The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/13/2016 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 January 13, 2016 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 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting January 13, 2016 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 DECEMBER 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 9, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. ADDITION OF MARK WERNIMONT TO DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONSULTANT LIST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is for the Commission to consider the addition of Mark Wernimont, Colorado Sash and Door, to the Design Assistance Program Consultant List. Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins Page 2 3. 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed alteration of the Markley Property located at 802 Peterson Street, a one and one-half story single family dwelling constructed in c. 1939. The property owners propose to construct a one-story open porch addition. APPLICANT: Ronald A. Olson and Aundrelyn Knott 802 Peterson St Fort Collins, Co 80524 • PULLED FROM CONSENT • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to demolish or significantly alter two silos located on the Woodward Technology Center, addressed variously as 1103 East Lincoln Avenue and 1041 Woodward Way. The silos are a part of the Coy-Hoffman Farm, designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. APPLICANT: Wayne Timura Next Level Development, Inc. 735 Lancers Court West, Suite 100 Monument, CO 80132 5. 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed demolition of the Huberty House located at 815 W. Oak Street, a one-story single family dwelling constructed in c. 1906. Upon approval of the demolition, the property owners propose the new construction of a two-story single family dwelling. APPLICANT: Kelly R. Close 815 W. Oak St Fort Collins, CO 80521 6. RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to present to Council proposed changes to the landmark designation procedure set forth in Article II, Chapter 14, of City Code to make the landmark designation process more efficient in cases where a property owner does not consent to landmark designation (“non- consensual” designation) and the property is already designated on the National and/or State Historic Registers, either individually or as a part of a historic district. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 13, 2016 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 9, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (DOC) 1 Packet Pg. 3 City of Fort Collins Page 1 [Insert Meeting Date] 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 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 December 9, 2015 Minutes  CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: Wallace (excused), Hogestad (planned to join the meeting late) STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Dorn, Yatabe, Schiager  PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None.  CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 404 WHEDBEE STREET – FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE MICHAUD PROPERTY Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 2 [Insert Meeting Date] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Michaud Property located at 404 Whedbee Street. The property meets the standards for significance as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard C (Design/Construction). APPLICANT: Mark and Denise McFann 517 E. Magnolia Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ms. Gensmer noted that she would abstain from voting on the consent agenda as she was not present for the previous discussion about 404 Whedbee Street. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the consent agenda as presented. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 5-0, with Gensmer abstaining. [Timestamp: 5:40 p.m.]  DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 903 STOVER STREET – FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Design Review of a proposed addition to 903 Stover Street, a Fort Collins Landmark (Ordinance No. 039, 1996), constructed in 1905. The proposed addition will include a new second floor addition (168 square feet), a new first floor addition (266 square feet), and the demolition of an outbuilding. APPLICANT: Kurt Reschenburg and Tia Molander 903 Stover Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Staff Report Ms. Dorn presented the staff report. She noted that contrary to the information in the staff report and presentation, the shed would not be demolished. Chair Sladek asked for confirmation that the shed would not be demolished. The Applicant, Mr. Reschenburg, confirmed that the shed will stay and no outbuilding will be demolished. Applicant Presentation Mr. Anderson, the Architect on the project, gave the Applicant presentation. He explained that after last month’s review, they have replaced hip roof that was part of the original design with a shed-type roof that does not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the main house. The fireplace will remain as is. The trapezoidal windows previously in the design were changed to rectangular. Ms. Molander introduced herself and offered to answer any questions. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle complimented the owner and Architect on the compromises they made to the design to alleviate the Commission’s concerns, and said he fully supports the new design. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Mr. Lingle. She also noted that potential archeological finds were not addressed in the treatment plan, and recommended the Applicant have a permitted official evaluate any unanticipated discoveries. Mr. Lingle made a suggestion regarding staff reports. He said that if a project had previously come to the Commission, it would be helpful to include that information in the background section of the staff report along with a summary of the Commission’s comments and an analysis of whether/how they met the Commission’s requests. Chair Sladek and Mr. Ernest agreed. Chair Sladek said he did not see anything in this design as presented that violates the intent or specifics of Section 14.48 of the Municipal Code or the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and that he will support the application. 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 3 [Insert Meeting Date] Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the rear addition to the Charles A. Lory house located at 903 Stover Street, as presented, finding that such work would meet the criteria established in Chapter 14.48(b) of the Municipal Code. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 6-0. [Timestamp: 5:59 p.m.] 4. 215 MATHEWS OFFICE BUILDING—REQUEST FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is for a three-story office building of 8,550 square feet on a 7,000 square foot infill site immediately across Mathews Street from the Fort Collins Community Creative Center (Carnegie Library). Approximately 3,800 square feet of the new facility is expected to be occupied by Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, LLP Attorneys at Law. The site is zoned Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (NCB). The property is located adjacent to the Laurel School National Register District and to individually designated Landmark properties, so the proposed project is subject to compliance with the standards in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. APPLICANT: Greg Fisher, 3115 Clyde Street, Fort Collins, CO Ms. Gensmer recused herself, having been absent for the discussion when the project previously came before the Commission. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Fisher gave the Applicant presentation on behalf of the owners, Tracy and Brad Oldemeyer. He explained the changes they had made in order to address the Commission’s previous concerns. (NOTE: The Applicant presentation had been changed since the version submitted for the agenda packet. The updated version has been entered into the record.) Public Input None Determination of Adjacencies The Commission started by discussing the adjacencies to the project. A Member mentioned that in the future, it would be helpful to have images of the properties that are listed as possible adjacencies, particularly those that are designated or eligible. Staff agreed, noting that they may have to use file photos or Google Street View images, which the Commission agreed would be acceptable. The Members briefly discussed the information about adjacencies included in the staff report, agreeing to include the designated and eligible properties specified as follows: 1. 200 Mathews (designated) 2. 148 Remington (designated) 3. 202 Remington (designated) 4. 220 Remington (designated) 5. 221 Mathews (individually eligible) 6. 210 E. Oak Street (individually eligible) 7. 215 E. Oak Street (individually eligible) 8. 218 Remington Street (individually eligible) 9. 230 Remington Street (individually eligible) 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 4 [Insert Meeting Date] Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept as the adjacencies for the 215 Mathews Office Building an area of ½ block in each direction from the block upon which the building is proposed, including specifically those properties that are individually designated or individually eligible, under LUC 5.1.2. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 5-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked the Applicant about the extent to which the Commission had asked them to change their design in ways that were not ideal for their needs. Mr. Fisher said that having an 8’ ceiling, rather than the standard 9’, puts them at a disadvantage for leasing. Also, running the duct work in the attic of the trusses is a more expensive approach, as well as being harder to maintain and more difficult to provide efficient distribution. He commented that the Fire Department also had an issue with the height, so those changes weren’t just made to address the Commission’s concerns. Mr. Lingle said that he appreciated the Applicant’s incorporation of the Commission’s recommendations into the design. He went on to say that the Commission sometimes offers suggestions that don’t always produce a better project, noting the window patterns in this design as an example. He expressed a concern that by imposing certain conditions on projects, the Commission may be forcing substandard building stock that will not be viable, marketable and sustainable long term, ultimately shortening the lifespan of the buildings. He said he supports the project, but doesn’t support some of the design changes the Commission asked them to make. Mr. Fisher commented that he appreciated and agreed with that viewpoint, but he also said that he and his client are pleased with the overall height and design of the building, including the window patterns and alignment. Chair Sladek also expressed appreciation for the comments and input. Ms. McWilliams pointed out that the requirements imposed by the Commission, such as the alignment of windows and soldier coursing, are all specifically addressed in Land Use Code 3.4.7. There was discussion about whether the requirements in the code were reasonable expectations based on new building standards and a suggestion was made that perhaps the code needs to be updated in that regard. Chair Sladek read 3.4.7(f) in order to establish that the recommendations previously made by the Commission were code-based and not arbitrary, and suggested discussing this issue further at the Commission retreat in January. Ms. Dunn said the changes that were made to this design made it much more compatible with the surrounding buildings, honoring the “to the maximum extent feasible” requirement. She went on to say that the new entranceway speaks to its neighbors, as do the color changes. Chair Sladek agreed with Ms. Dunn’s comments, and noted that the window pattern in the stairway added visual interest, making it look modern, but with a historic flair. He thanked the Applicant for the tremendous amount of work they invested in the design. Mr. Ernest he had compared the previous design to this one, and reviewed the applicable sections of the Land Use Code and the staff comments, and was prepared to vote positively on this project. Ms. Zink agreed that it was a great project. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the decision maker approval of the 215 Mathews Office Building development proposal as presented at the December 9, 2015 meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission, finding that the proposed building complies with the code requirements in Section 3.4.7 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and based upon adoption of the findings of fact set forth in the staff report. Mr. Lingle seconded. The motion passed 5-0. [Timestamp: 6:42 p.m.] Ms. Gensmer rejoined the Commission. 5. 320 MAPLE MIXED USE PROJECT—CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proposed development at the northeast corner of Maple and Meldrum involves construction of a 4-story, 41,674 square-foot multi-family attached building with 29 residential units. The site is located within the (D) Downtown 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 5 [Insert Meeting Date] Zone District and currently contains three connected commercial buildings and one residential building that would be demolished to make way for the site redevelopment. APPLICANT: Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios, 131 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins Mr. Lingle recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Ian Shuff, alm2s Architect, gave the Applicant presentation. Public Input None Determination of Adjacencies The Commission discussed the adjacencies to the project, which are listed in the staff report as follows: 1. Four properties containing a total of eleven contributing buildings have been identified in a pending landmark nomination application that would establish the Collamer-Malaby Historic District. These include 303 N. Meldrum, 305 N. Meldrum, 313 N. Meldrum, and 315 N. Meldrum. This district is immediately west of the proposed development. 2. Several other buildings along Meldrum were reviewed for individual eligibility for landmark designation in 2004 and 2012. Those determinations occurred prior to April 2014 and would need to be reviewed again, so their status is offered here for review only. The residences at 312 N. Meldrum (1910) and 322 N. Meldrum (1921) were determined to be individually eligible for landmark designation. The residences at 316, 317, 320, and 321 N. Meldrum were deemed not individually eligible. 3. The Dutch Colonial Revival residence at 329 N. Meldrum (1900) has not been reviewed for individual eligibility. Ms. Dunn asked why the Hattie McDaniel House was not mentioned. Ms. Bzdek said that only the properties on Meldrum were considered. Chair Sladek pointed out that the Hattie McDaniel House is almost a block away and faces to the north, noting that it is designated, but not adjacent. Mr. Ernest asked whether boundaries of an adjacent area need to be established, or if the Commission can just accept the specific adjacent properties listed in the staff report. Members indicated they were comfortable with adopting the Staff recommendations. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept as the area of adjacency for the 320 Maple Mixed Use Project, the adjacency of properties as it appears in the staff report. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Yatabe noted that since there were a number of properties listed in the staff report, some having been found not to be individually eligible, the motion should probably be more specific. Mr. Ernest amended his motion to specify those properties identified in the area of adjacency identified in the staff report as a pending landmark nomination for the Collamer-Malaby Historic District, and eligible historic designations. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 5-0. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 6 [Insert Meeting Date] Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Dunn said that the massing and scale was very sensitive to the surrounding buildings, and the false front was a nice nod to the Malaby store. She asked about the materials, particularly stucco, in relation to a nearby stucco house. The Applicant explained that all the light colored areas in the design are stucco. Ms. Dunn also inquired about heavy use of brick, particularly on the small end piece next to the house, given that the other residential buildings along that street are wood. The Applicant said they could look into some other materials for that part of the building. Chair Sladek said while he likes the look of the small piece in brick, as far as a transition, it is too abrupt. He also said the massing and scale looked great, but that they would probably like to see an alternative to brick on the small part. Ms. Gensmer stated that she appreciated the fenestration, and the transition of the fenestration. The windows in the bridge piece, while looking modern, were a nod to the residences, while the design then transitions to the larger clearly modern windows. She commented that the design was in character with the existing historic structures as per Land Use Code 3.4.7(F)(2). The Applicant said the design was still evolving and that some of the larger windows would likely be broken down. Chair Sladek said the Commission would like to see more details with dimensions the next time they review the project. Mr. Ernest commented that the stepdown effect to the north helps to meet the requirements in the Land Use Code, General Standard B, with regard to compatibility of height, scale and mass. Ms. Dunn would like to see the design with an actual image of the house at 312 Meldrum next to the building when they review the project again. The Applicant commented that having the adjacencies defined up front is very helpful in order to understand what resources they should try to acknowledge in their designs. Chair Sladek asked if there was anything the Commission hadn’t answered for the Applicant. Mr. Shuff responded that with this being a key transitional building for this block, he wants to make sure they do it right. Mr. Ernest asked about feedback from neighbors. The Applicant said about eight neighbors came to the neighborhood meeting, including key people such as the neighbor to the north and the market owner and the feedback was positive. Chair Sladek summed up the comments saying that they were on a good track. [Timestamp: 7:31 p.m.] Mr. Lingle rejoined the meeting. Mr. Hogestad arrived in time to join the Commission for the last item. 6. DISCUSSION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S 2016 WORK PLAN Agenda Item Description Each year the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) prepares for Council a Work Plan for the coming year. For 2016, Council has asked that the Work Plans be more closely aligned with its Strategic Plan and Outcome Areas. In addition to the LPC’s 2015 Work Plan, the 2015-2016 Strategic Plan is included in the packet, as is the recent LPC response prepared for Council’s Boards and Commission Periodic Review. To create its 2016 Work Plan, Commission members should identify ongoing and new goals and objectives that support those of Council. Based upon the 2015 Work Plan, staff has entered preliminary information into the draft work plan, using the Strategic Plan as the format. The areas of highest alignment were identified in the Periodic Review as Community & Neighborhood Livability, and Economic Heath Outcome Areas. Additionally, the LPC may find it has good alignment with Environmental Health. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 7 [Insert Meeting Date] Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek led the discussion, reviewing his own suggested updates to the Commission’s work plan for each section, and gathering input from the other Members. [NOTE: Chair Sladek provided his updates in writing to Staff, and this document has been added to the record.] 1.2. Change "several aging neighborhoods" to "a growing number of historic neighborhoods that enhance the city's distinctive character, sense of place, and quality of life." Also, add Circle Drive to the areas that are priorities for survey. 1.3 Add an item to work on additional code changes to address concerns brought to light during recent project discussions. Encourage people to make use the Design Review Program. 1.4 There was a discussion as to whether the Commission had any review authority with regard to the protection of historic resources within open space lands that are City-owned, but outside the city limits. Mr. Yatabe explained that unless there were an IGA granting that authority, the City is treated like any other property owner in unincorporated areas of the county. Chair Sladek asked Staff to find out whether the Commission could have a courtesy review in these cases, or if they could at least be updated on projects involving historic and archaeological resources on City-owned open spaces so that it can provide comment. 1.5 In the first sentence of the first bullet point, change to "history and the historic built environment", not just history. 1.6 Health and wellness are promoted by maintaining the human scale and walkability of the historic neighborhoods and downtown commercial core. These are important to both individual physical and mental health, and to the collective health of the community. The historic core acts as a venue for the community to engage in healthy interactions of all kinds. Adding informational pavers for historic tours would increase walkability. 1.7 Adaptation of the Northern Hotel into a place where seniors can find affordable housing is a good example of how historic preservation came together with other agencies to meet a community need. The preservation program is available to engage in future projects of this type where historic buildings might be involved. There was also discussion of whether the zero-interest loan program would fit into this category, as it helps people stay in their homes if they can’t afford proper upkeep. 1.8 There was discussion about the need to continue this effort to partner with emerging informational outlets, perhaps also using Facebook and Twitter to announce new landmark designations. 1.11 There was discussion about whether graffiti removal was a continuing issue, and it was decided to leave that in the work plan. Add a bullet point about thoughtful regulation of the design of infill projects, which is probably the LPC's most important contribution to this category. 1.12 Add an action item for preservation planning staff and the LPC to work with applicants and neighbors to help them understand code issues, and to address their concerns about, or support for, planned changes to individual properties. This contributes to fostering positive neighborhood relationships and open communication. 3.1 In the last bullet point, rather than just mentioning Old Town Square, broaden that to include the entire historic commercial district. 3.8 Add bullet item at the top of the list to state: Preservation of large portions of the city's historic downtown core, older residential neighborhoods, and individually important sites has contributed heavily to the community's strong sense of place. Without these successes, combined with ongoing efforts to ensure they are not swept away, the city's sense of place would be damaged and largely absent. There was a question about the status of the pattern book referenced in 3.8 and 3.7. Ms. McWilliams explained that the pattern book was part of the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan and Downtown Plan that are in currently in progress, and that the draft would be brought to the Commission soon for review, and then will proceed to Council in the spring. The statistics should be updated from 2013 to 2015 numbers. 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) City of Fort Collins Page 8 [Insert Meeting Date] 3.9 Add an item to continue to engage in identifying code changes that will make the preservation process more transparent, predictable and efficient. The statistics should be updated from 2013 to 2015 numbers. 4.6 Add an item to educate people about readapting, rehabilitating and reusing historic resources as a way of recycling. Members asked about meeting with the City’s Sustainability Committee to discuss these issues, or with Rosemarie Russo, a Senior Environmental Planner with the City. Ms. McWilliams also mentioned that Ms. Bzdek serves on the National Council of Public History’s Sustainability Committee, and has information on how historic preservation can promote sustainability. There was also discussion about adding an action item for the Commission and Staff to advocate and educate on behalf of preservation to steer green building initiatives toward a preservation effort. 4.11 Add an item to encourage the public to maintain historic buildings, in terms of keeping them standing and in good repair, which contributes to reducing the amount of construction waste sent to the landfill. 2.3 Continue the effort to translate forms into Spanish. 2.4 Update from 2015 to 2016 7.1 Add the annual LPC retreat, sending members to the NAPC conference every other year, and a possible opportunity to attend a local NAPC training with Boulder & Greeley. Mr. Ernest thanked Chair Sladek for his work on reviewing the work plan and making suggestions. Chair Sladek thanked Staff for their efforts on the work plan. [Timestamp: 8:19 p.m.]  OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Ernest thanked Staff for their work on the motions, findings of fact and areas of adjacency in the staff reports. Ms. McWilliams said Council is interviewing Landmark Preservation Commission applicants, and will be making their decisions public soon. Chair Sladek reported on a party at the Bellevue Grange celebrating a “Friends of Preservation Award”.  ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. 1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Dec 9 2015 LPC Minutes Draft (3982 : Minutes of December 9, 2015) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2016 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME ADDITION OF MARK WERNIMONT TO DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONSULTANT LIST STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is for the Commission to consider the addition of Mark Wernimont, Colorado Sash and Door, to the Design Assistance Program Consultant List. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the addition of Mr. Wernimont, Colorado Sash and Door, to the Design Assistance Program Consultant List as a fenestration specialist, finding that his qualifications meet or exceeds the program requirements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mark Wernimont, the owner of the fenestration specialty company Colorado Sash and Door, Inc., has applied to be placed on the Design Assistance Program Consultant List. This list is provided to property owners participating in the program. To be added to the list, consultants must meet minimum requirements established by the Commission. Consultants remain on the list for a period of three years, at which time they will need to reapply to remain on the list. Consultants who are deemed by the Landmark Preservation Commission to not be maintaining their commitment to historic preservation standards and historic design compatibility may be removed from the list at any time by the Commission. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:  Be in the design or construction profession, with a specialization in or strong knowledge of historic preservation standards and methods;  Can demonstrate having successfully worked on at least five historic properties, and can demonstrate context sensitive design, compatible with surrounding historic properties;  Applicants must specifically describe the work that they were responsible for on said properties/ projects, and provide drawings and/or before photos, along with documentation of the work through after-photos;  Through overall body of work, the applicant must demonstrate an understanding of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation.  Receive approval of LPC. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTORS/ENGINEERS/SPECIALIZED TRADES: In addition to the previous criteria, the applicant must also show how they meet one or more of the following criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. For Contractors/Engineers/Specialized Trades, these are:  The equivalent of at least two years managing projects where the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings was applied. 2 Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2  Demonstrable knowledge of historic preservation standards and methods.  Such projects might include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. BACKGROUND: Established in 2011, the Design Assistance Program helps property owners minimize the impacts of additions, alterations, and new construction on neighbors and on the overall character of the historic Old Town (Eastside and Westside) Neighborhoods. The program encourages the use of qualified consultants with demonstrable experience in compatible historic design by paying for up to $2,000 towards consultation, design, and project planning. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application Letter (PDF) 2. Project List 1988 thru 2000 (PDF) 3. Historic Project List thru 2015 (PDF) 4. Feeder Supply Window Study (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 13 PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 Historic Preservation Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Karen McWilliams Re: Design Assistance Program Consultant Karen, I am requesting to be added to the city’s list of approved consultants for Historic Structures. I have included a small list of the projects that I have been involved with over the years. These projects range from small bungalow’s to some of the largest historic structures in Colorado. I have also worked on many projects outside of Colorado as well. My area of expertise is in exterior fenestration, but I have also worked with interior millwork, trim and doors. While working on the fenestration, I have to be familiar with the total structure. Of primary concern is how water is controlled. So this starts with the roof and goes to the foundation. Since most of the historic work we have done with wood, its treatment is paramount to having a health and sustainable building. That being said, we have also work on several projects that have used other materials. While the conditions are the same, how it is affected and what work is needed is different. On the attached pages, I outline my education, work experience and involvement in other organizations or programs that help define why I would be a good consultant for building owners seeking help. If you have any questions or need additional back up information, just let me know and I would be happy to provide. Respectfully, Mark J. Wernimont 2.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Application Letter (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 Mark Wernimont 824 Warren Landing Fort Collins, CO 80525 Education Graduated from Fort Collins High School in 1975 Graduated from Colorado State University in 1982 with a BA in Industrial Construction Management Work Experience Chief Estimator Colorado Partitions and Drywall 1980 – 1983 Lead Estimator Hensel Phelps Construction 1983 – 1987 Commercial Sales Manager Collins Cashway Lumber 1987 – 1990 Owner Pro Door & Windows & Grand Openings 1990 – 1998 Owner Colorado Sash & Door, Inc. 1998 – Present Other Items of Interest Participant In Historic Windows Conference II in Washington DC, February 1997 Board Member Colorado Preservation Inc. 2000 thru 2006 Projects Receiving Preservation Awards That I worked on Northern Hotel REI Flagship Store Gold Miner Hotel Cheyenne Train Depot Walsenburg Library Hispanic Heritage Center Tivoli Center for the Auraria Campus 2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Application Letter (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 Personal Notes In working with historic structures, I have been hired to do complete fenestration surveys as a starting point. Sample of which, is the one that I just completed for the Feeder Supply Building here in Fort Collins. However, I have done many others and each gets tailored to the structure, work needing to be completed and what the end use of the structure will be. Within this scope of work, I have made presentations to various Preservation Boards, Building Approval Committee or boards. This has included making the presentation to the National Park Service on a path or process of restoring wood windows and doors. I have a full working knowledge of the Secretary of the Interiors standards and Preservation Briefs which I use on a regular basis. I’ve taught many classes to groups and individuals on how to repair and re‐glaze wood sash. I’ve also helped other companies refine their process on building or replication of historic wood sash. Two of these companies are listed as approved on your current lit. While working with Colorado Preservation Inc. I was highly involved with CPI’s Preservation Conference working behind the scenes or presenting at the conference. I was drawn to the group due to the conference as sharing my knowledge has given me much satisfaction. I am also proud of my involvement on the structures I’ve worked on over the years. It will be part of my legacy, even if I’m the only one who knows what or where I’ve worked. 2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Application Letter (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Project List 1988 thru 2000 (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Project List 1988 thru 2000 (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.b Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Project List 1988 thru 2000 (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.b Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Project List 1988 thru 2000 (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Project List 1988 thru 2000 (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.b Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Project List 1988 thru 2000 (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) Colorado Sash & Door, Inc. PO Box 270682 Fort Collins, CO 80527‐0682 (970)226‐1460 office (970)797‐6392 fax (970)402‐2623 cell Mark J. Wernimont President Founded in 1999 Historic Restoration / Replication and Replacement Projects: Current Architect Contractor 635 / 639 South College, Fort Collins Davis and Davis, Fort Collins Neenan Construction Boulder Historic Depot, Boulder Colorado Anderson Hallas Architects, Golden Milo Construction Phillips County Court House Wattle & Daub Completed 2014 1520 Market Street ‐ Seed Building Gensler Architects, Denver Hyder Construction Metsee Bank, Wyoming Wattle & Daub Greek Orthodox Church, Denver Eidos Architects Krische Construction 1536 Wynkoop, Denver Gensler Architects, Denver EJCM LLC Completed 2013 Camp Amache Guard Tower Wattle & Daub 1600 Pearl Street Midyette, Boulder Taylor / Khors Completed 2012 Cardinal Mill ‐ Phase IV, Boulder County Lopex Smolens Associates Milo Construction First Congregational Church, Loveland Aller‐Lingle Architects Wattle & Daub Gold Miner Hotel, Eldora Gold Miner Hotel Completed 2011 German Church, Longmont Aller‐Lingle Architects Mark Yount Construction 1860 Blake Street Gore Range Development Completed 2010 City Park Green House, Denver Bennett Wagner & Grody MCL, Inc. State Forest Office, La Junta HGF Architects, Pueblo Buildings by Design Completed 2009 Crested Butte Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre Park State of Colorado Brighton Cultural Center This Place in Time Bleeker & Vigesaa, LLC Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming National Park Service Grand Teton National Park Walker Ranch House, Boulder County Boulder County Open Space Boulder County Spanish Peaks Library, Walsenburg CO Studiotrope, Denver HW Houston Construction Major Projects Prior to 2009 Tivoli Center, Denver Slater Paul Architects, Denver GH Phipps Northern Hotel, Fort Collins Governors Manson, Cheyenne, WY Dubee - Moulder Architects State of Wyoming Centennial High School, Fort Collins Slater Paul Architects, Denver Sinnette Builders CSU Forestry Building, Fort Collins Architectural Resource Group Colorado State University CSU Music Building` Colorado State University Bryant Webster School, Denver Denver Public Schools Bullwhacker's Casino, Central City & Blackhawk Hensel Phelps Construction REI Flag Ship Store, Denver Hensel Phelps Construction Traylor Elementary School Denver Public Schools Steck Elementary School Denver Public Schools Cheyenne Depot Building Riemann Construction 2.c Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Historic Project List thru 2015 (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) 2.d Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Feeder Supply Window Study (3969 : Addition of Mark Wernimont to Design Assistance Program Consultant List) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2016 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW STAFF Kaitlin Dorn, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed alteration of the Markley Property located at 802 Peterson Street, a one and one-half story single family dwelling constructed in c. 1939. The property owners propose to construct a one-story open porch addition. APPLICANT: Ronald A. Olson and Aundrelyn Knott 802 Peterson St Fort Collins, Co 80524 OWNER: Ronald A. Olson and Aundrelyn Knott 802 Peterson St Fort Collins, Co 80524 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Markley House is a one and one-half story single family dwelling constructed in 1939. It is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Properties (5LR.3134, 1980). The owners of the property, Ronald A. Olson and Aundrelyn Knott, are proposing to alter the house through the addition of a one story open porch on the façade, removing approximately four rows of clap board siding for attachment, and adding a stone veneer to the porch foundation. In accordance with Fort Collins City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, the property was reviewed in November 2015, and has officially determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under criterion C, Design/Construction. The dwelling is a good example of a local variant of the Tudor Revival architectural style. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: Constructed in 1939, this one and one-half story, single family dwelling is a well-preserved example of the Tudor Revival architectural style in Fort Collins. It is associated with prominent Fort Collins businessman Ferd S. Markley, who built a successful automobile dealership in the City beginning in the late 1930s and later was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives. Although it is associated with Ferd S. Markley, the property is not directly representative of the automobile dealership business enterprise. The building is identified as a contributing property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980. The building is a one and one-half story, 1,808 square foot wood frame dwelling. The house rests on a concrete foundation, and the exposed basement portion of the basement wall contains several small basement windows. The main mass of the house is side-gabled, with a large front-gabled section that projects forward from the façade, offset to the right/south. The exterior walls are clad with what appears to be original wide clapboard siding. The house is covered by a moderately pitched intersecting gable roof clad with modern composition shingles. The roof 3 Packet Pg. 34 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 does not overhang the walls, and has small returning eaves. A massive exterior chimney constructed of brick is attached to the dwelling’s north elevation, and a short, plain brick interior chimney stack rises from the peak of the roof. The asymmetrically-arranged façade faces west, and the main entry is located on the projecting front-gabled section, offset to the left. The main entry consists of a semicircular arched opening containing what appears to be the original semicircular arched stained and glazed wooden door. The main entry is accessed via a concrete stoop with side-facing steps and a wrought-iron railing. The façade is fenestrated with a variety of original wood sash windows, including two large three-part windows consisting of eight-light hinged casement sashes flanking a fixed central pane. Other windows on the façade include a small 4/4 light, double hung window to the right/south of the main entry; and a tandem set of 6/6 light, double-hung upper story windows placed beneath the peak of the front gable. The exterior of the house appears to be virtually unmodified, with the exception of the two large three-part windows on the façade, the fixed center sashes of which were originally divided into 12 lights but now are visible as solitary panes of glass. The only other change to the dwelling noted is the removal of what appears to be an original semicircular arched wooden screen door visible on the façade view in the 1948 County Assessor’s photo of the house. A short distance behind the house is a single story wood frame detached garage. The garage is covered by a moderately pitched, composition shingle-clad gable roof without overhanging eaves. Its exterior walls are clad with wide clapboard. 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 one-story open porch addition. The porch features 4x4 Redwood posts, concrete slab with treated lumber flooring, and Class A Shingle roofing. The porch addition will attach to the historic house by removing approximately two rows of clapboard siding (at both the roof system and deck joist system levels) and installing a ledger board, fastened with lag screws into the existing wall studs, covered with continuous flashing. A stone veneer will enclose the porch’s concrete pier foundation. PROCESS: Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code provides the process and requirements for the review of alterations or demolition of structures 50 years of age or older. Commonly referred to as demolition/alteration review, the process begins when the owner submits an application for City approval of the demolition or exterior alteration of the structure. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such application, the Director and the Chair of the Commission (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair), determine if the proposed work constitutes a demolition or a minor or major alteration of the exterior. If the work is determined to be a demolition or major alteration, the Director and the Chair refer the matter to either a subcommittee, or to the Commission for a hearing. Prior to the Commission meeting, public notice occurs, and there are submittal requirements that must be fulfilled: a. A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an approved expert in historic preservation; b. Detailed plans and specifications describing and depicting the appearance of the site, structure or object that is the subject of the application, in context, after the proposed alteration or demolition; c. Evidence that all administrative and quasi-judicial approvals necessary to accommodate the proposed demolition or alteration have been obtained; d. A plan of protection acceptable to the Commission showing how the applicant will ensure that no damage will occur to any historic resources on or adjacent to the site. e. Applicable fees COMMISSION ACTION: At this demolition/alteration review hearing, the Commission shall approve the application for demolition (with or without conditions) unless such approval is postponed as described below. The LPC may impose conditions of 3 Packet Pg. 35 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 approval requiring the property owner to provide the City with additional information to mitigate the loss caused by the demolition or alteration. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to:  Comprehensive photographic documentation of such structure, with prints and negatives;  Comprehensive historical, developmental, social and/or architectural documentation of the property and the neighborhood containing the property; and/or  Any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties. Alternatively, the Commission may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days for additional information needed for its consideration, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark designation of the property. In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within the forty-five-day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed demolition. FINDINGS: Staff has made the following findings of fact as it relates to this application: The Markley Property is more than 50 years of age, dating to 1939; The property is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the State Register of Historic Properties as a part of the Laurel School National Register District, established in1980). The work proposed was determined to be “major,” affecting more than one aspect of integrity; The Markley Property was determined to qualify for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark; and The posting and submittals required for this meeting have all been complied with. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (JPG) 2. Photographs (DOCX) 3. Applicant Submittal (PDF) 4. Architectural Inventory Form (PDF) 5. Letters from Neighbors (PDF) 6. Staff Presentation (PPTX) 7. DemoAlt Review Consent Form (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 36 3.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Location Map (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Photographs of 802 Peterson Street Front (West) Elevation Northwest Perspective 3.b Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Photographs (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Side (North) Elevation Rear (East) Perspective 3.b Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Photographs (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Southwest Perspective of Garage Southwest Perspective of Garage 3.b Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Photographs (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.13889 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Markley House 6. Current building name: Olson House 7. Building address: 802 Peterson Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 8. Owner name and address: Ronald A. Olson and Aundrelyn Knott 802 Peterson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W SW ¼ of NW ¼ of SE ¼ of NW ¼ of section 13 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 493930 mE ; 4491753 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15' 12. Lot(s): West 90 feet of Lot 9 Block: 158 Plat: Fort Collins Original Townsite Year Platted: 1873 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97132-23-007, comprising the west 90 feet of Lot 9 in Block 158 of the original Fort Collins Town Site plat. The parcel has a rectangular boundary measuring 50 feet wide by 90 feet deep, and contains 4,500 square feet (0.10 acre) of land. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length: 32.5 ft. x Width: 34.5 ft. 16. Number of stories: 1.5 17. Primary external wall material(s): Wood – Horizontal board siding (clapboard) 18. Roof configuration: Gable Roof- Intersecting Gables Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date ____________ Initials ________________ ______ Determined Eligible- NR ______ Determined Not Eligible- NR ______ Determined Eligible- SR ______ Determined Not Eligible- SR ______ Need Data ______ Contributes to eligible NR District ______ Noncontributing to eligible NR District OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form 3.d Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt/Composition (shingles) 20. Special features: Chimneys 21. General architectural description: The property consists of a (4,500 ft²/0.10 acre) residential parcel located on the southeast corner of Peterson Street and Plum Street, and contains a 1½ story, wood frame, single family dwelling built in 1939, along with a detached wood frame garage accessed from Plum Street. No other outbuildings are present on the lot. The one and one-half story, single family dwelling on this parcel is a well-preserved example of Minimal Traditional style domestic architecture in Fort Collins. The house encompasses 1808 finished square feet of living space, and has a fully finished, 884 square foot basement which is accessed via a concrete stairwell on the dwelling’s south side. The house rests on a concrete foundation, and the exposed basement portion of the basement wall contains several small basement windows. The main mass of the house is side-gabled, with a large (24.5 feet wide) front-gabled section that projects six feet forward from the façade, offset to the right/south. The exterior walls are clad with what appears to be original wide clapboard siding. The house is covered by a moderately-pitched intersecting gable roof clad with modern composition shingles. The roof does not overhang the walls, and has small returning eaves. A massive exterior chimney constructed of buff-colored fire brick is attached to the dwelling’s north elevation, and a short, plain brick interior chimney stack rises from the peak of the roof. The asymmetrically-arranged façade faces west, and the main entry is located on the projecting front-gabbled section, offset to the left. The main entry consists of a semicircular arched opening containing what appears to be the original semicircular arched stained and glazed wooden door. The main entry is accessed via a concrete stoop with side-facing steps and a wrought-iron railing. The façade is fenestrated with a variety of original wood sash windows, including two large three-part windows consisting of eight-light hinged casement sashes flanking a fixed central pane; based on a 1948 photo accompanying the Larimer County Assessor’s property record (attached), the large central pane was originally divided into 12 lights. Other windows on the façade include a small 4/4 light, double hung window to the right/south of the main entry; and a tandem set of 6/6 light, double-hung upper story windows placed beneath the peak of the front gable. Like some Minimal Traditional-style homes, this example exhibits several subtle English Tudor architectural influences such as a front gable with an asymmetrically sloped roof, a semicircular arched main entry, and a massive exterior chimney. The dwelling’s north elevation is fenestrated with four multi-light, double-hung windows. Flanking the exterior chimney are identical 6/6 light, double-hung windows, and two tandem sets of similar 6/6 light, double-hung windows are located on the north elevation – one on the first floor offset towards the rear, and the other placed beneath the peak of the side gable. The south elevation is fenestrated with a total of four windows, including two 6/6 light, double- hung windows flanking a centrally-placed, small, modern sliding sash window on the first floor. Also on the south elevation, a large tandem set of 6/6 light, double-hung windows is placed beneath the peak of the side gable. The rear/east elevation contains another entry equipped with what appears to be the original painted and glazed wooden panel door. A wide shed dormer is located on the rear elevation, and is fenestrated with three identical small 6/6 light, double-hung windows. The first floor 3.d Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 level of the rear elevation is fenestrated with large 6/6 light, double-hung windows flanking a centrally-placed tandem set of smaller 6/6 light double-hung windows. 22. Architectural style/building type (house): Minimal Traditional 23. Landscaping or special setting features: This house is situated on a very small parcel (4,500 ft²/0.10 acre), located on the southeast corner of two perpendicular streets in a well- established residential neighborhood that was completely developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Except for one house built in 2006, all of the houses in the 800 block of Peterson Street are 1 to 2½ story wood frame structures that were constructed between 1898 and 1939. The subject property has a very small back yard that is enclosed by a non-historic galvanized chain link and sheep wire fence. A concrete pad covers the space between the rear/east side of the house and the west side of the garage, and a narrow concrete walkway extends southward from this pad and around to the south elevation where the basement entry stairwell is located. The property’s front yard has been cleared of vegetation, evidently as preparation for new landscaping. A diagonal narrow concrete path extends from the stoop near the front entry to the sidewalk at the northwest corner of the lot. The tiny back yard is covered with grass, and a cluster of three small trees is located near the fence at the property’s southeast corner. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A short distance behind the house is a small (18 feet wide x 20 feet long), single story wood frame detached garage. The garage is covered by a moderately pitched, composition shingle-clad gable roof without overhanging eaves. Its exterior walls are clad with wide clapboard. The front/north side of the garage contains two large vehicle access openings that are sealed with modern sectional sheet metal roll-up garage doors. A personnel entry is located on the west elevation, and is equipped with what appears to be the original stained wooden panel door. Small, original fixed multi-light wood sash windows for interior illumination are located on the building’s east, west, and south elevations. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1939 Source(s) of information: Building Permit #5969, recorded in Fort Collins Building Permit Log Book for the period 1920-1949. The permit was for construction of a “Residence” on Lot 9, Block 158 (address - 802 Peterson Street), and was issued to owners Ferd S. and Elsie L. Markley on October 3, 1939. The estimated cost of the dwelling was $5,200. 26. Architect: Unknown Source(s) of information: Not Applicable 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source(s) of information: Not Applicable 28. Original owner: Ferdinand S. and Elsie L. Markley Source(s) of information: Warranty Deed from Peter O. Beckwall, et al. (grantors) to Ferd S. and Elsie L. Markley (grantees) recorded in Book 702, Page 415, September 1, 1939; Building permit issued by the City of Fort Collins to Ferd S. and Elsie L. Markley on October 3, 1939. 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The earliest available Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map coverage of the 800 block of Peterson Street was the December 1925 edition, which clearly shows that there were no buildings standing at that time on the western portion of Lot 9 in Block 158. A building permit was issued by the City of Fort Collins on October 3, 1939 for construction of the dwelling at 802 Peterson Street, and it was likely finished in early 1940. No other building permits were issued 3.d Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 for this property for the period 1920-1949. The exterior of the house appears to be virtually unmodified, with the exception of the two large three-part windows on the façade, the fixed center sashes of which were originally divided into 12 lights but now are visible as solitary panes of glass. The only other change to the dwelling noted is the removal of what appears to be an original semicircular arched wooden screen door visible on the façade view in the 1948 County Assessor’s photo of the house. The garage, which is clearly shown on the 1948 Sanborn map, was evidently also built at the same time as the house (1939-1940). The only alterations noted with respect to the detached garage are on its front/north side, where the original vehicle access doors were replaced with two modern sheet metal sectional roll-up garage doors. 30. Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): None 33. Current use(s): Domestic (Residential) 34. Site type(s): Single dwelling 35. Historical background: This house located at 802 Peterson Street was constructed in 1939-40 for businessman Ferdinand S. (“Ferd”) Markley and his wife Elsie L. Markley. The Markleys had married on February 10, 1916 in Humbolt, Kansas. Ferd Markley had originally established a Dodge-Plymouth automobile dealership in rural Brush, Colorado in January of 1934, during the height of the Great Depression. Probably seeking greater opportunity for his dealership, Mr. Markley relocated the business to Fort Collins in 1936. With four employees, Markley Motors, Inc. opened for business near Old Town Fort Collins at 264 North College Avenue on August 5, 1936. Approximately two years later, in 1938, Markley moved his dealership to a former grocery warehouse building he purchased in the same block at 264 North College Avenue. Enjoying success in the car business, the Markleys were able to purchase a partial lot at the southeast corner of Peterson and Plum Streets in September of 1939, and have a new house built for them. The new 1½ story dwelling, at 802 Peterson Street, was built in the popular “Minimal Traditional” style, and also included a spacious two-car garage. The Markleys’ home was the last one to be built on the east side of the 800 block of Peterson Street, and was one of relatively few built in the city during a time when the national economy caused a general stagnation in privately-funded urban development. Within several years after moving into their new abode, the Markleys successfully weathered another economic challenge – the onset of American entry into World War II – a time when domestic automobile manufacturing was suspended to accommodate the conversion of major industry to the war effort. During this time many manufacturing companies and other businesses were “drafted” to help with the production of a wide array and large numbers of armaments and supplies for the greatly expanded American military forces engaged in a ferocious conflict on multiple global fronts. During the early 1940s Ferd Markley took advantage of the economic challenge by leasing his dealership building to a company engaged in the manufacturing of military parachutes for the U.S. government. After the cessation of hostilities, the Markleys resumed selling automobiles, and to help manage the increased demand for cars from the public, the Markleys’ sons Eugene (“Gene”) 3.d Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 and Robert (“Bob”) Markley joined the company. With ample help and greater ambitions, Ferd Markley embarked on a new career in the early 1950s. In 1952 he was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives, where he served multiple terms prior to his death in 1960. As the automobile business continued to grow, with sons Gene and Bob taking over most duties, and probably seeking a location closer to Denver, the Markleys in 1959 had a new rambling one story home built at 2520 South College Avenue. After the departure of the Markleys, the house at 802 Peterson Street was sold, and its ownership evidently changed several times over the years in the latter decades of the twentieth century. From 1959 through c. 1963 or 1964 it was occupied by E. Cecil Jenison, custodian for athletic equipment at Colorado State University (CSU), and his wife Lena, who was employed as the cafeteria director for Larimer County School District No. 5. By 1962 the Jenisons were renting the basement as a student apartment – a pattern that was to continue after they sold the property. Subsequent owners in the 1960s included CSU professor Frank J. Vattano, his wife Sarah J. Vattano, and their two children; followed in 1965 or 1966 by another CSU professor, Bernard W. Marschner, who occupied the house with his wife Mary E. Marschner and their children until c. 1970. The house was used as a student rental property in the early 1970s. By 1975 the home had been acquired by James L. (“Jim”) Arvidson, a real estate appraiser for Home Federal Savings and Loan Association, who lived at 802 Peterson Street with his wife Char, a beautician at the local J.C. Penneys store, along with his daughter Rachel. Shortly afterward (by 1976), the Arvidsons had moved to another home located at 1625 Scarborough Drive in Fort Collins. After moving, the Arvidsons continued to retain ownership of the 802 Peterson Street property, and used it as a rental catering to numerous CSU students and others. Jim Arvidson maintained ownership of the former Markley house for approximately 40 years, and it was finally sold to a new owner, Audrelyn Knott, in July of 2014. Then, in late September of 2015 the property was sold to Ronald A. Olson, and was quitclaimed less than two months later, on November 2, 2015, by Olson to himself and Audrelyn Knott, who remain the current owners. Under their ownership, the property is being rehabilitated, and they are also seeking to construct a new front porch on the house. Because the home is more than 50 years old, the owner’s application to build a new porch that would alter its exterior appearance prompted a historical review by the City of Fort Collins Planning Department, which required this inventory form to be developed. 36. Sources of information: Beier, Harold 1958 Fort Collins, History and General Character. Research and Survey Report, Part 1. Prepared by Harold Beier, Community Development Consultant, Fort Collins, Colorado, for the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, April 1958. City of Fort Collins Building Permits Log Book, 1920-1949 1939 Entry dated October 3, 1939 for Building Permit #5969 for “Residence,” at 802 Peterson Street, issued to owners Ferd S. and Elsie L. Markley. Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1938, 1940, 1948, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956-1957, 1960, 1962-1964, 1966, 1968-1973, 1975-1976, 1979, 1981, 1983-1991, 1993-2013. From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 3.d Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 Fort Collins Coloradoan 1982 Obituary for Elsie Markley, dated March 1, 1982. From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. Kane, James S. 1979 National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Laurel School Historic District (aka “Midtown Historic District”), dated June 28, 1979. The Laurel School Historic District was officially entered into the National Register of Historic Places on October 3, 1980. Larimer County Assessor 1948 Property Card for 802 Peterson Street (Parcel No. 97132-23-007). From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 1969 Property Card for 802 Peterson Street (Parcel No. 97132-23-007). From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. Larimer County Assessor 2015 Property information record for 802 Peterson Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97132-23- 007). Accessed online, December 7, 2015. Larimer County Clerk and Recorder 1939 Warranty Deed from Peter O. Beckwell and Mabel Beckwell (grantors) to Ferd S. Markley and Elsie L. Markley (grantees), for the West 90 Feet of Lot 9 in Block 158 in the City of Fort Collins. Recorded on August 24, 1939 in Book 702, Page 415. McWilliams, Karen 2001 Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, A Cultural Resources Survey, Larimer County, Colorado (SHF-96-02-115). City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department, December 1, 2001. On file at the Colorado Historical Society, Denver. Morris, Andrew J., editor 1985 “Markley Motors, Inc.” in The History of Larimer County, Colorado, Volume I. Dallas, Texas: Curtis Media Corporation, p. 146. Peyton, E.S., R.A. Moorman, and Kenneth Jessen (ed.) 1986 Trolley Cars of Fort Collins. Fort Collins, Colorado: Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society, Inc. Photographs of Markley residence at 2520 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, built in 1959, in the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. Sanborn Map Company 1925 Fire Insurance Maps of Fort Collins, Colorado, December 1925. Microfilmed maps compiled by the Library of Congress; available of the Poudre River Library, Main Branch, Fort Collins. 3.d Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 1948 Fire Insurance Maps of Fort Collins, Colorado, October 1948 (updated from December 1925 base maps). Microfilmed maps compiled by the Library of Congress; available of the Poudre River Library, Main Branch, Fort Collins. Simmons, Thomas, and Laurie Simmons. 1992 City of Fort Collins Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture Historic Contexts. Report prepared by Front Range Research Associates for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ______ No ___X____ Date of designation: N/A Designating authority: N/A 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: ___ __ A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; ______ B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ______ C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ______ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. ________ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) ___X ___ Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable 40. Period of significance: Not Applicable 41. Level of significance: National State Local 42. Statement of significance: The house at 802 Peterson Street is included within an area of Fort Collins that was surveyed in 1979 and designated as the Laurel School Historic District, also known as the Midtown Historic District; this district was officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on October 3, 1980. According to the NRHP nomination, the Laurel School or Midtown Historic District is representative of early community planning, architecture, and social evolution in Fort Collins from the mid-1870s through the 1930s, and contains 665 mainly residential properties, including 549 properties which were evaluated as contributing to the district’s historic and architectural integrity. This property (#232) was identified in the nomination form as a contributing element of the historic district. The single family dwelling located at 802 Peterson Street in Fort Collins is re-evaluated as a well- preserved example of modest Minimal Traditional domestic architecture constructed in the late 1930s, but lacks sufficient historical significance to qualify individually for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, nor for designation as a City of Fort Collins Local Landmark. Many single family dwellings constructed during the early twentieth century are located throughout a broad area lying south of the Old Town commercial district, and east of College Avenue, an area encompassed by Franklin Avery’s original 1873 plat of the Fort Collins town site, and is referred to by the City of Fort Collins’ Planning Department as the historic “Eastside Neighborhood.” However, the former Markley House is a relatively late example that is more reflective of the financial success of its original owner rather than of a broad, important trend 3.d Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 in Fort Collins history. It was built later than almost all of the houses in the 800 block of Peterson Street, and is one of relatively few homes built in the 1930s in the City. For these reasons, the home at 802 Peterson Street would not qualify as eligible for the NRHP or Local Landmark status under Criterion A. Although it is associated with prominent Fort Collins businessman Ferd S. Markley, who built a successful automobile dealership in the City beginning in the late 1930s, the property is not directly representative of that significant business enterprise. Therefore, the home at 802 Peterson Street would not qualify as eligible for the NRHP or Local Landmark status under Criterion B. As an example of historic domestic architecture in Fort Collins, the Markley House is a well- preserved and typical example of the Minimal Traditional style built in the late 1930s, with several subtle English Tudor architectural influences such as a front gable with an asymmetrically sloped roof, a semicircular arched main entry, and a massive exterior chimney. The home’s architectural significance is limited, however, and it would not qualify individually for either the NRHP or for Local Landmark status under Criterion C. Nevertheless, it still contributes to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century architectural assemblage and character of the Eastside Neighborhood residential area of Fort Collins. It also remains a contributing element of the Laurel School/Midtown Historic District that is listed on the NRHP. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The dwelling has experienced only minor exterior alterations and substantially retains its historic architectural integrity and character, including integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, and feeling. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register (individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not (Individually) Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X _ No Discuss: This house is already considered a contributing element of the Laurel School or Midtown Historic District listed on the NRHP in 1980. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: X Contributing ___Noncontributing VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: 802 Peterson #1-24 Negatives or digital photo files filed at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center (Current Planning) - Historic Preservation, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 48. Report title: NA 49. Date(s): December 13, 2015 50. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor 51. Organization: RETROSPECT 52. Address: 936 Wild Cherry Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80521 53. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155 History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 3.d Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 Location of 802 Peterson Street, Fort Collins (5LR.13889), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984). 802 Peterson Street 5LR.13889 ▪ 3.d Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 Sketch map of 802 Peterson Street, Fort Collins (5LR.13889). PLUM STREET PETERSON STREET N site/parcel boundary detached garage dormer 3.d Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 October 1948 Photo of 802 Peterson Street, from old Larimer County Assessor’s property card in Fort Collins Local History Archive. 3.d Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 December 1969 Photo of 802 Peterson Street, from old Larimer County Assessor’s property card in Fort Collins Local History Archive. 3.d Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), looking southeast. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), looking south. 3.d Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), looking south-southeast. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), looking southeast. 3.d Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), view of façade, looking east. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), looking northeast. 3.d Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), façade and south elevation, looking northeast. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), house, looking east-northeast. 3.d Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), close-up of arched font door. 3.d Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), concrete steep leading to front entry. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), upper story tandem windows on facade. 3.d Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), small double hung window on façade near main entry. 3.d Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), basement entry stairwell on south side of house. 3.d Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), basement entry stairwell on south side of house. 3.d Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), north elevation, looking south. 3.d Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), exterior chimney on north elevation, looking south. 3.d Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), rear/east elevation, looking northwest. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), rear/east elevation, looking southwest. 3.d Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), rear elevation, looking WNW, with detached garage in foreground. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), shed dormer on rear elevation, looking northwest. 3.d Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), concrete pad and walkway behind house, looking south. 3.d Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), back yard and detached garage, looking east-northeast. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), detached garage, looking southeast. 3.d Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), detached garage, looking south. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), detached garage, looking northeast. 3.d Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), detached garage, looking northwest. 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), fixed window on west side of detached garage. 3.d Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889), stained wooden panel door on west elevation of detached garage. 3.d Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 December 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance map of Fort Collins showing vacant parcel where 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889) was built in 1939. Lot 9, Block 158, Ft. Collins Townsite 3.d Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 October 1948 Sanborn Fire Insurance map of Fort Collins showing 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889). West 90 feet of Lot 9, Block 158, Ft. Collins Townsite 802 Peterson Street 3.d Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 October 1948 Sanborn Fire Insurance map of Fort Collins showing 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889). West 90 feet of Lot 9, Block 158, Ft. Collins Townsite 802 Peterson Street 3.d Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13889 Location of 802 Peterson Street (5LR.13889) within the Laurel School Historic District. 3.d Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Kaitlin Dorn From: Susan Kreul-Froseth <archfro@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 5:12 PM To: Kaitlin Dorn Cc: Bruce Froseth Subject: 802 Peterson Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Katie, We received the notice of the proposal for 802 Peterson Street. Can you tell us if the construction documents showing the proposed front/side elevations and material specifications are available yet to review or do we need to wait for the final public hearing to see the proposal? We are currently working on the remodel of 900 Peterson Street into our primary residence and are interested in any major proposed design activity in the neighborhood. Thank You, Susan Kreul‐Froseth AIA Bruce Froseth Sent from my iPad 3.e Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Letters from Neighbors (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Final Demolition/Alteration Review 802 Peterson Street Front Porch Addition Katie Dorn Historic Preservation Specialist Landmark Preservation Commission January 13, 2016 3.f Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 2 Location 3.f Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 3 Background and History • Construction Date: 1939 • Community Development and Neighborhood Serivces (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair Review: – Proposed work is major – Property is individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark under Criterion C: Design / Construction – local variant of the “Tudor Revival” style. 3.f Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 4 Front View 3.f Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 5 Rear View 3.f Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 6 Side Views North Elevation Southwest Perspective 3.f Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 7 Project Summary • Front porch addition • Design Assistance from Don Bundy 3.f Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 8 Drawings 3.f Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 9 Drawings Elevation Site Plan 3.f Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 10 Landmark Preservation Commission’s Role • Approve the Proposal • Delay for No More than 45 Days for Additional Information and Possible Council Action 3.f Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 11 Final Demolition/Alteration Review 802 Peterson Street Front Porch Addition Landmark Preservation Commission January 13, 2016 3.f Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 3.g Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: DemoAlt Review Consent Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.g Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: DemoAlt Review Consent Form (3980 : 802 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2016 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to demolish or significantly alter two silos located on the Woodward Technology Center, addressed variously as 1103 East Lincoln Avenue and 1041 Woodward Way. The silos are a part of the Coy-Hoffman Farm, designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. APPLICANT: Wayne Timura Next Level Development, Inc. 735 Lancers Court West, Suite 100 Monument, CO 80132 OWNER: Woodward, Inc. 1000 East Drake Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Coy-Hoffman Silos consist of two silos, one of cast in place concrete constructed c.1910- 1912, and a second one using a concrete stave system constructed c. 1913. The owner of the property, Woodward, Inc., is proposing to demolish or significantly alter the silos. These silos are designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties (5LR.1568). In accordance with Fort Collins City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, the silos were reviewed in January 2013, and again in August 2015, and have been officially determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. The silos are significant to the historic agricultural context of the Coy-Hoffman Farm complex, and are significant under Fort Collins designation standard A, for their association with the agricultural history of the community; under designation standard B, for their direct association with the John Coy family; and under designation standard C, for their portrayal of advances in early 1900s engineering technology. The proposed plans were also reviewed by the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) for the resources’ continued designation on the State Register. OAHP’s letter is attached. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The Coy Silos are a part of the Coy-Hoffman Farm resources, consisting of the two silos, an 1866 stone and timber barn, and a c.1900 brick milk house. For more than 150 years, the farm has been recognized as one of the earliest homesteads in the region, and holds one of the oldest water rights claims along the Cache la Poudre River. The Coy farm was established in 1863, by John and Emily Coy, who arrived in the Cache la Poudre River Valley on August 1, 1862 while journeying to California. Following a winter here, John Coy instead homesteaded a parcel of rich farmland along the Poudre River, initially providing 4 Packet Pg. 96 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 hay to the newly established military camp. At that time, the surrounding country was mostly an empty, treeless expanse occupied by wild animals, a band of Arapahoe Indians, and no more than a dozen widely separated settlers trying to eke a living from the arid land. Initially providing hay to the newly established military camp, over time the farm would grow to more than 300 acres. John Coy became a prominent member of the community as the town of Fort Collins emerged after the military post closed in 1867. Coy was instrumental in the establishment of the Colorado Agricultural College, now Colorado State University. He served as a Larimer County commissioner and was active in the Larimer County Stockgrowers Association. In 1884, he helped organize the Farmers’ Protective Association, to protest price fixing by local flourmills. This led to construction of the Harmony Mill, which continues to stand at Lincoln Avenue and Willow Street. The Hoffman name entered the family’s history when local miller John Hoffman married the Coy’s daughter Francis. Around 1866, John erected a large barn on the property, with stone lower walls and wood above. At the time, it was one of the largest buildings in Larimer County, if not the single largest. It is also likely to be the oldest barn still standing in northern Colorado today. Woodward intends to adaptively reuse the barn as a small conference center. Around 1900, as John Coy continued to improve his farmstead, he constructed a brick milk house. In addition to chilling the milk, milk houses also isolated the product from barnyard smells and microbes. The milk house was relocated to a temporary location during the construction. Woodward plans to move the milk house onto a permanent foundation near the silos and barn, and to adaptively reuse the milk house. Neither the barn nor the milk house is a part of this demolition review process. Circa 1912, John erected the first of two concrete silos that would be located adjacent to the barn. This silo is of poured concrete, ringed with thirteen horizontal metal reinforcing rods. John and Emily Coy’s son, John E. Coy, constructed the second silo circa 1913. Different from the one built by his father, this is a concrete stave silo that is reinforced on the exterior with a series of thirty-six horizontal metal rods that are secured with connectors. Both are uncommon resources in Larimer County, and infrequently seen in Colorado. Following John’s death, the property remained in the Coy-Hoffman family through the late 1980s. In 1992 it was converted into the Link-N-Greens golf course. Recently purchased by Woodward, Inc., the property is being developed as the Woodward Technology Center. Woodward is currently constructing a 303,000 sq. ft. production office facility and a 60,000 sq. ft. corporate headquarters facility on the site. PROPOSED ALTERATION: Woodward desires to dismantle and reconstruct portions of the silos, to create small, semi-enclosed group seating areas for an outdoor gathering space, with bench-style seating installed inside the walls. The silos would be dismantled, and the upper portions of the silos cut and salvaged for reconstruction as part of this seating feature. An approximately 4-foot high section of each silo will be reconstructed on its original footprint to form the seating areas, and the original steel tie rods will be salvaged and reinstalled for interpretation of how the silos were initially constructed. The cut tops will be refinished, and the interior coated with a “shot crete” or similar product, to cover the exposed reinforcing, stabilize the interior surfaces and provide a finished appearance. Neither have roof structures, and there is no visual evidence that they ever did. PROCESS: Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code provides the process and requirements for the review of alterations or demolition of structures 50 years of age or older. Commonly referred to as demolition/alteration review, the process begins when the owner submits an application for City approval of the demolition or exterior alteration of the structure. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such application, the Director and the Chair of the Commission (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair), determine if the proposed work constitutes a demolition or a minor or major alteration of the exterior. If the work is determined to be a demolition or major alteration, the Director and the Chair refer the matter to either a subcommittee, or to the Commission for a hearing. Prior to the Commission meeting, public notice occurs, and there are submittal requirements that must be fulfilled: a. A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an approved expert in historic preservation (with the concurrence of the applicant, LPC Chair and CDNS Director, a recent Historic Structure Assessment report, prepared in March 2014, was substituted for this requirement); 4 Packet Pg. 97 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 b. Detailed plans and specifications describing and depicting the appearance of the site, structure or object that is the subject of the application, in context, after the proposed alteration or demolition; c. Evidence that all administrative and quasi-judicial approvals necessary to accommodate the proposed demolition or alteration have been obtained; d. A plan of protection acceptable to the Commission showing how the applicant will ensure that no damage will occur to any historic resources on or adjacent to the site. e. Applicable fees COMMISSION ACTION: At this demolition/alteration review hearing, the Commission shall approve the application for demolition (with or without conditions) unless such approval is postponed as described below. The LPC may impose conditions of approval requiring the property owner to provide the City with additional information to mitigate the loss caused by the demolition or alteration. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to:  Comprehensive photographic documentation of such structure, with prints and negatives;  Comprehensive historical, developmental, social and/or architectural documentation of the property and the neighborhood containing the property; and/or  Any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties. Alternatively, the Commission may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days for additional information needed for its consideration, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark designation of the property. In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within the forty-five-day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed demolition. FINDINGS: Staff has made the following findings of fact as it relates to this hearing: The Coy silos are more than 50 years of age, dating to circa 1912 and circa 1913; The silos are officially designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, in June 1995; The work proposed has been determined to be “major”, affecting more than one aspect of integrity; The silos have been determined to qualify for individual designation as Fort Collins Landmarks; and The posting and submittals required for this meeting have all been complied with. ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Review August 12, 2015 (PDF) 2. Historic Review January 23, 2013 (PDF) 3. Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation Review (PDF) 4. State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (PDF) 5. Applicant Project Narrative (PDF) 6. Applicant Presentation (PDF) 7. Historic Structure Assessment Report (PDF) 8. Plan of Protection (PDF) 9. Photo c. 1910s (DOCX) 10. Citizen Letters (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 98 4.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Historic Review August 12, 2015 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Historic Review August 12, 2015 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Historic Review August 12, 2015 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Historic Review January 23, 2013 (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation Review (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation Review (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – 4.d Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: State Register 5LR_1568 Coy_HoffmanFarm - Official (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – Coy Hoffman Farmstead Rehabilitation Project Narrative Landmark Preservation Commission – January 13, 2016 Woodward Inc. (“Woodward”) is constructing a new 303,000 sq. ft. production office facility and a 60,000 sq. ft. corporate headquarters facility on the site of the former Link-n-Greens golf course (the “Property”), with occupancy planned by the end of 2015. Situated on the Property is the Coy-Hoffman farm (the “Farm”), which currently consists of a barn, a milk house and two silos (the “Farm Structures”). Woodward integrated the Farm Structures into its new development plan which was approved by the City of Fort Collins (the “City”). The development plan retains the Farm Structures as an integral part of the historic fabric of the development through adaptive functional reuse and public historic interpretive benefit as described below. The Farm Structures are part of a historic property description listed on the State Register of Historic Properties in 1995. A property “line” enclosing a rectangular area of 375’ x 450’ was drawn around the Farm Structures and the former site of the demolished farm house and other non-contributing structures, but this description has no surveyed metes and bounds or other physical connection or survey tie to the Farm or property. Woodward intends to amend this historic property description by reducing its size in the north-south direction to more accurately represent the area occupied by the Farm Structures. alm2s, BHA Design and Next Level Development have been working with Woodward for the last several months to develop appropriate rehabilitation strategies for the Farm Structures that both meet the programmatic needs of Woodward and substantially preserve the Farm Structures for the Fort Collins community. While Woodward is prepared to make a significant investment in the rehabilitation of the barn and milk house, Woodward desires to dismantle and reconstruct the silos, as described below. The safety of Woodward’s employees and the public is of utmost concern to Woodward, and the silos, which have deteriorated to an imminently dangerous condition, are an unacceptable risk to Woodward. As such, the two silos will remain in their historic footprint, though not at their current height, because of their impaired structural condition. The proposed adaptive functional reuse and rehabilitation plan for the barn and milk house have been approved by the Vice-Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Director of the Community Development & Neighborhood Services. Information about the site and these buildings is provided herein for context. Site: The area surrounding the Farm has been significantly altered over time, first by the filling in of the Cache la Poudre floodplain and surrounding acreages to develop the Link-n-Greens Golf Course in the 1980s, and most recently by the development of the Woodward campus. As part of the overall plan for its campus, Woodward funded the restoration of, and dedicated to the City, the 30-acre Poudre River frontage south and west of the Farm to its historic condition with riparian wet meadows, an ox-bow pond, and planted cottonwood groves. Immediately north of the Farm, the Woodward ITS production facility and corporate headquarters buildings, along with future planned buildings, have created a new employment center for Woodward. Overall, the “skyline” and larger Farm 4.e Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Applicant Project Narrative (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON surroundings have been previously and significantly altered. Consequently, there are no remaining landscape features that were associated with the original Farm. The site will be improved to support the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the barn as a small conference center, with an outdoor patio as part of the barn’s primary entrance on the west and walkways that lead to the barn from the Woodward campus. The site additions will provide access and outdoor seating for the new uses, while preserving the historic relationship among the Farm Structures, in a manner as unobtrusive as possible to the exterior views of the Farm Structures. The public may view the Farm from the nearby public loop trail to the south, where Woodward plans an interpretive area to explain the history and reconstruction of the Farm Structures. Barn: Woodward envisions the barn being adaptively rehabilitated into a small conference center, primarily for Woodward’s corporate use and potentially for small community meetings. The barn will seat from approximately 70 people in a banquet table arrangement up to approximately 120 people in an auditorium seating configuration, with limited catering and coffee service along the west wall. No commercial kitchen facilities are planned for the barn. The 1,996 square foot ground floor of the barn will be opened up into one large, open room, with the original sandstone walls left exposed on the interior. No programmed use is intended for the hay loft floor, so approximately 60% of the hay loft floor structure will be removed to open up the volume of space and increase the interior height from the ground floor. New beams and columns will be added to brace and resupport the tops of the sandstone walls and framed hay loft walls where the removed loft floor no longer serves this purpose. While the ground floor will be opened up into a single large room, short segments of the original interior barn walls are intended to be preserved for interpretation of the original construction. A new polished concrete slab-on-grade floor will be poured over the existing dirt floor. A section of original 2x12 wood plank flooring at the east end of the barn, where animal stalls historically existed, will be retained and restored. The space will be heated and air conditioned, and new lighting will highlight the vaulted hay loft level. The exterior of the barn will be rehabilitated to its original appearance, with selective replacement of missing barn siding boards and repointing of the original sandstone masonry ground floor walls. The upper level hay loft walls will be weatherproofed and insulated from the interior so as to preserve the existing exterior materials and appearance. The exterior vertical plank siding will be covered by vertical battens on the interior, the joints sealed with an appropriate spray-foam insulation, and insulated with blown-in-place cellulose or fiberglass insulation. The interior will then be finished with new vertical wood siding boards to simulate the original exterior boards. No new openings are proposed in either the sandstone or wood framed walls of the barn, when viewed from the exterior. However, one small opening in the north wall is proposed to access the restrooms within the addition, as described below. The original hay loft doors on both the east and west facades are proposed to be fixed in their open position and the openings infilled with glass to allow for additional natural light into the barn. Although a historical painting of the barn shows a large hay loft 4.e Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Applicant Project Narrative (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON door on the north façade, the opening has been infilled with framing and siding, and it is not proposed to reopen this door. An original door opening on the west facade will become the main entrance to the conference center. The larger, sliding barn door on the north facade will be replaced with a pair of modern, swinging doors that will meet code requirements for exiting and that will be clad in vertical wood siding boards to match the historic appearance of the original. Similarly, the original south barn door, which is missing and the opening since boarded over, will be reopened and also have a new pair of wood doors installed. Three small, 2 over 2 wood windows in the sandstone wall on the east facade are original to the barn and will be retained and rehabilitated. Although the two small windows on the west facade are not original, they are clearly a very early modification and will likewise be retained and rehabilitated. The existing wood shake roofing is significantly deteriorated and needs to be replaced. We propose to remove the shingles, and overlay the existing skip sheathing with a composite nailbase rigid insulation system to improve the barn’s thermal envelope, while preserving the historic appearance of the roof from the interior of the space. New replacement taper sawn wood shingles will be installed over new roof felts and Ice and Water Shield underlayments. To allow for additional natural light that does not subtract from the historic appearance of the barn, flat panel roof windows are proposed for the north- facing roof surfaces to allow for additional natural light which face away from the primary public view of the barn, i.e., the public Poudre River trail to the south. The most significant exterior alteration of the barn is the proposal to reconstruct a missing, historical 578 square foot lean-to addition that existed on the north side of the building. The addition will house fully accessible restrooms, bicycle storage and building services rooms in support of the conference center use. The lean-to will be clad with vertical wood plank siding to match the barn’s exterior appearance in board width and thickness. There is adequate historic documentation to justify this reconstruction: a historic painting of the barn shows the lean-to; exposed sandstone foundation stones delineate the location and size of the lean-to; and joints in the siding verify where the lean-to roof originally tied into the barn wall. The lean-to addition is away from the primary public view of the barn from the public Poudre River trail to the south. The proposed adaptive, contemporary functional reuse of the barn is a “change in use” per the 2012 International Building Code, and, therefore, Woodward will fully comply with the IBC as required. This primarily concerns structural reinforcing and lateral strengthening of the upper hay loft walls and roof, but also requires that the barn and lean-to addition be protected by a new fire sprinkler system. Milk House: Previously, the milk house was temporarily relocated nearer to the barn to make way for construction of Woodward’s headquarters facility. In the future, it will be relocated again to allow reconstruction of the lean-to addition and to be closer to its original orientation and spatial relationship to the barn, as shown on the proposed site plan. The milk house will be placed on a new foundation, which reuses its original sandstone slab floor structure, and is proposed to house Woodward’s bicycle 4.e Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Applicant Project Narrative (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON loan program and a bicycle repair shop. The building has only minor exterior rehabilitation needs, including reroofing with taper sawn wood shingles, rehabilitation of the original wood windows and replacement of a non-historic door and other features with period-appropriate materials. Silos: The Farm contains two grain silos, one a jumpform concrete structure and one a concrete vertical stave silo. Neither have roof structures, and there is no visual evidence that they ever did. Both are in significantly deteriorated condition, as documented by multiple independent structural engineering evaluations, one for the Historic Structure Assessment and three other structural reports commissioned by Woodward and the City in response to a recommendation in the HSA for further structural analysis. These evaluations find that both silos are severely degraded from years of exposure to the elements as wells as the acids in the silage and other materials stored in them, as more specifically described below. Neither remains physically connected to its foundation, and both exhibit severe erosion of the concrete wall thickness on their interior sides, with holes in the concrete itself and exposed reinforcing steel in many locations. According to the structural evaluation by Martin/Martin, both silos show “signs of imminent failure or breakdown”. All three structural reports from JVA, Martin/Martin and Exponent concluded that the silos are dangerous and could collapse at any time. Such conclusion is consistent with the International Property Maintenance Code definition of an imminent condition. Martin/Martin and JVA specifically concluded that collapse of the silos is imminent. Additionally, JVA explained that the silos “show signs of imminent failure due to long term acid attack” especially given the history of failure of this particular type of silo. Specifically, JVA’s report referenced a study by the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, detailing the increasing frequency of concrete tower silo collapse and the unpredictable and deadly nature of such collapses. Martin/Martin also concluded that the silos “show signs of imminent failure or breakdown.” JVA and Martin/Martin concurred, that (i) the silos are presently deteriorating, e.g., mild pressure to the base immediately results in crumbling cement, and (ii) given the unpredictable nature of weather and the type of silo, the silos’ failure would be catastrophic, or sudden. All three engineers also concur that the silos are leaning, and that the stave silo has deformed to an elliptical shape from its original, circular shape. The structural concern is also shared by Woodward’s insurance carrier. Woodward is unable to obtain insurance for the silos. Concurring with the belief that the silos pose an imminent threat, AIG refuses to insure not only the silos but also the nearby barn, which is merely 17 feet from the silos. Thus, because of the barn’s proximity to the silos, AIG will not provide property insurance for the barn, further establishing that the silos pose a completely unacceptable risk to life and property. Based on the structural findings, Woodward has determined that it is a safety concern to allow the silos to remain standing without structural intervention. The City agrees with Woodward’s concern and has posted on the silos red-tag warnings, stating that the silos are “unsafe and must be vacated immediately” and that “entry poses risk of death or serious injury”. Additionally, the City required Woodward to immediately erect a 6-foot tall fence circling a 25-foot radius around the silos. As such, 4.e Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Applicant Project Narrative (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Woodward was convinced that the silos cannot remain in their current dangerous condition if they are to be adaptively reused. Both Woodward and the design team explored several options for reuse of the silos, including small museums, a climbing wall, lookout and storage. Any reuse of the silos for other than agricultural use would be considered a “change in use” per the 2012 International Building Code, and would require the silos be brought up to current structural code and handicapped accessibility requirements. Additionally, the Martin/Martin report indicates that the silos “in their current state cannot be used as (storage) silos or any other occupied use”. Because of the inability to use the silos for neither their intended purpose nor other uses based on the silos’ current condition, the plan is to retain a portion of the silos in place. This will preserve their historic relationship with the barn and modify the silos to create a meaningful, functional adaptive reuse, which supports the conference center and outdoor patio space. The silos will be lowered to create small, semi-enclosed group seating areas for the outdoor gathering space, with bench-style seating installed inside the walls. The lowered height will allow interpretation of the materials and construction type of each silo, as well as their relationship to the barn, while providing a safe, visible and open seating area for the patio. Given their deteriorated condition, the silos will be dismantled, and the upper portions of the silos cut and salvaged for reconstruction as part of this seating feature. An approximately 4-foot high section of each silo will be reconstructed as the seating areas, and the original steel tie rods will be salvaged and reinstalled for interpretation of how the silos were initially constructed. The cut tops will be refinished, and the interior coated with a “shot crete” or similar product to cover the exposed reinforcing, stabilize the interior surfaces and provide a finished appearance. Conclusion: The rehabilitation work will be guided by the findings of a Historic Structure Assessment, led by alm2s and completed in March 2014, to the standards of the State Historical Fund of History Colorado. The work will comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and appropriate National Park Service Preservation Briefs, including #20 “Preservation of Historic Barns”. Woodward chose the Property from among many alternative locations for its new corporate headquarters, despite the numerous site challenges, including the presence of the Farm Structures. This decision was based in part on the mutual commitment to the success of the project articulated by City officials. Woodward has taken a thoughtful and deliberate approach to these challenges in order to achieve the shared vision of a world class campus at this location. Repurposing the barn and milk house and dismantling and reusing a portion of the silos would preserve civic pride and the cultural aesthetic of the City as mandated by the Landmark Preservation Commission; these plans also allow Woodward to move forward with the expansion of its manufacturing and corporate headquarters, which will be a certain economic benefit to the City. The Hoffman family, descendants of the original owners, supports Woodward’s restoration plans and agree that the Farm’s historic value is maintained by keeping the silos’ footprint, but not the actual silos themselves. From the perspective of Jim Hoffman, the last family member to farm the Property, the 4.e Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Applicant Project Narrative (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON silos are pieces of equipment that lost their usefulness long ago. Accordingly, the Hoffman family believes that the historic value of the Farm will be enhanced by Woodward’s modifications, which will allow citizens to safely learn about the history of the Farm. Woodward plans a significant investment to retain the historic structures as an integral part of the historic fabric of their corporate headquarters development through an adaptive functional reuse which also provides public historic interpretive benefit. We respectfully request that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the dismantling and reconstruction of a portion of the silos, as proposed. 4.e Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Applicant Project Narrative (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm LPC Meeting January 13, 2016 4.f Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Master Plan PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Site Plan PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Exterior Perspective from the Southwest PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Exterior Perspective from the Northeast PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Painting of Coy-Hoffman Barn and Fireplace EXISTING 4.f Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Interior Perspective PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Civil Site Plan PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Barn Main Floor Plan PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Barn Hay Loft Floor Plan PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Barn Roof Plan PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Barn Elevations PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Barn Sections PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Coy-Hoffman Farm Milk House Floor Plan and Elevations PROPOSED 4.f Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD Fort Collins, Colorado March 2014 Project No. 1324 Coy-Hoﬀ man Farm Historic Structure Assessment FINAL 4.g Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.g Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON COY-HOFFMAN FARM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT Fort Collins, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS Page  Executive Summary 1  Building Survey Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Research Background/Participants 5 1.2 Building Location/Vicinity Map 7 1.3 Assessment Criteria 8 2.0 History and Use 2.1 Construction History and Architectural Significance 10 2.2 Proposed Program 16 2.3 Drawings of Existing Conditions Attached 3.0 Structure Condition Assessment 3.1 Site 17 3.2 Barn Foundations 20 3.3 Barn Structural System 21 3.4 Building Envelope – Barn Exterior Walls 25 3.5 Building Envelope – Barn Roofing and Waterproofing 26 3.6 Barn Windows and Doors 27 3.7 Barn Interior Finishes 30 3.8 Barn Mechanical Systems 32 3.9 Barn Electrical Systems 32 3.10 Concrete Silos Structural Systems 33 3.11 Milk House Foundations 35 3.12 Milk House Structural System 37 3.13 Building Envelope – Milk House Exterior Walls 38 3.14 Building Envelope – Milk House Roofing and Waterproofing 39 3.15 Milk House Windows and Doors 40 3.16 Milk House Interior Finishes 41 3.17 Milk House Mechanical Systems 42 3.18 Milk House Electrical Systems 43 4.0 Analysis and Compliance 4.1 Hazardous Materials 44 4.2 Building Code Compliance 44 4.3 Zoning Code Compliance 45 4.4 Accessibility Compliance 45 4.5 Existing Materials Analysis 46 4.g Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment 5.0 Preservation Plan 5.1 Prioritized Work 47 5.2 Phasing Plan 48 5.3 Estimated Construction Costs 49  Historic Photo Documentation  Photo Documentation  Technical Literature References 52  Terms and Definitions 54  Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (for reference) 55 4.g Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 1 Executive Summary The Coy-Hoffman Farm is an important landmark in the history of early Fort Collins, Colorado, significant for its association with John G. and Emily Coy, an early pioneer farming family in Northern Colorado. The original homestead has been reduced in acreage over time, and has suffered the loss of the original farm house and other outbuildings. The original 1866 stone and timber barn, two concrete silos and a circa 1900 brick masonry milk house remain of the structures that contribute to the historic landmark designation of the property. The milk house will be relocated as a part of this work, but will be located within the designated portion of the property, and situated in the same orientation to the other buildings as it currently is. In general, the remaining historic buildings of the Coy-Hoffman Farm are in good structural condition, due to the quality of the original construction and a 1995-1997 grant-funded stabilization and restoration project, but have a range of preservation issues related to aging and weathering over almost 150 years of use. Much of the farm buildings' exterior and interior form and character defining materials, features and historic fabric remain intact. The grant work was accomplished in a manner that retained the barn's character defining structural expression and exterior appearance. The intent of the historic preservation efforts outlined in the HSA will be to preserve and/or rehabilitate the barn, silos and milk house, while allowing Woodward Inc. to explore creative ways to adaptively reuse the buildings and structures in their new corporate campus. All preservation and rehabilitation will be undertaken to protect the historic resources, with sensitivity to the buildings' historic materials, designs and appearances. This report is based upon field observations and field measurements made on September 18, 2013, but without the benefit of excavation or selective demolition to verify some of the architectural and structural assumptions. The following is a summary of results based upon our research, field observation and assessment of the building: Landmark Status: A part of the Coy-Hoffman Farm property was listed in the State Register of Historic Properties in June 1995. The designated site did not include the entire farm, incorporating the land and buildings within a restricted rectangular area encompassing the barn, milk house and silos, as a way to include and protect the surviving significant buildings and structures along with a modest buffer of open space. History: The Coy-Hoffman Farm has been recognized as one of the earliest homesteads in the region, holding one of the oldest water rights claims along the Cache la Poudre River. The surviving buildings and structures represent this important history and convey a sense of the area’s agricultural heritage. Architectural Significance: The 1866 Coy-Hoffman barn is one of the oldest agricultural buildings still standing in northern Colorado. It is also one of the finest and earliest surviving examples of German style barn architecture in the state. The silos and milk house represent the ongoing improvement of early farmsteads as their owners sought to enhance their agricultural operations throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. Because these features survive among a greatly reduced number of historic farmsteads in the Fort Collins area, and since the barn in particular was constructed during the earliest period of settlement, the site is significant today as a good representative example of pioneering and early agricultural development. Use: The barn, milk house and silos were originally constructed as part of a working farmstead. They were preserved, but unused except for grounds maintenance storage, when the property was acquired by the City of Fort Collins and redeveloped into a golf course in the early 1990s. 4.g Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 2 Proposed Program: Woodward Inc. is dedicated to preserving the historic buildings, and has gone to great extents to design their new Technology Center facilities and parking around the buildings in a sensitive way. They are currently exploring possible adaptive reuse ideas that will return the buildings to beneficial uses while retaining their historic appearance and integrity. Condition Assessment: The remaining historic Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are in fair to good structural condition. Architecturally, much of the original, character-defining exterior and interior spaces, room configurations, materials, features and details remain intact. Rehabilitation or preservation work is needed to address structural and moisture issues to prevent further damage and deterioration from occurring. All preservation design and construction shall be done in compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.  Site: The immediate site around the buildings has not been significantly modified from when the structures were part of the working farm. Regrading improvements proposed as part of the Woodward redevelopment should be completed to improve surface drainage away from the buildings. Relocation of the milk house is being undertaken as a part of this redevelopment.  Foundations: The sandstone foundations are generally structurally sound, but exhibit some deterioration from the lack of adequate drainage away from the buildings. Repointing is recommended for the rough coursed sandstone foundations. The concrete foundations supporting the silos require further structural analysis and possibly additional structural support.  Building Structural System: The barn and milk house are in good structural condition, particularly as a result of the 1995-1997 stabilization work. Additional structural investigation is recommended during the design phase to verify the depth of footings for the barn and to analyze the structural stability of the concrete silos.  Building Envelope – Exterior Walls: The sandstone and timber walls are structurally sound, but exhibit some deterioration from weathering. Repointing of the sandstone walls and repair and/or replacement of some wood plank siding and trims are required. The brick masonry of the milk house requires repointing and some reconstruction of damaged brick.  Building Envelope – Roofing and Waterproofing: The barn was reroofed in 1995-1997 using taper-sawn Cedar shingles. This roofing remains in good to fair condition, with some evidence of missing and damaged shingles. The building has no insulation in its walls or roof construction. The milk house is roofed with Cedar shake shingles that are in poor condition, and full reroofing with taper-sawn Cedar shingles is recommended. The building is lacking adequate attic ventilation and insulation. Neither of the buildings have gutters or downspouts. While roof runoff is contributing to the deterioration of the stone foundations and walls of the barn, gutters and downspouts are not appropriate on a pioneer barn, and are only recommended if they are determined to be absolutely necessary to the functionality of the proposed adaptive reuse. 4.g Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 3  Windows and Doors: Most of the windows appear to be original to the construction of both buildings and should be retained. These windows and exterior frames, casings and sills should be repaired as necessary, then rehabilitated. Original wood doors of the barn also appear to be original, and should be retained, rehabilitated and possibly fixed in an "open" position to allow the openings to be fitted with modern doors and glazing as needed for an appropriate adaptive reuse.  Interior Finishes: The interior walls and room configurations of the barn remain true to the original construction. The interior of the milk house is a single room, and original plaster finishes may remain beneath non-original paneling. The paneling should be removed and the plaster repaired as necessary. Original materials that are in good condition should be retained and preserved to the greatest extent feasible as a part of any adaptive reuse.  Mechanical Systems: The barn has no remaining evidence of any mechanical system or equipment. The milk house retains a small, non-operable thru-wall heating unit that is not historically significant and may be removed. Likewise, neither building appears to have had any type of indoor plumbing systems. The mechanical and plumbing systems needs will be dictated by the selected adaptive reuse for the buildings.  Electrical Systems: Remnants of electrical service remain in both of the buildings. They will require new electrical power and lighting systems as a part of any adaptive reuse, and may also require new emergency lighting, lighted exit signage, and fire alarm systems. Exterior lighting should be designed and selected to be sympathetic with the historic character of the buildings.  Hazardous Materials: Asbestos, lead-based paint and other hazardous materials may be present in some of the interior materials of the milk house, and further testing is recommended. The exterior wood siding of the barn is heavily weathered, and any lead-based paint may no longer exist. However, this determination should be made by the owner's independent testing agent.  Building Code Compliance: The Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings would be classified as Type V-B (non-rated, combustible) construction. Building code compliance issues related to adequate secondary egress from the upper level of the barn will need to be addressed if any public use is anticipated for the hay loft area.  Zoning Compliance: The site is located within the city limits of Fort Collins and is zoned RC- River Corridor. It is our understanding that the Woodward site, with its multi-use "campus" development approach, was granted a special "addition of a permitted use" during the City's planning approval process. This allowed a number of additional uses to be added to those normally allowed by right in the RC zone, including conference centers and research facilities.  Accessibility Compliance: The Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are currently not handicapped accessible. If the anticipated adaptive reuse will include public or staff access, adequate accommodations will be required for handicapped accessibility. 4.g Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 4  Existing Materials Analysis: Specific materials analysis, such as a mortar mix analysis, forensic structural analysis of the silos, and microscopic paint analysis, should be undertaken during the design phase of any preservation treatment. Funding: The most significant preservation needs are identified in the "Critical" or "Serious" category related to drainage, structural and building code compliance improvements, allowing the project to be planned and completed in two or more phases. While Woodward Inc. will participate in funding the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Coy- Hoffman Farm buildings, it is anticipated that the company may seek grant assistance from the State Historical Fund of History Colorado in the coming years. 4.g Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Research Background/Participants The purpose of this project is to provide an Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) of the remaining historic buildings and structures of the Coy-Hoffman Farm, a part of the new Woodward Inc. Technology Center site. All future rehabilitation and preservation work should consider the recommendations of this HSA report, which has been completed using procedures and methods established by the History Colorado's State Historical Fund (SHF), consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. This document provides an examination of the historic barn, silos and milk house and includes a status or rating of each of its physical features and elements. An itemized course of action needed to correct any deficiencies has been created. From this work, the initial preservation strategies and priorities for stabilization, rehabilitation and/or restoration of the structure have been developed. Ultimately, this HSA report is intended to assist Woodward Inc. in the development of a comprehensive Master Plan for preservation of the buildings and their immediate site. The HSA findings are provided to direct any future design and preparation of construction documents, and to consider the future welfare of the structures, as well as issues relevant to ongoing maintenance. This Historic Structure Assessment was completed by Aller•Lingle•Massey Architects P.C. with the assistance of several subconsultants. Support in assessing the existing structural systems and conditions was provided by Eric Moe, P.E., structural engineer, who also provided guidance and recommendations for moving the historic milk house building. Assistance with site related information and documentation was provided by BHA Design Inc., Woodward's planning consultant. Historical research on the Coy-Hoffman Farm was completed by Tatanka Historical Associates, historic preservation consultants, who also provided support services and contributed to the writing of this report. Archival research was completed for this project through the location of both published materials and unpublished documents gathered from area libraries and archives. Primary among these were the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the City of Fort Collins, and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The results of the field analysis and archival research are presented in this report. Representatives of these firms visited the site on September 18, 2013, and completed field documentation of the barn, milk house and silos, collecting field measurements and digital photographs of historic elements and relevant character-defining materials and features. The weather on September 18 was clear, with temperatures ranging from 60-65. Although the site previously held other buildings that were once part of the farmstead, these are the only remaining built features that were associated with the property during its historic period from the mid-1860s through the 1980s. 4.g Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 6 This project was funded by Woodward, Inc., which recently acquired the site and is currently redeveloping the former Coy-Hoffman Farm into its new Woodward Technology Center. As stated in the firm’s marketing materials, Woodward “integrates leading-edge technologies into fuel, combustion, fluid, actuation, and electronic control systems for the aerospace and energy markets.” When the project is completed, the campus will include the company’s international headquarters, along with facilities for research, development and manufacturing. The historic Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are being integrated into the site plan as a centerpiece of the development, with the goal of preserving their architectural integrity and eventually adapting them for new uses. Because these new uses have yet to be determined, this report addresses the current condition of the buildings and structures, along with their preservation needs. 4.g Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 7 1.2 Vicinity Map Site Description The Coy-Hoffman Farm site is located west of N. Lemay Avenue and south of E. Lincoln Street, approximately one mile east of downtown Fort Collins, Colorado. 4.g Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 8 1.3 Assessment Criteria After evaluation in the field, each feature and element has been assessed to determine the appropriate course of action based upon its significance or importance to the property and its existing condition. Recommendations included in this report are based upon the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as follows: Preservation Preservation places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum over time, through successive occupancies and the respectful changes and alterations that are made. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it assumes that the property has suffered more deterioration prior to work. Rehabilitation allows for an efficient contemporary use through alterations and additions. Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character. Restoration Restoration focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods. Reconstruction Reconstruction establishes limited opportunities to "recreate" a non-surviving site landscape, building, or missing feature or element in new materials. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation notes in its introduction that in Rehabilitation, "historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the treatment Preservation; however, an assumption is made prior to work that existing historical fabric has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement may be required". In giving this latitude, the Guidelines for Rehabilitation includes the following hierarchical methodology: 1. Identify, Retain and Preserve Historic Materials and Features Similar to Preservation, it is essential that during any rehabilitation that recommendations "identify the form and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are important in defining the building's historic character and which must be retained in order to preserve the character". 2. Protect and Maintain Historic Materials and Features After identifying those materials and features that "are important and must be retained in the process of Rehabilitation work", their protection (i.e., "generally involves the least degree of intervention") and maintenance is addressed. 4.g Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 9 3. Repair Historic Materials and Features When the physical condition of "character-defining materials and features warrant additional work", repair is the next recommendation. 4. Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials and Features Rehabilitation guidance is provided for replacing features because the level of deterioration or damage precludes repair. While replacement of extensively deteriorated character-defining features may be considered, removal should not be recommended if the material or feature "could reasonably be repaired and thus preserved". 5. Design for the Replacement of Missing Historic Features If an entire feature is missing, one that has important architectural significance, then the Rehabilitation guidelines allow for its replacement when adequate historical documentation allows the replaced or new design to take into account the "size, scale and materials of the historic building, and most importantly differentiated so that a false historical appearance is not created". 6. Alterations/Additions for the New Use Continued use of a structure often requires alterations, additions and/or adaptive reuse. In these cases, the Rehabilitation guidelines provide that new additions should be avoided and considered "only after it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering secondary" features or spaces. If required, then additions and alterations should be "clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character- defining features are not radically changed, obscured, damaged or destroyed". All preservation construction work undertaken in response to the recommendations contained in this HSA report should be performed in compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 4.g Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 10 2.0 History and Use 2.1 Construction History The Coy-Hoffman Farm is located due east of downtown Fort Collins, and encompasses the open expanse of land west of Lemay Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River. The collection of historic resources there, consisting of a large barn, two silos, and a milk house, is visible from the nearby arterial roads as well as from the well-traveled Cache la Poudre Trail that runs along the river. For more than 150 years, the site has been recognized as one of the earliest homesteads in the region, also holding one of the oldest water rights claims along the river. The surviving buildings and structures therefore represent this important history and convey a sense of the area’s agricultural heritage. Construction History and Context John G. Coy was born in Oswego, New York in 1834 and as a young man spent time in California, where he attempted to mine and made a living splitting and selling shingles. In 1862, he returned east to marry English immigrant Emily Adams. Following their wedding, the couple loaded a wagon and headed west, intending to make it all the way to California. Events along the trail delayed their travel plans as they were held up and robbed of their shotgun in Missouri and then lost some of their livestock in Nebraska, possibly to cattle rustlers or Native American raiders. Arriving in the recently established Colorado Territory, they traveled up the Cache la Poudre River and on August 1, 1862 reached a spot several miles east of the Rocky Mountain foothills where they planned to winter before proceeding to California the following spring. Although the Coys intended to continue on, their journey to California was abandoned in favor of claiming a parcel of rich farmland along the Poudre River. John constructed a small homestead cabin in the bottomlands until their finances improved and they could erect a more substantial house. At that time, the surrounding country was mostly empty, treeless land occupied by wild animals, Arapahoe Indians, and no more than a dozen widely separated settlers trying to eke a living from the land. In addition to building the cabin, John went to work preparing the soil and planting the fields north of the river with hay, a cash crop that could be sold for livestock feed. In 1864, the federal government established the Fort Collins military post less than one mile upstream from the Coy Farm along the south bank of the river. The cavalry soldiers stationed there were tasked with protecting the overland mail service and area settlers from the threat of Indian attacks that failed to materialize. Nevertheless, the soldiers needed to feed their horses, and the Coys supplied the fort with hay grown on their farm. In addition, John transported hay by wagon southward to Denver and Golden, and to the booming mining camps in the mountains above. Around 1866, John erected a large barn on the property. This was situated on slightly higher ground north of the river and homestead cabin so that it would avoid floods. Sandstone for the lower walls was collected from the foothills to the west, where commercial quarries were soon to be located. Around that same time, a few small sawmills were beginning to operate in the area, and lumber for the barn was probably acquired from these operations. The building included ground floor space for horses and to store agricultural products. Above this, the soaring loft was designed with an open plan that allowed it to hold a large amount of hay. 4.g Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 11 Over the following years, the Coys developed a farmstead around the barn. With their agricultural enterprise becoming established, in 1869 they constructed a new family home a short distance northeast of the barn. This two-story building faced toward the northeast and was constructed with exterior walls that were either made of concrete or covered with grout that was lined to look like stone. It provided the family with much improved living conditions compared to the small homestead cabin they had resided in the previous seven years. The home was added onto and remodeled a number of times. By the late twentieth century, it was so changed that the building was almost unrecognizable except for its basic shape. It was demolished in 1991 after the property ceased to be used as a farm. Throughout the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, John Coy became a prominent member of the community as the town of Fort Collins emerged after the military post closed in 1867. He served as a Larimer County commissioner and president of the Larimer County Fair Association. John was also instrumental in establishment of the Colorado Agricultural College in Fort Collins (now Colorado State University), and was active in the Larimer County Stockgrowers Association. In 1884, he helped organize the Farmers’ Protective Association to protest price fixing by local flour mills. This led to construction of the Harmony Mill, which continues to stand at Lincoln Avenue and Willow Street. The Hoffman name entered the family’s history when local miller John Hoffman married the Coy’s daughter Frances. In 1894, he built the Hoffman Flour & Feed Mill, which was located across the river just south of the Coy farm (this was demolished in the 1950s and the site is now occupied by the Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant). Around 1900, as John Coy continued to improve his farmstead he constructed a milk house between the house and the barn. This small masonry building allowed the family to store fresh milk from their cows in cold temperatures until it could be transported to a local dairy to be bottled or made into cheese and butter. Milk houses also isolated the product from barnyard smells and microbes. By around 1910, a tall shed-roof addition had been constructed on the north side of the barn, possibly to shelter farm implements. A loafing shed and livestock pen were also constructed on the south side of the building. In 1912, the year he died, John erected the first of two concrete silos that would be located just to the west of the barn. The second silo was also constructed during the 1910s, possibly around 1913. Following John’s death, the property remained in the Coy-Hoffman family and they continued to operate the farm through the late 1980s. For more than 120 years, it supported the family by allowing them to produce an abundance of livestock, including both cattle and sheep. In addition, the surrounding fields were planted with hay, alfalfa, corn, potatoes, onions, and other crops that could be transported to market and sold for a profit. By the 1980s the site was in use as a sod farm. In 1992, it was converted into the Link-N- Greens golf course, the same year that the barn, silos and milk house were determined to be eligible for the State Register of Historic Properties. While the golf course preserved the site’s open, rural setting, the historic features were rapidly deteriorating. The barn, in particular, was in bad shape by that time, needing immediate attention to avoid its loss. Its roof was heavily damaged, segments of the exterior plank sheathing were missing, the hayloft floor and framing were in terrible shape, and the windows and doors were open. These allowed water to infiltrate the building, causing deterioration to progress rapidly. Without attention, the roof and hayloft were sure to collapse at any time. 4.g Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 12 In 1994, a structural study was completed on the barn to determine its preservation needs. This was paid for by a grant of about $15,000 from the Colorado State Historical Fund. The study concluded that due to the rate of deterioration seen on the building, it would be unlikely to last another five years. Action was needed, and as quickly as possible. In early 1995, the Fort Collins Historical Society applied for and was awarded a restoration grant from the State Historical Fund. In total, the project cost was estimated to be just under $68,000, with almost $52,000 of that in the form of a state grant. The goal of the project was to sensitively return the prominent and historically important barn to a condition of structural and architectural integrity. Peter Haney, a respected Fort Collins timber-framing specialist, worked on the project together with the Center for the Stabilization and Reuse of Important Structures at Colorado State University. In addition to addressing the building’s structural problems, the project was used as a workshop on timber framing and repair. Work completed on the building between 1995 and 1997 included making repairs to the stone foundation wall, addressing problems with structural framing in the hayloft, and rebuilding the deteriorated roof. Despite its poor condition, what had kept the barn standing for so many years was its strong skeletal structure of hewn posts and beams with mortise and tenon joints. It was also kept standing as a picturesque element of the golf course landscape. Although much work was completed at that time, the entire barn was not restored, and no action was taken to address the silos and milk house. The Barn One of a small number of barns that remain standing in the Fort Collins area, the Coy Barn is the most prominent feature on the site. This large building faces toward the northeast. Resting upon a stone foundation that projects horizontally from the walls above by several inches, the building has a footprint of approximately 30’ x 65’. Its lower walls are constructed of roughly cut blocks of native sandstone assembled with coarse-grained mortar and laid in linear coursing. Above the main level, the hayloft walls are finished with unpainted vertical boards that overlap the tops of the stone walls along each elevation. The roof is side-gabled with a steep slope, has overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends and purlins, and it is finished with wood shingles. Large gabled hay hoods supported by wood braces project from the east and west ridgelines. These protected the protruding ends of the hay rail and provided shelter to men working to raise and lower hay between the loft and the ground. The building’s north elevation holds a wide main floor entry toward its east end. The size of the entry suggests that it was used for horses to enter and exit the building. It consists of a pair of vertical wood plank swinging doors that are strengthened on the interior with diagonal plank bracing. There are no windows on this elevation. The upper wall has a long horizontal ghost mark where the roof of the shed addition connected to the building. Additional evidence of the addition’s size and placement is found in the form of its stone foundation, which is partially exposed near the barn’s northwest corner (a vertical bolt there may have secured a sill plate). The faint line of the addition’s foundation can be followed from this corner to the north and then east, and many of its stones are likely to remain just beneath the surface of the ground. The addition deteriorated over the years and was removed in 1991, the same year that the farmhouse was demolished. 4.g Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 13 On the east, the barn holds no main floor entries. Instead, the stone wall there is punctuated by three windows that have been boarded closed. Behind the boards, the original four-light fixed windows remain in place (these are exposed on the barn’s interior). The windows retain their original wood frames and surrounds, along with wood sills and segmental arched stone lintels. Small square nails forged by a blacksmith are particularly evident in the woodwork around these windows. The hayloft wall on the east elevation contains three centered and stacked pairs of wood plank swinging doors that rise from the hayloft floor to the hay hood. The south elevation holds a wide main-level entry with a pair of vertical wood plank swinging doors that appear to have been made non-operable many years ago. This is situated directly across from the entry on the north elevation, and the opening is large enough for horses to have accessed the building. No windows are located along this elevation. On the west, the barn holds a main floor entry that contains a vertical wood plank pedestrian door assembled with blacksmith-forged nails. It is set into a wood frame and has an early transom light above that has been boarded closed. The stones that enframe the slightly recessed entry were cut on a diagonal. Flanking the entry are two small, deeply set four-light fixed windows located high in the stone wall. These have wood frames and surrounds, along with wood sills. As on the east elevation, the hayloft wall above holds three centered and stacked pairs of wood plank swinging doors that rise from the hayloft floor to the hood. The interior of the barn’s main level has a dirt floor with some areas covered with wood planking. Its outer stone walls and interior wood post and beam structure are exposed. The main level is divided into three distinct rooms from east to west. These are separated from one another by approximately 6”-thick boxed wood dividing walls and doors, all of which may have been insulated with concrete. The eastern room contains the remnants of horse stalls with wood feeding troughs. A large vertical wood chute located along the east wall allowed hay to be dropped from the loft above to the feeding troughs below. The central room, which stayed cool and allowed no light to infiltrate, was reportedly used for the storage of potatoes and probably onions. Finally, the western room was used as a granary. Some of the exterior walls in these rooms are lined with wood planking. Sections of boxed grain chutes also remain there on the floor. On the hayloft level, the original wood flooring, wood plank walls, knee braces, and eight post and beam H-bents remain exposed. Its heavier framing involved mortise and tenon joints held together with wooden pegs rather than nails. Also original are the heavy diagonal timber braces at the margins of the walls and roof. The upper part of the hay chute is present along the east wall. Much of the critical preservation work completed in 1995 can be seen in the hayloft, where the newer, light-colored wood is easily distinguished from the darker, aged members. At that time, much of the roof had to be rebuilt with dimensional lumber to replace heavily deteriorated rafters and decking. However, some of the original rafters and decking that retained their structural integrity were left in place. Where necessary, some of the wall girts were replaced with heavy timbers. Finally, timber stud framing was installed in the eastern half of the hayloft to support the tall roof above. An antique piece of horse-drawn agricultural equipment is stored in the hayloft. This is an early horse-drawn grain drill manufactured by the Sucker State Drill Company of Belleville, Illinois (patent date 30 March 1869) that was used to plant grain seeds in furrows in the crop fields. While it might have been brought west by wagon during the early 1870s, it is 4.g Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 14 possible that John Coy ordered this piece of equipment from a catalogue and had it delivered by train to Fort Collins later in the decade (the first train line extended into the area in 1877). This is an exceptional piece of antique agricultural equipment that is historically associated with this site and it should not be discarded. Instead, it should be cleaned for display and interpretation along with the surviving buildings and structures, with care taken that it not be left exposed to theft or the elements. The Silos Two concrete silos, both about 32’ tall and resting upon concrete foundations, stand side by side off the barn’s northwest corner. The eastern silo, built by John Coy in 1912, is constructed of cast-in-place concrete. This is reinforced on the exterior with a series of fourteen horizontal metal rods that wrap around the silo at regular intervals and are secured with metal connectors at their threaded ends. A tall rectangular opening runs from base to top up the silo’s eastern face, spanned by a series of horizontal metal rods. Mounted outside this opening is a deteriorated square wooden enclosure. Metal pipe posts supporting woven wire fencing rise from the top of the silo, which currently has no roof. Coy’s son, John E. Coy, reportedly constructed the western silo around 1913. This is a concrete stave silo that is reinforced on the exterior with a series of thirty-six horizontal metal rods that are securing with metal connectors. The north face has a series of square openings that run from base to top, each of which is surrounded by a hexagonal metal frame that also secures the reinforcing rods. Arched segments of corrugated and sheet metal run up the silo’s exterior and cover many of these openings. Remnants of wood framework of unknown use extend between the tops of the two silos. The Milk House This small masonry building is located northeast of the barn, faces toward the northwest, and for over ninety years stood in the farmhouse’s rear yard. At the present time, it is in the process of being moved closer to the barn and silos. The milk house has a footprint of approximately 12’ x 12’ and rests upon a sandstone foundation that projects outward a couple of inches from the base of the walls. These walls are constructed of brickwork laid in common running bond coursing. The building has a front-gabled roof that is finished with shallow boxed eaves and wood shingles. The entrance on the north elevation holds an older (circa 1950s) but non-original wood panel door with diamond lights in the upper half. It also has a stone threshold, wood frame, and brick segmental arch lintel. Above this, in the gable end wall, is a small rectangular window that has been boarded closed but retains its wood sill and brick segmental arch lintel. To the left of the door is a metal insert in the brick wall that is stamped with the name “Empire.” Although the exact use of this feature is currently unclear, it may be associated with the Empire Cream Separator Company of Bloomfield, New Jersey, which maintained a sales office in Denver. The firm manufactured equipment such as cream separators, milking machines, and even small gasoline engines for use in dairy operations of all sizes. Although the east elevation holds no doors or windows, the south and west elevations both contain windows. The south elevation has a small single-light window with a wood frame and sill, wood surrounds, and a brick segmental arch lintel. Above this, the gable end wall contains another window with similar features, although it is boarded closed. At the base of this wall just above the stone foundation is a clay drainpipe that accommodated washing of the building’s interior floor. The west elevation holds a non-original horizontal 4.g Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 15 band of three fixed windows with wood frames and sill, and wood surrounds. The interior of the building has a sandstone floor, plastered walls (partially covered with non-historic wood paneling), a plastered ceiling, and a set of built-in beadboard cabinets. Sandstone pavers are also present outside the front of the building. Historical & Architectural Significance For a short time after it was constructed in the 1860s, the Coy-Hoffman barn was one of the largest buildings in Larimer County, if not the single largest. It is also one of the oldest barns still standing in northern Colorado today. The two-level barn was constructed with sandstone walls that encompassed ample main floor space, along with a large wood frame hayloft above. John Coy used his skills and employed labor-intensive post and beam construction on the building, which involved cutting mortise and tenon joints, and then assembling the structure with wooden pegs rather than nails. Before long, livestock pens and a loafing shed were added south of the building. A tall shed addition, possibly used to shelter farm implements, was also constructed off the north elevation. Although these additions were removed decades ago, they left the barn looking much like it would have when it was constructed in the 1860s. Today, the barn represents 1860s pioneer construction techniques and the use of local materials and craftsmanship. It also exhibits elements of the two-level German style of barn construction as it appeared in places such as New York, Coy’s home state, and the surrounding northeastern region. Here in northern Colorado, he gave it a western twist with the addition of projecting hay hoods at either end. The silos and milk house represent the ongoing improvement of early farmsteads as their owners sought to enhance their agricultural operations throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s. Because these features survive among a greatly reduced number of historic farmsteads in the Fort Collins area, and since the barn in particular was constructed during the earliest period of settlement, the site is significant today as a good representative example of pioneering and early agricultural development. For these reasons, a nomination to have the historic barn, silos and milk house listed in the State Register of Historic Properties was prepared and submitted to the Colorado Historical Society in March 1995. The site was determined to be eligible under Criterion A for its association with early settlement and high plains agriculture as one of the oldest surviving agricultural complexes in the region; under Criterion B for its association with prominent pioneer farmer John G. Coy and his family; and under Criterion C for its architectural style, age and method of construction. On June 14, 1995, the property was officially listed in the State Register of Historic Properties (Site #5LR1568). However, the designated site did not include the entire farm. Instead, it incorporated the land and buildings within a restricted rectangular area measuring 375’ from east to west, and 450’ from north to south. This relatively small landmarked site encompasses the barn, milk house, and silos, and was conceived to include and protect the surviving significant buildings and structures along with a modest buffer of open space. 4.g Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 16 2.2 Proposed Program The Coy-Hoffman barn, silos and milk house are all solid buildings and structures that are in relatively good condition, but require additional preservation efforts given their historic significance and importance to the Fort Collins community. The fact that they remain standing today is remarkable, a testament to the quality of their original construction, the care they received when in use, the partial restoration completed on the barn in the 1990s, and a bit of luck that kept them from being demolished when the site was converted into a golf course. Many farmsteads in the Fort Collins area have already been lost, making this site all the more important to keep intact. Not only will the barn, silos and milk house become central, scenic features on the redeveloped Woodward site, but they are particularly important as they form a designated landmark listed in the State Register of Historic Properties. Since the State Historical Fund invested in the barn’s preservation almost two decades ago, it will take an interest in how the buildings are treated in the future. And as the local agency interested in such matters, the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission will need to be consulted periodically regarding planned preservation efforts and changes involving adaptive reuse. Preservation Treatments The primary goal for the barn, silos and milk house will be to preserve and maintain them as physical remnants of the area’s pioneer agricultural heritage. After more than a century of use, abandonment, and exposure to the elements, the buildings and structures exhibit various problems that will require attention in the coming years. While future uses have yet to be identified, carefully planned and executed preservation and adaptive reuse will ensure that they remain standing for the benefit of the community and the enjoyment of employees and visitors to the Woodward campus. This report provides a detailed picture of the current condition of the buildings and structures on the site, addressing particular areas and elements of concern. While some of their deficiencies are related to age and use, others are the result of weathering and exposure to the elements. In addition to describing these conditions in detail, the Historic Structure Assessment provides recommendations for rehabilitation along with associated priorities and costs. This is done with the goal of providing in-depth analysis that will guide rehabilitation efforts through the use of appropriate historic preservation methods. All planning and rehabilitation will be undertaken with sensitivity to historic materials, design and appearance. Future work will be undertaken in such a way that historic fabric and integrity are protected. While Woodward Inc. will participate in funding the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings, it is anticipated that the company may seek grant assistance from the State Historical Fund of History Colorado in the coming years. 4.g Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON EL1 2 EL2 EL1 1 2 66' - 2" 30' - 2" 17' - 0" 26' - 0" 17' - 7" 18' - 1" 27' - 2" CONCRETE SILOS DIRT FLOOR 2x12 WOOD BOARD FLOORS @ AT STABLES CONCRETE CURB W/ PLYWD COVER INSIDE WOOD FEED BIN VERTICAL CHUTE GOING TO LOFT ABOVE WOOD FRAMED INTERIOR WALLS W/ CONC. INSUL. ORIG. BARN DOOR OPNG. CLOSED OFF W/ WOOD SIDING INTERIOR WOOD WALLS 35' - 0" SANDSTONE FOUNDATION STONES REMIANING FROM MISSING NORTH LEAN-TO STRUCTURE PR: 4'-0"x8'-0" BARN DOORS 2x FRAMING UP TO ROOF STRUCTURE CHUTE EXTENDING TO FEED BIN BELOW PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:44 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 ksj 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM FLOOR PLANS FP1 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt FP1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN FP1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 HAY LOFT FLOOR PLAN NORTH 4.g Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:44 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 Author 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM SITE PLAN SITE C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt 4.g Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON EL. MILK HOUSE MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" DOUBLE BRICK ARCHED LINTEL WOOD WINDOW (BOARDED OVER) IN ATTIC METAL FLUE VENT CLAY DRAIN PIPE WOOD COVER PLATE PAINTED WOOD FASCIA & BOXED EAVE TRIM BRICK BOND COURSE, TYP. RESIDENTIAL STYLE HALF-LITE DOOR MULTI-WYTHE BRICK MASORY IN RUNNING BOND BRICK BOND COURSE (TYP.) PTD. WOOD FASCIA & BOXED EAVE TRIMS CLAY DRAIN PIPE WOOD CASING & SILL INSWING WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW W/ SINGLE GLASS MULTI-WYTHE BRICK MASONRY IN RUNNING BOND SINGLE BRICK ARCHED LINTEL WOOD WINDOW (BOARDED OVER) IN ATTIC EL. MILK HOUSE MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" FIXED SINGLE PANE WINDOWS 2x WOOD BUCK FRAMES & SILL CEDAR SHAKE ROOFING EL1 2 EL1 EL1 4 3 12' - 5" 12' - 5" EL1 1 SANDSTONE PAVERS (TO BE SALVAGED) THRU-WALL UNIT HEATER (NOT OPERABLE) CONCRETE SLAB PAINTED OPEN SHELVING (6 SHELVES) CABINET PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 EL. ROOF BRG. 120' - 0" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" OPEN BEHIND HAY HOOD 10" / 12" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" DOUBLE VERTICAL WOOD BOARD DOORS WOOD SHINGLE ROOF HAY HOOD WOOD BRACKET UNFINISHED WOOD CORNER TRIM UNFINISHED VERTICAL WOOD SIDING BOARD 8' - 4" STONE 'JUMP FORM' CAST-IN- PLACE CONCRETE SILO CONCRETE PREFAB. STAVE SILO METAL CHUTE 42' - 0" 45' - 0" LOCATION OF POSSIBLE LOFT DOORS ( NOW REMOVED) LINE OF NORTH LEAN-TO ROOF TIE-IN (LEAN-TO SHED NOW MISSING) PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:33 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 KSJ 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EL1 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt EL1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" SANDSTONE FOUNDATION WOOD WINDOW W/ TIMBER SILL SEGMENTAL STONE ARCH UNFINISHED WOOD CORNER TRIM UNFINISHED VERTICAL WOOD SIDING BOARD TRIM BOARD UNDER SOFFIT HAY HOOD ROUGH COURSED SANDSTONE MASONRY WALLS 10" / 12" HAY LOFT DOORS EL. ROOF BRG. 120' - 0" EL. MAIN FLOOR 100' - 0" EL. HAY LOFT 110' - 2" PRE-FAB. CONCRETE STAVE SILO CAST-IN-PLACE 'JUMP FORM' CONC. SILO BARN DOORS FIXED IN PLACE PROJECT DATE DRAWN FILE NAME: PRINTED 712 WHALERS WAY SUITE, B-100 FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/10/2014 2:05:44 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1324 Author 02/10/14 COY- HOFFMAN FARM EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EL2 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 1324−C−H BARN.rvt EL2 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 EAST ELEVATION EL2 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 4.g Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.g Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 17 3.0 Structure Condition Assessment The existing conditions of the Coy-Hoffman Farm, as well as its site elements were evaluated using the following criteria. The terms have been taken from the SHF Annotated Scope of Work. A feature or element is evaluated in Good Condition when:  the element is intact, structurally sound and performing its intended purpose;  there are few or no cosmetic imperfections;  the element needs no repair and only minor or routine maintenance. A feature or element is evaluated in Fair Condition when:  there are early signs of wear, failure or deterioration, though the element is generally structurally sound and performing its intended purpose;  there is failure of a subcomponent of the element;  replacement of up to 25% of the element or replacement of a defective subcomponent is required. A feature or element is evaluated in Poor Condition when:  the element is no longer performing its intended purpose;  the element is missing;  deterioration or damage affects more than 25% of the element and cannot be adjusted or repaired;  the element shows signs of imminent failure or breakdown  the element requires major repair or replacement. 3.1 Overall Site The remaining Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are located in the heart of the approximately 38-acre site that is currently being redeveloped as the new Technology Center for Woodward Inc. The redevelopment proposal has just gone through a rigorous review and approval process with the City of Fort Collins, with the historic farm buildings being preserved and the expansive office, research and manufacturing facilities and their associated parking lots and service access areas laid out to preserve both the historic buildings and the riparian natural areas adjacent to the Poudre River. Prior to this redevelopment, the property had been owned by the City of Fort Collins and used as a par- 3 golf course known as Link-N-Greens. The large stone and timber barn and the two concrete silos are intended to remain in their current locations; however, the milk house will be relocated to a site within the designated site listed on the State Register of Historic Properties. (Refer to the site plan attached with the drawings in this report for the proposed site of the relocated milk house.) Two other farm buildings, a smaller wood-framed barn and a garage, are not part of the site's historic designation and will be dismantled. On the day of our field work, portions of the site were in the process of being regraded, with some trees being cut and chipped to make way for the redevelopment. The immediate areas around the historic farm buildings were being enclosed with temporary chain link construction fencing to both secure and protect them during construction. (Refer to photos #B001-B003, S001 and M001-M003) 4.g Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 18 Very little of the original site features remain from when the farm was used for its historical agricultural use. Remnants of corral fencing and gates lie immediately to the west of the large barn, constructed of round wood poles with let-in wood pole rails and metal strap hinges. Only one gate and a partial section of fence remain. (Refer to photo #B013) Several irregularly shaped flagstone paving slabs remain on the entrance side of the milk house. (Refer to photos #M008A) Condition: Good. The few site features that remain are in fairly good condition. The wood fencing and gate are not heavily weathered, although so little remains that they cannot be reconstructed in any meaningful way. Recommendations: When the milk house is excavated and relocated, it should be sited and oriented (north-south and east-west) to match its historic orientation and relationship with the barn and silos. This is further discussed in Section 3.11 below. The original flagstone paving slabs should be salvaged when the milk house is excavated and relocated, then reinstalled in their original location and orientation (relative to the building) after the building is placed upon its new foundation structure. The remaining sections of historic corral fencing and gates should be preserved and stored in the barn for interpretation. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. (The complete list of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation has been included at the end of this report for reference). Grading and Drainage The immediate site around the farm buildings has very little slope. The southeast corner of the barn drops approximately 16" at the southwest corner and approximately 12" lower than the building’s foundations along the walls. (Refer to photos #B004, B005 and B015) Most of the original farmstead site had been modified when it was redeveloped as a golf course, and will be modified again through this redevelopment. The new site grading proposal has just gone through extensive review by the City of Fort Collins engineering, storm water and flood plain staffs, with the site drainage plan retaining the natural grades around the historic buildings while removing them from the 100-year flood plain. (It should be noted that the flood waters of the September 11-13 floods that inundated much of the northern Front Range came to within 100' of the buildings, but did not cause any damage. Some experts considered this a 500-year storm event in the Fort Collins area.) Condition: Good. We believe that the regrading that is proposed as part of the overall Woodward campus site redevelopment will adequately drain the site away from the foundations of the historic farm buildings, and protect them to the extent feasible from future flood events. Recommendations: None, other than fully implementing all of the grading and drainage improvements required by the City of Fort Collins. We assume that as a part of this, the area immediately around the barn and silo will be sloped to improve drainage away from the foundations. The Contractor should be made aware of the potential for historical resources in the immediate vicinity of the historic farm buildings. If historical or archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, the Contractor shall stop work and notify the owner and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado 4.g Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 19 Historical Society. Site Utilities Only remnants of natural gas and electrical services to the barn and milk house remain. Refer to Sections 3.8, Mechanical, and 3.9, Electrical, for descriptions of these site utilities. Condition: Not applicable. Recommendations: We assume that the provision for new utilities to serve the proposed adaptive reuses for either the barn or milk house will be fed from the primary utility services within the adjacent Woodward administrative building. If trenching for new site utility work is performed, archaeological monitoring should be considered, and the Contractor made aware of the potential for historical resources on the site. If historical or archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, the Contractor shall stop work and notify the owner and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society. Landscaping Sparse turf grasses and weeds remain around the two farm buildings and silos. Two large, 16"-30" caliper multi-trunk Ash trees remain to the north of the barn and are flagged to remain. Other trees that were planted as a part of the golf course development are intended to be either transplanted or cut and their wood milled for plank flooring materials, or chipped for landscape mulch. (Refer to photos #B001-B007) The site is no longer irrigated with an underground irrigation system. Condition: Fair. Much of the irrigated turf grasses have been overtaken by weeds in the one season since the golf course closed. The remaining Ash trees that are targeted to be preserved appear healthy, although their multi-trunk and random growth patterns signal that they originally grew as "volunteers" along the foundations of the now-gone lean-to implement shed. The ongoing presence of turf grass along the building perimeters is problematic, even with the lack of an underground irrigation system. The grass holds moisture along the foundations and prevents roof runoff from draining quickly away from the building. Recommendations: The existing trees should be maintained as long as possible. Saplings growing adjacent to the barn's foundations should be cut and removed to prevent damage to the foundations. If turf grasses are not proposed to be removed in the immediate vicinity of the building's foundations, we recommend that it should be stripped away from the building’s perimeter to a minimum dimension of 4'-0", and wood or rock mulch added to create a “dry zone” around the buildings. If rock is selected, it should be neutral in color. 4.g Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 20 3.2 Barn Foundations Perimeter Foundation Drainage No evidence of an underground perimeter foundation drain is present around the existing barn, milk house or silos. Due to the age and original agricultural use of the property, it is unlikely that any subterranean perimeter drain system exists. The immediate site is generally flat with minimal slope to discourage the presence of moisture adjacent to the building foundations. No topographic survey information is available, but in general surface water flows away from the foundations with a slope less than 1/2" per foot. The overall site currently slopes from the northwest to the southeast. The site around the barn and silos is currently not irrigated or landscaped, although presumably, some irrigation would have occurred when the site was incorporated into the golf course. Condition: Fair to poor. There are currently no gutters with downspouts on the barn, and historically were not typical on barns or other agricultural outbuildings. Water from the roof drains directly next to the building without a concrete apron, splash pans or sufficient backfill slope to prevent moisture accumulation next to the foundations. Moisture around the apron of the barn over its lifetime appears to have caused damage to lower portions of the stone masonry. Over time, moisture in the masonry will promote the deterioration and weakening of the mortar joints. The presence of excess water next to a structure is generally the cause for most foundation problems in this region due to the local climate, soil conditions and freeze/thaw cycles. Moisture is most harmful during freeze-thaw cycles, as trapped water in the stone and mortar expands when frozen causing the mortar to weaken, eventually spalling and failing. Recommendations: Improvements are recommended to prevent future damage to the barn and keep roof and storm water runoff from continuing to flow adjacent to the building’s foundations. To minimize the presence of moisture next to the foundation and the lower portion of the stone masonry, a "dry zone" should be created around the barn to keep runoff away from the foundations. Foundation System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The barn is supported by a stone foundation, constructed of roughly coursed sandstone, in sizes ranging from 2-1/2"-12" high x 4"-30" long. The foundations are stepped out approximately 4"-5" from the balance of the walls above, creating a raised water table. The stone foundation is only visible on the east and south facades. The depth of the foundation walls cannot be determined. (Refer to photos #B015, B017, B018 and B024) The foundation measures 30" wide at the access door on the west facade, extending 8" on either side of the 20" thick stone masonry wall at the first/main level. Based on the overall dimensions of the foundation and mass of the structure, it is assumed smaller and larger stones have likely been used. While most of the foundation stones have been roughly coursed, with flat or parallel top and bottom surfaces, some large rubble stones without adjoining sides at right angles have been used intermittently. 4.g Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 21 It should be noted that remnants of the sandstone foundation for the lean-to shed on the north side of the barn remain on the site. The shed appears in a historical painting of the barn, attached as historical image #H004. Anchor bolts remain in a couple of sections of the wall along the west side, as well as evidence in the remaining original wood siding where the roof of the shed tied into the barn. We did not observe any evidence of the loafing shed that was attached to the south side of the barn that appears in the historical photograph #H002. Condition: Fair. As previously mentioned, minimal observation of the foundations could be completed due to the building's foundation only being exposed to view on the east and south facades. The stone, where visible appear to be sound, with minimal evidence of movement, shifting, settlement, cracking or defacing. Mortar joists were likely never dressed and it is not known how the mortar joints at the foundation were originally finished due to the current moisture damage. Recommendations: The deteriorated mortar joints of the stone should be repointed and repaired to match the historical construction. To determine the original construction techniques, it is recommended that a narrow, deep excavation occur adjacent to one of the foundations to view the original wall construction. Backfill Backfill is discussed in the Perimeter Foundation Drainage section above. Current geotechnical standards generally specify a minimum of 6" slopes away from the building within the first 10' of grade adjacent to the foundations. Condition: Inadequate now, but will become good when the drainage improvements required by the City of Fort Collins are implemented. 3.3 Barn Structural System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The barn is a unique combination of load-bearing stone masonry at the first or main level, with a heavy timber-framed hay loft and gable roof. The superstructure is a gravity and lateral load-bearing, multi-wythe stone masonry structure with wood timber roof trusses and floor joists. Standard construction practices have been followed for both rough masonry and timber structures built in the late 1800s. Conventional stone masonry construction consists of roughly coursed sandstone masonry, built-up of multiple wythes with arched stone lintels. The walls are constructed of 2-3 wythes of stone units, with the wythes interconnected with single stones extending from the interior to the exterior face of the walls. The typical stone masonry wall construction appears to be about 20" thick. (Refer to photos #B001-B010, B013-B019 and B030) Segmental arched stone lintels provide headers over the windows on the east elevation (Refer to photos #B014 and B015), while wood lintels exist at all other door and window openings on the south, west and north facades of the barn. (Refer to photos #B017, B019 and B020) The door openings on the main level are full height and the stone masonry is detailed with bevels on either side of the opening back to the wood door jamb. (Refer to photos #B023 and B024) It appears the two window openings in the west elevation were cut into the building after the original construction. The stones around these openings 4.g Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 22 have not been faced with the same quality of workmanship as compared to the other stone openings, and the mortar joints are in poorer condition. (Refer to photos #B020-B022) Their unusual placement so high on the wall also indicates the lack of understanding and experience in stone construction compared to the original construction. This work was likely completed by someone other than a trained stone mason. In masonry construction, lateral systems normally include a designated section (shear wall) in the masonry where no openings are present. The north, south, east and west walls all have uninterrupted sections of masonry along the length of the walls and corners of the barn. The wood timber framing throughout the barn is built on approximately 10' grids perpendicular to the ridgeline of the gable roof. Primary framing members, either trusses or girders, sit on this grid supported by columns, while secondary framing members span to this grid. The roof structure consists of built-up wood timber trusses spanning north-south across the entire structure on the grids. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) It should be noted that the structure underwent substantial rehabilitation and reconstruction in 1996 as part of a grant-funded project. It appears repairs followed the details and intent of the original construction, with some new construction to improve the performance of the structure. Minimal variance is observed in the materials, dimensions and connections of the rehabilitation or new construction. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) Condition: Good to fair. As noted above, remedial structural repairs were made in 1996 that addressed what we assume were significant structural concerns. The extent of both replacement of original structural framing members with in-kind construction, as well as remedial internal framing, signals that there was either considerable structural or moisture damage to the exterior frame of the barn. The eastern two thirds of the loft is approximately 50% replacement material, including 50% new skip sheathing. The western third is up to 90% new material, including rafters, intermediate horizontal timbers and skip sheathing. Given the age of the structure and the low evidence of diagonal cracking in the mortar or the stone masonry, the lateral load capacity is assumed to be adequate. No structural analysis or testing was performed to verify the capacity of the stone masonry. The stone masonry is in fair condition, with no significant structural cracking or displacement. The general appearance of the timber framing appears to be both sound in regards to capacity and geometry. No excessive sagging and deterioration in the framing due to moisture or damage was observed. Recommendations: Refer to more detailed recommendations below and in Section 3.4. Floor Framing Systems The upper floor (hayloft) framing consists of 3x8 floor joists at 18" o.c. spanning east–west for approximately 10', bearing on the stone perimeter walls. Typically, a dropped 6" x 8" timber beam spans between interior columns to support the floor joists. The floor joists are sheathed with 1x5 wood plank flooring. The main level of the barn is divided into three sections. The eastern section is an open area with large barn doors on the north and south facades. Four interior columns existed 4.g Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 23 in the first three westernmost bays. At some point, two of the columns in the second column line were replaced, using smaller 4" by 4" posts. The original columns could have been replaced due to rot, damage or possibly settlement of the foundations. The original column bases can be seen where a new smaller column sits on top of a stub and frames to the bottom of the timber floor beams. The original columns were approximately 6-1/2" x 6- 1/2" with 1" chamfers on all four corners. (Refer to photos #B031-B033, B038-B040 and B043-B047) A unique detail at the center span of each grid is a stacked timber beam. The stacked beam was likely used to allow a large center span at each bay, while increasing strength and limiting defection along the beam line and helping reduce the beams sizes required to support the loads above. (Refer to photos #B031, B032, B044 and B045) Three 2x8x6 blocks were notched between the stacked beams to keep them interlocked. This detail is seen at each column line/grid throughout the barn. In most cases the blocks are now missing; it is not clear how or why they are not present. The stacked beam is missing in the second column line from the west where the columns have been replaced. The interior or middle section of the barn consists of two bays, and has been enclosed with interior walls. The columns and beams at these walls have been incorporated into the walls with vertical infill studs and horizontal 1x siding on both sides of the wall. The resulting stay-in-place form has been filled with concrete. This detailed construction is unique and could possibly be used to insulate the interior section of the barn from extreme hot or cold temperatures. The walls do not appear to be original, but might have been placed shortly after the construction of the barn, due to the appearance of the matching materials and the existence of the original columns and stacked beams. (Refer to photos #B037-B042) The remaining column lines of the barn appear to have been originally constructed with four columns at each beam grid. The columns are either 6" x 8" or 6-1/2" x 6-1/2". These columns are approximately 4'-8" to 5'-8" o.c. north-south. Many of the columns have been reinforced with 2x material to repair damage due to animals, moisture at the base, or other causes. Roof Framing Systems The barn's steeply gabled roof is framed by 2" x 6-1/2" roof rafters at 24" o.c., spanning parallel to the slope of the roof and running from eave to ridge. It appears that more than two-thirds of the rafters were replaced during the previous structural rehabilitation. The rafters are supported by 3x8 beams at quarter points of the tied roof truss/arch. The tied truss is built with mortise-and-tenon 6-1/2" x 8" top chords. On the easternmost four bays of the barn a 6-1/2" x 8" truss tie frames to the top chord just below the quarter points of the roof truss, and on the east end of the barn a 3” x 8” tie frames just above the quarter points. In addition, on the west portion of the barn the roof purlins have a 3" x 8" tie at approximately 4’ from the ridge of the barn. It is not known why the different framing conditions were used on either end of the barn. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) Timber columns supporting the roof trusses and end walls are all 6-1/2" wide x 8” deep (8” in the dimension of the wall) with applied haunches, extending full height. The original roof sheathing consists of 1x12 skip sheathing and Cedar shakes. It appears that at least half of the original roof sheathing was replaced during the structural rehabilitation with new 1x8 wood skip sheathing. 4.g Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 24 Lateral stability of the upper portion of the barn is provided by a combination of diagonal bracing in the wall and braces out of plane (perpendicular to the wall), in combination with roof trusses and floor beams. Braces in the wall, framed to the column, and wind girts are typically 4x4s. Braces framing from the exterior columns to the trusses are typically 6-1/2" x 8". Braces to the floor beams are 4" x 6-1/2". The brace connections use a mortise-and- tendon joint at the wall and a combination of mortise-and-tenon with steel tension rods at the brace from the column to roof truss, due to the oblique angle of the connection. Some connections have also been reinforced using 3/4" diameter thru bolts. (Refer to photos #B049 and B050) The gable end walls are similarly framed, using 3-1/2" x 3-1/2" horizontal timbers that frame into 6-1/2" x 6-1/2" vertical timbers at the jambs of the large loft doors. (Refer to photos #B050 and 057) New wood framed interior partition walls have been built within the eastern two thirds of the hayloft, presumably when the barn was structurally rehabilitated in 1995-1997. These walls are framed of modern 2x6 members at 16" to 20" o.c. Locations for the new wall framing are aligned with the roof beams at quarter points and adjacent to the exterior north and south bearing walls of the four eastern column bays. The existence of the walls and their location do not match the historical use of the structure, and are not supported by a reinforced floor member below. If the walls were built to carry gravity loads from the roof, it is reasonable to assume that a new or reinforced floor/transfer member would likely have been required to carry the additional loading. The purpose of the new wall(s) and braces could be to laterally strengthen the eastern portion of the barn, since much of western end of the barn was rebuilt during the renovation; however, this is somewhat speculative. The original tie rods were reinstalled on the western bays of the loft, but are missing from the eastern sections where the new framed walls were built. (Refer to photos #B012, B048, B051 and B052) Condition: Good. The original structural floor and roof framing, in conjunction with the rehabilitation construction completed in 1995-1997, appear overall to be sound and in good condition. Recommendations: None. If this structure is to be occupied or renovated for an adaptive reuse, it is recommended that a complete structural gravity and lateral analysis be completed by a licensed professional structural engineer. At this point it should be assumed that sections of the hay loft floor cannot be cut and removed for stair openings, etc. without adequate bracing or new shear walls so as not to compromise the structural integrity of the barn. Prior to any structural modifications, the structural engineer should detail, supervise and review all design work and observe the procedures implemented during construction. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 4.g Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 25 3.4 Building Envelope – Barn Exterior Walls As described above in Section 3.3, the exterior walls of the barn are a combination of rough coursed sandstone and wood timber construction. The upper level of timber construction is sheathed in 1x vertical wood boards, in random widths ranging from 9" to 12". The siding boards are installed vertically side by side with butt joints, with the joints not covered with battens or in some other way "weatherized". The siding has been typically installed as full length boards, and is nailed at the top plate, bottom plate and two intermediate blocking lines along the length of the boards. The external corners are trimmed with simple 1x6 wood trims with butt joints, matching the fascia boards. The siding was originally painted (or at some time during the life of the building), but is now heavily weathered with only scarce evidence of remaining paint. (Refer to photos #B001- B012, B014, B017, B019-B021, B025 and B028) The main level walls are constructed of full height roughly coursed sandstone, in sizes ranging from 2-1/2"-12" high x 4"-30" long. Mortar joints range from 1/2" to 2-1/2" wide, and are generally tooled flush with the faces of the adjacent stone units. (Refer to photos #B004-B010, B013-B019, B021-B026 and B030) The original window openings in the east facade have segmental arched stone lintels with a center keystone, set slightly corbelled out from the face of the wall. (Refer to photos #B014A and B015A) A framed hay hood exists on both the east and west gabled facades, and support pulley attachments for transferring the hay into the loft through a large vertical hinged door. The hood is framed of cantilevered 6-1/2" x 8” wood timbers with braces back to the vertical columns. Vertical exterior sheathing is supported laterally by horizontal 2x6 girts framing between columns at approximately 3’ o.c. The hay hoods are sheathed in 1x12s matching the balance of the hay loft level. (Refer to photos #B001, B002, B004-B007, B010, Bo14 and B028) Condition: Fair. As discussed in Section 3.3, the stone and timber framed walls are generally in good to fair condition. Based upon the condition and coloration of the wood, it appears that approximately 5% of the original siding was replaced with in-kind material as a part of the 1996 restoration, primarily on the north and south facades. The sandstone walls exhibit the typical weathering of the mortar joints that is common in stone construction of this age. Most of the moisture damage has occurred along the top courses of the walls, along the base within 24"-30" of the ground where roof runoff has splashed back against the walls, and around window and door openings. (Refer to photos #B014-B018 and B020-B022) Approximately 90% of the mortar is intact, but deteriorated. Mortar in the remaining 10% of the head and bed joints is completely missing. The existing lime mortar that remains is soft and flaking in many locations. (Refer to photo #030 for typical condition) The wood siding is in similar condition, with approximately 5% of the boards split, broken or missing. (Refer to photos #B006, B014, B017, B019 and B019A) The siding was installed at the hayloft level with simple, common butt joints with no attempt to prevent moisture penetration. Light streams through these joints, as evidenced in photos #B048-B052. Recommendations: Repointing of the deteriorated stone masonry mortar is required. It is estimated that approximately 50-60% of the mortar requires repointing. 4.g Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 26 Only selective repairs to the exterior wood siding and trims and replacement of missing planks are needed at this time. If replacement of any particular board is warranted, the new materials should match the existing in width, thickness and species, as was done in the 1995-1997 restoration. Painting or other exterior finish is optional, and the siding could remain in its current unfinished condition is desired. If a new painted finish is desired, a microscopic paint analysis is recommended in order to determine the original color(s). Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 7. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. A mortar analysis of the existing mortar used in the stone foundations and walls should be completed to guide the composition of the repointing mortar. 3.5 Building Envelope – Barn Roofing and Waterproofing The roof of the barn is a simple side-facing gable roof, with shallow exposed eaves and a simple 1x6 wood fascia with butt joints. The roof is covered in newer taper-sawn Cedar shingles, dating to the 1995-1997 grant project. All of the roof eaves drain off the roof edge without gutters. The eave and rake ends are all flashed with newer galvanized sheet metal drip flashings, probably dating from the time the Cedar shingles were installed. There are no roof penetrations remaining from any original mechanical equipment. (Refer to photos #B002-B005 and B010-B012) The roof is not ventilated along the ridge or by means of roof jacks. There is no attic, and the underside of the exposed roof framing is not insulated. Condition: Fair. The Cedar shingles are in good to fair condition, but exhibit some cupping and breakage. Approximately 5% of the ridge shakes are missing toward the west end where they are subject to more wind exposure, and have not been repaired or replaced. The wood fascia is in fair condition. Light penetrating the roof can be seen from within the loft where shingles are missing. The lack of gutters and downspouts is contributing to the deterioration of the sandstone foundations and base of the walls. Recommendations: New Red Cedar taper-sawn shingles should be installed to replace the damaged or missing shingles, replicating the size, thickness and exposure of the 1995-1997 shingles. The installation of new gutters and downspouts might help address the drainage and foundation deterioration issues mentioned in earlier sections of this report. However, since the barn was originally built as a pioneer barn, it would not have had gutters and downspouts. Installing them would actually be detrimental to the historic character of the barn. We recommend that gutters and downspouts be installed only if it is determined that they are absolutely necessary to the functionality of the proposed adaptive reuse. Since the original barn did not have gutters, the style and dimensions of the gutters and downspouts will not be based on remaining physical or photographic evidence; however, a half-round gutter profile in a simple unfinished or pre-weathered galvanized metal may be an appropriate selection. Downspouts should be a round corrugated profile in the same material, located so as to be as inconspicuous as possible. 4.g Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 27 The wood fascia should be retained, but materials repaired as necessary. It does not appear that any of this work is beyond the point of being repaired, but if more serious moisture damage is uncovered during the preservation work, the damaged materials should be removed and replaced in kind. Depending upon the anticipated adaptive reuse, attic ventilation may be required if an attic is created. If this is done, ventilation could be addressed in an inconspicuous manner by adding a ventilated ridge shingle system or the introduction of small roof jacks, painted to blend with the shingles. Gable end vents could also be added to the east and west gables of the barn, located within and shielded from view by the hay hoods. Also depending upon the adaptive reuse that is pursued, the addition of some kind of roof or attic insulation is recommended. Refer to Section 3.7 for further discussion about retaining the original, exposed interior materials. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.6 Barn Windows and Doors Windows The barn contains a variety of window types, all of which are original to the building at some point in its history. The east facade of the main level contains three symmetrically- placed, single 2 over 2 fixed wood windows with clear single-pane glass, which are probably original to the 1866 construction and exposed to view from the interior of the barn. The window openings are located in the sandstone walls and are supported by segmental arched lintels. The windows are framed with simple square wood timber sills, jambs and arched-top headers built up of 1-1/2" x 3" wood members. The sills extend into the stone approximately 2" at each jamb. All three exhibit the use of forged blacksmith nails. (Refer to photos #B004, B009, B014-B016, B031, B034, B035, B063 and B064) These windows are set to within 1" of the outside face of the stone wall, and are currently covered with unpainted plywood to the exterior. The deep sills to the inside are stone. New wood stops have been added to the interior. The west facade contains two smaller 24" x 24" single lite fixed wood windows with only rough 2x wood buck frames. These windows appear to have been cut into the stone masonry after the barn's original construction, due to their placement, the lack of arched lintels and overall poorer workmanship. (Refer to photos #B001, B007, B020, B021, B061 and B062) These windows are set at the center of the depth of the stone wall, and are not covered by plywood. The north and south facades of the main level and the gable ends of the hayloft level do not contain any windows. Condition: Fair. As far as can be observed, the wood windows appear to be structurally sound and are in fair condition. The exterior face of the east window sashes could not be observed. The exterior wood window frames, sills and casings are weathered, but are generally intact and remain structurally sound. Window putty is generally in poor condition. 4.g Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 28 Recommendations: All of the original wood sash windows should be retained. These windows should be repaired where necessary, then scraped, prepped and repainted. The plywood should be removed from the east windows, and the windows repaired as may be necessary. The exterior wood frames, sills and casings should also be scraped, prepped and repainted. Glass panes should be reputtied where needed. All windows and frames should be recaulked. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Exterior Doors The barn contains a variety of door types typical of an agricultural building. The long north and south facades contain two large paired 4'-0" wide x 8'-0" high outswinging barn doors, aligned across the east stable room. The doors are constructed of 1x vertical wood plank siding that matches the balance of the wall siding on the hayloft level above, nailed to the outside of 2x wood horizontal and diagonal cross-buck framing. The northern pair of doors are hung on steel strap gate-type hinges, but the southern pair have been fixed in place and are no longer operable. There is no evidence of remaining hardware on this pair of doors. (Refer to photos #B002-B005, B008, B010, B017-B019, B025-B027, B031 and B053) The north wall of the hayloft has been framed to suggest that a pair of doors might have existed on this facade, aligned with the pair of doors below. The doors no longer exist and the opening has been infilled with siding to match the balance of the wall. The west facade contains a single inswinging wood door, 3'-6" wide x 6'-8" high, set into a wooden buck frame in a larger 4'-2" x 8'-0" high opening in the stone. This suggests that the door may have originally been larger. (Refer to photos #B001, B023, B024, B046 and B047) This door is constructed similarly to the large north and south doors, with 1x vertical wood plank siding nailed to the outside of 2x wood horizontal and diagonal cross-buck framing, and are hung on steel strap gate-type hinges. All of the lower level doors have no exterior or interior casings, just the rough 3x wood buck frames. The hayloft contains a combination of large outswinging hay doors and man doors, with dimensions and construction that is the same on both the east and west gable ends of the barn. The lower pair of hay doors are framed to the intermediate 6-1/2" x 6-1/2" wood girt to 6'-0" above the floor line of the loft, then the upper pair of doors extend to the roof. These doors are also constructed similarly to the large north and south doors, with 1x vertical wood plank siding nailed to the outside of 2x wood horizontal and diagonal cross- buck framing, and are hung on steel strap gate-type hinges. (Refer to photos #B001, B004- B007, B009, B011, B027, B029, B048, B050, B057 and B058) Condition: Fair. While the existing original doors remain and are generally operable, they are heavily weathered. Recommendations: Based upon the way the barn is oriented to the proposed Technology Center, it is likely that the north door will be the primary access into the building for any adaptive reuse. This door would not be protected from roof runoff without the installation of gutters, or possibly the design of a modern hood as an entry element over the door. 4.g Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 29 It is unlikely that a desirable public adaptive reuse will be able to take advantage of the existing historic barn doors as they are currently configured. If smaller, more durable doors and hardware are necessary, we recommend that the door style and construction be designed to be sympathetic to the building's period of original construction and integrity. One alternative that could be considered is to fix the swinging barn doors in their open position (laid back flat against the outside of the stone walls), then infilling the openings with modern architectural storefront framing, glass and doors, or some other clearly contemporary construction. This approach would be considered a historic rehabilitation, as opposed to a restoration. The hayloft doors should be retained and fixed in place. Similar to the barn doors below, if the loft is to be used and windows are desired, the hay doors could be fixed in an open position and the openings infilled with glass. These modifications would also be considered a rehabilitation as opposed to a restoration. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #3, 5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Interior Doors The only interior doors in the barn are two sets of paired 1-10" x 6'-8" high swinging doors on either side of the central cold storage room. These have been fabricated with 1" x 5/1/2" wide tongue-in-groove wood siding on both sides of conventional framing, creating a unique hollow door approximately 5-1/2" thick. This construction assumes that the cavities have been filled to complement the concrete insulated walls in these locations (refer to Section 3.7 below), but it could not be confirmed what the core material might be. The tongue-in-groove cladding has been installed diagonally on the eastern pair of doors, and horizontally on the western pair, which suggests they may not have been built or installed at the same time. (Refer to photos #B033, B037, B045, B054 and B055) These doors are hung on a pair of simple metal strap hinges and were secured with gate hooks and eyes. Only parts of the original hardware remain. (Refer to photos #B054, B055, B059 and B060) Condition: Fair. While the existing original doors remain and are generally operable, they are heavily weathered. Recommendations: Similar to the exterior doors, it is unlikely that a desirable adaptive reuse will be able to take advantage of the existing historic interior doors as they are currently configured. If possible, we recommend that the historic doors be retained and fixed in place for interpretation. New doors can then be placed where they functionally need to be, with the design and construction remaining sympathetic to the building's period of original construction and integrity. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #3, 5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 4.g Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 30 3.7 Barn Interior Finishes Lower Level The barn contains a series of connected rooms on the ground level and a single open hayloft on the upper level. The ground floor is divided into three interior rooms, the outer two primarily used for animal stalls and feed storage, separated by a central cold storage room that was most recently used as a tack room for saddles and supplies. The eastern room contains the remnants of what were originally five stalls constructed along the east wall. The western room was originally used for grain storage. Built-in wooden feed troughs run along the east wall of the eastern stalls, situated below the wooden feed chute from above. (Refer to photos #B031-B037, B044-B047 and B053-B056) The interior finish of the perimeter walls throughout the barn is merely the unfinished face of the stone masonry. There is no internal ladder or stair accessing the hayloft; however, there is a large 24" x 42" framed wooden hay chute on the east wall that drops from the loft over the built-in feed troughs. (Refer to photos #B034 and B036) The walls dividing the two outer stall rooms from the interior tack room are built of a unique insulated construction, with the outer wood cladding filled with a concrete slurry. The walls are clad with 5-1/2" x 1" thick unfinished tongue-and-groove wood plank. The paired doors on each side of the room are similarly insulated, as described above. Most of the walls are exposed, unfinished wood framing or wood plank siding laid horizontally. A small amount of interior walls have weathered paint or whitewash finish. (Refer to photos #B033 and B037-B043) There are no finished ceilings and the only floors appear to be remnants of 2x12 wood planks in the animal stalls. The balance of the floors is dirt. (Refer to photo #B033) Numerous wooden grain chutes come through the floor above into the lower level. The walls and roof of the barn are completely uninsulated, as would be expected for a utilitarian structure of this type. Condition: Fair to poor. The lower level had no natural or artificial lighting, so was very difficult to assess the conditions of the remaining materials. Most of the exposed wood materials exhibit the expected level of worn surfaces and rounded corners, typical of an agricultural use that housed animals. The interior of the lower level is filled with both artifacts of the farmstead, including built- in saddle racks, bridle posts, a hay cart, etc., but also a lot of dirt and debris. (Refer to photos #B031-B033) Recommendations: Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the barn, insulating the walls may be necessary, so the walls may need to be furred out, insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard or similar material. However, if possible it would be desirable to leave the sandstone walls uncovered on the interior. New stairwells and an elevator access to the hayloft level may be necessary as part of any public adaptive reuse. These new additions should be designed and constructed internal to the barn's walls and roof so as not to adversely affect the barn's historic exterior character and integrity. 4.g Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 31 To the extent feasible, the original interior walls, as well as the feed troughs, cold storage room built-ins and other original features, should be retained and preserved for interpretation of the building's history. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Upper Hayloft Level The upper level is a single open hayloft space. The walls and roof retain much of the original, exposed mortise-and-tenon timber construction, as well as the restoration and new construction work that was completed in 1996. This construction has been thoroughly described in Section 3.3 above, so won't be repeated here. Both the original construction and the newer remedial work was left unfinished, so it is easy to distinguish where the original construction ends and the newer work begins. (Refer to photos #B048-B052) As mentioned in Section 3.5 above, there are no finished ceilings in the loft. The floor sheathing is 1x5 wood planks. The flooring may be original, but due to its relatively good condition, this is unlikely and was probably a part of the 1995-1997 restoration work. A horizontal tie rod runs beneath the roof ridge, originally used to move hay and other materials within the loft. A pulley assembly hanging from the rod still exists. The rod extends out beneath the covered hay hood on each end of the barn. The framed wooden feed chute (described above) aligns to the east side of the east hay loft doors. The hayloft contains a historic horse-drawn grain drill, more fully described earlier in Section 2.1. Condition: Good to fair. The upper hayloft level is generally in better condition, with a significant amount of newer, in-kind materials from the 1995-1997 restoration. The hayloft wood plank flooring is in fair to good condition. There are large quantities of bat, pigeon and/or rodent waste all throughout the hayloft. Recommendations: Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the barn, insulating the walls and ceiling/roof may be necessary or desirable, so these may need to be furred out, insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard or similar material. The wood plank walls may need to be covered on the inside with wood battens (or some other method to seal the open joints in the siding to the inside), then spray foam insulation could be installed in the wall cavities as both insulation and an air barrier. This construction would allow the exterior plank siding to remain with its current, historic appearance, but would require the interior to be covered with gypsum wallboard or similar material. If the roofing needed to be completely replaced at this time we would recommend that board-type rigid insulation be added over the existing wood skip sheathing to allow the interior to remain unfinished. To the extent feasible, the original mortise-and-tenon timber construction and other original features should be retained, preserved and left exposed for interpretation of the building's history. It would appear that the purlin cavities could be insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard, while retaining the exposed timber roof trusses. 4.g Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 32 Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.8 Barn Mechanical Systems Site Utilities There are no site utilities presently serving the Coy-Hoffman barn or milk house. Domestic water and sanitary sewer service will be provided into the site of the new Woodward Inc. facilities as a part of that development. It is assumed that services to the barn and/or the milk house, if necessary, can be extended from these new facilities. Barn Heating and Ventilation There is no evidence of any heating or other mechanical equipment ever existing in the barn. Ventilation was originally achieved by merely opening the barn doors. Condition: Not applicable. If any mechanical equipment ever existed, it is no longer in place. Recommendations: Depending upon the nature of the adaptive reuse of the building, the type, extent and sophistication of the mechanical system could vary widely. For purposes of historic preservation and the accurate interpretation of the building, the simpler and most basic of mechanical systems would be the most appropriate. Plumbing Similarly, it appears that the barn did not have any plumbing systems. Condition: Not applicable. Recommendations: None. If restroom or kitchen facilities are planned as a part of the proposed adaptive reuse, full code-compliant, low-flow plumbing fixtures and piping systems will be required. 3.9 Barn Electrical Systems The barn was served by electrical power, and it is assumed that it was provided by aerial service. Only remnants of that service remain. The lower level of the building was illuminated by a series of surface-mounted incandescent light fixtures, wired to a single-pole switch near the door. Condition: Not applicable. The electrical system is no longer in service. Recommendations: The existing interior electrical system should be removed and the building rewired. There does not appear to be any remnants of electrical lighting fixtures or devices that are historically important for preservation. 4.g Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 33 New exterior lighting fixtures should be designed and selected to be sympathetic with the historic character of the barn. The extent and capacity of the new electrical service will depend upon the intended adaptive reuse of the building. Assuming a use will probably include public access, a new code-compliant fire alarm, exit signage and emergency lighting system should be anticipated. 3.10 Concrete Silos Structural Systems Two concrete silos exist just to the west-northwest of the large stone and timber barn. They are of similar construction, but have somewhat different structural designs. Both silo types are common, economical silo construction types found throughout Northern Colorado. Neither of the silos currently has a roof structure, and both may have originally been built without roofs. (Refer to photos #S001-S008) Both silos are approximately 15'-0" in diameter, and were originally connected at the top by a wooden bridge structure, but only broken remnants remain. (Refer to photos #S002 and S006) The eastern silo is a "jumpform" silo, approximately 42' high, built of reinforced cast-in- place concrete, 4"-5" thick with exposed "cold" construction joints at 4'-0" o.c. The continuous circular form joints are evidence of this type of construction, versus the lack of form joints when a slipform is used. The cast-in-place silo is reinforced internally with iron rods embedded at approximately 18" o.c., and reinforced to the outside with 3/4" diameter smooth steel tension bands encircling the silo at approximately 30"-40" o.c. The rod hoops are in two or more sections, held together with iron lugs and threads/nuts on each end of the rod. The western silo is a stave silo, approximately 45' high, built of prefabricated interlocking vertical concrete staves, 10" wide x 5' long staggered, and 4" thick vertical concrete panels. A precast concrete stave is made in the field, using a hydraulic press. The press exerts pressure on the stave, eliminating air voids and creating a high-density concrete panel. Staves are generally steam-cured to give them longer life. These vertical staves are prestressed with 3/4" diameter smooth steel bands at approximately 15" o.c. with turnbuckles, aligned over the staggered stave edges. The hoops are tensioned to precompress the stave wall circumferentially. The working thickness of the staves decreases from the top of the silo to the base. It is estimated that the staves at the base of the silo are 3" thick. The silos both appear to bear on shallow concrete cast-in-place strip foundations, although it could not be determined how deep they extend below finished grade. The foundations are irregular in shape and approximately 10"-12" wide. The foundations were likely used to provide a level surface during construction and placed to reduce the soil bearing pressures from the dead weight of the silos, keeping the silo structures from settling or punching through the soil. (Refer to photo #S005) The interior surfaces of both silos are now rough, exposed aggregate. The upper portions of both have what appears to be a smooth skim-coat finish, which indicates that the stored grain probably has scoured the lower interior surfaces over time. (Refer to photos #S009 and S010) A 4" caliper Elm tree is growing within the east silo. 4.g Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 34 The openings in the exterior walls have been covered with chicken wire so the interiors of the silos were not accessible on the day of our field visit. An embedded steel strap frame, where an access door originally existed, remains in the outside face of the west silo. (Refer to photo #S008) The east silo originally was originally served by a wooden chute, only 50% of which still remains. The west silo has remnants of a sheet metal chute. (Refer to photo #S006) Condition: Fair to poor. The eastern "jumpform" silo appears to remain structurally sound. Its rod hoops are in good condition, with the exception of the last two rods from the bottom that exhibit severe rust and degradation. Similarly, deterioration is evident in the stave silo by the exposed aggregate in the staves. This is caused either by friction of silo contents against the concrete or by corrosion. If these silos were used for silage, silage acids can have a corrosive action on the concrete and the steel. Maintenance of a stave silo is critical to the stability of the silo. If the rod hoops become loose the compressive state of the staves is lost and the structure can become unstable or collapse. Observation of the silo from the ground indicates that the top of this silo is no longer circular, and proper maintenance of the structure is a critical need. It is likely that no maintenance has been undertaken on this silo since its initial erection. It is imperative that the hoop rods, lugs and nuts be inspected on this silo to prevent future collapse. The concrete is fairly deteriorated in many locations. The area around the steel strap door frame in the west silo is badly cracked. Neither of the silos appear to be structurally attached or tied to the concrete foundations. In some locations the silos are no longer bearing uniformly along the foundations, and daylight can be seen above the foundation in some locations. It is not clear whether the foundations have settled or the silo has deteriorated at the base. Most of the original silo doors and chutes have been removed or are otherwise missing. The wood plank bridge spanning between the two silos is in very poor condition and should not be used. Recommendations: The two concrete silos should be retained and their condition stabilized and preserved. The tree inside the east silo should be cut, removed and its roots grubbed so as to prevent further heaving or undermining of its foundation. Backfill around the silo foundations should be excavated to better determine their structural adequacy. If the foundations are adequate to provide sufficient soil bearing, then the gaps around the silo perimeter should be repaired with non-shrink high strength grout to keep the silos stable during lateral loading conditions. Structural analysis and the design of any structural repairs or reinforcing for the silos is outside of the scope of this report. An inspection should be completed by a licensed professional structural engineer to evaluate the hoop rods for both silos, and any corroded or damaged rods should be replaced. The slave silo should have all hoop rods inspected for proper tension to ensure a wind induced failure will not occur. It is our understanding that several adaptive reuses for the silos have been discussed by the owner, including constructing a spiral stairway within one of the silos to access a rooftop observation platform. Before these options are given serious consideration, we recommend that the owner engage a qualified, licensed structural engineer to fully assess 4.g Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 35 the structural capacity of these new induced loads. Further investigation is recommended to determine if anchor bolts or some other physical evidence remains to confirm whether roof structures ever existed on either of the silos. If construction of new roof structures is pursued, the design should be based upon photographic or physical evidence and not be conjectural in nature. Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the silos, the bridge between the silos could be removed, or reconstructed for interpretation of its historic use. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5 and 6. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.11 Milk House Foundations Foundation System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The milk house foundation is constructed of roughly coursed sandstone, in sizes ranging from 2-1/2" - 9" high x 4" - 30" long. The foundation construction is approximately 14" wide. The depth of the foundation walls cannot be determined, but it is assumed that they are at least the same depth as the double or triple wythe brick masonry walls above. Mortar joints range from 1/2" to 2-1/2" wide, and are generally tooled flush with the faces of the adjacent stone units. Condition: Fair. Minimal observation of the foundations could be completed due to the limited exposure of the stone above grade, and the fact that the building has no basement or crawlspace. Only limited evidence of settlement, shifting or cracking appears in the building’s masonry walls above grade. Since this building is scheduled to be relocated, no repair or rehabilitation work is necessary for the existing foundation structure. Recommendations for Relocation: Two likely scenarios have previously been offered for relocation of the unreinforced brick masonry milk house structure: Alternative 1: The first option requires some temporary removal of small portions of brick masonry at the base of the walls for the jacking and transport process, leaving some visual evidence that the masonry had been modified. A system of shores and jacks would be used to lift and move the masonry structure. The specialty subcontractor will determine the exact locations and frequency of steel beams, but it is assumed that access holes at approximately 3'-0" on center would be cut through the exterior brick walls of the masonry just above the existing stone foundation and concrete floor slab. Steel beams would be placed through these access holes and used to jack the structure up for transporting. The beams would extend past the exterior face of the walls where jacks will lift the structure to prepare for transport. The shoring beams will have to stack in the opposing directions so the beams can be continuous from side to side. 4.g Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 36 In this alternative, since the holes are being cut through unreinforced brick, there is potential for cracking to occur in the wall areas around the holes. This will be greater due to the stress placed on the walls during the initial lifting operation. A new foundation will need to be built at the new location for the milk house, constructed of sandstone salvaged from the existing foundation after the building has been lifted and moved out of the way. The new foundation needs to be constructed so that the original north-south and east-west orientation of the building is retained. Once the structure has been relocated and placed upon the new foundation, the openings used to place the steel shoring through the masonry walls should be infilled with salvaged bricks from the structure, using mortar that will match the mortar analysis of the existing building. A new concrete floor slab will then need to be poured. Alternative 2: The second option will likely result in fewer modifications and less potential damage to the original structure, but will require more site preparation and excavation prior to the move. The area around all four sides of the structure would need to be excavated and a long earthen ramp constructed to bring the structure up out of the excavation. The depth of the jacks and shoring beams used to transport the structure will determine the depth of the excavation. Similar to Alternative 1, steel shoring beams would be placed through access holes, but in this case with the holes cut into the stacked stone foundations below the brick masonry to limit damage to the unreinforced brick walls. In addition to the exterior excavation, the interior slab on grade will need to be removed and the interior fill excavated prior to the relocation to allow the stacked steel shoring beams to pass through the building under the masonry. A new foundation will need to be constructed at the new location for the milk house as described in Alternative 1 above. In either scenario, once the building has been relocated onto its new foundation, the foundation will have to be built up to the historic masonry structure. Grout will likely be used to infill the voids and uneven surface below the masonry. This insures even weight distribution and prevents cracking of the masonry due to elevation changes and possible stress concentrations. In evaluating the two alternatives, our recommendation is to pursue Alternative 2, as it would appear to be the least intrusive to the integrity and historic fabric of the existing building, and have less potential for structural cracking and damage to the historic brick masonry. Recommendations After Relocation: After the brick masonry building is lifted and moved off of the foundation, the original sandstone foundation should be carefully deconstructed and the stones salvaged, cleaned, marked and stockpiled for reconstructing the foundation in the building's new location. If, upon excavation, it is determined that the existing foundation walls are not deep enough to yield enough material to construct the new foundations to the proper frost depth, the sandstone units should be used at the top of the walls where they will be exposed to view. This material can then be supported on conventional cast-in-place concrete foundations to extend the walls to a minimum of 36" below finished grade. 4.g Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 37 As noted above, the building should be relocated onto its new foundation in the same orientation as its historic orientation. Backfill Backfill generally slopes away from the foundations, with adequate slope to properly drain runoff from the foundations. Current geotechnical standards generally specify a minimum of 6" slopes away from the building within the first 10' of grade adjacent to the foundations. Condition: Since the building will be relocated onto a new foundation, the condition of the existing backfill is not applicable. Recommendations: The elevation of the new foundation should be established to provide proper drainage away from the perimeter of the building. 3.12 Milk House Structural System The following structural observations are made without the benefit of selective demolition or excavation adjacent to the foundations to expose concealed structural conditions. The milk house is constructed as a gravity and lateral load-bearing, multi-wythe brick structure with a wood framed roof. Standard construction practices have been followed for both masonry and wood structures built in the early 1900s. The load-bearing construction consists of conventional brick masonry construction laid in a running bond, with masonry lintels over the door and window openings. The masonry appears to be three wythes thick, although this could not be confirmed due to plaster applied to the interior of the masonry. (Refer to photos #M001-M006) Typically lateral systems include a designated section (shear wall) in the masonry where no openings are present. This small structure has areas of uninterrupted masonry at all corners and does not appear to have any evidence of movement. The lateral load capacity is assumed to be adequate. No structural analysis or testing was performed to verify the capacity of the brick masonry. A large window opening was cut in or placed in the masonry on the west elevation after the original construction. A wood header supports the roof above the opening. The gabled roof consists of 2x4 (nominal) wood roof rafters at 16" o.c., covered with 1x wood skip sheathing. The framing was not visible from within the structure, however it is assumed the ceiling framing provides a tie across the structure to support the ridge of the gable. Condition: Good to fair. The brick masonry appears to be in relatively good condition. Minor damage to the masonry exists at the base of the structure due to penetrations placed through the wall, and some brick units possibly damaged due to heavy equipment, etc. Even though the roof structure could was not exposed to view within the building, the appearance and geometry of the roof framing indicates the structure remains sound, without the roof or ceiling exhibiting noticeable sag. 4.g Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 38 Recommendations: Prior to all preservation work and during any structural repairs, a qualified, licensed structural engineer should detail, supervise and review all design work and observe the procedures implemented during construction. When the roofing is replaced, the condition of the underlying structural framing and skip sheathing should be thoroughly inspected, and any moisture damaged materials replaced prior to the new roofing being installed. Masonry repairs should be completed after the building is relocated to repoint mortar joints and replace missing brick. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5 and 6. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.13 Building Envelope – Milk House Exterior Walls The one-story milk house was constructed of triple-wythe, unreinforced brick masonry walls, over the rough coursed sandstone foundations described in Section 3.11. The brick is laid in a running bond pattern, using 2-1/4" x 8-1/2" units. A bond course exists every ninth course vertically in the walls. (Refer to photos #M001-M008) The brick masonry extends up into the gabled ends on the north and south facades. The original north door opening has a double rowlock brick arched lintel, while the original windows have single rowlock brick arched lintels. The door has a sandstone lug sill. (Refer to photos #M001, Moo6-M008, M014 and M016) A 4" diameter clay pipe extends through the north and south walls (at opposite corners) near the floor, probably part of an original drainage system for washing out the milk house. (Refer to photos #M003, M012 and M013) Condition: Good to fair. The brick masonry is generally in good condition with some evidence of cracking, primarily at window and door openings and other points of natural weakness in the walls, generally running vertically or diagonally from these openings.. The southwest corner of the building has more deterioration and damage, with several brick units missing at the base of the wall. (Refer to photo #M019) The building has been "tagged" with graffiti on the east wall. (Refer to photos #M003 and M005) Recommendations: Minor repointing of the mortar joints in the brick masonry is required at approximately 10% of the walls, and less than 5% of the overall masonry needs to be replaced due to damage or missing brick. New brick units should replicate the original if an adequate match can be located. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 7. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. A mortar analysis of the existing mortar used in the stone foundations and brick walls should be completed to guide the composition of the repointing mortar. 4.g Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 39 3.14 Building Envelope – Milk House Roofing and Waterproofing The roof of the milk house is a simple front-facing gable with shallow boxed eaves. The roof is covered in split Cedar shakes over what appears to be the original (or at least older) taper-sawn Cedar shingles. All of the roof eaves drain off the roof edge without gutters. The eave and rake ends are all flashed with newer galvanized sheet metal drip flashings, probably dating from the time the Cedar shakes were installed. A clay and metal flue exits the roof at the ridge, probably serving an original pot belly stove that no longer exists. (Refer to photos #M001-M006) The boxed eaves are constructed of decorative 2-1/2" high wood mouldings over a 1x4 fascia. (Refer to photos #M009, M010 and M014) The roof edges are flashed with poorly installed sheet metal drip flashings. (Refer to photo #M010) Condition: Very poor. The Cedar shakes are in poor condition, and the ridge shakes are missing for approximately half of its length and have not been repaired. The condition of the underlying Cedar shingles cannot be determined, but it assumed that they were not in good condition, and so covered with the newer Cedar shakes. (Refer to photos #M004 and M005) There is some evidence of past moisture damage on the interior of the building, but it did not appear that this is currently an ongoing problem. It does not appear that the building ever had gutters and downspouts. The wood fascia and boxed eaves are weathered and only in fair condition, other than along the east side where a tree has grown up and around the roof eave construction, causing some more significant damage. (Refer to photos #M017 and M018) Recommendations: Both the shake and underlying shingle roofing should be removed down to the original roof sheathing. After the sheathing has been inspected for any structural or moisture damage, and repairs made if necessary, the roof should be covered in a continuous underlayment of single-ply Ice and Water Shield membrane. Then new Red Cedar taper-sawn shingles should be installed with new sheet metal drip flashings and coordinating ridge shingles. The clay and metal flue should be retained and flashed into the new roof. The wood fascia and boxed eaves should be retained, but materials repaired as necessary. It does not appear that any are beyond the point of being repaired, but if more serious moisture damage is uncovered during the reroofing, the damaged materials should be removed and replaced in kind. Additional attic ventilation should be added as well, possibly using a ventilated ridge shingle system or the introduction of a small roof jack, painted to blend with the shingles. While these treatments may not strictly follow the Secretary of Interior Standards, they would be required by modern building codes and will increase the life-expectancy of any new roofing materials. Depending upon the adaptive reuse that is pursued, additional blown-in insulation is recommended to be added in the attic. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 4.g Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 40 3.15 Milk House Windows and Doors Windows The milk house contains a variety of window types, some of which are original to the building and one that is not. The south facade contains a single 1-lite inswinging wood casement window with clear single-pane glass, centered in the wall. The decorative hinges are fairly ornate with pointed finials, and are probably original. The latch is a newer, non-original surface- mounted cabinet type latch. (Refer to photos #M006, M023, M024, M026, M027 and M033- M036) The window is cased to the exterior with 1-3/4" x 1" thick square wood casings with a beaded profile. Both the south and north gable end walls contain small upper windows (now within the attic of the building) that are covered to the exterior with painted oriented strand board (OSB). Since they are no longer exposed to the interior, it could not be determined whether the window sashes or glazing remains. (Refer to photos #M001-M003, M006, M007 and M014) The west wall contains a larger, 3-lite fixed wood window that appears to be a later alteration to the milk house. The opening has been cut into the wall without the characteristic rowlock lintel, and the head of the window is lower than either the door in the north wall or the window in the south wall. The exterior casings and sill are also of simpler detailing, utilizing rough-cut 1x6 wood members with simple butt jointery. (Refer to photo #M002, M004, M006, M020, M021, M025, M027 and M028) This window is covered with chicken wire to the exterior. Condition: Fair. As far as can be observed, the original wood windows appear to be structurally sound and operational and are in fair condition. The exterior wood window frames, sills and casings are weathered, but are generally intact and remain structurally sound. One of the fixed sashes in the west window has been damaged and is no longer in place. (Refer to photos #M028 and M031) Window putty is generally in poorer condition. It could not be determined if the interior wood casings remain. The one operable south window does not have a screen, but there is no evidence that it ever did. Recommendations: All of the original wood sash windows and hardware should be retained. These windows should be repaired where necessary, then scraped, prepped and repainted. The OSB should be removed from the upper north and south windows, and the windows repaired as may be necessary. The exterior wood frames, sills and casings should also be scraped, prepped and repainted. Glass panes should be reputtied where needed. All windows and frames should be recaulked. A new wood-framed screen could be added to the one operable inswinging casement window, if the adaptive reuse dictates that this window will be opened and used. If not, then a screen would not be required. 4.g Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 41 Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Exterior Door The milk house contains only one door, located in the center of the north wall. It is a 2'-6" x 6'-8" high, non-original residential quality half-lite door with single-pane glass. The lower door panel is divided into two vertical panels. The upper glass lite is a true-divided lite in a diamond pattern. (Refer to photos #M001, M008, M024 and M029) The door is presently secured by a modern deadbolt lock. No door latching or locking handle hardware remains, but the door stile retains a painted "ghost" of a decorative escutcheon plate. (Refer to photo #M030) The exterior casing is built out beyond the face of the brick, with evidence of where an original screen door used to exist. The interior casing is 2-1/2" x 3/4" thick with a beaded profile similar to the south window. (Refer to photos #M015 and M016) Condition: Fair. While the entry door is not original to the milk house's construction, it may be old enough to be considered historic in its own right, and is in generally good condition. Recommendations: Notwithstanding the previous statement, we recommend that the non- original door be replaced with a door more in keeping with the building's period of original construction, and one that might better fit the adaptive reuse for the building. If photographic documentation exists, it should be used to guide this replacement. If not, a 4- or 5-panel rail and stile wood door would be appropriate to the age and architectural style of the milk house. New door hardware should also reflect the building's era, with 5- knuckle hinges and pointed finials similar to the original window hinges being appropriate. The painted "ghost" escutcheon can also be used to guide an appropriate door plate style. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.16 Milk House Interior Finishes The milk house contains only a single interior room. A small portion of the north wall reveals that the brick walls were originally finished with plaster placed directly over the brick. (Refer to photo #M024) Most of the walls are now covered in non-original composite paneling in a dark walnut finish, with coordinating base and window/door trim pieces. (Refer to photos #M025-M029) The interior now has a lowered, flat plastered or gypsum wallboard ceiling, although it is unlikely this is original to the construction unless the two upper windows in the gable end walls were always concealed within an attic. The ceiling is lightly textured and painted. (Refer to photo #040) The flooring is badly-worn carpeting over several slabs of sandstone. The east wall contains what may be original built-in painted cabinet and shelving, constructed of utilitarian wood plank construction. The northern half is enclosed with beaded wood plank doors, while the south half remains open shelving. (Refer to photos #M024 and M026) 4.g Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 42 Condition: Fair to poor. The non-original paneling is in fair condition, but conceals most of the original plaster finishes, so these cannot be assessed. The non-original plaster or gypsum wallboard ceiling is intact and in fair condition, but exhibits evidence of past moisture damage. The carpeting is in very poor condition, badly worn and torn up at the door and not well attached in other areas. The underlying sandstone floor slabs could not be assessed. Recommendations: It is recommended that the non-original paneling be removed and the plaster walls exposed for further assessment. If they remain intact, the plaster should be repaired and repainted. Further field research should be done during the design phase of any rehabilitation to determine if the original materials exist, and if they can be repaired. Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse, insulating the walls may be necessary or desirable, so the walls may need to be furred out, insulated and covered in gypsum wallboard. After the upper windows are uncovered and it can be determined whether they were originally open to the interior room, a determination should be made as to whether or not the ceiling should be removed. If possible, the original built-ins should be retained and preserved. They may need to be anchored to the walls during the excavation and relocation of the building. Since the building is to be relocated, the existing sandstone floor slabs should be removed and salvaged for reuse, then reinstalled as a part of the new foundation. Depending upon the intended adaptive reuse, no further floor finishes may be needed, which would be the preferrable solution in keeping with the utilitarian nature of the original building. Applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards that will apply to this work include #5, 6 and 9. Original historic materials should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.17 Milk House Mechanical Systems Milk House Heating and Ventilation The only evidence of mechanical equipment in the milk house is a disconnected in-wall unit heater and the remnants of natural gas piping that served it. (Refer to photos #M024 and M039) It is unlikely that this wall heater was original to the building, and the clay and metal flue pipe described in Section 3.5 above suggest that the building was originally heated by a wood- or coal-fired pot belly stove. An "Empire" brand, unpainted galvanized sheet metal grill remains in place on the outside face of the north wall, although it is not known what its function might have been. (Refer to photos #M001, M008 and M011, and the description of this feature in Section 2.1 on page 10 of this report) The remnants of gas piping run from the location of the wall heater down and out of the building through the clay drainage pipe mentioned earlier. It terminates on the outside; the gas meter or propane tank that served this heater no longer exists. (Refer to photo #M012) 4.g Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 43 Ventilation was originally achieved by merely opening the south window or the door. Condition: Poor. The mechanical system that once existed was simple and functional, but no longer exists. Recommendations: Depending upon the nature of the adaptive reuse of the building, the type, extent and sophistication of the mechanical system could vary widely. For purposes of historic preservation and the accurate interpretation of the building, the simpler and most basic of mechanical systems would be the most appropriate. Plumbing It appears that the milk house did not have any plumbing systems, other than the wash down system mentioned above. Condition: Not applicable. Recommendations: It is recommended that the clay pipe sleeves through the brick walls remain for interpretation of the building's history. They can be plugged on the interior and insulated if desired. 3.18 Milk House Electrical Systems The milk house was served by electrical power, and it is assumed that it was provided by aerial service off of the main barn or possibly the house. Only remnants of that service remain. A modern electrical meter box and disconnect were lying near the building. These had been mounted on a wooden post, presumably adjacent to the building. The interior of the building was illuminated by a single ceiling-mounted incandescent light fixture, wired to a single-pole switch near the door, which is missing its cover plate. (Refer to photos #M037, M038 and M040) One horizontal, surface-mounted electrical duplex power outlet exists below the west window. Condition: Not applicable. The electrical system is no longer in service. Recommendations: The existing interior electrical system should be removed and the building rewired after it is relocated, with the extent of service depending upon the intended adaptive reuse of the building. Assuming a use that does not include public access, no fire alarm or emergency lighting system is anticipated. New exterior lighting fixtures should be designed and selected to be sympathetic with the historic character of the milk house. 4.g Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 44 4.0 Analysis and Compliance 4.1 Hazardous Materials Inspection and testing for hazardous materials is outside the scope of this assessment. Due to the age of the original milk house, the building may contain asbestos in the underlying plaster, gypsum wallboard ceiling adhesives, or other hazardous materials. Lead-based paint may be found on the exterior and interior window and door frames and sashes, exterior wood fascias and trims, and the interior plastered walls. Since the interior of the barn is unfinished and the exterior is heavily weathered, it is unlikely that hazardous materials will be found in this building. However, the testing consultant should make this determination for the owner. Suspect materials should be tested for hazardous content prior to removal and should then be disposed of appropriately. If any hazardous materials are subsequently discovered, they may be managed in place if any damage is adequately repaired and the materials are in a location(s) not subject to damage or abuse. Lead-based paint may be encapsulated by new paint, if deemed appropriate by the testing and abatement consultant. 4.2 Building Code Compliance The remaining buildings at the Coy-Hoffman Farm have been evaluated relative to the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), adopted and in use by the City of Fort Collins. The City is anticipating adopting the 2012 family of I-codes in early 2014. Due to the unknown nature of any adaptive reuse and the resulting rehabilitation improvements, it cannot be determined at this time the level of compliance with current building, fire and life safety codes standards. Application of applicable sections of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) can be used where these requirements allow greater latitude than strict compliance with the IBC. The barn has a net building area of approximately 1,716 sq. ft. on the main level and 1,996 sq. ft. on the upper hay loft level, for a total usable area of approximately 3,712 sq. ft. The discrepancy between the areas on the two levels is due to the thickness of the stone walls and the fact that the hay loft level wall framing is set slightly out from the stone below. The milk house is approximately 108 net sq. ft. While not constructed to any building code, the construction type for both the barn and the milk house would probably be classified as Type V-B (non-rated, combustible construction) per the 2009 IBC. This code should be consulted to determine the allowable floor area for the anticipated adaptive reuse, and the requirement for a fully automatic fire sprinkler system should be anticipated. As historic buildings, the Coy-Hoffman barn and milk house would not need to strictly meet all of the parameters of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), so this may provide some leeway in how the weatherization and insulation of the barn is designed. We would suggest that the owner discuss this issue with the local building official earlier in any design phase. 4.g Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 45 The most significant building code issue is the lack of adequate egress from the upper level hayloft, particularly if some level of public use is anticipated for this space. This level does not have any legal, code-compliant exits, and almost any reasonable use will require two. Based upon our conceptual level analysis, other building code deficiencies may exist in the existing buildings and would need to be addressed as a part of any rehabilitation project, including the lack of adequate insulation materials and thermal performance that do not meet current State of Colorado model energy codes. 4.3 Zoning Code Compliance The site is located within the city limits of Fort Collins and is zoned RC-River Corridor. This is normally a fairly restrictive zoning classification, with uses geared toward preservation of the river corridor and habitat. It is our understanding that the Woodward site, with its multi-use "campus" approach, was granted a special "addition of a permitted use" during the City's planning approval process. This allowed a number of additional uses to be added to those normally allowed by right in the RC zone, including conference centers and research facilities. As the owner investigates potential adaptive reuses for the historic buildings, they are encouraged to contact BHA Design Inc. for clarification of any of the permitted (or excluded) uses. 4.4 Accessibility Compliance The historic buildings at the Coy-Hoffman Farm are not currently handicapped accessible in any way. Compliance with Chapter 11 of the IBC and general provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that every “program” provided within a public building be accessible to persons with disabilities. This does not necessarily mandate that access be provided to all areas within a building, if a particular program can be provided within an accessible area of the building or immediate site. The main level of the barn is elevated somewhat above the surrounding grade at its primary historic entrances, with no ramp to provide access into the entry. There is no accessibility provided to the upper hay loft level, and it may be very difficult, both structurally and historically, to attempt to make the upper level accessible. While accessible restrooms and other facilities are more than likely planned in other buildings within the Woodward campus, it is assumed that accessible restrooms, kitchenette and other related amenities would be required within the barn if the adaptive reuse is for a conference center or other public use. The door accessing the milk house is only 2'-6" wide, 6" short of full accessibility compliance. Since altering the width of this door would destroy historic materials and would be considered invasive to the historical integrity of the building, it is recommended that a maintenance-related adaptive reuse be found for this building that would continue its historic utilitarian use, and avoid the need for interior access by the general public. 4.g Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 46 4.5 Existing Materials Analysis No detailed materials analysis has been done as a part of this assessment report or was necessary. However, specific materials analyses should be undertaken during the design phase of the preservation effort to ensure a successful project, to include:  Mortar analysis for repair and repointing of the original ashlar sandstone masonry.  Moisture testing for structural wood timbers or other members, if moisture damage is uncovered during any restoration work.  Microscopic paint analysis, if an authentic restoration is pursued for any of the buildings.  Testing and possible abatement for asbestos, lead-based paints or other hazardous materials. Further structural exploration and analysis is recommended during the design phase of any restoration and adaptive reuse work, as referenced in Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.10. 4.g Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 47 5.0 Preservation Plan 5.1 Prioritized Work As described earlier, the remaining Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are in good structural and fair physical condition, with much of their contributing historic fabric intact. The intent of the historic preservation efforts outlined in the HSA will be to rehabilitate the interior of the barn and milk house to allow their continued use as compatible adaptive reuses, while preserving the exterior character of each. Preservation efforts related to the concrete silos are primarily focused on the structural stabilization of the structures. The following priority levels are provided to demonstrate the severity of existing deterioration and damage of all building and site elements. These ratings also pinpoint which features need immediate attention before further damage occurs. Critical Deficiency of an element exists where:  there is advanced deterioration which has resulted in the failure of the building element or will result in the failure of the building element if not corrected within two years, and/or;  there is accelerated deterioration of adjacent or related building materials as a result of the element's deficiency, and/or;  there is a threat to the health and/or safety of the user, and/or;  there is a failure to meet a legislative (or building code) requirement. Serious Deficiency of an element exists where:  there is deterioration which, if not corrected within 2-5 years, will result in the failure of the building element, and/or;  a threat to the health and/or safety of the user may occur within 2-5 years if the deterioration is not corrected, and/or;  there is deterioration of adjacent or related building materials and/or systems as a result of the element's deficiency. Minor Deficiency of an element exists where:  standard preventative maintenance practices and building conservation methods have not been followed, and/or;  there is a reduced life expectancy of affected or related building materials and/or systems, and/or;  there is a condition with long-term impact beyond five years. Recommended rehabilitation improvements for the Coy-Hoffman Farm buildings are as follows: Critical Deficiency:  Ensure that grading that is a part of the redevelopment of the site adequately diverts drainage away from the barn on all sides.  Placement of the new foundation for the relocated milk house should also provide positive drainage away from the new foundations.  Landscaping improvements around the barn and milk house to create a "dry zone" around the foundations. 4.g Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 48  Structural analysis of the two silos, and implementation of any structural repairs that may be determined from this analysis. Serious Deficiency:  Repointing and repair of the sandstone walls and foundations of the barn.  Repointing and repair of the brick masonry walls of the milk house (after relocation).  Replacement of broken or missing shingles on the barn with new taper-sawn Cedar shingles and ridge shingles.  Reroofing of the milk house with new taper-sawn Cedar shingles installed over a single- ply roofing underlayment.  Repair and/or replacement of broken or missing wood plank siding boards on the barn.  Repair and rehabilitation of the wood boxed eaves and fascias of the milk house.  Rehabilitation of the original wood barn windows, including sashes and frames, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints to the stone walls and wood siding.  Rehabilitation of the original wood barn doors, including frames and casings, fixing the doors in an "open" position, and caulking of perimeter joints to the stone walls. If the doors are fixed open, the original openings would then need to be infilled with aluminum storefront framing, doors and glazing, or some other modern material.  Depending upon the selected adaptive reuse, weatherization of the hayloft level, and installation of insulation in the walls and roof of the barn. Several methods may be available to accomplish this work, but the choice should retain the exterior appearance to the greatest extent possible.  Depending upon the selected adaptive reuse, new construction and interior remodeling to provide two means of egress from the upper level hayloft of the barn, as well as the possible construction of an elevator for public access to the hayloft.  Environmental clean-up to remove bat, pigeon and rodent waste. Minor Deficiency:  Removal of the elm tree growing within the eastern silo.  Rehabilitation of the original wood milk house windows, including sashes and frames, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints to the brick masonry walls.  Replacement of the non-original milk house door with a new rail-and-stile wood door and hardware.  Installation of some type of attic ventilation in the milk house. 5.2 Phasing Plan Due to the scope of the prioritized preservation improvements needed, the project may be divided into two (or more) construction phases, if desired. Phase 1: Phase 1 includes all of the “Critical” and “Serious” work items. Depending upon the selected adaptive reuse, the work necessary to address building code compliance should also be part of Phase 1 work. Phase 2: Phase 2 could include all of the work identified as “Minor”, including energy efficiency enhancements not mandated by code compliance for the selected adaptive reuse. 4.g Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 49 5.3 Estimated Construction Costs The following conceptual estimates of probable construction cost are made without the benefit of any design or engineering related to the prioritized work. The Owner is advised to seek additional cost verification prior to using this information as the basis for any future grant applications or fund raising endeavors. Construction costs itemized below are only those costs associated with the rehabilitation or preservation of the historic buildings. Costs associated with the adaptive reuse or tenant finish of the spaces are not included. Phase 1 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction:  Construction of a new milk house foundation and relocation of the milk house: Planned separately or already completed  Regrading of the site immediately around all sides of the barn to divert drainage away from the building: Part of redevelopment scope  Extension of site utilities to the barn and milk house: Not included  Landscape mulch with edging to create "dry zone" around the perimeters of both the barn and milk house (Allowance): $ 8,000.00  Replacement of missing or damaged taper-sawn Cedar shingles on the barn (Allowance): $ 2,500.00  Construction of roof structures on the silos: Not included  Reroofing of the milk house with new taper-sawn Cedar shingles over single-ply membrane underlayment: $ 4,800.00  Repointing of the sandstone walls and foundations of the barn (Allowance): $ 35,000.00  Repointing of the brick masonry walls of the milk house (Allowance): $ 7,500.00  Repair and/or replacement of broken or missing wood siding, casings and trims of the barn (Allowance): $ 5,000.00  Rehabilitation of the original wood windows, sashes and frames at the barn, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints: $ 2,000.00  Rehabilitation of the original wood barn doors, and fix in "open" position: $ 4,500.00  Weatherization of the hayloft level, and insulation of the walls and roof of the barn (Allowance): $ 25,000.00  Rehabilitation of wood fascias and boxed eaves of the milk house: $ 1,200.00  New construction to provide two means of egress from the upper level hayloft of the barn: Not included  New construction to add an elevator to the hayloft level of the barn: Not included  New aluminum storefront framing, glass and doors to infill openings: Not included  New plumbing fixtures and piping in the barn: Not included  New fire sprinkler system in the barn: Not included  New mechanical HVAC system in the barn: Not included  New electrical power and lighting systems in the barn: Not included 4.g Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 50  New emergency lighting, exit signage and fire alarm systems in the barn: Not included  New A/V, security, WiFi or other specialty systems in the barn: Not included  Subtotal Phase 1 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 95,500.00 General Conditions (10%): $ 9,550.00 Contractor Overhead & Profit/Bonds/Insurance (8%): $ 7,650.00 Total Phase 1 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 112,700.00 A/E Design Fees (12%): $ 13,525.00 Forensic Structural Inspection/Evaluation for Silos (Allowance): $ 10,000.00 Reimbursable Expense Allowance: $ 5,000.00 Topographic Surveying Allowance: Already completed City of Fort Collins Building Permit/Development Fees: Not included Hazardous Materials Testing/Abatement Allowance: $ 5,000.00 Environmental Clean-up (Bat/Pigeon/Rodent) Allowance: $ 2,000.00 Miscellaneous Materials Analysis and Testing Allowance: $ 10,000.00 Archaeological Monitoring Allowance: $ 2,500.00 Design Contingency (3%): $ 3,375.00 Project Contingency (15%): $ 16,900.00 Total Phase 1 Estimated Project Cost*: $ 181,000.00 Phase 2 - Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction:  Removal of the Elm tree growing within the eastern silo: $ 1,000.00  Rehabilitation of the original wood windows, sashes and frames at the milk house, new putty and caulking of perimeter joints: $ 1,600.00  Replace non-original entry door of the milk house with more historically-appropriate wood door and hardware: $ 1,800.00  Installation of attic ventilation in the milk house: $ 600.00  Subtotal Phase 2 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 5,000.00 General Conditions (10%): $ 500.00 Contractor Overhead & Profit/Bonds/Insurance (8%): $ 400.00 Total Phase 2 Preservation/Rehabilitation Construction Cost: $ 5,900.00 A/E Design Fees (12%): $ 700.00 Reimbursable Expense Allowance: $ 2,000.00 4.g Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 51 City of Fort Collins Building Permit/Development Fees: Not included Design Contingency (3%): $ 175.00 Project Contingency (15%): $ 875.00 Total Phase 2 Estimated Project Cost*: $ 9,650.00 Total Phase 1 Project Cost: $ 181,000.00 Total Phase 2 Project Cost: $ 9,650.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS (ALL PHASES)*: $ 190,650.00 * Add 6% - 8% per year for construction escalation. 4.g Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.g Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Historic Photos H-001 Historic Image H-002 Historic Image 4.g Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Historic Photos H-003 Historic Image H-004 Historic Painting 4.g Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-001 - B-002 - B-003 - 4.g Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-004 - B-005 - B-006 - 4.g Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-007 - B-008 - B-009 - 4.g Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-010 - B-011 - B-012 - 4.g Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-013 - B-014 - B-015 - 4.g Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-014a - B-015b - B-016c - 4.g Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-017 - B-018 - B-019 - 4.g Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-019a - B-020 - B-021 - 4.g Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-022 - B-023 - B-024 - 4.g Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-025 - B-026 - B-027 - 4.g Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-028 - B-029 - B-0230 - 4.g Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-031 - B-032 - B-033 - 4.g Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-034 - B-035 - B-036 - B-037 - 4.g Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-038 - B-039 - B-040 - 4.g Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-041 - B-042 - B-043 - 4.g Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-045 - B-044 - B-046 - B-047 - 4.g Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-048 - B-049 - B-050 - B-051 - B-052 - 4.g Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON B-053 - B-054 - B-055 - B-056 - 4.g Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-057 - B-058 - B-059 - B-060 - 4.g Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Barn Photos B-061 - B-062 - B-063 - B-064 - 4.g Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Silo Photos S-001 - S-002 - S-003 - 4.g Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Silo Photos S-004 - S-005 - S-006 - 4.g Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Silo Photos S-007 - S-008 - S-009 - S-010 - 4.g Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-001 Front Elevation M-002 - M-003 - 4.g Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-004 - M-005 - M-006 - 4.g Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-008 - M-007 - M-009 - M-010 - M-008a - 4.g Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-011 - M-012 - M-013 - 4.g Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-014 - M-015 - M-016 - 4.g Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-017 - M-018 - M-019 - 4.g Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-020 - M-021 - M-022 - 4.g Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-023 - M-024 - M-025 - 4.g Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-026 - M-027 - M-028 - 4.g Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-029 - M-030 - M-031 - M-032 - 4.g Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-033 - M-034 - M-036 - M-035 - 4.g Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm September 17, 2013 Milk House M-038 - M-037 - M-040 - M-039 - 4.g Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON 4.g Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 52 Technical Literature References Ahlbrandt, Arlene. “A Storehouse of History.” Fort Collins Forum, 14 August 2003, p. 14. Ahlbrandt, Arlene. “Barn at Lincoln and Lemay to Remain on Golf Course.” Fort Collins Coloradoan, 16 August 1991, p. C1. “Barn at Lincoln and Lemay to Remain on Golf Course,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, 16 August 1991, p. C1. Clark, Francis. Early Sawmills in Larimer County. Fort Collins, CO: Clark Associates, 1992. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Site Reevaluation Form, Coy-Hoffman Barn (Site #5LR1568), 10 October 2000. Prepared by L. H. Bambrey, Greystone Environmental Services Inc. Colorado State Register of Historic Properties Nomination, Coy-Hoffman Farm (5LR.1568). Prepared by Carol Tunner, Fort Collins Historical Society, 14 February 1995. Grimmer, Anne E. Keeping it Clean: Removing Exterior Dirt, Paint, Stains & Graffiti from Historic Masonry Buildings. Washington, DC: US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, 1988. “Historic Barn Still Standing – Barely,” The Coloradoan, 18 May 1997. Historic Building Inventory Record, Coy-Hoffman Barn, Fort Collins Survey of Historic Places, June 1992. Prepared by Thomas and Laurie Simmons, Front Range Research Associates. Jessen, Kenneth, “Coys Stayed in Area for the Winter and Beyond,” Loveland Reporter Herald, 13 February 2012. Accessed online at reporterherald.com. “Local Structures Win State Funding,” Fort Collins Coloradoan, 12 August 1994, p. C2. Photographs of the Buildings on the Coy-Hoffman Farm. City of Fort Collins, Planning Department, Historic Preservation Program Files, July 1991. “State Historical Fund Grant Application, Coy-Hoffman Barn, Building Restoration.” Center for the Stabilization and Reuse of Important Structures, Colorado State University, Department of Industrial Sciences, 28 February 1995. Stone, Wilbur Fisk. History of Colorado. Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1918. Vlach, John Michael. Barns. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Courier Publishing Co., 1911. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Preservation Briefs that may apply include:  Preservation Brief #1, The Cleaning and Waterproof Coating of Masonry Buildings  Preservation Brief #2, Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Brick Buildings  Preservation Brief #3, Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings  Preservation Brief #4, Roofing for Historic Buildings  Preservation Brief #9, The Repair of Historic Wood Windows 4.g Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 53  Preservation Brief #17, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character  Preservation Brief #20, The Preservation of Historic Barns  Preservation Brief #24, Heating, Ventilating & Cooling Historic Buildings  Preservation Brief #32, Making Historic Properties Accessible  Preservation Brief #35, Understanding Old Buildings  Preservation Brief #36, Protecting Cultural Landscapes  Preservation Brief #43, The Preparation and Use of Historic Structure Reports 4.g Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 54 Terms and Definitions Definitions of the following terms used in this Historic Structure Assessment report are provided to assist the readers of this report: Character-defining Feature: A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality or characteristic of an historic property that contributes significantly to its physical character. Structures, elements, objects, vegetation, spatial relationships, views, furnishings and decorative details and materials may be such features. Element: An element may be an architectural feature, structural component, engineering system or a functional requirement. In-kind: In the same manner, with the same material, or with something equal in substance creating a similar or identical appearance or effect. Material: The physical elements that were combined or deposited to form a property. Historic material or historic fabric is that from an historically significant period, as opposed to material used to maintain or restore a property following its historic period(s). Period of Significance: The general era or length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities or persons. Preservation: Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features, rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Reconstruction: Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values. Restoration: Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. 4.g Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Coy-Hoffman Farm Historic Structure Assessment Page 55 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior's Standards, developed by the National Park Service, form the basis for the recommendations included in this Historic Structure Assessment report, as well as review of future rehabilitation, restoration or preservation projects by the State Historical Fund. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 4.g Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Plan of Protection for Historic Sites Project Title: Woodward Coy-Hoffman Farmstead Adaptive Functional Reuse Plan Full Property Address: Woodward Way, Lot 2 Woodward Technology Center Form Prepared by: Wayne M. Timura, Next Level Development, Inc. Please complete the following as applicable: 1.0 Introduction Description of project location: Southwest corner of Lemay and Mulberry General description of work to be performed, including which firm(s) will be doing the work: The barn and milk house will be renovated and rehabilitated to their historic appearance according to the adaptive reuse plan. Also according to the plan the silos will be dismantled and some of the existing concrete silo structure will be retained and used to create safe, visible semi-enclosed group seating areas approximately 4 feet high as part of an outdoor patio for member collaboration and gatherings. Once construction documents are prepared contractors will be identified and engaged through Woodward’s procurement process. Building(s) or portion(s) of buildings that will be affected: Barn, milk house and two concrete silos. Is building adjacent to other buildings or structures, on or off site, and if so, how close? The new ITS building is approximately 80 feet and the new headquarters building is approximately 120 feet from the barn complex. The milk house will be relocated to the northeast side of the barn out of the way from the barn renovation and rehabilitation work and silo work. The barn is approximately 17 feet away from the nearest silo. Are any of these other buildings or structures 50 years old or older (which ones, and what are their dates of construction, if known): Barn 1866, Milk house date is unknown, east silo 1912 west silo 1913. 2.0 Scope of Work Describe the work, and how it will affect any historic building(s) (both the subject property and adjacent, if applicable). Provide descriptions on each of the following, as applicable: As describe in section 1.0 the barn and milk house will be renovated and rehabilitated and the silos will be dismantled to create seating areas. As appropriate answers to the work items noted below in this section will be addressed when the construction documents are prepared and the contractors for the work are engaged. Demolition: Site preparation: Excavation: Utilities: New foundation: New construction: 4.h Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Parking lot: Driveways/alleyways: Landscaping: Drainage: Other: 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities - Answers to this section will be addressed when the construction documents are prepared and the contractors for the work are engaged. Name of person or persons responsible for overseeing the demolition and/or construction activities: Will they be on site when that work is occurring? If not, how may they be contacted if needed when that work is underway? What specific coordination practices will be used to coordinate work activities? 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials - Answers to this section will be addressed when the construction documents are prepared and the contractors for the work are engaged. Which historic materials will be deconstructed and salvaged? Which historic materials will not be salvaged, and how will they be disposed of? 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property - The structures will be adequately protected. Work will be guided by preservation guidelines. Specific answers to this section will be addressed when the construction documents are prepared and the contractors for the work are engaged. How will you ensure that historic buildings, structures, and surface features will not be damaged during work? What means will be used to protect them? 5.1 Site Conservation 5.2 Demolition of Building 5.3 Foundation Stability 5.4 Structural 5.5 New Construction 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials 5.7 New Openings 5.8 Floor Framing 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing 5.10 Structural Loads 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure 5.13 Site Cleanup 6.0 Documentation for Record Does the project include measured drawings and/or photographs? Yes Where will these be stored? Woodward’s corporate office 7.0 Archeology - Answers to this section will be addressed when the construction documents are prepared and the contractors for the work are engaged. 4.h Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON How will you address archeological resources if they are likely to be present or if you should unexpectedly find them? (I.e., contact the Museum of Discovery; have an archeologist on site to monitor the work; have an archeologist on call.) 4.h Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Photo c. 1910’s 4.i Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Photo c. 1910s (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) From: Dee Amick To: Karen McWilliams Subject: Subject: Coy Silos and barn at Woodward Governor Date: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 11:35:00 AM Dear Karen, Please see my letter in regards to the Coy Silos and submit to the Landmark Preservation Commission for the January 13th meeting. Thank you. Dee Dear members of the Landmark Preservation Commission, I am 100% opposed to the demolition or inappropriate alteration of the Coy Silos and barn. I am opposed to any new change to the Landmark Code/Land Use Code allowing such demolitions or changes to occur. I state for the record my standing as a party-in-interest. The silos and barn are symbolic and scenic not to mention, saved and registered historic structures, within the Homestead Natural Area of Fort Collins. While ironically little homestead is visible, the Homestead Natural Area does encompass the area of the culturally significant Coy-Hoffman Farm, settled in the 1860's. The remaining farm structures- the silos and barn, are valued by many, and for innumerable reasons: visitors, tourists, commuters and recreation-seekers of all kinds benefit from the beauty, ambiance and place-making these structures provide; farmers, growers, gardeners, foodies, and locavores recognize these icons of of our region's agricultural past and the resources of the land; historians and preservationists, history buffs and students gain a glimpse into a past Fort Collins and an appreciation for the unique character of Fort Collins that still exists today. To permit the loss or inappropriate alteration of the Coy Silos and barn, for convenience and financial concerns of the current owner of the properties is wholly inexcusable. The City of Fort Collins decision makers and the Landmark Preservation Commission have an obligation to abide by previously placed protections intended for endangered properties and to do everything within their power to be stewards of our community's heritage at large. I implore you to place all your bias and favor, power and wisdom, on the side of cultural and historic preservation, benefiting all of your citizens for many years to come. And, to encourage Woodward Governor to do the same. 4.j Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) Very Sincerely, Dee Amick parent of school-aged children advocate of endangered properties year-round cyclist Poudre Trail regular user tax-paying, contributing citizen and 10-year resident of Fort Collins 4.j Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) (a) (b) From: L. Ashbach To: Karen McWilliams Cc: Laurie Kadrich; Darin Atteberry; Rachel Askeland Subject: Letter for LPC packet re Coy-Hoffman Farm preservation Date: Thursday, January 07, 2016 8:20:31 AM Attachments: 1.7.16BHFLPCletter.pdf Good Morning, Karen, Attached to this email is a letter from the Bellvue Historic Foundation regarding current issues at the Coy-Hoffman Farm. Please include it in the information packets for the LPC members. Bellvue and Fort Collins share much historical context, and our area (Bellvue and Pleasant Valley) is recognized by the City as one of the highest preservation priorities in the area. Our citizen action group has worked for preservation of this area for going on a decade. The BHF believes that the Coy-Hoffman Farm is one of the highest preservation priorities in Fort Collins, accordingly, we have drafted the attached letter for review by the Landmark Preservation Commission in reference to issues that will be heard at the January 13th meeting. Bellvue essentially exists as a "suburb" to Fort Collins, although we hate to use that term to describe our beautiful, rural valley. To see the City, which has been such a leader in the area of Landmark preservation propose and support actions which would expedite the delisting and destruction of a rare, unique, and already-listed State Register property, is a real shame. We implore the City to recognize it's roots, and the power in Section 14.2 of the Code as it exists currently: Sec. 14-2. - Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historical, architectural or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. It is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. (Code 1972, § 69-2(A), (C); Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 2, 1-7-03; Ord. 057, 2014, § 1, 4-15-14) Thank you for your prompt attention to our letter and concerns. Sincerely, Lisa Ashbach Bellvue Historic Foundation, member 4.j Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) lEo[["** ]Hliutrnio lFar**dafir* p.O Bo zf, . . Bruy.. (oFtuoo 6oste January 7 , 2016 City of Fort Collins, Landmark Preservation Commission Staff Contact: Karen Mcwlliams - sent via email (kmcwilliams@fcgov.com) Dear Karen, As advocates for preservation of historic resources in our area, we respectfully submit our comments for consideration of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the January 13, 2016 meeting. Ordinance 011, 2016: We urge rejection of Ordinance 011 ,2016. Changing City Code to reduce public input is not in the best interest of citizens who have clearly demonstrated their approval for thoughtful review and determination when irreplaceable resources are being considered. In the case of many historic structures, taxpayers have already funded preservation and restoration activities and therefore have an interest in on-going preservation, not demolition, of historic structures. Alteration to and/or demolition of these sites deserves full public disclosure and review with ample time allowed for citizens to become informed about plans and alternatives. \ /hile the proposed changes in wording under Ordinance 011,2016 may seem minor, absent a well-informed and active LPC, Staff, and public, the results could be devastating for historic preservation in Fort Collins. lt has been reported in the media that this change is being made not for the benefit of W-G but for future, hypothetical beneficiaries, who are not yet identified. lf this is the case, why the rush to alter the process that has produced the wonderful City that W-G wants to call home? lf W-G did not intend to comply with existing Fort Collins Codes and regulations, perhaps they should not have been willing to accept over $20 million in public funds. Ordinance011,2016was reportedly drafted by City Staff to expedite or streamline a process that is intentionally slow and methodical to allow time to work out challenges. W-G, or other entities, attempts to pressure the City to make alterations to Chapter 14 of City Code, put decades of preservation work at risk. DemoiAlt Permit: Vvith respect to the proposed demolition of the silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm, which has been determined to be eligible for Landmark designation, please take action as needed to preserve these structures and work with W-G to restore and preserve this valued historic resource. Planners who wrote the Landmark Preservation Code were pioneers when it was adopted decades ago. The City benefits today from having an active and dedicated Staff who work with property owners and consultants to preserve elements of the City's past; which sometimes may seem to be in the way, but ultimately, are the way to grow Fort Collins, as has been done for the past 50 years. History Colorado has clarified that the Coy-Hoffman Farm will no longer be eligible for listing on the State Register if the silos are demolished. These silos are incredibly unique, rare, and historic structures on their own, and as part of the context of the Coy-Hoffman Farm. There may be no more than 6 total remaining silos within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, based on an agricultural inventory done ofthe Fort Collins UGA a few years back. We know of no other o\o- To: 4.j Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON Page 2 of 2 concrete silos. We urgently recommend preservation of all of the remaining elements of the farmstead, keeping the site eligible for State listing. Please deny the demolition permit for the silos if you must take action tonight. The Chief Building Official has determined that the silos are not an "imminent hazard"the : standard required under City Code, Section 14-51 for deviation from the provisions regarding Landmark preservation. Not surprisingly, engineers paid by W-G differ in their opinion. We urge you to rely on the opinion of City Staff, as we will urge the Council to rely on the LPC, as experts in your field. The Code reads that a "properly authorized public official"not , an "engineer in the employ of the party seeking demolition" may order demolition, allowing waiver of compliance with the provisions of Chapter 14. The City and W-G concluded their negotiations mid year 201 3 according to local media. Certainly there has been ample time to notify the City of plans for the silos without modiflcations to City Code and absence of public input. As recently as this past year when plans for the barn were reviewed by the LPC the silos were shown on the site plan. Would the barn renovations have been considered a minor alteration if demolition of the silos been discussed at that time? lf insurance denial is behind the urgency of demolition now, as has also been reported, the LPC should require W-G to explore and present the conditions under which insurance is obtainable. Certainly stabilization and restoration, and/or a fence would appease most insurers. lt seems implausible that an insurer would wait until the 11th hour before occupancy to discuss such matters with W-G and be unwilling to quantiry and mitigate perceived risks via engineering controls. We strongly suggest the LPC delay final determination on this matter, as specified currently under City Code Section 14.72, allowing more public comment and opportunities to explore altematives which would preserve the silos, along with the farmstead. Grants have already been given through diligent citizen efforts for the restoration of the farmstead. Certainly, more grants could reduce the financial burden on W-G of preserving the farmstead intact. Local media reports that $23.5 million in publicfundswill be spent to keep W-G in ourarea. Mustwegiveupour Landmarks as well? We strongly urge the LPC to act as requested in this letter, and appreciate the opportunity to give input on the future of this important piece of area history. Sincerely; BELLVUE HISTORIC FOUNDATION Elizabeth fl A/L Ashbach r--<- member 4.j Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) From: rheba massey To: Karen McWilliams Subject: Coy Farm Silos Date: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 3:53:03 PM Dear Landmark Preservation Commission Members, I urge the City of Fort Collins and the Landmarks Preservation Commission to reject Woodward Governor's request to demolish the Coy Farm Silos. There has been a large participation in the funding of the preservation of the Coy Farm historic structures by the local community as well as state funding. Woodward Governor knew the importance of these structures before they purchased the property and that the structures would need to be continually maintained. There are many examples of adaptive reuse of these types of structures in the United States including Quaker Oats Multi-Purpose Community Arts Center at http://www.andersoncenter.org/barn.html and http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/anderson-center-completes-million--year-restoration- project/article_beddb26b-97d7-58c5-a5d7-ab73ba1b1ac2.html; barn-silo library at http://mckernongroup.com/work/barn-silolibrary/; a brewery at http://www.pwcgov.org/News/Pages/From-Barn-to-Brewery-Preservation-of-Historic-Thomasson-Barn.aspx; nature center at http://www.fallingwater.org/51/building-and-site-features. I am positive that the creative talents of Woodward Governor's executives and employees can also develop an excellent adaptive re-use plan for all Coy Farm historic structures that will be another national example of a corporation's dedication to the preservation of a community's history. Sincerely, Rheba Massey 1400 Freedom Lane Fort Collins 4.j Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) From: Barbara Fleming To: Karen McWilliams Cc: Carol Tunner; Gordon.Hazard@ColoState.EDU Subject: Coy silos Date: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 2:34:28 PM Karen- I am writing to support preservation of the Coy silos at the site of the new Woodward plant. There are so many reasons to support historic preservation, and these silos in particular, but here are a few: The Coys were among the very first settlers here. They are an integral part of this town’s history. This town has a rich, colorful history—a legacy like the silos is a tangible reminder of our past. The silos go with the barn; together, they tell a story. It is my understanding that the silos are repairable. If so, investing in repairs is surely worthwhile as a significant symbol of the importance of historic preservation in Fort Collins. Regards, Barbara Fleming 4.j Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) 4.j Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) Mary M. Humstone 4420 Bingham Hill Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80521 humstone@gmail.com January 7, 2016 City of Fort Collins, Landmark Preservation Commission Staff Contact: Karen McWilliams - sent via email (kmcwilliams@fcgov.com) Dear Landmark Preservation Commission members: I am writing concerning two important issues facing you, and all who care about historic resources in Fort Collins: 1) proposed changes to the non-consensual designation process of the historic preservation ordinance; and 2) the proposal to demolish the silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm. 1. Ordinance 011, 2016 - Proposed changes to the Landmark Preservation Code I urge the Commission to reject Ordinance 011, 2016. First of all, it is poor public policy to change an ordinance specifically to benefit one property owner. The fact that this change is being proposed at the same time that Woodward Governor is proposing to demolish the Coy-Hoffman silos, and that the change would be retroactive, leaves no doubt that this change is intended to meet the needs of the property owner, and not the public. The purpose of waiting periods and multiple hearings is to give citizens time to hear about, research and respond to issues. The City of Fort Collins should welcome, not try to squelch, public input on important decisions about the fate of our fast dwindling, irreplaceable historic resources –especially resources that have already been evaluated as significant. Non-consensual designation should be a slow and thoughtful process. There is no reason for an accelerated timeline. These resources have been with us for more than 100 years – let’s not decide their fate in a few days. A change in the ordinance will not only affect this property, but could be devastating for future designations. 2. Proposal to demolish the silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm I urge the LPC to turn down this request. Woodward Governor received permits from the City based on a plan to preserve both the barn and the silos. If the company intended to demolish the silos, or was not sure of their structural condition, this should have been examined and brought to public attention at the beginning of the permit process, not when the project is nearing completion. This sudden finding that the silos are in danger of collapse seems disingenuous. As a historic preservationist with more than 30 years’ experience, much of it with farm buildings as founder and director of the national BARN AGAIN! program, I can assure you that I have seen many barns and silos in a worse condition than those on the W-G property – even in a state of collapse – that have been saved, straightened, restored or even rehabilitated for new use, because the owner was motivated to preserve a piece of history. W-G should be motivated to do the same for a historic property, especially one in which public funds have already been invested. Sincerely, 4.j Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) From: David Dixon To: Karen McWilliams Cc: "David Dixon" Subject: Pioneer Association Support for Silo Preservation - January 13 LPC Agenda Item Date: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 4:22:18 PM Attachments: PioneerAssociationSupportForCoyHoffmanSiloPreservation.pdf Karen: Happy 2016 to you! This email comes to you from me in my official capacity as President of The Pioneer Association, rather than in an individual capacity. Our organization has decided to submit a position opposing the possible demolition of the Coy-Hoffman Silos, presently scheduled for discussion before the Landmark Preservation Commission at its January 13, 2016 meeting. A copy of The Pioneer Association’s position is attached. Please include it in the packet prepared for the Members of the Commission for that meeting. Respectfully, Dave Dixon (661) 204-3459 4.j Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) 4.j Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) From: CAROL To: Karen McWilliams Subject: SOS Save Our Silos Date: Thursday, January 07, 2016 2:03:56 PM Attachments: Letter to LPC.doc Hi Karen, Attached is a letter from me to the Landmark Preservation Commission for their January 13 packet. Please also direct them to activate the following link to a Channel 7 news report last night: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkqg7O8cJCE Carol Tunner caroltunner@msn.com (970) 484-3957 4.j Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) Carol P. Tunner 1400 Wimbledon Court Fort Collins, CO 80524 (970) 484-3957 caroltunner@msn.com January 7, 2015 Dear Landmark Preservation Commission, RE: Saving the silos on Woodward Governor's property First, I am former 20-year Historic Preservation Planner for the City of Fort Collins. From 1995-1998, I volunteered outside my job to save the two buildings (Coy barn and milk house) and two structures (silos) by writing their State Register of Historic Properties successful nomination. I wrote a $52,000 State Historical Fund grant and managed it for two years under the sponsorship of the Fort Collins Historical Society. When we found the second floor rotted because the farmer let the barn's leaking roof collapse, we had to raise $25,000 more to replace the barn's second floor. The restoration was supervised by the best preservation structural engineer in the state, AE Design, who felt the silos were sound to work around. Second, preservationist's all around the City and County are concerned for the loss of the silos. Three engineers (two hired by Woodward and one by the City) all say, and I quote: the silos need "intervention", "should be repaired", "require significant repairs if restored", need "permanent repairs." Woodward's representing engineer at the last October Building Review Board hearing said that it has been done before and he described the process of interior steel framework anchored by shear pins and finally shot-creted inside. They can and should be saved and restored! In a recent letter from History Now's Heather Peterson, State/National Register Specialist, she mentioned delisting of the properties if the silos are demolished and she offered grants for their restoration. Delisting would be a black eye for the City and Woodward, and threaten all other National and State Register properties in the City and County. Third, the silos are part of a 1995 State Register Historic District. The district was not locally designated because at the time the property was an out parcel. Additionally, in accordance with Fort Collins City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, the barn, milk house and silos have been officially determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. They are significant to the historic agricultural context of the farm complex, and are eligible under Fort Collins designation Standard A, for their association with the agricultural history of the community. They are eligible under designation Standard B, for their direct association with the John Coy family. Additionally, they are all significant under designation Standard C, for their portrayal of advances in early 1900s engineering technology. The 1912 and 1913 silos alone are wonderful interpretive examples of two types, one a cast-in-place concrete slip-silo and the second using a concrete vertical stave system. How would interpretation of the site be diminished by their absence? Coy’s homestead was the “cradle of Fort Collins civilization”. What would this barn and its historic landscape be without its silos? Please do whatever is within your power to save and keep the barn, milk house, and silos intact as the Coy Farmstead. Sincerely, Carol P. Tunner 4.j Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Citizen Letters (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON ALTERATION/DEMOLITION) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2016 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW STAFF Kaitlin Dorn, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Final Demolition/Alteration Review of a proposed demolition of the Huberty House located at 815 W. Oak Street, a one-story single family dwelling constructed in c. 1906. Upon approval of the demolition, the property owners propose the new construction of a two-story single family dwelling. APPLICANT: Kelly R. Close 815 W. Oak St Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Kelly R. Close 815 W. Oak St Fort Collins, CO 80521 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Huberty House is a one-story single family dwelling constructed in c. 1906. The owner of the property, Kelly Close, is proposing to demolish the house and construct a two-story single family dwelling. In accordance with Fort Collins City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, the property was reviewed in April 2015, and was officially determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under criterion C, Design/Construction. The dwelling is a good example of a Classic Cottage architectural style. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: Constructed in 1906 or 1907, this one-story, single family dwelling is a well-preserved example of a “Classic Cottage.” William and Grace Huberty acquired the property and contracted with Charles H. Roys to build the house. William Huberty operated a bakery at 119 Linden Street. The Hubertys lived in the home until 1910, after which the property changed hands multiple times during the twentieth century. The house is located within, and near the western limits of, the Loomis Addition to Fort Collins, platted by Abner Loomis and Malinda Maxwell in 1887. The building is a single story, 864-square-foot, wood frame dwelling. The house rests on stone foundation blocks containing a full, low-height basement, with several multi-light basement windows on its east and west elevations. The house is a well-preserved example of a "Classic Cottage," with a small rectangular footprint, a bellcast hip roof, a projecting open front porch, a hipped dormer, and a canted window bay on the east elevation (over the canted window bay). The house is clad with narrow clapboard siding that likely is original. The symmetrically arranged façade features the main entry offset to the right/west and a solitary large sash and transom window with an intricate-patterned leaded glass transom to the left/east. An open front porch projects 5 Packet Pg. 277 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 from the façade featuring a flat roof supported by three substantial square-sided wooden posts. According to the Architectural Inventory Form, the porch was evidently rebuilt sometime before 1979. The façade also features a bellcast-hipped dormer clad with painted wood shingles, and containing two identical small fixed windows with geometric-patterned lights. Behind and southeast of the house is a wood frame 2-car garage with the garage door facing south toward the alley. According to the Architectural Inventory Form, it appears that the garage was modified sometime after 1979. More detailed architectural and historical information can be found in the attached Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form. PROPOSED DEMOLITION: The applicant is proposing to demolish a one-story single family dwelling of 864 square feet and construct a two-story single family dwelling. The existing outbuilding will not be demolished or altered. PROCESS: Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code provides the process and requirements for the review of alterations or demolition of structures 50 years of age or older. Commonly referred to as demolition/alteration review, the process begins when the owner submits an application for City approval of the demolition or exterior alteration of the structure. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such application, the Director and the Chair of the Commission (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair), determine if the proposed work constitutes a demolition or a minor or major alteration of the exterior. If the work is determined to be a demolition or major alteration, the Director and the Chair refer the matter to either a subcommittee, or to the Commission for a hearing. Prior to the Commission meeting, public notice occurs, and there are submittal requirements that must be fulfilled: a. A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an approved expert in historic preservation; b. Detailed plans and specifications describing and depicting the appearance of the site, structure or object that is the subject of the application, in context, after the proposed alteration or demolition; c. Evidence that all administrative and quasi-judicial approvals necessary to accommodate the proposed demolition or alteration have been obtained; d. A plan of protection acceptable to the Commission showing how the applicant will ensure that no damage will occur to any historic resources on or adjacent to the site. e. Applicable fees COMMISSION ACTION: At this demolition/alteration review hearing, the Commission shall approve the application for demolition (with or without conditions) unless such approval is postponed as described below. The LPC may impose conditions of approval requiring the property owner to provide the City with additional information to mitigate the loss caused by the demolition or alteration. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to:  Comprehensive photographic documentation of such structure, with prints and negatives;  Comprehensive historical, developmental, social and/or architectural documentation of the property and the neighborhood containing the property; and/or  Any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties. Alternatively, the Commission may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days for additional information needed for its consideration, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark designation of the property. In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within the forty-five-day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed demolition. FINDINGS: Staff has made the following findings of fact as it relates to this: The Huberty Property is more than 50 years of age, dating to circa 1906; 5 Packet Pg. 278 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 The work proposed was determined to be “major”, affecting more than one aspect of integrity; The Huberty Property was determined to qualify for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks; and The posting and submittals required for this meeting have all been complied with. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (JPG) 2. Photographs (DOCX) 3. Applicant Submittal (PDF) 4. Architectural Inventory Form (PDF) 5. Plan of Protection (PDF) 6. Letters from Neighbors (PDF) 7. Staff Presentation (PPTX) 8. DemoAlt Review Consent Form (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 279 5.a Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Location Map (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Photographs of 815 W. Oak Street Front (North) Elevation Northwest Perspective 5.b Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Photographs (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Northeast Perspective Southeast Perspective 5.b Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Photographs (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Southwest Perspective 5.b Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Photographs (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.c Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.c Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.c Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.c Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 813 815 817 Elevation Drawing – 815 W. Oak Proposed Rebuild with Adjacent Houses 5.c Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL 813 815 817 Google Street View from the North-Northeast – Existing House Image acquired July 2015 5.c Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL 813 815 817 Google Street View from the North – Existing House Image acquired July 2015 5.c Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL Street View from the North – Existing House Photo taken Dec. 9, 2015 813 815 817 5.c Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL Street View from the North – Existing House Composite photo taken Dec. 9, 2015 813 815 817 5.c Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL Street View from the Northeast – Existing House Photo taken March 22, 2015 and submitted for Conceptual Review 817 815 5.c Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL Street View from the Northwest – Existing House Photo taken March 22, 2015 and submitted for Conceptual Review 815 813 5.c Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL 817 815 813 Detached garage Alley Alley Alley W est Oak Street 15 ft. 19 ft. 30 ft. 5.c Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL 51R.8266 oAHPl.403 Rev. 9/98 COLOF|ADO CULTURAL RESOU RCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District I. IDENTIFICATION L. Resource number: 51R.8266 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5, Historic building name: Huberty House 6, Current building name: None 7. Building address: 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 8, Owner name and address: Kelly R. Close 815 West Oak Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W SW%of NE%of SW%ofsection tt 10, UTM reference Zone 13; 492284 mE;4492751 mN Lt. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15' t2. Lot(s): 19 Block: 289 Plat: Loomis Addition to Fort Collins Date Platted: May 26, 1887 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description/ parcel limits, comprising all of Lot 19 in Block 289 of the Loomis Addition to Fort Collins (Larimer County Parcel No. 97113-15-019). The parcel has a rectangular boundary containing 0.15 acre of land, and encompasses the house, detached Earcge, and front and back yards, all associated with historic use of this residential property. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 1.4. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rlctangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length: 36 ft. x Width: 24 ft. 15. Number of stories: 1.0 17. Primary external wall material(s): Wood-Horizontal (clapboard) 18. Roof configuration: Hipped (Bellcast) 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt/Composition (shingles) 20. Specialfeatures: Porch,chimney 21,. General architectural description: House: Located on the south side of West Oak Street, just east of its intersection with South Washington Avenue, this 0.l5-acre residential parcel 5.d Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 contains a single story, 864 ft2 wood frame dwelling (note: the Larimer County Assesso/s online property record provides a square footage of 1,106 ft2, which presumably includes the enclosed rear porch), and a detached wood frame garage. The house rests on a stone foundation blocks containing a full, low-height basement (repbrtedly about 5% leet deep). The basement walls consist of dressed and mortared buff-colored sandstone exposed-above grade, while the rock used to form the sub-grade portions of the basement walls are not carefully dressed and cut, but consist of rough, irregular pieces that were much cheaper and simpler to procure than blocks carved by a professional stone mason. The sandstone used for this foundation and basement wall is commonly found on late 19th and early 20th century homes in Fort Collins, and was likely quarried in the Front Rahge foothills near Loveland. The basement wall is equipped with several multi-light basement windows on its east and west elevations. The house is a well-preserved example of a "classic cottage," with a small rectangular footprint, a bellcast hip roof, a projecting open front porch, a hipped dormer, and a canted window bay on the east elevation (over the canted window bay). The house is clad with narrow clapboard siding that likely is original. The house is covered by a steeply pitched bellcast hip roof clad with asphalt or composition shingles. The ridgeline is oriented north-south. The roof has bloadly overhanging, boxed eaves. There is a gable on the east elevation, and a bellcast-hipped dormer on the front/north elevation. The fagade features a projecting, open front porch with a flat roof supported by three substantial square-sided wooden posts. The porch was evidently rebuilt sometime before 1979 (based on an Assessor's photograph reproduced in this site form); it likely originally had a wood board floor that was replaced by a concrete slab supported by a foundation of mortared concrete blocks. The front porch is accessed by means of a simple set of concrete steps with a simple painted pipe handrail. The fagade is assyrnetrically arranged, with the main entry offset to the right/west. The front door, which appears to be original, is a dark- stained wooden door containing a large oval window. To the left/east of the front door is a solitary large sash and transom window with an intricate-patterned leaded glass transom. The fagade also features a bellcast-hipped dormer clad with painted wood shingles, and containing two identical small fixed windows with geometric-patterned lights. The east elevation features a canted window bay containing narrow double-hung wood sash windows in each facet, and is surmounted hy a substantial bef lcast gable, the face of which is clad with painted wood shingles surrounding a semi-circular fixed attic window. Two additional 1/1 double-hung windows of different sizes are installed on the east elevation. The west elevation is fenestrated with four windows, including two identical large 1/l double- hung wood sash windows, and towards the rear are two smaller, dissimilar-sized windows. The enclosed rear porch measures 8 feet deep and 20 feet long-four feet less than the entire width of the house. lt is covered by a sloped, shed roof and the exterior walls are clad with (modern?) horizontal board siding - probably drop or tongue-in-groove siding, different from the narrow clapboard applied to the rest of the house. Two entries are located on the south elevation of the rear porch, including a modern 15-light stained wooden door placed near the west end of the porch, and providing access to the basement stairwell. Farther to the east is 5.d Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 another elevated door that is accessed via a simple concrete stoop. The rear entry door was not visible since it is covered by a modern glazed storm door. A band of narrow, vertically oriented fixed (?) windows wraps around the rear porch's southeast corner on the south and east elevations. Two brick chimneys and one tall galvanized stovepipe or flue rise from the roof of the dwelling. The main chimney rises from the ridgeline of the main roof, and is made of pressed red brick with a corbelled collar. Another, lower-height, non-corbelled chimney rises from the rear slope of the main hipped roof, just below the ridgeline. The house is in generally good condition, although the property owner reports that the rear chimney has lost bricks; that the house needs repainting; and that it also requires re-roofing. Detached Garage: Behind and southeast of the house is a tall, wood frame 2-car garage with the garage door facing south toward the alley. Based upon a 1979 Assessor's photo showing the garage, it appears to have been greatly modified sometime after 1979, when it was a llower-height (but similar width) structure with the garage door installed on its north side. The detached garage is clad with modern drop or tongue-in-groove synthetic siding, and on the south elevation is a large, modern roll-up aluminum garage door, The garage is covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof with oversized returning eaves. Beneath both gables (north and south) are distinctive diamond-shaped loruvered vents. The north elevation, which faces the back yard, features a substantial, low-pitched gabled canopy offset to the right; it covers a personnel entry door and an adjacent, large, modern llL window. Two smaller windows are placed on the west elevation, but the east elevation, which is placed near or along the east lot Iine, lacks fenestration. Although the garage's design and exterior materials appear to be rnodern, the design (and location) is close enough to the original detached garage to be architecturailly compatible with the associated historic house. Architectural style/building type: Classic Cottage Landscaping or special setting features: This house is situated on the south side of West Oak Street, in a historic residential neighborhood (the "Westside Neighborhood") filled with modest, one- to two-story, mainly wood frame dwellings constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The neighborhood contains numerous large mature deciduous and evergreen trees, and concrete sidewalks extend along and adjacent to the front boundary of the residential lbts in each block, with gra$s lawn and scattered trees planted in buffer strips between the edges of the sidewalk and the paved streets. Associated $uildings, features, or objects: Detached garage IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. 26. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1906-07 Actual: Source(s) of information: Larimer County Assessor's property record for Parcel No. 97113-15- 019 Architect: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 22. 23. 24. 27. 5.d Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 29 Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 28. Original owner: Charles H. Roys or William and Grace Huberty Source(s) of information: Title Abstract for 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, prepared by the Larimer County Abstract Company. Construction history (include description and datr-.s of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Available documentation indicatet; that this house was constructed in 1906-07. A review of building permit records for the period t92O-1949 yielded four permits, listed in chronological order, below: 4.and 2. 3. t. Permit Permit Permit Permit No. No. No. No. 4194, 9414 10499, 10768, issued issued issued issued on 31251t936 on on 81281t945 May 81251L948 5, to 1948 owner to to owner to owner owner A. Ray R.Doyle H. C.McDowell J. Breniman Cunningham H. Free for for for """reshingling;archway;garage.for,,fence;" ,, ,,, , The "archway" (Permit No. 9414) may he an interior feature. The 1948 garage is presumably the same structure shown in the 1979 Larimer County Assessor's photo of the house (see attached image). lt appears that the 1948 garage was enlarged substantially or replaced by a substantially larger structure sometime after 1979. At the time it was altered or replaced, the garage door opening was placed on the south side of the outbuilding, facing the alley. Previously the 1979 and earlier garage had its vehicle opening north where a two track concrete driveway formerly extended northward to the curb of west oak street. 30 Original location Moved Date of move(s): N/A V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS Original use(s): Residential - Single Family Dwelling Intermediate use(s): Not Applicable Current use(s): Domestic (Residential) Site type(s): Single dwelling 35. Historical background: The Craftsman-style house located at 815 West Oak Street was constructed around 1906 or 1907, during a period of rapid growth and an unprecedented building boom that followed the construction, inr 1903, of a sugar beet refining factory in Fort Collins. This house originated within an exceptionally dynamic period in Fort Collins history, one that historians R. Laurie and Thomas H. Simmons (1992) have called "sugar Beets, Streetcar Suburbs, and the City Beautiful, 1900-1.919." During the first decade of the twentieth century, the town's population skyrocketed from 3,053 in 1900 to 8,210 in 1910-an increase ot t59%. The house is located within, and near the western limits of, the Loomis Addition to Fort Collins, platted by Abner Loomis and Malinda Maxwell in 1887. The Loomis Addition encompasses approximately 88 acres, and is bournded by Laporte Avenue on the north, Mulberry Street on the south, Whitcomb Street on the east, and Washington Street on the west. Abner Loomis is recognized as one of Fort Collins' and Larimer County's most influential earf y pioneers. Loomis was a native of New York state (born December !7, t82gl, who in 1850 crossed the Great Plains, departing from lowa where his family had relocated to in 1840, destined for California where the famous gold ru.ush was underway. After returning to lowa, Loomis came back to the Cache la Poudre valley, where he took up farming, later (in the early 1880s) transitioning to cattle ranching, a very lucrative pursuit during the pioneer period of Colorado history. Loomis' activities and accomplishments expanded and diversified over time, 31. 32. 33. 34. 5.d Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 and his valuable leadership abilities led to various positions including President of the Poudre Valley Bank for more than 10 years, and 11 years of service as a member of the Larimer County Commissioners (Watrous 1911t405-405). In early December of 1906, shortly before the house at 815 West Oak Street was built, a three- lot area (Lots 2, 3, and 5) in Block 289 of the Loomis Addition was subdivided by T.C. Ramey into four long narrow lots fronting on West Oak Street, just east of Washington Avenue. These new lots (Lots 17-20), which each measured 4TTzfeet wide and 140 feet deep, included Lot 19-the site for the residence at 815 V\/est Oak Street. The re-subdivision also established an unpaved 10 foot-wide alley behind/south of the four new lots. After the re-subdivision in Block 289, Lot 19 was acquired by a man named Charles H. Roys in January t9O7; a couple of months later Roys made a sales contract with William and Grace Huberty for the property, and the Huberty's are listed as residents at this address in the 1907 Fort Collins city directory. lt is possibkr, if not probable, that Charles Roys built the house on the lot and then sold it to the Huberty:;. William Huberty operated a bakery at 119 Linden Street, and prior to moving to the West Oak Street house they lived at t2L Linden - probably upstairs in the same building above the bakery. The Huberty family's occupancy of the house was short-lived, and in September of 1910 they sold the house to John C. Muse. By 1911the Hubertys had evidently left Fort Collins; in the 1910-1911 Fort Collins city directory, the bakery at 119 Linden Street in "Old Town" Fort Collins was owned and operated as a bakery by successors, the Sitzman brothers (Sitzman Bros.). The property changed hands numerous times in the twentieth century. John Muse, who acquired the property in 1910, owned the house at 815 West Oak Street for almost eight years, and in April of 1918, as World War was nearing its end, he sold the property to H.C. Pratt. Just over a year later, in August of 19tr 9, Pratt sold the house to David D. Hallam. Owners John Muse, H.C. Pratt, and David Hallam all appear to have used the West Oak Street ftrouse as a rental property. Like H.C. Pratt, Mr. Hallam kept the property for only a short time, and in February of 1921Hallam sold it to a new owner, A. Ray McDowell. McDowell was a clerk and salesman who in 1922 worked for the clothing store owned by W.C. Maher at 151 S. Cof lege Avenue. By t927 he had taken employment as a salesman for the Otis-Schureman Hardware Company at222 Walnut Street, and by 1933 he had been promoted to vice president of the company. McDowell retained ownership of the property for approximately 18 years, from 1921 through rnid-1939. During McDowell's tenure, Fort Collins grew substantially in size, its population flncreasing by nearly 3,500 during the 1.920s and 1930s combined. This dynamic period encompassed the boom in the eanly 1920s when the Wellington Oil Field was discovered and devefoped beginning int923-24, as welll as the Great Depression, which, from late 1929 until American entry into World War ll, put a damper on the American economy. In June of 1939 McDowell sold the house to Katharine L. Black. The property changed hands again seven years later, in July ol t946, when it was sold to Rudolph H. and Edna Alice Breniman. Less than a year later, in April of 1947, the Brenimans sold the property to Vera K. Wright, who evidently was married sh,ortly thereafter to Clarence J. Cunningham, Jr.-her name changed to Vera K. Cunningham-and a little more than a year later (June 1948) the 5.d Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Cunninghams moved to a new residence on Route 1 north of Fort Collins and sold the West Oak Street property to Doyle H. and E. Louise Frree. Then, a little more than a year later, in mid-September of 1949, the Frees sold the property to Frank A. and Warren E. Nichols. On October 27 , L949 the house was acquired by Agnes Ader, widow of William Ader, who kept the property for nearly five years, selling it in Aurgust of 1954 to L. P. and Mary L. Baechler. L.p. Baechler 's occupation is listed as "rancher," ancl the Baechlers' relocating to Fort Collins from a rural ranch property was a common pattern-many older ranchers retired to town, even while retaining their agricultural properties. The Baechlers kept the property for nearly three years before selling it to an older retired couple, Fay and May C. Hamilton, in late March of 1957. Mrs. Hamilton passed away on November 3, 1961 at age 71. Widower May Hamilton remained at 825 West Oak Street for seven years, finally selling it in April of 1954 to Edward E. and June Rose Seitz. How long the Seitz family owned the property is unclear, and it appears that they utilized it as a rental property. From 1971 through 1985 the property was occupied by John Riggs (no occupation listed) and his wife Hazel, a bookkeeper for the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce. By 1984, John Rigg's occupation is listed as "retired." Following the departure of the Riggs family, the home at 815 West Oak Street was occupied by Robert Oswald, manager of a company called Trees Unlimited, and his wife Mary, who worked for the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Department. The next occupant was [Mark Alan Anderson (no occupation listed), who lived on West Oak Street from c. 1991 through 1998. lt is possible that Anderson was a tenant rather than the property's owner. In 2000, the property was sold by Brenna Francy and her husband to the current owner, Poudre Fire Authority (PFl\) firefighter Kelly R. Close. Presently (June 2OL5l, Mr. Close is planning to remodeland enlarge the house to better suit his needs. 36. Sources of information: Beier, Harold 1958 Fort Collins, History ond General Choracter. Research and Survey Report, part 1. Prepared by Harold Beier, Community Development Consultant, Fort Collins, Colorado, for the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, April 1958. Fort Collins Log of Building Permits [in the City of Fort Collins], 7920-7949, available at the Fort Collins Local History Archive in the Font Collins Museum of Discovery. Fort Collins City Directories, for the years L9O2-2013. From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. History Colorado ?OLS COMPASS cultural resources database entry for 51R.8266, 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, Accessed online May 15,2015. McWilliams, Karen ZOOL A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, Fort Collins, Colorado (SHF 96-02-115), City of Advance Planning Department. 5.d Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form s1R.8266 Larimer County Abstract Company 1954 Title abstract for 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, from earliest land title to transfer of title in April of 1964. Provided by current property owner Kelly Close. Lari mer County Assessor L962 Property Record for 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97113-16-019). 1968 Property Record for 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97113-16-019). 1977-L983 Property Record for 815 \A/est Oak Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97113-16-019). 1998 Property Record for 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins (Parcel No. 97113-16-019). Larimer County Clerk and Recorder 1887 Plat of the Loomis Addition to Font Collins, file at the Larimer County Clerk & Recorder's Office, Fort Collins, on May 26, L887. McAllister, Virginia, and Lee McAllister 1988 A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A Knopf. Simmons, Thomas, and Laurie Simmons. t992 City of Fort Collins Centrol Business District Development ond Residential Architecture Historic Contexts. Report prepared by Front Range Research Associates for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department. Watrous, Ansel 1911 History of Larimer County, Colrorado. Courier Printing and Publishing Company, Fort Collins. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: N/A Designating authority: N/A 38. Applicable National Register/City of Fort Collins Local Landmark Eligibility Criteria: A, Associated with events that have mrade a significant contribution tothe broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons; significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39, Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable 40. Period of significance: Not Applicable 4I. Level of significance: National State Local 5.d Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 42. Statement of significance:The Huberty House at 815 West Oak Street is evaluated as not individually eligible for the National Register of lflistoric Places (NRHP) or for designation as a City of Fort Collins Local Landmark. Archival reserarch revealed that this modest early twentieth century "working class" dwelling was built during a period of substantial urban growth in Fort Collins, driven by the constructiorr of a new sugar refinery on the northeastern outskirts of town. This house was part of the generalized trend but was not directly associated with the growth of the labor force fon this new industry, and it would not qualify as eligible for the NRHP or as a Local Landmark uncler Criterion A. Archival research also failed to find that this property was associated with any lristorically imponant people in terms of local, state, or national history, and it therefore would not qualify for the NRHP or as a Local Landmark under Criterion B. In terms of its anchitectural significance, this house is one many similar Classic Cottages in the Westside and Eastside neighborhoods of Fort Collins. This example possesses some interesting features such as a canted window bay, bellcast gables, a hipped dormer, and a couple of windows with geometric tracery, but it is not a particularly unique or distinctive as an example of the style. For these reasons, the house would not qualify for the NRHP or as a Local Landmark under Criterion C. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The dwelling's exterior appears to be largely unchanged, although both the front and reach porches have been modified. The enclosed rear porch appears to have had the siding and basement stairwell door replaced with modern materials. The front porch deck, deck foundation, and stairway also are non-original. Neveftheless, the house mostly retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. lt is notable that the house still retains the original narrow wood clapboard siding. However, buildirrgs that are largely unchanged and retain excellent integrity are not necessarily eligible for the NRHP or Local Landmark designation unless they also embody significance per the relevant eligibility criteria. The detached garage, while architecturally compatible with the house, has either been substantially altered or replaced such that it would not be considered a significant or contributing feature of the historic property. Nationa I Register (individua l) eligibility field assessment: Individually Eligible _ Not Individually Eligible X Need Data _ Fort Collins LocaI Landmark (individual) eligibility field assessment: Individually Eligible _ Not Individually Eligible X Need Data ls there National Register or Local Landmark district potential? Yes X No Discuss: This residential property is one of numerous similar modest single family "working class" dwellings located in the "Westside" neighlborhood of Fort Collins, which together reflect the significant historical trends of the western expansion and residential development of Fort Collins in the early twentieth century, and which also reflect the range of architectural styles and house types that were built in Fort Collins during this dynamic period. lf there is NRHP or Local Landmark district potential, is this building: Contributing X Noncontributing _ lf the building is in existing National Register or Local Landmark district, is it: Contributing _ Noncontributing _ 43 44 45 46 5.d Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8255 VII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: 815 West Oak #1-3E Negatives or digital photo files filed at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center 48.80524 (Report Current title: Planning) NA - Historic Preservation, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 49. Date(s): June 3,2015 50. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor 51. Organization: RETROSPECT 52. Address: 936 Wild Cherry Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80521 53. Phonenumber(s): (970)219-9155 5.d Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Location of 815 West Oak Street, Fort Collins (51R.8261i), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (L960; Photorevised 1934). 5.d Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Driveway Detached garage -+ N Canted window bay West Oak Street Sketch map of 8L5 West Oak Street, Fort Collins (51R.8266). 5.d Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural I nventory Form 51R.8266 Map from title abstract showing the December 1906 re-subdivision of Block 289 of the Loomis Addition, which resulted in creation of Lots 17-2O. Bold red dashed line on map shows the location of Lot 19, where 815 West Oak Street was built. Source: Larimer County Absstract Company 1954, 1979 photo of 815 West Oak Street, from Larirner County Assessor's property card for Parcel No. 971L3-16-019. At that time the driveway was still in use and the garage door was located on its north elevation. ./7-i' t' ,/ r.7 e?.i' 3>J { .$ T l. 2o /?. t/t t7 4 I I € 7 I /6 ? /2 /q /3 o h t5 /6 rE-' \i o O g o {J trl fl .rl +i o # o a tr +tr 5 (f{ cd } 5.d Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 1. 815 West Oak Street (51R.8266), looking south-southwest. Photo 2. 815 West Oak Street (51R.8265), looking southwest. 5.d Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 3, 8L5 West Oak Street (5[-R.8266), looking southeast. Photo 4. 815 West Oak Street (51R.8;166), fagade, looking south. 5.d Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form s1R.8266 Photo 5, 815 West Oak Street (51R.8265), fagade looking south. Photo 6. Bellcast hipped dormer on fagade of 815 West Oak Street (51R.S265) looking SW. 5.d Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 7. 81-5 West Oak Street (51R.8255), close-up of dormer on facade. Photo 8. 81-5 West Oak Street (51R.8266), close-up of front door on fagade/north elevation. 5.d Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 9, 815 West Oak Street (51R.8266), open front porch, looking southwest. Photo 1-0. 815 West Oak Street, close-up modern concrete steps with pipe railing leading to front porch. 5.d Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form s1R.8266 Photo 11. 815 West Oak Street (51R.8265), front porch, looking west. 5.d Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8265 Photo 12. 8L5 West Oak Street (51R.8266), close-up of window with elaborate leaded glass transom on fagade. 5.d Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8256 Photo 13. 8L5 West Oak Street (51R,8266), east elevation, looking northwest. 5.d Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo L4. 815 VVest Oak Street (51R.8266), c;anted window bay on east elevation, looking SW. 5.d Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survev Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo L5. 815 West Oak Street (51R.8255), close-up of bellcast gable with semi-circular attic window, over east side window bay. Photo 16, 81-5 West Oak Street, showing stone foundation with basement window on east elevation. 5.d Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 1-7. 815 West Oak Street (51R.8266), close-up of double-hung window on east elevation. 5.d Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 18. 815 West Oak Street, west elevation, looking southeast. Photo 19. 815 West Oak Street, close-upr of sandstone foundation with basement window on west elevation, 5.d Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form s1R.8266 Photo 20, 815 West Oak Stretet, rear/south elevation, looking north. Photo 21-. 815 West Oak Street, enclosed rear porch, looking noftheast. 5.d Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R,8266 Photo 22. 815 West Oak Street, rear view showing enclosed rear porch, looking northwest. Photo 23. 815 West Oak Street, east elevation of enclosed rear porch, looking west. 5.d Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form s1R.8266 Photo 24. 815 West Oak Street, close-up of sandstone block foundation/basement wall. Photo 25. 815 West Oak Street, showing twrc brick chimneys and one galvanized sheet metal stack. 5.d Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 25. 815 West Oak Street, shrort brick chimney stack. Photo 27, 8L5 West Oak Street, view of chimney and galvanized stack on roof. 5.d Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 28. 815 West Oak Street, looking south-southwest, showing detached garage behind house. Photo 29. 815 West Oak Street, looking south, showing detached garage behind house. 5.d Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 30, 815 West Oak Street, detached garage, looking southeast. Photo 31. 815 west oak street, north elevation of detached garage, looking south. 5.d Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form s1R.8266 Photo 32. 8L5 West Oak Street, north elevation of detached garage, looking south-southwest. Photo 33. 815 West Oak Street, rear view, looking north-northeast. 5.d Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 34. 815 West Oak Street, south elevation of detached garage. Photo 35. 815 West Oak Street, diamond-shaped rrent beneath gable on detached garage. 5.d Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 36. 815 West Oak Street, returning eave on south end of detached garage. Photo 37. 815 West Oak Street (l;lR.8266), center house, looking southwest. 5.d Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Photo 38. View looking west along south side of 800 block of West Oak Street, showing 815 West Otak Street. 5.d Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural lnventory Form 51R.8266 1. chain of Title from Title Abstract for 815 west oak Street, Fort collins, Block 289, Lot 19, Loomis Addition, 1886-19G4 (Abstract prepared by the Larimer County Abstract Company) Date of f nstrument: April 27, L886 Tvpe of Instrument: Administrators' D,eed Date of Filins: April 28, 1886 Recorded in: Book 47, Page L58 Grantor: John M. Davidson, Administrator of estate for John sheldon, deceased Grantee: Abner Loomis Description of Propertv: entire SW % o,f section 11, Township 7 North, Range 69 west Date of Instrument: May 23,1887 Tvpe of Instrument: Town Plat Date of Filine: May 26,1887 Recorded in: Plat Book, Page 37 Grantor: Abner Loomis and Malinda Mlaxwell Grantee: The City of Fort Collins Description of Propertv: 87-29/33 acrers, Platted into lots and blocks; streets and alleys are dedicated to the City of Fort Collins for public use. Loomis Addition Date of Instrument: January 8, 1891 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filins: January 15, 1891 Recorded in: Book 78, Page 360 Grantor: Abner Loomis and Malinda Mlaxwell Grantee: Thomas H. Robertson Description of Propertv: Lots 5 and7,l\lock267; Lots 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9, and 12,Block268; Lots 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, I0, 7t, t2, t3, 14, L5, and 1,6, Block 277 ; All of Blocks 2.78,288, and 289 Lots 9, tO, 17,, L2, L3, L4, L5, and 15, Block279; Lots 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, LO, 12, L3, and 16, Block 287; Lots 11, L2, L|t, 74,15, 16, 17 , and 18, Block 290, all in Loomis Addition Date of Instrument: March l, tg0z Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: March 29, t9O2 Recorded in: Book 162,Page52t Grantor: Thomas H. Robertson Grantee: Myron H. Akin Description of Propertv: Loomis Addition Date of Instrument: December 7, tg0f:i Tvpe of Instrument: Subdivision Plat Date of Filine: December 8, L906 Recorded in: Plat Book, Page 47 Grantor: T.C. Ramey Grantee: Subdivision of Lots 2,3, and 6 in Block 289 2. 3 4. 5. 5.d Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 8. Description of Propertv: Subdivision of Lots 2, 3, and 5 into Lots t7 , L8,19, and 20 each 47 % x 140 fee| alley 10 feet wide off south side Lot 6 - rdedicated to public use. 6. Date of Instrument: January L6, t9O7 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: January 30, L9O7 Recorded in: Book 228, Page L08 Grantor: T.C. Ramey Grantee: Charles H. Roys Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis Addition, per re-subdivision plat filed on December 8, 1906 7. Date of Instrument: March 8, 1907 Tvpe of Instrument: Sale Contract Date of Filine: January 27 , L9IO Recorded in: Book 27L,Page? Grantor: Charles H. Roys Grantee: William and Grace Huberty Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis;Addition Date of f nstrument: April LO, t9O7 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: May 9, t9O7 Recorded in: Book 274,Page347 Grantor: Charles H. Roys Grantee: Charles J, Corbett Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis Addition Remarks: "Subject to articles of agreement betwr:en Chas. H. Roys and William Huberty and Grace Huberty against said above-described property..." Date of f nstrument: January 28, LgtO Tvpe of Instrument: Quit Claim Deed Date of FilinA: January 28, L9t0 Recorded in: Book 247,Page496 Grantor: The Northern Colorado Securities Company, By S.H, Clammer President, C.E. Daniels, Sec'y Grantee: William and Grace Huberty Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis Addition 10. Date of Instrument: April 22,t908 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: January 27 , L9t0 Recorded in: Book 276,PageL96 Grantor: Charles J, Corbett Grantee: William and Grace Huberty Description of Propertv: Lot l-9, Block 289, Loomis; Addition l-1. Date of Instrument: September 3, 1910 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: September 3, 191-0 9. 5.d Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Recorded in: Book 277, page 43I Grantor: William and Grace Huberty Grantee: John C. Muse Description of Propertv: Lot L9, Block 289, Loomis Addition 12. Date of Instrument: April 27, LgtS Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: May 9, 1918 Recorded in: Book 374,Page8L Grantor: John C. Muse Grantee: H.C. Pratt Description of Propertv: Lot 1-9, Block 289, Loomis Addition 13, Date of Instrument: August Zg,tgLg Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: August 28, L9I9 Recorded in: Book 394,Page 429 Grantor: H.C. Pratt Grantee: David D. Hallam Description of Propertv: Lot L9, Block j28g, Loomis Addition 14. Dateof Instrument: February t4,L9Zl Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: February 1,5,192I Recorded in: Book 4t2,Page524 Grantor: David D, Hallam Grantee: A. Ray McDowell Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block i289, Loomis Addition 15. Date of Instrument: June 1, 1939 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: June L, 1939 Recorded in: Book 697,Page523 Grantor: A. Ray McDowell Grantee: Katharine L. Black Description of Propertv: Lot L9, Block 289, Loomis Addition 16. Date of Instru ment : luly 27 , 1946 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: July 29, !946 Recorded in: Book 819, Page 565 Grantor: Katharine L. Black Grantee: Wilbur L, Black Description of Propertv: Lot 1-9, Block 1189, Loomis Addition 17. Date of Instrument: August 28,t946 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: August 28,1946 Recorded in: Book 821, Page 301 Grantor: Wilbur L. Black 5.d Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 Grantee: Rudolph H. and Edna Alice Breniman Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis Addition 18. Date of lnstrument: April 30,L947 Tvpe of lnstrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filing: April 30,1947 Recorded in: Book 832, Page 438 Grantor: Rudolph H. and Edna Alice Breniman Grantee: Vera K. Wright Description of Propertv: Lot L9, Block 289, Loomis Addition 19. Date of lnstrument: June 2,t948 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: June 3,1948 Recorded in: Book 853, Page 391 Grantor: Vera K. Cunningham, formerly Vera K. !\'right Grantee: Doyle H. and E. Louise Free Description of Propertv: Lot 1-9, Block 289, Loomis Addition Remarks: Conveys- Not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, the suruivor of them, their assigns and the heirs and assigns of such survivor forever (for the property) 20. Date of Instrument: September L5, L949 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filing: September 15,1949 Recorded in: Book 880, Page 193 Grantor: Doyle H. and E. Louise Free Grantee: FrankA. and Warren E. Nichols Description of Propertv: Lot L9, Block 289, Loomis Addition Remarks: Conveys- Not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, the suruivor of them, their assigns and the heirs and assigns of such suwivor forever (for the property) 21. Date of Instrument: October t1-,t949 Tvpe of lnstrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filing: October 7'J.,1949 Recorded in: Book 881, Page ? Grantor: FrankA. and Warren E. Nichols Grantee: Dale L. and Madge E. Fletcher Description of Propertv: Lot 1-9, Block 289, Loomis Addition Remarks: Conveys- Not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, the suruivor of them, their assigns and the heirs and assigns of such suwivor forever (for the property) 22. Date of Instrument: October 27, t949 Tvpe of lnstrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: October 28, L949 Recorded in: Book 882,Page2t1. Grantor: Dale L. and Madge E. Fletcher Grantee: Agnes Ader Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis Addition 5.d Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 51R.8266 23. Dateof Instrument: August 12,tg5.4 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: October 28, t9S4 Recorded in: Book 982, page ? Grantor: Agnes Mathewson, formerly Agnes Ader Grantee: L. P. and Mary L. Baechler Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis Addition Remarks: Conveys- Not in tenancy in common but in joint tenancy, the survivor of them, their assigns and the heirs and assigns of such survivor forever (for the property) 24. Date of Instrument: March 2g,LgS7 Tvpe of Instrument: Warranty Deed Date of Filine: March 28, L9ST Recorded in: Book L04t,page? Grantor: L. P. and Mary L. Baechler Grantee: Fay and May C. Hamilton Description of Propertv: Lot 19, Block 289, Loomis Addition 25. Date of Filine: December 29, L96I Tvpe of Instrument: Death Certificate & Affadavit for Fay Hamilton Datepf Death: November 3, 1961 Recorded in: Book 1151, Page 306 Remarks: Fay Hamilton's bifth date is lFebruary 5, 1890; he must have been Tl years old when he died. 26, Date of Instrument: April 10, 1964 (Last transfer in bound Title Abstract) Tvpe of Instrument: Deed Date of Filine: April 13, t964 Recorded in: Book 7243,Page5t4 Grantor: May C. Hamilton Grantee: Edward E. and June Rose Seitz Description of Propertv: Lot 1_9, Block ,289, Loomis Addition 5.d Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.d Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Plan of Protection for Historic Sites Project Title: Demolition and rebuild of single-family house Full Property Address: 815 W. Oak Street, Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Form Prepared by: Kelly Close (Owner) 1.0 Introduction Description of project location: The street address is 815 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins. The complete description is: Parcel # 9711316019 Township: 07, Range: 69, Section: 11 Subdivision Name: LOOMIS ADD AMD L2-3 6 BLK 289 Subdivision Number: 1109 Reception Number: 102984 General description of work to be performed, including which firm(s) will be doing the work: The current house will be demolished and a new house rebuilt in the same place. The footprint will be identical to the existing house, with the exception of approximately 130 sq. ft. additional area on the south (back) side of the house. The existing garage, built in 1996, will remain. The new house will have a full basement, an updated layout of the main floor, and a partial-height upper floor. The elevation of the new house will remain the same – 18” from ground level to bottom of the floor joists. The overall height of the new house will be approx. 4-5 feet higher than existing. The primary contractor and sub-contractor are all listed and described in detail in the building permit application. These are listed below: Dick Jefferies – general contractor Jefferies Construction Solutions Fort Collins, CO Steve Martin Martin and Sons Excavating Windsor, CO Fernando Ceja Ceja Construction, LLC Timnath, CO Chris Butts Perfect Temp, Inc Loveland, CO Clifford Fiske Fiske Electric Johnstown, CO Rick Guinta RPM Mechanical, LLC Fort Collins, CO Tim Kramer Independent Roofing, Inc. Greeley, CO Building(s) or portion(s) of buildings that will be affected: No other buildings will be affected. 5.e Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 2 Is building adjacent to other buildings or structures, on or off site, and if so, how close?: There are two adjacent buildings – a house immediately to the west (817 W. Oak), and one immediately to the east (813 W. Oak). These are 15 feet and 19 feet from the existing (and proposed) house, respectively. The detached garage behind the house at 815 W. Oak is 30 feet to the south, on the SE corner of the lot. See aerial view below. Are any of these other buildings or structures 50 years old or older (which ones, and what are their dates of construction, if known): 813 W. Oak was built in 1902, and 817 W. Oak was built in 1905. The garage behind 815 W. Oak was built in 1996. 2.0 Scope of Work Describe the work, and how it will affect any historic building(s) (both the subject property and adjacent, if applicable). Provide descriptions on each of the following, as applicable: The current house will be removed, a full basement excavated, and a new house built on the same site with a nearly identical footprint and in a similar turn-of-the-century craftsman style of architecture that is common in the West Old Town area. Key criteria include style and architecture consistent and compatible with the block and surrounding areas, an overall height consistent with the current roof line of the block, and minimizing overall “massing” and increase in impermeable area of the property. Many of the site and design features 5.e Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3 will be consistent with recommendations described in the City of Fort Collins Design Guidelines (draft) document (July 15, 2015). These include: Style Design: In the Historical Inventory report completed in June, 2015 by Jason Marmor, the existing house was found to have no historical significance at the national, state, or local level, and was not individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor for designation as a City of Fort Collins Local Landmark. However, the design of the new house to be built will incorporate numerous recommendations from the City of Fort Collins Design Guidelines as well as design features found in the current house that will be removed. The main floor elevation will be identical to the existing house, 18 inches above ground level. Additionally, to minimize massing, the upper level will be limited to a partial second story, utilizing gabled dormers to maximize usable area while limiting the building height to five feet higher than the existing house. The rebuilt house will have a gabled roof line on the north and south sides, and the porch design is very similar to that of the existing house. Reference Figure 144, page 69 from the City of Fort Collins guidelines and the north elevation depiction of the new house (below). City of Fort Collins Guidelines recommendation for house design (left, page 69) and front (north) elevation drawing of the rebuilt house (right). Windows will be the traditional double-hung sash windows with wood framing and trim, consistent with the window style of the existing house and consistent with the majority of houses in the surrounding area. The window sizes will be consistent with windows found on the existing house. Additionally, the bay window feature found on the existing house will be incorporated into the design of the rebuilt house with the same design, sale and location (east side). Building Materials. As is stated in the City of Fort Collins Guidelines, “The Old Town Neighborhood is not frozen in time. It continues to evolve while maintaining its essential historic character. A new building in a historic context should be compatible with the surrounding historic fabric, but also express its true age. A key objective is to retain the overall character of the neighborhood while accommodating creative, yet compatible, new buildings.” Building materials to be used in this project, and the details of the house, will have a similar look and feel as the existing house. However, the rebuilt house will be a modern interpretation of traditional design and 5.e Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4 details. This will include some use of modern materials and dimensions, such as 4” lightweight concrete lap siding versus the 2” wood lap siding used on the current house, and fully insulated exterior walls and double-pane windows for energy efficiency. The project will also include traditional materials such as wood frame windows, wood trim interior and exterior, and solid wood multi-panel interior doors with a natural finish. This design meets the criteria of the City of Fort Collins Guidelines which recommend that new construction not detract from the character of the neighborhoods, but also will not confuse others who may mistake it for old construction. The final house will be an homage to the previous building but as a result of newer materials such as 4” lap siding it will not create a false sense of age to the property. Porch size, scale and design of the rebuilt house (lower figure) will be consistent with City of Fort Collins Guidelines (upper figure, page 74 of Guidelines), as well as the existing house and the historic design of neighboring houses. 5.e Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5 Site Design: The new house will have a footprint identical to the existing house, with the exception of an additional three feet extension in the back of the house. The house location will be exactly the same as the existing house, other than aforementioned additional three feet in the back of the house). This will maintain the character and context of the rebuilt house relative to the adjacent houses and other houses on the block, both in terms of lot configuration, massing and rooflines. An example of the site design from the City off Fort Collins Guidelines (page 70) is shown below, along with an elevation drawing of the proposed house and a recent context photo of the existing house 5.e Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 6 Guidelines for minimizing massing and maintaining scale. From the City of Fort Collins Guidelines, page 59 (upper) and 70 (lower). 5.e Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 7 Demolition: Removal of the existing house in its entirety, including stacked stone cellar walls and rough concrete floor. The current garage behind the house will remain and will not be altered in any way. Site preparation and excavation: The current stacked stone foundation walls, and rough concrete cellar floor, will be removed. The basement will be excavated an additional three feet to allow for a finished basement height of approx. 8.5 feet while not changing the elevation of the main level from the current above-ground height of 18 inches. Utilities: The existing utilities will be used for the new house. The electrical service to the house will be updated to current standards and to accommodate the anticipated electrical needs of the new house. New foundation: The new foundation will be reinforced poured concrete with four (4) egress windows and window wells to conform to current building and life safety codes and standards. New construction: The new construction will be wood frame with 4” lap siding (lightweight concrete) as previously described. The lap siding to be used will be consistent with the style used on the existing house, while adding a more modern look to a traditional style. The overall house will include insulation , plumbing and electrical wiring that meet current standards and codes, double-pane windows, an energy- efficient gas water heater and furnace, and a wind-resistant composite roof. Roof and wall framing will be traditional wood frame construction with interior drywall and finish that meet current building and fire resistive codes and standards. Parking: The overall layout of the buildings on the lot will take into account the recommendations for off- street parking from the City of Fort Collins Guidelines for garage location and access on the back of the lot whenever possible, and minimizing visual impact by avoiding driveway access from the front of the house. The existing garage is located at the back of the lot with a small driveway that allows access from the rear off an alley, with no driveway from the street. City of Fort Collins Guidelines showing the desirable situation, garage access from an alley behind the house (left). This is the alternative that will continue to be used for 815 W. Oak, as showin in the site plan indicating the layout of the house and garage on the lot (right) 5.e Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 8 Driveways/alleyways: There is a small driveway from the rear (E-W) alley into the south side of the garage. The alley, driveway, and garage not be impacted or changed. The figures below depict recommendations from the City of Fort Collins Guidelines in regard to the proposed site layout of the new house (nearly identical to that of the existing house). The garage and garage access in the rear (south end) of the lot will remain unchanged. City of Fort Collins Guidelines’ depiction of a less desirable alternative, a side driveway from the front (left). The garage at 815 W. Oak will remain in the back of the lot and be accessed from the alley behind the house (right). Landscaping: Current landscaping is minimal, limited to lawn and front/back flower plantings. These will be adversely impacted by the demolition and construction. The entire yard (front and back) will be re- landscaped once construction and post-construction cleanup are complete. There are two large specimen trees between the street and sidewalk on the north side of the property. As indicated by the City of Fort Collins Guidelines, such specimens should be preserved. The linden on the east side of the property and the flowering crabapple on the west side of the property will be protected as their age makes them irreplaceable. They contribute to the tree lined atmosphere of Oak Street which our neighbors and we both enjoy. Drainage: The grading and surface drainage will be the same as with the existing house, with the exception of approx. 120 sq. ft. of impermeable area added on the south end of the house. The drainage from the rebuilt house, and from the property as a whole, is described in the Grading Plan submitted with the building permit application (attached). Other: None. 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities Name of person or persons responsible for overseeing the demolition and/or construction activities: Dick Jefferies, Jefferies Construction Solutions Will they be on site when that work is occurring? Yes. If not, how may they be contacted if needed when that work is underway? In the event someone needs to contact Dick Jefferies, his contact information is: (970) 481-2924; djefferies.jcs@gmail.com. What specific coordination practices will be used to coordinate work activities? Dick Jefferies works with the same group of subcontractors on every project, essentially as an ongoing team that 5.e Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9 continually works together on remodeling and new construction projects. He will be coordinating every aspect of the construction between the subcontractors and homeowners for the duration of the project. 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials Which historic materials will be deconstructed and salvaged? Per the Historic Inventory report completed by Jason Marmor in June, 2015, the house was determined to be not eligible for national or local landmark status and is not part of an established historic district. No materials, nor the structure itself, were determined to be of historic significance – in particular, in reference to National Register/City of Fort Collins Local Landmark Eligibility Criteria A, B, and C. However, many materials will be re-purposed, including the leaded glass window in front, interior doors, and any exterior windows and doors deemed to be in re-usable condition. Which historic materials will not be salvaged, and how will they be disposed of? Per the Historic Inventory report completed by Jason Marmor in June, 2015, the house was determined to be not eligible for national or local landmark status and is not part of an established historic district. However, any materials not salvaged will be recycled if possible. Otherwise, they will be taken to the Larimer County landfill (per the Waste Management Plan submitted with the building permit application). 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property How will you ensure that historic buildings, structures, and surface features will not be damaged during work? What means will be used to protect them? Since the existing house will be demolished, no actions to address stability or integrity and structural stability of various parts of the house need to be addressed (items 5.3 through 5.13 below). 5.1 Site Conservation 5.2 Demolition of Building The existing house will be demolished and a new house built in its place on a footprint that is identical with the exception of an additional three feet added to the south (back). Per the Historic Inventory report completed by Jason Marmor in June, 2015, the house was determined to be not eligible for national or local landmark status and is not part of an established historic district. In addition, neither of the two adjacent houses, not the house across the alley to the south, have been designated as such either. The demolition and additional excavation of the basement will involve access from the alley behind the house to minimize impacts to the property at 815 W. Oak and avoid any impacts to the adjacent properties. Further construction will entail access from the front of the house (north, street side) with intermittent access from the rear off the alley to the south. 5.3 Foundation Stability – n/a 5.4 Structural – n/a 5.5 New Construction – the entire house will be new construction. 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials – interior doors, leaded glass exterior window, and other exterior windows and doors will be re-purposed to the extent possible if they are in re- usable condition. 5.e Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 10 5.7 New Openings – n/a 5.8 Floor Framing – n/a 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing – n/a 5.10 Structural Loads – new construction will be employed throughout. 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning – n/a 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure – n/a 5.13 Site Cleanup – The General Contractor will be responsible for complete site cleanup and final grading of the property, per the Grading Plan submitted with the building permit application (attached). This is indicated in our contractual agreement with Mr. Jefferies. 6.0 Documentation for Record Does the project include measured drawings and/or photographs? Yes, the project will use detailed construction drawings, including measured drawings for each level and for all four elevation views. Additionally, it will use a Checkset prepared by a certified architectural engineer that accompanies these drawings. All have been submitted to the building Department as part of the building permit process, as well as to Historical Preservation (Karen McWilliams and Kaitlin Dorn). Where will these be stored? Hard copies and digital copies have been submitted to the Building Department and to Historical Preservation, as previously indicated. Additionally, digital and hard copies of these will be stored at my temporary residence in Old Town West and at the office of Jefferies Construction Solutions. 7.0 Archeology How will you address archeological resources if they are likely to be present or if you should unexpectedly find them? (I.e., contact the Museum of Discovery; have an archeologist on site to monitor the work; have an archeologist on call.): No archeological resources are anticipated to be encountered during demolition, construction, and site cleanup. However, in the event any are encountered, the site will be preserved and we will contact the Museum of Discovery. 5.e Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.e Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.e Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.e Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Plan of Protection (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Letters from Neighbors (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Letters from Neighbors (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) From: To: C L Werner Kaitlin Dorn Subject: Date: Corrected email re: demolition proposal of 815 W. Oak Street Tuesday, January 05, 2016 4:47:33 PM Corrected address for remodeled home on the 800 block of W. Oak St. Thank you, Connie Begin forwarded message: From: C L Werner <clwaok@comcast.net> Subject: demolition proposal of 815 W. Oak Street Date: January 5, 2016 at 10:48:17 AM MST To: kdorn@fcgov.com January 5, 2016 Dear Members of the Landmark Preservation Commission, It was with great sadness that I read the Notice of Final Public Hearing Letter I received in the mail regarding the home at 815 W. Oak St. At this time I will most likely be out of town at the time for this hearing. Consequently, I wanted to email my concerns for this request. I strongly believe that owning a historic property comes with a responsibility to the history, context, and community in which this building or home resides. Demolishing a 115 year old property in a location that has two beautiful, historic homes on each side along with properties across the street that are historically significant is an action that will result in a significant loss to our neighborhood and historic street. I understand the need to expand a living space. The home across the street at 826 W. Oak Street did an addition that maintained its historic qualities, kept a historic street front quality, complimented the two adjacent historic homes, and increased inhabitable space. Please do not approve the demolition of this 115 year old home that has an unusual and design enhancing dormer over its front porch. Long time as well as newly established residents frequently comment to me how important the old neighborhoods contribute to the beauty of our city. If we continue to condone the demolition of historic homes and buildings then we loose something that can never be regained. Last but not least, these kinds of projects have subtle yet noticeable effects on the neighborhood’s sense of community. Thank you for your consideration of this homeowner’s views and feelings on this upcoming decision being presented before you. Sincerely, Connie L. Werner 935 W. Oak Street Fort Collins, Co 80521 From: andre mouton To: Andre Mouton; Kaitlin Dorn Subject: 815 west Oak Date: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 11:45:27 AM Hello Katie. I support the right of the owners to demolish the home at 815 W. Oak. I vote YES. let them do as they wish. Thank You for applying my vote as I can not attend the hearing. Andre Mouton 5.f Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Letters from Neighbors (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) From: Sarah Burnett To: "Ruth McMillen" Cc: Karen McWilliams; Maren Bzdek; Kaitlin Dorn Subject: RE: 815 W. Oak - Comments Date: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 3:35:31 PM Attachments: image001.jpg Ruth, Thank you for providing your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed demolition of the home at 815 W. Oak St. I am copying Historic Preservation staff members so that they can provide your comments to the Landmark Preservation Commission as they consider this item. You may already be aware of the Old Town Neighborhoods planning process that is currently underway. If not, you can learn more at http://www.fcgov.com/planning/otnp/index.php . Please let me know if you have questions or additional comments. Best regards, Sarah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sarah Burnett City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Development Review Liaison 970-224-6076 sburnett@fcgov.com Your neighbors are connecting online. Have you joined NextDoor yet? From: Ruth McMillen [mailto:ruthm.llc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 1:03 PM To: Sarah Burnett Subject: 815 W. Oak - Comments Dear Sarah, I received notice of the final public hearing regarding the demolition of the home at 815 W. Oak Street. I am against this demolition. Oak Street has the old town character that is so desired by most residents, I feel it is one of the "sweet spots" in old town. Those residents and the City have worked so hard to try to preserve a historic character in the neighborhood. Homes on either side and across the street are all single story homes and a 2 story will be out of place. One block west (on Oak) and on the south side of the street, there is a terribly large two story home that towers above the others, looks out of place, and shades neighboring houses. If I had the chance when it was being built, I would have opposed it. I am especially nervous about what will be built in the neighborhood after seeing the huge gray house that was built on the northwest corner of Mountain and Grant! Yikes! It is so out of scale in size and doesn't fit the neighborhood character at all. Is it in relation to the lot size? It doesn't look like it. Why even have meetings about preserving the character of old town if this is they type of thing that can be built. 5.f Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Letters from Neighbors (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) At any rate, perhaps the owner of the property at 815 W. Oak could consider an addition to the rear of the house, and perhaps the addition could have a basement and second story, so that the increased square footage could be attained. I think that demolishing this 1900 home that is surrounded by historic homes would be a mistake. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Ruth McMillen 720-935-2469 5.f Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Letters from Neighbors (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) From: Nora Hill <norabella@gmail.com> Date: January 9, 2016 at 3:56:54 PM MST To: <kdorn@fcgov.com> Subject: 815 W Oak St Katie, I will be out of town during your meeting on January 13. I have reviewed the meeting agenda and also went to the owners' open house. I think that the owners of the property have a well thought-out plan to build a house that fits into the neighborhood. The style of the new house, although not the same as the old house, has many elements that will help the house blend in and not overwhelm the lot. I think that their plans should be approved. Thank you, Eleanor Hill 1020 W Oak St ========================================================================== 5.f Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Letters from Neighbors (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) From: Lynn Davies (gmail) To: Karen McWilliams; Kaitlin Dorn Subject: 815 W Oak Project Date: Sunday, January 10, 2016 1:02:49 PM Ms. McWilliams and Ms. Dorn, I am writing regarding the proposed plans for the project at 815 W. Oak Street. I understand that this project will be discussed at the Landmark Preservation Commission meeting scheduled at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 13, 2015. Mr. Close hosted an open-house on Saturday, January 9, 2016 to provide neighbors the opportunity to learn more about the proposed plans for the site. I live in the neighborhood and had toured the house a number of years ago, so have seen the existing floor plan, basement, and foundation. I was able to go to the open-house, to see the plans, and to talk with Mr. Close about the project. After speaking with him and seeing the plans, I believe that Mr. Close is sensitive to the character of the neighborhood, and has been extremely thoughtful about the potential impact that any changes to the structure would have on his direct neighbors and to the neighborhood as a whole. His plans will use only the existing foot-print of the house and will include an upgraded foundation and improved structural integrity. The plans are sensitive to the overall massing of the structure and as such, the final height of the home with be only 5 feet taller than the existing house’s current height. Mr. Close explained that his neighbor to the East is an avid gardener and that he had made certain that the proposed plan would contribute no additional shading to that neighbor’s back yard garden. I am writing in support of Mr. Close’s proposed plans, and believe that the new structure will be in keeping with the character of our Old Town West neighborhood, and that Mr. Close is quite sensitive to that character. In my opinion, the new structure will be an asset to our neighborhood. -- Lynn A. Davies 1002 W. Oak St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 1 Final Demolition/Alteration Review 815 W. Oak Street Demolition of the Huberty House Katie Dorn Historic Preservation Specialist Landmark Preservation Commission January 13, 2016 5.g Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 2 Location 5.g Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3 Background and History • Construction Date: c. 1906 • Community Development and Neighborhood Serivces (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair Review: – Proposed work is major – Property is individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark under Criterion C: Design / Construction – “Classic Cottage” style. 5.g Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 4 Front View 5.g Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5 Rear View 5.g Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 6 Side Views Northeast Perspective Northwest Perspective 5.g Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 7 Project Summary • Demolition of the Huberty House • New Construction of a 2-story single family dwelling 5.g Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 8 Drawings 5.g Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9 Drawings 5.g Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 10 Landmark Preservation Commission’s Role • Approve the Proposal • Delay for No More than 45 Days for Additional Information and Possible Council Action 5.g Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 11 Final Demolition/Alteration Review 815 W. Oak Street Demolition of the Huberty House Landmark Preservation Commission January 13, 2016 5.g Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Staff Presentation (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.h Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: DemoAlt Review Consent Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.h Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: DemoAlt Review Consent Form (3981 : 815 W. OAK STREET – FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT January 13, 2016 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 14 STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to present to Council proposed changes to the landmark designation procedure set forth in Article II, Chapter 14, of City Code to make the landmark designation process more efficient in cases where a property owner does not consent to landmark designation (“non- consensual” designation) and the property is already designated on the National and/or State Historic Registers, either individually or as a part of a historic district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Since 1968 the city has provided an option in the historic preservation code to consider a non-consensual landmark designation of a property that is valued by the community. In 1994, following the demolition of several significant buildings, Council adopted a delay process to provide time to review the alteration or destruction of a historic site, structure, object, or district (“historic resource”) and to provide for public input. This review process culminates with an option for the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to make a recommendation to Council to protect a significant historic resource through a non-consensual landmark designation. To date, this option has not been used by the LPC, and staff has had little experience in processing this part of the code. Whenever staff uses a section of the city’s codes, it becomes more familiar with the nuances of that section and identifies improvements that may be made. This often results in code revisions being brought forward for consideration by Council. When an improvement is identified, staff acts to implement that change promptly, to the benefit of all citizens. Recent discussions with developments that may be affected by this option have identified improvements to the non-consensual designation process. These improvements would create an opportunity for the LPC to send a request for non-consensual designation to Council earlier, under certain conditions. The LPC is not obligated to do so, and may instead direct further study and/or an additional public hearing. The proposed code changes would also create predictability for property owners as to when a hearing would be scheduled before Council when the LPC has forwarded a recommendation for non-consensual designation. 6 Packet Pg. 368 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 These revisions to the code would apply only to historic resources when the eligibility of the resource for landmark designation is more clearly supported by its current individual or district designation on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and when the LPC believes that it has sufficient information upon which to base its decision. The code revisions would allow for the fifteen (15) day period for owner consent to be waived, when all owners of record consent to waiving this time period; would add an option for the LPC to forward a request for a non- consensual designation to Council after the first LPC hearing; and would define a time period of seventy-five (75) days by which Council shall take action, unless extended by Council, on non-consensual designations. The current LPC process can take from seventy-five (75) days to one hundred thirty nine (139) days, followed by an unspecified amount of time for Council action. With the code changes, the time for the LPC process could be reduced to as few as thirty (30) days, with an additional seventy-five (75) days maximum for Council action. PROPOSED CODE CHANGES 1. Currently, when a non-consensual landmark designation is initiated, staff has fifteen (15) days to contact the owner(s) of the landmark or landmark district to outline the reasons and effects of designation as a landmark and, if possible, secure the owner's consent to such designation. Under current code, it is unclear whether this time period is concurrent or in addition to a 30-day public notice requirement. The proposed code changes would allow the fifteen (15) day period to be waived with the consent of all owners of the property. 2. Currently, the LPC holds two public hearings on the designation. The first hearing requires a minimum thirty (30) days’ notice and is to determine if the property qualifies for landmark designation, and if so, whether to proceed without an owner’s consent. Proceeding beyond the first hearing requires the affirmative vote of six (6) members of the LPC. The second hearing, if held, also requires a minimum thirty (30) days’ notice. After the second hearing, the LPC has up to thirty-five days to adopt a recommendation for Council regarding the designation. Such recommendation must then be transmitted to Council within fifteen days. Council has the discretion to hold a public hearing on the designation and may designate a property by ordinance. The proposed Code changes would allow the LPC at the first public hearing, upon the affirmative vote of at least six (6) members, to adopt a resolution to forward the designation matter to the City Council with a recommendation for non-consensual designation, when sufficient information is available and when the resource is currently designated, either individually or as a part of a district, on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic Places, or both. This would eliminate the time required in the current process by at least the minimum thirty (30) days’ notice for the second hearing, and would eliminate the additional time allowed for the adoption of a recommendation and transmittal of such recommendation to Council. 3. Currently, when a non-consensual landmark designation is initiated, the LPC directs staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation. While not codified, this generally results in the same information as that contained in a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form: a property history and architectural and construction details of the buildings and structures. The proposed Code changes would allow staff to provide this information if available. If an inventory is not available, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department (CDNS), at its own cost, shall commission an expert to complete an inventory provided that sufficient time to complete the inventory exists prior to any hearing and the property owner consents to allowing the expert to enter onto the property. 4. Chapter 14 of the City Code does not provide a date by which City Council must consider the designation upon referral by the LPC. 6 Packet Pg. 369 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 The proposed Code changes would require that Council consider the designation within seventy-five days of the receipt of any LPC recommendation. The seventy-five day period may be extended upon majority vote of the Councilmembers present at the time the vote is taken. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC Code Changes Presentation (PPTX) 2. Draft Ordinance (PDF) 3. LPC Process - Timeline (DOCX) 4. Citizen Letters re Code Change (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 370 1/8/2016 1 Landmark Designation Code Revisions Laurie Kadrich, PDT Director & Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation 1-5-16 Purpose Municipal Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation Improve Process: • Creates option for LPC to send recommendation to City Council sooner • Creates more predictability Applicability: • Non-consensual landmark designations • State and National Register properties 2 Proposed Code Changes • Fifteen (15) day consent period may be waived by owner; • Option for LPC to adopt a resolution at first meeting to forward to City Council, or to schedule a 2nd public meeting; • Provides process for obtaining property information if not already available; • Upon LPC’s referral to Council, defines time by which Council must consider the designation application 3 6.a Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: LPC Code Changes Presentation (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) 1/8/2016 2 Time Comparison Description Existing Codes Proposed Codes Property Owner’s Consent 15 days minimum 0 days, if property owner(s) waive Notice for 1st hearing 30 days minimum 30 days minimum Notice for 2nd hearing 30 days minimum 0 days, if LPC forwards to Council at 1st hearing • Continuance if <6 LPC members • Time for recommendation • Time to send to Council 0 - 64 days 0 days, if LPC forwards to Council at 1st hearing Total LPC Process 75 - 139 days 30 days minimum Council Action No time limit 75 days maximum 4 Recommendation Staff recommends that these code revisions be adopted on first reading. 5 6.a Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: LPC Code Changes Presentation (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) 6.b Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Draft Ordinance (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) 6.b Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Draft Ordinance (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) 6.b Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Draft Ordinance (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) 6.b Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Draft Ordinance (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) 6.b Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Draft Ordinance (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) COMPARISON OF TIMELINES FOR CURRENT AND PROPOSED PROCESSES FOR LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF STATE OR FEDERAL LANDMARKS WITHOUT PROPERTY OWNER(S) CONSENT (CITY CODE CHAPTER 14) PROCESS STEP DESCRIPTIONS APPROXIMATE TIMES – EXISTING CODE APPROXIMATE TIMES – PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS Initiation of Process by Citizen Application or Vote of LPC Day 1 Day 1 Director’s initial mailed notice to Property Owner(s) 15 days (if this cannot be done concurrently with the 30 day required notice for 1st Hearing) 0 days IF Property Owner(s) waive the mailed notice Required Notice prior to LPC Hearing #1 30 days minimum 30 days minimum Required Notice prior to LPC Hearing #2 30 days minimum 0 days IF LPC adopts resolution at Hearing #1 to forward designation recommendation directly to Council without LPC Hearing #2 Continuance of LPC Hearing #2 if at least 6 LPC members not present at Hearing #2 14 days maximum 0 days IF LPC adopts resolution at Hearing #1 to forward designation recommendation directly to Council without LPC Hearing #2 Time after LPC Hearing #2 for LPC to adopt recommendation to Council 35 days maximum 0 days IF LPC adopts resolution at Hearing #1 to forward designation recommendation directly to Council without LPC Hearing #2 Time after adoption of recommendation for LPC to transmit it to Council 15 days maximum 0 days IF LPC adopts Council Acts on Recommended Designation by Ordinance No time limit Council may hold public hearings (discretionary) 75 days maximum After receipt of LPC recommendation Total Approximate Time for LPC Recommendation to Reach Council Minimum 75 days – Maximum 139 days Minimum 30 days IF Property Owner(s) waive initial mailed notice and IF LPC adopts resolution at Hearing #1 to forward designation recommendation directly to Council without LPC Hearing #2 Time for Council to Reach Decision After Receiving LPC Recommendation No time limit 75 days maximum Total Approximate Time from Initiation to Council’s Decision* 75 - 139 days plus no time limit for Council’s decision 105 days *These total approximate times will vary depending on LPC and Council meeting schedules, whether or not the full maximum times are used, and how quickly the minimum time periods are satisfied. 6.c Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: LPC Process - Timeline (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) From: Dee Amick To: Karen McWilliams Subject: Subject: Coy Silos and barn at Woodward Governor Date: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 11:35:00 AM Dear Karen, Please see my letter in regards to the Coy Silos and submit to the Landmark Preservation Commission for the January 13th meeting. Thank you. Dee Dear members of the Landmark Preservation Commission, I am 100% opposed to the demolition or inappropriate alteration of the Coy Silos and barn. I am opposed to any new change to the Landmark Code/Land Use Code allowing such demolitions or changes to occur. I state for the record my standing as a party-in-interest. The silos and barn are symbolic and scenic not to mention, saved and registered historic structures, within the Homestead Natural Area of Fort Collins. While ironically little homestead is visible, the Homestead Natural Area does encompass the area of the culturally significant Coy-Hoffman Farm, settled in the 1860's. The remaining farm structures- the silos and barn, are valued by many, and for innumerable reasons: visitors, tourists, commuters and recreation-seekers of all kinds benefit from the beauty, ambiance and place-making these structures provide; farmers, growers, gardeners, foodies, and locavores recognize these icons of of our region's agricultural past and the resources of the land; historians and preservationists, history buffs and students gain a glimpse into a past Fort Collins and an appreciation for the unique character of Fort Collins that still exists today. To permit the loss or inappropriate alteration of the Coy Silos and barn, for convenience and financial concerns of the current owner of the properties is wholly inexcusable. The City of Fort Collins decision makers and the Landmark Preservation Commission have an obligation to abide by previously placed protections intended for endangered properties and to do everything within their power to be stewards of our community's heritage at large. I implore you to place all your bias and favor, power and wisdom, on the side of cultural and historic preservation, benefiting all of your citizens for many years to come. And, to encourage Woodward Governor to do the same. 6.d Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Citizen Letters re Code Change (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) Very Sincerely, Dee Amick parent of school-aged children advocate of endangered properties year-round cyclist Poudre Trail regular user tax-paying, contributing citizen and 10-year resident of Fort Collins 6.d Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Citizen Letters re Code Change (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) (a) (b) From: L. Ashbach To: Karen McWilliams Cc: Laurie Kadrich; Darin Atteberry; Rachel Askeland Subject: Letter for LPC packet re Coy-Hoffman Farm preservation Date: Thursday, January 07, 2016 8:20:31 AM Attachments: 1.7.16BHFLPCletter.pdf Good Morning, Karen, Attached to this email is a letter from the Bellvue Historic Foundation regarding current issues at the Coy-Hoffman Farm. Please include it in the information packets for the LPC members. Bellvue and Fort Collins share much historical context, and our area (Bellvue and Pleasant Valley) is recognized by the City as one of the highest preservation priorities in the area. Our citizen action group has worked for preservation of this area for going on a decade. The BHF believes that the Coy-Hoffman Farm is one of the highest preservation priorities in Fort Collins, accordingly, we have drafted the attached letter for review by the Landmark Preservation Commission in reference to issues that will be heard at the January 13th meeting. Bellvue essentially exists as a "suburb" to Fort Collins, although we hate to use that term to describe our beautiful, rural valley. To see the City, which has been such a leader in the area of Landmark preservation propose and support actions which would expedite the delisting and destruction of a rare, unique, and already-listed State Register property, is a real shame. We implore the City to recognize it's roots, and the power in Section 14.2 of the Code as it exists currently: Sec. 14-2. - Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historical, architectural or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. It is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. (Code 1972, § 69-2(A), (C); Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 2, 1-7-03; Ord. 057, 2014, § 1, 4-15-14) Thank you for your prompt attention to our letter and concerns. Sincerely, Lisa Ashbach Bellvue Historic Foundation, member 6.d Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Citizen Letters re Code Change (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) lEo[["** ]Hliutrnio lFar**dafir* p.O Bo zf, . . Bruy.. (oFtuoo 6oste January 7 , 2016 City of Fort Collins, Landmark Preservation Commission Staff Contact: Karen Mcwlliams - sent via email (kmcwilliams@fcgov.com) Dear Karen, As advocates for preservation of historic resources in our area, we respectfully submit our comments for consideration of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the January 13, 2016 meeting. Ordinance 011, 2016: We urge rejection of Ordinance 011 ,2016. Changing City Code to reduce public input is not in the best interest of citizens who have clearly demonstrated their approval for thoughtful review and determination when irreplaceable resources are being considered. In the case of many historic structures, taxpayers have already funded preservation and restoration activities and therefore have an interest in on-going preservation, not demolition, of historic structures. Alteration to and/or demolition of these sites deserves full public disclosure and review with ample time allowed for citizens to become informed about plans and alternatives. \ /hile the proposed changes in wording under Ordinance 011,2016 may seem minor, absent a well-informed and active LPC, Staff, and public, the results could be devastating for historic preservation in Fort Collins. lt has been reported in the media that this change is being made not for the benefit of W-G but for future, hypothetical beneficiaries, who are not yet identified. lf this is the case, why the rush to alter the process that has produced the wonderful City that W-G wants to call home? lf W-G did not intend to comply with existing Fort Collins Codes and regulations, perhaps they should not have been willing to accept over $20 million in public funds. Ordinance011,2016was reportedly drafted by City Staff to expedite or streamline a process that is intentionally slow and methodical to allow time to work out challenges. W-G, or other entities, attempts to pressure the City to make alterations to Chapter 14 of City Code, put decades of preservation work at risk. DemoiAlt Permit: Vvith respect to the proposed demolition of the silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm, which has been determined to be eligible for Landmark designation, please take action as needed to preserve these structures and work with W-G to restore and preserve this valued historic resource. Planners who wrote the Landmark Preservation Code were pioneers when it was adopted decades ago. The City benefits today from having an active and dedicated Staff who work with property owners and consultants to preserve elements of the City's past; which sometimes may seem to be in the way, but ultimately, are the way to grow Fort Collins, as has been done for the past 50 years. History Colorado has clarified that the Coy-Hoffman Farm will no longer be eligible for listing on the State Register if the silos are demolished. These silos are incredibly unique, rare, and historic structures on their own, and as part of the context of the Coy-Hoffman Farm. There may be no more than 6 total remaining silos within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, based on an agricultural inventory done ofthe Fort Collins UGA a few years back. We know of no other o\o- To: 6.d Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Citizen Letters re Code Change (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) Page 2 of 2 concrete silos. We urgently recommend preservation of all of the remaining elements of the farmstead, keeping the site eligible for State listing. Please deny the demolition permit for the silos if you must take action tonight. The Chief Building Official has determined that the silos are not an "imminent hazard"the : standard required under City Code, Section 14-51 for deviation from the provisions regarding Landmark preservation. Not surprisingly, engineers paid by W-G differ in their opinion. We urge you to rely on the opinion of City Staff, as we will urge the Council to rely on the LPC, as experts in your field. The Code reads that a "properly authorized public official"not , an "engineer in the employ of the party seeking demolition" may order demolition, allowing waiver of compliance with the provisions of Chapter 14. The City and W-G concluded their negotiations mid year 201 3 according to local media. Certainly there has been ample time to notify the City of plans for the silos without modiflcations to City Code and absence of public input. As recently as this past year when plans for the barn were reviewed by the LPC the silos were shown on the site plan. Would the barn renovations have been considered a minor alteration if demolition of the silos been discussed at that time? lf insurance denial is behind the urgency of demolition now, as has also been reported, the LPC should require W-G to explore and present the conditions under which insurance is obtainable. Certainly stabilization and restoration, and/or a fence would appease most insurers. lt seems implausible that an insurer would wait until the 11th hour before occupancy to discuss such matters with W-G and be unwilling to quantiry and mitigate perceived risks via engineering controls. We strongly suggest the LPC delay final determination on this matter, as specified currently under City Code Section 14.72, allowing more public comment and opportunities to explore altematives which would preserve the silos, along with the farmstead. Grants have already been given through diligent citizen efforts for the restoration of the farmstead. Certainly, more grants could reduce the financial burden on W-G of preserving the farmstead intact. Local media reports that $23.5 million in publicfundswill be spent to keep W-G in ourarea. Mustwegiveupour Landmarks as well? We strongly urge the LPC to act as requested in this letter, and appreciate the opportunity to give input on the future of this important piece of area history. Sincerely; BELLVUE HISTORIC FOUNDATION Elizabeth fl A/L Ashbach r--<- member 6.d Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Citizen Letters re Code Change (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) Mary M. Humstone 4420 Bingham Hill Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80521 humstone@gmail.com January 7, 2016 City of Fort Collins, Landmark Preservation Commission Staff Contact: Karen McWilliams - sent via email (kmcwilliams@fcgov.com) Dear Landmark Preservation Commission members: I am writing concerning two important issues facing you, and all who care about historic resources in Fort Collins: 1) proposed changes to the non-consensual designation process of the historic preservation ordinance; and 2) the proposal to demolish the silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm. 1. Ordinance 011, 2016 - Proposed changes to the Landmark Preservation Code I urge the Commission to reject Ordinance 011, 2016. First of all, it is poor public policy to change an ordinance specifically to benefit one property owner. The fact that this change is being proposed at the same time that Woodward Governor is proposing to demolish the Coy-Hoffman silos, and that the change would be retroactive, leaves no doubt that this change is intended to meet the needs of the property owner, and not the public. The purpose of waiting periods and multiple hearings is to give citizens time to hear about, research and respond to issues. The City of Fort Collins should welcome, not try to squelch, public input on important decisions about the fate of our fast dwindling, irreplaceable historic resources –especially resources that have already been evaluated as significant. Non-consensual designation should be a slow and thoughtful process. There is no reason for an accelerated timeline. These resources have been with us for more than 100 years – let’s not decide their fate in a few days. A change in the ordinance will not only affect this property, but could be devastating for future designations. 2. Proposal to demolish the silos at the Coy-Hoffman Farm I urge the LPC to turn down this request. Woodward Governor received permits from the City based on a plan to preserve both the barn and the silos. If the company intended to demolish the silos, or was not sure of their structural condition, this should have been examined and brought to public attention at the beginning of the permit process, not when the project is nearing completion. This sudden finding that the silos are in danger of collapse seems disingenuous. As a historic preservationist with more than 30 years’ experience, much of it with farm buildings as founder and director of the national BARN AGAIN! program, I can assure you that I have seen many barns and silos in a worse condition than those on the W-G property – even in a state of collapse – that have been saved, straightened, restored or even rehabilitated for new use, because the owner was motivated to preserve a piece of history. W-G should be motivated to do the same for a historic property, especially one in which public funds have already been invested. Sincerely, 6.d Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Citizen Letters re Code Change (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) resolution at Hearing #1 to forward designation recommendation directly to Council without LPC Hearing #2 6.c Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: LPC Process - Timeline (4001 : Recommendation on Amending City Code Chapter 14) 1 WEST ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION 4.g Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 (970) 223-1820 www.aller-lingle-massey.com 2/7/2014 1:49:25 PM HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 0100 Author 02/20/10 COY - HOFFMAN FARM MILK HOUSE ELEVATIONS EL1 C ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY 2014 0000-Project-SD.rvt EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 MILK HOUSE NORTH ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 MILK HOUSE EAST ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 MILK HOUSE SOUTH ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 MILK HOUSE WEST ELEVATION EL1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 MILK HOUSE MAIN FLOOR NORTH 4.g Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Historic Structure Assessment Report (3988 : COY-HOFFMAN SILOS, WOODWARD TECHNOLOGY CENTER – HEARING ON