressive stress of 1505711.000 - 0075 5 roughly 120 psi due to self-weight.3 For the similarly-sized, but thicker-walled, cast-in-place silo, the 10-year storm generates a compressive stress of under 20 psi, which is added to a self- weight stress of just over 100 psi.4 It should be noted that the wind stresses are localized maximum stresses (these gradually decrease away from the leeward/downwind side of the silo), and are small relative to the generally uniform self-weight stresses that the silos resist every day. Compressive tests of concrete samples taken from each silo suggest a minimum compressive strength of 1720 psi for the stave silo and 1390 psi for the cast-in-place silo. Although testing was limited and the entirety of this tested strength is typically not available or considered for design of actual concrete elements,5 the sum of the predicted 10-year wind and self-weight stresses is less than 10 percent of the minimum tested compressive strength for either silo. Exponent’s wind calculations are attached as Appendix A. Based on these results, Exponent concludes that both silos are capable of withstanding windstorms having a 10-year return period. Higher wind speeds, on the order of those used for design of new structures, may induce more-significant deformations and global instabilities in the silos that are not accounted for by the simplified analysis methods. A more-advanced computer analysis6 would be required to assess the validity of the simplified analysis for high winds. 3.8.2 Historic Wind Data Exponent has obtained weather records from two stations located near the Woodward property: Colorado State University (CSU) and Fort Collins – Loveland Airport (KFNL). The higher- resolution, hourly wind speed recordings from CSU7 over the last 20 years are plotted in Appendix B. As noted in the plot, the silos experience winds on the order of 40 mph on a yearly basis, and have experienced stronger winds in the recent past. The strongest winds recorded in the last 10 years were on the order of 60 mph were recorded in 2008 and 2011. The last time winds were recorded on the order of the 85 mph (the 10-year wind speed estimate) was 1999, when a gust of 83 mph was recorded. Although the condition of the silos have likely deteriorated somewhat in the interceding years, the primary cause of the loss of strength in the silos, silage acids, have since been mitigated. Thus, the silos that resisted 80+ mph winds in 1999 are likely to be very similar in condition to the silos that stand today. 3 An average wall thickness of 1 inch was assumed at the base of the stave silo. 4 An average wall thickness of 2.5 inches was assumed at the base of the cast-in-place silo. 5 Considering the actual conditions observed and the local buckling resistance inherent in a shell structure, Exponent estimates that about one quarter to one third of the compressive strength is effective in resisting compressive stresses in the silo walls, or roughly 450 to 600 psi. 6 Nonlinear finite element analysis and wind pressure formulations that capture in-wind deformation specific to hollow cylindrical structures are recommended. 7 Available through: http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/ 1505711.000 - 0075 6 More recently, wind gusts as high as 39 mph were recorded at nearby Fort Collins Airport on February 18, 2016,8 suggesting that the silos, in their current condition, are capable of withstanding significant, but fairly routine wind loads without collapsing. 8 https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFNL/2016/2/18/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Fort+Collins- Loveland+Municipal&req_state=CO&req_statename=Colorado&reqdb.zip=80528&reqdb.magic=5&reqdb.wm o=99999 1505711.000 - 0075 7 4 Summary Exponent finds that JVA’s calculations are overly conservative and not consistent with the known performance of the silos in wind. The simplified structural analysis of the silos to date, particularly the stave silo, is not a reliable predictor of the actual silo performance; a reliable evaluation would require gathering substantially more information on the strength of the silos and performing more detailed analyses. For these reasons Exponent cautions against putting too much emphasis on the simplified calculations. In the absence of more supportable calculations the finder-of-fact should focus on the past performance of the silos, specifically their ability to resist high winds, as the best indicator of their risk of failure. Based on our site observations and the silos’ ability to resist certain wind events it is our opinion that the silos can be repaired in-place and that they are not an imminent danger. Appendix A Calculations Appendix B Colorado State University Wind Speed Records 11/2/2008, 61.5 mph 6/6/2011, 57.7 mph 1/10/2014, 40.5 mph 6/14/1999, 82.7 mph 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 J-96 J-97 J-98 J-99 J-00 J-01 J-02 J-03 J-04 J-05 J-06 J-07 J-08 J-09 J-10 J-11 J-12 J-13 J-14 J-15 J-16 Hourly Wind Gust Speed (mph) Month and Year Wind Gusts at CSU Ft. Collins Campus Peak Gusts: 2006 to 2016 (mph) Peak Gusts: 1996 to 2005 (mph) BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK JVA, Incorporated 25 Old Town Square Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ph: 970.225.9099 Fax: 970.225.6923 Toll Free: 877.444.1951 Web site: www.jvajva.com E-mail: info@jvajva.com March 1 st , 2016 Wayne M. Timura, PE Next Level Development, Inc. 735 Lancers Court West Suite 100 Monument, CO, 80132 Regarding: Coy-Hoffman Barn Silos - Structural Assessment – Summary of Calculations JVA, Incorporated Project Number: 17629.11 Dear Mr. Timura, Per your request, we have summarized the results from our calculations for each of the Silos. The general results and conclusions for each are presented below, and the calculation summaries are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. SUMMARY OF RESULTS – STAVE SILO: o Baseline assumptions: o f’c = 2000 PSI. o Remaining effective Stave thickness at critical section = 1.” Risk Category Wind Speed Stress Level/ Overstress Percent Methodology At Risk Category II Wind Speed 130 MPH Ultimate 1.96 / 96% overstressed ACI Chapter 22 At Risk Category II Wind Speed 130 MPH Ultimate 1.81 / 81% overstressed ACI 313* and Euler Buckling Equation At Risk Category I Wind Speed 120 MPH Ultimate 1.82 / 82% overstressed ACI Chapter 22 At Risk Category I Wind Speed 120 MPH Ultimate 1.65 / 65% overstressed ACI 313 and Euler Buckling Equation 10 year recurrence interval Wind Speed 85-90 MPH Ultimate Wind Range 1.54 / 54% overstressed ACI Chapter 22 10 year recurrence interval Wind Speed 85-90 MPH Ultimate Wind Range 1.33 / 33% overstressed ACI 313 and Euler Buckling Equation *ACI 313 Chapter 5 specifically addresses Stave Silos. CONCLUSIONS FROM CALCULATION RESULTS – STAVE SILO: BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK a) The effective Stave thickness at the critical section may be as consistently thin as ½” around most of the perimeter approximately 15” above the base. b) The concrete strength at this critical section is likely (much) less than 2000 PSI. It is soft to the touch. Paste and aggregate easily flake away when touched. The cement paste feels to the touch similar to type K (+/- 75 PSI) and type O (+/- 300 PSI) masonry mortars. c) Due to the significant loss of concrete thickness (from 2 ½” to as little as ½” near the base), the staves are no longer mechanically attached to adjoining staves. The tongue and groove type mechanism that initially connected the staves and helped redistributed loads no longer exists due to the loss of concrete section. Therefore, this lack of load sharing could create a non-ductile failure created by Staves progressively buckling around the perimeter of the Silo. d) The lack of mechanical attachment between Staves also means the Staves are no longer laterally braced. e) In this situation there are certainly Second Order Effects present and these effects will add to the stresses calculated. f) Continuing deterioration of the exposed cement paste due to freeze-thaw cycles that occur almost daily from October through April. When considering the calculation results along with the six (6) critical items listed above, we conclude the Stave Silo could fail under loading associated with a 85-90 MPH 10 year recurrence interval type wind event or similar loading. SUMMARY OF RESULTS – CAST-IN-PLACE SILO: o Baseline assumptions: o f’c = 1500 PSI o Remaining effective concrete thickness at critical section = varies from 0” to 3”. o For City of Fort Collins adopted IBC 2012 Seismic loading, overstress at 2” section = approximately 1.53 (53% overstressed) using ACI Chapter 22. o At 10 year recurrence interval Wind Speed (85-90 MPH Ultimate), overstress at localized 2” sections = approximately 1.29 (29% overstressed) using ACI Chapter 22. CONCLUSIONS FROM CALCULATION RESULTS – CAST IN PLACE SILO: It is more difficult for us to generate definitive calculations on the Cast-In-Place Silo because of the unknowns regarding the base conditions. There are significant void spaces at the base (meaning absolutely no contact with the foundation). The Exponent Report estimates approximately 25-30% of the base is no longer in contact with the foundation. We did not precisely measure the voids, but based on our visual observations, we generally agree with the Exponent approximation. Unfortunately, the voids are not uniformly distributed around the base perimeter. A significant percentage of the voids are grouped together in an approximately 60 degree wedge area on the west-northwest side on the silo. BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK More importantly, it’s very difficult to get definitive measurements and ascertain the quality of the remaining concrete that is in contact with the base due to loose dirt, sediment, and other debris that has accumulated over time. We believe that the remaining contact thickness adjacent to many of the voids is very thin (2” or less). While the Cast in Place Silo does have the ability to redistribute loads, stresses will still concentrate immediately adjacent to the voids. In our opinion, this will cause localized areas that will be overstressed in the 85-90 MPH 10 year recurrence interval type wind event. When considering the deterioration of the reinforcing steel at the base, lack of positive attachment to the foundation, voids at base, grouping of voids at base, and the uncertainties of the base concrete adjacent to these voids in general, coupled with the calculation results, we conclude the Cast in Place Silo could also fail under loading associated with an 85-90 MPH wind range type event or similar. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions pertaining to this Report. Sincerely, JVA, INCORPORATED By: _______________________________ Steve Carpenter, PE, LEED AP BD+C Senior Project Manager BOULDER I FORT COLLINS I WINTER PARK EXHIBIT A CALCULATION SUMMARIES (See attached.) 1 of 44 2 of 44 3 of 44 4 of 44 5 of 44 6 of 44 7 of 44 8 of 44 9 of 44 10 of 44 11 of 44 12 of 44 13 of 44 14 of 44 15 of 44 16 of 44 17 of 44 18 of 44 19 of 44 20 of 44 21 of 44 22 of 44 23 of 44 24 of 44 25 of 44 26 of 44 27 of 44 28 of 44 29 of 44 30 of 44 31 of 44 32 of 44 33 of 44 34 of 44 35 of 44 36 of 44 37 of 44 38 of 44 39 of 44 40 of 44 41 of 44 42 of 44 43 of 44 44 of 44 1 of 8 2 of 8 3 of 8 4 of 8 5 of 8 6 of 8 7 of 8 8 of 8 Fort Collins, Colorado March 2014 Project No. 1324 Coy-Hoff man Farm Historic Structure Assessment FINAL COY-HOFFMAN FARM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT Fort Collins, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS Page  Executive Summary 1  Building Survey Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Research Background/Participants 5 1.2 Building Location/Vicinity Map 7 1.3 Assessment Criteria 8 2.0 History and Use 2.1 Construction History and Architectural Significance 10 2.2 Proposed Program 16 2.3 Drawings of Existing Conditions Attached 3.0 Structure Condition Assessment 3.1 Site 17 3.2 Barn Foundations 20 3.3 Barn Structural System 21 3.4 Building Envelope – Barn Exterior Walls 25 3.5 Building Envelope – Barn Roofing and Waterproofing 26 3.6 Barn Windows and Doors 27 3.7 Barn Interior Finishes 30 3.8 Barn Mechanical Systems 32 3.9 Barn Electrical Systems 32 3.10 Concrete Silos Structural Systems 33 3.11 Milk House Foundations 35 3.12 Milk House Structural System 37 3.13 Building Envelope – Milk House Exterior Walls 38 3.14 Building Envelope – Milk House Roofing and Waterproofing 39 3.15 Milk House Windows and Doors 40 3.16 Milk House Interior Finishes 41 3.17 Milk House Mechanical Systems 42 3.18 Milk House Electrical Systems 43 4.0 Analysis and Compliance 4.1 Hazardous Materials 44 4.2 Building Code Compliance 44 4.3 Zoning Code Compliance 45 4.4 Accessibility Compliance 45 4.5 Existing Materials Analysis 46 Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment 5.0 Preservation Plan 5.1 Prioritized Work 47 5.2 Phasing Plan 48 5.3 Estimated Construction Costs 49  Historic Photo Documentation  Photo Documentation  Technical Literature References 52  Terms and Definitions 54  Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (for reference) 55 Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 1 Executive Summary The Coy-Hoffman Farm is an important landmark in the history of early Fort Collins, Colorado, significant for its association with John G. and Emily Coy, an early pioneer farming family in Northern Colorado. The original homestead has been reduced in acreage over time, and has suffered the loss of the original farm house and other outbuildings. The original 1866 stone and timber barn, two concrete silos and a circa 1900 brick masonry milk house remain of the structures that contribute to the historic landmark designation of the property. The milk house will be relocated as a part of this work, but will be located within the designated portion of the property, and situated in the same orientation to the other buildings as it currently is. In general, the remaining historic buildings of the Coy-Hoffman Farm are in good structural condition, due to the quality of the original construction and a 1995-1997 grant-funded stabilization and restoration project, but have a range of preservation issues related to aging and weathering over almost 150 years of use. Much of the farm buildings' exterior and interior form and character defining materials, features and historic fabric remain intact. The grant work was accomplished in a manner that retained the barn's character defining structural expression and exterior appearance. The intent of the historic preservation efforts outlined in the HSA will be to preserve and/or rehabilitate the barn, silos and milk house, while allowing Woodward Inc. to explore creative ways to adaptively reuse the buildings and structures in their new corporate campus. All preservation and rehabilitation will be undertaken to protect the historic resources, with sensitivity to the buildings' historic materials, designs and appearances. This report is based upon field observations and field measurements made on September 18, 2013, but without the benefit of excavation or selective demolition to verify some of the architectural and structural assumptions. The following is a summary of results based upon our research, field observation and assessment of the building: Landmark Status: A part of the Coy-Hoffman Farm property was listed in the State Register of Historic Properties in June 1995. The designated site did not include the entire farm, incorporating the land and buildings within a restricted rectangular area encompassing the barn, milk house and silos, as a way to include and protect the surviving significant buildings and structures along with a modest buffer of open space. History: The Coy-Hoffman Farm has been recognized as one of the earliest homesteads in the region, holding one of the oldest water rights claims along the Cache la Poudre River. The surviving buildings and structures represent this important history and convey a sense of the area’s agricultural heritage. Architectural Significance: The 1866 Coy-Hoffman barn is one of the oldest agricultural buildings still standing in northern Colorado. It is also one of the finest and earliest surviving examples of German style barn architecture in the state. The silos and milk house represent the ongoing improvement of early farmsteads as their owners sought to enhance their agricultural operations throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. Because these features survive among a greatly reduced number of historic farmsteads in the Fort Collins area, and since the barn in particular was constructed during the earliest period of settlement, the site is significant today as a good representative example of pioneering and early agricultural development. Use: The barn, milk house and silos were originally constructed as part of a working farmstead. They were preserved, but unused except for grounds maintenance storage, when the property was acquired by the City of Fort Collins and redeveloped into a golf course in the early 1990s. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 2 Proposed Program: Woodward Inc. is dedicated to preserving the historic buildings, and has gone to great extents to design their new Technology Center facilities and parking around the buildings in a sensitive way. They are currently exploring possible adaptive reuse ideas that will return the buildings to beneficial uses while retaining their historic appearance and integrity. Condition Assessment: The remaining historic Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are in fair to good structural condition. Architecturally, much of the original, character-defining exterior and interior spaces, room configurations, materials, features and details remain intact. Rehabilitation or preservation work is needed to address structural and moisture issues to prevent further damage and deterioration from occurring. All preservation design and construction shall be done in compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.  Site: The immediate site around the buildings has not been significantly modified from when the structures were part of the working farm. Regrading improvements proposed as part of the Woodward redevelopment should be completed to improve surface drainage away from the buildings. Relocation of the milk house is being undertaken as a part of this redevelopment.  Foundations: The sandstone foundations are generally structurally sound, but exhibit some deterioration from the lack of adequate drainage away from the buildings. Repointing is recommended for the rough coursed sandstone foundations. The concrete foundations supporting the silos require further structural analysis and possibly additional structural support.  Building Structural System: The barn and milk house are in good structural condition, particularly as a result of the 1995-1997 stabilization work. Additional structural investigation is recommended during the design phase to verify the depth of footings for the barn and to analyze the structural stability of the concrete silos.  Building Envelope – Exterior Walls: The sandstone and timber walls are structurally sound, but exhibit some deterioration from weathering. Repointing of the sandstone walls and repair and/or replacement of some wood plank siding and trims are required. The brick masonry of the milk house requires repointing and some reconstruction of damaged brick.  Building Envelope – Roofing and Waterproofing: The barn was reroofed in 1995-1997 using taper-sawn Cedar shingles. This roofing remains in good to fair condition, with some evidence of missing and damaged shingles. The building has no insulation in its walls or roof construction. The milk house is roofed with Cedar shake shingles that are in poor condition, and full reroofing with taper-sawn Cedar shingles is recommended. The building is lacking adequate attic ventilation and insulation. Neither of the buildings have gutters or downspouts. While roof runoff is contributing to the deterioration of the stone foundations and walls of the barn, gutters and downspouts are not appropriate on a pioneer barn, and are only recommended if they are determined to be absolutely necessary to the functionality of the proposed adaptive reuse. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 3  Windows and Doors: Most of the windows appear to be original to the construction of both buildings and should be retained. These windows and exterior frames, casings and sills should be repaired as necessary, then rehabilitated. Original wood doors of the barn also appear to be original, and should be retained, rehabilitated and possibly fixed in an "open" position to allow the openings to be fitted with modern doors and glazing as needed for an appropriate adaptive reuse.  Interior Finishes: The interior walls and room configurations of the barn remain true to the original construction. The interior of the milk house is a single room, and original plaster finishes may remain beneath non-original paneling. The paneling should be removed and the plaster repaired as necessary. Original materials that are in good condition should be retained and preserved to the greatest extent feasible as a part of any adaptive reuse.  Mechanical Systems: The barn has no remaining evidence of any mechanical system or equipment. The milk house retains a small, non-operable thru-wall heating unit that is not historically significant and may be removed. Likewise, neither building appears to have had any type of indoor plumbing systems. The mechanical and plumbing systems needs will be dictated by the selected adaptive reuse for the buildings.  Electrical Systems: Remnants of electrical service remain in both of the buildings. They will require new electrical power and lighting systems as a part of any adaptive reuse, and may also require new emergency lighting, lighted exit signage, and fire alarm systems. Exterior lighting should be designed and selected to be sympathetic with the historic character of the buildings.  Hazardous Materials: Asbestos, lead-based paint and other hazardous materials may be present in some of the interior materials of the milk house, and further testing is recommended. The exterior wood siding of the barn is heavily weathered, and any lead-based paint may no longer exist. However, this determination should be made by the owner's independent testing agent.  Building Code Compliance: The Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings would be classified as Type V-B (non-rated, combustible) construction. Building code compliance issues related to adequate secondary egress from the upper level of the barn will need to be addressed if any public use is anticipated for the hay loft area.  Zoning Compliance: The site is located within the city limits of Fort Collins and is zoned RC- River Corridor. It is our understanding that the Woodward site, with its multi-use "campus" development approach, was granted a special "addition of a permitted use" during the City's planning approval process. This allowed a number of additional uses to be added to those normally allowed by right in the RC zone, including conference centers and research facilities.  Accessibility Compliance: The Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are currently not handicapped accessible. If the anticipated adaptive reuse will include public or staff access, adequate accommodations will be required for handicapped accessibility. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 4  Existing Materials Analysis: Specific materials analysis, such as a mortar mix analysis, forensic structural analysis of the silos, and microscopic paint analysis, should be undertaken during the design phase of any preservation treatment. Funding: The most significant preservation needs are identified in the "Critical" or "Serious" category related to drainage, structural and building code compliance improvements, allowing the project to be planned and completed in two or more phases. While Woodward Inc. will participate in funding the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Coy- Hoffman Farm buildings, it is anticipated that the company may seek grant assistance from the State Historical Fund of History Colorado in the coming years. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Research Background/Participants The purpose of this project is to provide an Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) of the remaining historic buildings and structures of the Coy-Hoffman Farm, a part of the new Woodward Inc. Technology Center site. All future rehabilitation and preservation work should consider the recommendations of this HSA report, which has been completed using procedures and methods established by the History Colorado's State Historical Fund (SHF), consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. This document provides an examination of the historic barn, silos and milk house and includes a status or rating of each of its physical features and elements. An itemized course of action needed to correct any deficiencies has been created. From this work, the initial preservation strategies and priorities for stabilization, rehabilitation and/or restoration of the structure have been developed. Ultimately, this HSA report is intended to assist Woodward Inc. in the development of a comprehensive Master Plan for preservation of the buildings and their immediate site. The HSA findings are provided to direct any future design and preparation of construction documents, and to consider the future welfare of the structures, as well as issues relevant to ongoing maintenance. This Historic Structure Assessment was completed by Aller•Lingle•Massey Architects P.C. with the assistance of several subconsultants. Support in assessing the existing structural systems and conditions was provided by Eric Moe, P.E., structural engineer, who also provided guidance and recommendations for moving the historic milk house building. Assistance with site related information and documentation was provided by BHA Design Inc., Woodward's planning consultant. Historical research on the Coy-Hoffman Farm was completed by Tatanka Historical Associates, historic preservation consultants, who also provided support services and contributed to the writing of this report. Archival research was completed for this project through the location of both published materials and unpublished documents gathered from area libraries and archives. Primary among these were the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the City of Fort Collins, and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The results of the field analysis and archival research are presented in this report. Representatives of these firms visited the site on September 18, 2013, and completed field documentation of the barn, milk house and silos, collecting field measurements and digital photographs of historic elements and relevant character-defining materials and features. The weather on September 18 was clear, with temperatures ranging from 60-65. Although the site previously held other buildings that were once part of the farmstead, these are the only remaining built features that were associated with the property during its historic period from the mid-1860s through the 1980s. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 6 This project was funded by Woodward, Inc., which recently acquired the site and is currently redeveloping the former Coy-Hoffman Farm into its new Woodward Technology Center. As stated in the firm’s marketing materials, Woodward “integrates leading-edge technologies into fuel, combustion, fluid, actuation, and electronic control systems for the aerospace and energy markets.” When the project is completed, the campus will include the company’s international headquarters, along with facilities for research, development and manufacturing. The historic Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are being integrated into the site plan as a centerpiece of the development, with the goal of preserving their architectural integrity and eventually adapting them for new uses. Because these new uses have yet to be determined, this report addresses the current condition of the buildings and structures, along with their preservation needs. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 7 1.2 Vicinity Map Site Description The Coy-Hoffman Farm site is located west of N. Lemay Avenue and south of E. Lincoln Street, approximately one mile east of downtown Fort Collins, Colorado. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 8 1.3 Assessment Criteria After evaluation in the field, each feature and element has been assessed to determine the appropriate course of action based upon its significance or importance to the property and its existing condition. Recommendations included in this report are based upon the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as follows: Preservation Preservation places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum over time, through successive occupancies and the respectful changes and alterations that are made. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it assumes that the property has suffered more deterioration prior to work. Rehabilitation allows for an efficient contemporary use through alterations and additions. Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character. Restoration Restoration focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods. Reconstruction Reconstruction establishes limited opportunities to "recreate" a non-surviving site landscape, building, or missing feature or element in new materials. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation notes in its introduction that in Rehabilitation, "historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the treatment Preservation; however, an assumption is made prior to work that existing historical fabric has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement may be required". In giving this latitude, the Guidelines for Rehabilitation includes the following hierarchical methodology: 1. Identify, Retain and Preserve Historic Materials and Features Similar to Preservation, it is essential that during any rehabilitation that recommendations "identify the form and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are important in defining the building's historic character and which must be retained in order to preserve the character". 2. Protect and Maintain Historic Materials and Features After identifying those materials and features that "are important and must be retained in the process of Rehabilitation work", their protection (i.e., "generally involves the least degree of intervention") and maintenance is addressed. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 9 3. Repair Historic Materials and Features When the physical condition of "character-defining materials and features warrant additional work", repair is the next recommendation. 4. Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials and Features Rehabilitation guidance is provided for replacing features because the level of deterioration or damage precludes repair. While replacement of extensively deteriorated character-defining features may be considered, removal should not be recommended if the material or feature "could reasonably be repaired and thus preserved". 5. Design for the Replacement of Missing Historic Features If an entire feature is missing, one that has important architectural significance, then the Rehabilitation guidelines allow for its replacement when adequate historical documentation allows the replaced or new design to take into account the "size, scale and materials of the historic building, and most importantly differentiated so that a false historical appearance is not created". 6. Alterations/Additions for the New Use Continued use of a structure often requires alterations, additions and/or adaptive reuse. In these cases, the Rehabilitation guidelines provide that new additions should be avoided and considered "only after it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering secondary" features or spaces. If required, then additions and alterations should be "clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character- defining features are not radically changed, obscured, damaged or destroyed". All preservation construction work undertaken in response to the recommendations contained in this HSA report should be performed in compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 10 2.0 History and Use 2.1 Construction History The Coy-Hoffman Farm is located due east of downtown Fort Collins, and encompasses the open expanse of land west of Lemay Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River. The collection of historic resources there, consisting of a large barn, two silos, and a milk house, is visible from the nearby arterial roads as well as from the well-traveled Cache la Poudre Trail that runs along the river. For more than 150 years, the site has been recognized as one of the earliest homesteads in the region, also holding one of the oldest water rights claims along the river. The surviving buildings and structures therefore represent this important history and convey a sense of the area’s agricultural heritage. Construction History and Context John G. Coy was born in Oswego, New York in 1834 and as a young man spent time in California, where he attempted to mine and made a living splitting and selling shingles. In 1862, he returned east to marry English immigrant Emily Adams. Following their wedding, the couple loaded a wagon and headed west, intending to make it all the way to California. Events along the trail delayed their travel plans as they were held up and robbed of their shotgun in Missouri and then lost some of their livestock in Nebraska, possibly to cattle rustlers or Native American raiders. Arriving in the recently established Colorado Territory, they traveled up the Cache la Poudre River and on August 1, 1862 reached a spot several miles east of the Rocky Mountain foothills where they planned to winter before proceeding to California the following spring. Although the Coys intended to continue on, their journey to California was abandoned in favor of claiming a parcel of rich farmland along the Poudre River. John constructed a small homestead cabin in the bottomlands until their finances improved and they could erect a more substantial house. At that time, the surrounding country was mostly empty, treeless land occupied by wild animals, Arapahoe Indians, and no more than a dozen widely separated settlers trying to eke a living from the land. In addition to building the cabin, John went to work preparing the soil and planting the fields north of the river with hay, a cash crop that could be sold for livestock feed. In 1864, the federal government established the Fort Collins military post less than one mile upstream from the Coy Farm along the south bank of the river. The cavalry soldiers stationed there were tasked with protecting the overland mail service and area settlers from the threat of Indian attacks that failed to materialize. Nevertheless, the soldiers needed to feed their horses, and the Coys supplied the fort with hay grown on their farm. In addition, John transported hay by wagon southward to Denver and Golden, and to the booming mining camps in the mountains above. Around 1866, John erected a large barn on the property. This was situated on slightly higher ground north of the river and homestead cabin so that it would avoid floods. Sandstone for the lower walls was collected from the foothills to the west, where commercial quarries were soon to be located. Around that same time, a few small sawmills were beginning to operate in the area, and lumber for the barn was probably acquired from these operations. The building included ground floor space for horses and to store agricultural products. Above this, the soaring loft was designed with an open plan that allowed it to hold a large amount of hay. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 11 Over the following years, the Coys developed a farmstead around the barn. With their agricultural enterprise becoming established, in 1869 they constructed a new family home a short distance northeast of the barn. This two-story building faced toward the northeast and was constructed with exterior walls that were either made of concrete or covered with grout that was lined to look like stone. It provided the family with much improved living conditions compared to the small homestead cabin they had resided in the previous seven years. The home was added onto and remodeled a number of times. By the late twentieth century, it was so changed that the building was almost unrecognizable except for its basic shape. It was demolished in 1991 after the property ceased to be used as a farm. Throughout the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, John Coy became a prominent member of the community as the town of Fort Collins emerged after the military post closed in 1867. He served as a Larimer County commissioner and president of the Larimer County Fair Association. John was also instrumental in establishment of the Colorado Agricultural College in Fort Collins (now Colorado State University), and was active in the Larimer County Stockgrowers Association. In 1884, he helped organize the Farmers’ Protective Association to protest price fixing by local flour mills. This led to construction of the Harmony Mill, which continues to stand at Lincoln Avenue and Willow Street. The Hoffman name entered the family’s history when local miller John Hoffman married the Coy’s daughter Frances. In 1894, he built the Hoffman Flour & Feed Mill, which was located across the river just south of the Coy farm (this was demolished in the 1950s and the site is now occupied by the Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant). Around 1900, as John Coy continued to improve his farmstead he constructed a milk house between the house and the barn. This small masonry building allowed the family to store fresh milk from their cows in cold temperatures until it could be transported to a local dairy to be bottled or made into cheese and butter. Milk houses also isolated the product from barnyard smells and microbes. By around 1910, a tall shed-roof addition had been constructed on the north side of the barn, possibly to shelter farm implements. A loafing shed and livestock pen were also constructed on the south side of the building. In 1912, the year he died, John erected the first of two concrete silos that would be located just to the west of the barn. The second silo was also constructed during the 1910s, possibly around 1913. Following John’s death, the property remained in the Coy-Hoffman family and they continued to operate the farm through the late 1980s. For more than 120 years, it supported the family by allowing them to produce an abundance of livestock, including both cattle and sheep. In addition, the surrounding fields were planted with hay, alfalfa, corn, potatoes, onions, and other crops that could be transported to market and sold for a profit. By the 1980s the site was in use as a sod farm. In 1992, it was converted into the Link-N- Greens golf course, the same year that the barn, silos and milk house were determined to be eligible for the State Register of Historic Properties. While the golf course preserved the site’s open, rural setting, the historic features were rapidly deteriorating. The barn, in particular, was in bad shape by that time, needing immediate attention to avoid its loss. Its roof was heavily damaged, segments of the exterior plank sheathing were missing, the hayloft floor and framing were in terrible shape, and the windows and doors were open. These allowed water to infiltrate the building, causing deterioration to progress rapidly. Without attention, the roof and hayloft were sure to collapse at any time. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 12 In 1994, a structural study was completed on the barn to determine its preservation needs. This was paid for by a grant of about $15,000 from the Colorado State Historical Fund. The study concluded that due to the rate of deterioration seen on the building, it would be unlikely to last another five years. Action was needed, and as quickly as possible. In early 1995, the Fort Collins Historical Society applied for and was awarded a restoration grant from the State Historical Fund. In total, the project cost was estimated to be just under $68,000, with almost $52,000 of that in the form of a state grant. The goal of the project was to sensitively return the prominent and historically important barn to a condition of structural and architectural integrity. Peter Haney, a respected Fort Collins timber-framing specialist, worked on the project together with the Center for the Stabilization and Reuse of Important Structures at Colorado State University. In addition to addressing the building’s structural problems, the project was used as a workshop on timber framing and repair. Work completed on the building between 1995 and 1997 included making repairs to the stone foundation wall, addressing problems with structural framing in the hayloft, and rebuilding the deteriorated roof. Despite its poor condition, what had kept the barn standing for so many years was its strong skeletal structure of hewn posts and beams with mortise and tenon joints. It was also kept standing as a picturesque element of the golf course landscape. Although much work was completed at that time, the entire barn was not restored, and no action was taken to address the silos and milk house. The Barn One of a small number of barns that remain standing in the Fort Collins area, the Coy Barn is the most prominent feature on the site. This large building faces toward the northeast. Resting upon a stone foundation that projects horizontally from the walls above by several inches, the building has a footprint of approximately 30’ x 65’. Its lower walls are constructed of roughly cut blocks of native sandstone assembled with coarse-grained mortar and laid in linear coursing. Above the main level, the hayloft walls are finished with unpainted vertical boards that overlap the tops of the stone walls along each elevation. The roof is side-gabled with a steep slope, has overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends and purlins, and it is finished with wood shingles. Large gabled hay hoods supported by wood braces project from the east and west ridgelines. These protected the protruding ends of the hay rail and provided shelter to men working to raise and lower hay between the loft and the ground. The building’s north elevation holds a wide main floor entry toward its east end. The size of the entry suggests that it was used for horses to enter and exit the building. It consists of a pair of vertical wood plank swinging doors that are strengthened on the interior with diagonal plank bracing. There are no windows on this elevation. The upper wall has a long horizontal ghost mark where the roof of the shed addition connected to the building. Additional evidence of the addition’s size and placement is found in the form of its stone foundation, which is partially exposed near the barn’s northwest corner (a vertical bolt there may have secured a sill plate). The faint line of the addition’s foundation can be followed from this corner to the north and then east, and many of its stones are likely to remain just beneath the surface of the ground. The addition deteriorated over the years and was removed in 1991, the same year that the farmhouse was demolished. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 13 On the east, the barn holds no main floor entries. Instead, the stone wall there is punctuated by three windows that have been boarded closed. Behind the boards, the original four-light fixed windows remain in place (these are exposed on the barn’s interior). The windows retain their original wood frames and surrounds, along with wood sills and segmental arched stone lintels. Small square nails forged by a blacksmith are particularly evident in the woodwork around these windows. The hayloft wall on the east elevation contains three centered and stacked pairs of wood plank swinging doors that rise from the hayloft floor to the hay hood. The south elevation holds a wide main-level entry with a pair of vertical wood plank swinging doors that appear to have been made non-operable many years ago. This is situated directly across from the entry on the north elevation, and the opening is large enough for horses to have accessed the building. No windows are located along this elevation. On the west, the barn holds a main floor entry that contains a vertical wood plank pedestrian door assembled with blacksmith-forged nails. It is set into a wood frame and has an early transom light above that has been boarded closed. The stones that enframe the slightly recessed entry were cut on a diagonal. Flanking the entry are two small, deeply set four-light fixed windows located high in the stone wall. These have wood frames and surrounds, along with wood sills. As on the east elevation, the hayloft wall above holds three centered and stacked pairs of wood plank swinging doors that rise from the hayloft floor to the hood. The interior of the barn’s main level has a dirt floor with some areas covered with wood planking. Its outer stone walls and interior wood post and beam structure are exposed. The main level is divided into three distinct rooms from east to west. These are separated from one another by approximately 6”-thick boxed wood dividing walls and doors, all of which may have been insulated with concrete. The eastern room contains the remnants of horse stalls with wood feeding troughs. A large vertical wood chute located along the east wall allowed hay to be dropped from the loft above to the feeding troughs below. The central room, which stayed cool and allowed no light to infiltrate, was reportedly used for the storage of potatoes and probably onions. Finally, the western room was used as a granary. Some of the exterior walls in these rooms are lined with wood planking. Sections of boxed grain chutes also remain there on the floor. On the hayloft level, the original wood flooring, wood plank walls, knee braces, and eight post and beam H-bents remain exposed. Its heavier framing involved mortise and tenon joints held together with wooden pegs rather than nails. Also original are the heavy diagonal timber braces at the margins of the walls and roof. The upper part of the hay chute is present along the east wall. Much of the critical preservation work completed in 1995 can be seen in the hayloft, where the newer, light-colored wood is easily distinguished from the darker, aged members. At that time, much of the roof had to be rebuilt with dimensional lumber to replace heavily deteriorated rafters and decking. However, some of the original rafters and decking that retained their structural integrity were left in place. Where necessary, some of the wall girts were replaced with heavy timbers. Finally, timber stud framing was installed in the eastern half of the hayloft to support the tall roof above. An antique piece of horse-drawn agricultural equipment is stored in the hayloft. This is an early horse-drawn grain drill manufactured by the Sucker State Drill Company of Belleville, Illinois (patent date 30 March 1869) that was used to plant grain seeds in furrows in the crop fields. While it might have been brought west by wagon during the early 1870s, it is Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 14 possible that John Coy ordered this piece of equipment from a catalogue and had it delivered by train to Fort Collins later in the decade (the first train line extended into the area in 1877). This is an exceptional piece of antique agricultural equipment that is historically associated with this site and it should not be discarded. Instead, it should be cleaned for display and interpretation along with the surviving buildings and structures, with care taken that it not be left exposed to theft or the elements. The Silos Two concrete silos, both about 32’ tall and resting upon concrete foundations, stand side by side off the barn’s northwest corner. The eastern silo, built by John Coy in 1912, is constructed of cast-in-place concrete. This is reinforced on the exterior with a series of fourteen horizontal metal rods that wrap around the silo at regular intervals and are secured with metal connectors at their threaded ends. A tall rectangular opening runs from base to top up the silo’s eastern face, spanned by a series of horizontal metal rods. Mounted outside this opening is a deteriorated square wooden enclosure. Metal pipe posts supporting woven wire fencing rise from the top of the silo, which currently has no roof. Coy’s son, John E. Coy, reportedly constructed the western silo around 1913. This is a concrete stave silo that is reinforced on the exterior with a series of thirty-six horizontal metal rods that are securing with metal connectors. The north face has a series of square openings that run from base to top, each of which is surrounded by a hexagonal metal frame that also secures the reinforcing rods. Arched segments of corrugated and sheet metal run up the silo’s exterior and cover many of these openings. Remnants of wood framework of unknown use extend between the tops of the two silos. The Milk House This small masonry building is located northeast of the barn, faces toward the northwest, and for over ninety years stood in the farmhouse’s rear yard. At the present time, it is in the process of being moved closer to the barn and silos. The milk house has a footprint of approximately 12’ x 12’ and rests upon a sandstone foundation that projects outward a couple of inches from the base of the walls. These walls are constructed of brickwork laid in common running bond coursing. The building has a front-gabled roof that is finished with shallow boxed eaves and wood shingles. The entrance on the north elevation holds an older (circa 1950s) but non-original wood panel door with diamond lights in the upper half. It also has a stone threshold, wood frame, and brick segmental arch lintel. Above this, in the gable end wall, is a small rectangular window that has been boarded closed but retains its wood sill and brick segmental arch lintel. To the left of the door is a metal insert in the brick wall that is stamped with the name “Empire.” Although the exact use of this feature is currently unclear, it may be associated with the Empire Cream Separator Company of Bloomfield, New Jersey, which maintained a sales office in Denver. The firm manufactured equipment such as cream separators, milking machines, and even small gasoline engines for use in dairy operations of all sizes. Although the east elevation holds no doors or windows, the south and west elevations both contain windows. The south elevation has a small single-light window with a wood frame and sill, wood surrounds, and a brick segmental arch lintel. Above this, the gable end wall contains another window with similar features, although it is boarded closed. At the base of this wall just above the stone foundation is a clay drainpipe that accommodated washing of the building’s interior floor. The west elevation holds a non-original horizontal Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 15 band of three fixed windows with wood frames and sill, and wood surrounds. The interior of the building has a sandstone floor, plastered walls (partially covered with non-historic wood paneling), a plastered ceiling, and a set of built-in beadboard cabinets. Sandstone pavers are also present outside the front of the building. Historical & Architectural Significance For a short time after it was constructed in the 1860s, the Coy-Hoffman barn was one of the largest buildings in Larimer County, if not the single largest. It is also one of the oldest barns still standing in northern Colorado today. The two-level barn was constructed with sandstone walls that encompassed ample main floor space, along with a large wood frame hayloft above. John Coy used his skills and employed labor-intensive post and beam construction on the building, which involved cutting mortise and tenon joints, and then assembling the structure with wooden pegs rather than nails. Before long, livestock pens and a loafing shed were added south of the building. A tall shed addition, possibly used to shelter farm implements, was also constructed off the north elevation. Although these additions were removed decades ago, they left the barn looking much like it would have when it was constructed in the 1860s. Today, the barn represents 1860s pioneer construction techniques and the use of local materials and craftsmanship. It also exhibits elements of the two-level German style of barn construction as it appeared in places such as New York, Coy’s home state, and the surrounding northeastern region. Here in northern Colorado, he gave it a western twist with the addition of projecting hay hoods at either end. The silos and milk house represent the ongoing improvement of early farmsteads as their owners sought to enhance their agricultural operations throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. Because these features survive among a greatly reduced number of historic farmsteads in the Fort Collins area, and since the barn in particular was constructed during the earliest period of settlement, the site is significant today as a good representative example of pioneering and early agricultural development. For these reasons, a nomination to have the historic barn, silos and milk house listed in the State Register of Historic Properties was prepared and submitted to the Colorado Historical Society in March 1995. The site was determined to be eligible under Criterion A for its association with early settlement and high plains agriculture as one of the oldest surviving agricultural complexes in the region; under Criterion B for its association with prominent pioneer farmer John G. Coy and his family; and under Criterion C for its architectural style, age and method of construction. On June 14, 1995, the property was officially listed in the State Register of Historic Properties (Site #5LR1568). However, the designated site did not include the entire farm. Instead, it incorporated the land and buildings within a restricted rectangular area measuring 375’ from east to west, and 450’ from north to south. This relatively small landmarked site encompasses the barn, milk house, and silos, and was conceived to include and protect the surviving significant buildings and structures along with a modest buffer of open space. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 16 2.2 Proposed Program The Coy-Hoffman barn, silos and milk house are all solid buildings and structures that are in relatively good condition, but require additional preservation efforts given their historic significance and importance to the Fort Collins community. The fact that they remain standing today is remarkable, a testament to the quality of their original construction, the care they received when in use, the partial restoration completed on the barn in the 1990s, and a bit of luck that kept them from being demolished when the site was converted into a golf course. Many farmsteads in the Fort Collins area have already been lost, making this site all the more important to keep intact. Not only will the barn, silos and milk house become central, scenic features on the redeveloped Woodward site, but they are particularly important as they form a designated landmark listed in the State Register of Historic Properties. Since the State Historical Fund invested in the barn’s preservation almost two decades ago, it will take an interest in how the buildings are treated in the future. And as the local agency interested in such matters, the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission will need to be consulted periodically regarding planned preservation efforts and changes involving adaptive reuse. Preservation Treatments The primary goal for the barn, silos and milk house will be to preserve and maintain them as physical remnants of the area’s pioneer agricultural heritage. After more than a century of use, abandonment, and exposure to the elements, the buildings and structures exhibit various problems that will require attention in the coming years. While future uses have yet to be identified, carefully planned and executed preservation and adaptive reuse will ensure that they remain standing for the benefit of the community and the enjoyment of employees and visitors to the Woodward campus. This report provides a detailed picture of the current condition of the buildings and structures on the site, addressing particular areas and elements of concern. While some of their deficiencies are related to age and use, others are the result of weathering and exposure to the elements. In addition to describing these conditions in detail, the Historic Structure Assessment provides recommendations for rehabilitation along with associated priorities and costs. This is done with the goal of providing in-depth analysis that will guide rehabilitation efforts through the use of appropriate historic preservation methods. All planning and rehabilitation will be undertaken with sensitivity to historic materials, design and appearance. Future work will be undertaken in such a way that historic fabric and integrity are protected. While Woodward Inc. will participate in funding the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings, it is anticipated that the company may seek grant assistance from the State Historical Fund of History Colorado in the coming years. EL1 2 EL2 EL1 1 2 66' - 2" 30' - 2" 17' - 0" 26' - 0" 17' - 7" 18' - 1" 27' - 2" CONCRETE SILOS DIRT FLOOR 2x12 WOOD BOARD FLOORS @ AT STABLES CONCRETE CURB W/ PLYWD COVER INSIDE WOOD FEED BIN VERTICAL CHUTE GOING TO LOFT ABOVE WOOD FRAMED INTERIOR WALLS W/ CONC. INSUL. ORIG. BARN DOOR OPNG. CLOSED OFF W/ WOOD SIDING INTERIOR WOOD WALLS 35' - 0" SANDSTONE FOUNDATION STONES REMIANING FROM MISSING NORTH LEAN-TO STRUCTURE PR: 4'-0"x8'-0" BARN DOORS 2x FRAMING UP TO ROOF STRUCTURE CHUTE EXTENDING TO FEED BIN BELOW PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:44 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 ksj 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM FLOOR PLANS FP1 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt FP1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN FP1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 HAY LOFT FLOOR PLAN NORTH PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:44 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 Author 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM SITE PLAN SITE C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt EL. MILK HOUSE MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" DOUBLE BRICK ARCHED LINTEL WOOD WINDOW (BOARDED OVER) IN ATTIC METAL FLUE VENT CLAY DRAIN PIPE WOOD COVER PLATE PAINTED WOOD FASCIA & BOXED EAVE TRIM BRICK BOND COURSE, TYP. RESIDENTIAL STYLE HALF-LITE DOOR MULTI-WYTHE BRICK MASORY IN RUNNING BOND BRICK BOND COURSE (TYP.) PTD. WOOD FASCIA & BOXED EAVE TRIMS CLAY DRAIN PIPE WOOD CASING & SILL INSWING WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW W/ SINGLE GLASS MULTI-WYTHE BRICK MASONRY IN RUNNING BOND SINGLE BRICK ARCHED LINTEL WOOD WINDOW (BOARDED OVER) IN ATTIC EL. MILK HOUSE MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" FIXED SINGLE PANE WINDOWS 2x WOOD BUCK FRAMES & SILL CEDAR SHAKE ROOFING EL1 2 EL1 EL1 4 3 12' - 5" 12' - 5" EL1 1 SANDSTONE PAVERS (TO BE SALVAGED) THRU-WALL UNIT HEATER (NOT OPERABLE) CONCRETE SLAB PAINTED OPEN SHELVING (6 SHELVES) CABINET PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 EL. ROOF BRG. 120' - 0" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" OPEN BEHIND HAY HOOD 10" / 12" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" DOUBLE VERTICAL WOOD BOARD DOORS WOOD SHINGLE ROOF HAY HOOD WOOD BRACKET UNFINISHED WOOD CORNER TRIM UNFINISHED VERTICAL WOOD SIDING BOARD 8' - 4" STONE 'JUMP FORM' CAST-IN- PLACE CONCRETE SILO CONCRETE PREFAB. STAVE SILO METAL CHUTE 42' - 0" 45' - 0" LOCATION OF POSSIBLE LOFT DOORS ( NOW REMOVED) LINE OF NORTH LEAN-TO ROOF TIE-IN (LEAN-TO SHED NOW MISSING) PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:33 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 KSJ 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EL1 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt EL1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" SANDSTONE FOUNDATION WOOD WINDOW W/ TIMBER SILL SEGMENTAL STONE ARCH UNFINISHED WOOD CORNER TRIM UNFINISHED VERTICAL WOOD SIDING BOARD TRIM BOARD UNDER SOFFIT HAY HOOD ROUGH COURSED SANDSTONE MASONRY WALLS 10" / 12" HAY LOFT DOORS EL. ROOF BRG. 120' - 0" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" PRE-FAB. CONCRETE STAVE SILO CAST-IN-PLACE 'JUMP FORM' CONC. SILO BARN DOORS FIXED IN PLACE PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:44 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 Author 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EL2 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt EL2 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION EL2 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 17 3.0 Structure Condition Assessment The existing conditions of the Coy-Hoffman Farm, as well as its site elements were evaluated using the following criteria. The terms have been taken from the SHF Annotated Scope of Work. A feature or element is evaluated in Good Condition when:  the element is intact, structurally sound and performing its intended purpose;  there are few or no cosmetic imperfections;  the element needs no repair and only minor or routine maintenance. A feature or element is evaluated in Fair Condition when:  there are early signs of wear, failure or deterioration, though the element is generally structurally sound and performing its intended purpose;  there is failure of a subcomponent of the element;  replacement of up to 25% of the element or replacement of a defective subcomponent is required. A feature or element is evaluated in Poor Condition when:  the element is no longer performing its intended purpose;  the element is missing;  deterioration or damage affects more than 25% of the element and cannot be adjusted or repaired;  the element shows signs of imminent failure or breakdown  the element requires major repair or replacement. 3.1 Overall Site The remaining Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are located in the heart of the approximately 38-acre site that is currently being redeveloped as the new Technology Center for Woodward Inc. The redevelopment proposal has just gone through a rigorous review and approval process with the City of Fort Collins, with the historic farm buildings being preserved and the expansive office, research and manufacturing facilities and their associated parking lots and service access areas laid out to preserve both the historic buildings and the riparian natural areas adjacent to the Poudre River. Prior to this redevelopment, the property had been owned by the City of Fort Collins and used as a par- 3 golf course known as Link-N-Greens. The large stone and timber barn and the two concrete silos are intended to remain in their current locations; however, the milk house will be relocated to a site within the designated site listed on the State Register of Historic Properties. (Refer to the site plan attached with the drawings in this report for the proposed site of the relocated milk house.) Two other farm buildings, a smaller wood-framed barn and a garage, are not part of the site's historic designation and will be dismantled. On the day of our field work, portions of the site were in the process of being regraded, with some trees being cut and chipped to make way for the redevelopment. The immediate areas around the historic farm buildings were being enclosed with temporary chain link construction fencing to both secure and protect them during construction. (Refer to photos #B001-B003, S001 and M001-M003) Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 18 Very little of the original site features remain from when the farm was used for its historical agricultural use. Remnants of corral fencing and gates lie immediately to the west of the large barn, constructed of round wood poles with let-in wood pole rails and metal strap hinges. Only one gate and a partial section of fence remain. (Refer to photo #B013) Several irregularly shaped flagstone paving slabs remain on the entrance side of the milk house. (Refer to photos #M008A) Condition: Good. The few site features that remain are in fairly good condition. The wood fencing and gate are not heavily weathered, although so little remains that they cannot be reconstructed in any meaningful way. Recommendations: When the milk house is excavated and relocated, it should be sited and oriented (north-south and east-west) to match its historic orientation and relationship with the barn and silos. This is further discussed in Section 3.11 below. The original flagstone paving slabs should be salvaged when the milk house is excavated and relocated, then reinstalled in their original location and orientation (relative to the building) after the building is placed upon its new foundation structure. The remaining sections of historic corral fencing and gates should be preserved and stored in the barn for interpretation. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. (The complete list of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation has been included at the end of this report for reference). Grading and Drainage The immediate site around the farm buildings has very little slope. The southeast corner of the barn drops approximately 16" at the southwest corner and approximately 12" lower than the building’s foundations along the walls. (Refer to photos #B004, B005 and B015) Most of the original farmstead site had been modified when it was redeveloped as a golf course, and will be modified again through this redevelopment. The new site grading proposal has just gone through extensive review by the City of Fort Collins engineering, storm water and flood plain staffs, with the site drainage plan retaining the natural grades around the historic buildings while removing them from the 100-year flood plain. (It should be noted that the flood waters of the September 11-13 floods that inundated much of the northern Front Range came to within 100' of the buildings, but did not cause any damage. Some experts considered this a 500-year storm event in the Fort Collins area.) Condition: Good. We believe that the regrading that is proposed as part of the overall Woodward campus site redevelopment will adequately drain the site away from the foundations of the historic farm buildings, and protect them to the extent feasible from future flood events. Recommendations: None, other than fully implementing all of the grading and drainage improvements required by the City of Fort Collins. We assume that as a part of this, the area immediately around the barn and silo will be sloped to improve drainage away from the foundations. The Contractor should be made aware of the potential for historical resources in the immediate vicinity of the historic farm buildings. If historical or archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, the Contractor shall stop work and notify the owner and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 19 Historical Society. Site Utilities Only remnants of natural gas and electrical services to the barn and milk house remain. Refer to Sections 3.8, Mechanical, and 3.9, Electrical, for descriptions of these site utilities. Condition: Not applicable. Recommendations: We assume that the provision for new utilities to serve the proposed adaptive reuses for either the barn or milk house will be fed from the primary utility services within the adjacent Woodward administrative building. If trenching for new site utility work is performed, archaeological monitoring should be considered, and the Contractor made aware of the potential for historical resources on the site. If historical or archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, the Contractor shall stop work and notify the owner and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society. Landscaping Sparse turf grasses and weeds remain around the two farm buildings and silos. Two large, 16"-30" caliper multi-trunk Ash trees remain to the north of the barn and are flagged to remain. Other trees that were planted as a part of the golf course development are intended to be either transplanted or cut and their wood milled for plank flooring materials, or chipped for landscape mulch. (Refer to photos #B001-B007) The site is no longer irrigated with an underground irrigation system. Condition: Fair. Much of the irrigated turf grasses have been overtaken by weeds in the one season since the golf course closed. The remaining Ash trees that are targeted to be preserved appear healthy, although their multi-trunk and random growth patterns signal that they originally grew as "volunteers" along the foundations of the now-gone lean-to implement shed. The ongoing presence of turf grass along the building perimeters is problematic, even with the lack of an underground irrigation system. The grass holds moisture along the foundations and prevents roof runoff from draining quickly away from the building. Recommendations: The existing trees should be maintained as long as possible. Saplings growing adjacent to the barn's foundations should be cut and removed to prevent damage to the foundations. If turf grasses are not proposed to be removed in the immediate vicinity of the building's foundations, we recommend that it should be stripped away from the building’s perimeter to a minimum dimension of 4'-0", and wood or rock mulch added to create a “dry zone” around the buildings. If rock is selected, it should be neutral in color. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 20 3.2 Barn Foundations Perimeter Foundation Drainage No evidence of an underground perimeter foundation drain is present around the existing barn, milk house or silos. Due to the age and original agricultural use of the property, it is unlikely that any subterranean perimeter drain system exists. The immediate site is generally flat with minimal slope to discourage the presence of moisture adjacent to the building foundations. No topographic survey information is available, but in general surface water flows away from the foundations with a slope less than 1/2" per foot. The overall site currently slopes from the northwest to the southeast. The site around the barn and silos is currently not irrigated or landscaped, although presumably, some irrigation would have occurred when the site was incorporated into the golf course. Condition: Fair to poor. There are currently no gutters with downspouts on the barn, and historically were not typical on barns or other agricultural outbuildings. Water from the roof drains directly next to the building without a concrete apron, splash pans or sufficient backfill slope to prevent moisture accumulation next to the foundations. Moisture around the apron of the barn over its lifetime appears to have caused damage to lower portions of the stone masonry. Over time, moisture in the masonry will promote the deterioration and weakening of the mortar joints. The presence of excess water next to a structure is generally the cause for most foundation problems in this region due to the local climate, soil conditions and freeze/thaw cycles. Moisture is most harmful during freeze-thaw cycles, as trapped water in the stone and mortar expands when frozen causing the mortar to weaken, eventually spalling and failing. Recommendations: Improvements are recommended to prevent future damage to the barn and keep roof and storm water runoff from continuing to flow adjacent to the building’s foundations. To minimize the presence of moisture next to the foundation and the lower portion of the stone masonry, a "dry zone" should be created around the barn to keep runoff away from the foundations. Foundation System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The barn is supported by a stone foundation, constructed of roughly coursed sandstone, in sizes ranging from 2-1/2"-12" high x 4"-30" long. The foundations are stepped out approximately 4"-5" from the balance of the walls above, creating a raised water table. The stone foundation is only visible on the east and south facades. The depth of the foundation walls cannot be determined. (Refer to photos #B015, B017, B018 and B024) The foundation measures 30" wide at the access door on the west facade, extending 8" on either side of the 20" thick stone masonry wall at the first/main level. Based on the overall dimensions of the foundation and mass of the structure, it is assumed smaller and larger stones have likely been used. While most of the foundation stones have been roughly coursed, with flat or parallel top and bottom surfaces, some large rubble stones without adjoining sides at right angles have been used intermittently. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 21 It should be noted that remnants of the sandstone foundation for the lean-to shed on the north side of the barn remain on the site. The shed appears in a historical painting of the barn, attached as historical image #H004. Anchor bolts remain in a couple of sections of the wall along the west side, as well as evidence in the remaining original wood siding where the roof of the shed tied into the barn. We did not observe any evidence of the loafing shed that was attached to the south side of the barn that appears in the historical photograph #H002. Condition: Fair. As previously mentioned, minimal observation of the foundations could be completed due to the building's foundation only being exposed to view on the east and south facades. The stone, where visible appear to be sound, with minimal evidence of movement, shifting, settlement, cracking or defacing. Mortar joists were likely never dressed and it is not known how the mortar joints at the foundation were originally finished due to the current moisture damage. Recommendations: The deteriorated mortar joints of the stone should be repointed and repaired to match the historical construction. To determine the original construction techniques, it is recommended that a narrow, deep excavation occur adjacent to one of the foundations to view the original wall construction. Backfill Backfill is discussed in the Perimeter Foundation Drainage section above. Current geotechnical standards generally specify a minimum of 6" slopes away from the building within the first 10' of grade adjacent to the foundations. Condition: Inadequate now, but will become good when the drainage improvements required by the City of Fort Collins are implemented. 3.3 Barn Structural System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The barn is a unique combination of load-bearing stone masonry at the first or main level, with a heavy timber-framed hay loft and gable roof. The superstructure is a gravity and lateral load-bearing, multi-wythe stone masonry structure with wood timber roof trusses and floor joists. Standard construction practices have been followed for both rough masonry and timber structures built in the late 1800s. Conventional stone masonry construction consists of roughly coursed sandstone masonry, built-up of multiple wythes with arched stone lintels. The walls are constructed of 2-3 wythes of stone units, with the wythes interconnected with single stones extending from the interior to the exterior face of the walls. The typical stone masonry wall construction appears to be about 20" thick. (Refer to photos #B001-B010, B013-B019 and B030) Segmental arched stone lintels provide headers over the windows on the east elevation (Refer to photos #B014 and B015), while wood lintels exist at all other door and window openings on the south, west and north facades of the barn. (Refer to photos #B017, B019 and B020) The door openings on the main level are full height and the stone masonry is detailed with bevels on either side of the opening back to the wood door jamb. (Refer to photos #B023 and B024) It appears the two window openings in the west elevation were cut into the building after the original construction. The stones around these openings Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 22 have not been faced with the same quality of workmanship as compared to the other stone openings, and the mortar joints are in poorer condition. (Refer to photos #B020-B022) Their unusual placement so high on the wall also indicates the lack of understanding and experience in stone construction compared to the original construction. This work was likely completed by someone other than a trained stone mason. In masonry construction, lateral systems normally include a designated section (shear wall) in the masonry where no openings are present. The north, south, east and west walls all have uninterrupted sections of masonry along the length of the walls and corners of the barn. The wood timber framing throughout the barn is built on approximately 10' grids perpendicular to the ridgeline of the gable roof. Primary framing members, either trusses or girders, sit on this grid supported by columns, while secondary framing members span to this grid. The roof structure consists of built-up wood timber trusses spanning north-south across the entire structure on the grids. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) It should be noted that the structure underwent substantial rehabilitation and reconstruction in 1996 as part of a grant-funded project. It appears repairs followed the details and intent of the original construction, with some new construction to improve the performance of the structure. Minimal variance is observed in the materials, dimensions and connections of the rehabilitation or new construction. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) Condition: Good to fair. As noted above, remedial structural repairs were made in 1996 that addressed what we assume were significant structural concerns. The extent of both replacement of original structural framing members with in-kind construction, as well as remedial internal framing, signals that there was either considerable structural or moisture damage to the exterior frame of the barn. The eastern two thirds of the loft is approximately 50% replacement material, including 50% new skip sheathing. The western third is up to 90% new material, including rafters, intermediate horizontal timbers and skip sheathing. Given the age of the structure and the low evidence of diagonal cracking in the mortar or the stone masonry, the lateral load capacity is assumed to be adequate. No structural analysis or testing was performed to verify the capacity of the stone masonry. The stone masonry is in fair condition, with no significant structural cracking or displacement. The general appearance of the timber framing appears to be both sound in regards to capacity and geometry. No excessive sagging and deterioration in the framing due to moisture or damage was observed. Recommendations: Refer to more detailed recommendations below and in Section 3.4. Floor Framing Systems The upper floor (hayloft) framing consists of 3x8 floor joists at 18" o.c. spanning east–west for approximately 10', bearing on the stone perimeter walls. Typically, a dropped 6" x 8" timber beam spans between interior columns to support the floor joists. The floor joists are sheathed with 1x5 wood plank flooring. The main level of the barn is divided into three sections. The eastern section is an open area with large barn doors on the north and south facades. Four interior columns existed Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 23 in the first three westernmost bays. At some point, two of the columns in the second column line were replaced, using smaller 4" by 4" posts. The original columns could have been replaced due to rot, damage or possibly settlement of the foundations. The original column bases can be seen where a new smaller column sits on top of a stub and frames to the bottom of the timber floor beams. The original columns were approximately 6-1/2" x 6- 1/2" with 1" chamfers on all four corners. (Refer to photos #B031-B033, B038-B040 and B043-B047) A unique detail at the center span of each grid is a stacked timber beam. The stacked beam was likely used to allow a large center span at each bay, while increasing strength and limiting defection along the beam line and helping reduce the beams sizes required to support the loads above. (Refer to photos #B031, B032, B044 and B045) Three 2x8x6 blocks were notched between the stacked beams to keep them interlocked. This detail is seen at each column line/grid throughout the barn. In most cases the blocks are now missing; it is not clear how or why they are not present. The stacked beam is missing in the second column line from the west where the columns have been replaced. The interior or middle section of the barn consists of two bays, and has been enclosed with interior walls. The columns and beams at these walls have been incorporated into the walls with vertical infill studs and horizontal 1x siding on both sides of the wall. The resulting stay-in-place form has been filled with concrete. This detailed construction is unique and could possibly be used to insulate the interior section of the barn from extreme hot or cold temperatures. The walls do not appear to be original, but might have been placed shortly after the construction of the barn, due to the appearance of the matching materials and the existence of the original columns and stacked beams. (Refer to photos #B037-B042) The remaining column lines of the barn appear to have been originally constructed with four columns at each beam grid. The columns are either 6" x 8" or 6-1/2" x 6-1/2". These columns are approximately 4'-8" to 5'-8" o.c. north-south. Many of the columns have been reinforced with 2x material to repair damage due to animals, moisture at the base, or other causes. Roof Framing Systems The barn's steeply gabled roof is framed by 2" x 6-1/2" roof rafters at 24" o.c., spanning parallel to the slope of the roof and running from eave to ridge. It appears that more than two-thirds of the rafters were replaced during the previous structural rehabilitation. The rafters are supported by 3x8 beams at quarter points of the tied roof truss/arch. The tied truss is built with mortise-and-tenon 6-1/2" x 8" top chords. On the easternmost four bays of the barn a 6-1/2" x 8" truss tie frames to the top chord just below the quarter points of the roof truss, and on the east end of the barn a 3” x 8” tie frames just above the quarter points. In addition, on the west portion of the barn the roof purlins have a 3" x 8" tie at approximately 4’ from the ridge of the barn. It is not known why the different framing conditions were used on either end of the barn. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) Timber columns supporting the roof trusses and end walls are all 6-1/2" wide x 8” deep (8” in the dimension of the wall) with applied haunches, extending full height. The original roof sheathing consists of 1x12 skip sheathing and Cedar shakes. It appears that at least half of the original roof sheathing was replaced during the structural rehabilitation with new 1x8 wood skip sheathing. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 24 Lateral stability of the upper portion of the barn is provided by a combination of diagonal bracing in the wall and braces out of plane (perpendicular to the wall), in combination with roof trusses and floor beams. Braces in the wall, framed to the column, and wind girts are typically 4x4s. Braces framing from the exterior columns to the trusses are typically 6-1/2" x 8". Braces to the floor beams are 4" x 6-1/2". The brace connections use a mortise-and- tendon joint at the wall and a combination of mortise-and-tenon with steel tension rods at the brace from the column to roof truss, due to the oblique angle of the connection. Some connections have also been reinforced using 3/4" diameter thru bolts. (Refer to photos #B049 and B050) The gable end walls are similarly framed, using 3-1/2" x 3-1/2" horizontal timbers that frame into 6-1/2" x 6-1/2" vertical timbers at the jambs of the large loft doors. (Refer to photos #B050 and 057) New wood framed interior partition walls have been built within the eastern two thirds of the hayloft, presumably when the barn was structurally rehabilitated in 1995-1997. These walls are framed of modern 2x6 members at 16" to 20" o.c. Locations for the new wall framing are aligned with the roof beams at quarter points and adjacent to the exterior north and south bearing walls of the four eastern column bays. The existence of the walls and their location do not match the historical use of the structure, and are not supported by a reinforced floor member below. If the walls were built to carry gravity loads from the roof, it is reasonable to assume that a new or reinforced floor/transfer member would likely have been required to carry the additional loading. The purpose of the new wall(s) and braces could be to laterally strengthen the eastern portion of the barn, since much of western end of the barn was rebuilt during the renovation; however, this is somewhat speculative. The original tie rods were reinstalled on the western bays of the loft, but are missing from the eastern sections where the new framed walls were built. (Refer to photos #B012, B048, B051 and B052) Condition: Good. The original structural floor and roof framing, in conjunction with the rehabilitation construction completed in 1995-1997, appear overall to be sound and in good condition. Recommendations: None. If this structure is to be occupied or renovated for an adaptive reuse, it is recommended that a complete structural gravity and lateral analysis be completed by a licensed professional structural engineer. At this point it should be assumed that sections of the hay loft floor cannot be cut and removed for stair openings, etc. without adequate bracing or new shear walls so as not to compromise the structural integrity of the barn. Prior to any structural modifications, the structural engineer should detail, supervise and review all design work and observe the procedures implemented during construction. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 25 3.4 Building Envelope – Barn Exterior Walls As described above in Section 3.3, the exterior walls of the barn are a combination of rough coursed sandstone and wood timber construction. The upper level of timber construction is sheathed in 1x vertical wood boards, in random widths ranging from 9" to 12". The siding boards are installed vertically side by side with butt joints, with the joints not covered with battens or in some other way "weatherized". The siding has been typically installed as full length boards, and is nailed at the top plate, bottom plate and two intermediate blocking lines along the length of the boards. The external corners are trimmed with simple 1x6 wood trims with butt joints, matching the fascia boards. The siding was originally painted (or at some time during the life of the building), but is now heavily weathered with only scarce evidence of remaining paint. (Refer to photos #B001- B012, B014, B017, B019-B021, B025 and B028) The main level walls are constructed of full height roughly coursed sandstone, in sizes ranging from 2-1/2"-12" high x 4"-30" long. Mortar joints range from 1/2" to 2-1/2" wide, and are generally tooled flush with the faces of the adjacent stone units. (Refer to photos #B004-B010, B013-B019, B021-B026 and B030) The original window openings in the east facade have segmental arched stone lintels with a center keystone, set slightly corbelled out from the face of the wall. (Refer to photos #B014A and B015A) A framed hay hood exists on both the east and west gabled facades, and support pulley attachments for transferring the hay into the loft through a large vertical hinged door. The hood is framed of cantilevered 6-1/2" x 8” wood timbers with braces back to the vertical columns. Vertical exterior sheathing is supported laterally by horizontal 2x6 girts framing between columns at approximately 3’ o.c. The hay hoods are sheathed in 1x12s matching the balance of the hay loft level. (Refer to photos #B001, B002, B004-B007, B010, Bo14 and B028) Condition: Fair. As discussed in Section 3.3, the stone and timber framed walls are generally in good to fair condition. Based upon the condition and coloration of the wood, it appears that approximately 5% of the original siding was replaced with in-kind material as a part of the 1996 restoration, primarily on the north and south facades. The sandstone walls exhibit the typical weathering of the mortar joints that is common in stone construction of this age. Most of the moisture damage has occurred along the top courses of the walls, along the base within 24"-30" of the ground where roof runoff has splashed back against the walls, and around window and door openings. (Refer to photos #B014-B018 and B020-B022) Approximately 90% of the mortar is intact, but deteriorated. Mortar in the remaining 10% of the head and bed joints is completely missing. The existing lime mortar that remains is soft and flaking in many locations. (Refer to photo #030 for typical condition) The wood siding is in similar condition, with approximately 5% of the boards split, broken or missing. (Refer to photos #B006, B014, B017, B019 and B019A) The siding was installed at the hayloft level with simple, common butt joints with no attempt to prevent moisture penetration. Light streams through these joints, as evidenced in photos #B048-B052. Recommendations: Repointing of the deteriorated stone masonry mortar is required. It is estimated that approximately 50-60% of the mortar requires repointing. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 26 Only selective repairs to the exterior wood siding and trims and replacement of missing planks are needed at this time. If replacement of any particular board is warranted, the new materials should match the existing in width, thickness and species, as was done in the 1995-1997 restoration. Painting or other exterior finish is optional, and the siding could remain in its current unfinished condition is desired. If a new painted finish is desired, a microscopic paint analysis is recommended in order to determine the original color(s). Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 7. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. A mortar analysis of the existing mortar used in the stone foundations and walls should be completed to guide the composition of the repointing mortar. 3.5 Building Envelope – Barn Roofing and Waterproofing The roof of the barn is a simple side-facing gable roof, with shallow exposed eaves and a simple 1x6 wood fascia with butt joints. The roof is covered in newer taper-sawn Cedar shingles, dating to the 1995-1997 grant project. All of the roof eaves drain off the roof edge without gutters. The eave and rake ends are all flashed with newer galvanized sheet metal drip flashings, probably dating from the time the Cedar shingles were installed. There are no roof penetrations remaining from any original mechanical equipment. (Refer to photos #B002-B005 and B010-B012) The roof is not ventilated along the ridge or by means of roof jacks. There is no attic, and the underside of the exposed roof framing is not insulated. Condition: Fair. The Cedar shingles are in good to fair condition, but exhibit some cupping and breakage. Approximately 5% of the ridge shakes are missing toward the west end where they are subject to more wind exposure, and have not been repaired or replaced. The wood fascia is in fair condition. Light penetrating the roof can be seen from within the loft where shingles are missing. The lack of gutters and downspouts is contributing to the deterioration of the sandstone foundations and base of the walls. Recommendations: New Red Cedar taper-sawn shingles should be installed to replace the damaged or missing shingles, replicating the size, thickness and exposure of the 1995-1997 shingles. The installation of new gutters and downspouts might help address the drainage and foundation deterioration issues mentioned in earlier sections of this report. However, since the barn was originally built as a pioneer barn, it would not have had gutters and downspouts. Installing them would actually be detrimental to the historic character of the barn. We recommend that gutters and downspouts be installed only if it is determined that they are absolutely necessary to the functionality of the proposed adaptive reuse. Since the original barn did not have gutters, the style and dimensions of the gutters and downspouts will not be based on remaining physical or photographic evidence; however, a half-round gutter profile in a simple unfinished or pre-weathered galvanized metal may be an appropriate selection. Downspouts should be a round corrugated profile in the same material, located so as to be as inconspicuous as possible. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 27 The wood fascia should be retained, but materials repaired as necessary. It does not appear that any of this work is beyond the point of being repaired, but if more serious moisture damage is uncovered during the preservation work, the damaged materials should be removed and replaced in kind. Depending upon the anticipated adaptive reuse, attic ventilation may be required if an attic is created. If this is done, ventilation could be addressed in an inconspicuous manner by adding a ventilated ridge shingle system or the introduction of small roof jacks, painted to blend with the shingles. Gable end vents could also be added to the east and west gables of the barn, located within and shielded from view by the hay hoods. Also depending upon the adaptive reuse that is pursued, the addition of some kind of roof or attic insulation is recommended. Refer to Section 3.7 for further discussion about retaining the original, exposed interior materials. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.6 Barn Windows and Doors Windows The barn contains a variety of window types, all of which are original to the building at some point in its history. The east facade of the main level contains three symmetrically- placed, single 2 over 2 fixed wood windows with clear single-pane glass, which are probably original to the 1866 construction and exposed to view from the interior of the barn. The window openings are located in the sandstone walls and are supported by segmental arched lintels. The windows are framed with simple square wood timber sills, jambs and arched-top headers built up of 1-1/2" x 3" wood members. The sills extend into the stone approximately 2" at each jamb. All three exhibit the use of forged blacksmith nails. (Refer to photos #B004, B009, B014-B016, B031, B034, B035, B063 and B064) These windows are set to within 1" of the outside face of the stone wall, and are currently covered with unpainted plywood to the exterior. The deep sills to the inside are stone. New wood stops have been added to the interior. The west facade contains two smaller 24" x 24" single lite fixed wood windows with only rough 2x wood buck frames. These windows appear to have been cut into the stone masonry after the barn's original construction, due to their placement, the lack of arched lintels and overall poorer workmanship. (Refer to photos #B001, B007, B020, B021, B061 and B062) These windows are set at the center of the depth of the stone wall, and are not covered by plywood. The north and south facades of the main level and the gable ends of the hayloft level do not contain any windows. Condition: Fair. As far as can be observed, the wood windows appear to be structurally sound and are in fair condition. The exterior face of the east window sashes could not be observed. The exterior wood window frames, sills and casings are weathered, but are generally intact and remain structurally sound. Window putty is generally in poor condition. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 28 Recommendations: All of the original wood sash windows should be retained. These windows should be repaired where necessary, then scraped, prepped and repainted. The plywood should be removed from the east windows, and the windows repaired as may be necessary. The exterior wood frames, sills and casings should also be scraped, prepped and repainted. Glass panes should be reputtied where needed. All windows and frames should be recaulked. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Exterior Doors The barn contains a variety of door types typical of an agricultural building. The long north and south facades contain two large paired 4'-0" wide x 8'-0" high outswinging barn doors, aligned across the east stable room. The doors are constructed of 1x vertical wood plank siding that matches the balance of the wall siding on the hayloft level above, nailed to the outside of 2x wood horizontal and diagonal cross-buck framing. The northern pair of doors are hung on steel strap gate-type hinges, but the southern pair have been fixed in place and are no longer operable. There is no evidence of remaining hardware on this pair of doors. (Refer to photos #B002-B005, B008, B010, B017-B019, B025-B027, B031 and B053) The north wall of the hayloft has been framed to suggest that a pair of doors might have existed on this facade, aligned with the pair of doors below. The doors no longer exist and the opening has been infilled with siding to match the balance of the wall. The west facade contains a single inswinging wood door, 3'-6" wide x 6'-8" high, set into a wooden buck frame in a larger 4'-2" x 8'-0" high opening in the stone. This suggests that the door may have originally been larger. (Refer to photos #B001, B023, B024, B046 and B047) This door is constructed similarly to the large north and south doors, with 1x vertical wood plank siding nailed to the outside of 2x wood horizontal and diagonal cross-buck framing, and are hung on steel strap gate-type hinges. All of the lower level doors have no exterior or interior casings, just the rough 3x wood buck frames. The hayloft contains a combination of large outswinging hay doors and man doors, with dimensions and construction that is the same on both the east and west gable ends of the barn. The lower pair of hay doors are framed to the intermediate 6-1/2" x 6-1/2" wood girt to 6'-0" above the floor line of the loft, then the upper pair of doors extend to the roof. These doors are also constructed similarly to the large north and south doors, with 1x vertical wood plank siding nailed to the outside of 2x wood horizontal and diagonal cross- buck framing, and are hung on steel strap gate-type hinges. (Refer to photos #B001, B004- B007, B009, B011, B027, B029, B048, B050, B057 and B058) Condition: Fair. While the existing original doors remain and are generally operable, they are heavily weathered. Recommendations: Based upon the way the barn is oriented to the proposed Technology Center, it is likely that the north door will be the primary access into the building for any adaptive reuse. This door would not be protected from roof runoff without the installation of gutters, or possibly the design of a modern hood as an entry element over the door. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 29 It is unlikely that a desirable public adaptive reuse will be able to take advantage of the existing historic barn doors as they are currently configured. If smaller, more durable doors and hardware are necessary, we recommend that the door style and construction be designed to be sympathetic to the building's period of original construction and integrity. One alternative that could be considered is to fix the swinging barn doors in their open position (laid back flat against the outside of the stone walls), then infilling the openings with modern architectural storefront framing, glass and doors, or some other clearly contemporary construction. This approach would be considered a historic rehabilitation, as opposed to a restoration. The hayloft doors should be retained and fixed in place. Similar to the barn doors below, if the loft is to be used and windows are desired, the hay doors could be fixed in an open position and the openings infilled with glass. These modifications would also be considered a rehabilitation as opposed to a restoration. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #3, 5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Interior Doors The only interior doors in the barn are two sets of paired 1-10" x 6'-8" high swinging doors on either side of the central cold storage room. These have been fabricated with 1" x 5/1/2" wide tongue-in-groove wood siding on both sides of conventional framing, creating a unique hollow door approximately 5-1/2" thick. This construction assumes that the cavities have been filled to complement the concrete insulated walls in these locations (refer to Section 3.7 below), but it could not be confirmed what the core material might be. The tongue-in-groove cladding has been installed diagonally on the eastern pair of doors, and horizontally on the western pair, which suggests they may not have been built or installed at the same time. (Refer to photos #B033, B037, B045, B054 and B055) These doors are hung on a pair of simple metal strap hinges and were secured with gate hooks and eyes. Only parts of the original hardware remain. (Refer to photos #B054, B055, B059 and B060) Condition: Fair. While the existing original doors remain and are generally operable, they are heavily weathered. Recommendations: Similar to the exterior doors, it is unlikely that a desirable adaptive reuse will be able to take advantage of the existing historic interior doors as they are currently configured. If possible, we recommend that the historic doors be retained and fixed in place for interpretation. New doors can then be placed where they functionally need to be, with the design and construction remaining sympathetic to the building's period of original construction and integrity. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #3, 5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 30 3.7 Barn Interior Finishes Lower Level The barn contains a series of connected rooms on the ground level and a single open hayloft on the upper level. The ground floor is divided into three interior rooms, the outer two primarily used for animal stalls and feed storage, separated by a central cold storage room that was most recently used as a tack room for saddles and supplies. The eastern room contains the remnants of what were originally five stalls constructed along the east wall. The western room was originally used for grain storage. Built-in wooden feed troughs run along the east wall of the eastern stalls, situated below the wooden feed chute from above. (Refer to photos #B031-B037, B044-B047 and B053-B056) The interior finish of the perimeter walls throughout the barn is merely the unfinished face of the stone masonry. There is no internal ladder or stair accessing the hayloft; however, there is a large 24" x 42" framed wooden hay chute on the east wall that drops from the loft over the built-in feed troughs. (Refer to photos #B034 and B036) The walls dividing the two outer stall rooms from the interior tack room are built of a unique insulated construction, with the outer wood cladding filled with a concrete slurry. The walls are clad with 5-1/2" x 1" thick unfinished tongue-and-groove wood plank. The paired doors on each side of the room are similarly insulated, as described above. Most of the walls are exposed, unfinished wood framing or wood plank siding laid horizontally. A small amount of interior walls have weathered paint or whitewash finish. (Refer to photos #B033 and B037-B043) There are no finished ceilings and the only floors appear to be remnants of 2x12 wood planks in the animal stalls. The balance of the floors is dirt. (Refer to photo #B033) Numerous wooden grain chutes come through the floor above into the lower level. The walls and roof of the barn are completely uninsulated, as would be expected for a utilitarian structure of this type. Condition: Fair to poor. The lower level had no natural or artificial lighting, so was very difficult to assess the conditions of the remaining materials. Most of the exposed wood materials exhibit the expected level of worn surfaces and rounded corners, typical of an agricultural use that housed animals. The interior of the lower level is filled with both artifacts of the farmstead, including built- in saddle racks, bridle posts, a hay cart, etc., but also a lot of dirt and debris. (Refer to photos #B031-B033) Recommendations: Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the barn, insulating the walls may be necessary, so the walls may need to be furred out, insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard or similar material. However, if possible it would be desirable to leave the sandstone walls uncovered on the interior. New stairwells and an elevator access to the hayloft level may be necessary as part of any public adaptive reuse. These new additions should be designed and constructed internal to the barn's walls and roof so as not to adversely affect the barn's historic exterior character and integrity. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 31 To the extent feasible, the original interior walls, as well as the feed troughs, cold storage room built-ins and other original features, should be retained and preserved for interpretation of the building's history. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Upper Hayloft Level The upper level is a single open hayloft space. The walls and roof retain much of the original, exposed mortise-and-tenon timber construction, as well as the restoration and new construction work that was completed in 1996. This construction has been thoroughly described in Section 3.3 above, so won't be repeated here. Both the original construction and the newer remedial work was left unfinished, so it is easy to distinguish where the original construction ends and the newer work begins. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) As mentioned in Section 3.5 above, there are no finished ceilings in the loft. The floor sheathing is 1x5 wood planks. The flooring may be original, but due to its relatively good condition, this is unlikely and was probably a part of the 1995-1997 restoration work. A horizontal tie rod runs beneath the roof ridge, originally used to move hay and other materials within the loft. A pulley assembly hanging from the rod still exists. The rod extends out beneath the covered hay hood on each end of the barn. The framed wooden feed chute (described above) aligns to the east side of the east hay loft doors. The hayloft contains a historic horse-drawn grain drill, more fully described earlier in Section 2.1. Condition: Good to fair. The upper hayloft level is generally in better condition, with a significant amount of newer, in-kind materials from the 1995-1997 restoration. The hayloft wood plank flooring is in fair to good condition. There are large quantities of bat, pigeon and/or rodent waste all throughout the hayloft. Recommendations: Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the barn, insulating the walls and ceiling/roof may be necessary or desirable, so these may need to be furred out, insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard or similar material. The wood plank walls may need to be covered on the inside with wood battens (or some other method to seal the open joints in the siding to the inside), then spray foam insulation could be installed in the wall cavities as both insulation and an air barrier. This construction would allow the exterior plank siding to remain with its current, historic appearance, but would require the interior to be covered with gypsum wallboard or similar material. If the roofing needed to be completely replaced at this time we would recommend that board-type rigid insulation be added over the existing wood skip sheathing to allow the interior to remain unfinished. To the extent feasible, the original mortise-and-tenon timber construction and other original features should be retained, preserved and left exposed for interpretation of the building's history. It would appear that the purlin cavities could be insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard, while retaining the exposed timber roof trusses. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 32 Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.8 Barn Mechanical Systems Site Utilities There are no site utilities presently serving the Coy-Hoffman barn or milk house. Domestic water and sanitary sewer service will be provided into the site of the new Woodward Inc. facilities as a part of that development. It is assumed that services to the barn and/or the milk house, if necessary, can be extended from these new facilities. Barn Heating and Ventilation There is no evidence of any heating or other mechanical equipment ever existing in the barn. Ventilation was originally achieved by merely opening the barn doors. Condition: Not applicable. If any mechanical equipment ever existed, it is no longer in place. Recommendations: Depending upon the nature of the adaptive reuse of the building, the type, extent and sophistication of the mechanical system could vary widely. For purposes of historic preservation and the accurate interpretation of the building, the simpler and most basic of mechanical systems would be the most appropriate. Plumbing Similarly, it appears that the barn did not have any plumbing systems. Condition: Not applicable. Recommendations: None. If restroom or kitchen facilities are planned as a part of the proposed adaptive reuse, full code-compliant, low-flow plumbing fixtures and piping systems will be required. 3.9 Barn Electrical Systems The barn was served by electrical power, and it is assumed that it was provided by aerial service. Only remnants of that service remain. The lower level of the building was illuminated by a series of surface-mounted incandescent light fixtures, wired to a single-pole switch near the door. Condition: Not applicable. The electrical system is no longer in service. Recommendations: The existing interior electrical system should be removed and the building rewired. There does not appear to be any remnants of electrical lighting fixtures or devices that are historically important for preservation. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 33 New exterior lighting fixtures should be designed and selected to be sympathetic with the historic character of the barn. The extent and capacity of the new electrical service will depend upon the intended adaptive reuse of the building. Assuming a use will probably include public access, a new code-compliant fire alarm, exit signage and emergency lighting system should be anticipated. 3.10 Concrete Silos Structural Systems Two concrete silos exist just to the west-northwest of the large stone and timber barn. They are of similar construction, but have somewhat different structural designs. Both silo types are common, economical silo construction types found throughout Northern Colorado. Neither of the silos currently has a roof structure, and both may have originally been built without roofs. (Refer to photos #S001-S008) Both silos are approximately 15'-0" in diameter, and were originally connected at the top by a wooden bridge structure, but only broken remnants remain. (Refer to photos #S002 and S006) The eastern silo is a "jumpform" silo, approximately 42' high, built of reinforced cast-in- place concrete, 4"-5" thick with exposed "cold" construction joints at 4'-0" o.c. The continuous circular form joints are evidence of this type of construction, versus the lack of form joints when a slipform is used. The cast-in-place silo is reinforced internally with iron rods embedded at approximately 18" o.c., and reinforced to the outside with 3/4" diameter smooth steel tension bands encircling the silo at approximately 30"-40" o.c. The rod hoops are in two or more sections, held together with iron lugs and threads/nuts on each end of the rod. The western silo is a stave silo, approximately 45' high, built of prefabricated interlocking vertical concrete staves, 10" wide x 5' long staggered, and 4" thick vertical concrete panels. A precast concrete stave is made in the field, using a hydraulic press. The press exerts pressure on the stave, eliminating air voids and creating a high-density concrete panel. Staves are generally steam-cured to give them longer life. These vertical staves are prestressed with 3/4" diameter smooth steel bands at approximately 15" o.c. with turnbuckles, aligned over the staggered stave edges. The hoops are tensioned to precompress the stave wall circumferentially. The working thickness of the staves decreases from the top of the silo to the base. It is estimated that the staves at the base of the silo are 3" thick. The silos both appear to bear on shallow concrete cast-in-place strip foundations, although it could not be determined how deep they extend below finished grade. The foundations are irregular in shape and approximately 10"-12" wide. The foundations were likely used to provide a level surface during construction and placed to reduce the soil bearing pressures from the dead weight of the silos, keeping the silo structures from settling or punching through the soil. (Refer to photo #S005) The interior surfaces of both silos are now rough, exposed aggregate. The upper portions of both have what appears to be a smooth skim-coat finish, which indicates that the stored grain probably has scoured the lower interior surfaces over time. (Refer to photos #S009 and S010) A 4" caliper Elm tree is growing within the east silo. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 34 The openings in the exterior walls have been covered with chicken wire so the interiors of the silos were not accessible on the day of our field visit. An embedded steel strap frame, where an access door originally existed, remains in the outside face of the west silo. (Refer to photo #S008) The east silo originally was originally served by a wooden chute, only 50% of which still remains. The west silo has remnants of a sheet metal chute. (Refer to photo #S006) Condition: Fair to poor. The eastern "jumpform" silo appears to remain structurally sound. Its rod hoops are in good condition, with the exception of the last two rods from the bottom that exhibit severe rust and degradation. Similarly, deterioration is evident in the stave silo by the exposed aggregate in the staves. This is caused either by friction of silo contents against the concrete or by corrosion. If these silos were used for silage, silage acids can have a corrosive action on the concrete and the steel. Maintenance of a stave silo is critical to the stability of the silo. If the rod hoops become loose the compressive state of the staves is lost and the structure can become unstable or collapse. Observation of the silo from the ground indicates that the top of this silo is no longer circular, and proper maintenance of the structure is a critical need. It is likely that no maintenance has been undertaken on this silo since its initial erection. It is imperative that the hoop rods, lugs and nuts be inspected on this silo to prevent future collapse. The concrete is fairly deteriorated in many locations. The area around the steel strap door frame in the west silo is badly cracked. Neither of the silos appear to be structurally attached or tied to the concrete foundations. In some locations the silos are no longer bearing uniformly along the foundations, and daylight can be seen above the foundation in some locations. It is not clear whether the foundations have settled or the silo has deteriorated at the base. Most of the original silo doors and chutes have been removed or are otherwise missing. The wood plank bridge spanning between the two silos is in very poor condition and should not be used. Recommendations: The two concrete silos should be retained and their condition stabilized and preserved. The tree inside the east silo should be cut, removed and its roots grubbed so as to prevent further heaving or undermining of its foundation. Backfill around the silo foundations should be excavated to better determine their structural adequacy. If the foundations are adequate to provide sufficient soil bearing, then the gaps around the silo perimeter should be repaired with non-shrink high strength grout to keep the silos stable during lateral loading conditions. Structural analysis and the design of any structural repairs or reinforcing for the silos is outside of the scope of this report. An inspection should be completed by a licensed professional structural engineer to evaluate the hoop rods for both silos, and any corroded or damaged rods should be replaced. The slave silo should have all hoop rods inspected for proper tension to ensure a wind induced failure will not occur. It is our understanding that several adaptive reuses for the silos have been discussed by the owner, including constructing a spiral stairway within one of the silos to access a rooftop observation platform. Before these options are given serious consideration, we recommend that the owner engage a qualified, licensed structural engineer to fully assess Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 35 the structural capacity of these new induced loads. Further investigation is recommended to determine if anchor bolts or some other physical evidence remains to confirm whether roof structures ever existed on either of the silos. If construction of new roof structures is pursued, the design should be based upon photographic or physical evidence and not be conjectural in nature. Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the silos, the bridge between the silos could be removed, or reconstructed for interpretation of its historic use. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5 and 6. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.11 Milk House Foundations Foundation System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The milk house foundation is constructed of roughly coursed sandstone, in sizes ranging from 2-1/2" - 9" high x 4" - 30" long. The foundation construction is approximately 14" wide. The depth of the foundation walls cannot be determined, but it is assumed that they are at least the same depth as the double or triple wythe brick masonry walls above. Mortar joints range from 1/2" to 2-1/2" wide, and are generally tooled flush with the faces of the adjacent stone units. Condition: Fair. Minimal observation of the foundations could be completed due to the limited exposure of the stone above grade, and the fact that the building has no basement or crawlspace. Only limited evidence of settlement, shifting or cracking appears in the building’s masonry walls above grade. Since this building is scheduled to be relocated, no repair or rehabilitation work is necessary for the existing foundation structure. Recommendations for Relocation: Two likely scenarios have previously been offered for relocation of the unreinforced brick masonry milk house structure: Alternative 1: The first option requires some temporary removal of small portions of brick masonry at the base of the walls for the jacking and transport process, leaving some visual evidence that the masonry had been modified. A system of shores and jacks would be used to lift and move the masonry structure. The specialty subcontractor will determine the exact locations and frequency of steel beams, but it is assumed that access holes at approximately 3'-0" on center would be cut through the exterior brick walls of the masonry just above the existing stone foundation and concrete floor slab. Steel beams would be placed through these access holes and used to jack the structure up for transporting. The beams would extend past the exterior face of the walls where jacks will lift the structure to prepare for transport. The shoring beams will have to stack in the opposing directions so the beams can be continuous from side to side. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 36 In this alternative, since the holes are being cut through unreinforced brick, there is potential for cracking to occur in the wall areas around the holes. This will be greater due to the stress placed on the walls during the initial lifting operation. A new foundation will need to be built at the new location for the milk house, constructed of sandstone salvaged from the existing foundation after the building has been lifted and moved out of the way. The new foundation needs to be constructed so that the original north-south and east-west orientation of the building is retained. Once the structure has been relocated and placed upon the new foundation, the openings used to place the steel shoring through the masonry walls should be infilled with salvaged bricks from the structure, using mortar that will match the mortar analysis of the existing building. A new concrete floor slab will then need to be poured. Alternative 2: The second option will likely result in fewer modifications and less potential damage to the original structure, but will require more site preparation and excavation prior to the move. The area around all four sides of the structure would need to be excavated and a long earthen ramp constructed to bring the structure up out of the excavation. The depth of the jacks and shoring beams used to transport the structure will determine the depth of the excavation. Similar to Alternative 1, steel shoring beams would be placed through access holes, but in this case with the holes cut into the stacked stone foundations below the brick masonry to limit damage to the unreinforced brick walls. In addition to the exterior excavation, the interior slab on grade will need to be removed and the interior fill excavated prior to the relocation to allow the stacked steel shoring beams to pass through the building under the masonry. A new foundation will need to be constructed at the new location for the milk house as described in Alternative 1 above. In either scenario, once the building has been relocated onto its new foundation, the foundation will have to be built up to the historic masonry structure. Grout will likely be used to infill the voids and uneven surface below the masonry. This insures even weight distribution and prevents cracking of the masonry due to elevation changes and possible stress concentrations. In evaluating the two alternatives, our recommendation is to pursue Alternative 2, as it would appear to be the least intrusive to the integrity and historic fabric of the existing building, and have less potential for structural cracking and damage to the historic brick masonry. Recommendations After Relocation: After the brick masonry building is lifted and moved off of the foundation, the original sandstone foundation should be carefully deconstructed and the stones salvaged, cleaned, marked and stockpiled for reconstructing the foundation in the building's new location. If, upon excavation, it is determined that the existing foundation walls are not deep enough to yield enough material to construct the new foundations to the proper frost depth, the sandstone units should be used at the top of the walls where they will be exposed to view. This material can then be supported on conventional cast-in-place concrete foundations to extend the walls to a minimum of 36" below finished grade. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 37 As noted above, the building should be relocated onto its new foundation in the same orientation as its historic orientation. Backfill Backfill generally slopes away from the foundations, with adequate slope to properly drain runoff from the foundations. Current geotechnical standards generally specify a minimum of 6" slopes away from the building within the first 10' of grade adjacent to the foundations. Condition: Since the building will be relocated onto a new foundation, the condition of the existing backfill is not applicable. Recommendations: The elevation of the new foundation should be established to provide proper drainage away from the perimeter of the building. 3.12 Milk House Structural System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The milk house is constructed as a gravity and lateral load-bearing, multi-wythe brick structure with a wood framed roof. Standard construction practices have been followed for both masonry and wood structures built in the early 1900s. The load-bearing construction consists of conventional brick masonry construction laid in a running bond, with masonry lintels over the door and window openings. The masonry appears to be three wythes thick, although this could not be confirmed due to plaster applied to the interior of the masonry. (Refer to photos #M001-M006) Typically lateral systems include a designated section (shear wall) in the masonry where no openings are present. This small structure has areas of uninterrupted masonry at all corners and does not appear to have any evidence of movement. The lateral load capacity is assumed to be adequate. No structural analysis or testing was performed to verify the capacity of the brick masonry. A large window opening was cut in or placed in the masonry on the west elevation after the original construction. A wood header supports the roof above the opening. The gabled roof consists of 2x4 (nominal) wood roof rafters at 16" o.c., covered with 1x wood skip sheathing. The framing was not visible from within the structure, however it is assumed the ceiling framing provides a tie across the structure to support the ridge of the gable. Condition: Good to fair. The brick masonry appears to be in relatively good condition. Minor damage to the masonry exists at the base of the structure due to penetrations placed through the wall, and some brick units possibly damaged due to heavy equipment, etc. Even though the roof structure could was not exposed to view within the building, the appearance and geometry of the roof framing indicates the structure remains sound, without the roof or ceiling exhibiting noticeable sag. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 38 Recommendations: Prior to all preservation work and during any structural repairs, a qualified, licensed structural engineer should detail, supervise and review all design work and observe the procedures implemented during construction. When the roofing is replaced, the condition of the underlying structural framing and skip sheathing should be thoroughly inspected, and any moisture damaged materials replaced prior to the new roofing being installed. Masonry repairs should be completed after the building is relocated to repoint mortar joints and replace missing brick. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5 and 6. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.13 Building Envelope – Milk House Exterior Walls The one-story milk house was constructed of triple-wythe, unreinforced brick masonry walls, over the rough coursed sandstone foundations described in Section 3.11. The brick is laid in a running bond pattern, using 2-1/4" x 8-1/2" units. A bond course exists every ninth course vertically in the walls. (Refer to photos #M001-M008) The brick masonry extends up into the gabled ends on the north and south facades. The original north door opening has a double rowlock brick arched lintel, while the original windows have single rowlock brick arched lintels. The door has a sandstone lug sill. (Refer to photos #M001, Moo6-M008, M014 and M016) A 4" diameter clay pipe extends through the north and south walls (at opposite corners) near the floor, probably part of an original drainage system for washing out the milk house. (Refer to photos #M003, M012 and M013) Condition: Good to fair. The brick masonry is generally in good condition with some evidence of cracking, primarily at window and door openings and other points of natural weakness in the walls, generally running vertically or diagonally from these openings.. The southwest corner of the building has more deterioration and damage, with several brick units missing at the base of the wall. (Refer to photo #M019) The building has been "tagged" with graffiti on the east wall. (Refer to photos #M003 and M005) Recommendations: Minor repointing of the mortar joints in the brick masonry is required at approximately 10% of the walls, and less than 5% of the overall masonry needs to be replaced due to damage or missing brick. New brick units should replicate the original if an adequate match can be located. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 7. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. A mortar analysis of the existing mortar used in the stone foundations and brick walls should be completed to guide the composition of the repointing mortar. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 39 3.14 Building Envelope – Milk House Roofing and Waterproofing The roof of the milk house is a simple front-facing gable with shallow boxed eaves. The roof is covered in split Cedar shakes over what appears to be the original (or at least older) taper-sawn Cedar shingles. All of the roof eaves drain off the roof edge without gutters. The eave and rake ends are all flashed with newer galvanized sheet metal drip flashings, probably dating from the time the Cedar shakes were installed. A clay and metal flue exits the roof at the ridge, probably serving an original pot belly stove that no longer exists. (Refer to photos #M001-M006) The boxed eaves are constructed of decorative 2-1/2" high wood mouldings over a 1x4 fascia. (Refer to photos #M009, M010 and M014) The roof edges are flashed with poorly installed sheet metal drip flashings. (Refer to photo #M010) Condition: Very poor. The Cedar shakes are in poor condition, and the ridge shakes are missing for approximately half of its length and have not been repaired. The condition of the underlying Cedar shingles cannot be determined, but it assumed that they were not in good condition, and so covered with the newer Cedar shakes. (Refer to photos #M004 and M005) There is some evidence of past moisture damage on the interior of the building, but it did not appear that this is currently an ongoing problem. It does not appear that the building ever had gutters and downspouts. The wood fascia and boxed eaves are weathered and only in fair condition, other than along the east side where a tree has grown up and around the roof eave construction, causing some more significant damage. (Refer to photos #M017 and M018) Recommendations: Both the shake and underlying shingle roofing should be removed down to the original roof sheathing. After the sheathing has been inspected for any structural or moisture damage, and repairs made if necessary, the roof should be covered in a continuous underlayment of single-ply Ice and Water Shield membrane. Then new Red Cedar taper-sawn shingles should be installed with new sheet metal drip flashings and coordinating ridge shingles. The clay and metal flue should be retained and flashed into the new roof. The wood fascia and boxed eaves should be retained, but materials repaired as necessary. It does not appear that any are beyond the point of being repaired, but if more serious moisture damage is uncovered during the reroofing, the damaged materials should be removed and replaced in kind. Additional attic ventilation should be added as well, possibly using a ventilated ridge shingle system or the introduction of a small roof jack, painted to blend with the shingles. While these treatments may not strictly follow the Secretary of Interior Standards, they would be required by modern building codes and will increase the life-expectancy of any new roofing materials. Depending upon the adaptive reuse that is pursued, additional blown-in insulation is recommended to be added in the attic. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 40 3.15 Milk House Windows and Doors Windows The milk house contains a variety of window types, some of which are original to the building and one that is not. The south facade contains a single 1-lite inswinging wood casement window with clear single-pane glass, centered in the wall. The decorative hinges are fairly ornate with pointed finials, and are probably original. The latch is a newer, non-original surface- mounted cabinet type latch. (Refer to photos #M006, M023, M024, M026, M027 and M033- M036) The window is cased to the exterior with 1-3/4" x 1" thick square wood casings with a beaded profile. Both the south and north gable end walls contain small upper windows (now within the attic of the building) that are covered to the exterior with painted oriented strand board (OSB). Since they are no longer exposed to the interior, it could not be determined whether the window sashes or glazing remains. (Refer to photos #M001-M003, M006, M007 and M014) The west wall contains a larger, 3-lite fixed wood window that appears to be a later alteration to the milk house. The opening has been cut into the wall without the characteristic rowlock lintel, and the head of the window is lower than either the door in the north wall or the window in the south wall. The exterior casings and sill are also of simpler detailing, utilizing rough-cut 1x6 wood members with simple butt jointery. (Refer to photo #M002, M004, M006, M020, M021, M025, M027 and M028) This window is covered with chicken wire to the exterior. Condition: Fair. As far as can be observed, the original wood windows appear to be structurally sound and operational and are in fair condition. The exterior wood window frames, sills and casings are weathered, but are generally intact and remain structurally sound. One of the fixed sashes in the west window has been damaged and is no longer in place. (Refer to photos #M028 and M031) Window putty is generally in poorer condition. It could not be determined if the interior wood casings remain. The one operable south window does not have a screen, but there is no evidence that it ever did. Recommendations: All of the original wood sash windows and hardware should be retained. These windows should be repaired where necessary, then scraped, prepped and repainted. The OSB should be removed from the upper north and south windows, and the windows repaired as may be necessary. The exterior wood frames, sills and casings should also be scraped, prepped and repainted. Glass panes should be reputtied where needed. All windows and frames should be recaulked. A new wood-framed screen could be added to the one operable inswinging casement window, if the adaptive reuse dictates that this window will be opened and used. If not, then a screen would not be required. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 41 Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Exterior Door The milk house contains only one door, located in the center of the north wall. It is a 2'-6" x 6'-8" high, non-original residential quality half-lite door with single-pane glass. The lower door panel is divided into two vertical panels. The upper glass lite is a true-divided lite in a diamond pattern. (Refer to photos #M001, M008, M024 and M029) The door is presently secured by a modern deadbolt lock. No door latching or locking handle hardware remains, but the door stile retains a painted "ghost" of a decorative escutcheon plate. (Refer to photo #M030) The exterior casing is built out beyond the face of the brick, with evidence of where an original screen door used to exist. The interior casing is 2-1/2" x 3/4" thick with a beaded profile similar to the south window. (Refer to photos #M015 and M016) Condition: Fair. While the entry door is not original to the milk house's construction, it may be old enough to be considered historic in its own right, and is in generally good condition. Recommendations: Notwithstanding the previous statement, we recommend that the non- original door be replaced with a door more in keeping with the building's period of original construction, and one that might better fit the adaptive reuse for the building. If photographic documentation exists, it should be used to guide this replacement. If not, a 4- or 5-panel rail and stile wood door would be appropriate to the age and architectural style of the milk house. New door hardware should also reflect the building's era, with 5- knuckle hinges and pointed finials similar to the original window hinges being appropriate. The painted "ghost" escutcheon can also be used to guide an appropriate door plate style. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.16 Milk House Interior Finishes The milk house contains only a single interior room. A small portion of the north wall reveals that the brick walls were originally finished with plaster placed directly over the brick. (Refer to photo #M024) Most of the walls are now covered in non-original composite paneling in a dark walnut finish, with coordinating base and window/door trim pieces. (Refer to photos #M025-M029) The interior now has a lowered, flat plastered or gypsum wallboard ceiling, although it is unlikely this is original to the construction unless the two upper windows in the gable end walls were always concealed within an attic. The ceiling is lightly textured and painted. (Refer to photo #040) The flooring is badly-worn carpeting over several slabs of sandstone. The east wall contains what may be original built-in painted cabinet and shelving, constructed of utilitarian wood plank construction. The northern half is enclosed with beaded wood plank doors, while the south half remains open shelving. (Refer to photos #M024 and M026) Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 42 Condition: Fair to poor. The non-original paneling is in fair condition, but conceals most of the original plaster finishes, so these cannot be assessed. The non-original plaster or gypsum wallboard ceiling is intact and in fair condition, but exhibits evidence of past moisture damage. The carpeting is in very poor condition, badly worn and torn up at the door and not well attached in other areas. The underlying sandstone floor slabs could not be assessed. Recommendations: It is recommended that the non-original paneling be removed and the plaster walls exposed for further assessment. If they remain intact, the plaster should be repaired and repainted. Further field research should be done during the design phase of any rehabilitation to determine if the original materials exist, and if they can be repaired. Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse, insulating the walls may be necessary or desirable, so the walls may need to be furred out, insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard. After the upper windows are uncovered and it can be determined whether they were originally open to the interior room, a determination should be made as to whether or not the ceiling should be removed. If possible, the original built-ins should be retained and preserved. They may need to be anchored to the walls during the excavation and relocation of the building. Since the building is to be relocated, the existing sandstone floor slabs should be removed and salvaged for reuse, then reinstalled as a part of the new foundation. Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse, no further floor finishes may be needed, which would be the preferrable solution in keeping with the utilitarian nature of the original building. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.17 Milk House Mechanical Systems Milk House Heating and Ventilation The only evidence of mechanical equipment in the milk house is a disconnected in-wall unit heater and the remnants of natural gas piping that served it. (Refer to photos #M024 and M039) It is unlikely that this wall heater was original to the building, and the clay and metal flue pipe described in Section 3.5 above suggest that the building was originally heated by a wood- or coal-fired pot belly stove. An "Empire" brand, unpainted galvanized sheet metal grill remains in place on the outside face of the north wall, although it is not known what its function might have been. (Refer to photos #M001, M008 and M011, and the description of this feature in Section 2.1 on page 10 of this report) The remnants of gas piping run from the location of the wall heater down and out of the building through the clay drainage pipe mentioned earlier. It terminates on the outside; the gas meter or propane tank that served this heater no longer exists. (Refer to photo #M012) Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 43 Ventilation was originally achieved by merely opening the south window or the door. Condition: Poor. The mechanical system that once existed was simple and functional, but no longer exists. Recommendations: Depending upon the nature of the adaptive reuse of the building, the type, extent and sophistication of the mechanical system could vary widely. For purposes of historic preservation and the accurate interpretation of the building, the simpler and most basic of mechanical systems would be the most appropriate. Plumbing It appears that the milk house did not have any plumbing systems, other than the wash down system mentioned above. Condition: Not applicable. Recommendations: It is recommended that the clay pipe sleeves through the brick walls remain for interpretation of the building's history. They can be plugged on the interior and insulated if desired. 3.18 Milk House Electrical Systems The milk house was served by electrical power, and it is assumed that it was provided by aerial service off of the main barn or possibly the house. Only remnants of that service remain. A modern electrical meter box and disconnect were lying near the building. These had been mounted on a wooden post, presumably adjacent to the building. The interior of the building was illuminated by a single ceiling-mounted incandescent light fixture, wired to a single-pole switch near the door, which is missing its cover plate. (Refer to photos #M037, M038 and M040) One horizontal, surface-mounted electrical duplex power outlet exists below the west window. Condition: Not applicable. The electrical system is no longer in service. Recommendations: The existing interior electrical system should be removed and the building rewired after it is relocated, with the extent of service depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the building. Assuming a use that does not include public access, no fire alarm or emergency lighting system is anticipated. New exterior lighting fixtures should be designed and selected to be sympathetic with the historic character of the milk house. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 44 4.0 Analysis and Compliance 4.1 Hazardous Materials Inspection and testing for hazardous materials is outside the scope of this assessment. Due to the age of the original milk house, the building may contain asbestos in the underlying plaster, gypsum wallboard ceiling adhesives, or other hazardous materials. Lead-based paint may be found on the exterior and interior window and door frames and sashes, exterior wood fascias and trims, and the interior plastered walls. Since the interior of the barn is unfinished and the exterior is heavily weathered, it is unlikely that hazardous materials will be found in this building. However, the testing consultant should make this determination for the owner. Suspect materials should be tested for hazardous content prior to removal and should then be disposed of appropriately. If any hazardous materials are subsequently discovered, they may be managed in place if any damage is adequately repaired and the materials are in a location(s) not subject to damage or abuse. Lead-based paint may be encapsulated by new paint, if deemed appropriate by the testing and abatement consultant. 4.2 Building Code Compliance The remaining buildings at the Coy-Hoffman Farm have been evaluated relative to the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), adopted and in use by the City of Fort Collins. The City is anticipating adopting the 2012 family of I-codes in early 2014. Due to the unknown nature of any adaptive reuse and the resulting rehabilitation improvements, it cannot be determined at this time the level of compliance with current building, fire and life safety codes standards. Application of applicable sections of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) can be used where these requirements allow greater latitude than strict compliance with the IBC. The barn has a net building area of approximately 1,716 sq. ft. on the main level and 1,996 sq. ft. on the upper hay loft level, for a total usable area of approximately 3,712 sq. ft. The discrepancy between the areas on the two levels is due to the thickness of the stone walls and the fact that the hay loft level wall framing is set slightly out from the stone below. The milk house is approximately 108 net sq. ft. While not constructed to any building code, the construction type for both the barn and the milk house would probably be classified as Type V-B (non-rated, combustible construction) per the 2009 IBC. This code should be consulted to determine the allowable floor area for the anticipated adaptive reuse, and the requirement for a fully automatic fire sprinkler system should be anticipated. As historic buildings, the Coy-Hoffman barn and milk house would not need to strictly meet all of the parameters of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), so this may provide some leeway in how the weatherization and insulation of the barn is designed. We would suggest that the owner discuss this issue with the local building official earlier in any design phase. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 45 The most significant building code issue is the lack of adequate egress from the upper level hayloft, particularly if some level of public use is anticipated for this space. This level does not have any legal, code-compliant exits, and almost any reasonable use will require two. Based upon our conceptual level analysis, other building code deficiencies may exist in the existing buildings and would need to be addressed as a part of any rehabilitation project, including the lack of adequate insulation materials and thermal performance that do not meet current State of Colorado model energy codes. 4.3 Zoning Code Compliance The site is located within the city limits of Fort Collins and is zoned RC-River Corridor. This is normally a fairly restrictive zoning classification, with uses geared toward preservation of the river corridor and habitat. It is our understanding that the Woodward site, with its multi-use "campus" approach, was granted a special "addition of a permitted use" during the City's planning approval process. This allowed a number of additional uses to be added to those normally allowed by right in the RC zone, including conference centers and research facilities. As the owner investigates potential adaptive reuses for the historic buildings, they are encouraged to contact BHA Design Inc. for clarification of any of the permitted (or excluded) uses. 4.4 Accessibility Compliance The historic buildings at the Coy-Hoffman Farm are not currently handicapped accessible in any way. Compliance with Chapter 11 of the IBC and general provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that every “program” provided within a public building be accessible to persons with disabilities. This does not necessarily mandate that access be provided to all areas within a building, if a particular program can be provided within an accessible area of the building or immediate site. The main level of the barn is elevated somewhat above the surrounding grade at its primary historic entrances, with no ramp to provide access into the entry. There is no accessibility provided to the upper hay loft level, and it may be very difficult, both structurally and historically, to attempt to make the upper level accessible. While accessible restrooms and other facilities are more than likely planned in other buildings within the Woodward campus, it is assumed that accessible restrooms, kitchenette and other related amenities would be required within the barn if the adaptive reuse is for a conference center or other public use. The door accessing the milk house is only 2'-6" wide, 6" short of full accessibility compliance. Since altering the width of this door would destroy historic materials and would be considered invasive to the historical integrity of the building, it is recommended that a maintenance-related adaptive reuse be found for this building that would continue its historic utilitarian use, and avoid the need for interior access by the general public. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 46 4.5 Existing Materials Analysis No detailed materials analysis has been done as a part of this assessment report or was necessary. However, specific materials analyses should be undertaken during the design phase of the preservation effort to ensure a successful project, to include:  Mortar analysis for repair and repointing of the original ashlar sandstone masonry.  Moisture testing for structural wood timbers or other members, if moisture damage is uncovered during any restoration work.  Microscopic paint analysis, if an authentic restoration is pursued for any of the buildings.  Testing and possible abatement for asbestos, lead-based paints or other hazardous materials. Further structural exploration and analysis is recommended during the design phase of any restoration and adaptive reuse work, as referenced in Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.10. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 47 5.0 Preservation Plan 5.1 Prioritized Work As described earlier, the remaining Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are in good structural and fair physical condition, with much of their contributing historic fabric intact. The intent of the historic preservation efforts outlined in the HSA will be to rehabilitate the interior of the barn and milk house to allow their continued use as compatible adaptive reuses, while preserving the exterior character of each. Preservation efforts related to the concrete silos are primarily focused on the structural stabilization of the structures. The following priority levels are provided to demonstrate the severity of existing deterioration and damage of all building and site elements. These ratings also pinpoint which features need immediate attention before further damage occurs. Critical Deficiency of an element exists where:  there is advanced deterioration which has resulted in the failure of the building element or will result in the failure of the building element if not corrected within two years, and/or;  there is accelerated deterioration of adjacent or related building materials as a result of the element's deficiency, and/or;  there is a threat to the health and/or safety of the user, and/or;  there is a failure to meet a legislative (or building code) requirement. Serious Deficiency of an element exists where:  there is deterioration which, if not corrected within 2-5 years, will result in the failure of the building element, and/or;  a threat to the health and/or safety of the user may occur within 2-5 years if the deterioration is not corrected, and/or;  there is deterioration of adjacent or related building materials and/or systems as a result of the element's deficiency. Minor Deficiency of an element exists where:  standard preventative maintenance practices and building conservation methods have not been followed, and/or;  there is a reduced life expectancy of affected or related building materials and/or systems, and/or;  there is a condition with long-term impact beyond five years. Recommended rehabilitation improvements for the Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are as follows: Critical Deficiency:  Ensure that grading that is a part of the redevelopment of the site adequately diverts drainage away from the barn on all sides.  Placement of the new foundation for the relocated milk house should also provide positive drainage away from the new foundations.  Landscaping improvements around the barn and milk house to create a "dry zone" around the foundations. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 48  Structural analysis of the two silos, and implementation of any structural repairs that may be determined from this analysis. Serious Deficiency:  Repointing and repair of the sandstone walls and foundations of the barn.  Repointing and repair of the brick masonry walls of the milk house (after relocation).  Replacement of broken or missing shingles on the barn with new taper-sawn Cedar shingles and ridge shingles.  Reroofing of the milk house with new taper-sawn Cedar shingles installed over a single- ply roofing underlayment.  Repair and/or replacement of broken or missing wood plank siding boards on the barn.  Repair and rehabilitation of the wood boxed eaves and fascias of the milk house.  Rehabilitation of the original wood barn windows, including sashes and frames, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints to the stone walls and wood siding.  Rehabilitation of the original wood barn doors, including frames and casings, fixing the doors in an "open" position, and caulking of perimeter joints to the stone walls. If the doors are fixed open, the original openings would then need to be infilled with aluminum storefront framing, doors and glazing, or some other modern material.  Depending upon the selected adaptive reuse, weatherization of the hayloft level, and installation of insulation in the walls and roof of the barn. Several methods may be available to accomplish this work, but the choice should retain the exterior appearance to the greatest extent possible.  Depending upon the selected adaptive reuse, new construction and interior remodeling to provide two means of egress from the upper level hayloft of the barn, as well as the possible construction of an elevator for public access to the hayloft.  Environmental clean-up to remove bat, pigeon and rodent waste. Minor Deficiency:  Removal of the elm tree growing within the eastern silo.  Rehabilitation of the original wood milk house windows, including sashes and frames, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints to the brick masonry walls.  Replacement of the non-original milk house door with a new rail-and-stile wood door and hardware.  Installation of some type of attic ventilation in the milk house. 5.2 Phasing Plan Due to the scope of the prioritized preservation improvements needed, the project may be divided into two (or more) construction phases, if desired. Phase 1: Phase 1 includes all of the “Critical” and “Serious” work items. Depending upon the selected adaptive reuse, the work necessary to address building code compliance should also be part of Phase 1 work. Phase 2: Phase 2 could include all of the work identified as “Minor”, including energy efficiency enhancements not mandated by code compliance for the selected adaptive reuse. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 49 5.3 Estimated Construction Costs The following conceptual estimates of probable construction cost are made without the benefit of any design or engineering related to the prioritized work. The Owner is advised to seek additional cost verification prior to using this information as the basis for any future grant applications or fund raising endeavors. Construction costs itemized below are only those costs associated with the rehabilitation or preservation of the historic buildings. Costs associated with the adaptive reuse or tenant finish of the spaces are not included. Phase 1 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction:  Construction of a new milk house foundation and relocation of the milk house: Planned separately or already completed  Regrading of the site immediately around all sides of the barn to divert drainage away from the building: Part of redevelopment scope  Extension of site utilities to the barn and milk house: Not included  Landscape mulch with edging to create "dry zone" around the perimeters of both the barn and milk house (Allowance): $ 8,000.00  Replacement of missing or damaged taper-sawn Cedar shingles on the barn (Allowance): $ 2,500.00  Construction of roof structures on the silos: Not included  Reroofing of the milk house with new taper-sawn Cedar shingles over single-ply membrane underlayment: $ 4,800.00  Repointing of the sandstone walls and foundations of the barn (Allowance): $ 35,000.00  Repointing of the brick masonry walls of the milk house (Allowance): $ 7,500.00  Repair and/or replacement of broken or missing wood siding, casings and trims of the barn (Allowance): $ 5,000.00  Rehabilitation of the original wood windows, sashes and frames at the barn, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints: $ 2,000.00  Rehabilitation of the original wood barn doors, and fix in "open" position: $ 4,500.00  Weatherization of the hayloft level, and insulation of the walls and roof of the barn (Allowance): $ 25,000.00  Rehabilitation of wood fascias and boxed eaves of the milk house: $ 1,200.00  New construction to provide two means of egress from the upper level hayloft of the barn: Not included  New construction to add an elevator to the hayloft level of the barn: Not included  New aluminum storefront framing, glass and doors to infill openings: Not included  New plumbing fixtures and piping in the barn: Not included  New fire sprinkler system in the barn: Not included  New mechanical HVAC system in the barn: Not included  New electrical power and lighting systems in the barn: Not included Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 50  New emergency lighting, exit signage and fire alarm systems in the barn: Not included  New A/V, security, WiFi or other specialty systems in the barn: Not included  Subtotal Phase 1 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 95,500.00 General Conditions (10%): $ 9,550.00 Contractor Overhead & Profit/Bonds/Insurance (8%): $ 7,650.00 Total Phase 1 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 112,700.00 A/E Design Fees (12%): $ 13,525.00 Forensic Structural Inspection/Evaluation for Silos (Allowance): $ 10,000.00 Reimbursable Expense Allowance: $ 5,000.00 Topographic Surveying Allowance: Already completed City of Fort Collins Building Permit/Development Fees: Not included Hazardous Materials Testing/Abatement Allowance: $ 5,000.00 Environmental Clean-up (Bat/Pigeon/Rodent) Allowance: $ 2,000.00 Miscellaneous Materials Analysis and Testing Allowance: $ 10,000.00 Archaeological Monitoring Allowance: $ 2,500.00 Design Contingency (3%): $ 3,375.00 Project Contingency (15%): $ 16,900.00 Total Phase 1 Estimated Project Cost*: $ 181,000.00 Phase 2 - Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction:  Removal of the Elm tree growing within the eastern silo: $ 1,000.00  Rehabilitation of the original wood windows, sashes and frames at the milk house, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints: $ 1,600.00  Replace non-original entry door of the milk house with more historically-appropriate wood door and hardware: $ 1,800.00  Installation of attic ventilation in the milk house: $ 600.00  Subtotal Phase 2 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 5,000.00 General Conditions (10%): $ 500.00 Contractor Overhead & Profit/Bonds/Insurance (8%): $ 400.00 Total Phase 2 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 5,900.00 A/E Design Fees (12%): $ 700.00 Reimbursable Expense Allowance: $ 2,000.00 Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 51 City of Fort Collins Building Permit/Development Fees: Not included Design Contingency (3%): $ 175.00 Project Contingency (15%): $ 875.00 Total Phase 2 Estimated Project Cost*: $ 9,650.00 Total Phase 1 Project Cost: $ 181,000.00 Total Phase 2 Project Cost: $ 9,650.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS (ALL PHASES)*: $ 190,650.00 * Add 6% - 8% per year for construction escalation. Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Historic Photos H-001 Historic Image H-002 Historic Image Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Historic Photos H-003 Historic Image H-004 Historic Painting Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-001 - B-002 - B-003 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-004 - B-005 - B-006 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-007 - B-008 - B-009 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-010 - B-011 - B-012 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-013 - B-014 - B-015 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-014a - B-015b - B-016c - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-017 - B-018 - B-019 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-019a - B-020 - B-021 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-022 - B-023 - B-024 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-025 - B-026 - B-027 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-028 - B-029 - B-0230 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-031 - B-032 - B-033 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-034 - B-035 - B-036 - B-037 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-038 - B-039 - B-040 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-041 - B-042 - B-043 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-045 - B-044 - B-046 - B-047 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-048 - B-049 - B-050 - B-051 - B-052 - B-053 - B-054 - B-055 - B-056 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-057 - B-058 - B-059 - B-060 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-061 - B-062 - B-063 - B-064 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Silo Photos S-001 - S-002 - S-003 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Silo Photos S-004 - S-005 - S-006 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Silo Photos S-007 - S-008 - S-009 - S-010 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-001 Front Elevation M-002 - M-003 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-004 - M-005 - M-006 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-008 - M-007 - M-009 - M-010 - M-008a - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-011 - M-012 - M-013 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-014 - M-015 - M-016 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-017 - M-018 - M-019 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-020 - M-021 - M-022 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-023 - M-024 - M-025 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-026 - M-027 - M-028 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-029 - M-030 - M-031 - M-032 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-033 - M-034 - M-036 - M-035 - Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-038 - M-037 - M-040 - M-039 - Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 52 Technical Literature References Ahlbrandt, Arlene. “A Storehouse of History.” Fort Collins Forum, 14 August 2003, p. 14. Ahlbrandt, Arlene. “Barn at Lincoln and Lemay to Remain on Golf Course.” Fort Collins Coloradoan, 16 August 1991, p. C1. “Barn at Lincoln and Lemay to Remain on Golf Course,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, 16 August 1991, p. C1. Clark, Francis. Early Sawmills in Larimer County. Fort Collins, CO: Clark Associates, 1992. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Site Reevaluation Form, Coy-Hoffman Barn (Site #5LR1568), 10 October 2000. Prepared by L. H. Bambrey, Greystone Environmental Services Inc. Colorado State Register of Historic Properties Nomination, Coy-Hoffman Farm (5LR.1568). Prepared by Carol Tunner, Fort Collins Historical Society, 14 February 1995. Grimmer, Anne E. Keeping it Clean: Removing Exterior Dirt, Paint, Stains & Graffiti from Historic Masonry Buildings. Washington, DC: US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, 1988. “Historic Barn Still Standing – Barely,” The Coloradoan, 18 May 1997. Historic Building Inventory Record, Coy-Hoffman Barn, Fort Collins Survey of Historic Places, June 1992. Prepared by Thomas and Laurie Simmons, Front Range Research Associates. Jessen, Kenneth, “Coys Stayed in Area for the Winter and Beyond,” Loveland Reporter Herald, 13 February 2012. Accessed online at reporterherald.com. “Local Structures Win State Funding,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, 12 August 1994, p. C2. Photographs of the Buildings on the Coy-Hoffman Farm. City of Fort Collins, Planning Department, Historic Preservation Program Files, July 1991. “State Historical Fund Grant Application, Coy-Hoffman Barn, Building Restoration.” Center for the Stabilization and Reuse of Important Structures, Colorado State University, Department of Industrial Sciences, 28 February 1995. Stone, Wilbur Fisk. History of Colorado. Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1918. Vlach, John Michael. Barns. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Courier Publishing Co., 1911. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Preservation Briefs that may apply include:  Preservation Brief #1, The Cleaning and Waterproof Coating of Masonry Buildings  Preservation Brief #2, Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Brick Buildings  Preservation Brief #3, Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings  Preservation Brief #4, Roofing for Historic Buildings  Preservation Brief #9, The Repair of Historic Wood Windows Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 53  Preservation Brief #17, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character  Preservation Brief #20, The Preservation of Historic Barns  Preservation Brief #24, Heating, Ventilating & Cooling Historic Buildings  Preservation Brief #32, Making Historic Properties Accessible  Preservation Brief #35, Understanding Old Buildings  Preservation Brief #36, Protecting Cultural Landscapes  Preservation Brief #43, The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 54 Terms and Definitions Definitions of the following terms used in this Historic Structure Assessment report are provided to assist the readers of this report: Character-defining Feature: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality or characteristic of an historic property that contributes significantly to its physical character. Structures, elements, objects, vegetation, spatial relationships, views, furnishings and decorative details and materials may be such features. Element: An element may be an architectural feature, structural component, engineering system or a functional requirement. In-kind: In the same manner, with the same material, or with something equal in substance creating a similar or identical appearance or effect. Material: The physical elements that were combined or deposited to form a property. Historic material or historic fabric is that from an historically significant period, as opposed to material used to maintain or restore a property following its historic period(s). Period of Significance: The general era or length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities or persons. Preservation: Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features, rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Reconstruction: Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. 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. Restoration: Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 55 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior's Standards, developed by the National Park Service, form the basis for the recommendations included in this Historic Structure Assessment report, as well as review of future rehabilitation, restoration or preservation projects by the State Historical Fund. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archaeological 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. Fort Collins Data Access: Results 2015 & 2016 Wind Date CSU Colorado State University Home Page <http://www.colostate.edu/> Hourly Observations Date Time Temp RH Dew Wind Dir Gust Dir Press Solar Prec Pt MST °F % °F mph ° mph ° mb W/m^2 In 01-16-2015 20:00 53.1 17.6 10.2 4.6 290 24.3 273 841.20 0.0 0.00 01-16-2015 21:00 52.0 20.0 12.2 6.8 243 22.5 264 840.77 0.0 0.00 01-16-2015 22:00 52.3 20.4 12.8 7.7 297 30.2 289 840.87 0.0 0.00 01-16-2015 23:00 50.9 24.4 15.7 17.0 279 38.0 301 842.00 0.0 0.00 01-17-2015 00:00 48.6 30.0 18.6 10.7 272 28.6 302 843.97 0.0 0.00 12-08-2015 06:00 53.1 32.3 24.2 9.2 298 35.3 292 842.27 0.0 0.00 12-08-2015 09:00 54.6 30.9 24.4 8.4 296 31.9 279 844.16 156.6 0.00 12-15-2015 21:00 26.9 47.3 9.4 6.7 318 28.2 302 836.57 0.0 0.00 12-24-2015 01:00 27.3 37.0 4.5 12.8 261 31.6 256 832.85 0.0 0.00 01-14-2016 05:00 35.8 33.5 9.8 4.6 306 22.1 333 836.46 0.0 0.00 01-14-2016 06:00 42.6 22.7 7.1 9.9 291 29.0 305 836.27 0.0 0.00 01-14-2016 07:00 40.7 25.1 7.7 6.3 295 22.1 282 836.77 0.0 0.00 01-14-2016 08:00 39.3 27.6 8.6 7.3 273 18.5 244 837.11 11.0 0.00 01-14-2016 09:00 40.7 27.4 9.6 10.9 267 26.9 287 836.45 149.8 0.00 01-14-2016 10:00 42.7 26.3 10.5 10.6 281 32.4 289 836.81 315.3 0.00 01-14-2016 11:00 43.1 27.7 12.0 11.7 270 26.2 243 835.90 442.8 0.00 01-14-2016 12:00 43.9 27.1 12.1 11.7 291 29.9 282 834.99 512.3 0.00 01-14-2016 13:00 44.3 26.8 12.2 15.2 282 32.5 266 832.60 525.9 0.00 01-14-2016 14:00 44.6 26.2 12.0 14.3 282 32.9 285 832.37 477.5 0.00 Date Time Temp RH Dew Wind Dir Gust Dir Press Solar Prec Pt MST °F % °F mph ° mph ° mb W/m^2 In 01-14-2016 15:00 44.6 26.0 11.8 12.0 287 30.4 293 833.00 368.5 0.00 01-19-2016 03:00 36.8 73.0 29.0 10.0 14 25.9 349 846.16 0.0 0.00 01-29-2016 06:00 48.4 26.3 15.3 7.9 290 26.2 285 838.81 0.0 0.00 01-29-2016 07:00 48.9 29.7 18.6 10.6 280 29.8 292 839.49 0.0 0.00 01-29-2016 08:00 48.5 31.0 19.2 9.5 267 37.1 260 840.13 9.8 0.00 01-29-2016 09:00 48.2 30.8 18.8 7.4 279 22.4 309 841.04 60.7 0.00 02-07-2016 11:00 30.9 61.5 19.2 14.0 197 26.5 196 854.36 530.8 0.00 02-07-2016 12:00 31.6 63.1 20.5 14.7 196 23.5 195 854.63 565.3 0.00 02-07-2016 13:00 32.8 62.6 21.4 13.5 187 21.4 189 854.10 600.0 0.00 02-07-2016 14:00 33.1 63.5 22.1 11.8 174 21.1 169 853.51 509.2 0.00 02-13-2016 15:00 58.5 26.4 24.1 9.2 244 27.8 267 843.70 539.9 0.00 02-13-2016 16:00 60.6 15.5 13.4 11.6 273 29.2 297 843.70 319.4 0.00 02-13-2016 17:00 58.6 17.3 14.3 15.1 262 33.5 303 842.30 70.7 0.00 02-13-2016 18:00 56.6 17.2 12.6 8.2 258 26.5 243 842.11 6.1 0.00 02-14-2016 14:00 50.5 29.1 19.6 7.4 268 27.7 243 840.68 178.4 0.00 02-14-2016 15:00 52.3 27.0 19.3 8.7 278 24.5 263 840.86 339.9 0.00 02-14-2016 16:00 51.4 27.0 18.5 8.7 302 31.7 282 840.34 184.2 0.00 02-14-2016 17:00 50.1 28.4 18.6 7.6 310 25.8 334 840.61 80.2 0.00 02-14-2016 18:00 48.7 30.6 19.1 7.2 298 23.0 289 841.54 5.6 0.00 02-14-2016 19:00 48.2 30.7 18.7 7.7 296 27.4 223 842.71 0.0 0.00 02-14-2016 20:00 44.6 46.6 25.4 8.0 334 25.9 349 844.44 0.0 0.00 02-15-2016 17:00 55.0 32.6 26.1 8.2 295 28.3 288 837.56 59.0 0.00 Date Time Temp RH Dew Wind Dir Gust Dir Press Solar Prec Pt MST °F % °F mph ° mph ° mb W/m^2 In 02-15-2016 18:00 53.2 35.6 26.7 9.0 295 29.1 294 838.25 6.9 0.00 02-15-2016 19:00 52.7 36.1 26.5 7.5 290 27.1 286 839.07 0.0 0.00 02-15-2016 20:00 52.4 36.0 26.2 8.2 281 24.5 293 840.10 0.0 0.00 02-15-2016 21:00 52.6 34.6 25.4 9.3 295 28.2 296 840.63 0.0 0.00 02-15-2016 22:00 52.4 34.5 25.2 9.5 306 36.3 300 841.39 0.0 0.00 02-15-2016 23:00 52.0 35.6 25.6 9.5 300 27.7 282 842.10 0.0 0.00 02-16-2016 00:00 51.6 36.5 25.9 7.1 319 23.8 297 843.11 0.0 0.00 02-18-2016 18:00 65.5 17.2 19.7 7.8 234 26.0 188 829.63 8.9 0.00 02-18-2016 19:00 59.3 31.7 29.2 11.2 270 34.2 304 832.49 0.1 0.00 02-18-2016 20:00 47.2 43.3 26.0 12.1 292 34.6 305 836.74 0.0 0.00 02-18-2016 21:00 45.1 41.6 23.1 14.1 278 29.7 287 837.85 0.0 0.00 02-18-2016 22:00 44.0 42.4 22.6 12.0 282 28.2 309 839.81 0.0 0.00 02-18-2016 23:00 44.4 32.9 17.1 15.2 285 33.2 300 840.53 0.0 0.00 02-19-2016 00:00 44.0 28.5 13.4 16.1 285 36.7 304 840.91 0.0 0.00 02-19-2016 01:00 44.7 21.1 7.2 15.1 280 35.7 247 840.83 0.0 0.00 02-19-2016 02:00 45.5 16.5 2.6 14.7 271 37.5 257 841.50 0.0 0.00 02-19-2016 03:00 46.0 14.5 0.2 11.2 282 32.2 274 841.87 0.0 0.00 02-19-2016 04:00 45.6 14.9 0.5 7.0 274 21.0 322 842.56 0.0 0.00 02-19-2016 05:00 44.6 17.6 3.2 8.4 295 31.4 290 843.45 0.0 0.00 Summary of CommitmentS by WoodWard inC to ProteCt and PreServe the Coy SiloS Woodward Inc. has committed to protect and restore the silos for four years. Below are excerpts of key land use documents, minutes of neighborhood meet- ings, and images of sections of development plans that show Woodward com- mitted to saving the silos from 2012 through October 2015. These commitments were made both in formal city adopted land use plans and submittals and in public meetings. The public and city staff and City Council relied on these sub- mittals in believing the Coy Silos will remain and be repaired. The city should mandate that these commitments be met. 1. february 15, 2012 Item:”Description of need for Modification of Standard: The site plan has been developed to both restore and highlight two key features of the site, the Cache la Poudre River and the Coy/Hoffman barn complex.” “3) 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources: The Coy/Hoffman barn, silos, and milk house are designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. The barn and silos will remain, and the milk house is proposed to be moved to a new location approximately 30 feet north of the barn. The applicant has worked closely with Historic Preservation staff to preserve and integrate the historic buildings into the new development and has presented the project to the Landmark Preservation Commission (L.P.C.). The plan as proposed has received full support by the L.P.C.” Reference: Link’n’Greens Project Development Plan, PDP #130001, Modifi- cation of Standard to Section 4.20(D)(3)(a)(1) and Modification of Standard to Section 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2) 2. august 20, 2012 Item: Applicant’s Presentation/Neighborhood Meeting “Q: Will the farmstead be protected permanently? R: Yes. Q: Saving the farm–does that include all of the historic structures that are reg- istered? R: All of the historic structures will be preserved. Q: (Carol Tunner) worked to preserve the barn on the site; I like the idea of Woodward Governor; I think they will be good stewards of the ground; I just want to be sure that everyone understands the significance of the site. This is the cradle of Fort Collins.” Reference: Link’n’Greens Overall Development Plan, Neighborhood Meeting Comments 3. September 13, 2012 Item: Section 3m: 4. 7 Historic and Cultural Resources. This standard requires that the development plan protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is preserved and adaptively reused on the development site. As noted, the Coy/Hoffman Barn, which was designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties in 1995, is within the boundary of this O.D.P. “The O.D.P. acknowledges that the Coy/Hoffman farm buildings will re- main. Future development will be further evaluated for compliance with sub- sequent project development plans.” Reference: Link’n’Greens Overall Development Plan, #ODP 120002 4. September 27, 2012 Item: Note” HISTORIC FARM BUILDINGS TO REMAIN” pointing to farm Reference: Link’n’Greens Overall Development Plan 5. november 7, 2012 Item: Neighborhood Meeting “Q: Is there any adaptive reuse considered for the historic buildings? A: Not sure if they can be re-used, still evaluating. Definitely will be pre- served. Worked with Carol Turner and smaller subset of things important along the river.” Reference: Link’n’Greens Project Development Plan, Neighborhood Meeting 6. January 4, 2013 Item: Agreement to designate Barn complex (barn, silos and milk house) as a local historical landmark. Reference: Conceptual Plan Review, page 10 7. January 14, 2013 Item: Statement of Planning Objectives “Woodward, Allen Ginsborg and the design team has worked closely with the neighbors, stakeholders, and city staff to develop a comprehensive and long term development plan for the site.” “The PDP helps to achieve the following Area Objectives for the Lincoln Tri- angle: • Showcase Heritage •  Create opportunities to integrate and showcase the area’s rich history and culture through transportation and other public improvements. •  The existing historic Coy Hoffman barn and silos on the Link’n’Greens site are being retained and have been integrated into the redevelopment plans as a key feature of the planned campus. The barn complex is listed on the Col- orado State Register of Historic Properties. The Poudre Trail is planned to be re- located through the project area to allow for additional public views and direct connections to this historic resource.” Reference: Link’n’Greens Project Development Plan 8. January 14, 2013 Item: “These facilities have been designed as a collection of buildings with deliberate adjacencies and both functional and operational connectivity. The site master plan has been developed collaboratively with input from city staff from various departments. The plan has been developed to best meet the needs for Woodward’s continued operational success, but also with awareness of the unique characteristics and opportunities of the site. The site plan has been de- veloped to both restore and highlight two key features of the site, the Cache la Poudre River and the Coy-Hoffman barn complex.” Item: “The site plan locates the office buildings and office areas of the indus- trial buildings adjacent to these key features to make them an integral part of the pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces and walkways planned for the campus. Reference: Request for Modification of Standard 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2) – COMMU- NITY COMMERCIAL POUDRE RIVER DISTRICT (CCR), Parking Lots, Link’n’Greens Project Development Plan 9. January 14, 2013 Item:”These facilities have been designed as a collection of buildings with de- liberate adjacencies and both functional and operational connectivity. The site master plan has been developed collaboratively with input from city staff from various departments. The plan has been developed to best meet the needs for Woodward’s continued operational success, but also with awareness of the unique characteristics and opportunities of the site. The site plan has been de- veloped to both restore and highlight two key features of the site, the Cache la Poudre River and the Coy-Hoffman barn complex .” “Showcase Heritage: The Coy/Hoffman Barn will be maintained as a part of the project preserving a link to the history of the area.” “The land is currently used as the Link’n’Greens golf course which has been in operation since 1986. The property contains a barn, silos and outbuildings known as the Coy/Hoffman Barn, which were designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties in 1995. The barn is associated with the earliest development of agriculture in the area, having been built during the 1860s as part of a homestead. Woodward has expressed an interest in working with the City in recognizing the historic importance of the downtown river corridor. Al- though there are no specific plans to date, they have indicated an interest in participating in some manner in recognizing the Coy Barn and other historic features. As part of the development the barn will be renovated. A specific use has not been identified, although, in order to protect the structure, it may not be open to the general public.” Reference: Request for Modification of Standard 4.20(D)(3)(a)(2) – COMMU- NITY COMMERCIAL POUDRE RIVER DISTRICT (CCR), Parking Lots, Link’n’Greens Project Development Plan 10. march 26, 2013 Item: Quote from City Council Agenda Item Summary, Attachment 1, pp. 1-2 “Showcase Heritage: The Coy/Hoffman Barn will be maintained as a part of the project preserving a link to the history of the area.” “The land is currently used as the Link’n’Greens golf course which has been in operation since 1986. The property contains a barn, silos and outbuildings known as the Coy/Hoffman Barn, which were designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties in 1995. The barn is associated with the earliest development of agriculture in the area, having been built during the 1860s as part of a homestead. Woodward has expressed an interest in working with the City in recognizing the historic importance of the downtown river corridor. Al- though there are no specific plans to date, they have indicated an interest in participating in some manner in recognizing the Coy Barn and other historic features. As part of the development the barn will be renovated. A specific use has not been identified, although, in order to protect the structure, it may not be open to the general public.” Reference: March 26th 2013, City Council Agenda Items Relating to an Agree- ment Between the City of Fort Collins, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, and Woodward Inc. to Provide Business Investment Assistance for the Relocation and Construction of the Company’s Headquarters, and Expand- ing its Manufacturing and Office Facilities 11. march 3, 2014 Item: In Progress Review: ”Looking West from Northern Lemay Ave. Entrance” Reference: In Progress Review, Phase One, Exterior Perspectives: Page 5 of 15 Item: In Progress Review: ”Looking Northwest Toward Building Entry” Reference: In Progress Review, Phase One, Exterior Perspectives: Page 7 of 15 12. april 2, 2014 Item: Site Plan Detail: ”COY/HOFFMAN BARN & SILOs TO REMAIN & BE PROTECTED” Reference: Site Plans, final plan, phase one, 04.02.2014 - Sheet S6 of 8: 13. July 17, 2014 Item: Final Plan Detail - Note ”SILOS TO REMAIN” Reference: Site Plan, Project Development Plan From: Neal Spencer [mailto:neal@usa.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 3:29 PM To: Mike Gebo Subject: Coy Silo Letter for 3/7 Dear Mike, The Coy Barn Historic District, which includes the barn, two silos, and the milk house, is one of the most important surviving pioneer farmsteads in Fort Collins and Colorado, according to History Colorado. It was added in 1995 to the State Register of Historic Properties. John and Emily Coy’s significance to early Fort Collins history cannot be overstated. They settled at the site in 1862. John built the ring silo in 1912 and the vertical stave silo was built by his son shortly after John’s death in 1913. Demolishing the silos may result in de-listing of the farm from the Colorado State Register - a black eye for a city that claims to honor its heritage. Fort Collins was designated a Preserve America community in May 2007 for it’s commitment to historic preservation. While Woodward received over $23.6 million in taxpayer assistance to remain in Fort Collins, they also have repeatedly promised in neighborhood meetings, and on its approved development plans, that the silos, barn, and milk house will be protected and preserved. Structural engineers hired by both Woodward and the City agree, the silos should be stabilized or further damage will occur. Woodward’s engineers’ also stated in written reports that the silos can be repaired. Concrete silos are not that expensive to repair and restore. A similar silo in Westminster was restored for under $100,000. Grants paid for most of the cost. Grants to repair and restore the Coy silos are also available to Woodward. In the three years the company has owned the property, they have taken no action to stabilize or repair the silos, even though they promised to “protect and preserve” them and Fort Collins codes require it. The silos, once restored, will be beautiful, and continue to be one of the city’s most iconic images of our agricultural heritage. Corporations such as Woodward should be stewards of historic properties in Fort Collins because they have the resources to do so, in part, thanks to taxpayers. Neal Spencer, Bellvue, CO From: Mary Humstone [mailto:humstone@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 12:45 PM To: Mike Gebo Subject: Comments re Coy-Hoffman Farm silo issue for March 7, 2016 BRB meeting February 29, 2016 Fort Collins Building Review Board c/o Mr. Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official City of Fort Collins By email Dear Mr. Gebo and Members of the Building Review Board: I am writing in reference to the upcoming March 7 hearing regarding the proposed demolition by Woodward Inc. of the two silos on the Coy-Hoffman Farm property. My comments are based on the engineering reports, the January 19, 2016 city council meeting at which this issue was remanded to the Building Review Board, and my own experience in overseeing and recording the rehabilitation of hundreds of farm buildings, including silos, as founder and director of the BARN AGAIN! Program, a national program to preserve historic farm buildings developed and managed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Successful Farming magazine. As I understand it, the main question before the Building Review Board is whether the silos are in imminent danger of collapse. There are several points I would like to make: 1. If, in the three years since the company purchased the property, Woodward had maintained and repaired the silos as required by law, this issue would be moot. Woodward is guilty of demolition by neglect, and should not be allowed to get away with flaunting the laws and policies of this city, especially since the silos can be stabilized. 2. All three engineering reports state that the silos can be stabilized, and one provides information about how this can be done. Woodward is even eligible for a grant from the State Historical Fund to help pay for this. With the money spent on attorneys to fight for demolition of the silos, Woodward could already have paid to have them stabilized. 3. The silos should not be subjected to more rigorous standards for wind resistance and other factors than any other building in Fort Collins, as suggested by some council members at the city council meeting on January 19, at which this issue was remanded to the BRB. I am sending these comments by email since I am out of town and will not be able to attend the meeting in person. Please consider these points in your deliberations on the fate of the silos on March 7, 2016. Sincerely, Mary Humstone 4420 Bingham Hill Rd Fort Collins, CO 80521 Humstone@gmail.com From: L. Ashbach [mailto:samaia@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 4:25 PM To: Mike Gebo Subject: Comments for 3/7 BRB packet March 2, 2016 Transmitted via email to Building Review Board Members ℅ Staff Contact, Mike Gebo, mgebo@fcgov.com for inclusion in packet for March 9, 2016 meeting Dear BRB members, At the time that John and Emily Coy claimed their farmstead along the Poudre River, the region was no more than a dozen scattered settlers, living among the Arapahoe Indians and wild animals that inhabited the land. As the family’s fortunes improved over the decades, a cabin along the river was replaced by several buildings and farm structures, of which, the barn, two silos, and milk house remain. The Coy-Hoffman silos are under threat of demolition by Woodward despite having stood for over 100 years, with much neglect in the past few decades despite City codes that should have protected and stabilized the silos. The silos are of the utmost importance to the preservation of Fort Collins pioneer agricultural heritage and should not be demolished by Woodward. We urge the Building Review Board to hold Woodward to same standard of care as any other property owner, despite political influence which might greatly exceed that of a typical citizen. Three qualified, northern Colorado registered engineers were retained to provide outside engineering representation, which they all did, competently and well. All determined that the silos could and should be stabilized. One even provides the steps to do so. Certainty is a fallacy in this situation and cannot be obtained. What is likely, is that if Woodward is allowed to continue to neglect the maintenance and care of these historic structures, on-going deterioration will occur. Mr Gebo rendered qualified, superior service to the City in his evaluation of the relevant issues. Mr Gebo’s September 18, 2015 notice to Woodward that they, as owners of the Coy-Hoffman silos, have an obligation to stabilize and repair the silos since they are “dangerous”, but not “imminently dangerous”, was met with Woodward’s response in the form of an appeal because they want to demolish instead. This, despite years of representations and assurances that the Coy-Hoffman farm would be preserved. Passing judgement on complex technical matters is not an easy task, and thus it is even more important that there be robust inquiry and qualified personnel to assist. Particularly in this instance where taxpayers have provided generous support to a large business, it is vital that the many promises regarding the protection and restoration of the silos at the Coy-Hoffman farm be kept. Thank you for your review of these comments, and your service on the Building Review Board. Sincerely; Lisa Ashbach Member From: "ERIC" <ericfried@comcast.net> To: mgebo@fcgov.com, loslon@fcgov.com Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2016 10:09:55 PM Subject: Comments for Building Review Board on March 7th Re: Remand of Decision on Woodward Request to Demolish Coy Silos Back to Building Review Board To: Michael Gebo, Chief Building Official, City of Fort Collins Building Review Board, City of Fort Collins From: Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Dr., Fort Collins CO 80525 I am commenting as a concerned resident, taxpayer, and voter of the City of Fort Collins, who also has over 20 years of increasingly responsible professional experience as a code administrator for local government. I am not in any sense speaking on behalf of the governmental entity for which I am employed, so I am not identifying them here. Some of you may know my current position. I want to commend the Building Official and the Building Review Board on what was a very measured, fair, unbiased and accurate technical designation of these silos as dangerous but not imminently dangerous. I am disturbed by what seems to be an attempt by Woodward to pressure this Board to come to a technical decision that is not warranted by the facts, in order to achieve Woodward’s desired outcome, rather than engage the broader issues within the appropriate venue, which is the city’s historical review process. Woodward’s effort borders on bullying, in my opinion. As I read the voluminous file, neither the engineering firm originally hired by Woodward, nor the two other engineering firms involved, nor the city's Chief Building Official, nor the Building Review Board find the silos to be an imminent danger. Deteriorating, yes. Imminently dangerous, no. As you know, the 2012 International Building Code classifies agricultural buildings as Risk Category I, homes and most buildings as Risk Category II, assembly buildings that can hold more than 300 people in one space as Category III, and essential public facilities (fire and police, departments, etc) as Category IV. Since the barn is to be repurposed for assembly uses, the silos were included with the barn and assigned a risk category III for future use, not current use. A category I structure uses a 300 year return period. A Category II building uses a 700 year return period. A Category III/IV building uses a 1,700 year return period. The longer the return period, the more likely the design wind event (100 mph Nominal Design Wind Speed per local Fort Collins Code, roughly 130 mph Ultimate Design Wind Speed) will occur during the time period. JVA’s best estimate is that the silos might catastrophically collapse in a 130 mph wind event, which statistically can be expected once every few hundred years. Wayne Timura of NL Development says "my view is that a tornado or code condition wind could happen at any time thus imminent." They COULD happen, but the odds are less than 1 in 1,000 of that occurring. For a 300-year recurrence interval, the odds in any one year are .00333. For a 700-year recurrence interval, the odds are .00143. For a 1700-year recurrence interval, the odds are .00059. That's why Paul Bennett noted in his testimony at the BRB that changing the risk category classification "didn't even move the zeros." Woodward's Director of Corporate Real Estate Steve Stiesmeyer, in his appeal of the BRB decision, says that "any risk that the Silos may collapse at any time is not acceptable to Woodward and should not be acceptable to the City." But every business and construction decision involves accepting a certain amount of risk. The question is what is the level of risk, and what is the cost to avoid or mitigate the risk? For instance, the new Woodward buildings currently under construction are likely built to withstand a maximum 120-130 mph high wind event. What if tomorrow we get a 150 mph wind - which could happen AT ANY TIME. These brand new buildings would likely fall down as well as the silos. What if we had a strong earthquake, which is unlikely but which could happen AT ANY TIME? The risk is small enough that we accept it, in lieu of making buildings unaffordable through requiring extremely highly wind- and earthquake-resistant construction. Mr. Stiesmeyer notes that "Colorado has recently experienced significant and historical weather events." This is true. The climate is changing and the old design parameters may be inadequate to the new conditions. But it is worth noting that the silos are in essentially the same condition as they were before such historical weather events, which supports the conclusion that they are in need of repair but are not in imminent danger of collapse. In remanding the matter back to the BRB, the City asked them to consider the likelihood of collapse in a "one in ten-year probability." The odds of a 130-mph wind happening in the next 10 years is FAR LOWER than it happening in the 1700 year return period that was contemplated originally by the BRB. Ten years is even lower than the 300 year return period normally associated with silos and other agricultural buildings. Since the Building Review Board made a sound decision in the first place, you are on extremely solid ground to say the silos are not likely to catastrophically collapse in the next 10 years. Our design wind speed for a 10-year return period is 85 mph, according to Jon Peterka (Cermak, Peterka, Peterson), one of the foremost wind experts in the US, based here in Fort Collins, and author of the 2006 Colorado Front Range Gust Map used by governments all along the Front Range, including Fort Collins and Larimer County. Please see attachment (Colorado Front Range Gust Map – ASCE 7-10 Compatible), in particular Table 1 on page 1. The silos are not likely to collapse in an 85 mph wind event, which itself is unlikely to happen in the next 10 years. Fort Collins has not experienced anything approaching a 130 mph "design wind speed event" in the last 10 years, and is unlikely to do so in the next 10. I urge the Building Review Board to reaffirm its original decision that the silos are dangerous, but not imminently dangerous. Letter to Fort Collins Building Department 1 Jon Sargent 818 Kimball Road Fort Collins, CO 80521 March 3, 2016 Mike Gebo City of Fort Collins Chief Building Official 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 RE: Comments on Council Remand of Coy Silos Demolition Dear Mr. Gebo, I am writing in support of the preservation of the historic Coy Silos. As a preservation professional and Fort Collins community member, I believe it is essential to protect such important heritage sites in the area. Although I am entering the debate fairly late, it’s evident to me that Woodward’s due diligence in investigating any and all ways to preserve the structures has not been carried out to the fullest. It’s immediately evident to me that further avenues have yet to be exhausted in order to come to a resolution on an appropriate treatment of the silos. Colorado stands as a forerunner in the United States in its dedication to providing funding for historic projects through the State Historic Fund. Should economics be the key contributing factor behind the impulse to tear down the silos, there are undoubtedly opportunities through such funding to alleviate the cost burden. Based on the preliminary engineering reports, it is my opinion (and many would argue it is a fact) that this is not an issue of public safety, but is instead an issue of unanticipated or unwanted potential costs by a private owner. I strongly believe that this site and this debate does not need to be a case of “us and them.” By involving the proper individuals with expertise in this area, and through open communication and cooperation, I’m confident that a solution can be reached that will be mutually beneficial to both parties involved. In the spirit of this, I have drawn on my past experience working for contractors in the historic preservation field and have reached out to some select contractors to get a ballpark sense for the cost of rehabilitating the silos. This rough budgetary figure may provide a starting point towards developing a budget for the grant funding process (or private investment should Woodward step forward as they had originally pledged). Although the figures below may provide a rough ballpark of costs, I believe it is critical to get an expert involved with extensive concrete and shoring experience to provide further on-site analysis. Such analysis would likely cost less than $1,000 and would allow for a much more refined budget to be developed. Letter to Fort Collins Building Department 2 Proposed scope of work: - Shore up and stabilize silos - Apply shotcrete and encapsulated steel supports to interior walls - Install roof framing and shingled roof - Repair/ restore wood and metal chutes on exterior of silos - Perform miscellaneous sitework/ grading to prevent future water infiltration and erosion Proposed budget: - Cost of shoring, structural stabilization and concrete work: $ 175,000 - Cost of all remaining work listed in scope above: $ 87,000 Estimated Total: $ 262,000 Please note that this is a rough number. By utilizing a concrete expert and by narrowing required scope, it’s very possible that the actual construction costs could be lower, even significantly lower. This number assumes the involvement of a construction manager and factors in their full costs. Reduction in scope or refining subcontractor numbers would result in correlated decreases in the general conditions costs of the construction manager. I hope that this may provide framework for discussions on an economic game plan for the preservation and/or rehabilitation of the silos. Again, given the historic preservation and grant resources in the state, I don’t believe there is any place for a debate on “economic feasibility.” The reality is it is entirely feasible to save the silos, and can be done at a reasonable cost with the aid of grant funding. Will Woodward step forward to join the city as a partner in this process, and thus help solidify a lasting relationship beneficial to both parties; a relationship which both parties desire and deserve? In my eye, this is the real question and is the challenge that I would l like to offer up to both parties. Sincerely, Jon Sargent BRB, Here is an opinion from Nicole Lane, Ms. Lane is the engineer who presented the original structural report from Martin/Martin. You’ll find that report in the earlier BRB packet used for the 10/29/15 hearing Michael W. Gebo Chief Building Official City of Fort Collins 970-416-2618 From: Wayne Timura [mailto:wtimura@nldevelopment.com] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 12:02 PM To: Mike Gebo Subject: Martin/Martin input FW: Woodward Silos - JVA summary calculations report and calculations Importance: High Mike, Please review and consider the attached e-mail from Nicole Lane from Martin/Martin and also submit it to the BRB. Thank you, Wayne 719.351.8629 From: Nicole E. Lane [mailto:NLane@martinmartin.com] Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 10:47 AM To: Wayne Timura <wtimura@nldevelopment.com> Subject: RE: Woodward Silos - JVA summary calculations report and calculations Wayne, As requested, I have reviewed JVA’s report dated March 1, 2016. The report indicates that the silos could fail at a 85-90 MPH Ultimate Basic Wind Speed which they list as the 10 year recurrence interval Wind Speed for the location of the silos. My review consisted of a brief, general review of the report and calculations. I did not perform a detailed review of the calculations provided or perform my own calculations. My initial conclusion is that both silo structures fail code criteria when considering the forces from full design wind speeds per ASCE7-10 and strengths per both ACI 318 and ACI 313 codes. Even at the reduced Wind Speed the concrete stresses exceed both the ACI 318 and ACI 313 strength limits. Therefore, I agree that the silo structures could fail at a 85-90 MPH Ultimate Basic Wind Speed. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please contact me if I may be of further assistance. Nicole Nicole E. Lane, PE, SE, LEED AP Associate PE (CO), SE (UT) Martin/Martin, Inc. 12499 W. Colfax Ave., Lakewood, CO 80215 P) 303-431-6100 Ext. 263 D) 720-544-5363 www.martinmartin.com From: Jonathan Sargent [mailto:jon.sargent1@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:23 PM To: Mike Gebo; Lisa Olson Cc: ginaciao@frii.com Subject: Letter and estimate in support of saving the Coy Silos Hi Mike and Lisa, I've attached a letter that I am hoping can be shared with the Review Board prior to Monday's meeting. I've been in touch with Gina Janett and had offered to develop and provide a rough budgetary number for the rehabilitation of the silos. Although I work for Wattle and Daub Contractors here in town, this work and this estimate represent my own undertaking, without their involvement. I am a passionate historic preservation advocate, new to Fort Collins and Colorado as of September, and I am looking forward to contributing my skill set to try and save these landmark structures. Thank you for your consideration of my attached thoughts. I look forward to hopefully attending Monday. Best regards, Jon -- Jon Sargent jon.sargent1@gmail.com 978.660.1905 March 4, 2016 Dear Building Review Board, Further seeking the determination of "imminently dangerous", through appeal, is a deceptive legal tactic of the appellant used to devalue the Coy-Hoffman Silos, to discourage the public from trying or wanting to save them, and to win sympathy for the appellant's problem- the problem being a lack of commitment to and vision for the silos as historic structures. Certainly, one must ask, if the approximately 40' silos are so threatening, why would Woodward have commenced construction on the Link-n-Greens site without removing them first? Why was the milk house- slated to become Woodward's Bike Shop- carefully relocated, within the fall zone of the silos? And why isn't the Historic Coy Barn- the proposed conference center- not protected from this imminent threat? It makes Mr. Chris Fawzy's passionately delivered description of Woodward, Inc's product risk tolerance and safety requirements of aerospace parts and systems (City Council 1/19/2016) and his subsequent argumentative leap to general site safety concerns, appear insincere. As expected, the silos have continued to stand during river modifications, major earth moving, construction of a 4-lane bridge, heavy traffic at the Lemay/Mulberry intersection, and all the grading, excavation and other activities involved with building the Woodward Technology Center and Headquarters. And so, as a participant of the January 19th, 2016 Site Inspection I was naturally unafraid to approach the silos. I signed the Release (see Release of Liability and Assumption of Risk) provided by Mr. Wayne Timura, and donned a yellow vest and hard hat as directed. I was then admitted to approach the structures- viewing them from inside the protective fence. I could physically touch the silos and even climb inside if desired. I was the last to leave the site, guided by employees of Woodward, Inc and/or M.A. Mortenson, ending the inspection. Note that not one of the City Council members in attendance chose to “visit the land and structures” and only viewed the structures from the public right of way. I found this odd and disappointing, and believe it demonstrates a lack of curiosity and commitment by those Council members to making well-informed decisions about the structures (see Notice of Site Inspection). I am not aware of the appellant being present. Nor do I know of any material being collected during the Site Inspection of January 19, 2016. Several Council members and the lawyer for the appellant, Mrs. Carolyn White, then implied during the January 19th appeal, that Council members were not able to approach the silos closely during the site visit due to site visit limitations and that the opportunity to touch the silos was absent. Mrs. White therefore offered a ziplock bag of concrete purportedly collected at the site as demonstrative evidence. No verification of the source of this material was offered, and there was no testimony by the person who collected it. I believe that of the 3 professional companies assessing the silos, none provided material samples in their analysis. I imagine they did not feel it relevant or necessary given their Structural Evaluations. Despite the fact that Ross Cuniff rightly questioned how this sample of concrete lends anything to the narrow determination between dangerous and imminent danger, Council was all to willing to allow the new evidence with Mr. Martinez ironically stating they would not want to preclude anything that would reveal truth. The City of Fort Collins has an obligation to set this straight and end the quibbling over minutia and imagined future events by supporting the creation of The Coy Farmstead Local Landmark District, as well as take on the daunting task of taking a firm stance on historic preservation with the appellant, Woodward, Inc. This requires the BRB first to uphold the Fort Collins building inspector's determination of the silos as “dangerous”, effectively declining Woodward's unjustified and short-sighted request to demolish the Coy- Hoffman Silos. Most respectfully yours, Dee Amick Fort Collins, CO Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 19, 2016 City Council STAFF Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Tom Leeson, Director, Comm Dev & Neighborhood Svrs SUBJECT Consideration of an Appeal of the Building Review Board Regarding the Coy-Hoffman Silos. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Woodward, Inc. has appealed the Building Review Board (BRB) decision to uphold the Chief Building Official’s declaration that two historic farm silos are “dangerous structures” and not structures that pose an “imminent danger” at 1041 Woodward Way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No staff recommendation BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Woodward, Inc.’s new facility and office complex on 1041 Woodward Way, corner of South Lemay Avenue and East Lincoln Avenue, was the original site of the Coy-Hoffman farmstead, a state designated historical site. A barn and two silos are what remain of the farmstead. The two silos are approximately 40 feet tall, one of cast in place concrete constructed around 1912, and a second silo using a concrete stave system constructed around 1913. Due to the storage of silage in the past; both silos are showing signs of concrete decay around their bases. The cast in place silo has a slight list to the east and is out of plumb. The stave system silo is oblong at the upper third. Woodward, Inc. requested that the City’s building official declare that the silos are an imminent danger/hazard in accordance with the adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). With a City declaration of imminent danger, the silos could be demolished and repurposed. To assist the City’s determination, Woodward hired the engineering firm of Martin and Martin to evaluate the structural integrity of the silos. Martin and Martin’s Ms. Nicole Lane, PE states in part:  The weakened state of the concrete walls is currently adequate for an empty structure but, without intervention, the silos will continue to deteriorate and will eventually become unstable and unsafe.  I also found both silos are stable against net overturning due to wind pressures. The City hired Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, Mr. Paul Bennett, PE, to provide his structural analysis of the silos and Mr. Bennett states in part:  Under the Structure and Premises Condition Code (International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC)) the silos should be repaired or replaced.  However, under the International Building Code (IBC), Historic Structures are exempt from retrofit requirements as long as a life safety hazard does not exist. Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2  Exponent determines that as long as people are not allowed to occupy the fall zone of the silos (this can be accomplished by fencing off the silos with appropriate fencing), then a life safety hazard does not exist. Woodward, Inc. then hired JVA Consulting Engineers, Mr. Steve Carpenter, PE. to provide a third structural analysis. Mr. Carpenter states in part:  Because of the reduced concrete section at the bases, and the reduction in concrete strength, compression failure of the remaining concrete under Code required Wind Loads is possible.  The silos will require significant repairs if restored  If the restoration cannot start immediately, that the silos be temporarily shored and/or strengthened until permanent repairs are complete. Code required Wind Loads are assumed to be 120 MPH-130 MPH and are the designed loads used for evaluating construction of new buildings today. The Chief Building Official reviewed all three engineers’ reports and based on their expert analysis, agreed that the silos have reached their serviceability limit and their strength limit state, in accordance with the below IPMC defined terms, and therefore the silos are dangerous structures: Limit State; A condition beyond which a structure or member becomes unfit for service and is judged to be no longer useful for its intended function (serviceability limit state) or to be unsafe (strength limit state). Dangerous structure or premises; A structure or premises is dangerous if any part, element or component thereof is no longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit state as defined in this code or, when considered in totality, the structure or premises pose an imminent threat to the health and safety of the public or the occupants of the structure or premises as referenced in Appendix A of this code. Issue: Imminent vs dangerous City Code Article IV, Demolition or Alteration of Historic Structures Not Designated as Fort Collins Landmarks or Located in a Fort Collins Landmark District, Section 14-71, requires that proposed demolition or exterior alteration of historic structures be reviewed and approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC), except for historic structures found to pose an imminent threat. No alteration or demolition can occur to historic structures without approval by the LPC or a declaration by the Chief Building Official that the structures pose an imminent danger and require immediate removal. The City indicated to the three engineering firms that an imminent danger declaration was being requested. To help better clarify “imminent” staff provided the adopted IPMC and Webster’s definitions: IPMC; Imminent Danger, a condition which could cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time. Webster’s; Appearing as if about to happen, likely to happen; impending. Without a clear declaration of imminent danger, by any of the structural engineers involved, on September 18, 2015, the Chief Building Official declared the silos to be “dangerous structures” and ordered that Woodward, Inc. secure the site around the silos and to submit a plan of protection for stabilizing the silos. Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Notice of Hearing and Site Visit Notice (PDF) 2. Notice of Appeal, Filed by Woodward, Inc, November 12, 2015 (PDF) 3. Materials provided to the Building Review Board (PDF) 4. Applicant Presentation to the Building Review Board (PDF) 5. Materials Presented to the BRB at the hearing (PDF) 6. Verbatim transcript (PDF) 7. Staff powerpoint presentation to Council (PDF) 8. Link to the Building Review Board Hearing and videos of silo (DOCX) ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal filed by, Woodward, Inc., c/o Steve Stiesmeyer November 12, 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 Materials Provided to the Building Review Board, Hearing held October 29, 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 Applicant Presentation at the Building Review Board Hearing October 29, 2015 PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,©2015WOODWARD,INC. INC. BuildingReviewBoardAppeal SiloStructuralClassificationandNotice toSecure DatedSeptember18,2015 AppealDate:October29,2015 PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Woodward,Inc. X JimRudolphͲ President,IndustrialTurbomachinerySystems X JenniferRayͲ ProgramManager,LincolnCampus X PamBartelͲ AssociateGeneralCounselandCorporateDirector,Contracts X NextLevelDevelopmentͲ WayneTimura X JVA Ͳ SteveCarpenter Introductions PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X WoodwardandCampusProjectOverview X SiteSelection X GeneralAdaptiveReusePlan X AdaptiveReuseSiloProposal X StructuralClassificationAppeal X ComprehensiveAdaptiveFunctionalReusePlan X Conclusion Agenda PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Woodward–AnAerospaceandEnergyCompany X FortCollinsCampusProject X MasterPlanned:Woodward871,000SF+CommercialUse73,400SF X 303,000squarefootproductionandofficefacilityforITS X 60,000squarefootcorporateheadquartersfacility X Restorationof31AcresalongthePoudreRivertoitshistoriccondition,dedicatedtoCityfor publicuse X AdaptivefunctionalreuseoftheCoyͲHoffmanfarmstead X $225MillioninvestedbyMarch2016 X Anextensivejobscreator Woodward&CampusProjectOverview PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. LocationMapandMasterPlan PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X EvaluatedanumberofsitesinFortCollinsandLoveland X Otherstateswerealsoconsidered X SignificantchallengestotheformerLinkͲnͲGreenssite X FloodwayandFloodplain X Limitedinfrastructure X Overheadpowertransmissionlinebisectedthesite X Mainsanitarysewertrunklinebisectssite X CoyͲHoffmanfarmsteadstructures X PoudreRiverBuffer X Woodward’sandtheCity’smutualcommitmenttosuccessplus X AthoughtfulanddeliberateapproachtotheseuniquechallengeswillachieveaworldͲclasscorporate campusindowntownFortCollins SiteSelectionandChallenges PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. CoyͲHoffmanFarmsteadLocation PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X ThesignificantcomponentsoftheCoyͲHoffmanfarmsteadwillberestored andrepurposed,asoriginallyplanned. X TheinitialintentwastoretaintheBarn,MilkhouseandSilos,thoughno specificusewasidentified.Milkhousewasmovedasoriginallyplanned. X HistoricStructuralAssessmentindicatedthattheSiloswerein“fairto poor”conditionandrecommendedafurtherstructuralassessment. X WoodwardengagedMartin/Martintoperformastructuralengineering reportfortheSilos. X AsafollowuptotheMartin/Martinreport,WoodwardalsoengagedJVAto performasecondstructuralengineeringreport. GeneralAdaptiveReusePlan PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Insummary,thestructuralengineeringreportsfromMartin/MartinandJVA bothindicatedthattheSilosareinanimminentlydangerouscondition. X TheMartin/MartinreportstatedthattheSilosshowsignsofimminentfailure orbreakdown. X TheJVA reportsimilarlystatedthattheSilosshowsignsofimminentfailure duetolongͲtermacidattacks. X Basedonthereports,WoodwardrevisedtherestorationplansfortheSilos fromtheinitialoptions. X ReviewedtheplanwithCityPlanning&DevelopmentDirectorforguidance X SubmittedaRequestforHistoricReview– EligibilityͲ DemoorAlteration X TriggeredCityBuildingOfficial’sEvaluation StructuralEngineeringReports PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X CurrentproposalincludesdismantlingtheSilosandreusingthesalvageable upperportionstocreateseatingstructuresapproximate4foothighinthe samefootprint X Dangerousintheircurrentcondition X Nolongerservingtheirhistoricpurpose X AsproposedtobemodifiedtheSiloswillremainanintegralpartofthe historicfabricofthesitedevelopment X Adaptivefunctionalreusetocreateacontemporarypatioandseatingarea forWoodwardmembergatheringandcollaboration X Publichistoricinterpretiveandeducationalbenefit AdaptiveReuseͲ SiloProposal PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Afterreviewofthestructuralengineeringreportsandextensive consultation,theCityrequiredWoodwardtoimmediately take thefollowingaction: ƒ “Alockableprotectionfenceofsignificantstrength,suchas chainͲlink,andsixfeettallshallbeimmediately installed encirclingthesilosandshallextendoutward25feetfromthe baseormore[...]toprovideasafetyzone.”(emphasis added) CityLetter,Sept.18,2015 PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X TheCityalsopostedaredͲtagwarningontheSilos. X “ThisBuildingisUnsafeandmustbeVacatedImmediately [. ..]Entryposesriskofdeathorseriousinjury.”(emphasis added) CityLetter, Sept.18,2015 PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. RedͲTagWarning PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X ThelettermandatedthatWoodwardimmediatelyerecta6Ͳ foottallfencewitha25Ͳfootradius. X TheredͲtagwarningstatestheSilosareunsafeandmustbe vacatedimmediately. X TheCitydeterminedthattheSilosarein“dangerous”condition but,despitethefencingrequirementandredͲtagwarning,did notfindthemtoposean“imminentthreat”. CityLetter,Sept.18,2015 PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Section14Ͳ71(b) X Section14Ͳ51 X Section111.3oftheInternationalPropertyMaintenanceCode, asadoptedbytheCity CodeRequirements PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Section14Ͳ71(b):Nostructure50yearsoroldermaybe demolishedunlessitisfoundtoposeanimminentthreatunder Section14Ͳ51oftheCode. X Section14Ͳ51:ACityofficialoremployeemustfind“an imminentthreattolife,healthorproperty”topermit demolitionofthestructure. CityCodeSections PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X InternationalPropertyMaintenanceCode,asadoptedbythe City:“[a]conditionwhichcouldcauseseriousorlifeͲ threateninginjuryordeathatanytime.” X Black’sLawDictionary:“[a]nimmediate,realthreattoone’s safetythatjustifiestheuseofforceinselfͲdefense.” DefinitionsofImminent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Section111.3oftheInternationalPropertyMaintenanceCode, asadoptedbytheCity,statesthatanappealmaybebased uponaclaimthat“therequirementsofthiscodeare adequatelysatisfiedbyothermeans.” X TheSiloshavedeterioratedtosuchanextentthattheyposean imminentthreattothelifeandhealthofcitizensandthe surroundingbuildings,andtherequirementsoftheCodeare adequatelysatisfiedbyWoodward’shistoricrenovationplans. AdequatelySatisfied PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Martin/Martin X January7,2014 X JVA X August10,2015 X Exponent X August13,2015 ImminentDanger– EngineeringReports PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X “Theyarenolongerperformingtheirintendedpurpose. Intheir currentstatetheycannotbeusedassilosorforanyother occupieduse.” X “Theyshowsignsofimminentfailureorbreakdown. The weakenedstateoftheconcretewallsiscurrentlyadequatefor anemptystructurebut,withoutintervention,thesiloswill continuetodeteriorateandwilleventuallybecomeunstable andunsafe.”(emphasisadded) Martin/Martin PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Martin/Martin PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Martin/Martin PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Martin/Martin PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Martin/Martin PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Martin/Martin PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X “Wealsoagreethatthelowerportionofthewallsshowsigns ofimminentfailure duetolongtermacidattack.”(emphasis added) X “[...]duetotheextremelysmallremainingcrosssectionof concreteatthebaseoftheSilo,andthereducedstrengthof theconcreteduetoyearsofacidattack,webelievecrushingof theconcreteunderlateralloadsinducedbyCoderequired windloadscouldoccurnow,resultinginfailure.” JVA PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Stavesilo: X “Theeffectofaciddeteriorationiscompoundedinthatitattacksthebottomof thesilowall,whichisalsothepartofthewallthatcarriesthegreatestamount oftheverticalload.” X “[T]hecrossͲsectionofeffectiveconcretecanbedecreasedtothepointwhereit willnolongerbeabletocarrythecomprehensiveloadandthesilowallwill begintocrush.” X Castinplacesilo: X “Oncesilageacidspenetratetheconcretearoundthesteelmuchofthebond strengthislost.Theresult?Atsomepointintimethesilowallwillnotbeableto carrytheimposedhorizontalloadandthesilowillcollapse.” OntarioReport PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. JVA PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. JVA PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. JVA PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. JVA PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. JVA PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X “[...]aslongaspeoplearenotallowedtooccupythefall zoneofthesilos (thiscanbeaccomplishedtosomeextentby appropriatelyfencingoffthesilosandreplacingvegetation withmaintenanceͲfreelandscaping[)],thenalifesafetyhazard wouldnotexist.”(emphasisadded) X “[...] adecisionshouldbemadetoeitherrepairthesilosor demolishthesilossoastomitigatetheriskofdamagetoother nearbyhistoricalstructures.” Exponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X “Theconcretehasdeterioratedtoanunsound conditionin manylocations,andtheunsecuredchuteopeningsatthebase ofthesiloscreateaconfinedspacewithrestrictedmeansof egress(attractivenuisance).” X “Theconditionsposeasignificantriskofimminentcollapse underdesignͲlevelwindloads.”(emphasisadded) Exponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Exponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Exponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Exponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Exponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Exponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X JVA:“[I]fcurrentdesignwindspeedsoccurattheSilolocations, [...]thereisimminentdanger.” X Martin/Martin:concurredwithJVA’s assessment StructuralEngineeringEmails PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Exponent:“[...]withoutperforminganyanalysis,itisunlikely thattheSiloscouldwithstandmoderndaydesignforcesfrom windorseismicevents.” X “Thereisarisk,howeverslim,thesiloscouldcollapseatany timeanditisforthisreasonthatthesilocollapsezoneshould befencedoffaswerecommendedinourreport.”(emphasis added) StructuralEngineeringEmails PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X AIGrefusestoinsuretheentirehistoricrenovationproject unlesstheSilosaretakendown. X NotonlyaretheSilosthemselvesuninsurable,buttheyexpose theBarn(futureconferencecenter)tounnecessaryrisksothat AIGwillnotinsuretherenovatedBarniftheSilosremainin place. Insurability PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Insurability PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X TheHoffmanfamily,asdescendantsoftheoriginalbuildersand owners,supportWoodward’srestorationplans. X “[T]hehistoricalvalueisnotonlymaintainedbykeepingjust thefootprintofthesilos,buttheaddedsafetyallowing accessibilitytolearnaboutandshareinthehistoryofthose structuresisenhancedby[Woodward’s]vision.” HoffmanFamily PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. HoffmanFamily PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. HoffmanFamily PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. HoffmanFamily PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X TheSilosfailtosatisfythewindͲloadrequirementsoftheCode andareinsuchadeterioratedstatethattheyareatriskof imminentcollapseatanytime. X SuchacollapsecouldcauseseriousorlifeͲthreateninginjuryor deathandalsodamagetothesurroundingproperty. TheSilosPoseanImminentThreat PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X TheonlywaytheSilosdonotposesuchariskisifWoodwardis deprivedofitsrighttoallowpeoplewithinorneartheSilos, which,inturn,establishesthatanimminentthreatexists. X TheCityhasacknowledgedtheimminentthreatbyrequiring immediatefencingoftheSilosandalsobyitspostingofredͲtag warningsontheSilos. TheSilosPoseanImminentThreat PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X However,theCityapparentlyreliesonExponent’sstatementthata lifesafetyhazarddoesnotexist“aslongaspeoplearenotallowed tooccupythefallzoneofthesilos…” X IfonecouldrelyonExponent’squalifiedstatementtodetermineno imminentsafetyhazardexists,theninnocasewouldanystructure, nomatterhowdecrepitorcompromised,posean“imminentthreat tolife,healthorproperty,”solongasbuildingownersaredeprived oftheirrighttoallowpeoplewithinornearsuchstructure. TheSilosPoseanImminentThreat PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X InternationalPropertyMaintenanceCode: X “[a]conditionwhichcouldcauseseriousorlifeͲthreateninginjuryor deathatanytime.”(emphasesadded) X Exponent: X “Thereisarisk,howeverslim,thesiloscouldcollapseatanytime anditisforthisreasonthatthesilocollapsezoneshouldbefenced offaswerecommendedinourreport.”(emphasisadded) ImminentDangerPerExponent PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. Section111.3oftheInternationalPropertyManagement Code,asadoptedbytheCity,statesthatanappealmay bebaseduponaclaimthat“therequirementsofthis codeareadequatelysatisfiedbyothermeans.” Section111.3 PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Historicpreservationisrequired“intheinterestofthe prosperity,civicprideandgeneralwelfareofthepeople”. X “[I]gnoring thedestructionordefacementofsuchcultural assets”resultsinnothingbutharmtothe“economic,cultural andaestheticstanding”oftheCity. Section14Ͳ2 PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X Woodward’sdevelopmentplans X PreservetheculturalaspectsoftheCoyͲHoffmanfarmstead X Createauniqueeconomicopportunity X Generatejobs EconomicDevelopment PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X RepurposingtheSilosalongwithrestoringandreusingtheBarn andMilkHousepromotes“prosperity,civicprideandgeneral welfareofthepeople”andthe“economic,culturaland aestheticstanding”oftheCity. X Thecomprehensiverestorationplanwouldnotdestroyor defacethevalueoftheCoyͲHoffmanfarmsteadbutrather makesitshistoryaccessibletothecitizensinasafeand educationalmanner. X WoodwardintendstopresenttheadaptivereuseplantotheLPC ComprehensiveAdaptiveFunctionalReusePlan PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. ComprehensiveRestorationPlan PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. ComprehensiveRestorationPlan PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. ComprehensiveRestorationPlan PROPRIETARYINFORMATIONͲ ©2015WOODWARD,INC. X TheSilosarean“imminentthreattolife,healthorproperty,”as definedintheCode. X Nolongerperformingtheirintendedpurpose X Donothavethecapacitytoresisttheforcesassociatedwithwind speedsapproachingCodelevel X Requireimmediatepreventativeactionstopreventdeathorinjury X Woodward’scomprehensiverestorationplansareinthebest interestsoftheCity Conclusion ATTACHMENT 5 Materials presented to the Building Review Board at the Hearing, October 29, 2015 ATTACHMENT 6 Verbatim Transcript of the Building Review Board Hearing October 29, 2015 BUILDING REVIEW BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, October 29, 2015 Council Chambers, 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Woodward Governor Appeal Case #2015-02 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: George Smith, Chair Mike Doddrige, Vice Chair Rick Reider Andrea Dunlap Justin Montgomery Tim Johnson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official Lisa Olson, Staff Support to the Board Brad Yatabe, City Attorney’s Office 2 1 CHAIR GEORGE SMITH: Okay, our next order of business is an appeal, case 2015-02. 2 This meeting is being recorded so it is important that all speakers make their statements clearly 3 into the provided microphones. I request that you identify yourselves for the recording and, are 4 there any questions prior to…we commence. I guess we’ll go to the City for the presentation. 5 MR. TOM LEESON: Great, thank you, Chair and Building Review Boardmembers. My 6 name is Tom Leeson; I’m the Interim Community Development Director, and I’d like to give 7 you a brief overview of the case you’re going to hear today and then we’ll get into more specifics 8 as the day continues. 9 The silos that are in question today are located on the new Woodward campus which is a 10 state-designated historical site. The silos were constructed in 1912 and 1913, respectively, two 11 separate years. And they are…were declared as dangerous structures by the Chief Building Official on September 18 th 12 of this year. The silos are approximately 40 feet tall and they have 13 two distinct construction types; the left silo is a concrete slip pour and the right silo is a concrete 14 stave. And again, they were built in 1912 and 1913, which were the two construction styles of 15 those two years. Woodward is appealing the dangerous classification by the Chief Building 16 Official, and has articulated in their appeal that they believe the silos are of imminent danger. 17 The appeal is on the grounds that the Chief Building Official failed to properly interpret and 18 apply the codes, and in your packet are the applicable code sections that are being appealed, and 19 we’ll discuss those. 20 As part of the process to make the evaluation, there were three engineering firms 21 consulted on the structural integrity of the silos. Martin and Martin and JVA were both 22 structural engineering firms hired by Woodward, and Exponent was the third engineering firm 23 hired by the City. Those reports are in your packet and have been provided for you for your 24 information. Two of the three reports did state that the silos could be considered imminent 25 danger under design wind loads with high winds of 120 to 130 miles an hour; but in their current 26 state, they are not considered imminent danger. And the City did provide the definitions of 27 imminent danger to evaluate the silos. Based on that, the imminent danger was not established, 28 and dangerous was the classification given by the Chief Building Official. Under Section 14 of 29 the City Code, Eligible Historic Structures, the dangerous classification requires the silos to be 30 stabilized and repaired. If they were classified as imminent danger, then the silos would be 31 required to be repaired or demolished, per the owners’ choice. 32 So today, the Building Review Board is to rule on the appeal, and rule on whether or not 33 the Chief Building Official failed to properly interpret Section 14-71 of the City Code, which is 34 the Landmark Preservation chapter, chapter 14. Section 71 is the section that specifically 35 pertains to the demolition of structures designated as a Fort Collins landmark, and the prohibition 36 of demolition of such structures unless it is found to be an imminent threat. Section 5-47 is the 37 adopted version of the City’s amended section of the International Property Maintenance Code, 38 and it’s the section of code that the Chief Building Official utilized for definitions of imminent 3 1 threat and dangerous structures. And then Section 111 is kind of a subsection of that Chapter 5- 2 47 that gives the Building Review Board essentially the authority to provide final interpretation 3 of that…of those code provisions, as well as the Chief Building Official’s decision. So those are 4 the sections that are pertinent. And that kind of concludes my presentation…and just wanted to 5 give you a brief, brief overview of what you’re doing here today. 6 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, it’s time for Woodward to present their side. 7 MR. BRAD YATABE: Mr. Chair, actually, if we can just…in line with the procedure 8 laid out…go over some of the procedural issues prior to that. Let me just state, in terms of the 9 hearing record for this proceeding, for the benefit of the parties, the hearing record for this 10 proceeding at this point will consist of the packet of information submitted by City staff, titled Building Review Board, October 29 th 11 , 2015, bearing the logo of the City of Fort Collins; both 12 parties should have received that packet already…in addition to this, documentation in whatever 13 form presented today by the speakers during the proceeding will be entered into the record. 14 Copies of such documentation need to be provided to…for the record, and we’ll keep a copy of 15 that. To this point, I know that Woodward provided us a copy of a letter and some additional 16 documentation; I believe you have received copies of that already. Additionally, all testimony 17 given by the Building Review Board at this hearing will be considered part of the record. The 18 relevance and the weight of any particular evidence that’s part of the hearing will be determined 19 by the individual Building Review Board members in making their decision. And, Mr. Chair, I’d 20 ask if you can make an inquiry to see if there’s any members of the public who may be interested 21 in making testimony today. 22 CHAIR SMITH: Are there any members of the public interested in testifying today? 23 Could you state your names? 24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Carol Tunner. 25 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Heather Wolhart. 26 CHAIR SMITH: Okay. 27 MR. YATABE: Mr. Chair, with regards to that, I think it’s up to the BRB to determine 28 whether you want to give an opportunity for the public, presuming that testimony is relevant to 29 the issues that you’re examining, if you want to make room within the procedure to allow some 30 public comment in addition to the procedure that’s already been laid out. And, I’m sorry, Mr. 31 Chair, if we just have any discussion among the Boardmembers…to be for the public. My 32 suggestion would be, if the Board is amenable to having some public comment that is relevant to 33 the matter, that perhaps it would be best to put that at the point that…after….so Woodward 34 would first present their case and the Chief Building Official would present his case and then we 35 could take public comment at that time, if…but I leave that up to the Board to make that 36 decision. 4 1 CHAIR SMITH: That’s kind of what we were discussing; and that’s about where we 2 were thinking…we were just thinking that we would limit it to probably three minutes per 3 person? 4 MR. YATABE: I think that’s appropriate. And I think the other question before the 5 Board was whether you wanted to set time limits on the parties. My understanding, talking to 6 Woodward, is that their presentation will be along the lines of approximately 40 minutes or so. 7 At this point, based on that timing, I leave it up to the Board whether they want to put any time 8 limits on it. At this point, I would suggest not, and just seeing how the testimony plays out. 9 Obviously if there’s testimony that’s not relevant or repetitive, you can cut some of that off; but I 10 think that, because it’s their appeal, and they obviously want to make a complete record, that you 11 just listen to what they have and you can monitor as you go. 12 CHAIR SMITH: Does the Board feel that we need to limit any times on the 13 presentations? 14 BOARDMEMBER JUSTIN MONTGOMERY: I don’t think so at this point. 15 BOARDMEMBER MIKE DODDRIDGE: I do have one question, I guess maybe, and I 16 don’t know if this is the appropriate time to ask, but my understanding is our role in this is to rule 17 only on the decision of dangerous or imminent danger, and nothing to do with the historical 18 value of the structures themselves, is that correct? 19 MR. YATABE: That’s correct; the purview of this Board on this appeal is restricted 20 basically to the Building Codes, in this case the IPMC and that determination. Other matters 21 under, for example, chapter 14, those are really within the purview of the Landmark Preservation 22 Commission, so decisions as to historical status, or those types of issues, would be 23 determinations…I know that in the overview presentation there was mention of Section 14-71 of 24 the Municipal Code; and I think, as far as awareness…so you’re aware of the context of things, I 25 think that’s fine for you to understand…sort of where this case fits in and how the finding of a 26 dangerous building versus an imminent threat or an imminent danger…how this sort of interacts 27 with it. But, it’s not really your determination as to whether that was interpreted correctly, 28 because that’s really more of a Landmark Preservation Commission matter. 29 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Okay, thank you. 30 CHAIR SMITH: Do we have any other questions before we go ahead? 31 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Is it worth stating previous Board appeals? We 32 have a statement usually about whatever they present here at this time is…if they want to appeal 33 to City Council later they have to present everything to this Board that they would later to City 34 Council…does that apply to this meeting? 35 MR. YATABE: That would apply to this decision. 5 1 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Whatever the proper statement is for that; but 2 usually we start our appeals out with that, so… 3 MR. YATABE: And that’s fine, and I think…I have met the attorney for Woodward and 4 if she has any questions regarding the appeal status, she can certainly contact me regarding that, 5 and the codes are available online as to the appeal period and the application process for that. 6 CHAIR SMITH: So we’re ready to go? I guess the appellant, Woodward, can state their 7 case. 8 MS. CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good 9 afternoon. My name is Carolynne White, I’m counsel for Woodward, Inc., the appellant, and I’ll 10 just mention for the record that sub-heading on the screen is slightly incorrect because that’s not 11 the right company name; it’s Woodward, Inc., not Woodward Governor. I think we changed it 12 on the other slide, but…just so the record is clear. I’d like to briefly begin by introducing the 13 team that you’re going to hear from today, and providing a brief overview of our presentation, 14 and then we’ll go ahead and present our case in the order that we’ve described it to you. The 15 folks that are here today from Woodward are Jim Rudolph, who’s president of industrial 16 turbomachinery systems, or ITS, Jennifer Ray who is the program manager for the Lincoln 17 campus, Pam Bartel, who is associate general counsel and corporate director for contracts, 18 Wayne Timura with the Next Level Development, who had been the original applicant on behalf 19 of Woodward working with the City throughout this process to entitle and build this campus, 20 Steve Carpenter, senior project manager with JVA, one of the engineers, structural engineers, 21 that prepared one of the reports, and you will be hearing from both Wayne and Steve a little bit 22 later in our presentation. The other witnesses are available for you to ask questions, but we 23 haven’t planned on them giving significant testimony during this time. Excuse me, except for 24 Jim Rudolph. 25 So, we are here asking the Board to review the previous determination and to find that the 26 silos do in fact constitute an imminent threat in order to permit demolition of the same in order to 27 facilitate the proposed adaptive reuse of the silos proposed by Woodward. This is a brief 28 summary of the order of our presentation. We’ll give you a brief overview of what this project is 29 and what Woodward is doing out on that campus, the site selection process and how the decision 30 was made to choose this location, particularly in light of the fact that the structures in question 31 were known at that time and analyzed at that time, and how that played into the long-term 32 planning and decision-making for this site. We’ll then briefly summarize what the proposed 33 adaptive reuse plan is, and then get into a little more detail about the specific structural 34 engineering reports, how the data contained in those reports relates to your interpretation of the 35 code sections in question, and then explain why we believe that there is, in fact, imminent 36 danger, and ask that you would overturn the Building Official’s decision and find that imminent 37 danger or imminent threat does exist. With that, I’d like to briefly hand the podium to Jim 38 Rudolph from Woodward to give you a little background about the company. 6 1 MR. JIM RUDOPLH: Good afternoon; my name is Jim Rudolph, I’m the president of 2 ITS at Woodward. To give you a little background on Woodward, Woodward is a 145 year-old 3 company headquartered here in Fort Collins. We apply technologies and develop solutions 4 around combustion, motion, metering and control for both the aerospace and energy markets. 5 The site that we’re working on out there; we’re in the process of building a 303,000 square foot 6 production facility for ITS, and a 60,000 square foot global headquarters. The site we’re 7 working on used to be Link-n-Greens and includes the Coy-Hoffman historical site. By the end 8 of March, we’ll have about $225 million invested in this project, and we look to complete this to 9 establish growth opportunities for the future of the company and continue to provide new jobs 10 for the local community. 11 MR. WAYNE TIMURA: Thank you Jim. The site that Jim just spoke about is the former 12 Link-n-Greens…oh, sorry; it’s Wayne Timura, Next Level Development. 13 And so the site that Woodward finally selected is the former Link-n-Greens golf course. 14 It’s about 101 acres, 31 acres was dedicated to the City for Natural Areas, and the initial building 15 that Jim talked about is this 303,000 square foot facility, the headquarters facility, 60,000 square 16 feet of space, and then this is the Coy-Hoffman site here, and this is a commercial area. The site 17 selection process was a complicated, extended process that Woodward did. We looked at a 18 number of different sites in Fort Collins and Loveland, as well as other states were considered. 19 And this site, itself, had a number of different challenges from the floodway, which was about a 20 third of the 100 acres, the floodplain which was another third…was some complexity that we had 21 to deal with. There was limited infrastructure on the site; an overhead main power transmission 22 line bisected the site as well as a main sewer trunk line that bisected the site. The Coy-Hoffman 23 farmstead structures also was [sic] obviously in the mix and caused us to really have a difficult 24 challenge in terms of siting the various facilities. The Poudre River buffer, the 300-foot Poudre 25 River buffer, was also certainly an impact. But Woodward’s, as well as the City’s, mutual 26 commitment to success, plus really the thoughtful deliberative approach to the unique challenges 27 on this site, really will achieve a world-class campus in the downtown of Fort Collins. You 28 know, one of the important collaborative efforts that Woodward engaged in with the City was the 29 planning with Woodward’s loan to the City…it was instrumental in restoring the 31 acres along 30 the Poudre River to its original historic condition. So that’s just some background, and we 31 wanted to give you some background about the site and about the historic structures themselves. 32 This next slide shows the ITS facility, the 303,000 square foot, and the headquarters, and 33 the historic structures, here. And we really feel that the significant components of the Coy- 34 Hoffman farmstead will be restored and repurposed as originally planned. The initial intent was 35 to retain the barn, the milk house and the silos, though we really at the time of planning didn’t 36 have any specific uses identified and finalized. The milk house was moved, as originally 37 planned. As part of the due diligence on the site, and part of our preparation to go before the 38 Landmark Preservation Commission, we engage a consultant to do a historic structural analysis 39 of the Coy-Hoffman property. And what we saw in that report was that the structural engineer 7 1 did a cursory evaluation and determined that the silos were in fair to poor condition and 2 recommended further structural assessment. So, we engaged Martin and Martin to perform the 3 structural evaluation of the silos specifically, and then determined from what they saw…we 4 really wanted to get a second opinion, so we engaged JVA as a follow-up to the Martin and 5 Martin. In summary, the structural engineering reports from both Martin and Martin and JVA 6 both indicate that the silos are in an imminently dangerous condition. Martin and Martin report 7 states that the silos show signs of imminent failure or break-down, and the JVA report also 8 similarly states that the silos show signs of imminent failure due to the attack of acid. 9 Since both reports really stated that the silos were in very poor condition, Woodward 10 took another look at the original plans for the historic structures and silos and revised those 11 plans. And so we reviewed the conceptual plan with the City Planning and Development 12 Director for guidance on what to do next, because we were modifying the original intent. And so 13 as a result of that, we submitted a request for historic review, which evaluates the eligibility for 14 historic registry identification as well as demolition and alteration, and what that does. That was 15 done by the Development Services acting manager I believe, and the Vice-Chair of the LPC. As 16 a result of that, that really triggered the Building Department evaluation and the eventual silo 17 structural classification and notice to secure. The adaptive reuse plan, the silo proposal, 18 currently includes dismantling the silos and reusing some of the salvageable upper portions of 19 the silos to create an approximately four-foot seating structure in the same footprint of the silos. 20 And, as proposed, the modification to the silos will, we feel, will remain an integral part of the 21 historic fabric of the site development; the adaptive functional reuse to create a real 22 contemporary patio and seating area for Woodward members to gather and collaborate. The 23 other thing that’s a part of the plan is a public historic interpretive area, which is located just 24 outside the silos along the public path that’s a part of the natural area. So it will provide an 25 educational benefit for the community at large. So, after we received the letter of September 18 th 26 …it was presented to me…that’s when 27 we really needed to take a look at, how do we go forward and make an appeal to change from a 28 dangerous to an imminently dangerous condition. So, I’ll turn it over to Carolynne. 29 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chair, Carolynne White again. So, this is the point at which we really 30 begin to see why it makes such a big difference whether one characterizes the silos as being 31 merely in a dangerous condition, or an imminently dangerous condition. And, as we go through 32 some of the language used in the information that we received by the City, you may also begin to 33 see why we believe there may be even some confusion about actually how imminent the potential for danger actually is. If you look at the September 18 th 34 letter from the Building 35 Official, on the one hand it concludes that there is no imminent danger; it concludes that the silos 36 are merely dangerous, but it nonetheless instructs Woodward to immediately take the following 37 action: to install a lockable protection fence of significant strength such as chain link, 6 feet tall, 38 25 feet outward from the base to provide a safety zone. Additionally, the City posted a red-tag 39 warning on the silos that states: this building is unsafe and must be vacated immediately; entry 8 1 poses risk of death or serious injury. This is a copy of that, which I believe may also be in your 2 packets, but if not, it’ll be in the record as a result of this slide. Danger, do not enter or occupy, 3 entry poses risk of death or serious injury. So, the City determined that the silos are in 4 dangerous condition, not imminently dangerous, but nonetheless required immediate action, and 5 posted this sort of rather dramatic red-tag sign on it prohibiting folks from entering and requiring 6 that Woodward take these immediate actions to establish a 25-foot protective fence around it. 7 So, as was noted earlier in the introductory remarks by staff, the three code provisions 8 that we’re talking about interpreting here today are shown up on the screen, and I’m going to 9 briefly summarize some of the key language points in each of these and ask you to keep those in 10 the back of your mind as we go through and present the evidence, since the fundamental question 11 is whether or not the evidence indicates that the definition of imminent threat or imminent 12 danger is met in this case. The first section is indeed in the historic preservation section of your 13 code, but the operative language here is that no structure 50 years old or older may be 14 demolished unless it is found to pose an imminent threat under Section 14-51 of the code. And 15 then Section 14-51 is the section that says, a City official or employee must find that an 16 imminent threat exists in order to permit demolition of a structure which is 50 years old or older. 17 And that…those two code provisions are really fundamentally the reason why we’re here today, 18 since Woodward’s adaptive reuse proposal does include what the code would consider 19 demolition of the structures, although it also proposes to restore them to some extent, as you will 20 see. 21 So, what is imminent? You’re International Property Maintenance Code, which the City 22 has adopted and codified, defines imminent as a condition which could cause serious or life- 23 threatening injury or death at any time. And some of the key phrases here are “at any time” and 24 “life-threatening injury or death.” We already know that the silos can cause injury or death, 25 because it said so on the red-tag warning. The real question is, could that happen at any time? 26 As a supplemental, we also quoted here the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary…an 27 immediate, real threat to one’s safety that justifies the use of force and self-defense. There are 28 some other definitions, like from Webster’s Dictionary, also quoted by Mr. Gebo in his letter of September 18 th 29 . The other operative definitions that we’re looking at here, or code provisions, 30 are Section 111 of the IPMC that says an appeal may be based on a claim that the requirements 31 of this code are adequately met by other means. And it is Woodward’s position that our proposal 32 to execute this adaptive reuse program would adequately meet the goal of historic preservation 33 by another means, other than attempting to keep the silos vertical and 40-foot tall in their current 34 dangerous and, we think, imminently dangerous, condition. 35 So, as we will demonstrate, the silos have deteriorated to such an extent that they pose an 36 imminent threat to the life and health of citizens and the surrounding buildings and the 37 requirements of the code are adequately satisfied by the proposed adaptive reuse plan. So, 38 keeping those definitions in mind, I’d like to ask our engineer, our structural engineer, Steve 39 Carpenter from JVA, to come to the podium and walk you through some of the findings and 9 1 conclusions of the two reports, Martin and Martin, that Woodward commissioned in order to 2 assess the structural situation of the two silos. This is the list of the three reports; he’s going to 3 cover the first two, Martin and Martin and JVA. Thank you. 4 MR. STEVE CARPENTER: Good afternoon, my name is Steve Carpenter, I work with 5 JVA here in Fort Collins; we’re in Old Town Square. We’re a consulting engineering firm that 6 specializes in environmental, civil, and structural engineering, and under our structural division, 7 we also do historic preservation, so this project is definitely very interesting to us from that 8 standpoint. 9 We were first brought on board to actually look at the barn structure, and then, as a sort 10 of a subset to that, the Martin Martin report that was written about the silos. Their report was 11 written in January of 2014. We were out there in late August, early July…did a follow-up report that was dated August 10 th 12 . So I’ll talk about those two reports. 13 So the Martin Martin report…basically they spent some time out there, measured 14 everything, photo documented the conditions, did some testing, some no-destructive testing, and 15 wrote a report. And the conclusion of their report, and they basically went straight from the 16 format from the Colorado State Historic Fund Annotated Scope of Work…that’s a format that 17 we’re asked to do in historic properties…is they said that the silos are no longer performing their 18 intended purpose, I think that’s self-explanatory, and they show signs of imminent failure or 19 breakdown…and elaborated and said the weakened state of the concrete walls is currently 20 adequate for an empty structure, but without intervention, the silos will continue to deteriorate 21 and will eventually become unstable and unsafe. Sorry… 22 So, as part of their report…they did a great job doing some photo documentation…this is 23 a photo of the concrete near the base of the silo, and you can see the deterioration; it’s very clear. 24 And just to back up a little bit, what happens here is that the silage that’s put in these silos in sills 25 creates acids, liquids, that fall to the bottom and react with the concrete in a negative way; it’s as 26 bad as the chloride type reaction that you see on highway bridges. And the reaction happens at 27 the bottom where the stresses are the greatest. So, that’s a double negative in this case. So, this 28 is the cast-in-place silo. You can see the deterioration of the concrete, but what’s really 29 disturbing here, to me, is the base is totally eroded. That’s daylight that you see right here. So 30 there is significant loss of…I call it section…there’s just no silo left. Here’s some more; this is 31 the stave silo, and so it’s…the concrete has deteriorated to the point where you can see the 32 reinforcing. The stave silo started out as two and a half inches thick and the reinforcing would 33 have been in the middle. So, you’ve lost about an inch and a quarter of your section at this point, 34 down near the bottom. Here’s a close-up of that, and so not only have we lost half the concrete 35 section, but the reinforcing is also corroded to the point where it’s not contributing much at the 36 base. Another close-up: same scenario going on there. 10 1 So then, we went out, and I personally did this report…spent the afternoon out there, and 2 confirmed their measurements, did some more measurements, did some back-checking of 3 calculations, performed some additional calculations, and basically came to the conclusion that 4 the stresses at the base of that silo are high enough to cause an imminent failure danger under 5 code wind loads. And the second quote there, due to the extremely small remaining cross- 6 section of concrete at the base of the silo, and the reduced strength of the concrete due to the 7 years of acid attack, we believe crushing of concrete under lateral loads induced by code- 8 required winds could occur now, resulting in failure. So there’s two things going on: the sections 9 loss, but the concrete is not the same strength; the acid has reacted with the cement paste, the 10 ingredients in the concrete, and have reduced the strength. And Martin Martin did something 11 called the Swiss Hammer test as part of their report, and that’s a hand-held device, a non- 12 destructive testing device that basically, for lack of better word, shoots a probe at the surface of 13 the concrete and measures the rebound strength of that probe. And they were getting numbers in 14 the range of zero to twenty. Each manufacturer has a different calibration for their Swiss 15 Hammer, but generally anything less than twenty is less than a thousand psi, zero is meaning the 16 probe is not coming back; it’s just sticking in the concrete. And that is…that’s disturbing also, 17 that indicates very, very low-strength concrete. So, I also included in my report…we…as an 18 engineering firm that does historic preservation, have seen this before. We’ve seen it before in 19 Colorado, but in Ontario, it’s such a problem that the government has put out a memo to farmers 20 regarding just this type of scenario, and there’s been a number of failures there. So I included 21 that as an appendix in the report. And that report, and you have a copy of this, explains the 22 chemistry and the physics if you want to get down to that level. 23 So we included some photos; these are the two silos, and part of the way I looked at this, 24 and maybe having the advantage of already starting looking at the barn as a, you know, adaptive 25 reuse type thing down the road, is the proximity of those silos to this barn structure that is 26 envisioned as a conference center for Woodward. And the cast-in-place silo is within twenty- 27 five feet or so. That photo, that angle, makes it look closer than that…but it’s very close, 28 obviously closer than the height of the silo to the barn structure. So this is a photo of the stave 29 silo…that’s the pre-cast sort of tongue-in-groove one on the west, and near the base, the acid 30 attack is about enough that you’ve lost total section; there’s holes in it. That’s the same hole 31 from the inside…spent some time inside the thing. And you can see the deteriorated concrete. 32 So this is going over to the one on the east side…what I call the cast-in-place…they’re two 33 different construction types. This one was a thicker concrete to start with; it probably started at 34 six inches. It’s eroded to about three or so at the base, but there are huge gaps here and here 35 where there is no bearing area left. And so, not only do we have reduced concrete strength, and 36 reduced bearing area uniformly, we have areas where there’s no…so this is all right here…the 37 stress is really concentrated, so I found that very concerning. 38 This is a photo just from the inside of the stave silo, you can see the staves; they’re 39 individual pieces that get put together here. And you can see how, here, the concrete at the top is 11 1 in very good condition. That’s because the acids don’t…they just sink down to the bottom. So 2 the top fifteen, twenty feet…these things are actually about forty-five feet high…the top quarter 3 is in good condition. So…I’m going back to…so, I’m done with this, yes. 4 MS. WHITE: Again, for the record, Carolynne White. One comment I’ll make about that 5 photograph, is that the portion of the silo that Woodward intends to reuse as part of the adaptive 6 reuse plan is the part that was just pointed out to you near the top that is in much better condition 7 and has not been eroded due to the acids from the vegetative material that formerly was stored in 8 the silos. 9 So, I’m certain that City staff is going to present to you the Exponent report as well, and 10 that wasn’t an expert hired by Woodward, but nonetheless, there are some important conclusions 11 in the Exponent report that we believe strongly support the finding of imminent danger that we’d 12 like to highlight for you. So, here are some of the conclusions that Exponent reached in their 13 report. And all of these complete reports are in the packet that was referenced earlier; we’re just 14 highlighting some excerpts for you here on these slides. One of Exponent’s conclusions was, as 15 long as people are not allowed to occupy the fall zone of the silos, then a life-safety hazard 16 would not exist. So as long as you don’t let people anywhere near them, they’re safe, or they’re 17 not unsafe. And then another conclusion, or recommendation, of theirs was: a decision should be 18 made to either repair them or demolish them so as to mitigate the risk of damage to the other 19 nearby historical structures. And that’s what Mr. Carpenter was just referencing with the close 20 proximity to the barn, which is also a potentially eligible structure and which is also sought to be 21 rehabilitated as part of the adaptive reuse plan. 22 Here are some of the other key findings in the Exponent report that we think support the 23 conclusion of imminent danger: the concrete is deteriorated to an unsound condition in many 24 locations and the conditions pose a significant risk of imminent collapse under design-level wind 25 loads, and we may end up wanting to come back and talk in more detail about design-level wind 26 loads, but this conclusion, to me, is very supportive of a finding that an imminent danger does in 27 fact exist. 28 These are some of the Exponent photographs, and I think it’d probably be better for me to 29 ask Mr. Carpenter to come back and tell you what these photographs show. 30 MR. CARPENTER: Steve Carpenter, JVA Structural Engineer…so, again, here are the 31 two silos. This is one on the west, the stave silo…this is what I call the cast-in-place silo. And 32 so this is…I believe this is a close-up of one of the photos I showed earlier, or somewhere in 33 close proximity to that. And again, you’ve got greatly reduced concrete strength, greatly reduced 34 area, and then a place that’s totally eroded away so there’s no bearing whatsoever. Neither of 35 these silos have positive attachment to the foundation; that’s actually not unusual for silos. They 36 would cast a foundation and just build the silo straight off of it and then not…by positive 37 attachment, I mean like a rebar dowel, that type of thing. That, in itself, is not unusual, and 12 1 they’re big enough that the actual overturning of the silo as a unit is not a likely failure mode; it’s 2 definitely the crushing due to reduced area, reduced strength, and in some cases, no area, so 3 stress concentration nearby. 4 And there’s some, you know, actually on the exterior, some fairly cosmetic cracking that, 5 for something a hundred and five years old, you’d probably expect. You know, there’s a lot of 6 vegetation around the base…again, there’s another hole. You can see in this photo that, over 7 time, the…assuming that it was assembled to be perfectly circular to begin with, it’s warped a 8 little bit. But what you really see here also, and this is in the stave silo again, because you can 9 see the joints…the upper part is still in good condition and part of the big plan, the adaptive 10 reuse plan, is to have an adaptive seating feature to, you know, sort of carry the historical 11 significance of these. And there is definitely enough left for that, it’s just that you wouldn’t 12 leave it at the base; you would cut the top off, take it down, and then reuse that. So, there’ is 13 good concrete; it’s just in the wrong place. 14 So then, there was a bunch of email exchanges, and I think that’s in the packet as well. 15 And at some point, I wrote an email sort of explaining…just the wind-load business is 16 unnecessarily complicated; the structural engineering community has made the wind-loads 17 unnecessarily complicated. And so I spent some time trying to explain that; under IBC 2012 18 there was a change to what’s called “ultimate wind loads” from allowable service design wind 19 loads. The City of Fort Collins has an amendment that says, no, you go back, you use a hundred, 20 which was the old ASD, which is exactly equivalent to the 130…well, minus one mile per 21 hour…the new…and all of this is semantics really. At the end of the day, any wind load 22 approaching these numbers creates a stress at the base, which I think might exceed the strength 23 of the concrete. So…you know, we can talk about wind load all day, but I don’t think it’s the 24 key thing here really, in the end. More emails…and bottom line, at the end of the day, if a wind 25 load approaching the code required wind load occurs, I believe the stress at the base of 26 that…either one of the silos…could be exceeded…the allowable stress of what’s left of that 27 concrete; therefore, the imminent danger. 28 MS. WHITE: So, the Exponent report did include some language and some findings and 29 conclusions that we believe clearly supports the finding of imminent danger or imminent threat. 30 Subsequent to having received all three reports, Mr. Gebo, I think in an attempt to clarify and 31 resolve all three of the different reports into a single finding, then had an email exchange with 32 each of the three authors of the reports, from Martin and Martin, JVA and Exponent, in which he 33 asked some additional follow-up questions about their interpretation of the data in their reports as 34 it relates specifically to the finding of imminent danger. And that’s the correspondence that Mr. Carpenter was just referring to, which is also in your packet, dated right around September 18 th 35 , 36 before he issued his final letter that day. And, in that correspondence, you have a more detailed 37 summary of the issue of wind loads and the potential frequency with which wind loads 38 approaching code design speeds could occur, and so on. But, we think the really important point 39 here is the conclusion, even in the Exponent report, which ultimately said that they found the 13 1 danger not to be imminent, nonetheless did state, there is a risk, however slim, that the silos 2 could collapse at any time. And not that phrase, at any time, going back to the definition of what 3 constitutes an imminent threat. An imminent threat is one which could occur at any time. Now, 4 Exponent also qualifies that conclusion by saying that the risk is slim, but that’s not what the 5 definition says; the definition says, that could occur at any time. So, we think that the Exponent 6 report is nonetheless supportive of the conclusion that an imminent danger does in fact exist 7 here. 8 Two other relevant facts that we think ought to be taken into consideration in making this 9 determination: as part of its overall work on this campus and as part of its proposal for the 10 adaptive reuse program, especially for the barn structure, Woodward sought to obtain insurance 11 for these structures and insurance for the rest of the project. They inquired of their insurance 12 carrier, AIG, to…you know, quote them a price for the premium for them to obtain that 13 insurance. AIG has indicated that they are not able to issue insurance…they’re not able to insure 14 the silos at all, and they’re not able to insure the barn unless and until the silos are removed. 15 This is a quote from the AIG letter, and we have the letter in your packet, and there’s a very 16 teeny-tiny copy of it on that PowerPoint slide. The other relevant factor, and this really goes to 17 the adequately preserved by other means or adequately achieved by other means, is a letter which 18 is also in your packet…and I won’t spend a lot of time on this, it may also end up being too small 19 for you to read, but the Woodward, Inc. did seek input from the original Hoffman family on their 20 adaptive reuse program and inquired about their feelings and asked for their input as it relates to 21 preservation of the historic character and the historic site, and this is some of the comments that 22 we received on that point: the historical value is maintained by keeping just the footprint of the 23 silos, but the added safety which would allow accessibility…this gets to the point of whether or 24 not people can be allowed near the silos…is actually an improvement over the current condition, 25 so that people have the opportunity to learn about and share in the history of these structures. 26 And, here again is a teeny-tiny copy of the letter, but you should have a full-size copy of the 27 letter in your packet. A couple quotes from the letter, which again I won’t read, since the entire 28 letter is in fact in your packet. 29 In conclusion, based on the structural engineer’s reports and the City’s actions in red- 30 tagging the building, requiring the fencing, combined with the fact that these structures are not 31 insurable, we think that the only conclusion is that there is in fact imminent danger. Now, all of 32 the experts agree that the silos are dangerous, there’s no question that they’re dangerous. The 33 only question is about whether or not the danger is imminent, which really boils down to whether 34 or not the danger could occur at any time. And yet all three of the experts agree that it could 35 occur at any time, and if it does occur, it could cause serious injury, death, or a serious threat to 36 property, particularly the barn that’s nearby, and the other Woodward structures that are nearby. 37 The only way that this risk can be eliminated is if Woodward fences them off and doesn’t allow 38 anybody to get near the silos. This deprives Woodward of the opportunity to actually use these 39 historic structures, which are on their property, and to enjoy one of the many property rights that 14 1 go with property ownership. We think the City has essentially, implicitly acknowledged this 2 imminent threat with its direction in the letter to immediately fence off the silos, and the red-tag 3 posting with that very dramatic language: warning, risk of injury or death. 4 For the City to conclude that it’s not an imminent threat and that it’s only dangerous, the 5 City relies principally on the Exponent report, and in particular their conclusion that, as long as 6 people are not allowed to occupy the fall zone, then an unsafe condition does not exist. But, if 7 that were the way that you would assess an unsafe condition, why then, any condition could be 8 rendered safe, no matter how decrepit, no matter how dangerous, by simply not allowing people 9 to go near it. And since the whole point of one of the reasons why Woodward decided to buy 10 this property in the first place, notwithstanding the historic structures being there, was that they 11 hoped to incorporate them into their overall site plan and make this an opportunity to allow 12 people to, you know, interact with these structures and use them for historical learning. It really 13 sort of defeats the purpose to say that we can’t let anybody near them. 14 So, back again to the definition…the first bullet on this slide is the definition in the 15 property maintenance code that we’re trying to analyze here: an imminent threat, or an imminent 16 danger, is a condition which could cause serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time. 17 And, no question that the JVA report concludes that, no question that the Martin and Martin 18 report concludes that; the only question is whether one must conclude that based on all three of 19 the reports including Exponent. And we think Exponent actually concluded that as well when 20 they said, there is a risk, however slim, that the silos could collapse at any time. 21 So, maybe the question is: how slim is a slim risk and is that risk acceptable? Perhaps 22 that risk may be acceptable in the eyes of the building official, and that’s why they concluded 23 that this was dangerous, not imminently dangerous. But that risk, however slim, is not 24 acceptable to Woodward, and we think it should not be acceptable to the City, particularly in 25 light of the fact that other adequate means exist to preserve these historic structure; the 26 requirements of the code are adequately met by other means. Briefly just summarizing, these are 27 the reasons why you can’t destroy a structure that’s over fifty years old unless it’s an imminent 28 threat, because you’re trying to preserve the historic character for a variety of very good public 29 policy reasons. All of the proposed actions to be taken with the reuse plan, with the adaptive 30 reuse plan, actually will accomplish those goals equally well, if not better than, attempting to 31 leave the silos in their current location and in their current condition. 32 Although it hasn’t yet, it is certainly Woodward’s intent to present this overall adaptive 33 reuse plan to the Landmark Preservation Commission for its review and hopefully concurrence. 34 A couple quick visuals of what that is going to look like. In this graphic…let’s see…this is the 35 proposed reconstructed silos…here, you can see this one in the background right here, and this is 36 the reconstructed barn. Another view of it, this is the milk house right here which is part of 37 the…part of the adaptive reuse is to be turned into a bike repair facility. 15 1 In conclusion then, we believe that all of the evidence clearly supports a finding that an 2 imminent threat does exist. These silos are no longer performing their intended purpose, they do 3 not have the capacity to resist forces associated with wind speeds approaching code level, they 4 require immediate preventive action to prevent injury or death, and that the overall 5 comprehensive restoration plan that’s being proposed adequately meets all of the goals of the 6 historic section of the code and the property maintenance code, by other means such that it 7 would not be improper to allow the finding of imminent danger, and to allow these to be 8 demolished and reconstructed in place as proposed. That concludes our formal presentation and 9 we look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions later in the proceedings. 10 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. Next would be the appellee, or the Chief Building 11 Official’s chance to present his case. 12 MR. MIKE GEBO: Thank you. For the record, Mike Gebo, Chief Building Official here 13 for the City. Before I do start though, I would like to invite Mr. Paul Bennett, our engineer with 14 Exponent that the City had hired, for his statements, his perspective on what we’ve done at this 15 point, up to date. Mr. Bennett? And then I’ll come back to… 16 MR. PAUL BENNETT: Good afternoon, Paul Bennett with Exponent. So you have a lot 17 of information before you, right? Talk about wind speeds, and stress and strain, and the danger 18 of this happening. And so I think that we can get lost in the weeds with all of this code talk. 19 And so, I’ve taught for several years now; I’m an instructor for ICC, the International Code 20 Council, the developer and publisher of these building codes. And I’ve taught for several years 21 for them, and I thought it might be useful, very briefly, to give you a hand out of a case study I 22 use in that class to show you. 23 I would encourage you that I think this imminent danger…this “at any time” piece, that 24 there’s a common-sensical [sic] element to it, and that you don’t necessarily need an engineering 25 degree and all these codes and ordinances and language to discern this. And so, yes, there’s a 26 risk of a lot of things happening at any time. This drop ceiling, heaven forbid, could collapse on 27 this Board at any time, right? There’s a risk, however slim. The case study before you is a 28 structure that I looked at several years ago…historical structure, built in 1889, a masonry 29 structure…and if you flip to page two, you’ll see the condition of the structure. The shoring that 30 you see in the picture was not on site when I first showed up. We do a lot of work for insurance 31 carriers and look at damaged buildings…the insurance carrier called, said some brick fell off this 32 building, why don’t you go take a look at it? I took a look at it…as you can flip to slide three, 33 page three, you can see the condition at a larger level, again, shoring was not in place when I got 34 there. Page four, similar condition…page five, don’t know how obvious it is, there’s cracks in 35 other walls that…some of which were very recent…all of this had happened the day 36 before…with this masonry that had collapsed. And so, on page six, this is actually the opposite 37 wall…and it’s subtle, but the wall is bulging, you might see towards the base of the wall. So, it’s 38 about to do what the opposite wall did the day before. Page seven, I go into the structure…this is 16 1 what interior walls and doorways look like. Page eight, an interior wall separating from the 2 exterior wall, really, that exterior wall was bowing out. Page nine, you can see the baseboard at 3 the bottom of the wall is bulged outwards…and page ten is the opposite wall where no collapse 4 had yet occurred, but you can see the separation there. 5 I walk into the structure, there’s a low-income family, they don’t speak English, they’ve 6 got four children upstairs…this is imminent danger; this is going to collapse at any time. I get on 7 the cell phone with the building department…they send out an inspector, he immediately gets on 8 the phone with the fire department…they come out and put the shoring up that you see in the 9 picture. I didn’t take pictures at that time; my concern was life safety for the occupants, right? 10 So I would encourage you that…and this is in the courses I teach for ICC…this is the type of 11 case studies we look at. I think you know, I think you sense it when there’s something 12 immediate…imminent…something that could happen at any time. And I don’t sense that with 13 these silos; I think all the engineers in this case are saying the same thing. We’re all seeing the 14 same things…maybe we’re getting lost in the weeds and arguing about semantics. We’re talking 15 about wind speeds. We agree that in a design wind event, yeah, I wouldn’t occupy these 16 silos…wouldn’t be near them, out of an abundance of caution. Because our mandate as design 17 professionals is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, we’ve recommended that 18 nobody stand in the fall zone, because there is a risk. These buildings are not…structures are not 19 in good shape. 20 But, what is that risk of a design wind event occurring? Well, the standard, ASCE7, 21 where we get our wind loading from, has an equation in it where you can determine the risk on 22 any given day, and so I took the liberty of doing that. And I’ll give you a quick handout on that 23 and I’ll be done. So this, again, this is the equation that’s taken out of ASCE7, and I simply 24 looked at, what is the probability of this category…these buildings were classified by JVA as a 25 risk category 3…what is the probability of that event occurring today? I won’t even say at any 26 time, meaning any second, let’s just look at today, 24 hours. A risk category 3 building is 27 designed for a wind event that has a 1,700 year return interval. That means, statistically, it 28 would occur every 1,700 years. So, you do that math on that and you can see, it’s 0.0016% is the 29 chance of that happening today. So, when we say in our report, there is a chance, however slim, 30 well, there’s your slim…we helped quantify it. Thank you. 31 MR. GEBO: Alright, thank you Mr. Bennett. Okay, so, I was brought into this discussion 32 here mid-summer this year, and my project, I guess, is one way of saying it, is to try to determine 33 and classify the structural ability of these two silos. And, as noted earlier, there’s a dangerous 34 classification…do they need repair, do they need shoring, are they a danger? And then the other 35 component is imminent danger. And, the Woodward folks sent a Martin and Martin report on 36 the conditions of these silos, and as I read through the Martin and Martin report, it indicated that, 37 first of all, the silos cannot be used. Currently adequate for an empty structure; without 38 intervention, the silos will continue to deteriorate. The foundations appear to be in fair condition 39 and…actually I was surprised to read this, both silos are stable against net overturning due to 17 1 wind pressures. Now, that started…I started asking questions about it…well, design wind…I 2 heard that a number of times…they could fail during design wind. And it kept coming back to 3 me, you know, 120 to 130 miles per hour is our design wind. I think that’s a class 2 tornado, or 4 something, so it’s a pretty high wind. And I would expect that probably a number of buildings 5 throughout town could be damaged in some way by 120 or 130 mile an hour wind. So, even 6 Martin and Martin on their report indicated that yes, the silos will continue to deteriorate and 7 eventually become unstable. 8 Now, when I look at the Martin and Martin, we’re still back on that…under “findings,” 9 the silos are generally in poor condition as defined by the Colorado State Historic Fund, italics, 10 Annotated Scope of Work, specifically…they have a number of bullet points. And their first 11 italic, which I am assuming and I have asked repeatedly, is this italic captured from the Colorado 12 State Historic Fund Annotated Scope of Work? I believe it is; so when they talk about the 13 italics, they are no longer performing their intended purpose…I think that is coming directly 14 from the State Colorado Historic Annotated Scope of Work, which is why it’s italicized. Then, 15 the second one, they show signs of imminent failure or breakdown…again, I believe this is from 16 the State Annotated Scope of Work. So, as I read through these, I think what I’m reading with 17 the Martin and Martin, and no one has clarified this or corrected me yet, that the italics is from 18 the State and the non-italics is the actual finding from Martin and Martin. 19 Martin and Martin goes on to say the weakened state of the concrete is currently adequate 20 for an empty, but without intervention, the silos will continue to deteriorate and will eventually 21 become unstable. That’s over time…they will continue. My whole function is, are these 22 dangerous, and/or are these imminently dangerous? 23 So, the JVA report…paraphrasing here…they provided extensive information about the 24 restoration; they agreed that the silos can no longer be used for their intended purpose, and under 25 design wind loads could fail. I read that a number of times, under design wind load, these could 26 fail. And my interpretation of imminent…it could happen at any moment, it could happen now, 27 it could happen today…not under some design wind speed of 120 or 130 miles per hour…that’s 28 an event in and of itself. Imminent danger, to me, is, it could happen without any external event; 29 it could just fall. That’s the limits that I’m trying to satisfy. 30 So, when I read the three reports, and I’ve provided definitions…you know, we’ve heard 31 about the dangerous structure or premises, dangerous of any part, element or component thereof, 32 is no longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit state. We think that’s true, that you 33 can’t use them for anything else, that’s the serviceability strength. Don’t put anything in there, 34 don’t use them. And the engineers are in fact telling me that. Or, structure or premises pose an 35 imminent threat to health and safety? So I have to add, yes, I think everybody agrees, these are 36 dangerous structures. I agree, the three engineers agree…the real question is the imminent piece, 37 that’s what we keep coming back to. So, under a classification of dangerous, we post them. 38 These buildings are now posted. It’s a pretty standard posting that we use that may sound very 18 1 strong, and may sound, you know, very concerning, but we only have the one dangerous poster 2 that we use for all dangerous buildings. And then, it’s always good when you declare a structure 3 dangerous, to provide some level of safety around that structure…you know, fence it off or 4 somehow rope it off. Post it, which is the standard posting we use, rope it off…that’s standard 5 procedure. 6 Now, the question is…is the imminent part; we’re back to this imminent danger again. 7 And, imminent danger, when in the opinion of the code official, there is an imminent danger of 8 failure or collapse of the building which endangers life or any other structure, a part of the 9 structure has fallen and life is endangered by the occupants, or when there’s actual or potential 10 danger to the building or occupants…I mean this goes on and on…proximity… 11 The key piece I think is that, is this going to happen right now? So I did…once I got the 12 reports and I read through the reports, I asked…I reached out to the engineers again. Please help 13 me understand the condition of these buildings. Can they be considered an imminent danger? I 14 don’t have a preference one way or another…I’m the official that has to make a declaration. 15 Yes, we all agree they’re dangerous, that’s given. Can we move it to an imminent danger? That 16 was my question. And, when I reached out to the three engineers, I had an email back from 17 Martin and Martin to give use some guidance from the City’s perspective as to what that 18 imminent should look like, to help them determine whether it’s an imminent or not. So, the 19 definition in the Property Maintenance Code as imminent danger: a condition which could cause 20 serious or life-threatening injury or death at any time…right now, today, at any time, without 21 some exterior event, without some wind event or…something else to impose upon them. Can 22 they cause damage right now? To help that, I included a Webster’s Dictionary…to help identify 23 imminent. And Webster’s says, appearing as if to happen, likely to happen without delay, or 24 impending. So, when I sent this to the three engineers, I asked, okay…take one more look at 25 this…and I’ve asked this a number of times, take one more look. And, can you tell me that this 26 is impending? None of the three engineers were actually able to tell me that these silos will fail 27 today. It has always been with some wind event, or if I start hitting design wind speeds of 120 or 28 130 miles per hour. I would suspect…I agree…under a condition of a wind event, I could very 29 well have a failure. So, to me, that is not impending, that is not as if to happen without 30 delay…that is, could happen under some other condition. So, I really did not get any clear 31 understanding that these are imminent. I had a very clear understanding from Exponent that 32 these do not pose an imminent danger, and with that, I don’t have an imminent classification. 33 Yes, dangerous, so we have declared the silos dangerous; we have posted and required our 34 appropriate protections because of a dangerous structure. But, at this point, I still do not believe 35 that they are imminent. Now, dangerous means they have to stabilize, they have to secure, they 36 have to do something to those silos to stop them from getting worse than where they are now. 37 They need to protect them right there. If they were imminent, which I have not seen, then they 38 could demolish them; that’s the real key here. 19 1 So, with that, with no clear statement from any of the three, except Exponent said no 2 they’re not imminent, the City declared the silos dangerous, we ordered it to be fenced, we set up 3 a schedule for Woodward as to when the structure…what’s the plan? How do you plan to 4 stabilize? How do you plan to fix these? As historical structures, they really can’t do anything 5 to these silos until a plan has been approved by the Landmark Preservation…do you proposed to 6 stabilize them from the inside, do you spray gunite concrete on them…what are you going to do? 7 That’s the plan…we’re looking for a plan and then we’re looking for that plan to be implemented 8 within a certain amount of time as well. So…I think I’ve covered everything at this point. 9 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, as I’m reading it, Brad, would this be the appropriate time for 10 public comment? Or should we hold that until after the rebuttals? 11 MR. YATABE: I think this is an appropriate time for public comment and certainly 12 remind the Chair also that if there are any questions that any of the members want to ask at this 13 point, that it’s possible to ask, or you can hold off until later…that’s certainly up to you. 14 Sometimes it’s good to ask questions as they come, but that order of procedure is up to you. 15 CHAIR SMITH: I’ll put that up to the Board…is it…would you like to ask questions 16 now or would you like to include the public comment before we ask questions? You want to go 17 ahead and ask questions? Okay, we’ll ask questions at this time. I assume Andrea has the first 18 one. 19 BOARDMEMBER ANDREA DUNLAP: I’m kind of lost in the various billing 20 codes…but as I would read it, isn’t it that in the 2012 IBC is where you pick up the 100, 130 21 wind speed? And, if that were to apply, wouldn’t that apply to all the historical buildings in 22 town…if…because it only happens that that is enacted when you do something to the building? 23 MR. GEBO: Okay, there’s the International Building Code…that is the current adopted 24 code that the City is under. That would be the code that we construct under…additions, new 25 buildings, remodels…we’re going to use the IBC as the code book for how to construct. The 26 International Property Maintenance Code is just that, it’s a maintenance code for all existing 27 buildings. So when we’re talking about an existing building and what to apply and how to use it, 28 we’re going to use the Property Maintenance Code. When the engineers are talking about failure 29 under design wind loads, they’re using the design wind loads out of the Building Code, but that’s 30 the current design wind speed. So, you wouldn’t want to use a design wind speed of 1910 or 31 1912…we don’t know what that is. So, when these engineers are talking about, the silos could 32 fail under design wind speed, they’re using today’s design wind speed…and, yes, that is in the 33 Building Code, but it’s still a viable wind speed to use to address the existing buildings under the 34 IPMC. 35 CHAIR SMITH: Go ahead, Mike? 20 1 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Just to expand on that same question then, so if the 2 silos were to be repurposed for some…and stay 40 feet tall…whatever they’re repurposing 3 would fall underneath the 2012 IBC then? Is that correct? 4 MR. GEBO: Well, if they rebuilt something with those silos, yes, they would be under 5 the current building code for what does that look like…how do you build it, how do you design 6 it… 7 If they’re stabilizing or they’re securing, I’m just going to use an engineer because 8 neither one of the codes are really telling me how to stabilize and how to secure something that’s 9 existing. So that would all be totally engineered and designed…does that answer? 10 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: I believe so…I guess, if they wanted to be able to be 11 walked through by employees, general public, what have you…that would fall underneath an 12 engineer’s recommendation for repair and then it would not necessarily have to comply with the 13 2012 IBC wind loading, and so on and so forth? 14 MR. GEBO: Well, that really depends on the scope of what they plan to do with the silos; 15 we’re certainly going to get engineers involved in whatever that plan may be. If it is to, you 16 know, cut doorways into the silos, then I don’t really have current codes that talk about…how do 17 I cut a hole into a hundred year-old silo…so that’s where the engineers will come in. 18 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Thank you. 19 CHAIR SMITH: Any other questions? Okay, I guess at this point, we’ll invite the public 20 to make their comments. Please remember to state your name for the record. 21 MS. CAROL TUNNER: Carol Tunner. I’ve listened to the appeal of Woodward, and it 22 was my conclusion that they cherry-picked facts to meet their need and glossed over that these 23 silos can be repaired or saved, restored. These silos are next to the Coy-Hoffman barn, repaired 24 in 1996 with a Colorado Historical Fund grant of state monies. I wrote the state register 25 nomination as a volunteer even though I was, for twenty years, a Historic Preservation Planner 26 for the City; I retired in 2007. But, back in 1996, I did this outside my job as a volunteer for 27 three years. The grant professional preservation structural engineer, AE Design…maybe some 28 of you knew him…the late Richard Beardmore…did not believe the silos were dangerous all 29 through the three year project, and he oversaw work on the close, nearby barn. In fact, he 30 did…when Woodward took over, he did an estimate for them on moving the silos, and must have 31 thought they were capable of being moved. 32 As part of that grant, hundreds of Fort Collins citizens donated thousands of dollars to 33 save these structures listed in the Colorado State Register of Historic Places. They have also 34 been officially determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. 35 Several buildings…if you could have seen them before we worked on them…do you remember 21 1 when the Linden Hotel was condemned? There was four inches of pigeon dung inside the floors. 2 The trolley barn over on Cherry and Howes street…there was an engineer in town that had a 3 little machine he put on it and he listened to it and he said, it’s going to fall down. The trolley 4 barn has been restored and it’s solid. The Downtown Transit Center…I remember doing tours 5 inside there in the spring…historical tours…we had to hold umbrellas because it was 6 raining…hold umbrellas inside the building. 7 Woodward CEO and President, Tom Gendron, told us at their groundbreaking that he had 8 a history degree and assured us that the historic structures would be saved, and they can be 9 saved. They now have an engineer who says the silos are an imminent hazard. Two other 10 engineering firms, from the report I read from the Building Inspection Department, disagree and 11 say they need repair and intervention but are not imminently a threat or danger. I’m immensely 12 supportive of Woodward, and glad they chose to stay here. This pains me to have to speak out 13 like this, but obviously they just don’t want to deal with saving the silos. The legal City process 14 should not be circumvented. This is a very rare resource in Fort Collins and must be saved for 15 posterity; and multiple structural engineers say they can be repaired and saved. They are truly a 16 landmark, in every sense of the word. Saving them is a responsibility as a designated, certified 17 local government of the History Colorado Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, grants 18 are available. 19 In conclusion, Coy’s 1862 homestead was the cradle of Fort Collins civilization. Buffalo, 20 New York is saving its concrete granary silos, naming them concrete cathedrals, in a recent 21 Coloradoan article. What would the barn and its historic landscape be without its silo? And one 22 more thing that came to me as I listened to the report, is Mr. Carpenter talked about the grain in 23 the bottom wearing…acid wearing it out. Those silos, according to the family, haven’t been 24 used in decades and decades and decades and decades…and they’re still standing. 25 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Please remember to state your name. 26 MS. HEATHER WOLHART: My name is Heather Wolhart, and I want to thank Carol 27 for everything she’s done for the City, and she’s a dear friend. I’m the great-great granddaughter 28 of Coy-Hoffman. I grew up on that farm, played in that barn, did things that you don’t want to 29 know about in those silos…I can tell you that, as a child, we would all stand…all five of 30 us…could stand on top of them and rock them back and forth…pretty exciting way back then. 31 And that’s when they actually touched the ground all the way around. 32 I am incredibly excited, as a family and as a person, for what Woodward has planned for 33 this place. I appreciate that the silos seem to be an integral part of the barn, and I appreciate their 34 landmark status; but, if you asked me, and if you asked the family…and I’m sure if you asked 35 the public, if it came down to…what do people recognize out there, the barn or the silos, they’re 36 going to always say the barn. They’re going to always say that. It’s the Coy-Hoffman barn…oh, 37 are you going to save the barn? Is Woodward going to tear down the barn? I’ve heard that and 22 1 heard that and heard that, and nobody has ever asked me or said a thing to me in public about the 2 silos. And as much as they’re neat and they’re cool and they’re fun, if it comes down to it, 3 they’re not really as historical and as important as the barn. And if they’re potential continual 4 deterioration puts the barn at risk…that to me is a sad thing. Because if they would fall and take 5 out the barn, that would ruin everything. But, if they can be repurposed, reused, redesigned into 6 something that would then be of public value…if people in the city, whether they’re just 7 employees, or people walking the bike path, or eventually an interactive event where all things 8 could come together and people could actually touch, taste, see, feel what it was like…and, yeah, 9 they would be short…they wouldn’t be forty feet in the air, but that doesn’t mean that whole 10 impression couldn’t be there…that the educational piece couldn’t be there. Pictures and 11 memories and the whole event…and then sit inside that circle and touch that restored piece of 12 cement and go, wow, how did they do this…how did they make this cement all those years ago? 13 I don’t know if you notice in the pictures, that cement has rocks this big in it. You go out here 14 and dig up this sidewalk, it does not have rocks this big in it. How did they do that? How did 15 they make those? What was the process? That’s more important than the size left to be 16 dangerous and then no one able to ever access them. And as much as I would love to say to my 17 grandkids, look at the barn, look at the silos, that’s where your grandma grew up…I’ll get to do 18 that if we can go forward with keeping them safe and useful, repurposed into a way to be used by 19 the public, by Woodward, in a safe and interactive way. And there is no repurpose that I 20 personally can understand leaving them at their full height; there’s no way to use a full height 21 silo other than silage. And, yes, Carol is right, they haven’t had a lot of farm product in them for 22 decades; it doesn’t take a lot of silage to make a lot of acid, and a lot of smell, and a lot of mess. 23 And it doesn’t take a lot of silage to leave decades of rats and creatures that have loved living in 24 those silos. 25 So, are they imminent? To me, this is kind of a weird thing…are they dangerous? 26 Absolutely. Have they been dangerous for a long time? Absolutely. Is there a chance to do 27 something marvelous by allowing some repurposing? Absolutely. To me, and as the family, 28 that’s really the only question. Can we make this go forward and value my past and my future. 29 Thank you. 30 CHAIR SMITH: Is there any other public comment? Okay, our next order of business 31 would be rebuttals, and we’ll start with the appellant, Woodward. 32 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. Chairman; once again for the record, Carolynne White. I’m 33 going to ask Mr. Carpenter to come up first and speak to some of the technical issues that were 34 raised by the engineer from Exponent, and then I’ll conclude by addressing some of the other 35 comments from Mr. Gebo and the members of the public. Thank you…Mr. Carpenter? 36 MR. CARPENTER: Steve Carpenter with JVA. Just…I actually agree with Mr. Bennett 37 that the…it’s easy to get down in the weeds with the wind. The one in 1,700 year 38 occurrence…recurrence…is for what used to be called risk category 3 and 4 buildings. It’s one 23 1 in 700 years for risk category 2, and one in 300 for risk category 1, which is what it would be 2 now in a vacuum. In my report, I actually said…I used 2 or 3…and I would consult with a code 3 official to define that. It’s sort of pointless…these are all, on any given day, small 4 percentages…totally agree with that. I guess what I don’t agree with is that I can’t, as an 5 engineer, predict the weather and know when that thunderstorm is coming with a microburst, or 6 the chinook wind, down sloping wind, day type of thing. So that’s the reason I didn’t go there: I 7 can’t predict the weather. I don’t know what it’s going to be like tomorrow. 8 The only other comment that I have is, there were a couple questions regarding, really 9 basically…if you look at it in old code versus today’s code, and part of the reason I chose 10 today’s code is because of the proximity to the barn…and the barn will definitely be adaptively 11 reused. And so, because of the proximity, I think it would need to comply with today’s code, 12 just simply because of the proximity as part of that conference center. 13 MS. WHITE: Just a few other additional points…I want to make it clear for the Board 14 that no one is trying to circumvent the legal process. This is the legal process for appealing a 15 building code official determination, so we’re going through the process as required; no one is 16 trying to circumvent the process. To the point that Mr. Carpenter just made, and the question of 17 whether or not the 2012 IBC requirement that it withstand current design wind loads of 120 to 18 130 miles per hour, whether that would be applied if the silos were to be reconstructed and 19 repurposed so as to allow people to be in and near them, I think that Mr. Gebo’s answer is 20 certainly correct…that, you know, given that there’s no other code to determine it, he would, you 21 know, consult with an engineer. But also, given the proximity of the barn, what Mr. Carpenter 22 said, I find it hard to imagine that you wouldn’t require it to meet the 2012 IBC standard, given 23 that just 20 feet away is a structure where you’re going to let people gather in large 24 numbers…and I think it can hold between 70 and 120 as proposed. So, certainly we’re thinking 25 about the potential danger to, you know, life and injury as we think is required in this situation, 26 and that was the reason for reaching that conclusion. 27 One other point I wanted to make is that the emailed exchange obviously speaks for 28 itself, and you have the whole thing in your packet, but somebody concluded, and I don’t 29 remember if it was Mr. Gebo or somebody else, said that when he asked the question of whether 30 or not there was immediate danger, nobody’s said yes, or only one engineer said yes. The way I 31 read those emails, JVA said yes, immediate danger, Martin and Martin said I agree with JVA, 32 Exponent said not immediate danger. So, two out of the three did say, yes, immediate danger, 33 immediate threat, in that email exchange. So, that’s certainly the way I read it; you can read it 34 and it speaks for itself, but that’s our interpretation. 35 And then the question was raised about, what did Martin and Martin mean in their report 36 with those italic subheadings? And, I think, given that that interpretation led to Mr. Gebo’s 37 conclusion that Martin and Martin did not feel there was immediate danger, it does bear a little 38 further discussion about that point. So, I’d like to direct you to the packet that we submitted 24 1 today that contained three additional documents in it. The first of those three documents…I 2 think this is the right order…is the scope of work for the historic structure assessment put 3 forward by the State Historical Fund, revised 2014…it’s a nine page document. And this is the 4 template and format that a structural engineer is supposed to use…or not a structural engineer, 5 but a consultant, in doing an HSA, a Historical Structure Assessment. If you turn to page four of 6 that document…I’ll wait until everybody’s there with me…you see that there are three categories 7 that can be applied to buildings in this type of analysis: good, fair or poor, each of which has a 8 few criteria following it, right? Good has three criteria, fair has four criteria, and poor has five 9 criteria. Then if you look at the Martin and Martin report, where the Martin and Martin 10 consultant is reaching her conclusions as a result of performing the Historic Structure 11 Assessment, on page…the bottom of page four of her report, how convenient, both on page 12 four…you see her findings. And there are three bulleted findings, each of which corresponds to 13 one of the criteria under the poor condition in the scope of work on the bottom of page four. 14 So, I can see how Mr. Gebo might have interpreted the Martin and Martin report as not 15 actually stating those as her findings, but rather repeating from the scope of work the 16 subheadings, and then under the subheadings providing her analysis. Except that, if you look at 17 this, there are five potential criteria that one could cite to conclude that a building is in poor 18 condition, right? No longer performing intended purpose, it’s missing, it shows signs of 19 imminent failure or breakdown, deterioration or damage affects more than 25%, or it requires 20 major repair or replacement. In preparing this report, the Martin and Martin structural engineer 21 only cited three of those, and she cited only those which she found to be applicable, namely, the 22 silos are no longer performing their intended use, they show signs of imminent failure or 23 breakdown, and requires major repair or replacement. These are her conclusions, not merely a 24 repeat of the potential headings for investigation. The Martin and Martin report does conclude 25 that there is an imminent danger of failure or breakdown. Then, the JVA report follows up and 26 does an initial analysis and reaches the same conclusion, concluding that the lower portion of the 27 wall shows signs of imminent failure due to long-term acid attack. Now, this isn’t just 28 selectively pulling out of the report, this is the conclusion, this is the finding of the report. And it 29 says, imminent failure due to long-term acid attack. So, there’s really no question, I think, and 30 can there be any question in anyone’s mind, that two out of the three experts believe there is 31 imminent failure. They said so in their reports, they said so in the email conversation following. 32 The third expert, perhaps one could question whether or not they reached that conclusion; they 33 can speak for themselves because they are here. We believe their report actually also supports 34 their conclusion, despite the fact that they stated as a conclusion otherwise, they reached the 35 same finding, namely that failure could occur at any time. 36 And then we get into this question of, what is “at any time?” And Mr. Gebo said that he 37 thought you should think of “at any time” to mean, “without the potential for there to be a wind 38 speed condition. Well, “at any time”, the definition of imminent threat in the code that we’re 39 being asked to interpret, doesn’t say, “absent unusual circumstances,” or “absent a design load 25 1 wind event.” It doesn’t say any of that, it just says “at any time.” And all three of the expert 2 reports clearly state that failure could happen at any time, and therefore the danger is imminent, 3 and we ask you to reach that conclusion and to allow Woodward to proceed with their adaptive 4 reuse plan. Thank you very much. Also, our team is available to answer questions if you have 5 any. 6 CHAIR SMITH: That’s what I was just going to ask the Board, does the Board have any 7 questions for Woodward at this time? Okay, go ahead Justin. 8 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: I have a question for Steve…structural questions. 9 And it may be that we may want both to answer if possible. We talked many times about the 10 design wind load and the…a concern that the buildings would not withstand the design wind 11 loads. Under your report, Steve, you had done some, I think you’d called them just preliminary 12 calculations, or something, to take a look at what you thought might be the stresses on the silos. 13 I guess one question I would ask is, we’re looking at worst-case condition because that’s what 14 engineers do, but is there a…is there an understanding, at this point, from any of the reports…or 15 maybe, you’re the only one that really showed calculations…is there any understanding that 16 there could be danger at 60 miles an hour? At something that would occur…that we’d see on an 17 every year basis. Is there any thought to that part of it, or conclusions on that? 18 MR. CARPENTER: So, Steve Carpenter, JVA…there was, and I think maybe one of our 19 slides was worded, approaching design wind speeds. What I came up with was a crushing stress 20 of about 220 psi…that was assuming an inch and quarter, half of the stave silo, remaining at the 21 base, uniformly. And the Swiss Hammer soundings, you know, which is an inexact…there’s a 22 number of sort of inexact…very close approximations, but not perfect tight data to come to this. 23 And so I didn’t really fixate on the 130 or the 100 ASD…I just looked at wind loads approaching 24 that number. I didn’t pick 60, per se, but anything approaching that number creates a stress, 25 which I think is more than the capacity of the concrete, especially in the areas between the holes 26 where it’ll really concentrate, and my calculation didn’t go that far. 27 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank you. Paul, would you have any 28 insight onto that as far as your analysis said similar things that you would think it is possible it 29 would fall under design wind load conditions, but is there any conclusion that you would have as 30 far as more of a normal wind load condition that we might see here in Fort Collins? 31 MR. BENNETT: We didn’t do the calculations that JVA did; we weren’t asked to. But 32 just based on our experience, as we said in our report under design wind loads, we agree. So, I 33 think we’re saying the same thing. But to answer your question directly, we didn’t do that 34 analysis and I don’t have a good answer for you if, you know, at 50 miles an hour…what the risk 35 of it falling down is. 36 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Could that analysis be performed? And, I think in 37 one of those reports I read that further analysis should be looked at…probably more if they’re 26 1 doing reconstruction, but to actually test what the real strength of the concrete is and do some 2 further calculations to actually determine what type of danger there really is under the wind 3 loads. It appears that a lot of it is from physical observations, from your feeling as engineers and 4 experience, but there hasn’t been a lot of detailed analysis done to determine that, at this point. 5 MR. BENNETT: You’re right; there hasn’t been enough quantitative analysis to really 6 put a finger on it. And we can do the math out of the code and figure out what the wind speed is, 7 but the real unknown is…Wayne, right? Steve, I’m sorry. As Steve said, what is the strength of 8 the concrete that’s there, and I think we would both agree the Swiss Rebound Hammer readings 9 are not exact enough. But there are other ways to get more exact information on the strength of 10 it. 11 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Okay. The other question I’d have is…from a 12 structural engineering perspective, could the silos be reasonably reinforced to meet current 2012 13 IBC wind loads? 14 MR. CARPENTER: They can be; we’ve actually done it before. It’s…you said 15 reasonably…I don’t…it’s an expensive, time consuming process, but we have actually done that 16 before. 17 MR. BENNETT: I’d have the same response. 18 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: That’s all I have, thank you. 19 CHAIR SMITH: Tim, you have a question? 20 BOARDMEMBER TIM JOHNSON: Yes, just to clarify…Exponent…sorry, what was 21 your name again? 22 MR. BENNETT: Paul. 23 BOARDMEMBER JOHNSON: Paul…this…the probability you gave us here, this is the 24 one in 1,700 year event, and that’s the category 3, but the risk category for the silos could be 25 conceived to be either a 1 through a 3, and the 1 was a one in 300 year potential? Is that correct, 26 from what I heard? 27 MR. BENNETT: That’s right; we use the category 3, 1,700 year return interval because 28 that’s what the JVA calcs [sic] were based on and we recognize the discussion they had about 29 that. We…I did play with that equation yesterday and actually have it on my computer…could 30 run it quickly for you if you’d like. But, even changing it to 300, I think that 1…that leading 31 1…went to like a 3 or 4 or something; it didn’t even move the zeros. 32 BOARDMEMBER JOHNSON: But, ultimately, the year intervals are 1,700 at category 3 33 or 300 at category 1, is that right? 27 1 MR. BENNETT: That’s right. 2 CHAIR SMITH: Do we have any other questions? 3 BOARDMEMBER RICK REIDER: While they’re both up there…starting with you, 4 Steve, besides the wind issue, what else could occur with the silos that would be dangerous to the 5 public? For example, maybe you could speak to parts or pieces of the silo that may imminently 6 fall off and hit someone. 7 MR. CARPENTER: There are a few pertinences attached around the top of the silo…that 8 could happen…they would easily be removed. My biggest concern would be, because the 9 cement paste near the base of the silos has been attacked over all these years, now it’s exposed, 10 there’s not a roof on the silos; they get wet…I think freeze, thaw and moisture in the concrete is 11 the biggest problem. So, they’re continuing to deteriorate; not at the same rate as if the acid was 12 there, but that’s the biggest problem is just the weathering and the freeze, thaw cycles…in my 13 opinion. 14 BOARDMEMBER REIDER: Paul, how about you? 15 MR. BENNETT: I’m sorry; could you ask the question again? 16 BOARDMEMBER REIDER: Yeah, thank you…I…you’ve both spoken about wind 17 events, and I was asking, are there other events that could impact the silos, or is the only concern 18 a high wind event? 19 MR. BENNETT: Sure, I mean we don’t see a risk under its self weight. You know, I 20 showed you pictures of a structure earlier that was falling down under its self weight. We don’t 21 see that as being an issue here. You know, in the building code we primarily design for wind 22 and seismic. So, to answer your question, seismic is a possibility. We don’t see a lot of seismic 23 activity in this area, but that’s another scenario the building code has us look at for new 24 structures. 25 BOARDMEMBER REIDER: And if you were asked to salvage these structures, to save 26 them, what would that entail? What would I expect to see? Would it be on the outside, the 27 inside, how would you do that? 28 MR. BENNETT: Well, there’s a lot of different ways we could do it, and I think it would 29 really depend on what we’re trying to accomplish. If we’re just trying to stabilize them from 30 collapse under, you know, the wind speeds, or if we’re trying to allow people to go inside and 31 view them. I think right now, it doesn’t sound like that’s necessarily on the table. So, you know, 32 my goal would be to do things from the inside as much as possible so that you preserve the 33 historic appearance on the outside. But there still would be, especially near the base, work that 34 would need to occur on the outside. We wouldn’t necessarily repair them to…our philosophy 35 wouldn’t be to repair them to withstand this design wind event; we would look at a much more 28 1 frequent return interval…off the top, you know, maybe something on the order of 50 years, and 2 design to that. And then, of course with any historic structure, you keep an eye on them and you 3 maintain them. 4 BOARDMEMBER REIDER: And Steve, how about you? If you were asked to do that 5 work? 6 MR. CARPENTER: So, when we have…I’m sorry…Steve Carpenter, JVA. When 7 we’ve done this in the past, what we do is essentially use the existing silo as an outside form. 8 You have to get rid of the deteriorating concrete, which will be tricky in this case because there’s 9 not much left. And then we try to make a positive attachment to what’s there with some sort of 10 sheer pins, and then we come in and just shotcrete a new silo on the inside. So, on the inside, it 11 might not look so great…actually, you can form it, depending on the quality of the forms, to look 12 good. It would need some footing work, foundation work, as well. I don’t think the footings go 13 to frost depth…I’m not sure how big a problem that is anyway…but they would need to be a 14 little bit bigger. We actually would design to the wind recurrence interval that the barn needs in 15 its adaptive reuse. I think it’s going to be either category 2 or 3, depending on the building 16 official, so we would use either 700 years or 1,700 years. We’re concerned about the proximity 17 there. 18 BOARDMEMBER REIDER: Thanks. 19 CHAIR SMITH: Any other questions? Go ahead, Mike. 20 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Unfortunately, I have a question for someone who 21 isn’t here….getting back to the insurance issue that was touched on and mentioned in the email 22 chain. It says that, in the current state, that the silos and thus…because of proximity…that the 23 barn is uninsurable. But it doesn’t ever address what happens if they are repaired. And so one of 24 my questions is…and I know that person is not here…but there was a Ms. Moore who also is an 25 engineer, it sounded like, with AEG…or AIG, excuse me. And I was wondering if that 26 question’s ever been asked. If they are repaired or restored or stabilized in some state, does that 27 affect the insurability of the adjacent structures? 28 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chair? Carolynne White, again. I wasn’t part of the conversation but 29 we have some people here who were, even though we don’t have the AIG insurance person here, 30 so could you just give us a moment to gather that information and we’ll try to get an answer to 31 your question? 32 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Absolutely. 33 CHAIR SMITH: Would this be a good time to take a break if anybody needs to use the 34 bathroom, or get a drink? Okay, let’s take a ten…five minute recess. 35 (**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 29 1 CHAIR SMITH: Alright, it looks like everybody’s back; we’ll go ahead and resume the 2 meeting, I guess at 2:59. 3 MS. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, once again for the record, Carolynne White on behalf of the 4 appellant. The particular question that you asked, are the silos insurable if they were to be 5 repaired or restored, was not asked. What was asked was whether they could be insured as is and 6 whether the barn could be insured, and the response was no to the first question, but also the 7 insurance company, AIG, did say they would not insure the barn unless the silos were removed. 8 And that correspondence is in your packet. 9 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Thank you. 10 CHAIR SMITH: Did we have any more questions? Okay, I guess at that point, it’s the 11 appellee’s turn? 12 MR. GEBO: Thank you. I will ask Mr. Bennett if he has any closing comments at the 13 point? 14 MR. BENNETT: Again, Paul Bennett with Exponent. Just two closing thoughts: one 15 thought I mentioned to Mr. Gebo in the email correspondence that I think you were provided 16 with, and that’s the thought that we have historic structures all over Colorado, all over the United 17 States, and many of those historic structures, if you analyze them with modern day wind and 18 seismic loads, would be found to be lacking. And so if that’s the criteria that we’re going to 19 apply as designers, to call something imminently dangerous, that’s concerning, because that’s 20 not what we do when we go around and look at these historic buildings. There would be 21 buildings all over Colorado, Fort Collins and all over the United States that we would be calling 22 imminently dangerous if we’re only looking at them under a design wind or, say, seismic event. 23 The other thing that I wanted to point out was…we weren’t provided with the JVA 24 report; we saw the emails, we weren’t aware of a report. In talking to Mr. Gebo yesterday, we 25 became aware of it and I received a copy of it this morning, and we looked at their calculations. 26 And, there are some errors in the calculations that we want to just point out for the record. Beginning with the area of a circle, πr 2 27 , the diameter was used instead of the radius in the 28 calculations. So, when we rerun the calculations, and we use a category…risk category 1 for 29 agricultural facilities, we’re coming up with a number that is less than half of the stresses that the 30 JVA calculated. So, we can provide more discussion on that if we need to, but I just wanted to 31 point that out for the record. Thank you. 32 MR. GEBO: Thank you. So, a couple of points if I can…going back to the Martin and 33 Martin report, and on page four, under the findings, I still contend that the italicized writing is 34 from the State document, and I say that because the second bullet from the State document, 35 italicized, they show signs of imminent failure or breakdown. The non-italicized is Martin and 36 Martin’s response to that bullet, and she says, the weakened state of the concrete walls is 30 1 currently adequate for an empty structure, but without intervention, the silos will continue to 2 deteriorate and will eventually become unstable and safe. If she is indicating that, yes, they are 3 an imminent failure, I find it a little strange that she would indicate that, well, they’re adequate 4 for an empty structure, and that without any further intervention they’re going to deteriorate and 5 at some point become unstable or unsafe…that is just my opinion on that. As a classification of 6 dangerous buildings, they are not allowed to just stay there and continue to deteriorate. As my 7 classification in my letter said, they are dangerous buildings, you must now stabilize and/or 8 repair, you must provide us a plan for what does that stabilization and repair look like, and it 9 must be completed within a timeframe. So, yes, they are dangerous; yes, there is some 10 timeframe for them to stop becoming further dangerous…they have to do something to these 11 structures; they’re not just allowed to sit there. And then, I would ask Brad maybe to expound a 12 little bit on what the appeal is…it’s not an appeal about whether or not something will happen 13 under some other condition; it’s really an appeal about, did I err in some way. I’ve declared 14 them dangerous…that seems to be an agreement across the board. And I have not determined 15 that they are an imminent…I’ve been on site, I’ve seen these. There certainly seems to be no 16 immediate indication that something is moving within the last 24 hours. I see no indication of 17 concrete or the staves falling off or falling out. Yes, they’re dangerous; yes, they need some 18 repair; yes, they need some support, but I still do not see anything as an imminent hazard and I 19 really believe that…my understanding that that is what this appeal is. Did I err in not declaring 20 them imminent? Thank you. 21 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, does the Board have any questions of Mike or the City? 22 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: I have one…the classification…or, hang on…when 23 initial application was made, or when this project was initially approved, were those silos ever 24 evaluated at that time? 25 MR. GEBO: Not from the City; not that I’m aware of…apparently the Martin and Martin 26 report was, it looks like, a year ago or two years ago, now, so that was performed by Woodward, 27 and the City did not… 28 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: It appears to…in that Martin and Martin report…just I noticed that in the timeline, her report was dated January 7 th 29 of 2014, but she said she visited 30 the site in November of 2014, so I was actually curious where that letter was meant…was 31 actually January of 2015…just was a typographical error…just in the timeline; I noted that when 32 I was reading the materials, that she had mentioned that she had visited the site in November of 33 2014, but she couldn’t have visited and wrote the report ten months before that, so…I think 34 there’s a typo there somewhere. So whether she visited the site in November of 2013 and then 35 the letter was written in ’14…I’m not really sure. But I guess where I’m going with this question 36 is, is there any sort of measuring stick of…in that year or however long it’s been, eighteen 37 months, have those silos…the amount of degradation in other words…I guess is what I’m getting 31 1 at; is there any measurable degradation that’s taken place since they were initially evaluated. But 2 it sounds like they weren’t initially evaluated upon that project being approved? 3 MR. GEBO: As I understand it, these reports are relatively recent. 4 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIGE: Thank you. 5 CHAIR SMITH: Any other questions? Okay, I’m going to give the opportunity for either 6 party to make a closing statement. 7 MS. WHITE: Technically as the party who bears the burden of proof, I think typically the 8 appellant has the last word; but so I think we would only want to give a closing statement if Mr. 9 Gebo would like to give another closing statement. If he waives, we waive; stand on what the 10 evidence is already. 11 MR. GEBO: I have nothing else to add. 12 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, and if the Board has no further questions, we’ll move into a 13 deliberation. Do we have any open discussion? Mike, are you saying yes or no? Go ahead. 14 Okay, alright. 15 MR. YATABE: And, Mr. Chair, if it’s helpful and you want to take a recess so people 16 can review notes and that kind of thing, that’s certainly a possibility as well. 17 CHAIR SMITH: Do you want to take a five minute recess to get ducks in a row? No, 18 we’re good to go I guess. If you’d like to start Mike… 19 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: This is an interesting…interesting case, I guess…to 20 editorialize for just a moment. I keep going back to what the purview, I guess, of this Board is, 21 and it’s to…as Mike just mentioned in his last statement, to determine whether he made an error 22 or not. It’s not really to…oh, how shall I say it? Look at the historical significance of the 23 building, look at whether or not it’s being repurposed appropriately, whether or not…while I 24 sincerely appreciate the comments of the members of the public that spoke, it’s not within our 25 purview to decide or to assist Woodward, or not assist Woodward, in how that…those silos 26 would be better repurposed in the future. Our purview here today is strictly to make a 27 determination if Mike, or Mr. Gebo I guess I should say…the Chief Building Official…made an 28 accurate determination of imminent or simply dangerous. Is that accurate, Brad? 29 MR. YATABE: I think that is accurate; within the purview of review, although there are 30 certainly consequences that flow out of that determination, whether it’s dangerous or imminent. 31 Really the scope of your review is to see whether Mr. Gebo, as the Building Official, did make 32 the correct interpretation of the code provision before you…the IPMC code provision before you 33 in light of the evidence that he was aware of, and certainly the evidence that was presented on 34 the record today. So, yes, there are consequences that flow out of that; I think you understand 32 1 the context of that. But, as to the BRB making the decision based on the historic nature of the 2 property or what may or may not become on that property, I think that’s a little bit outside of 3 your scope. 4 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Thank you. 5 CHAIR SMITH: Any other questions, comments? Okay, I guess…are we ready to go for 6 a finding of fact? Still working on it? I guess there’s a point of discussion on finding of fact? I 7 think we would have to determine if there’s…if the building is imminent or dangerous, I guess, 8 to support the motion to either uphold or overturn the ruling. 9 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Just as discussion…I think it’s pretty…everybody 10 agrees on the dangerous, so that’d be a pretty easy finding of fact at this point. Are we really 11 trying to determine whether or not we find that it’s imminent or not? 12 CHAIR SMITH: I think we do have to determine if it’s imminent or not, because that 13 directly holds to upholding or overturning the CBO’s decision. 14 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Just as discussion for Boardmembers, I am having 15 some…as we all are I’m sure…trying to weigh the difference between the imminent and not, and 16 whether or not, as Mr. Gebo pointed out, we’re going to include every major code-driven 17 weather event as what would cause an imminent failure on a structure, versus it could fall today 18 under just normal conditions. That, to me, was a striking difference between the two from his 19 definition, and I don’t know that we have, I guess, enough from the structural engineering 20 reports, real calculations that would show otherwise…that they would fail under a day-to-day 21 condition, without this major weather event. That’s the one piece that they all agreed on, that the 22 major weather event could collapse the structures, but I don’t see the evidence in the 23 reports…and maybe it’s just because they didn’t have the detailed engineering into it, that we 24 can say otherwise that they would fall today without that event. 25 CHAIR SMITH: I guess what helped clarify that to me was Mr. Bennett’s presentation 26 about what would be imminent is happening now, and as I view the code, imminent is that type 27 of a situation, where dangerous needs to be addressed, I guess. Okay, are you guys sure we don’t 28 need some sort of a recess here to come up with something? 29 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: I’m trying to draft a finding of fact here, so…does 30 anybody else have anything going as far as that? 31 CHAIR SMITH: I’ll say let’s take a few minutes to allow for a…to draft a finding of fact. 32 Let’s go for five more…thanks. 33 (**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 33 1 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, we’ll call the meeting back into session and see if anybody’s 2 come up with…Justin, did you come up with a motion? 3 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Yeah, I’ll take a stab at it here. Quick questions, 4 with this…finding of fact, do we need to all wait for a second and prove it before we offer a 5 motion, is that correct procedures here? Just to clarify. Or do I need to offer the motion with the 6 findings of fact. 7 MR. YATABE: Well, I think the typical way to do it would be to offer the motion with 8 the findings of fact in support of it. 9 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Okay. 10 MR. YATABE: But, I’ll say, alternatively, I’ve also seen it where the Board or 11 Commission can agree on the findings prior to that and then they can be incorporated. So, I 12 guess procedurally, I’d leave it up to the Chair to decide how…and I haven’t attended this Board 13 before, so I don’t know how you normally make your motions. 14 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: I think I’d prefer just to try to roll in into one 15 motion right up front so we can then discuss it…so, if that’s okay? 16 CHAIR SMITH: That’s fine with the Chair. 17 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: So, I move that…for a motion to uphold the Chief 18 Building Official’s decision in this matter, based on the facts that I heard that we all agree that 19 the buildings are dangerous. I have not heard the…as I’m hearing that the buildings are 20 imminently dangerous because they are not…we’re not seeing an action that is starting or 21 happening at present time that is going to make them fall under a day-to-day operation. And, all 22 the engineers agreed that the event that we’re talking about is a code…2012 building code wind- 23 driven event, where they would collapse. And I have not seen that there’s been any other 24 evidence that they are imminently dangerous, other than the possibility of this wind event. 25 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, do we have a second? 26 BOARDMEMBER DUNLAP: I’ll second that. 27 CHAIR SMITH: And then roll call. 28 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Is there a discussion? 29 CHAIR SMITH: Do we have any discussion before we call for a vote? Seeing none, 30 we’ll call for the vote. 31 MS. LISA OLSON: Johnson? 32 BOARDMEMBER JOHNSON: Yes. 34 1 MS. OLSON: Doddridge? 2 BOARDMEMBER DODDRIDGE: Yes. 3 MS. OLSON: Montgomery? 4 BOARDMEMBER MONTGOMERY: Yes. 5 MS. OLSON: Smith? 6 CHAIR SMITH: Yes. 7 MS. OLSON: Reider? 8 BOARDMEMBER REIDER: Yes. 9 MS. OLSON: Dunlap? 10 BOARDMEMBER DUNLAP: Yes. 11 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, the decision of the Building Inspector is upheld, and this may be 12 appealed to City Council, but the appeal must be filed within 14 days? 13 MR. YATABE: I believe that’s correct, yes. 14 CHAIR SMITH: Okay, thank you. 15 MR. GEBO: Excuse me; is that information all on-line for the Woodward folks? 16 MR. YATABE: That is, that’s contained in the code, and Ms. White can certainly contact 17 me if she has questions regarding the appeal or the procedure. 18 MR. GEBO: Okay, thank you. 19 20 21 22 ATTACHMENT 7 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council January 19, 2016 Woodward, Inc. Appeal Coy-Hoffman Farm Located on the new Woodward, Inc. campus State Designated Historical Site Silos constructed 1912-1913 Silos declared as “dangerous” structures on September 18, 2015 3 Approximately 40’ tall Left silo • Concrete slip pour Right silo • Concrete stave Declaration Process Three engineering firms evaluated silos to determine structural conditions • Martin and Martin • Exponent •JVA Declaration Process Reports were reviewed and comments noted • Silos could be considered imminent danger under design wind loads, high winds of 120-130 mph. • In current state not imminent danger City provided definitions of imminent danger to evaluate silos by Imminent danger was not established Dangerous was the classification given. Building Review Board Appeal October 29, 2015 Woodward appealed the “dangerous” classification requesting that the BRB declare the silos as “imminent danger” BRB confirmed that the silos are “dangerous” However, “imminent danger” was not established. Council Appeal Woodward appealing the “dangerous” classification, believe silos “imminent danger” Appealing on the grounds that building official failed to properly interpret and apply the codes Appealing the Building Review Board’s determination Dangerous vs. Imminent Historical structures • Dangerous classification requires silos to be stabilized and repaired • Imminent danger classification requires the silos to be repaired or demolished (owners choice). Landmark Preservation Regular meeting January 13, 2016 Determination of eligibility for Landmark designation. Link to the Building Review Board Hearing, October 29, 2015 http://cable14.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=6c16bda6d3a0fb046116f007aa880ed4 Links to the video of the silos provided to City Council: Short version - https://youtu.be/aJelrq3Nqn4 Long unedited version - https://youtu.be/ayvK8mqyK7s (There is no audio on either of these videos.) 1 WEST ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/7/2014 1:49:25 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 0100 Author 02/20/10 COY - HOFFMAN FARM MILK HOUSE ELEVATIONS EL1 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 0000-Project-SD.rvt EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 MILK HOUSE NORTH ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 MILK HOUSE EAST ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 MILK HOUSE SOUTH ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 MILK HOUSE WEST ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 MILK HOUSE MAIN FLOOR NORTH In all cases listed above, the Stave Silo is significantly overstressed. In addition to the stresses, we also considered these following critical items in the overall analysis, although they were not included in the baseline calculation: