The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/18/2015 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 November 18, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Kristin Gensmer 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Belinda Zink on the Comcast cable system Tom Leeson Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana Staff Liaison, CDNS Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting November 18, 2015 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 14, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 14, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 26, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 26, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 3. 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Design Review of a proposed addition to 321 N. Whitcomb Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 161, 2014), constructed in 1912. The proposed addition will include a new one-story addition (260 square feet). APPLICANT: Kate A. Polk, Property Owner 321 N. Whitcomb Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 • PULLED FROM CONSENT • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed addition to 419 Whedbee Street, a single-family home in the Laurel School Historic District constructed in 1901. The proposed addition will include a new second-floor addition (617 square feet) APPLICANT: Melanie and Rich Davis 419 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 8052 5. FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and request for Recommendation to Decision Maker for a Minor Amendment to Approved Plans regarding a proposed rehabilitation and new addition to the Feeders Supply building at 359 Linden Street. The Planning and Zoning Board approved a Project Development Plan (#PDP130012) on August 8, 2013 for a previous owner of the property. The new owners are now proposing some alterations to the approved plans. The applicants are proposing to create a restaurant, bakery, cooking school, and retail establishment at this location. The applicants and an architectural design firm met with the Commission at a work session on June 24, 2015. Since then, the applicants, working with VFLA, have developed a different design for the project. Briefly, the new plans call for only minimal changes to the historic Feeders Supply building, and propose alterations to the design of the new building addition to the south. The new design calls for a two story addition, connected to the Feeder Supply towards the back of the historic building. The addition, which is set back from Linden Street, will have a triangular shaped roof, providing a site line to the Feeder Supply building. The Commission held a preliminary hearing on these plans on October 26, 2015. APPLICANT: Frank Vaught and Chris Aronson, VFLA 6. COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and Request for Recommendation to Decision Maker of a proposed 31,007 square foot, 4-story building. The project is adjacent to several historic buildings that are designated on the National Register of Historic Places and as Fort Collins Landmarks, including the Scott Apartment Building, at 900 South College, and properties in the Laurel School National Register District. This Project Development Plan (PDP) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The College Eight Thirty project would be constructed on a site located on the east side of College Avenue at College and Locust, with Colorado State University to the west, and across the alley from the Laurel School National City of Fort Collins Page 3 Register District. This mixed use project contains 34 residential units above commercial/retail space on the main level. The main level has 27 surface parking spaces partially covered by 3-stories above. The Commission held a preliminary hearing on these plans on September 28, 2015. APPLICANT: Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios 141 S. College Avenue, Ste 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 7. DOWNTOWN PLAN DISCUSSION Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, will provide an update on the Downtown Plan. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 18, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 14, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 14, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (DOC) 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Fort Collins Page 1 October 14, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Kristin Gensmer 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Belinda Zink on the Comcast cable system Tom Leeson Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana Staff Liaison, PDT Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting October 14, 2015 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Branson, Mapes, Schiager  AGENDA REVIEW Chair Sladek noted that Item #4, Discussion on Trolley Barn Uses, had been postponed until the next meeting. Also, the Applicant for Item #6, Uncommon, had requested to be moved earlier in the agenda, so with the Commission’s agreement, he moved it to follow Item #3.  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3801 : Minutes of October 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 2 October 14, 2015  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes for the regular meeting of September 28, 2015. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 2. 903 STOVER STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Charles A. Lory House and Outbuildings at 903 Stover Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander, Property Owners Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Dick Anderson, the architect on the project, spoke to the Commission on behalf of the owners. He stated that after consideration a number of variations on the design, they settled on one which ensures the second floor addition will not be seen from Stover Street, while still accommodating the 8’ ceiling height. He said they are very sensitive to the streetscape. The original design has been decreased by 30%, but still left very little yard space, so they would like to demolish the shed. Ms. Molander and Mr. Reschenburg made themselves available for questions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member asked whether the 1938 frame shed that they want to demolish was found to be contributing to the designation, and if so, would its removal require the owners to go through the demo/alt process. Ms. Dorn said the two outbuildings, the shed and the garage, are cited in the designation. Chair Sladek explained that the Commission would be making the determination about the shed’s demolition, if they feel they have enough information to do so. A Member mentioned that they don’t have a front elevation, but noted that the façade is very formal and symmetrical, while the addition is not symmetrical. A concern was raised that the Commission’s only way to verify that the addition is not going to be seen from the street is by the drawing provided. Mr. Anderson explained his drawing of the sight line, and stated that from the streetscape it would not be noticeable that the addition is not symmetrical. He also commented that the reason they had moved the addition to the north was to preserve the trio of windows. There was a suggestion that a shed dormer would be more appropriate. Mr. Anderson said they had considered that, but having a flat 8’ roof worked better in terms of functionality. He said they could probably entertain lowering the ceiling to 7’6” with a simple shed roof. Another Member agreed that a shed roof would be a better fit. Members expressed concern about not having photos and adequate documentation for the shed. The Applicant provided additional pictures of the shed which were passed around to the Members and entered into the record. Ms. Molander stated that the shed has settled and is unusable, and that runoff from the alley runs into the shed. She said they have not explored fixing it, adding that it is dilapidated, has broken windows, has no protection from the elements and would likely require a complete rebuild. A Member questioned the trapezoidal windows in the gable end, saying that they were not part of the historic vocabulary. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3801 : Minutes of October 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 3 October 14, 2015 A question was raised about whether the chimney was stovepipe or masonry, and whether it would need to be moved. The Applicant said it was a masonry chimney, and that they would extend it with a flue pipe to meet code, if needed. Chair Sladek referenced Section 14-48(b) of the municipal code concerning the report of acceptability, specifically reading from items 1, 2 and 5. He additionally referenced the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard 9. Members discussed that neither the design of the addition, nor the removal of the shed would meet those standards. The Commission requested front and north elevations of the house, as well as more photos and documentation on the shed, since it is a contributing part of a landmark. They indicated that without this information, they could not proceed with a final review. Ms. Molander interjected that the shed could stay, but the additional living space is the most important. Mr. Reschenburg asserted that the addition would not be visible from Stover, but acknowledged that it would be visible from other directions. The Applicants mentioned that they had worked with City Staff and Architect Bud Frick, modifying the design many times, and thought that they had met the requirements. Commission Feedback Members were in agreement that they were not ready for a final review, requesting that the Applicant come back for another conceptual/final review. Members would like to see a new design with a shed roof sloping down to the west, without the gable, and with the trapezoidal windows changed to rectangular to be more in keeping with the original style. The Commission requested new drawings to reflect the Commission’s feedback, additional details on the materials & dimensions, and more photos and documentation on the shed and the garage. [Timestamp: 6:15 p.m.] 3. 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Conceptual/Final Design Review for the Garcia Property at 321 North Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, Colorado APPLICANT: Kate A. Polk, Property Owner Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Kevin Murray, the contractor for the project, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and reviewed some of the photos and drawings provided in the packet. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion A Member questioned why the addition was proposed with a gable roof instead of a hip roof, which would be more in keeping with the Classic Cottage style of the home. The Applicant said it could be dropped back from a gable to a hip. Another Member asked what would differentiate the old from the new on the side of the house. The Applicant explained that there is already an offset of a few feet there. The Commission asked about the materials, and the Applicant explained that they would continue the 1x4” channel lap siding around the house. Commission Feedback The Commission would like to see the Applicant come back with a revised design showing a hip roof, as well as more detail about the materials. [Timestamp: 6:35 p.m.] 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3801 : Minutes of October 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 4 October 14, 2015 4. DISCUSSION ON TROLLEY BARN USES This item has been postponed until the October 26th meeting. [NOTE: THE ORDER OF ITEMS 5 & 6 WAS SWITCHED] 6. UNCOMMON - 310 S. COLLEGE - REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and request for recommendation to Decision Maker of a proposed 6-story mixed use building at 310 South College Avenue. The project is adjacent to several buildings that are designated on the National Register of Historic Places and as Fort Collins Landmarks. This Project Development Plan (PDP) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. APPLICANT: Cathy Mathis, Birdsall Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, which included a description of the project, an explanation of how the adjacencies were defined, an overview of the relevant Land Use Code sections, and Staff’s conclusions and recommendation. Clark Mapes, City Planner, noted that the Commission had previously requested the staff analysis for the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z), so his preliminary staff report had also been included in the packet. Spencer Branson, Planning Technician, explained the technology used to create the model of the downtown area and how it was used for the presentation. He then gave a presentation illustrating the differences between the contextual images submitted by the Applicant and those generated by City Staff using modeling techniques. Applicant Presentation Chair Sladek asked the Applicant to focus their comments on the changes to the project since the September 28th work session. Lucia Liley, the attorney representing the Applicant, provided some opening remarks. She described the disagreement between the Applicant and City Staff over the interpretation and application of Land Use Code (LUC) 3.4.7 subsections B and F. Subsection F contains specific criteria that must be followed, as well as specific definitions of what historic structures must be considered, and these were the standards with which the Applicant has endeavored to comply. Alternatively, Subsection B includes a General Standard which she believes Staff has misapplied with regard to this project. Ms. Liley argued that the more specific standard should be used, rather than the more subjective general standard. She gave several examples of other developments in the area that had been approved, asserting that the standards had not been applied consistently to those and the Applicant’s project. Ms. Liley questioned the area of adjacency established by Staff, stating that no basis had been provided for it. She went on to explain the Applicants had done their best to comply with the feedback received from Staff and from the LPC, despite the lack of specifics provided. She read from the City’s adopted Downtown Plan, pointing out how the proposed project supports its vision and goals. She said that the Applicant had received nothing from staff to explain what the negative impact of this project would be on adjacent historic properties, and asked that the Commission keep all this in mind as the architect presents the designs. Chris Johnson with CA Ventures, the project’s developer, continued the Applicant presentation. He gave a brief overview of the company’s experience and history of working with landmarked properties in other communities. He discussed how they approached the challenge to be compatible in this transition area surrounded by varied building sizes and styles. He talked about the changes they’ve made to the project based on Staff and stakeholder input. He read portions of the letters of support in the packet from the owners of the Armstrong Hotel and the DDA. He also read a letter of support from the leaders of the Mountain View Church which was not previously submitted. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3801 : Minutes of October 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 5 October 14, 2015 Eduardo Illanes from OZ Architecture presented the project plans and designs in detail. The presentation included in the packet had been updated, and the revised presentation was entered into the record. Throughout the presentation, Mr. Illanes drew the Commission’s attention to changes made since the work session. He also pointed out areas where their proposed design is below the allowable height limitations for Old Town and has exceeded the step-back requirements. Mr. Illanes talked about creating what they call the “Paseo” for pedestrian connectivity, and how they plan to incorporate benches, planters and possibly some public art. He also addressed the materials to be used, as well as building signage. [Timestamp: 7:35 p.m.] Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked that the Commission first address the project adjacencies. A Member asked Staff to explain the rationale for defining the area of adjacency as a half block around the block on which the property sits. Ms. McWilliams said that due to the mass, bulk, height and visibility of the building, it would be very visible from a half block around. While there was no requirement that the area be rectangular or square, they chose to define it that way for simplicity. Answering a question from the Chair, Mr. Yatabe explained that the LPC is not bound by that definition and has the ability to identify adjacencies as they see fit. A Member read the list of eight historic properties within the half block radius identified on page 115 of the agenda packet. Another Member suggested adding the two-story apartment building across the alley to the southeast, which dates back to the 1960’s and appears to be intact, citing that LUC Section 3.4.7 mentions potentially eligible sites. One Member recalled that at the work session, there seemed to be a consensus that the Armstrong Hotel was the only property they felt was truly adjacent, or would be impacted by the project. Members discussed whether the adjacencies should be extended to include other historic retail buildings, such as those within the 200 block of College Avenue. It was noted that the buildings immediately across Olive were not eligible. The Commission also discussed whether the Applicant should be expected to make the new building relate to surrounding residential properties in terms of architectural elements. A couple of Members expressed particular concern with the lack of transition to a six-6 story building, particularly in light of the considerable bulk in the back. A Member suggested adding the Old Post Office and Wells Fargo to the list of adjacencies, given that they are in the line of sight, and two other Members voiced support for those additions. One Member inquired as to how others felt the properties other than the Armstrong Hotel would be impacted by this project. No one offered any specific comments about that. There was a brief discussion about what might be eligible on the 100-200 block of College Avenue, for example the Aggie Theater or what used to be a car dealership at the corner of Olive and College. Ms. McWilliams said she didn’t have that information immediately available, but that the buildings had not been reviewed recently, and would need to be looked at again. Chair Sladek conducted an informal poll among the Commission to determine whether there was support to include the houses and church along Remington with the list of adjacencies, and the majority agreed. Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission determine that the list of adjacencies for consideration as the context of the Uncommon PDP# 150013 be the following:  The Armstrong Hotel, 259 South College Avenue  Residences, or former residences, located at 220, 408, 412, 416, 418 and 420 Remington Street 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3801 : Minutes of October 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 6 October 14, 2015  The two-story apartment building at 317 Remington Street  Mountain View Church at 328 Remington Street  The Old Post Office at 201 South College Avenue  The Wells Fargo Bank building at 401 South College Avenue Ms. Dunn seconded. Motion passed 6-2, with Zink and Lingle dissenting. Commission Questions and Discussion In response to a Commission question about an image in the staff presentation, Mr. Illanes clarified that there is no parking lot on the alley side of the building. He then asked the Commission how the one- and two-story historic homes on Remington are to be addressed in terms of compatibility. Two Members explained that the issue was not about the residential architecture, but rather how the project relates to the homes on Remington in terms of mass and scale on its backside. The Commission discussed that this is a transitional area, making it difficult to apply the adjacencies. One Member questioned whether the Commission would ever be able to approve a 7- to 9-story building, as allowed on this block by the Downtown Plan, if they are defining adjacencies as anything within in the line of sight. Other Members said that with proper articulation, set-backs and step-backs, it would be possible for a building of that height to be compatible. Members discussed how the project could impact the adjacent properties, noting that it impacts the setting, and therefore had the potential to impact eligibility at some point. Commission Members said there were many elements of the design that are positive and are compatible with the context, but most of the Members continued to be troubled by the sheer mass, especially in the back of the building. Mr. Ernest put forth a motion to disapprove, but withdrew the motion so that the Commission could define the relevant findings of fact. Members proposed various findings of fact. A Member commented that the materials used create some congruency with the adjacent Armstrong Hotel, which is an element of the design that does comply with 3.4.7. They discussed the wording of their findings, mostly regarding the scale and massing, and leaning toward support for a recommendation to disapprove. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board disapproval of the Uncommon PDP #150013 finding that the proposed building does not comply fully with Section 3.4.7(B) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, which states that “the development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value” of adjacent historic properties, and that “new structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” In particular, the following features do not protect the adjacent properties’ historic value and are incompatible with the area’s historic character: 1. The project is not compatible in terms of its scale and massing in light of the general standard in 3.4.7(B). 2. The project does not use traditional proportions and historic modules that are typical of the adjacent historic properties. 3. The project does not use massing location and appropriate step-backs that would mitigate the massing and scale of the adjacent historic properties. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Mr. Lingle said he was not going to support the motion because by finding that the project is not compatible, the Commission would be saying it’s harming the adjacent historic properties, but he hasn’t heard any evidence to show how or why. Chair Sladek said the back of the building is not compatible along Remington, and that it impacts the setting and context of the historic buildings. Mr. Ernest read the definition of “compatibility” from the Land Use Code, concluding that the project was not in harmony with its adjacencies. Motion passed 6-2 with Zink & Lingle dissenting. [Timestamp: 9:22 p.m.] 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3801 : Minutes of October 14, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 7 October 14, 2015 5. DISCUSSION OF USES FOR THE CREAMERY BUTTERFLY BUILDING ITEM DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to gather feedback from the landmark Preservation Commission regarding proposed uses for the Trolley Barn on North Howes Street, with consideration of how each use might affect both the building and the site. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented a brief staff report. Applicant Presentation Brian Hergott from City of Fort Collins Operations Services gave the Applicant presentation. Commission Questions and Discussion Members inquired about the status of the building’s designation. Staff said that City Management committed to designating the Butterfly Building, the Haston Oil property, and the former City Hall (now Operations Services). The Commission had previously specified that it didn’t want to move forward with designation until construction of its setting is finished. In response to a Commission question, Mr. Hergott said the site plan is the same one that the LPC approved in February. Members discussed the plan for reproducing the sign. Mr. Hergott said steel structure is completed, but they are waiting for a tenant for the space before completing it. Staff confirmed that the Dairy Gold name was not trademarked, and could be used for the sign. Members commented that lettering of the sign could be flexible depending on the tenant and use. The City will maintain ownership of the building, but may lease it to a private enterprise. When asked, the Commission did not specify any restrictions on exterior modifications, but said they should be minimal and would need to be approved by the LPC. Some repairs have been made to the building, including removing lead paint and installing windows. The building will have all utilities, and the interior will be subject to tenant finish. A Member asked whether there was a possibility that the City would work with a tenant on the finish. Mr. Hergott said they could discuss that. There was also a question raised about whether there were possible state tax credits or DDA incentive programs that a tenant may be able to access, but that information was not available. Mr. Hergott asked whether someone from the Commission would want to participate in a Committee to review proposals in December. Chair Sladek asked for the Commission to be notified about that so they could get someone involved. [Timestamp: 9:53 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS None  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. 1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: LPC Oct. 14 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3801 : Minutes of October 14, 2015) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 18, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 26, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 26, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC Oct 26 2015 Minutes DRAFT (DOC) 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Fort Collins Page 1 October 26, 2015 Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Kristin Gensmer 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Belinda Zink on the Comcast cable system Tom Leeson Karen McWilliams Maren Bzdek Gino Campana Staff Liaison, PDT Director Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting October 26, 2015 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Gensmer, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace, Lingle STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. Landmark Preservation Commission 2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: LPC Oct 26 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3802 : Minutes of October 26, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 2 October 26, 2015 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 9, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek requested a correction on Page 7 of the minutes where it states “…the project is within a historic district…”, since it is actually adjacent to, not within, the historic district. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 9, 2015 including the correction recommended by the Chair. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:36 p.m.] 2. 359 LINDEN STREET, FEEDER SUPPLY, PRELIMINARY HEARING ON MINOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the preliminary review of a Minor Amendment to Approved Plans for this site, in preparation for returning at a later meeting for a recommendation on the Minor Amendment to the decision maker. The previous owner, Jon Prouty, had a Project Development Plan (#PDP130012) approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on August 8, 2013. APPLICANT: Frank Vaught and Chris Aronson, VFLA Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, which had been updated since the packet was compiled. The revised staff report was entered into the record, and hard copies were distributed to the Commission just prior to the hearing. Applicant Presentation Mr. Vaught and Mr. Aronson gave the Applicant presentation, representing the owners, Jack and Ginger Graham. [NOTE: The presentation had been updated since the agenda packet was published, and had not yet been seen by the Commission or Staff.] They explained the changes they had made since the last time the project came to the LPC. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Ernest disclosed that he was absent for the previous work session, but did listen to the audio recording for that discussion so that he could participate in tonight’s proceedings. Chair Sladek directed the Commission to first establish the adjacencies to the project. There appeared to be a consensus that the adjacencies established in the updated staff report were appropriate. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the adjacencies for the Feeder Supply project minor amendment as two buildings, the Union Pacific Railroad Freight Depot at 350 Linden Street, and the historic residential building at 320 Willow. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 6-0. One Member noted that the design was greatly improved since the previous session, having a solidity that is more compatible with the historic architecture. He and also stated that the site wall and the folding glass wall are very important to maintaining a street edge and some alignment with the historic building. The Member also commented on the materials, and liked the fact that the brick was somewhat different than the historic brick. A Member inquired about signage and whether it would be visible enough for retail, and the Applicant said they were still discussing the signage. 2.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: LPC Oct 26 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3802 : Minutes of October 26, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 3 October 26, 2015 Members expressed support for the idea of adding an antique truck to the scale, saying it fits with the character of the building. They would also like to see interpretive signage about the building as a whole, the scale, and why the truck was there. There was an inquiry about the entrances to the building, and the Applicant explained that the primary retail entrance is on the historic building and the entrance for the addition in between. The Applicant mentioned that the main entrance is not code compliant, explaining that they will add rails on both sides, and there is an alternative entrance for ADA accessibility. Another Member asked what type of windows would replace the vent windows. The Applicant said they would be divided lights, not aluminum storefront, including the windows higher on the wall. Additional discussion about the window replacements revealed serious concerns about replacing historic windows. The Commission requested more information about the condition of the windows in order to justify their replacement, as well as documentation and detailed drawings on the window replacements, including details on materials. There were also concerns expressed about distinguishing between old and new windows. Chair Sladek asked Staff whether new window openings had been discussed when they had reviewed a previous proposal for this site from another Applicant. Ms. McWilliams stated that the staff at the National Register had refused to allow any new windows along the Willow side at that time, since that would substantially change the character of the mill. While they preferred no new windows on the Linden side, they had ultimately agreed to two new windows, but dictated that they were to be much smaller than the existing historic windows and set back as far as possible. Ms. McWilliams added that she had not seen the Applicant’s updated designs at the time she prepared the staff report, so her comments that the project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards may not be completely accurate at this point. Chair Sladek stressed the need for the Commission to protect the building’s National Register status, noting that changes in windows can jeopardize that. Mr. Aronson stated he believed they can achieve differentiation between the old and new windows. Chair Sladek added that if the side windows were to be approved, they would have to go back to the smaller size windows proposed in the previous design. A Member asked about the pattern of the new brick. Mr. Aronson said they were looking at brick detailing to break up the mass, possibly using a soldier course and a corbel, but they are still working on that detail. The Member said the brick detail responds to the historic architecture, but cautioned against becoming distracting. One Member commented about the improvements to the alley on the Linden side, noting that it opened up the front corridor, and also said the change in material was helpful. Another Member commented that the use of the c-channel was a nice historic detail. Commission Feedback Chair Sladek summarized the Commission’s feedback in relation to 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, saying that other than the major question of the windows and replacing the louvered vents, the project seems to be on a good track, and is largely compliant with the Land Use Code. While the project seems to meet the requirements of 3.4.7 in its massing, pedestrian scale and relationship with the street, the Commission needs to see an extremely detailed plan for the windows before they can consider approval. [Timestamp: 6:35 p.m.] 3. DISCUSSION ON TROLLEY BARN USES The purpose of this item is to gather feedback from the Landmark Preservation Commission regarding proposed uses for the Trolley Barn on North Howes Street, with consideration of how each use might affect both the building and the site. Staff Report Sam Houghteling with the Economic Health Office presented the staff report, as included in the packet. 2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: LPC Oct 26 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3802 : Minutes of October 26, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 4 October 26, 2015 Public Input Asad Aziz, introduced himself as a Fort Collins resident for over 35 years and a faculty member at CSU in the College of Business. He is also a volunteer motorman, helps with the restoration of car 25, and serves as the treasurer for the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society. He said that part of the historical significance of the building is its use as a maintenance, storage and restoration facility for the cars, and asked for consideration in continuing that use. Carol Tunner, former LPC Member and retired City Preservation Planner, stated that according to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the use of a structure should be as close to the original use as possible. She explained that a bay is being used as a shop for the restoration of car 25, an activity for which there is no room in the other barn. The interior of the building is very significant because of its use. The back half of the building is used by the museum for storage of historic artifacts, and they had made a sizable investment to make it climate controlled for that purpose. The library also uses the north third of the building for storage. Ms. Tunner said there have been ongoing discussions about using the building as a fire fighter museum. She stressed that the space is needed for these activities, and encouraged the Commission to consider its original use. She provided some history about the trolley project she started in 1977, at which time the building needed a new roof and had been condemned. In the early 90’s, she attempted to get the property designated, but there was no funding to put a roof on it. She helped the City obtain a federal grant to restore the roof, after which they were able to get the building designated locally. Additional federal and state grants were obtained to complete work on the exterior and interior. In one of the grant applications, the intended use was actually identified as a transportation and fire fighters museum, and she would like to see that happen. She also commented that the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society wasn’t notified about the surveys or walking tours that had taken place. She implored the Commission to protect the exterior and interior of the building. Commission Questions and Discussion There was discussion about the City referring to the building as the Car Barn instead of the Trolley Barn, which was for the purpose of distinguishing between the two Trolley Barns, the historic one on Howes, and the newer one in the park on Mountain. The one on Howes was officially called the Street Car Barn on the historic designation. A Member pointed out that it loses its association with the trolley by calling it the Car Barn. Ms. Tunner added that it was originally the Street Car Barn when it was built in 1907, but that citizens would often shorten the name to the Car Barn. It was never called the Trolley Barn until they started the project in 1977. The Commission agreed that they would like to see the City refer to it as the Street Car Barn. A Member asked the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society members in attendance how much of the space they are using, and also what their arrangement was with the City for access and use of the buildings. Mr. Aziz said they are using 1½ bays for restoration, a storage and work area going almost to the back wall, and a small office space for filing and equipment. He is unsure what percentage of the space they are using, but described the area as going from north-most door all the way to the north corner, and then all the way to the back. They have locked access, keys and keypad locks. As far as whether there is a lease arrangement with the City, Mr. Aziz didn’t know, but offered to get that information. Mr. Houghteling offered that the building is roughly 15,000 square feet, about 5,000 of which is used for the Discovery Museum, 2,000 - 3,000 for the library, leaving roughly 7,000 feet for bay area. There was some discussion between Staff and the Commission as to the possibility of sharing the space with a new tenant for a farmer’s market or other use. Mr. Houghteling said based on their outreach, a farmer’s market was the most popular idea, but the community is also set on maintaining the historic character of the building, so hybrid uses may be considered. The idea of a transportation exhibit was mentioned, as well as continuing the trolley line from Mountain to Howes to allow for a running trolley on the weekends. Mr. Houghteling also said that it was premature to discuss any modifications or alterations that may be required to accommodate a new tenant or use. Chair Sladek asked what had prompted the discussion about uses for the site. Mr. Houghteling said that their outreach was a direct result of three unsolicited proposals they had received over the past three years. There is no strong push on the City’s part to pursue other uses. 2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: LPC Oct 26 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3802 : Minutes of October 26, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 5 October 26, 2015 A Member asked whether the extension of the rail line would be possible once the proposed municipal campus is built. Mr. Houghteling was not sure, but in the latest plans, one of the options put City Hall on Howes, diverting traffic on either side. The Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society had indicated that would make a federal landmark designation for the street car system problematic. Staff has included that information in their memo to City Council. There was a question about what would happen to other City vehicles that were being stored in the building, including busses, trucks and fire engines. Mr. Houghteling said they were currently investigating that. A Member expressed a strong preference for the City to retain ownership, and Mr. Houghteling responded that the City has no desire to sell the building. Some Members said the Municipal Railway’s restoration work was the most appropriate use of the building and they would be concerned about changing the use unless it’s for something related, such as a museum. They also stressed that preserving the interior is as important as the exterior. Others felt the space was being underutilized, and liked the idea of a hybrid use. Members asked whether the library and museum had a contingency plan, and Staff said they did not. One Member thanked Mr. Houghteling for specifically asking about preserving the historic character in their survey. Mr. Houghteling will update the LPC as they have more information. [Timestamp: 7:12 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS None  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. 2.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: LPC Oct 26 2015 Minutes DRAFT (3802 : Minutes of October 26, 2015) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Kaitlin Dorn, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Design Review of a proposed addition to 321 N. Whitcomb Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 161, 2014), constructed in 1912. The proposed addition will include a new one-story addition (260 square feet). APPLICANT: Kate A. Polk, Property Owner 321 N. Whitcomb Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Kate Polk 321 N. Whitcomb Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the rear addition to the Garcia Property located at 321 N. Whitcomb Street, as presented, finding that such work would meet the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The property owner, Kate A. Polk, is seeking a final design review of a proposed rear addition to her residence. This property was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 161, 2014, under Criterion A for its representation of broad immigration patterns in early 20th century Fort Collins; and its association with a once predominantly Hispanic area of the West Side neighborhood centered around the Holy Family Catholic Church. The property was also designated under Criterion C for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a hipped roof Classic Cottage. Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code requires this Final Hearing before the Landmark Preservation Commission to complete the application. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: Constructed in 1912, this structure’s form and style illustrate the convergence of early-twentieth century ideologies. Fish scale shingles and spindle posts were modest outward expressions common to the late-Victorian era. The small size and simple form of this home are indicative of modest living. Thus this home illustrates owners who had modest means, yet were conscious of at least some outward expressions. The home at 321 North Whitcomb also stands as a testament of the vitality of the Hispanic community in Fort Collins and represents the broad immigration patterns of the early twentieth century. Due to its proximity to Holy Family Catholic Church-just a few yards down the road-this home and the neighborhood to which it belongs served for several decades as a haven for Hispanic immigrants to Fort Collins, as they were often segregated from the 3 Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 larger community. A priest at Holy Family Church recommended to Alejandro Garcia that he move his family into this particular home after emigrating from Mexico, very likely to be closer to the local congregation. Alejandro, his family, and neighbors worked in nearby mines, sugar beet fields, and in other manual labor positions. This home is symbolic of the lifestyle and vitality of the Hispanic Fort Collins community that proved so vital to the economic growth of the city. Finally, this home’s exterior integrity remains largely intact. No later than the early 1920s a large addition was made to the rear of the home, but that addition has now stood as part of the original home for approximately ninety years and serves to further illustrate the needs of the home’s occupants. In the 1970s, that addition’s outer walls were covered with drop board siding to match the rest of the home’s exterior. Other than a few more minor efforts to repair or maintain the structure, it remains largely unaltered from its original appearance. Coupled with its association with broad patterns of style and immigration in the early twentieth century, this home exhibits all seven aspects of exterior integrity. More detailed architectural and historical information can be found in the attached Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The owners would like to expand the residence’s rear addition by approximately 260 square feet extending west from the building. There are two additions on the rear. The first addition includes the northernmost room and the existing kitchen. The second addition includes the southernmost room, which was a patio, later enclosed. These additions were completed between 1920 and 1970. The new addition will be one story and will increase the ceiling height from 7’-0” to 8’-0”. At its widest, the addition will cover approximately half of the existing addition on the west elevation. The proposal includes removing the lean-to roof and creating a gabled roof. The peak of the proposed gable roof is lower than the peak of the original portion’s hipped roof. Going clockwise around the demolition plan, the following will be removed: half glass metal door, on the eastern elevation; aluminum slider window, on the southern elevation; non-historic slider window, non-historic wood door, wood slider window and metal awning, on the west elevation. Roughly two-thirds of the western and south exterior walls will be removed. Going clockwise around the proposed floor plan, the following will be added: one 2’-6” x 3’-6” wood double hung window, on the eastern elevation; a set of five 2’-6” x 2’-6” wood awning windows and one 2’-6” x 2’-6” wood awning window, on the southern elevation; a full glass wood door flanked by two 2’-0” x 5’-0” double hung windows, on the west elevation of the proposed addition; two 2’-6” x 2’-6” wood awning windows and a set of full glass wood double doors, on the north elevation; and one 4’-0” x 3’-6” wood slider window on the west elevation of the first addition. The historic windows were rehabilitated through the Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Zero % Interest Loan Program. This design was developed by contractor Kevin Murray, using the City’s Design Assistance Program. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work”: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. 3 Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the plans and specifications for the proposed work if it agrees with the following findings: that the Commission finds that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14- 46 of the Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION: The Landmark Preservation Commission approves the plans and specifications for the proposed work, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Submittal (PDF) 2. Location Map (JPG) 3. Photographs (PDF) 4. 321 N. Whitcomb final review (PPTX) 3 Packet Pg. 20 3.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.b Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Location Map (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Photographs (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1 Final Review of Rear Addition to 321 N. Whitcomb Street Karen McWilliams, Maren Bzdek & Katie Dorn Historic Preservation Staff Landmark Preservation Commission November 18, 2015 3.d Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 2 The Garcia Property 321 N. Whitcomb Street 3.d Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3 Location 3.d Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 4 Local Landmark Designation • Construction Date: 1912 • Designated as a local landmark by Ordinance No. 161 in 2014 • Designation Standard A: representation of broad immigration patterns in early 20th century Fort Collins; association with a once predominantly Hispanic area of the West Side neighborhood centered around the Holy Family Catholic Church • Designation Standard C: embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a hipped roof Classic Cottage 3.d Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5 Project Summary • One-story rear addition • Roof • Remove lean-to roof from old addition • Build gable roof to connect old and new additions into original portion of house • Windows • West (rear) Elevation – new window above kitchen sink and new door on addition flanked by two new windows • South (left) Elevation – two new windows to match existing old addition • Design Assistance from Kevin Murray 3.d Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6 Site Plan 3.d Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 7 Drawings 3.d Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 8 Photos 3.d Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9 Photos North Oblique Perspective South Elevation 3.d Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 10 Thank You 3.d Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 321 N. Whitcomb final review (3798 : 321 N. WHITCOMB STREET - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed addition to 419 Whedbee Street, a single-family home in the Laurel School Historic District constructed in 1901. The proposed addition will include a new second-floor addition (617 square feet) APPLICANT: Melanie and Rich Davis 419 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 8052 OWNER: Melanie and Rich Davis 419 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission approve the application for the addition to 419 Whedbee Street, based on the applicant’s full compliance with Section 14-72 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: As provided for in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, also known as the Demolition/Alteration Review process, this property was reviewed in May 2015 for its eligibility to qualify as a Fort Collins Landmark, and to determine if the proposed work would impact that eligibility. The Landmark Preservation Commission Chair and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services determined that the property retains a preponderance of historic integrity and is individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Criterion C, as a good example of a “Gabled Ell” style, and that the proposed addition would be considered “major” work, adversely impact several aspects of historic integrity, and potentially affecting the building’s eligibility. Following the determination, as outlined in Municipal Code Section 14-72, the property was posted to allow any citizen of Fort Collins the opportunity to appeal the determinations of eligibility and of the extent of proposed work. Neither decision was appealed. Chapter 14-72 of the Municipal Code requires this Final Hearing before the Landmark Preservation Commission to complete the application. The Final Hearing has submittal requirements, including, in part, the documentation of the property using the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form; fully approved plans for the proposed work; a plan of protection for other adjacent historic resources; and a public hearing, with notification of nearby property owners. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: Constructed in 1901, this modest, one-story, single family dwelling is a well-preserved example of Vernacular/Folk Victorian domestic architecture. It was identified as a contributing 4 Packet Pg. 42 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District when the district was established in 1980. It sits on a relatively large 9,500 square-foot parcel, which is part of a residential block of wood-frame, 1 and 1-1/2 story structures built between 1894 and 1908.The building is 1,204 finished square feet and also includes a crawl space. It is composed of intersecting gabled wings with a 14-by-22 foot section with a low-pitched roof at the junction. The house sits on a brick perimeter foundation and is clad with horizontal wood clapboard siding. Its character-defining features include the ell-shaped form of intersecting gabled wings; an open front porch, 6-by-14 feet, on the north façade; steeply pitched gables; and original 1/1 double-hung wood sash windows. The only ornamental detail is an apparently modern, fixed stained glass window on the north elevation. The property also contains a small, single- story wood frame outbuilding that appears largely unmodified, with the exception of an attached lean-to addition. Despite a listed date of 1904 in the Larimer County Assessor’s property record, available evidence shows this dwelling was probably constructed in 1901. Other than changes to the outbuildings and driveway on the property, records indicate a few changes to the main building on the property. The house has had at least three different types of siding: original siding that was likely narrow wood clapboard, painted white; asbestos or composition shingles; and red-painted, wide clapboard siding installed sometime between 1969 and 1995. A frame porch was constructed in 1925. Additionally, the brick chimney stack that rose from the ridgeline of the side-gabled portion of the house until at least 1969 is no longer extant. The house was one of a number of dwellings built during a thirty-year period between 1873 and 1903 in various locations in the southern and western portions of Franklin Avery’s original town plat. It pre-dates by several years the period of home construction associated with the opening of the sugar beet factory. A streetcar line passed in front of the house from 1909 to 1951. Its original occupant was Mrs. Louise F. Achzig, a housekeeper who lived in the home with her daughters, Elizabeth and Mabel Achzig, who worked as telephone operators. Subsequent occupants of the home included a sugar beet factory laborer and his family, a glazer who worked for a local company, “Black the Glass Man,” and his wife; a railroad trackman and his family; several retirees; a stenographer; a janitor; a carpenter; and the owner of a dry cleaning business. More detailed architectural and historical information can be found in the attached Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is proposing to construct a second-floor addition of 617 square feet on the west (rear) elevation. The addition will include two bedrooms and one full bathroom. The project also includes a minor kitchen remodel and main floor alterations to install stairs that will access the new addition. The addition will be constructed within the same footprint as the existing home and will create a second-story in the rear that will be visible from the front and side elevations. The existing roof will be removed and new structural beams and floor joists will be installed. No existing windows will be removed or replaced. The existing garage will not be altered. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff finds that the applicant has complied with all of the required provisions of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. This public hearing is the last requirement. Staff has received five letters of support from neighbors for the proposed addition and no comments to date expressing opposition to the proposed work. At this hearing, the Commission, after reviewing the evidence presented, shall approve the application if it agrees that no additional information is needed for the full and complete consideration of the request by the Commission, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark designation of the property. Alternatively, the Commission may postpone consideration of the application, for a period not to exceed 45 days (in this case, by January 2, 2016), if it determines that additional information is needed for the full and complete consideration of the request by the Commission, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark designation of the property. 4 Packet Pg. 43 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. DavisAddition041415 (PDF) 2. Elevations_419 Whedbee (PDF) 3. 419 Whedbee Plan Protection (2) (PDF) 4. Letters from neighbors_419 Whedbee (PDF) 5. Floor Plan dimensions 11-5-15 (PDF) 6. Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 44 4.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: DavisAddition041415 (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: DavisAddition041415 (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: DavisAddition041415 (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL 4.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Elevations_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Davis Rear 2nd Story Addition: 419 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: Jeffrey J. Schneider President; Armstead Construction, Inc. 1.0 Introduction: - This project is located at 419 Whedbee Street in the Downtown Eastside neighborhood which includes adding a new second floor addition to be 617 square feet. The addition will include two new bedrooms and a full bathroom to allow for extra space for growing teenage girls to have their own space. All of the work will be completed and supervised by Armstead Construction, Inc. This addition will be constructed to the rear partition of the home that is not to affect the original footprint but over additions that have been constructed in past years. - The property is located in the NCM Zone District which would allow 3375 square feet of habitable space. The existing home is 1204 square feet and the new addition would add 617 square feet which still leaves 1554 square feet allowed to be added in the future. - There is an existing detached 216 square feet garage or shed that will remain untouched or disturbed in the construction process. - The property to the north is 415 Whedbee Street which consists of a 970 square foot home that was constructed in 1899. The property to the south is 423 Whedbee Street which consists of a 1030 square foot home that was constructed in 1901. All of this information was obtained through the Larimer County Assessor Property Information page via the web site. 2.0 Scope Of Work: - The addition to allow the second floor to be constructed is to include deconstruction of the existing roof and install new structural beams and floor joist to comply with the construction plans. The original footprint of the home and its roof will not be impacted or removed to allow for the new addition. With the new addition there will be no excavation associated with the project or affecting the existing grade or drainage around the home or adjacent properties. None of the work will affect the existing detached shed or the neighboring properties. P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970) 472-1113 • Fax (970) 472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com 4.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 419 Whedbee Plan Protection (2) (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities: - Nick Polka will be the on-site project manager who will be responsible for overseeing daily construction operations; he may be reached at 970-980-1435. As well Jeff Schneider owner of Armstead Construction is involved in all construction operations on a daily basis and can be reached at 970-566-9971. 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials: - The deconstruction will be completed by authorized professionals that are allowed to mitigate the Lead and Asbestos that is contained on site. All non- contaminated materials will be removed and disposed of in trash containers and removed from the site. If existing materials can be donated they will, but most all of the deconstruction will need to be mitigated to meet state and federal guidelines. 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property: - 5.1 Site Conservation: There will not be any heavy equipment needed for the construction nor will there be any impact to the existing drainage. - 5.2 Demolition of Building: All deconstruction will be done by hand or labor as not to include heavy equipment. - 5.3 Foundation Stability: The new structural supports will only include concrete footing and no excavation will be required to comply with the construction plans. - 5.4 Structural: All of the new structural materials will comply with the construction plan and will be installed in a manner that will not affect the existing lath and plaster ceiling on the main floor. - 5.5 New Construction: All new materials will be installed to preserve the existing home not to be damaged during the construction process. All efforts will be made to protect the existing home form any and all damage to the existing finishes. - 5.6 Historic Opening & Materials: There will be no existing windows to be removed or replaced with the current scope of work. - 5.7 New Openings: All of the new opening and or windows will be energy efficient units to comply with the construction plans. - 5.8 Floor Framing: The new floor joists will be installed over the existing first floor walls and structure to allow the existing ceiling finishes to remain intact during the construction process. All construction will comply with the construction plans provided by local professionals. - 5.9 Roof Structural & Roof Framing: All existing roof structure will be deconstructed by hand and the new roof will be stick built by hand and comply with the construction plans. P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970) 472-1113 • Fax (970) 472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com 4.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 419 Whedbee Plan Protection (2) (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) - 5.10 Structural Loads: All structural loads have been evaluated by a local structural engineer and complies with local building codes through the permitting process. All work and new construction will comply with construction plans. - 5.11 Supporting & Shoring Existing Structure: All construction shall comply with the construction plans and need to support or protect the existing structure. - 5.12 Excavation & Shoring Existing Structure: There is no excavation or shoring under the current scope of work or the current project in for permit. 6.0 Documentation for Record: - Please see the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13827 created by Retrospect and Jason Marmor in the submittal packet. All documents and relevant information will be kept on site during the construction process in our site construction binder. 7.0 Archeology: - There is no need for any excavation for this project, but if something is found unexpectedly then we will contact the City to determine the proper authorities that need to be contacted to determine relevance and next steps. P.O. Box 330 • La Porte, CO 80535 Office (970) 472-1113 • Fax (970) 472-8313 www.armsteadconstruction.com 4.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 419 Whedbee Plan Protection (2) (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Maren Bzdek From: Dan Dupon <dpdupon@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:40 AM To: Karen McWilliams Subject: 419 Whedbee Karen, I received the letter regarding a final public hearing for historic preservation review of the proposed alteration of 419 Whedbee Street. As such, I reviewed the proposed design plans and, having no issue with the plans, support this project moving forward. Regards, Dan Dupon Owner of 508 Smith Street Sent from my iPhone 4.d Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Letters from neighbors_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Maren Bzdek From: Josh Fay <faydrienne@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 3:16 PM To: Karen McWilliams Subject: 419 Whedbee Street My wife and I would like to voice our support for the renovation planned for 419 Whedbee Street. We are the homeowners or 503 Whedbee Street. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. -- Josh Fay Sent with Airmail 4.d Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Letters from neighbors_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Maren Bzdek From: gjmeyerfc@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:22 AM To: Karen McWilliams Subject: Davis addition I want to show my support for the proposed addition to Rich and Melanie Davis home on Whedbee. The addition will allow them to have a more livable home while keeping with the historic nature of the East Side Historic District. In many ways, this addition reminds me of the one done several years ago to a home on the SW corner of Smith and Laurel. I hope the committee will pass the project without any additional delay. Gene Meyer 504 Smith FC 80524 Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App 4.d Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Letters from neighbors_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Maren Bzdek From: jbvarnier@gmail.com on behalf of Jean Baptiste Varnier <jbvarnier@ou.edu> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:31 AM To: Karen McWilliams Subject: 419 Whedbee St - Proposal Dear Karen, We are the owners of the house at 427 Whedbee St. We are contacting you to show our support for the proposal of the house expansion at 419 Whedbee St. Feel free to call us if you have any questions. Jean-Baptiste and Michaela Varnier 970-779-4093 4.d Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Letters from neighbors_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Maren Bzdek From: Toby Wright <wrightenv@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:15 AM To: Karen McWilliams Cc: Sarah Burnett Subject: 419 Whedbee St. Dear Ms. McWilliams; I am writing you to express my support of the proposed renovation and expansion of the Davis house at 419 Whedbee St. I live just few blocks away (Olive st. and Peterson st.), am also a resident of the Laurel School National Register District, and I pass this residence frequently. I have reviewed the proposed plans and find that the alterations only modify the roof line and profile of the rear of the house. I find the general street-view aesthetic and the vast majority of the house's basic structural elements remain intact. Though these modifications do alter the rear building roof line and profile, I feel that the impact is negligible to me as a neighborhood resident and that the historic context, visual aesthetic, and my sense of the historic value remain largely unimpaired. The "bones" of the original structure and the various older alterations, remain essentially intact with this proposal. I do understand that the proposed alterations may change how the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) considers the property as "contributing" to the District. However, I feel that the proposed plan provides a reasonable balance between the owner's wishes and conservation of the historical character of the neighborhood's structures. I encourage the LPC to approve the proposed plan. . Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding my support for this project. Toby Wright 226 Peterson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 231-1160 WrightEnv@gmail.com 4.d Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Letters from neighbors_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.e Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Floor Plan dimensions 11-5-15 (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4.f Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Inventory Form_419 Whedbee (3809 : 419 WHEDBEE STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANS STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and request for Recommendation to Decision Maker for a Minor Amendment to Approved Plans regarding a proposed rehabilitation and new addition to the Feeders Supply building at 359 Linden Street. The Planning and Zoning Board approved a Project Development Plan (#PDP130012) on August 8, 2013 for a previous owner of the property. The new owners are now proposing some alterations to the approved plans. The applicants are proposing to create a restaurant, bakery, cooking school, and retail establishment at this location. The applicants and an architectural design firm met with the Commission at a work session on June 24, 2015. Since then, the applicants, working with VFLA, have developed a different design for the project. Briefly, the new plans call for only minimal changes to the historic Feeders Supply building, and propose alterations to the design of the new building addition to the south. The new design calls for a two story addition, connected to the Feeder Supply towards the back of the historic building. The addition, which is set back from Linden Street, will have a triangular shaped roof, providing a site line to the Feeder Supply building. The Commission held a preliminary hearing on these plans on October 26, 2015. APPLICANT: Frank Vaught and Chris Aronson, VFLA OWNER: Jack and Ginger Graham RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation of approval to the Decision Maker for the Minor Amendment to Approved Plans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Feeders Supply building, at 359 Linden Street, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Properties. The building is also individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark recognition. Therefore the project needs to comply with the standards contained in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. LUC Section 3.4.7(6) provides the authority for this preliminary hearing, requiring that the decision maker, in its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to historic sites, structure, objects or districts shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. 5 Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 Area of Adjacency At its October 26, 2015 Preliminary Hearing on this project, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) members defined the Area of Adjacency as consisting of the Union Pacific Railroad Freight Depot, at 350 Linden Street, designated on the National Register of Historic Places; and the historic residential building at 320 Willow, previously evaluated as being individually eligible for National Register and Fort Collins Landmark designation. Compliance with Applicable Land Use Code Standards Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for new buildings where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project contains a historic building, and is adjacent to other such historic properties. Therefore, the project will need to comply with LUC Section 3.4.7. LUC Section 3.4.7(A), Purpose, states in pertinent part: “This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: … new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site.” This Purpose statement, while not setting forth a standard in and of itself, provides guidance in applying and interpreting the applicable standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7. LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard states in pertinent part: “…to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is (a) preserved and adoptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and…(1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; [or] (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” Staff finds that the project is designed to protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of historic properties on both the development site and in the surrounding neighborhood, and that the project is compatible with the historic character of such properties. LUC 3.4.7(D) Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions, states: “(1) Original or historic materials and details, as well as distinctive form and scale that contribute to the historic significance of the structure or neighborhood shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Rehabilitation work shall not destroy the distinguishing quality or character of the structure or its environment. (2) The rehabilitation of structures shall be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" or other adopted design guidelines or standards.” Staff believes that the Standards in LUC 3.4.7(D) have been met. The development team has prepared a door and window condition survey to address the LPC’s stated concerns that these be repaired and preserved to the maximum extent feasible and that details about replacement window products be provided in advance. At the October 26, 2015 meeting, the development team also discussed solutions with the LPC for a design that would not visually separate the historic truck scale from the mill building, a concern expressed by the Commission at the June 24, 2015 review. The individual and collective effect of these changes better retains the aspects of integrity of the Feeder Supply building than the adopted plans, and fully complies with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings." 5 Packet Pg. 104 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 LUC 3.4.7(F) New Construction, states: “(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located…. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site.” Staff believes that the height, setback and width of the new structure are similar to the existing historic structures. The Feeder Supply building is a three-story building, with the third story contained within the gable roof behind a crenelated parapet. The historic rear portion is one story, with a nearly flat roof. The new addition is proposed to be two stories. It will be shorter in height that the main portion of the Feeder Supply building along the primary elevation along Linden Street. Along Willow Street, the new addition will be taller than the existing building; however, the addition is set well back from the Willow Street elevation, reducing its visual impact. The width of the new structure along Linden Street is consistent with the Feeder Supply Building. “(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.” Staff believes that the Standards in LUC 3.4.7(F)(2) have been substantially met. The proposed addition maintains many of the horizontal elements of the historic structure. The addition is set back further than the approved plan, and its open, triangular shape provides for a greater view of the historic building from Linden Street. The addition attaches to the historic building at a point farther back than shown in the approved plans, and in the proposed design, reviewed by the LPC on June 24, 2015. The new addition is proposed to be constructed with a large amount of glass, which, while dissimilar to the historic, has the effect of reducing the sense of overall mass. The pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street has been maintained to the maximum extent feasible. “(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.” The applicants are proposing to use cut sandstone for the base of the new building. This material was not used on the historic Feeder Supply building and is not commonly found in the National Register Historic District. However, this material has been identified in the River District Guidelines as one that may be considered, and it has been used in portions of other new construction nearby. At the October 26, 2015 meeting, the LPC did not express any concerns with proposed materials for the addition. “(4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.” Staff believes that this Standard has been met. The visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, consisting of the Old Town District and the Poudre River, have been preserved and enhanced, due to the new building’s larger setback and open design. “(5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. Staff is not aware of existing historic landscaping. 5 Packet Pg. 105 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 Staff Conclusion and Recommendation: Based on the detailed evaluation of the project’s compliance with code in the previous section, staff finds that the project substantially complies with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and recommends that the LPC make a recommendation of approval to the Decision Maker for the Minor Amendment to Approved Plans. Sample motion: The Commission finds that the project substantially complies with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and recommends approval for the Minor Amendment to Approved Plans to the Decision Maker. ATTACHMENTS 1. Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (PDF) 2. VicinityMap (JPG) 3. Adjacency photos (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 106 VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:16 PM COVER PAGE GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 GINGER AND BAKER AT 359 LINDEN STREET LPC HEARING PACKET 11/08/15 5.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Strength in design. Strength in partnership. Strength in community. VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 970.224.1191 108 East Lincolnway Cheyenne, WY 307.635.5710 w w w . v f l a . c o m November 8, 2015 City of Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission Fort Collins, Colorado Attention Karen McWilliams Re: 359 Linden Street Renovation Dear Mrs. McWilliams, We are pleased to present our proposed design for the renovation to 359 Linden Street (Feeder’s Supply Building). Based on the Commission’s comments at our work session on October 26, 2015 regarding the existing conditions of the windows, we have hired Mark Wernimont, of Colorado Sash and Door, to perform a detailed survey of the existing windows and doors. He has extensive knowledge of historic windows and we have included his resume in our submittal. He has documented the current conditions of the windows and doors and has provided a detailed letter and spreadsheet that demonstrates his professional recommendation for each window and door. Ultimately, there will be a combination of rebuilding, replacing, and repurposing of the windows and doors. Please refer to the detailed information provided. Additionally, the design team has provided updated images of the proposed renovation to the historic building. One of the client’s goals is to provide a clear difference between the historical building and what is new. We are excited about the overall design of the project and appreciate the time you have spent with us along the way. I have attached the following information. - Historical Photos of the 359 Linden Street - Previously approved PDP drawings - Previously reviewed proposed design by Roth Shepard - Proposed design drawings by VFLA - Existing building photos with notes regarding proposed improvements - Colorado Sash and Door cover letter - Colorado Sash and Door renovation experience - 359 Linden Door and Window survey - 359 Linden Door and Window pictures - Kolbe Window product data Sincerely, Chris Aronson, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP 5.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/9/2015 8:06:56 AM HISTORIC PHOTOS GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 CIRCA 1949 CIRCA 1979 5.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN This unofficial copy was downloaded on Oct-26-2015 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com For additional information or an official copy, please contact Current Planning 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA 5.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER) This unofficial copy was downloaded on Oct-26-2015 from the City of Fort Collins Public Records Website: http://citydocs.fcgov.com For additional information or an official copy, please contact Engineering Office 281 North College Fort Collins, CO 80521 USA 5.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER) 5.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL CONCEPT ARCHITECTURAL MASSING JUNE 16, 2015 VIEW 04 - EAST 5.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN CONCEPT ARCHITECTURAL MASSING JUNE 16, 2015 VIEW 03 - SOUTH 5.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN CONCEPT ARCHITECTURAL MASSING JUNE 16, 2015 VIEW 02 - SOUTH 5.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:36 PM 3D VIEW - EAST AERIAL GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 5.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:43 PM 3D VIEW - NORTH AERIAL GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 5.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:51 PM 3D VIEW - EAST ELEVATION GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 5.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:57 PM 3D - LINDEN STREET VIEW GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 5.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:14:04 PM 3D VIEW - SOUTH CORNER GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 5.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN UP UP UP UP UP UP NEW 2-STORY RESTAURANT EXISTING BUILDING TO BE RENOVATED 2ND FLOOR PATIO EXISTING SCALE WILLOW STREET LINDEN STREET ALLEY ALLEY UTILITY, DRAINAGE, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT UTILITY & DRAINAGE EASEMENT 4 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING 1-STORY OFFICE BUILDNG ELECT. TRANS. NORTH PATIO SMOKER WOOD FIRED OVEN STAIRS BIKE RACKS BIKE RACKS VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:19 PM ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 5.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN UP UP UP ( .2~~000"5) ~,0957.0( ~.~0200"5) ,021~57.0( ~.~0200"5) ,401~57.0( ~.~0200"5) ,401~57.0 G G G G G G G G G D D D D G D C D D 42 (5) 18 48 (4) 18 60 (4) 18 48 (4) 18 60 (4) 18 60 (4) 18 30 (4) 18 60 (4) 18 60 (4) 18 60 (4) 18 30 (4) 18 36 (4) 18 UP UP UP UP FRZ 'R FRZ 'R ( .2~~000"5) ~,0957.0( ~.~0200"5) ,021~57.0 G G ( ~.~0200"5) ,401~57.0( ~.~0200"5) ,401~57.0 G G G G D D D D G H D 60 (5) 21 60 (5) 21 60 (5) 21 48 (5) 21 48 (5) 21 48 (5) 21 48 (5) 21 48 (5) 21 ELECT. TRANS. RECYCLE 6 C.Y. TRASH 6 C.Y. G WAIT POS POS HOST MEN'S 108 WOMEN'S 109 GINGER AND BAKER 101 FIN. FLOOR 100' - 0" (E) ROOF 125' - 9" SECOND FLOOR 114' - 0" 2 3 (E) GRADE 97' - 0" (E) BASEMENT 91' - 9" NEW BASEMENT 89' - 9" B.O. NEW ROOF DECK 127' - 8" 0 NEW BASEMENT ADJACENT APARTMENT BUILDING ARKINS PARK SANDSTONE, BUFF METAL PANELS STEEL CHANNEL, PAINTED STEEL RAILING BRICK VENEER 1 STEEL GATES FOR TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED SIGNAGE LOCATION METAL PANEL STEEL COLUMN PROPOSED SIGNAGE LOCATION ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SOLDIER COURSE BRICK DETAILING PRECASTCHANNEL STEEL CONCRETE BASE EXISTING BUILDING BEYOND FIN. FLOOR 100' - 0" (E) ROOF 125' - 9" SECOND FLOOR 114' - 0" E D (E) BASEMENT 91' - 9" NEW BASEMENT 89' - 9" A B.O. NEW ROOF DECK 127' - 8" G NEW BASEMENT EXISTING BASEMENT TO BE DUG OUT AN ADDITIONAL 2'-0" EASEMENT 30' - 0" 54' - 0" 36' - 6 1/2" ADJACENT BUILDING FIN. FLOOR 100' - 0" (E) ROOF 125' - 9" SECOND FLOOR 114' - 0" 3 2 (E) GRADE 97' - 0" (E) BASEMENT 91' - 9" NEW BASEMENT 89' - 9" B.O. NEW ROOF DECK 127' - 8" 0 52' - 6 1/2" 78' - 2" EXISTING BASEMENT TO BE DUG OUT 2'-0" (BUIDLINGE) TRANSFORMER ADJACENT APARTMENT 1 REPLACE EXISTING LOUVER WITH NEW WINDOW REPLACE ROOF WITH ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING, METAL S-DECK REPAIR EXISTING WINDOW ARKINS PARK SANDSTONE REPLACE EXISTING LOUVER WITH WINDOW WOOD FIRED OVEN STEEL CANOPY METAL PANEL EXISTING BUILDING, NEW PAINT STEEL RAILING STOREFRONTBRICK STEEL CATWALK FIN. FLOOR 100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR 114' - 0" D E (E) GRADE 97' - 0" (E) BASEMENT 91' - 9" NEW BASEMENT 89' - 9" A B.O. NEW ROOF DECK 127' - 8" G NEW BASEMENT LOCATION NEW STAIR TO BASEMENT 36' - 6 1/2" 54' - 0" EASEMENT 30' - 0" ADJACENT OFFICE BUIDING 5.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL HEARING ON 5.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL 5.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL HEARING ON 5.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 November 4, 2015 Dohn Construction Josh Wallace Re: Feeder Supply Building 359 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Josh, The attached work outline was based on our site visit November 3rd and again this morning November 4th. I have taken pictures of the exterior windows, doors and louvers to review how and what work should be done during the construction process. I am relying on my 25+ years of doing historic window restoration, replication and replacement. Through my projects, we have used the Secretary of Interior Standards but have found that a one solution for all openings is not normally a viable or final solution. I have broken the job down to three areas of the building: Basement, Main and Upper Floor and Store Front. To make this work easier, I have assigned an opening number to each that I have put on an exterior elevation drawing or photograph. This same number is then listed in the schedule which notes which are to be restored, replicated, replaced or new installed. On the following pages, I will outline the work in greater detail for each opening or group of openings. As we talked I believe a meeting to go over these items prior to submitting to the Landmark Preservation Board would be recommended. I have some time blocked out Friday morning as we talked, so just let me know if this works. Respectfully Mark Wernimont Colorado Sash & Door, Inc. 5.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Basement Windows I have looked at these as a group as they have similar conditions and I was not able to get inside the basement to review if or what is behind the exterior. B‐1 has a louver installed that is smaller than the original opening, but could be opened up to match the existing opening in B‐2 and B‐5. B‐1 is missing the stone sill and should be replaced after the infill is also removed. For these I would use a fixed typical basement window with true divided light in a 2w1h pattern. The center bar would match the vertical bar in windows #1 and #2. These windows could have an applied film or etched glass if the owners wants to keep the contents of the basement out of view, but still let some light in. If additional thermal performance would be requested, storm windows could be added. B‐3 appears to be an arched opening, probably used for getting coal into the basement. It has been filled in with masonry and would recommend leaving. B‐4 is an access hatch that I believe gets you to the basement. I understand that this is the area where a new stairs and door are to be installed. I have noted this for a new door system, with the design to be determined at a later date. Storefront Windows and Doors In looking at the storefront, the bulk of this can be taken apart and restored. The 18 pieces of glass that are on the main face are not historic glass and could be replaced with tempered glass. The upper two pieces on either side of the entry door are historic glass and should be saved and re‐used. The lower glass on the sides could be replaced with tempered. The glass in the doors and transom is not historic, but I would only replace the door glass with tempered. Once the glass is removed, we would take down all horizontal and vertical mull so that we can work on the bottom rail in both sections on the front of the building. The bottom 4” rail has been pushed out at the bottom and the joints on each end have failed. This part should be replaced. The bottom rails in the two returns are in tack and would be used as pattern. While this sill is out, the bottom panels bellow the windows should be reviewed to see why they are angled and not flat. On the return sections, a louver could be removed and the plywood removed as well. The doors are in good working condition with some repairs, epoxy fills and then painting. I have not addressed the hardware but new hinges could be installed and a lock updated if needed. Our work would go between the two columns and the wall along with the return to the columns on either side of the doors. I have not reviewed the soffit, cornice or other wood items in this opening. Once the store front is re‐built, we could build an interior storm window system for the sided and returns but not the door or transoms. This could be done with removable glass panels set in a frame similar to the existing storefront, so not to be seen from the outside. The panels could be lifted out to clean the surfaces in the air space. 5.a Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Exterior Doors Currently there is a temporary hinged door in opening D‐1 and D‐6. D‐6 on the west elevation is to be removed and infilled with salvaged brick. The door in D‐1 is to be replaced with a new door. I would suggest a similar pair of doors to #2 and #4, but other options could be used. Frames for a hinged door would also be similar to these, but would leave the arched area above the door in place. The interior sliding door is to be left hanging on the original track and believe little or no work will be done to this. Doors #2 and #4 are a pair of same size and detail style and rail doors. Opening #2 has some major defects in the style and rails that require replacing to make them structurally sound and functional. It is also missing all of the left lamb leg. Door #4 is more complete and has less damage, but still has parts that should be replaced. I would propose that we replicate new doors and frame for opening #2 and use the parts from this opening to repair and replace items needed for opening #4. Repairs would include complete disassemble, stripping of paint and finishes, replacing and replicating as needed to make a structurally sound door, but leave “Character” in it to show it 90+ years of age. Again hardware has not been addressed, but can be incorporated as needed. Door #3 was addressed in the storefront. Door #5 is a current infill, but the opening will be enlarged and part of the interior passage from the new building to the old. Exterior Windows and Louvers The exterior windows are quite a mixture of windows. I am not totally sure which windows are original without finding more photographic proof of what was there and when. Along with this it appears that the front portion of the building was added at some point. A crack in the stucco exists at the attachment point on each side, where if done together would have been toothed / laid together. Also the current louver in opening W‐6 is actually below the roof line off the front building. This is creating a snow and water catch that is causing damage to the masonry below. This opening also has the original frame for a window. We are recommending the opening be changed so it is above the roof line and changed to a window similar to the units on the main floor but with a light pattern based on its size. Window W‐1 and W‐2 have different details from each other and the cut light pattern and bar size is different. Both these windows are not covered by stucco at the head, also suggesting they were changed at some point. We would recommend that these be replaced with a cut lite patter similar to window W‐7 which along with different divided bar sizes which the upper part of W‐2 matches, but the bottom does not have. Windows W‐3 and W‐5 are complete and in a condition that restoration is possible and recommended. Window W‐3 may require tempered glass due to the location to the floor, but no historic glass remains in this unit. Window W‐4 is by far in the worst condition of all as the sill, frame and both upper and lower sash have major deterioration. But W‐7 is not far behind. We would recommend using W‐7 as the pattern and replicating both of these windows. 5.a Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Window W‐9 is to be replaced with an opening from the new to old building, so we would use parts from this window to restore and rebuild W‐8. We are not sure if the bottom sash should be similar to W‐3 or remain a one lite as W‐9 is. The bottom of W‐8 currently cut out for a grain elevator, but assumes that it will be removed. Windows W‐9, W‐10, D‐5 and W‐11 are all to be inside the addition going between the new and old building with the openings adjusted as needed. Window W‐12 has a frame for a hung window, but currently has a louver in the opening. We would remove the louver and frame and build a new window similar to the W‐6 unit. New openings framed in the tall re‐built opening will be windows similar to W‐6 and W‐12. Based on the size, cut light might be 2w1h/2w1h or a fixed 2w2h unit. Door D‐7 is a new pair of doors installed in the back of the existing building leading out to the back patio. Door construction will be similar to the lower level, but believe a full light door will be used to help light the interior space. Not listed in this are the two windows approved in the original submission, enlarged in the latest submission but I believe there was some issue about these. I would suggest a revised elevation showing the “Court Yard” area or attachment of the two building so the size and location can be addressed. Existing Fenestration Notes : Very little historic float glass exists. What is in the front entry will remain. Any other will be used in restoration windows. : Replacement windows are wood true divided lights, with single pane glass : Done with bars that replicate putty glazing : For energy efficiency a wood storm window could be added to all fixed and hung windows. Similar to what is installed at the Freight Depot across the street. : All restoration work will follow the Secretary of the Interiors Standards : All work will be done with a paint grade finish as the final surface : Restoration work is to make it structurally sound, but not smooth as new construction : Hardware on the windows and doors will need to be reviewed prior to work starting : Exterior brickmould will be a 2” beaded matching what is used in most places around the building : All new windows will have an appropriate thickness historic sill 5.a Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 359 Linden Street - Feeder Supply Building Historic Building Fenestration Schedule Author: Mark Wernimont- Colorado Sash & Door 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Elevation Opening Existing Existing Condition Proposed Solution Use Pattern Window Door Cut Lite Layout Basement B-1 Louver Poor Fill in with stone Remove 1 1 B-2 Covered Opening Covered Fill in with stone Remove 1 1 B-3 Filled Arch Opening Infilled Leave Infill Leave Stone 1 1 B-4 Basement Access Poor Fill in with stone Wall 1 1 B-5 Covered Opening Covered Fill in with stone Remove 1 1 Main and Upper Floors D-1 Infill Door, w/ Existing Sliding Non Historic Door Pair of Doors Similar to #2 Remove 4 Lite / 2 pnl 1 1 W-0.5 Louver Louver Fixed Window Remove 2w2h 1 W-1 Hung Window Very Poor Replication Window Remove 2w1h/2w1h 2w2h/2w1h 1 1 W-2 Hung Window Very Poor Replication Window Remove 2w2h/1 lite 2w2h/2w1h 1 1 D-2 Existing Pair of Doors Very Poor Replicate For Dr #4 4 Lite / 2 pnl 1 1 W-3 Hung Window Poor Restore Window Restore 3w2h/3w2h 1 1 W-13 New Opening None New Window 2w2h/2w2h 1 1 W-4 Hung Window Worst on Job Replication Window Remove 2w/2h/2w2h 2w2h/2w1h 1 1 W-5 Fixed Window Ok Restore Window Restore 2w2h 1 1 W-6 Louver Louver Replication Window - Change Hgt Remove 2w1h/2w1h 1 1 SF-R Store Front Poor Re-Build Restore 3w3h 1 1 SF-L Store Front Poor Re-Build Restore 3w3h 1 1 D-3 Existing Pair of Doors Good Restore Restore 5 Lite/2 pnl 1 1 W-7 Hung Window Very Poor Replicate (use this as pattern) Remove 2w2h/2w1h 2w2h/2w/1h 1 1 D-4 Existing Pair of Doors Poor Use parts from D-2 to restore Restore 4 lite / 2 pnl 1 1 W-8 Fixed Window Poor Use Parts from W-9 to Restore Restore 3w2h/ 1 Lite 3w2h/3w2h 1 1 W-9 Hung Window Poor New Interior Opening Remove 1 1 W-10 Storm Window New Interior Opening Demo 1 1 D-5 Infill Door, w/ Existing Sliding New Interior Opening Demo 1 1 W-11 Storm Window New Interior Opening Demo 1 1 W-14 New Opening N/A New Window 2w2h/2w2h 1 1 D-6 Temp Door Non Historic Door Masonry Infill Demo 1 1 D-7 Masonry Wall N/A New Opening Wall Full Lite 1 1 W-12 Louver Louver Replication Window Remove 2w2h/2w2h 1 1 Total Openings Being Addressed 6 4 3 0 2 5 4 0 1 2 2 n/a n/a 3 0 2 4 n/a 1 2 12 63% n/a n/a 5 n/a 2 7 37% Existing Fenestration New Fenestration Fill In Existing Opening Windows Doors Remove Existing, No Future Use Remove Louver and Install Window Per Original Building Remove Masonry Infill & Install New Window New Door In New Egress Opening New Window In 5.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 5.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, Heritage Series Product Catalog 5.a Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Smooth operation, venting options, removable sash for easy cleaning, and classic styling are only the most obvious features of Heritage Series double hung windows. Kolbe offers a variety of double hung models to suit your project, whether it be residential, commercial, large scale, historic preservation or remodeling. There are many options and configurations to choose from as well, including bow and bay units, cottage-style units or triple pane glass options for increased energy efficiency. Double Hungs Sterling Double Hungs | Majesta® Double Hungs | Traditional Double Hungs Magnum Double Hungs | Old World Classic Double Hungs Cottage-Style & Reverse-Cottage Style | Studio & Transom Units Picture Combination Units | Bay Units | Segment Head & Half-Circle Top Units Single Hungs | Replacement Sash Kits Photo courtesy of Kenneth M. Wyner Photography, Inc. Photo courtesy of Kenneth M. Wyner Photography, Inc. Photo Ph ttfK courtesy of Kenneth thM M. W Wyner Ph Photography, t h Inc. I Kolbe Heritage Series 65 5.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN ` 1-3/4" thick sash ` Overall jamb width is 4-9/16" (basic box width is 4-9/16") ` Frame thickness is 3/4" at side jambs and head ` Sill thickness is 1-3/16", slope is 14° ` Constructed of pine, with pine interior stops and wood mull casings on mulled units ` Energy efficient, insulating LoE2-270 glass ` Glazed to the interior with beveled wood glazing beads ` 1-15/16" exterior brickmould applied ` All exterior wood parts are preservative-treated ` Exterior frame and sash are latex primed ` Wood interior head parting stop ` Fully weatherstripped for a tight seal ` Clay-colored heavy duty sash lock with a dual positioning lever allows sash to be unlocked, operated and tilted in from one location ` Spring-loaded block-and-tackle mechanical balances to carry the sash weight ` Concealed PVC jambliners ` Patented wood-wrapped jambliner closure on the interior (unless interior is prefinished white or primed, then jambliner will be white) and a primed, extruded aluminum jambliner closure on the exterior hides PVC jambliners ` Pine-veneered head and seat boards; unique narrow mullions on bay units Heavy duty sash lock with dual positioning lever allows sash to be unlocked, operated, and tilted in from one location. A wood wrapped jambliner closure on the interior (shown) and a primed, extruded aluminum jambliner closure on the exterior hide the PVC jambliners. Patents 7,296,381 | 7,448,164 | 8,196,355 | 8,429,856 Sash lock in Clay (standard) Square style sash lift handle in Satin Nickel Traditional style sash lift handle in Matte Black Tim Cuppett Architects & Vogel Builders Sterling Double Hung Standard Features Sterling double hungs feature a pick resistant cam lock with a concealed locking mechanism and tilt latches installed into an interlock channel. Optional sash lift handles are available for easy operation. All double hung hardware is available in Clay (standard), White, Beige, Brass, Antique Brass, Satin Nickel, Antique Nickel, Rustic Umber, and Matte Black finishes. Hardware NOTE: All measurements are nominal. Sterling Double Hungs Sterling double hungs are made to blend seamlessly with the grandest décor. A patented interior wood cover conceals the jambliner, while giving the windows a rich, full-wood appearance. The lock system boosts performance to a level not often reached by double hung windows. 66 Kolbe Heritage Series 5.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN NOTE: All measurements are nominal. Glass (pgs. 184-185): `LoE-180 ` LoE2-240 ` LoE3-366 ` ThermaPlus™ LoE ` Patterned, bronze- or gray-lite ` Tempered or laminated ` Other options standard to the industry Divided Lites (pgs. 186-187): ` Performance divided lites with 5/8", 7/8", 1-1/8", 1-3/4", 2-1/4", or 4-1/2" bars ` True divided lites with 5/8" LoE2 insulating glass and 1-1/8" bars ` Grilles-in-the-airspace ` Interior removable wood grilles with 7/8" or 1-1/8" bars and full surrounds Exterior Finishes (pg. 189): ` K-Kron II exterior paint finish Other Options: (custom options are also available) ` Other wood species and FSC-certified wood (pg. 188) ` Interior prefinishing (pg. 188) ` Interior casing (pg. 190) ` Prep for stool ` 3-1/2" flat or profiled brickmould, backband on 3-1/2" brickmould and other custom millwork (pg. 190) ` Projected sill nosing, extended sill horns or no nosing Photo courtesy of Kenneth M Wyner Photography Sterling Double Hung Optional Features ` Ovolo and square profile glazing beads and interior divided lite bars (pg. 192) ` Class 5 balances available for larger units ` Sash locks in White, Beige, Brass, Antique Brass, Satin Nickel, Antique Nickel, Rustic Umber, and Matte Black finishes ` Sash lift handles in Clay, White, Beige, Brass, Antique Brass, Satin Nickel, Antique Nickel, Rustic Umber, and Matte Black finishes `Custodial locks ` Universal design crank handle hardware kit in White ` Full or half screens with aluminum frames and options for BetterVue® or UltraVue® fiberglass screen mesh or aluminum screen mesh in either aluminum or charcoal colors; frames will match the exterior color of the unit ` Retractable screen kit (pg. 191) ` Retractable screen covers available as beveled (standard) or square ` StormGuard combination storm/screen units (pg. 191) ` Extension jambs (up to 12" applied; over 12" shipped loose for field application) ` Sash limiters for safety ` Galvanized steel installation clips ` Insulated platforms, support brackets and oak- veneered head and seat boards for bay units ` High performance and K-Force® impact performance modifications Kolbe Heritage Series 67 Traditional Double Hung 1 3/16" UNIT DIMENSION WIDTH JAMBS 1/4" ROUGH OPENING WIDTH 3 1/4" D.L.O. FRAME WIDTH 1/4" 3 1/4" Horizontal Section Sterling Double Hung NOTE: Drawings are not to scale. Additional and the most current drawings are available in the Architect Library at www.kolbe-kolbe.com. Horizontal Section 4 9/16" 5 5/8" 3 1/4" D.L.O. 3 1/4" UNIT DIMENSION WIDTH FRAME WIDTH 1 3/16" Vertical Section Vertical Section S�� A� 1/�" D.L.O. 3 3/16" UNIT DIMENSION HEIGHT ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT FRAME HEIGHT �" � 1/4" D.L.O. �/16" 3 1/�" 1 �/�" 1 �/16" 4 �/16" � �/�" Double Hungs Cross Section Drawings Kolbe Heritage Series 91 5.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Craftsmanship and artistry are hallmarks of Kolbe products. We build innovative windows and doors with a wide array of options. But, don’t let the standard options limit your imagination. At Kolbe, we love a good challenge. We welcome projects that require special wood species, custom divided lite patterns, unique shapes, custom finish colors, unusual mulling configurations – you dream it, we’ll build it. We can even help inspire and develop your designs. Whatever the opening, we will help you fill it with style. Our windows and doors are built to order, which allows you to choose the options that best fit with the design of your home and vision for your project. We offer many customizable options that blend beautifully with your home’s décor. Options Kolbe Heritage Series 183 5.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Expand the character of your home or project by adding one of our divided lite options to your windows and doors. Choose anything from a traditional, colonial-style pattern to a unique, custom design to accentuate the overall appearance of your project. Kolbe offers four types of divided lites: grilles-in-the-airspace, wood removable grilles, performance divided lites and true divided lites. As standard, wood bars have a beveled profile, however, an ovolo profile or a square profile is also available. (See pg. 192, Glazing Beads & Muntin Bars.) Divided lite cross section drawings can be found on pgs. 180-181. Divided Lites Kolbe’s performance divided lite (PDL) glazing system gives the appearance of true divided lites without sacrificing energy efficiency. Extruded aluminum bars are adhered to the exterior and unfinished pine bars are adhered to the interior of the single lite of insulating glass. Aesthetically pleasing spacer bars are installed within the insulating glass unit. Together, these bars create the illusion of true divided lites. PDL bars are available in 5/8", 7/8", 1-1/8", 1-3/4", 2-1/4" or 4-1/2" bar widths. The exterior finish of the aluminum bars will match the exterior finish on the unit. Variations on the PDL option may include custom grille patterns, custom bar widths or no spacer bars. Some designs may have a composite material for the exterior PDL bar. Performance Divided Lites True divided lites (TDL) give each unit the traditional look often found in historical projects. Units with TDL are comprised of wood muntin bars in between glass panes. The horizontal and vertical, colonial-style wood TDL bars use interlocking half-lap joints. Profile shadow lines enhance the warm, richness of the wood on both the interior and exterior. The exterior finish on the bars will match the exterior finish of the unit. TDL options include custom patterns and bar widths, other wood species and interior stain or paint finishes. Depending on glass options chosen, standard bar widths are available in 7/8" or 1-1/8". TDL glass units are not filled with argon gas. True Divided Lites 186 Kolbe Heritage Series 5.a Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN Swinging screen doors are available for field installation with Kolbe single and double inswing doors. Screen doors feature an adjustable self-closing mechanism. Double swinging screen doors are equipped with spring-loaded locking mechanisms on the head and sill of the passive door. Energy efficiency is provided by weatherstripping around the frame perimeter and on the astragal of double screen doors; rubber door sweeps meet the sill. Swinging screen door frames are available in over 30 colors, plus custom colors. Keystones and pediment heads add a classic touch to the exterior of Heritage Series windows or doors. Pine keystones and pediment heads may be ordered unfinished, primed or prefinished with K-Kron II to match your windows or doors. Ask your Kolbe dealer for more details. Keystone Pediment Head Most Kolbe products can be modified to meet even the most strict building code requirements. Depending on the criteria, Kolbe offers high performance and K-Force® impact performance products to improve air, water and structural ratings or sound transmittance ratings. With each level of modification, window and door strength is enhanced. This could be by using additional sash locks, alternate glazing methods or K-Force impact laminated glass. Contact your Kolbe dealer for further details. Beveled Profile Ovolo Profile Square Profile Options & Accessories Swinging Screen Doors As standard, glazing beads have a beveled profile, but may also be ordered with a square or ovolo profile. Matching muntin bars are available on units with true divided lites (TDL), performance divided lites (PDL) and wood removable grilles. Units ordered with TDL and PDL will have ovolo muntin bars on the interior and beveled muntin bars on the exterior regardless of the profile chosen for the interior. (See divided lite cross section drawings on pgs. 180-181.) Glazing Beads & Muntin Bars Product Performance Modifications Keystones & Pediment Heads 192 Kolbe Heritage Series 5.a Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.a Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN 5.b Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: VicinityMap (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN STREET—FINAL HEARING ON RECOMMENDATION TO 5.c Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Adjacency photos (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 5.c Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Adjacency photos (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 18, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL STAFF Kaitlin Dorn, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Review and Request for Recommendation to Decision Maker of a proposed 31,007 square foot, 4-story building. The project is adjacent to several historic buildings that are designated on the National Register of Historic Places and as Fort Collins Landmarks, including the Scott Apartment Building, at 900 South College, and properties in the Laurel School National Register District. This Project Development Plan (PDP) is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The College Eight Thirty project would be constructed on a site located on the east side of College Avenue at College and Locust, with Colorado State University to the west, and across the alley from the Laurel School National Register District. This mixed use project contains 34 residential units above commercial/retail space on the main level. The main level has 27 surface parking spaces partially covered by 3-stories above. The Commission held a preliminary hearing on these plans on September 28, 2015. APPLICANT: Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios 141 S. College Avenue, Ste 104 Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNER: Schrader Development Co., Property Owner 320 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission make a recommendation of approval to the Decision Maker for College Eight Thirty PDP #150019. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview This project has the potential to affect several properties that are designated, on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties, as well as Fort Collins Landmarks. These include properties within the Laurel School National Register District, as well as individual Fort Collins Landmark properties. Therefore the project needs to comply with the standards contained in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. 6 Packet Pg. 165 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 Area of Adjacency For the purposes of staff’s review of the project, and based upon the height, mass, scale, bulk, and the visibility of the proposed project in light of the definition of "adjacent" in LUC Section 5.1.2, property adjacent to this project was established as being located one-half block in each direction from the block upon which this building is proposed. This area of adjacency contains several officially designated National, State and Fort Collins landmark properties, including: the Laurel School National Register Historic District immediately adjacent to the east of the subject block and Scott Apartment Building and Associated Garage across Locust Street to the south of the subject block. Compliance with Applicable Land Use Code Standards Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains standards for new buildings where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project is adjacent to other such historic properties. Therefore, the project will need to comply with LUC Section 3.4.7. LUC Section 3.4.7(A), Purpose, states in pertinent part: “This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: … new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site.” This Purpose statement, while not setting forth a standard in and of itself, provides guidance in applying and interpreting the applicable standards contained in LUC Section 3.4.7. LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard states in pertinent part: “…to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is (a) preserved and adoptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and…(1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; [or] (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” Staff finds that the project is designed to protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of historic properties on both the development site and in the surrounding neighborhood, and that the project is compatible with the historic character of such properties. LUC 3.4.7(F) New Construction, states: “(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located…. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site.” At the September 28, 2015 meeting, the LPC agreed that the step down addresses compatibility with the neighborhood and the Scott Apartment building. Staff also believes that the step down addresses compatibility and that the building is well-articulated. However, the Commission agreed that the flat roofs are incompatible and requested that the applicant soften the rooflines or provide justification for keeping the flat roofs. Staff has not 6 Packet Pg. 166 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 received such justification and the plans do not reflect an attempt to soften the flat roofs. “(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.” At the September 28, 2015 meeting, the LPC requested acknowledgement of the Scott Apartment Building by adding a soldier course or rowlock pattern to the applicant’s proposal. The applicant added soldier coursing above the windows. In addition, the applicant added a soldier course band, distinguishing the base of the building from the upper stories. Staff believes that the applicant could improve the horizontality relationship between the proposed building and the Scott Apartment Building further by borrowing the soldier coursing along the top of the third floor parapet into the design to reflect the relationship to the Scott Apartment Building. “(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.” Staff believes that the Standards in LUC 3.4.7(F)(3) have been substantially met. The building materials closely relate to the adjacent historic buildings. The applicant’s proposal incorporates brick used on the Scott Building to the south and the wood siding on the residential building to the east. At the September 28, 2015 meeting, the LPC did not express any concerns with proposed materials. “(4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.” Staff believes that this Standard has been met. The visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, consisting of the Laurel School National Register Historic District and the Scott Apartment Building, have been preserved and enhanced, due to the alignment of the new building with the existing setting. “(5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. Staff is not aware of existing historic landscaping. Applicant provided more detail to the site/landscape plan, which brought in more greenery as per recommendation by the Commission on September 28, 2015. Staff’s Conclusion: Staff finds that the project does comply with the requirement that a project’s development plan and building design protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of historic properties adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, staff finds that the project does comply with the requirement that “New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission make a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Board for College Eight Thirty PDP #150019, based on the project meeting Land Use Code 3.4.7 standards for protecting and enhancing the historical and architectural value and compatibility with historic resources. 6 Packet Pg. 167 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Submittal (PDF) 2. Location Map (JPG) 3. Area of Adjacency (DOCX) 6 Packet Pg. 168 College Eight Thirty Landmark Preservation Commission Work Session November 18th, 2015 6.a Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context CONTEXT College Eight Thirty 6.a Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context CONTEXT 808 730 College Ave. to the north College Ave. to the south College Eight Thirty South side of Locust to east North side of Locust to east 6.a Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context CONTEXT East side of Remington St. to the northeast East side of Remington St. to the east College Eight Thirty West side of Remington St. to the southeast West side of Remington St. to the east 6.a Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL SITE DESIGN College Eight Thirty 6.a Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED CURRENT BUILDING DESIGN: College Eight Thirty 6.a Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED CURRENT BUILDING DESIGN: College Eight Thirty 6.a Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED CURRENT BUILDING DESIGN: Proposed - West Elevation College Eight Thirty Previous Design - West Elevation 6.a Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED CURRENT BUILDING DESIGN: Proposed - South Elevation College Eight Thirty Previous Design – South Elevation 6.a Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE PERSPECTIVES: College Eight Thirty View looking northwest 6.a Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE PERSPECTIVES: College Eight Thirty View looking east 6.a Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE PERSPECTIVES: College Eight Thirty View looking northeast 6.a Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED SITE PERSPECTIVES: View looking northwest between properties College Eight Thirty View looking southwest between properties directly across the street 6.a Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Compatibility with the adjacent Historic District and properties The Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (B) Historic and Cultural PROPOSED The Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (B) Historic and Cultural Resources state that: “New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” The proposed project incorporates the following elements to address compatibility: College Eight Thirty 6.a Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Compatibility with the adjacent Historic District and properties PROPOSED College Eight Thirty Roof Forms • The use of a gable roof forms with dormer elements is reflective of the exiting local landmarked property 900 S. College Ave., to the south as well as the craftsman style bungalow to the east. 6.a Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Compatibility with the adjacent Historic District and properties PROPOSED College Eight Thirty Massing and Proportion • The proposed east elevation provides a significant setback down to 3- stories to transition to the neighborhood. The historic apartment building to the south also makes a similar transition from 3-1/2 stories to a 1-story single family house directly to the east. 6.a Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Compatibility with the adjacent Historic District and properties PROPOSED College Eight Thirty Use of Materials • Brick is the dominate material of choice with the use of synthetic stone at other areas at the ground level. Stucco is used more sparingly to contrast the heavier masonry materials. Lap siding has been placed at the east end of the building, as it relates to the more residential character of existing historical context to the east. 6.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT Compatibility with the adjacent Historic District and properties PROPOSED College Eight Thirty Fenestration and Detailing • Single hung windows in single, double and triple window configurations have been chosen for their compatibility. Windows occurring in brick have soldier course head and rowlock sill treatments, while windows in siding and stucco use a craftsmen style trim boards. Both of these types of window treatments are typical and sensitive to the surrounding historical neighborhood. 6.a Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT College Eight Thirty Landmark Preservation Commission Work Session November 18th, 2015 6.a Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT 6.b Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Location Map (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL) Area of Adjacency 900 S. College Avenue Laurel School National Register Historic District Fort Collins Landmarks 701 Remington Street 6.c Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Area of Adjacency (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL) 719 Remington Street 729 Remington Street 6.c Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Area of Adjacency (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL) 824 Remington Street 6.c Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Area of Adjacency (3799 : COLLEGE EIGHT THIRTY - FINAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 18, 2015 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT DOWNTOWN PLAN DISCUSSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager, will provide an update on the Downtown Plan. 7 Packet Pg. 192 5.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN New Opening New Door In Existing Opening Restore Existing Doors Restore Windows Existing Window to be Replicated No Work Necessary West North 6 8 3 East South Total Openings Being Addressed Fenestration Actions 11 24 5 29 Final Scope 19 Historic Replication Historic Restoration Total 14 5 5.a Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN INFILL OLD DOOR WITH RECLAIMED BRICK METAL PANELS STEEL CHANNEL, PAINTED STEEL RAILING AT NEW PATIO W3 W3 A.5 B C STEEL CHANNEL, PAINTED PRECAST CONCRETE BASE ORNAMENTAL TREE NEW DOOR OPENING REPLACE EXISTING LOUVER WITH HISTORICAL REPLICAITON WINDOW HOLLOW METAL DOOR METAL PANELS BRICK VENEER STEEL CHANNEL, PAINTED VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:30 PM NORTH & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 1 NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 2 WEST 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 5.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN ARKINS PARK SANDSTONE, BUFF METAL PANEL STEEL RAILING STEEL CHANNEL, PAINTED C B A.5 METAL PANEL STOREFRONT STOREFRONT EXISTING BUILDING STEEL RAILING AT NEW RAISED PATIO EXISTING STOREFRONT TO BE RESTORED EXISTING WINDOW TO BE RESTORED EXISTING LOUVER TO BE REPLACED WITH A HISTORICAL REPLICATION WINDOW PROPOSED SIGNAGE LOCATION REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW, REFER TO WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR DETAILS STAIRS AT SERVICE WINDOW EXISTING DOORS TO BE RESTORED VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:27 PM SOUTH & EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 1 SOUTH 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 2 EAST 1/8" = 1'-0" ELEVATION 5.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN BAR 102 ACCENT WALL ELEVATOR 112 EXISTING 5' - 5" (E) DOOR FILL IN MOVABLE TA BLE MOVABLE TA BLE MOVABLE TABLE MOVABLE TA BLE POS POS RETAIL 117 WAIT MAIN ENTRY RETAIL ENTRY DN OPEN TO BELOW EXISTING SCALE WITH OLD TRUCK R R RETAIL 115 NORTH PATIO TEACHING KITCHEN 114 SMOKER EXISTING BENCH EXISTING PLANTER BAKING KITCHEN 113 BAKING STORAGE COOLER FREEZER BEVERAGE ICE DISH PIT HOOD KITCHEN PREP WOOD FIRED OVEN COOKTOP COOKTOP PREP TABLE D ISPLAY DISPLAY DISPLA Y DISPLAY FLOWER DISPLAY BAKING DISPLAY FLOWERSFREEZER COLD CAB 30X48 COLD CAB 30X48 COOKTOP BIKE PUMP STATION MAIN LOBBY 100 STAIR 104 TRASH/RECYCLE 106 HALL 105 KITCHEN 107 FIRE RISER 110 JANITOR 111 EDGE OF SECOND FLOOR ABOVE SIGN DESCRIBING SCALE AND TRUCK STAIRS JANITOR 210 COATS 211 POS HOST BUFFET SERVIING WITH STORAGE CHANDELIER MECH BAR PRIVATE DINING 215 PRIVATE DINING PATIO 214 VIP DINING 216 TV STORAGE 218 (E) CHIMNEY ROOF BELOW ROOF BELOW PATIO 203 UPSCALE BAR 204 SOFT SEATING 202 DINING 201 STAIR 2 206 MEN'S 208 WOMEN'S 209 ELEV. 213 OPEN TO BELOW DN DISH PIT PREP COOLER BEVERAGE HOOD WAIT UPPER LOBBY 200 HALL 207 KITCHEN 212 CORRIDOR 219 1 FIRST 1/8" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN VAUGHT FRYE LARSON architects CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION VAUGHT FRYE LARSON ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SCANNED, TRACED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF VFLA. COPYRIGHT: 2015 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ph: 970.224.1191 www.theartofconstruction.com 10/19/15 11/8/2015 2:13:22 PM FLOOR PLANS GINGER AND BAKER 2015-85 PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 4' 8' 16' 32' 2 SECOND 1/8" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN 5.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Feeders Supply Renovation_LPC Hearing Packet from Applicant (3807 : FEEDERS SUPPLY/GINGER AND BAKER, 359 LINDEN