The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/08/2014 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingCommunity Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting City Council Chambers - 300 Laporte Avenue January 8, 2014 5:00 p.m. Commission’s Dinner 5:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda Approval of Minutes: Landmark Designation: 139 North McKinley, The Humphrey Property – Curt and Debbie Claussen, Owners; Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner Conceptual and Final Design Review: Downtown Transit Center/Historic C&S Freight Depot, 136 Laporte Avenue, Dock Platform - Emma Belmont, Transfort Derek Getto, DDA, and Amy Lewin and Tessa Greegor, FCMoves Design Assistance Program - Approval of Applicants for Consultants List: W.J. “Bud” Frick, W.J. Frick Design Group Thomas A. Tisthammer, Wattle & Daub Contractors Andrew P. Carlson, Wattle & Daub Contractors Byron R. McGough, Wattle & Daub Contractors Discussion: Proposed Revisions to the Municipal Code and Land Use Code - Phase 2, Historic Preservation Process Improvements Study – Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Discussion: Massing, Setback and Height Studies, Old Town Historic District – Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner Other Business: Packet information is available at http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php, or by contacting Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078 or kmcwilliams@fcgov.com 1 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 9, 2013 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek SUMMARY OF MEETING: LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE MARK MILLER PROPERTY AT 315 WHEDBEE STREET; DESIGN ASSISTANCE APPLICATION REVIEW AND APPROVAL; AND, DISCUSSION ABOUT GHOST SIGNS, PAINTED ADVERTISING SIGNS AND MURALS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:31 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Present were Ron Sladek, Doug Ernest, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Maren Bzdek, Belinda Zink and Alexandra Wallace. Also present were Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Josh Weinberg as well as Staff Support Cindy Cosmas and Amy Simmons. AGENDA REVIEW: None PUBLIC INPUT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Ernest made the motion to approve the minutes from the August 14, 2013 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission, with corrections as mentioned. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion Vote (7-0) The minutes from the September 11th, 2013 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission were approved as they are. LANDMARK DESIGNATION: 315 WHEDBEE STREET, THE MARK MILLER PROPERTY, MAGGIE AND BRIAN DENNIS, PROPERTY OWNERS: STAFF REPORT: Presented by Mr. Josh Weinberg. Mr. Weinberg stated that staff believes the property is historically significant due to its association with prominent Fort Collins photographer, Mark Miller. This residence is also a good example of the Classic Cottage form of architecture, and is a contributing element to the Laurel School National Register District. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: The owners, Maggie and Brian Dennis, were both present. Ms. Dennis said they purchased the home in 2011 and had become familiar with the Mark Miller story through a Barbara Fleming book. Ms. Dennis told the Commission that she was a historian and her husband, Brian, was an anthropologist, so they have a large interest in the history of the property. They are planning to preserve the home by shoring the foundation, tuck pointe the chimney, rescreen the porch and eventually, remove the vinyl siding in hopes of restoring the wood clad siding. PUBLIC COMMENT: None 1 2 COMMISSIONERS’ DELIBERATION: Ms. Tvede said she was excited about the possible removal of the vinyl siding. Mr. Lingle asked about the possible removal of the siding and the screened porch and wondered how replacement material should be installed and if they were reversible. There was a brief discussion about those items being character-defining for the home. Mr. Sladek asked the owner if the screens were original to the home. The owner stated that Mark Miller added the porch in 1927; however, both photos and property records from the 1940’s show a screened-in porch which is not the one currently on the home. She went on to say that the screening from the 1940’s pictures is less noticeable than the current screening; however, the porch has been screened-in for a long time. Ms. Zink asked about the windows and mentioned that, in her opinion, they looked to be vinyl sashes. She asked the owner when they were added, and Mr. Dennis said that he believed the vinyl double-paned, double-hung windows were installed in the mid-1980s. He told the Commission that the windows were recessed now, because the siding had been added on to multiple times. Mr. Ernest said the packet of information regarding 315 Whedbee Street did not have information about the screening or windows; however, it did talk about the porch, a detached garage, additions, reroofing and some remodels. He went on to state that the staff report was supportive of designation for both Standards 2 and 3; Mr. Ernest noted that only one standard was needed to designate the home. He said the significance of Miller’s photography was the key piece, because Miller was critical for documenting the history of Fort Collins. He continued by stating he wouldn’t want to ignore the architectural piece; however, he said not to lose sight of Standard 2 either. Ms. Bzdek stated that, in her opinion, this would not be a “borderline” case. She said the property clearly met the requirements for significance as stated in Standard 2 in all other aspects of integrity. Ms. Tvede agreed that the property was easily designatable. Mr. Lingle stated that he would like to hear more opinion on the possibility of just designating it using Standard 2 without using the architectural standard. He continued by saying he would be more comfortable designating it using Standard 2. Ms. Bzdek asked for clarification regarding what aspects of the integrity might be compromised other than materials. Mr. Lingle explained that workmanship could be impaired at this point: while porch elements (columns) appear to be intact, workmanship in terms of standard windows appears to be gone. Mr. Lingle also stated that some of the changed elements may not meet the requirements for designation under architecture at this time. Mr. Ernest asked Ms. McWilliams whether, when designating under only Standard 2, applicants would have to return to the Commission if they wished to make alterations or additions. Ms. McWilliams responded by saying that, if a property is designated under Standard 2, any future alterations would require the LPC to determine how those changes would affect the overall significance under Standard 2-- how they would affect Mark Miller’s significance and his association with the property. If designated only under Standard 2, the Commission would not be considering how the changes would affect the architectural characteristics of the building. She recalled a recent similar case where a building’s architectural importance was diminished through significant alterations, but the structure had historical significance that was sufficient for the LPC to designate it, based on Standard 2 only. While the changes to the Miller home (specifically, the vinyl siding and vinyl windows) do represent a loss of integrity, and the owners want to reverse these changes, there are also no guarantees that these will be reversed in the future. Therefore, the association with Miller should be strong enough to warrant the designation. Ms. Tvede moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Landmark Designation of the Mark and Effie Miller Property at 315 Whedbee Street, finding that the property meets the criteria of chapter 14 under Designation Standards 2 and 3. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Mr. Lingle stated that he wasn’t disagreeing; he had simply wanted some discussion on the topic. The Commission discussed historic vs. architectural significance. The discussion centered on the fact that Mr. Lingle raised an issue about the integrity of the house as an architectural piece; however, given the importance of the Millers and their photography to the history of Fort Collins and the photographic record 3 they created in the first half of the 20th century, even if the house didn’t qualify under the standard of architectural integrity, the importance of the Millers would be sufficient to allow the house to be designated under Standard 2. Additional discussion was given to the fact that if, in the future, the house was altered by an owner, and was not designated under Standard 3 for architectural integrity, would the criteria for designating a landmark just for the historic person be sufficient to protect the architectural integrity if the commission had not specified that? Ms. McWilliams replied that if the property is designated under only Standard 2, future alterations would be reviewed according to their impact to the legacy of the historic person in question. Mr. Sladek said that, if the home had been brought to the Commission for designation under Standard 3 only, he feels it would have integrity issues. However, since the home was brought to the Commission for designation under Standards 2 and 3, with Miller’s significance to Fort Collins, the combination, in his opinion, would overcome the integrity problem. Ms. Bzdek said she agreed and appreciated the clarification. The previous motion stands. Vote (7-0) DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROVIDERS LIST: APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS STAFF REPORT: Presented by Ms. Karen McWilliams. Mr. Lingle recused himself from the approval of his own application at 6:06pm ALLER-LINGLE-MASSEY ARCHITECTS: Ms. Tvede made the motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds that David Lingle and Ian Shuff, of Aller-Lingle-Massey Architects, meet the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2 in the application criteria. Ms. Wallace seconded. Mr. Ernest asked for specifics as to why the applicant met each of the criteria, he wanted a brief discussion. Ms. Tvede explained that she felt each of the members of Aller-Lingle-Massey Architects gave massive quantities and details of projects that have been done by their company. Mr. Sladek summarized by saying that the documentation received by the firm shows they have demonstrated their education qualifications and that their application showed that as well. Ms. Tvede agreed. Ms. Tvede said that under criteria 2, the applicant provided many projects that qualify them. Ms. McWilliams stated that the applicants are Mr. Lingle and Mr. Shuff specifically from this firm. Mr. Ernest said he looked at all the documentation from each firm on all applications and looked at each in detail. He said this application met all the criteria spelled out. Ms. Bzdek added that the projects outlined and materials provided represent a diverse and broad skill set that would be an asset, in her opinion, to the program. Vote (6-0) Mr. Lingle returned to the meeting at 6:19pm. ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, LLC: Dick Anderson, of Anderson Associates, LLC, was present and made a statement to the Commission regarding his application. Mr. Anderson thanked the group and said he was contacted by Ms. McWilliams about being part of the team. He said he very much wanted to help out and he said he had about 20 years of experience in historic projects and he feels passionate about working with the clients and their properties. Mr. Anderson says the program is working in a positive way for the community by helping people understand historic property. 3 4 Ms. Bzdek said that the degree program listed was Master of Science in land use planning and design, and she questioned whether this could be interpreted as a closely related field and relevant. Mr. Sladek responded that he thought it would strengthen the qualifications. Ms. Bzdek agreed by saying she felt that the applicant was very strong in terms of professional experience. Mr. Ernest clarified that the qualification standard by saying that the requirements include at least two years of graduate study in architectural preservation or in a closely related field OR at least two years of full-time experience in historical preservation. Mr. Sladek clarified that the word “or” is extremely important in order not to exclude qualified individuals who may not have had the opportunity to complete graduate work. Ms. Bzdek made the motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that Dick Anderson of Anderson Associates, LLC, meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Ms. Tvede seconded. Vote (7-0) ARCHITECTURE PLUS: Jim Cox, of Architecture Plus, was present and made a statement to the Commission regarding his application. Mr. Cox said he had been doing historic preservation projects for over 40 years. He said he was on the Landmark Preservation Commission as Chair Person originally and has served on the Board in Loveland as well as Chair too. He spoke about specific projects in the area he worked on, including The Avery House, The Edwards House and The Avery Carriage House. Mr. Cox said he is currently working on the new Beau Jo’s location at the corner of LaPorte and College. He said he has a deep interest in historic preservation. Mr. Lingle said he had known Mr. Cox for many years and said that he had worked with him in many aspects and felt Mr. Cox was eminently qualified. Ms. Tvede made the motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds that Architecture Plus meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion amended to state Jim Cox meets the criteria because he is the only applicant from the firm Architecture Plus to apply. Ms. Zink seconded the amended motion. Vote (7-0) FARQUHAR MASONRY: Peter Farquhar, of Farquhar Masonry, was present and made a statement to the Commission about his application. He said he was the only specialized trade on the list and mentioned his scope of work to be that of expert in masonry. Mr. Farquhar told the Commission about his certifications and gave examples of when those would be used. He has worked on many projects that are on the list and some that are not. He wanted the commission to know that he deferred to architects and engineers mostly, however, after working with brick and mortar and historic brick, he is fairly experienced with matching mortar and brick and compression ratios. Ms. Tvede asked if Mr. Farquhar was the manager of the projects listed. Mr. Farquhar said he was the manager. Ms. Tvede said he did her residential front porch project and asked if she should recuse herself because of that. It was determined by the Commission that she should be recused. Ms. Tvede recused herself at 6:36pm since Mr. Farquhar had done work for her personally. Mr. Ernest addressed the criteria, saying that the managing of projects could be interpreted as the subcontractor managing his or her portion of the work. Not necessarily managing the entire project. Mr. 5 Sladek agreed with Mr. Ernest, and Ms. McWilliams stated that much of the work involved with brick and mortar would include the analysis and report that go along with that analysis. She gave examples of the reports that are typical of historical brick and mortar. Mr. Sladek asked how this application process would be effective for those specialized trades that might not be making reports, such as a metal worker, etc. There were a few minutes of discussion about the report portion of the criteria and whether that should be altered to include craftspeople and specialized trades. Ms. McWilliams said staff would work on rewording the criteria. Mr. Lingle stated that he could attest to Mr. Farquhar’s attention to detail and his workmanship from working with him. Mr. Ernest made the motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds that Peter Farquhar of Farquhar Masonry meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Ms. Bzdek seconded. Vote (6-0) Ms. Tvede returned to the meeting at 6:44pm PER HOGESTAD: Ms. McWilliams stated that Mr. Hogestad was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Lingle asked about the qualifications listed by the applicant and stated that they seem to be conceptual. Mr. Lingle wondered if Mr. Hogestad had taken projects from conception through construction including the documents related to that process such as field work. The application does not speak specifically to that experience. Mr. Sladek asked if Ms. McWilliams could give more background information about Mr. Hogestad, and she said his is a licensed architect and has held the license for many years. She went on to say he has worked for many firms around the country and now works for Colorado State University’s Architectural Services. Ms. McWilliams said that Mr. Hogestad has designed many baseball and event stadiums in the past, including major league. Ms. McWilliams said that he has done many large commercial projects in Denver and many for CSU. Mr. Hogestad served on the Landmark Preservation Commission for 16 years and is the second longest serving member of the Board. She said Mr. Hogestad consults on many historic projects, including Remington Row. Mr. Lingle said that for clarification that Mr. Hogestad manages other architects at CSU, they do not do their own architectural design projects. Mr. Lingle said he is not questioning Mr. Hogestad’s qualifications; he would like to have the opportunity to ask specific questions. Mr. Lingle suggested tabling the application until Mr. Hogestad could present his application at a later date. Mr. Ernest agreed as well as Mr. Sladek. Mr. Lingle moved that the application for Design Assistance Program for Per Hogestad be tabled until the next Landmark Preservation Commission meeting when Mr. Hogestad could be available to answer questions regarding the application. Mr. Ernest seconded. Vote (7-0) THE ARCHITECT STUDIO: Applicants Mr. Don Bundy and Mr. Glenn Konen were unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Lingle mentioned that the before photos in the applications are great. Ms. Bzdek asked about applying the same standard and table the application since the applicants were not present. Mr. Ernest agreed with this, stating that in all fairness, the applicants should be present in order to answer questions should they arise. Mr. Lingle said he has known both Mr. Bundy and Mr. Konen for many years, however, he is more familiar with their modern work. He asked if Ms. McWilliams knew if they had applied the Secretary of Interior Standards on any of their projects or if they had state funds. Ms. 5 6 McWilliams said she would have to go back to the office to look up that information. Mr. Sladek said he would need further information on the application. Ms. Bzdek moved that the application for Design Assistance Program for Don Bundy and Glenn Konen be tabled until the next Landmark Preservation Commission meeting when an applicant could be available to answer questions regarding the application. Ms. Tvede seconded. Vote (7-0) DISCUSSION: GHOST SIGNS, PAINTED ADVERTISING SIGNS AND MURALS ON HISTORIC OR DESIGNATED BUILDINGS STAFF REPORT: Staff report presented by Ms. McWilliams. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Sladek said it would be best if the 3 different scenarios could be addressed separately. Ghost Signs: Ms. Bzdek asked if this was just for ghost signs or other specific advertisement signs. Mr. Sladek and Ms. McWilliams said that this discussion was focused on painted signs as those are being presented more and more. Policy discussion took place about what policies are being used now and how those could be addressed in the future. Mr. Ernest mentioned that based upon prior experiences; there are many complexities with signs which could vary from case to case which would mean a broad policy. Advertising Signs: Discussion about sign eligibility and who would determine the signs eligibility took place. Possibilities of keeping sign qualifications similar to buildings starting with age of the sign. Nostalgia that goes with signs and “iconic” aspects of signs and the impact a sign has was talked about. Ms. Wallace said that signs are cultural indicators that allow people to embrace and understand preservation in a different way than they do with buildings. She said advertising can permeate through decades. Mr. Sladek said signs can bring so much life into a downtown district and are easily read. Murals on Historic or Designated Buildings: Differentiating the age of the painted sign discussion took place. Mr. Lingle asked how a new sign would be recognized as a new sign and Ms. Wallace stated that this could fall in line with diminishing the integrity of the building. She suggests not allowing painting a new sign on a historic building, but could be difficult to just not allow. Possible that signage would have to be looked at on a case by case basis. Ms. Zink said it is hard to just rule something out completely, because anything could be possible with study and design. Mr. Sladek asked if the Commission would review signs on buildings other than historic or if anyone would be looking at those. Ms. McWilliams told the Commission that Zoning does look at signs and authorizes them based on City Sign Code. Mr. Ernest talked about the mural near Miller Building, and asked if that mural was an artistic endeavor or was it considered a sign and asked if there was City input on the project. The mural, he suggested, might give a real life example that could help frame the discussion. Ms. McWilliams said that she would be able to research the history of events that took place with that mural and get back to the Commission with further details. Ms. Bzdek brought up the piece about “Art in Public Places” and mentioned that it is a growing trend related to the mural topic. Mr. Lingle said, historically in areas where buildings have been demolished, murals are typically used to provide activity and interest and said he could see that happening some day in Fort Collins. Ms. Bzdek spoke further about murals depicting cultural events and stated that sometimes murals are used to tell the story of a community. She said she believes we should look carefully at the idea of creating murals as not just decorative. Mr. Sladek asked if the Commission would like to have a review capacity of these if they come up, which then lead to the 7 question of how this is brought to the attention of the City or the Commission. Further discussion took place about how this could be handled and possible ideas for the scenario. Meeting adjourned 7:30pm. 7 8 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 20, 2013 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek SUMMARY OF MEETING: DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS REVIEW; APPROVAL OF DESIGN ASSISTANCE APPLICANTS; PART 2 STATE TAX CREDIT REVIEW FOR KICKLAND HOUSE, 430 WEST MOUNTAIN; AND, FINAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR ART DECO FOUNTAIN AT OLD POWER PLANT, 430 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:33 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Present were Ron Sladek, Doug Ernest, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Maren Bzdek, Belinda Zink and Alexandra Wallace. Also present were Historic Preservation Planners Karen McWilliams and Josh Weinberg as well as Staff Support, Cindy Cosmas. AGENDA REVIEW: None PUBLIC INPUT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Several Board members (including Mr. Lingle, Mr. Ernest and Mr. Sladek made suggestions for revisions to the October 9, 2013, minutes. Along with some general typographic errors, there was a concern that some of the key discussion regarding historic designations was not thoroughly captured. Mr. Ernest made the motion to table the approval of the minutes from the October 9, 2013, regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission until the recommended revisions can be made and resubmitted. Mr. Lingle seconded the motion. Vote (7-0) DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO QUALIFICATION CRITERIA STAFF REPORT: Presented by Ms. Karen McWilliams Ms. McWilliams began by explaining that the purpose of the Design Approval Program, instituted in 2011, is to help ensure alterations and new construction on historically-designated buildings has minimal impact on the historic character of these buildings. The goal was to incentivize the use of consultants who have demonstrated their ability and knowledge of historical contextual design. The program is a result of the East and West Side Neighborhoods Study. It provides up to $2,000 per property per year for consultation, mortar analysis, and design construction and engineering services. Properties that qualify include Ft. Collins landmarks and properties adjacent to those landmarks, as well as properties located in the East and West Side historic neighborhoods. Owners choose from a list of consultants with demonstrated experience and expertise in these fields who have been approved by the LPC. The application criteria for consultants was previously established; however, at the October 9, 2013, regular LPC meeting, the Commission members requested that changes to the existing qualification criteria be made to better reflect industry practices and to provide the Commission with greater flexibility. Therefore, some minor changes are being proposed tonight. 1 9 The current consultant criteria (as outlined in the Staff Report) were reviewed. The proposed wording changes to professional qualifications standards for architects and designers regarding their experience is as follows: the experience portion previously said “SHALL include” and the proposed change would say “MIGHT include” detailed investigations of historical structures, historic structure research reports, plans and specifications for preservation projects. This wording would also apply to the professional qualification requirement for contractors, engineers, and special trades. Ms. McWilliams asked the Commission to consider these proposed wording changes to determine that they are consistent with the intent that the Commission was exploring at the October 9th meeting. She also suggested that, once the language and criteria is established and approved, future consultant applications be reviewed using this criteria. Mr. Sladek asked for any comments on these wording changes. Mr. Lingle asked to reopen a broader discussion regarding the qualification requirements in general. He expressed concern with how the professional criteria could affect architects and designers. Currently we do not require architects to be registered, so designers, by definition, would not be required to hold a degree. However, our current criteria requires not only a degree but also graduate study, which appears to be a significant leap from not requiring any education and only practical experience. Requiring graduate study in specific fields and no experience whatsoever also indicates another disconnect. He suggested that he would prefer to have a combination of the two criteria to form a better connection. Mr. Sladek expressed concern that we may exclude qualified individuals who may not have a graduate degree but have the experience. Mr. Lingle suggested adoption of a less stringent education requirement in order to avoid limiting the applicants to only registered architects. Mr. Sladek reminded the group that the purpose was to attract the “cream of the crop” in terms of design professionals to advise property owners; therefore, we still need a certain stringency to the standards. Mr. Ernest stated that he felt the professional experience requirement was adequate but that the education requirement still needs to be addressed. Mr. Lingle suggested that the requirements be changed to require at least a degree in architecture with an emphasis in approved fields with a minimum of one year practical related experience OR the current professional experience requirement. He clarified also by stating that the purpose of adding “designers” was not to limit the approval process to just architects. Ms. Bzdek inquired as to the original discussion about the importance of including designers. Mr. Lingle stated that he remembered the intent was not to exclude the designers. Ms. Bzdek asked if there were any professional liability issues to consider. Mr. Lingle did not believe there were liabilities to consider. Mr. Ernest asked if the proposed changes had to be decided upon tonight or if another discussion could be rescheduled. Ms. McWilliams said she thought that all applicants on the agenda for this meeting would qualify under the current, more stringent criteria, and that putting off the criteria changes would not cause a problem. Ms. Tvede made a motion to table the proposed changes to the qualifications criteria for the Design Assistance Program consultants until the next work session (in January 2014). Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Vote (7-0) DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROVIDERS LIST: APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS STAFF REPORT: Presented by Ms. Karen McWilliams PER HOGESTAD: Ms. Tvede made the motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission find Per Hogestad meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items 1 and 2. Ms. Wallace seconded. 10 Mr. Lingle apologized for asking Mr. Hogestad to return this month, as the questions he originally had appear to now be irrelevant. He explained by adding that he wasn’t sure if most of Mr. Hogestad’s work had been conceptual, rather than leading a project through to construction; however, based on the fact that Mr. Hogestad has the educational and architectural design requirements, this is now irrelevant. Mr. Hogestad did confirm that most of his work is conceptual; however, he has also performed a significant amount of construction administration. Colorado State University is a good example of his work. Most of his projects have been in the $40-70 million in range. He confirmed that he does see these projects through to the very end. Mr. Ernest made a motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds that Per Hogestad meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants because of his background, which is exemplified by the paperwork provided. Ms. Tvede amended the motion in order to cite a specific example (711 Remington) to support the motion. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion. Vote (7-0) DON BUNDY and GLENN KONEN (DBA The Architect’s Studio): Mr. Bundy was present (Mr. Konen was not able to attend). Mr. Lingle asked Mr. Bundy if any of his preservation projects had been state grant funded, and Mr. Bundy confirmed that this was the case for the Ft. Collins Armory project. Mr. Ernest stated that there are 7 historic projects listed in his “overview” in the application; however, the individual submission for Mr. Bundy only lists 4 historic projects. Mr. Bundy listed the projects that qualify as historic; clarification was requested to determine whether the 7 projects were performed under the banner of The Architect’s Studio or whether Mr. Bundy or Mr. Konen personally oversaw these projects. Mr. Bundy confirmed that there is collaboration within The Architect’s Studio for all projects, even though not all projects are historic in nature. Mr. Sladek said that he understood that both Mr. Bundy and Mr. Konen were representing that they have experience with more than 4 projects. He asked Mr. Bundy whether his company was continuing to engage in historical preservation projects, as opposed to just new construction. Mr. Bundy confirmed that his company does not seek out historical work, nor do they represent themselves as historical preservation specialists, and several of the projects listed occurred several decades ago. Ms. Bzdek stated that a timeline for projects performed is not a relevant factor. Mr. Ernest also agreed with this point; he further stated that he is satisfied that at least 5 projects are included in the scope of projects completed. Ms. Wallace also noted that there are other individuals listed with the company, so the LPC should make specific note of which individuals are being considered for this program. Ms. Tvede requested clarification of who would be considered for approval today. Mr. Sladek stated that, since Mr. Bundy and Mr. Konen submitted a joint application, he thought they should be considered together. Ms. Tvede made a motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds that Don Bundy and Glenn Konen of The Architect’s Studio meet the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items #1 and #2. Examples of #1, compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for the treatment of historic buildings, are included in the specifics of #2, an example of which includes the Ft. Collins Armory (Mr. Bundy) and the Miller Block (Mr. Konen). Ms. Wallace seconded the motion. Vote (7-0) 3 11 KEVIN MURRAY (DBA Empire Carpentry): Ms. Tvede made the motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission finds that Kevin Murray of Empire Carpentry meets the criteria established by the Commission for the Design Assistance Program for consultants under items #1 and #2. Examples of #1, compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for the treatment of historic buildings, are included in the specifics of #2, and example of which is the Stover Mansion at 503 Remington Street. Ms. Zink seconded the motion. Vote (7-0) STATE TAX CREDIT REVIEW DISCUSSION: Final Review and Approval for State Tax Credit review of the Kickland House, 430 West Mountain Avenue (Jim Kelly and Betsy Markey, Owners) STAFF REPORT: Presented by Ms. Karen McWilliams The Kickland/Steele House (built circa 1909) was designated as a Fort Collins landmark by ordinance in 1998. To obtain a state tax credit for building renovations, the owners must demonstrate that the following requirements are met: the property must be at least 50 years old; it must be designated on the State register or landmarked by a Certified Local Government; a minimum of at least $5K in costs must be incurred; project work must be completed within 24 months of application; Part II of the tax credit application must be submitted within 60 days of completion; and the work must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. McWilliams clarified that the Commission’s role in the state tax credit review is to make sure that the property work complies with the requirements, not to certify costs. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Sladek reviewed each item in the commission’s role in approving the tax credit. Ms. Bzdek asked whether there were any areas of concern with the work. Ms. McWilliams responding by saying that the ridge cap on the roof ridge did not match the historic design, but still meets the rehabilitation criteria. Otherwise she noted no other concerns. Mr. Ernest made a motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission, as a reviewing entity under CRS Section 39-22-514, grant Part II State Tax Credit for historic preservation approval of the rehabilitation and restoration work on the house and garage at 430 W. Mountain Avenue and the following: • that the property is a “qualified property”; • that Part II conforms to the description and plans submitted in Part I; • that the project was completed in 24 months or less; and • that the work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation and restoration. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion. Vote (7-0) 12 DESIGN REVIEW: FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION OF THE OLD FORT COLLINS POWER PLANT ART DECO TERRA COTTA FOUNTAIN (430 N. COLLEGE AVENUE) STAFF REPORT: Presented by Mr. Josh Weinberg APPLICANTS: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Company, a representative from Linds Plumbing & Heating, Inc., and Bart Baker, Building Restoration Specialties, Inc. Mr. Weinberg explained that this is a request for a final review of the restoration and rehabilitation of the terra cotta fountain in front of the Old Fort Collins Power Plant that now houses the CSU Engines and Energy Conservation Lab. The fountain and building were designated as Ft. Collins landmarks in 1987. There have been multiple discussions about moving the fountain, but the decision was made to restore and repair it in place instead. The applicant is now requesting approval for the restoration project of the fountain. The work will be performed by Building Restoration Specialties, Inc. and Linds Plumbing & Heating, Inc. This work will focus on the terra cotta exterior, and the interior jets that conduct the water. Restoration will include reglazing, replacing certain pieces, repointing joints, coating the basin, and installing/replacing jets. Mr. Hosanna explained how the plumbing would be accomplished without modification to the current fountain. Some of the jets were deteriorated and some were actually missing. In addition, some of the terra cotta pieces will have to be recast; in particular, the gargoyle feet were deteriorated and pieces were missing. New feet will be fashioned based on the existing feet as a model. Mr. Baker explained that steps will also be taken to prevent future staining and deterioration. The process isn’t to remove the original ceramic but to reglaze it, which will slow future deterioration. All finishes will be done in the field. Mr. Baker confirmed that the only items that will be new to the fountain are the end of the spouts and the drain, which will be updated to be flush with the surface. The nozzles will be semi-recessed. Mr. Baker stated that the project should start in December, will be tented (for temperature considerations and protection), and should be completed in about 4 weeks. Mr. Ernest made a motion that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the final review of the terra cotta fountain restoration at 430 N. College Avenue, finding that the work meets the criteria for approval contained in Section 14-48B of the Municipal Code. Mr. Lingle seconded the motion. Vote (7-0) OTHER BUSINESS: OLD TOWN AND RIVER DISTRICT GUIDELINES MEETING Mr. Ernest attended the Old Town and River District Guidelines discussion on November 13, 2013, which was open to the public. He said he was surprised that not many questions were generated with regard to Old Town. There was far more discussion on the River District; specifically, the majority of the questions focused on the consultant’s (Nore Winter & Company) report’s wording that indicated that automobiles would be subordinate in the proposed River District guidelines. This created questions from business owners as to how trucks and larger vehicles would be able to access their industrial operations, and it was explained that “subordination” referred to the design, not function. STRATEGIC LONG-RANGE PLANNING MEETING Mr. Ernest mentioned he was planning to attend the meeting on December 11, 2013 inviting board and commission members to provide feedback for strategic long-range planning for our city government. He requested that the LPC members give him items to address that they feel are important for consideration. 5 13 The LPC members could also make suggestions via emails. Mr. Sladek said he would like to attend this meeting as well. Anyone attending should send an RSVP to Christine Macrina, and those not attending should provide any concerns to Mr. Sladek or Mr. Ernest for discussion. Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 pm. Respectfully submitted by Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant 14 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 11, 2013 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Sladek with a quorum present at 5:33 p.m. at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Maren Bzdek, Doug Ernest, Pat Tvede, Alexandra Wallace, and Belinda Zink were present. Dave Lingle was excused. Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, and Joshua Weinberg, City Planner, represented City staff. GUESTS: Karen Manci, Matt Baker, Kyle Lambrecht, Brandon Silar APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the October 9, 2013 meeting are in need of correction as follows: Ms. Bzdek commented that the Commission’s discussion regarding historic vs. architectural significance at 315 Whedbee Street was not accurately captured on page two of these minutes. Mr. Ernest’s recollection of the discussion centered on the fact that Mr. Lingle raised an issue about the integrity of the house as an architectural piece and recalls commenting that given the importance of the Millers and their photography to the history of Fort Collins and the photographic record they created in the first half of the 20 th century, even if the house didn’t qualify under the standard of architectural integrity, the importance of the Millers would be sufficient to allow the house to be designated. Additional thought was given to the fact that if, in the future, the house was altered by an owner, and was not designated under the standard for architectural integrity, would the criteria for designating a landmark just for the historic person be sufficient to protect the architectural integrity if the commission had not specified that? Ms. Bzdek would like these details added to the minutes as they pertain to future actions related to the property. Chair Sladek asked if staff would listen to that portion of that meeting to ensure those details are reflected in the minutes. Ms. McWilliams agreed. Chair Sladek noted that there is a typo on page three of the minutes where the spelling of Mr. Shuff’s name is in need of correction. SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission will review the corrected October 9, 2013 minutes at its next meeting. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the nomination of the Great Western Sugar Company effluent flume and bridge for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and directed staff to finalize the submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office. The Commission was updated on North College improvements from Conifer to Willox. The Commission was updated on River District Design Guidelines. The Commission granted final approval to the replacement of second story windows in the building located at 252, 254, 256 Linden Street. 15 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 2 - Design Assistance provider list: Chair Sladek commented that corrections need to be made on three of the motions that were made. These motions were made approving the firm but not the individuals. Ms. McWilliams added that she recalled an additional individual along with Jim Cox associated with Architecture Plus. In looking at the minutes, Ms. Tvede noted that Mr. Cox was the only person who applied. Chair Sladek thought he recalled a third person as well but doesn’t see another name noted in the minutes. Chair Sladek pointed out that the motion for Architecture Plus was amended during that session and states that Jim Cox meets the criteria so there are just two motions that need to be amended regarding Anderson Associates and Aller.Lingle.Massey Architects. Ms. Tvede moved the original motions be amended to indicate; One, Aller.Lingle.Massey Architects is only for David Lingle and Ian Shuff, and, two, Anderson Associates is only for Dick Anderson. Ms. Bzdek seconded the motion. Motion passed: (6-0). Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of October 9, 2013 as amended. Ms. Wallace seconded the motion. Ms. Zink reminds the commission that they requested the minutes be revised and seen again before approval. Mr. Ernest rescinds motion. Ms. Wallace seconded. The commission will take a final look at these minutes at the next meeting when they have the corrected version. REVIEW AND COMMENT: NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, SUGAR COMPANY EFFLUENT FLUME AND BRIDGE; KAREN MCWILLIAMS, PRESERVATION PLANNER AND KAREN MANCI, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Chair Sladek recused himself as he is the author of large portions of this nomination. Mr. Ernest will Chair this portion of meeting. Ms. McWilliams introduced Karen Manci, Senior Environmental Planner, in the City’s Natural Resources Department, and noted that staff and applicant are the same party regarding this property. The City of Fort Collins owns the property, has initiated this National Register designation process and is pursuing the recognition of the property on the National Register. The Commission is being asked to review and comment on the nomination in accordance with Colorado Certified Local Government Regulations, which state that whenever a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places occurs within the municipality, the local Historic Preservation Commission and the chief elected official are both given the opportunity to provide comments. Following this review, the Commission and the chief elected official would provide the State Historic Preservation Office with either a form, provided by the State, or letter outlining support for or objections to this nomination. This information will then go before the State Review Board which will incorporate the comments into their discussion and consideration of the nomination at its January 17, 2014 meeting at the History Colorado Center in Denver. The public is invited to attend. 16 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 3 - Ms. McWilliams provided background information that the 1926 Great Western Sugar Company flume and bridge are significant for their long industry association with 20 th century beet sugar manufacturing and industrial waste disposal. They are also important as good engineering examples of a suspension bridge and a flume designed for industrial use. The historic, engineered features on the site represent a type, period, and method of construction consistent with suspension bridge and flume design of the era, locally built and adapted to the particular need for industrial waste disposal. The Great Western Sugar Company flume and bridge spanned the Cache La Poudre River approximately a mile and a half east of downtown Fort Collins and they are also located about the same distance southeast of the former Fort Collins Beet Sugar Factory which was a massive industrial complex that was constructed in 1903 and operated through 1955. Approximately two acres in size, the site most notably holds a suspension bridge which holds an open metal flume extending across the river to fields to the north and southeast. In addition, segments of the flume remain on the ground nearby in their original locations. All of these features date from 1926 and have been out of use since the plant closed in the mid-1950s. The property is part of the Kingfisher Point Natural Areas which is also adjacent to Nix Farm and is managed by the Natural Areas program. This nomination was submitted to the State several months ago; however, Ms. McWilliams wanted to give the Commission an update since our recent flood has affected the resources a bit. The water cleared the bridge and pressed against the flume elements on the ground. Some elements were buried by mud and debris. The water pushed against one side of the flume which caused the flume some additional cracks and breaks and some of the wooden support bars were washed away from the flume by the flood waters. Ms. McWilliams said that the review criteria for evaluating the listing for properties on the National Register of Historic Places are essentially the same criteria that we use for Fort Collins Landmark designations: Criterion A properties are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Criterion B are associated with the lives of significant persons in the past; Criterion C embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; and Criterion D, which have yielded or are likely to yield information important in history or pre-history. The National Register staff feels that this property qualifies under Criterion C; the Commission may recommend additional criterion. Mr. Ernest, understanding that the City represents both the staff and applicant on this property, asked if the applicant would like to give a presentation. Ms. Manci responded that they are excited about the nomination and added that it is beneficial that the City Natural Areas Department manages the land on both sides of the flume and that there is no other land owner involved other than the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Ernest invited the Commission members to ask questions and had a question of his own about the aerial photograph where it appears that there is a projection for an additional trail on the north side of the river. It also looks like there’s a trail on the south side. He wondered if there would need to be any further work to regarding accessing this structure. Ms. Manci replied that they would like to bring the public to the structure and that it is casually accessed by the public now. It’s very close to the paved trail on the south side – probably 100 feet from the trail with very easy access there, and stated that they do prohibit people from crossing the river on the flume. 17 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 4 - Ms. Bzdek inquired about whether the minor damage from the recent flood inspired any thought about protection of the resource moving forward relative to the floodplain. Ms. Manci responded that they haven’t thought about how they would protect the structure during a flood event and that it would be difficult because the floodplain in that area can’t be changed, such as with berming. The only thing she would suggest now is that they would try to keep the area clear of downed debris, moving that off-site. Ms. Manci believes the impact of this flood event was greater due to the fire damage upstream and the amount of debris moving down river. This is certainly something they can think about but the issue is that the whole structure is in the floodplain. Mr. Ernest asked if there were any further LPC questions for the applicant and City staff or if the public had any questions or comment. Seeing none, Mr. Ernest called for a motion. Ms. Bzdek moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission confirms that in its opinion the Great Western Sugar Company Effluent Flume and Bridge represents important aspects of Fort Collins’ industrial past and environmental history and the site meets the criteria of the National Register, specifically under Criteria A and C, through retention of a high degree of physical integrity. The LPC directs staff to finalize the form to this effect for submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office in accordance with Colorado Certified Local Government Guidelines. Ms. Tvede seconded the motion. Mr. Ernest asked if there were any further comments. Mr. Ernest commented that we would be remiss if we didn’t recognize the tremendous effort Ron Sladek made in doing the research and noted the incredible amount of detail in his report. He also commented that Mr. Sladek originally struggled to find information, particularly in the local newspapers and what a revelation it was when he found the information in the CU Norman Library Archives. They have all of the papers of the Great Western Sugar Company and noted that this is something for historians to keep in mind. Mr. Ernest also pointed out that, as Mr. Sladek noted, there are not that many suspension bridges in the State of Colorado, so this bridge is unique in a lot of different ways. Ms. Bzdek seconded Mr. Ernest’s commendation of Mr. Sladek’s work and added that it is an excellent, well researched document and noted that the bibliography is great for moving forward for anyone doing research on the industrial history of Fort Collins and in particular, the sugar beet industry. Ms. Bzdek also noted the value of recognizing industrial heritage sites like this and the importance of allowing us to tell a more complete story through preservation of our community’s history. We have a lot of beautiful buildings, commercial and residential, that we’ve protected and preserved. As well as our industrial history, and some of the more problematic aspects of our past are also an important part of our narrative as a community. This is a great one because it shows both local innovation and something specific about the history of the industry and the technology involved. It also points to the environmental history of our community in a particular way in terms of waste management and degradation of our resources. If we don’t have sites like this as part of our matrix of preserved sights, then we’re in danger of preserving a sanitized version of our past. Ms. Bzdek would like to see more things like this brought forward and thinks industrial heritage sights can be particularly difficult to preserve because if adaptive reuse is involved, like for factory sites, that can be very difficult to do and we are really lucky as pointed out that not only do we have a site that is significant from an engineering standpoint, it happens to be located on City property, without other property owners. It is also in a setting that allows us to have a fair amount of 18 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 5 - certainty that its integrity is going to be preserved outside of the fact that it happens to be in the floodplain. Ms. Bzdek stated that she wants to be sure that gets recognized and is on the record and that this isn’t just an anomalous site but is actually a site that is centrally important to the history of the City. It’s not just a curiosity. Mr. Ernest asked if there were further comments. Ms. Zink wanted to add that an excellent next step would be to complete an historic structure assessment just to evaluate it and see what the possibilities could be for stabilization, and whether stabilization is needed, and its preservation. Mr. Ernest asks if there are further comments. Seeing none, vote was taken. Motion passed: (6-0). PROJECT UPDATE: NORTH COLLEGE IMPROVEMENTS – CONIFER TO WILLOX; MATT BAKER, STREET OVERSIZING PROGRAM MANAGER, KYLE LAMBRECHT, CIVIL ENGINEER II, JOSH WEINBERG, PRESERVATION PLANNER Mr. Weinberg introduced Matt Baker and Kyle Lambrecht from the City’s Capital Projects Department. Mr. Baker and Mr. Lambrecht have been working on the improvement of North College Ave. from Conifer to Willox and gave the Commission an update on the project including the historic resources that were evaluated along the corridor and some of the impacts and proposed mitigation to those resources. Mr. Baker noted that the City has made a significant investment on North College Ave. which started on College and Cherry at the Jefferson intersection in 2004, completed the section in front of King Soopers in 2010, and completed the first segment of the capital project work from Conifer to the river last year. The segment between Conifer and Willox Lane is the last and is currently under design with anticipated construction in the summer of 2014. The existing conditions on College Ave. have been bleak for a long time. There are no pedestrian ways; the City scabbed in a shoulder in 1986 that works out as a defacto bike lane. There are no drainage improvements and the area floods in the rain. Access is willy-nilly with big, open driveways, etc. We have a concept plan that looks similar to what we built just south of here from Conifer to the river. Mr. Baker said they will be putting in sidewalks with landscape parkways. There will be a bike lane, pedestrian lighting, and consolidation of all access points and single driveway points. The big feature of this project that is different from the other projects on College Ave. is that it will include landscaped medians up and down the corridor for that half-mile. That is in accordance with the North College Access Plan and will help travelers through the area. Funding is partially City with about four million dollars of local City funds and five million dollars in Federal aid. Since this is a Federal aid project, we have to follow the Federal aid processes which include a lot of storm water management, disadvantaged businesses, Uniform Act, etc. We do follow Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4F of the Department of Transportation Act very carefully. We have been working with City staff to recognize the important historic resources in the area. We’ve done an historic inventory of each parcel along this corridor and with input from CDOT and the State Historic Preservation office and City staff, we’ve identified three properties 19 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 6 - that are historically eligible for the National Register. The first one is 1220 N. College – the El Palomino Hotel built in 46-49 and expanded again in 1956. It is associated with early automobile tourism on the Lincoln Highway and is the best representative of post-World War II motor courts in the Fort Collins area. The next property is 1304 N. College Ave. – the bay service station which is currently Rulon Service Station, constructed in 1955. It is also associated with automobile tourist traffic and is an example of an oblong box-type service station. The historical inventory and improvements we did show this project will not impact the historical significance of the Rulon Service Station. The last property is the Montclair Hotel constructed in 1959 with some mobile home spaces added in the back in 1965. It is also an intact example of a post-war motel along the 287 travel route. The buildings are typical of a 1950s motor court hotel. There is really nothing particularly notable about the building’s design but it is still an intact example of the motor court. As part of the Federal process, we’ve done an Alternatives Analysis of all of these properties which Mr. Lambrecht will report on. Mr. Lambrecht advised the Commission that of the three eligible properties, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), determined that plan improvements along the frontages of the El Palomino Hotel, at the northeast corner of College and Conifer, and the Montclair Lodge at the northwest corner of College and Hibdon, would cause adverse effect to their frontages. Once this was determined, the City needed to go through an Alternatives Analysis to try to minimize the impact to the historic characteristics of the property yet still meet project goals. Both properties went through a standard Alternatives Analysis looking at various options. Mr. Lambrecht showed the Commission the analysis for the El Palomino. The analysis for the Montclair followed this very closely. For the El Palomino, the baseline analysis was looking at what would it look like if a standard four lane arterial cross- section was placed along this frontage. That would include six foot detached sidewalks, a ten foot landscape parkway, curb and gutter and an on-street eight foot bike lane. Just for reference, from the center line of the roadway to the back of the walk, is 62 feet. If you’re familiar with the El Palomino’s frontage, there are mature evergreen trees and some other landscaping. There is also a pool and buildings. This option would pose significant impacts to some of the historic characteristics of the landscaping, especially along the frontage. The pool and buildings are not impacted but some of the characteristics that make that property eligible are so we looked at a secondary option, focusing on our project cross-section which is unique to the corridor in general using more of a context sensitive design solution. This didn’t gain us much because the footprint is almost the same as we have an eight foot detached sidewalk and a seven and a half foot landscape parkway which doesn’t buy us any width. We looked at shifting the road and this got us about seven additional feet toward the center line from 62 to 55 feet but again, we couldn’t go too much because if we shifted it too far to the west, we impacted properties on the west. The third cross section we looked at was an attached sidewalk with the road shift. With the attached walk and the shift, we looked at a nine foot attached walk and reduced the distance from the center line to the back of the walk from 62 feet to 48 feet which is significant when we’re looking at the roadway cross section. The significant evergreen trees will not be impacted. What we’re impacting are some of the bushes in the frontage area. We feel that this is a good compromise, minimizing as much as we can the impact to the historical characteristics of the site yet still meeting project goals as far as mobility and multi-modal improvements. The one thing we give up is that there aren’t as many urban design characteristics that we can incorporate with an attached walk. Plus, as far as a safety standpoint, you are pushing pedestrians a little closer to the road with 20 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 7 - an attached walk but this is the alternative that we felt was the best option for the El Palomino and this is the one that we are presenting to the FHWA that we would like to move forward with. As far as mitigation goes, since the El Palomino and the Montclair Lodge were deemed to have adverse impacts, we do have to do some kind of mitigation for these two sites. We are going to be pursuing a Level Two Archival Documentation with the FHWA as defined by the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. There are three levels of documentation. The Level Two is the intermediate level. Along with that, we will do archival photography. The key is to make sure we do this before the construction starts so we can really capture how the sites look today. As Mr. Baker mentioned, since the improvements along the Rulon’s frontage are minimal, no mitigation is required. Chair Sladek asks if the public or Commission would like to comment. Seeing none, Chair Sladek thanks the staff for their work in minimizing the impact to the motel sites and adds that he thinks the mitigation is appropriate. This was an informational presentation with no vote required. RIVER DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES; TED SHEPARD, CHIEF CITY PLANNER, JOSH WEINBERG, PRESERVATION PLANNER Mr. Weinberg reminded the Commission that this is a continuation of an item that was discussed at the Commission’s October 23, 2013 work session when the Commission looked at the work in progress of the Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. At that time, the Commission was slated to look at the River District Design Guidelines as well but ran out of time. Staff would like to present the River District Design Guidelines and invite the Commission to comment. As an overview, the goals of the River District project are to identify, evaluate, and implement measures to achieve a high quality of site and building design for new, non-industrial development projects that preserve and promote the unique character of the River District. Mr. Weinberg introduced Mr. Shepard who gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Shepard provided an update and reminded the Commission that this is a work in progress and that staff will be available to return to update the Commission as the project progresses. In the last couple of years, we’ve had several projects in this area including Legacy Apartments which is almost complete, the CSU Engines and Energy Conversion Lab which is under construction, the project that is referred to as Encompass Block One, which is the old concrete batch plant right across from Legacy. They are doing excavation now. The final project (referred to as Feeders Supply) is still in the review process which involves preserving the existing Feeders Supply building, building a new building next door to the south which would front on Linden, and a new apartment building to the northwest that would front on Willow Street. As each of these projects came in, we found out that each project began a very long, detailed conversation with a lot of stakeholders about how to proceed with design. As a result of these complexities, we decided to go into the standards that are presently governing the area (presently the RDR Zone, Downtown River District Zone) and clarify them. The zoning code doesn’t allow for clarification or explanatory paragraphs. We are advised by our legal staff not to put pictures in our code. We thought this wasn’t working for all stakeholders and is very time consuming. One of the motivations is to clarify and explain a little more about the vision and how to preserve the character because we have five projects going. The vision is different than the Old Town historic area and this area is a little more industrial and 21 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 8 - spread out. Buildings are not as detailed or embellished, not as Victorian. There are active industrial uses and the area is a little grittier with bigger shoulders. It’s not as dainty and there’s not as much retail but has a lot of character. One of the guiding principles is that new development doesn’t have to be as ornate, cornices don’t have to be as detailed. We still want appropriate materials, form, and scale. Especially, in relationship to designated historic properties but it doesn’t have to have that retail store front type of ornamentation. The boundary is outlined in yellow and exactly replicates the RDR Zone. The RDR Zone has been with us since 1997 and was established with the adoption of the Land Use Code. It has over 25 standards in that zone but they are written very matter of factly, very crisply. They don’t have a lot of room for interpretation so we end up having to reinvent the wheel every time a new project comes in. These standards and guidelines will help us immensely with guiding projects to come through that are context sensitive. This project is not a zone district change and doesn’t address permitted uses. It doesn’t add or take away uses. Industrial uses that are there are okay. Industrial uses are permitted, along with trucks, and outdoor storage to a degree. One of the things we heard from stakeholders in part of our feedback was that they requested we leave room for trucks to turn and to make sure trucks can get in and out of Ranchway Feed and to make sure this area still has operational, functional capability. We totally agree - that’s part of its character. We want to start at the neighborhood scale which would be the zone district and we have standards related to that. Then, we want to determine what happens on the site in terms of building placement, parking lot placement (if any), landscaping, bicycle parking, service doors, fire access, trash enclosures, site plan elements and the actual building itself. Those are the three scales we will be looking at working down from neighborhood to site to building. Mr. Shepard added that the emphasis is a little different from the presentation they received from Nori Winter and his consulting group as to the extent of the standards and guidelines in that they are not as detailed, ornate, or embellished in this area. Forms can be simpler but materials, color, and mass and scale is what we’re paying very close attention to. Chair Sladek asks if there are any comments from the public. Citizen, Brandon Silar from the audience comments that the project looks great. Ms. Bzdek asks Mr. Shepard what the next stage of development is for the guidelines. Mr. Shepard replied that staff would like to return to the Commission with the document as it is rather voluminous and states that staff would like to go to the Planning and Zoning Board work session the first Friday in January to provide an update and sometime after that, come back to the Commission at a work session so they can look at the whole document and get a feel for its organization. Ms. Bzdek inquires as to whether the conversation with the Planning and Zoning Board takes into account the number of parking spaces that are projected to be necessary for that area. Mr. Shepard replied that there are varying levels of response. The City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Department and Parking Services Department and at that time, the Advance Planning Department, had the Downtown Parking Plan. Randy Hensley, our Parking Services Manager was the project manager along with consultants. There are a variety of approaches but the fundamental aspect of the Land Use Code is that there is no required minimum parking in this area because it’s in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD), which has been in effect since 1997. However, there is an exception to that. Several months ago in the TOD, the City Council adopted a one year change and for residential only there is now a minimum parking requirement which is 70% of what would otherwise be required if you were located outside the TOD. If you had a suburban apartment complex that needed 100 parking spaces, in the TOD now (for about nine 22 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 9 - more months) you would need 70 spaces. This was a result of the project referred to as The Summit. Ms. Bzdek understands that it’s not the Commission’s purvey here but also wonders when looking at the guidelines, if there is any kind of reference to what is adequate and how these fit together as a whole? Mr. Shepard responded that the City does say in the draft standards and guidelines that should you provide parking on your site, it needs to be discreetly placed so that it is not on a public street frontage and access would be by alley or private drive. If it does have street frontage parking, it has to be very minimal and screened because we don’t want surface parking lots along our street edges so it is addressed but in terms of requiring minimum parking for a non- residential land use in this area, there is no minimum requirement. That doesn’t mean that projects come in with no parking, it just means that we are not creating a mandate. If the private sector wants to respond with parking, they may but they can’t exceed a certain percentage. It is case by case. Mr. Ernest said that he attended the citizen meeting in which Mr. Shepard and Mr. Winter presented the study and one of the concerns raised by stakeholders was the statement in the Nori Winter report “keep the automobile subordinate”. That seemed to raise some red flags in people thinking the thought behind the design was to replace the automobile with bicycles. Mr. Ernest realizes that’s not the intent but asked if those issues been addressed with that community? Mr. Shepard remarked that this is a good point and said that we don’t want to confuse where to put your parking with what mode that you take in your everyday travel throughout our community. Mr. Sladek also comments that he read the same statement in the document. Mr. Ernest stated that it was on page 26 of the study. Ms. Bzdek wondered if the floodplain has been taken into consideration and where that fits into this, if at all. Mr. Shepard responded that the floodway/floodplain is governed by the Water Board and has its own flood place use permit system. We are sticking with buildings, site design, and neighborhood urban design. We’re letting the floodplain regulations take care of themselves. Mr. Sladek asked Mr. Shepard what’s going on with Block One. He noticed that there’s a lot of work on the river bank. Mr. Shepard said that there is stream bank stabilization. Our Storm Water Utility would not allow a building the size of Encompass Block One to be constructed that close to the bank without the bank being stabilized so part of the review of the project was to do a bank stabilization study. It was submitted as a supplemental and was reviewed by Storm Water staff, Engineering, and Environmental staff. There is also excavation going on for the building itself. Mr. Sladek saw the bank completely torn out and excavated down. Mr. Shepard said that the bank that was removed was not in a natural state and had been filled with concrete rubble and explained that they had to take out the old rubble before they could rebuild and add vegetation. Mr. Sladek has noticed a lot of concrete along the banks of the river in that area. Mr. Sladek lets Mr. Shepard know that he went through the document that the Commission was given and marked some locations where there are some typos and structural problems with pagination in one section, and a few other things and asks Mr. Shepard if he will ask the consultant for correction. Ms. Zink comments about the pages regarding building materials and had questions about the mention of masonry, glass, and metal. She wondered if there should be any reference to stucco 23 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 10 - (whether positive or negative), fiber cement siding or wood siding. It seems like those are potentially materials that could work in an industrial type setting. She commented that after looking at the information on mass and scale, it seems like the examples given on page 55 are simple buildings and there may be a contradiction between the recommendations on page 55 for industrial forms and the information on the next page where it speaks about building articulation techniques, which seem contradictory. She adds that the examples are a little visually jarring. Mr. Shepard asks whether she thinks the examples are too detailed and embellished? Ms. Zink replies that on page 55, the City is calling for simple and more traditional forms and on page 56, they are more articulated, fussy, and ornate. She also asks whether there should be some discussion of window shading devices which seems like an important issue when trying to design energy efficient buildings. Ms. Bzdek comments that she would like to see a negative example on page 53, item number 6.2. The exact imitation of historic styles is inappropriate for new construction and that may be difficult to illustrate but may be an example where an item which may otherwise seem pleasing is inappropriate. Mr. Sladek adds that this is a good point. Mr. Sladek also points out that throughout the document in various places, they refer to north, south, east, and west when in fact, the area is on a diagonal which results in a lot of confusion and would like to see the consultants clean that up using northwest, southwest, etc. so that it reflects the actual direction. Mr. Ernest agrees. Mr. Sladek recalled that Mr. Lingle had some comments on this document and wants to make sure those are collected from him and asks Mr. Weinberg if he will get those from Mr. Lingle. Mr. Sladek thinks that overall the document is great and will really help guide future development in the area. There’s still a little work to be done on it but it looks like we’re heading in the right direction. The Commission is pretty happy with it and looking forward to seeing it come to completion in the near future. CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL REVIEW, 252/254/256 LINDEN STREET, SECOND-LEVEL WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND LINDEN STREET ENTRY REPLACEMENT; BRANDON SILAR, LARK DESIGN/BUILD LLC Staff report – Mr. Weinberg. This is a request for a conceptual and final review for second level window replacement and entry replacement at the building which is comprised of a variety of different addresses, 252, 254, and 256 Linden Street. The building is a non-contributing element of the Old Town Historic District. The non-contributing status of the building results from alterations the building has undergone throughout its history. According to the County assessor, it is believed to be the oldest building in the historic district, which gives it a construction date of 1867. The applicant is requesting to replace all existing windows on the second level and also the entryway as mentioned. Mr. Weinberg showed slides to illustrate the request. The building is on the corner of Jefferson and Linden Street. The second level has a variety of different shapes of windows and there are a variety of different types of windows in the openings. Mr. Weinberg’s understanding is that the openings will be retained and the applicant is just proposing to replace the 24 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 11 - windows. The entry being discussed is at the southern-most entry of the building. Because this application is regarding a non-contributing building, when the Commission looks at this type of proposal, typically, their concern is the impact the changes will have on the character of the entire historic district which the building is within, rather than changes to the specific building. Alterations to properties within Fort Collins Landmark Districts are reviews for compliance with Municipal Code 1448 and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation apply to work within the historic districts. Those standards and guidelines are in the Commission’s staff report and if the Commission finds that the work proposed for this non-contributing building does not have a detrimental impact to the historic district and meets these standards, the Commission can pass a motion stating that. Because the applicant does not have an exact idea of what type of windows are going to go in the second level, the applicant can bring that information back at a later time if that is of concern. Applicant, Brandon Silar states that he is at the hearing to answer questions. Ms. Tvede inquires whether all the windows will be the same. Mr. Silar replies that they want to go with the same style on every window on the second level. There are now three shapes on the building but all three types of windows on the second level will have the same general characteristics. Ms. Bzdek has questions about the interior piping visible on the entry. Mr. Silar explains that these are fire risers that currently exist behind the glass block which is now enclosed but they would like to expose this. Mr. Sladek invites other questions and asks if there are features in this building that indicate its age. Mr. Silar replies that during excavation, they found a lot of old glass, and old, depression era bottles that were shattered. They think that the back portion of the building is the oldest. Someone added a front portion that faces Linden. The rounded corner of this portion suggests more of a deco addition, possibly in the 20s. There are rumors of passage ways under the foundation but found none. Ms. Wallace asks if the windows are historic and whether Mr. Silar has any plans of what to do with them. Mr. Silar replies that the windows are not historic and that some are vinyl. The oldest windows are slender wood frame with metal edging on a double pane which suggests they are more modern. Some windows are leaking which is the reason for the request to replace. Mr. Sladek asks what type of windows they are looking at replacing them with. Mr. Silar replies that they think the windows on the ground floor are historically accurate but not the windows on the second level. They have been unable to find anything like the windows on the bottom without custom ordering from a high-end shop. New materials for the second level will likely be vinyl. Interested in matching what is there now, they will be sliders on the front and the openings will not be modified. Mr. Sladek reiterates that the Commission is not looking at the impact to the building itself but the impact to the district and asks for the Commission’s thoughts. Ms. Tvede thinks that the fact that the new windows will be uniform and similar to what’s below will be a definite improvement to the building and can’t see that it has any impact whatsoever on the district. Ms. Bzdek can’t see any impact positive or negative to the district. Mr. Sladek asks if the Commission needs any further information relating to the windows and the entry that need to be reviewed. Ms. Tvede 25 Landmark Preservation Commission December 11, 2013 - 12 - would like all windows to be uniform and blend in with the building. Mr. Silar is asking for a full replacement of all windows on the top story but is still working with the owner of the building and their budget and may need to do the work in stages. Ms. Tvede moved that the LPC grant final approval to the proposed work on 252, 254, 256, Linden Street, a non-contributing building, which will not have a detrimental impact on the district. The work therefore meets the standards of Section 1448 of the Municipal Code as well as complies with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Zink seconded the motion. Motion passed: (6-0). OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Ernest mentioned that he attended the Boards and Commissions Community Conversation on City strategic planning for the next three to five years and will send an email to the Commission with more information. The Idea Lab was mentioned at the meeting. Mr. Ernest also mentioned that the Poudre Landmark Foundation is hosting the State Historic Fund Local Community Round Table at the Avery Carriage House on February 12, 2014. All interested parties are welcome to attend. Mr. Sladek informed the Commission that he received a call from the Governor’s office advising him that he had been appointed to serve on the Colorado State Historic Preservation Review Board in Denver at the State Historical Society. He is thrilled and will start with the January meeting. Meeting adjourned at7:04p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Lori Bichler 26 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 139 North McKinley Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: South 50 feet of Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Swetts Addition, Fort Collins, Colorado. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Humphrey Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Curt and Debbie Claussen Phone: N/A Address: 139 North McKinley Street, Fort Collins, Colorado CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6206 Relationship to Owner: None DATE: December 14, 2013 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 Revised 09-2004 27 Page 1 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property consists of a historic 1-story brick house with a non-contributing wood framed garage. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE According to History Colorado’s Guide to Historic Engineering and Architecture, “the Craftsman architectural style emerged from the Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20th century, a philosophy which stressed comfort and utility through the use of natural materials and a lack of pretension.” Character defining elements of the style include: exposed rafter ends, overhanging eaves, clipped gables, and large porch columns. Additionally, windows were often comprised of a divided light upper sash over a single light lower sash. These elements, with focus on craftsmanship, or the manual arts, and incorporation of local materials “replaced the more delicate and intricate detailing of the [preceding] Victorian period.” During the first decades of the 20 th century, residences constructed in the Craftsman style were often featured in architectural magazines, as well as in those with wider-reaching audience bases such as Ladies’ Home Journal and Good Housekeeping. This publicity familiarized the nation with the style and resulted in a prevalence of pattern books, which contained plans for constructing Craftsman style homes using local labor and even offering packages of pre-cut framing material. Virginia and Lee McAlester’s A Guide to American Houses contends that these pattern books were, in large part, the reason that one-story Craftsman style residences became the “most popular and fashionable smaller house in the country.” The residence at 139 North McKinley Street is a great Fort Collins example of a one-story Craftsman style residence and is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark due to its distinctive architectural characteristics under Landmark Designation Standard 3. This detailed house exhibits exceptional features the Craftsman architectural style, constructed during the height of the style’s popularity in Fort Collins. The building’s distinctive features Revised 09-2004 28 Page 2 include clipped gables, varying colors of brick, exposed roof elements, triangular support braces, divided light windows, and substantial porch columns. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The first recorded tenant of the house was Jobe Woodford. Nothing is known of him except that he lived there from 1927 to 1929. For 30 years, from 1929 to1959, Dr. Fred Augustus Humphrey, his wife, Viola, and their two children, Betty and Robert, made it their home. Dr. Humphrey was born in 1895 in Broken Bow, Custer, Nebraska. There he graduated college and married Violet Sarah Osborn on June 20, 1921. Dr. Humphrey was a well-known physician and surgeon in Fort Collins. He was also an avid collector of unusual dolls. He died on Dec 13, 1989 and is buried in Grandview Cemetery. During his tenure at 139 North McKinley, he made several improvements to the property: In 1927 a garage was added; in 1937 a new stoker was added; and the attic was insulated in 1939. Dr. Fred Humphrey and his collection of dolls. Date unknown. Dr. Humphrey in 1930. From 1955 to 2007, 52 years, Lance and Cheryl Freeman were the owners and custodians of the house. Their children are Jennifer and Nathan. The Freemans started living in the house in 1955 when Lance was a student at what was then known as Colorado Agricultural College and shared the house that year with Vicki Bailey, a graduate assistant at the college. Their improvements to the house included a new washer in 1974 and a kitchen and bath remodel in 1994. Revised 09-2004 29 Page 3 In 1959, Edward and Dorothy Moore occupied the house. Mr. Moore was employed by Woodward Governor. The Moore family stayed for one year. From 1960 to 1963, another Woodward Governor employee lived in the house. Lydia Owen was a cook there, her husband was retired. After the Owen family, a retiree Cleo Holdsworth and relative Jessie, occupied the house from 1964 to 1975. Mrs. Holdsworth appears to have allowed students to room with her. City Directory listings include: Robert and Rebecca Dody; Kenneth Adee, and Susan Payne, a beautician. A string of students occupied the house from 1976 to1985; the list includes: 1976, Meg Hoeyman and Nancy Sressi; 1979, Connie Fisher, L M Neitzel, and Dave Shalla; 1981, Connie Fisher, Dale Shalla, and Teresa Stuart; 1981, Teresa L Stuart, a LPN (licensed practical nurse student; 1982 Bruce Smith and Debbie Dingman; and 1983, Bruce Smith. From 2007 to 2011, John Kish owned the house. He sold it to Curtis and Debbie Claussen in 2011. The Claussens are requesting to have the building recognized as a Fort Collins Landmark. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1925 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Brick Architectural Style: Arts and Crafts/Craftsman Description: The house at 139 North McKinley is eligible for recognition as a Fort Collins Landmark because of its distinctive architectural characteristics. The building’s footprint is predominantly a simple square plan and features a side-gabled roof, with clipped gables on each side. Eaves are open with generous overhangs and the roof is covered in asphalt shingles. Exposed rafters and purlins are visible beneath the overhangs and triangular braces are present at roof-wall junctions on gable ends. The centrally located front porch of this building is a dominant character defining feature. It is accessed by a large six-stair staircase with short square piers closest to the sidewalk. Nearest to the house, the top of the staircase is flanked by sets of square brick piers – the outer square brick piers being more massive in scale than the inner, smaller scale piers. Piers and stairway sidewalls are capped with concrete. The building’s prominent, centrally located, front door is original and contains large vertical glass panels and is flanked by sidelights with similar style divided vertical glass panels. The arrangement of glass in the front entry is indicative of the Arts and Crafts movement. The porch is topped by a cross- gabled roof element, stylistically mirroring the clipped gables and exposed structural elements of the side gables. The northern elevation has a large brick chimney on the eastern portion of the eave wall that protrudes through the roof at its eve. Exterior walls are brick laid primarily in standard stretcher courses, however decorative soldier coursing is featured above all windows and on the front porch. The daylight portion of the building, as well as where the soldier coursing is present, are a dark brown brick color with reddish hue. The bulk of the building features a lighter brown brick. Fenestration on the primary elevation consists of pairs of casement windows flanking the front entry. The southern elevation contains a group of three windows with three divided light upper sashes and paneled light lower sashes of the same design as the front entry sidelights. To the west of the chimney on the northern wall is a double and single window, each with the same sash pattern as the windows on the southern elevation. Two slightly smaller windows of the same design are present individually to the west of the window Revised 09-2004 30 Page 4 group. Vertically oriented three-light daylight windows are visible on all elevations. These are similar to the upper sashes of windows on the building’s first floor. A hipped roof element is located on the residence’s western elevation. The roof of this portion is shorter than the primary side gabled roof, while its northern wall is flush with the primary wall and the southern wall is inset from the primary gable wall. Brick walls are the same in color and pattern as the main gabled building. The property features a front gabled garage on its southwest corner. The garage is likely dates to the time of the residence’s construction, as it contains hinged panel doors with two rows of three divided lights. These were appropriately sized to accommodate automobiles of the era. The building is clad in narrow horizontal drop siding and the roof is covered in asphalt shingles. There is a small shed-roofed addition on the garage’s northern elevation, which is clad in wood shingles. REFERENCE LIST Ancestry.com; Dr. Fred Augustus Humphrey City of Fort Collins: City Docs: Building Permits. http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?q=139+ mckinley&submitBtn=Search&cmd=search City of Fort Collins Public Record Database Colorado Historic Newspapers Collection: Fort Collins Courier, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, Fort Collins Standard, Fort Collins Express. Fort Collins City Directories (1946-1995) Fort Collins History Connection: Building Permits, Building Records, City Directories, Historic Photographs, Miller Scrapbook. Fort Collins History Connection Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering, http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/craftsman Larimer County Assessor Property Information for 139 North McKinley Street McAlester, Virginia and Lee. 2006. A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, NY. Revised 09-2004 31 Page 5 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________day of _______________________________, 200___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________day of ___________________, 200____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary Revised 09-2004 32 Page 6 City Park W Oak St Pearl St Lyons St Sylvan Ct Jackson Ave Leland Ave N Mckinley Ave Juniper Ct S Mckinley Ave C o l umbine Ct Ci t y P a rk D r Bishop St Sheldon Dr N Mckinley Ave Lyons St N Mckinley Ave W Mountain Ave Laporte Ave © Fort 139 Collins North Landmark McKinley Designation Avenue These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 1 inch = 207 feet Site 33 139 North McKinley Street, Fort Collins Landmark Designation Eastern Elevation Eastern Elevation 34 Southern Elevation Eastern Elevation 35 Northern Elevation Western Elevation 36 Garage, Southern and Eastern Elevations Garage, Western and Southern Elevations 37 Larimer County Tax Assessor file, 1948, Eastern Elevation Larimer County Tax Assessor file, 1968, Southern and Eastern Elevations 38 1 Application for Designation of 139 North McKinley Avenue as a Fort Collins Landmark Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 39 2 Vicinity Map 40 3 Property Significance • Significant under Landmark Designation Standard 3 • Excellent example of one-story Craftsman style residence 41 4 139 North McKinley Avenue Residence built 1925 Eastern elevation Eastern Elevation (1968) 42 5 139 North McKinley Avenue Northern elevation Southern elevation 43 6 139 North McKinley Avenue Western elevation Garage - Eastern elevation 44 7 Application for Designation of 139 North McKinley Avenue as a Fort Collins Landmark Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 45 Transfort/Dial-A-Ride 250 North Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.221.6620 970.221.6285 - fax fcgov.com/transfort Date: December 30, 2013 To: Landmark Preservation Commission From: Emma Belmont, Transfort Derek Getto, DDA Amy Lewin and Tessa Greegor, FCMoves Re: Downtown Transit Center Dock – Design Review Background The Downtown Development Authority (DDA), FCMoves and Transfort, are collaborating in an effort to move the Fort Collins Bike Library into the Downtown Transit Center (DTC) for the 2014 season. As part of this effort, bike display is proposed on the west facing DTC dock. The display is intended to draw attention from alighting MAX and other Transfort route passengers and general passersby. Bike Library Operations The administrative functions, which include the application process and payment for bike check-out, will take place inside the DTC. A Bike Library staff member will assist customers with their bike selection from two outdoor bike storage locations. The main storage location will be in a bike cage south of the DTC building and the secondary location will be on the DTC dock, which will display specialty and overflow bikes that are used less frequently. When customers return bikes they will leave them at designated racks south of the DTC building, then Bike Library staff will re-organize bikes in their appropriate storage locations the next day. Proposed Concept This proposal is to utilize the DTC’s west facing dock as a display area for Fort Collins Bike Library bikes. The Bike Library proposes displaying a maximum of 40 bikes on the dock. The dock would be accessed by Transfort or Bike Library staff only, through a secure gate. The use of the dock in this manner will require the following improvements, which we request input on from the Landmark Preservation Commission: • A 42” railing to be installed around the bike display area o The proposed railing is 3/8” diameter stainless steel cable rail with 4” posts every 8’; the posts will match the existing rail posts at the DTC in color and style. This style was selected to limit visual impact to the historic dock structure as much as possible. o The railing is proposed to be anchored in the ground using concrete footings, limiting impact to the historic dock material. • Installation of an access gate between the existing DTC main entrance and the dock o An existing railing will be replaced with a gate to allow access on and off of the dock. o The gate will match the existing railing and will have a secure locking feature that can only be opened by approved personnel of Transfort or the Bike Library. 46 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios 141 s. college ave, suite 104 fort collins, co, 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell+mills studios Fort Collins Bike Library Relocation Photosimulation of Proposed Concept Railing Enclosure - Tie to Post at Building Corner Bike Parking - 40 Bikes Bike Library & Downtown Information Center Signage 3/8” dia. Stainless Steel Cable Rails - 4” o.c., 42” ht. Railing Posts - 4” Powdercoated Steel to Match Existing Railing - 8’ o.c., Concrete Footings Existing Railing 42” Gate with Latch Assembly to Match Existing Railing Ramp Access to South 47 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Design Assistance Program: and Approval of Applicants for Consultants List CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner BACKGROUND: Instituted by City Council in 2011, the Design Assistance Program aims to help property owners minimize the impacts of additions, alterations, and new construction on neighbors and on the overall character of Fort Collins historic neighborhoods. The program pays for up to $2000 per property per year, for consultation, mortar analysis, and design, construction and engineering services. Properties that qualify for assistance include Fort Collins Landmarks and adjacent properties, as well as those properties located in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods. Owners choose from a list of consultants with proven experience in contextually compatible historic design, approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Consultants on the list need to demonstrate competency in promoting design compatibility within the existing historic context. Design Assistance consultants apply to the City of Fort Collins to be part of the program. Consultants meeting the criteria, as determined by the Landmark Preservation Commission, are placed on a list that is provided to the public. Consultants remain on the list for a period of three years. 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 by the Commission. The current criteria for approval is provided below; however, at its November 20, 2013 Regular Meeting, the Commission asked that a discussion of the criteria be scheduled for the January 22, 2014 Work Session. APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR CONSULTANTS: 1. To be eligible for the program, consultants shall meet the following criteria: · Be in the design or construction profession, with a specialization in or strong understanding of historic preservation. · 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. · Provide drawings and/or before photos, along with documentation of the work through after-photos. 48 · Through overall body of work, must demonstrate an understanding of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. This could be in conjunction with the sample projects, demonstrating how the Standards were applied. · Receive approval of LPC. 2. In addition to the previous criteria, the applicant will show how they meet one or more of the following criteria established by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards: Architects/Designers · At least two years of graduate study in architectural preservation, American architectural history, preservation planning, or closely related field; or · At least two years of full-time professional experience on historic preservation projects and can demonstrate a leadership role in their area of expertise on sample projects. · Such academic study or experience shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. Contractors/Engineers/Specialized Trades · The equivalent of at least two years managing projects, where the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings were applied. · Such projects shall include detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects. 3. Following a meeting with staff to discuss the program parameters, property owners interview, select and contract with a consultant. Upon receipt of a copy of the plans, studies, or other deliverables and an itemized invoice, the City pays the consultant directly. Any costs above the $2,000 maximum, or any costs incurred outside of the scope of the program, is the responsibility of the property owner. MOTIONS: If the Commission finds that an applicant meets the criteria established by the Commission for Design Assistance Program consultants, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission approves the addition of this consultant to the list, and stating the reasons why. The Commission may, at its discretion, add conditions of approval. If the Commission finds that an applicant fails to meet the Commission’s criteria, it should adopt a motion stating that the Commission does not approve the addition of this consultant to the list, stating the reasons why. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 1 Design Assistance Program: Approval of Applicants for Consultant List Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 63 2 Design Assistance Program • Instituted by Council in 2011 • Minimize impacts of alterations/new construction on neighbors & historic character • Eastside & Westside Neighborhoods; Landmarks • $2000 year, for design consultation/engineering/ specialized investigation – mortar, windows • List of consultants with demonstrated expertise in historically compatible design 64 3 Consultant Criteria • Design or construction professional with documented historic preservation experience • Minimum of five historic projects • Demonstrate context sensitive historic design • Show understanding of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 65 4 Applicants • W.J. “Bud” Frick, W.J. Frick Design Group • Thomas Tisthammer, Wattle & Daub Contractors • Andrew Carlson, Wattle & Daub Contractors • Byron McGough, Wattle & Daub Contractors 66 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DT: January 3, 2014 TO: Members of the Landmark Preservation Commission TH: Laurie Kadrich, Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services FM: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Proposed Revisions to the Municipal Code and Land Use Code Resulting from the Historic Preservation Process Improvements Study During 2012 and 2013, at Council’s direction, staff identified improvements to the Historic Preservation Program processes and codes, to enhance the program’s transparency, predictability, and effectiveness. The purpose of this item is to inform the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) of the results of this two-phase study, and to seek the Commission’s comments on proposed code changes to the Municipal and Land Use Codes. Staff will then return to the Commission for a formal recommendation at its February 12, 2014 Regular Meeting. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Phase 1 of this review resulted in two substantive changes to the Municipal Code, adopted in August 2012: • An appeal process for determinations of eligibility, and for the determination of the effect of proposed work on this eligibility; and • More specificity to LPC member requirements, ensuring compliance with Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. Phase 2 has involved a more comprehensive look at the various components that make up the Historic Preservation Program, including, in part, a comparison of historic preservation best practices in communities in Colorado and across the nation, and an on-line survey of property owners who had gone through a Demolition/Alteration Review, and of their neighbors, along with a blue-ribbon panel representing major stakeholders who serving as a Citizens Review Committee. At Council’s August 26, 2013 Work Session, staff brought forward a number of process and code changes for Council’s consideration. Based upon Council’s direction, staff has worked with the City Attorney’s Office to draft the language to implement these changes, and will bring these forward for Council action on February 18, 2014. 67 Proposed Revisions to the Municipal Code and Land Use Code Resulting from the Historic Preservation Process Improvements Study January 8, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE Municipal Code revisions and improvements that Council wished to see brought forward are contained in Chapter 2, “Administration,” and in Chapter 14, “Landmark Preservation.” More minor changes include: • A re-organization of Chapter 14, so that the steps of each process are better grouped and occur in sequential order; • The addition of explanations for clarity and understanding, and references to the corresponding criteria and standards of the Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service; • The inclusion of a building’s context as a consideration in determining eligibility; making determinations valid for five years, rather than the current one; • Adding a requirement that a minimum of three citizens must sign to submit an application for a non-consensual landmark designation. More substantive changes include changes to existing procedures, to expedite the review process: • Add the ability for the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director to be able to approve minor building alterations and signage on landmark properties administratively; • Add the ability for the LPC Design Review Subcommittee, established by Council under Ordinance No. 002, 2011, to be able to provide a recommendation to the CDNS Director on buildings undergoing Historic Review. Currently, the Subcommittee may review plans and provide suggestions to the applicant; however, even if plans acceptable to all parties are identified, the application is still forwarded to the full LPC for action. This change would enable the Subcommittee, if there is unanimous agreement by all parties on plan revisions that meet the review criteria, to provide a recommendation for approval to the CDNS Director who could then approve the plans administratively. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE CODE Land Use Code changes that Council asked to have brought forward are contained in Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources”: • Add the ability for the LPC to review those development projects affecting individually eligible and designated historic properties, and to provide a recommendation to the Decision Maker (typically the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board) on the project’s effects on the historic properties. This action would provide important evidence on projects that are subject to both historic preservation and development code requirements; and would comply with federal CLG requirements, which recognizes the LPC as the CLG’s qualified historic review board. This change would require a corresponding revision to the LPC duties in Municipal Code Section 2-278, “Functions.” • Make changes to 3.4.7(F), “New Construction,” to better clarify adjacent properties to be considered when evaluating the compatibility of new structures. This is especially important when a project involves irregular shaped parcels or other land that has not been platted in a standard grid pattern. - 2 - 68 Proposed Revisions to the Municipal Code and Land Use Code Resulting from the Historic Preservation Process Improvements Study January 8, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 QUESTIONS: Does the Commission have comments on the adoption of the changes to Municipal Code Chapters 2, “Administration,” and 14, “Landmark Preservation”? Does the Commission have comments on the adoption of the changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources”? ATTACHMENT 1. Municipal Code Chapter 2, “Administration,” with Proposed Changes; 2. Municipal Code Chapter 14, “Landmark Preservation,” with Proposed Changes; 3. Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources,” with Proposed Changes. 4. PowerPoint Presentation - 3 - 69 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING City of Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic property; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site. (B) General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. (C) Determination of Landmark Eligibility. The determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code. A site, structure or object may be determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation if it meets one (1) or more of the criteria as described in Section 14-5, "Standards for Designation of Sites, Structures, Objects and Districts For Preservation" of the City Code. If a property is determined to be eligible for designation, the applicant will provide a completed Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form for the property. The determination of individual eligibility for the National or State Register of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the Colorado Historical Society. 70 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (D) Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions. (1) Original materials and details, as well as distinctive form and scale, that contribute to the historic significance of the structure or neighborhood shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Rehabilitation work shall not destroy the distinguishing quality or character of the structure or its environment. (2) The rehabilitation of structures shall be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (available from the Director) or other adopted design guidelines. (E) Relocation or Demolition. A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. (F) New Construction. (1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or width of new structures shall be similar to those of existing historic structures on (a) any block on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block on which the new building structure is located, or (b) when a block does not exist, then on any adjacent land to the property on which the new structure is located, unless, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and/or width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. Structures at the ends of blocks shall be of a similar height to structures in the adjoining blocks. (2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among 71 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6. Figure 6 Building Patterns (3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. (4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible. (5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. (6) In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structures, objects or districts that have (a) been determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or (b) which are officially designated as a local or state landmark, or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or (c) are located within an officially designated historic district or area, the Decision Maker and/or Administrative Body shall receive a recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission, and shall give due consideration to such recommendation in rendering its decision. 72 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (Ord. No. 228, 1998 §20, 12/15/98; Ord. No. 177, 2002 §§9, 10, 12/17/02; Ord. No. 173, 2003 §14, 12/16/03; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §11, 12/21/04; Ord. No. 120, 2011 §11, 9/20/2011; Ord. No. 041, 2013 §4, 3/19/13) 73 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING DIVISION 19. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sec. 2-276. Creation. There shall be and is hereby created a Landmark Preservation Commission, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Commission." (Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 12, 11-4-86) Sec. 2-277. Membership; term. (a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council. At least four (4) members shall be professionals in preservation related disciplines, including, but not limited to, architecture, architectural history, archaeology, history, urban planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geography or cultural anthropology. In making appointments to the Commission, the City Council shall also give due consideration to maintaining a balance of interests and skills in the composition of the Commission and to the individual qualifications of the candidates, including, but not limited to, their training, experience, knowledge or interest in any one (1) or more of the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, structural engineering, general contracting, urban planning and commerce. (b) Each member shall serve without compensation for a term of four (4) years, except that members may be appointed by the City Council for a shorter term in order to achieve overlapping tenure. Appointments shall specify the term of office of each individual. All members shall be subject to removal by the City Council. If a vacancy occurs on the Commission, it shall be filled by the City Council for the remaining unexpired portion of the term. No member shall serve more than two (2) consecutive terms. For the purposes of this provision, a "term" shall include the balance of an unexpired term served by a person appointed to fill a vacancy if such unexpired term exceeds twenty-four (24) months. (Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 12, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 92, 1992, § 12, 9-15-92; Ord. No. 93, 2002, § 1, 7-16-02; Ord. No. 002, 2011, § 1, 2-1-11; Ord. No. 068, 2012, 8-21-12) Sec. 2-278. Functions. (a) The Commission shall perform all duties relating to preservation of historic landmarks as set out in Chapter 14, including the designation of sites, structures, objects or districts as landmarks and the review and approval or rejection of plans for the construction, alteration, demolition or relocation of any such site, structure, object or district. Decisions of the Commission are final unless appealed to the City Council. (b) The Commission shall also perform the following additional functions: 74 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (1) To promote awareness and understanding of, and appreciation for, the value of historic resource preservation in contributing to the quality of life in the City, and actively encouraging property owners to voluntarily designate their properties as historic landmarks; (2) To advise the City Council and City staff with regard to the identification and evaluation of historic resources within the Growth Management Area and providing information regarding the significance of the resources, the nature and degree of threat to their preservation, and methods for their protection; (3) To advise the City Council and City staff with regard to appropriate policies, incentives and regulations for encouraging and/or requiring preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources; (4) To coordinate with the various other City boards, commissions and City staff members whose actions may affect the preservation of historic resources in the community; and (5) To establish a committee of its members to provide advice and, if required under Section 2.10.2(H) of the Land Use Code, written recommendations to the owners of eligible historic properties, and of properties located near eligible historic properties, regarding historically appropriate design and site planning for additions, alterations and new construction in the City; provided, however, than any members of such committee who provide such advice or recommendations to property owners under this provision shall refrain from participating in any subsequent decisions of the Commission related to such properties; and (6) To provide advice and written recommendations to the appropriate decision maker and/or administrative body regarding plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structures, objects or districts that have (a) been determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places, or (b) which are officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or (c) are located within an officially designated historic district or area. (6)(7) To perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. (c) In order to better perform the foregoing functions and to coordinate the activities of the Commission with similar activities of other public and private agencies, members of the Commission may be appointed, by majority vote of the Commission, to serve as City representatives on the board of directors of the Historic Fort Collins Development Corporation, the Poudre Landmark Foundation 75 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING or such other privately funded nonprofit corporations as the Commission may approve that are organized for the primary purpose of furthering the preservation of the community's historic resources. (Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 12, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 3, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 66, 1995, 6- 20-95; Ord. No. 24, 2005, § 3, 3-1-05; Ord. No. 002, 2011 § 2, 2-1-11) Sec. 2-279. Officers; bylaws. The Commission shall elect annually from its membership a chairperson and such officers as may be required. Bylaws may be adopted by the Commission, which bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the Charter, the Code or other policies that may be established by the City Council. A copy of the bylaws shall be filed with the City Clerk for the use of the City Council immediately after adoption by the Commission, and the same may be subject to the approval of the City Council. (Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 12, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 104, 2002, § 2, 8-20-02) Sec. 2-280. Minutes; annual report; work plan. The Commission shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of § 2- 73 of the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Commission shall file a report with the City Clerk setting forth the activities of the Commission for the previous year. On or before November 30 of each year, the Commission shall file a work plan with the City Clerk for the following year. (Ord. No. 158, 1986, § 12, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 79, 1988, § 11, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 92, 1992, § 12, 9-15-92) Secs. 2-281—2-290. Reserved. 76 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 14-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Adverse effect shall mean that a project or undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualify a property for designation, either individually or as a contributing element of a district, in a manner that would diminish the property’s exterior integrity. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be removed in distance, or be cumulative. Alteration shall mean any act or process which changes one (1) or more of the exterior characteristics of a designated site, structure, object, or district or a site, structure, object or district eligible for designation. Characteristics shall mean the visible and tangible attributes of a site, structure, object or district, including but not limited to the architectural design, style, general arrangement and components of all the outer surfaces of a site, object, structure or improvement, including but not limited to the color, texture, materials, type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to said site, object, structure or improvement. Commission shall mean the Landmark Preservation Commission created in § 2- 276. Construction shall mean the erection of any on-site improvements on any parcel of ground located within a designated or eligible district or on a designated or eligible site, whether the site is presently improved or unimproved, or the erection of a new significant or accessory structure on such property. Context shall mean the interrelated conditions in which a site, structure, object or district exists; its surroundings. The context of an area is the sum of the existing buildings and spaces, and the pattern of physical development in the area. It can also be a measurement of the scarcity or profusion of a particular resource type. Contributing to a district shall mean a site, structure or object eligible for designation, or formally designated, that has significance and that has experienced some alterations which, while not seriously damaging the exterior integrity of the property, have altered the appearance enough to be notedreadily observed. These sites, structures, or objects retain enough exterior integrity to contribute to the significant characteristics of the district. 1 77 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Demolition shall mean any act or process that destroys in part or in whole an eligible or designated site, structure or object, or a site, structure or object within an eligible or designated district. Determination of eligibility shall mean a decision by the Director and the chair of the Commission, or the Commission, that a site, structure, object or district meets one (1) or more of the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, which determination shall be valid for one (1) yearfive (5) years. The determination of eligibility for the National and/or State Register of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the Colorado Historical Society. Director shall mean the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or his or her designee. District shall mean a geographically definable area possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, structures, or objects and their surrounding environs united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also comprise individual elements separated geographically but linked by association or history. Eligibility shall mean a resource’s ability to meet one (1) or more of the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, or the criteria for designation on the National and/or State Register of Historic Places. There are three (3) levels of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation: individual, contributing to a district, and noncontributing/not eligible. Exterior integrity shall mean the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be designated as a landmark, a property must not only be shown to be significant, but also must have exterior integrity. The degree of integrity required for landmark status is relative to a property’s significance. Exterior integrity is the composite of seven (7) aspects or qualities, which in various combinations define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The more qualities present in a property, the higher its integrity. Ultimately the question of exterior integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, or site. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic 2 78 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. Improvement shall mean any building, structure, place, work of art or other object constituting a physical betterment of real property or any part of such betterment, including improvements on public property. Individual landmark shall mean a site, structure or object eligible for designation, or formally designated, that has significance and which substantially retains its exterior integrity. The property may have minor alterations but these alterations will not have substantially compromised the site’s, structure’s or object’s exterior integrity. Landmark or landmark district shall mean any site, structure, object or improvement and its surrounding environs or a group of sites, structures, objects or improvements or both and their surrounding environs: (1) Which has a special character or special historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, state or nation; (2) Wherein any event of major historic significance with a measurable effect upon society took place; (3) Which is closely identified with a person or group of persons who have had some measurable influence on society; (4) Wherein the broad cultural, political, economic or social heritage of the community is exemplified; (5) Which faithfully portrays the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style or which embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type specimen or which is the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the development of the City; (6) Which, because of being a part of or related to a square, park or other distinctive area, should be developed or preserved according to a plan based upon a historic, cultural or architectural significance; (7) Which, due to unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established, familiar and significant visual feature of the neighborhood, community or City; (8) Officially designated as a Fort Collins landmark or Fort Collins landmark district pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 3 79 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Major alteration shall mean work affecting more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity. Minor alteration shall mean work affecting no more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity. Noncontributing/not eligible shall mean a site, structure or object which does not possess sufficient significance and/or exterior integrity necessary for designation, and is considered noncontributing to a district, or not eligible to be designated as an individual landmark. Object shall mean a material thing of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical or scientific value that may be, by nature or design, movable. Relocation shall mean moving all or part of a structure or object to a different location. Repair and maintenance shall mean work done on a site, structure or object in order to correct any deterioration, decay or damage to any part thereof in order to restore the same as nearly as practical to its condition prior to such deterioration, decay or damage. Resource shall mean any site, structure or object that is part of or constitutes a property. Significance shall mean the importance of a property as defined by the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark or landmark district. The determination of significance for the National or State Registers of Historic Places shall be in accordance with the processes and procedures of the Colorado Historical Society. Significant structure shall mean a house, commercial/industrial building, barn, stable, granary, carriage house, chicken house or similar structure. Site shall mean the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a structure or object whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Structure shall mean that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. Working day shall mean any day except Saturday, Sunday and any national, state or local holiday (or day of observation) during which the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services is not open for regular business. 4 80 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (Code 1972, § 69-3; Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 4, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 12, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 1, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, §§ 1, 2, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, §§ 1—6, 8-21-12) Cross reference—Definitions and rules of construction generally, § 1-2. Sec. 14-2. Declaration of policy. (a) 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. (b) 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) Sec. 14-3. Purpose. The purposes of this Section are to: (1) Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those sites, structures, objects and districts which reflect outstanding elements of the City's cultural, artistic, social, economic, political, architectural, historic or other heritage; (2) Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; (3) Stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality and values of such sites, structures, objects and districts; (4) Protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors; (5) Promote the use of outstanding historical or architectural sites, structures, objects and districts for the education, stimulation and welfare of the people of the City; (6) Promote good urban design; (7) Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites, structures, objects or districts now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained under such a policy. 5 81 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (Code 1972, § 69-2(B)) Sec. 14-4. Staff. The staff of the Commission shall consist of a secretary and such other staff as may be authorized by the City. The secretary shall be the custodian of the records of the Commission, shall handle official correspondence and shall generally supervise the clerical and technical work of the Commission. The Director shall act as secretary and staff liaison to the Commission. (Code 1972, § 69-5; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 3, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 3, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 13, 8-21-12) Cross reference—Community Planning and Environmental Services, § 2-521. Sec. 14-5. Standards for determining the eligibility for designation of sites, structures, objects and districts for preservationdesignation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts. Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation : (1) The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or (2) The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; or (3) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (4) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (1) Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered. (a) Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture of our community, state or nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one or more of four standards based upon the criteria recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how properties are 6 82 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. (b) Standards for determining significance: (1) Event. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of our history. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two types of events: a. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or b. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of our community, state, or the nation. (2) Person/Group. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of a person or groups of persons recognizable in our past whose specific contributions to our history can be identified and documented. (3) Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; or possess high artistic values or design concepts; or be a part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of these properties whose components may lack individual distinction. This Standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socio-economic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. (4) Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (c) Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey this its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities 7 83 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for eligibility a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. (1) Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure, and style of a property. c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, or site. f. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. (d) Context. Context is the interrelated conditions in which a site, structure, object or district exists – its surroundings. The context of an area is the sum of the existing buildings and spaces, and the pattern of physical development in the area. The area required for evaluating a resource’s context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area for evaluating eligibility. Upon the submittal of an application necessitating a determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark or Landmark District, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and/or the chair of the Commission shall determine the minimum area required for evaluating context, and such information, including photographs and other documents, as required for the determination. 8 84 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Sec. 14-6. Process for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Landmark Districts. (a) Application. Application for determining the eligibility of a site, structure, object or district for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark or Landmark District may be made by any citizen of or owner of property in the City on forms prescribed by the City. Said application shall be filed with the Director. Within ten (10) fifteen (15) 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) shall determine the site, structure, object or district's current level of eligibility (individual, contributing to a district or not eligible) for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, which determination shall be valid for five (5) years. The Director shall promptly publish the determination in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition or alteration stating that the building or structure is undergoing historic review. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. (b) Appeal of determination. Any determination made by the Director and the chair of the Commission, or his or her designee, regarding the structure’s level of eligibility may be appealed to the Commission by any citizen or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within ten (10) days of the date of the Director's decision. The appeal shall include a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report, prepared by an expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. Such form and report need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Commission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, the Commission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. In addition, the Commission shall cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure stating that the building or structure is undergoing historic review. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. (Code 1972, § 69-6; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 4, 1-7-03) Cross reference—Buildings and building regulations, Ch. 5. Sec. 14-68. Waiver of conditions. 9 85 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Upon a showing of substantial hardship or to protect against an arbitrary result, the Commission may waive such conditions and requirements as are set forth in this Chapter provided that the spirit and purpose of the Chapter are not significantly eroded, and that in making its decision, the Commission shall grant the waiver only if it finds that the request for the waiver meets one or both of the following criteria: (1): By reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; and/or (2): The proposal as submitted will not diverge from the conditions and requirements of this Chapter except in nominal and inconsequential ways, and will continue to advance the purposes of this Chapter. Any finding made under subparagraph (1) or (2) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the proposal, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1) or (2). (Code 1§972, § 69-9(H); Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 22, 1-7- 03; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 7, 8-21-12) Sec. 14-559. Extension of time limits. Any time limit set forth in this Chapter may be extended by mutual consent of the Commission and the applicant, or the Commission, the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the applicant, whichever is applicable. (Code 1972, § 69-10; Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 15, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 20, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 24, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 11, 12-15-09) Sec. 14-510. Violations and penalties. Any person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 1-15. In case any improvement is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, added to or demolished in violation of this Chapter, the City or any proper person may institute an appropriate action or proceeding to prevent such unlawful action. The imposition of any penalty hereunder shall not preclude the City or any proper person from instituting any proper action or proceeding to require compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and with administrative orders and determinations made hereunder. (Code 1972, § 69-13; Ord. No. 69, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 56, 1994, § 1, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 28, 1-7-03) 10 86 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Cross reference—General penalty, § 1-15. Sec. 14-10. Appeal of decisions Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the City Council as set forth in § 2-46 et seq. Any action taken in reliance upon any decision of the commission that is subject to appeal under the provisions of this Chapter shall be totally at the risk of the person(s) taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. (Code 1972, § 69-9(I); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 14, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 89, 1989, §§ 2, 3, 6-20- 89; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 23, 1-7-03) Sec. 14-12. Severability. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the several provisions of this Chapter shall be severable in accordance with the provisions set forth below: (1) If any provision of this Chapter is declared to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, it is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the effect of such decision shall be limited to that provision which is expressly stated in the decision to be invalid. Such decision shall not affect, impair or nullify this Chapter as a whole or any other part, but the rest of this Chapter shall continue in full force and effect; (2) If the application of any provision of this Chapter to any lot, structure or other improvement or a tract of land is declared to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, it is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the effect of such decision shall be limited to that lot, structure or other improvement or tract of land immediately involved in the controversy, action or proceeding in which the judgment or decree of invalidity was rendered. Such decision shall not affect, impair or nullify this Chapter as a whole or the application of any provision to any other lot, structure or other improvement or tract of land. (Code 1972, § 69-14; Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 56, 1994, § 1, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 29, 1-7-03) Secs. 14-7 13—14-20. Reserved. ARTICLE II. DESIGNATION PROCEDURE Sec. 14-21. Initiation of procedure. 11 87 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Whenever in the opinion of the Commission, upon its own motion or upon application of any citizen of or owner of property in the city, a site, structure, object or district meets the criteria of a landmark or landmark district, the Commission shall contact the owner or owners of such landmark or landmark district outlining the reasons and effects of designation as a landmark and, if possible, shall secure the owner's consent to such designation. If the Commission is unable to personally contact such owner, it shall be sufficient to send a written request for the consent to designation of such property by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the owner of the property as shown on the most recent records of the county Assessor at the address shown on such records. Following such contact, if an owner does not consent to such designation of the property within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the request for consent to designation, the Commission, upon the affirmative vote of at least five (5) of its members may proceed by officially adopting a resolution stating that the preliminary investigation by the Commission indicates that the described property is eligible for designation as a landmark or landmark district and the reason the Commission feels that it should proceed without the consent of the owner to such designation and scheduling a public hearing by the Commission on the question of designation, hereinafter called a designation hearing, at a specified time, date and place and directing that the notice of hearing be given as described in § 14-22 below. If the owner consents in writing to such designation, the Commission, upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation of the landmark or landmark district without the necessity of notice and without the review by the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services required by § 14-23 below. All applications submitted in accordance with this Section shall include a description of the property proposed for designation and a detailed outline of the reasons why such property should be designated and why the boundaries of the property should be determined as described in the application. (a) Application. Application for landmark designation may be made by motion of the Commission or upon application of any citizen of or owner of property in the City of any owner of the property seeking landmark designation, or of any three (3) or more citizens of the City. All applications submitted in accordance with this Section shall include a description of the property proposed for designation and a detailed outline of the reasons why such property should be designated and why the boundaries of the property should be determined as described in the application. Upon receipt of an application, the Commission shall make a motion stating whether the site, structure, object or district meets the criteria of a landmark or landmark district, and, if so, directing staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation. If the owner is not the applicant, the Commission shall contact the owner or owners of such landmark or landmark district outlining the reasons and effects of designation as a landmark and, if possible, shall secure the owner's consent to such designation. If the Commission is unable to personally contact such owner, it shall be sufficient to send a written request for the consent to designation of such property by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the owner of the property as shown on the most recent records of the County Assessor at the address shown on such records. 12 88 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (b) Owner consent. If the owner consents in writing to such designation, the Commission, upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation of the landmark or landmark district without the necessity of notice and without the review by the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services required by § 14-26 below. Sec. 14-2422. Interim control. No building permit shall be issued by the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services for alteration, construction, relocation or demolition of a site, structure or object under consideration for landmark designation or any site, structure or object within a district under consideration for landmark district designation from the date of the hearing of the Commission at which the Commission approves a motion directing staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation until final disposition of the designation by the City Council unless such alteration, construction, relocation or demolition is approved by a motion of the Commission as not having an adverse effect on the property’s eligibility for designation, or is authorized by resolution of the City Council as necessary for public health, welfare or safety. In no event shall the delay in issuance of a building permit due to the provisions of this Section be for more than one hundred eighty (180) days. (Code 1972, § 69-7(D); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 8, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 12, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 8, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 030, 2012, § 33, 4-17-12) Sec. 14-23. Resolution hearing. If an owner does not consent to designation of the property within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the request for consent to designation, the Commission shall hold a resolution hearing, at a specified time, date and place, following the giving of notice as described in § 14-25. Upon the affirmative vote of at least six (6) of its members the Commission may proceed by officially adopting a resolution stating that the preliminary investigation by the Commission indicates that the described property is eligible for designation as a landmark or landmark district, and the reason the Commission feels that it should proceed without the consent of the owner to such designation. The Commission shall proceed to schedule a public hearing on the question of designation, hereinafter called a designation hearing, at a specified time, date and place following the giving of notice as described in § 14-25. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. (Code 1972, § 69-7(A); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 5, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 20, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 5, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 4, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 8, 8-21-12) Sec. 14-254. Designation Hearing. 13 89 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (a) Following the giving of notice as described in § 14-25 the Commission shall hold a designation hearing. At least five (5) six (6) members of the Commission shall conduct the hearing. If at least five (5) six (6) members are not present, the members present may adjourn the meeting to another date within two (2) weeks. If at least five (5) six (6) members are not present at such adjourned meeting, the hearing shall be canceled and the designation procedure terminated. If any hearing is continued, the time, date and place of the continuation shall be established and announced to those present when the current session is to be adjourned. Such information shall be promptly forwarded, by regular mail, to the owners of record as established and addressed pursuant to § 14-225. (b) Reasonable opportunity shall be provided for all interested parties to express their opinions regarding the proposed designation or designations. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent the Commission from establishing reasonable rules to govern the proceedings of the hearings or from establishing reasonable limits on the length of individual presentations. The hearings shall be recorded and minutes provided to each City Council member. Written presentations, including the report of the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services as described in Sec. 14-26, shall be included in the record of the hearing. (Code 1972, § 69-7(E); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 9, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 20, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 9, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 7, 12-15-09) Sec. 14-225. Notice of hearing. Notice of designation hearings shall be given as follows: (1) Written notice of the time, date, place and subject of the hearing shall be sent by registered or certified mail not less than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing to all owners of record on the date of the resolution who own the real property being proposed for designation as a landmark or landmark district. Such notice shall be deemed delivered upon the passage of five (5) days from the deposit of the notice in the mail. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. (2) Signs indicating that recommendation for landmark designation is being considered by the Commission shall be posted by the Commission for a period of not less than fifteen (15) days immediately preceding the applicable hearing on all property proposed for landmark designation and/or on the boundaries of all areas proposed for landmark district designations. Such signs shall be prominently displayed and easily readable from abutting public ways. (3) A legal notice indicating the nature of the hearings, the property involved and the time, date and place of the scheduled public hearing shall be published in a local newspaper of general circulation one (1) time at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. 14 90 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (4) Written notice of the proposed landmark designation, including the identification of the property, the basis for commencing with the designation procedure and the time, date and place of the hearing, shall be given to the Director not later than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. (Code 1972, § 69-7(B); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 6, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 20, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 6, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 5, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 13, 8-21-12) Sec. 14-236. Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services review. (a) The Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall review the proposed designation with respect to: (1) Its relationship to the zoning ordinance of the City and the Comprehensive Plan of the City; (2) The effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood; (3) Such other planning considerations as may be relevant. (b) The Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services may recommend approval, rejection or modification of the proposed designation and its recommendation shall contain a statement of the basis for the recommendation. The recommendation shall be delivered to the Commission in written form at or prior to the designation hearing. (Code 1972, § 69-7(C); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 7, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 20, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 7, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 6, 12-15-09) Cross reference—Community Planning and Environmental Services, § 2-521. Sec. 14-267. Findings and recommendations of the Commission. The Commission shall act officially on each proposed designation within thirty-five (35) days of the designation hearing. The Commission may approve, reject or modify any proposal, but no proposal may be extended beyond the boundaries of the land described in the original resolution unless the initiation and hearing procedures is are repeated for the enlarged boundaries. The Commission shall set forth in its records the findings of fact which constitute the basis for its decision. If the Commission fails to act within the thirty- five-day period, the designation shall be deemed to have been rejected and the designation procedure shall thereby be terminated. (Code 1972, § 69-7(F); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 10, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 10, 1-7- 03) 15 91 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Sec. 14-278. Transmittal to City Council. (a) Within fifteen (15) days after reaching its decision, the Commission shall transmit to the City Council its recommendation on the designation of a landmark or landmark district, including the description of the property involved and the findings upon which the recommendation was based. (b) If more than one (1) property is involved in the designation procedure, the Commission may approve in part and terminate in part. Each part shall then be treated as a separate action. In no event may any property be added to the area described in the initiation resolution without instituting a new designation procedure. (Code 1972, § 69-7(G); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 11, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 11, 1-7- 03) Sec. 14-289. City Council action. Upon receipt of the recommendations transmitted by the Commission, the City Council may by ordinance designate property as a landmark or landmark district. Due consideration shall be given to the written view of owners of affected property, and in its discretion the City Council may hold public hearings on any proposed landmark or landmark district designation. If the City Council does not so designate a property, then the any permit then in effect to alter or demolish the structure on the property may be approved without the necessity of compliance with Article IV of this Chapter. (Code 1972, § 69-7(H); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 12, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 12, 1-7- 03; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 9, 8-21-12) Sec. 14-2930. Recording with County Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of an ordinance designating property as a landmark or landmark district, the City shall record among the real estate records of the County Clerk and Recorder either: (1) A certified copy of the ordinance designating the specified property as a landmark or landmark district; or (2) A notice stating that the specified property has been designated as a landmark or landmark district and citing the ordinance and the effective date of the ordinance which made the designation effective. The notice may also contain a brief summary of the effects of such designation as set forth in this Chapter. (Code 1972, § 69-7(l)) Sec. 14-301. Final notification to owner. 16 92 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Within ten (10) fourteen (14) days after the recording of the ordinance or the notice of designation of property as a landmark or landmark district, the secretary of the Commission shall send to the owner of each property so designated a letter outlining the reasons for such designation and the obligations and restrictions created by such designation. Such letter shall also contain a request that the owner or his or her successors or assigns notify the secretary of the Commission prior to: (1) Preparation of plans for the reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of improvements located on such property; (2) Preparation of plans for the construction, alteration, relocation or demolition of improvements on such property. (Code 1972, § 69-7(J); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 13, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 13, 1-7- 03) Sec. 14-312. Amendment or rescission of designation. A landmark and landmark district designation may be amended or rescinded in the same manner as the original designation was made. (Code 1972, § 69-8) Sec. 14-58 33. Notification of state or national designation. The Director shall promptly notify the Commission of any known national or state designations which occur within the City. (Code 1972, § 69-12; Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 16, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 56, 1994, § 1, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 21, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 27, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 12, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 13, 8-21-12) Secs. 14-324—14-45. Reserved. ARTICLE III. CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS, AND DEMOLITIONS AND RELOCATIONS Sec. 14-46. Work requiring building permit. (a) Action on an application for a building permit, including any permit for the demolition or alteration of a structure or object, shall be deferred by the Director of Building and Zoning except as provided in § 14-521 until the application is accompanied by a report of acceptability from the Commission for the proposed work when the proposed work involves any of the following: 17 93 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (1) Alteration or reconstruction of or addition to the exterior of any improvement which constitutes all or part of a landmark or landmark district; (2) Demolition or relocation alteration of any improvement or object which constitutes all or part of a landmark or landmark district; (3) Construction or erection of or addition to any improvement upon any land included in a landmark district. (b) In order to obtain a report of acceptability, the applicant shall submit the application for a building permit, including sketches, plans and other documents as required by the Commission, to the Commission through the Director. All such applications shall be reviewed by the Commission in two (2) phases to determine compliance with this Chapter as follows: (1) Conceptual review. Conceptual review is an opportunity for the applicant to discuss requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to landmarks or sites, structures and objects within a landmark district. Problems can be identified and solved prior to final review of the application. After review of the application by the Commission, the Director shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding the conceptual review. Conceptual approval of any proposed work may be limited to certain portions of the work as deemed appropriate by the Commission. Conceptual approval does not guarantee final approval of any proposed work. If, upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that conceptual review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may be waived by the Commission, and the Commission may then proceed to consider the proposed work on final review at the same meeting. (2) Final review. If an application or parts thereof is conceptually approved, it shall be finally reviewed by the Commission at the same or a subsequent meeting of the Commission. During final review, the Commission shall consider the application or parts thereof that have received conceptual approval and any changes made by the applicant since conceptual review. (Code 1972, § 69-9(A); Ord. No. 130, 2002, §§ 11, 21, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 14, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 8, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 13, 8-21-12) Sec. 14-47. Work not requiring building permit; application for approval. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, no land surface within any real property designated as a landmark or landmark district shall be changed and no improvements shall be erected, removed, restored, demolished or altered including alteration of color without prior written approval of the Commission. No addition shall be made to any real property designated as a landmark or landmark district in such a manner or of such a 18 94 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING character as to change the exterior appearance or exterior characteristics which change shall be visible from any public street, park or other public place, without prior written approval of the Commission. (b) Any person desiring to remove, demolish, alter or in any way change the exterior appearance or the exterior characteristics of improvements on real property designated as a landmark or in a landmark district or desiring to change the land surface of any such real property, shall submit to the Commission an application for approval and a specific statement of the work proposed, together with such details as the Commission may require. (Code 1972, § 69-9(B); Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 1, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 15, 1-7- 03) Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. (a) If upon receipt of an application for a building permit pursuant to § 14-46, or upon receipt of an application pursuant to § 14-47, the Commission finds that the proposed work is of a nature which will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site and is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark or landmark district and with the spirit and purpose of this Chapter, the Commission shall advise the applicant in writing by issuing a report of acceptability and shall affix its seal to the plans and specifications for the approved work. In the case of an application for a building permit, upon receipt of the Commission's report of acceptability and approved plans and specifications, the Director of Building and Zoning shall proceed with the review of the application for a building permit. No change which would defeat the purpose of this Chapter shall be made in an application for a building permit or the plans and specifications for the proposed work approved by the Commission without resubmittal to the Commission and approval of such changes in the same manner as the original application. (b) In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; 19 95 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. (Code 1972, § 69-9(C); Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 11, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 16, 1- 7-03) Sec. 14-48.5. Work not detrimental to historic, architectural or cultural material; administrative process. (a) Any work which would otherwise qualify for consideration under the procedures established in § 14-46 or 14-47 of this Article may, at the option of the applicant, be considered administratively by the Director. The Director may only consider, under the authority of this Section, applications for approval of color selection from a historically authentic palette of colors, signs, awning re-coverings and minor alterations changes to a landmark or a site, structure or object located in a landmark district that would not remove, cover, alter or destroy any significant historic, architectural or cultural material. The Director may, under the authority of this Section, consider changes originally initiated by the applicant as well as changes to plans previously approved by the Commission. Any application submitted to the Director under the authority of this Section shall be in writing and shall contain a specific statement of the work proposed, together with such details as the Director may require. (b) If, upon receipt of any such application, the Director finds that the proposed work will not remove, cover, alter or destroy any significant historic, architectural or cultural material and is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark or landmark district and with the spirit and purpose of this Chapter, and complies with all of the criteria for review established in § 14-48(b) above, the Director shall render a written decision approving the work, and shall affix his or her signature to the plans and specifications for the approved work. The Director shall also promptly publish the decision in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and shall cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition or alteration stating that the building or structure is undergoing historic review. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. In the case of an application for a building permit, the Director of Building and Zoning shall proceed with the review of the application only upon receipt of the Director's decision and approved plans and specifications. No change shall be made in any such application for a building permit or in the plans and specifications for work approved by the Director unless such changes are submitted to and approved by the Director in the same manner as the original application. The proposed work shall not be commenced until the Director has issued the decision approving the work and a building permit (if applicable) has been issued. 20 96 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (c) Decisions of the Director made under the authority of this Section may be appealed to the Commission, provided that any such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Director's decision. The Commission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The Commission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall also publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The fact that any notice required under this subsection has not been received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. Any action taken in reliance upon the decision of the Director shall be totally at the risk of the persons taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. (Ord. No. 160, 1996, 1-7-97; Ord. No. 130, 2002, §§ 11, 23, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 17, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 9, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 10, 8-21- 12) Sec. 14-49. Signs. (a) Any person desiring to remove, demolish, erect, restore or alter any sign, including alteration of color, on any real property designated as a landmark or in a landmark district, shall submit to the Director an application for approval and a specific statement of the work proposed, together with such details as the Director may require. (b) If, upon receipt of any such application, the Director finds that the proposed work is of a nature which will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements and is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark or landmark district and with the spirit and purpose of this Chapter, the Director shall advise the applicant in writing by issuing a report of acceptability and shall affix his or her signature to the plans and specifications for the approved work. In the case of an application for a building permit, the Director of Building and Zoning shall proceed with the review of the application only upon receipt of the Director's report of acceptability and approved plans and specifications. No change shall be made in any such application for a building permit or in the plans and specifications for work approved by the Director unless such changes are submitted to and approved by the Director in the same manner as the original application. (c) In deciding whether to issue a report of acceptability, the Director shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed sign upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district. 21 97 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (2) The design and construction, arrangement, texture and materials of the proposed sign, its relation to the structure, site or object on which it will be attached, and its relation to other improvements and signs within the district. (3) The effect of the proposed sign in obscuring, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the structure, site or object upon which it will be attached. (4) The effect of the proposed sign upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district. (5) The recommendations of the adopted Design Guidelines for Historic Old Town Fort Collins for sign proposals within The Old Town Historic District, and the design guidelines for local landmarks outside The Old Town Historic District adopted by the Commission on June 4, 1986. (d) Decisions of the Director regarding the acceptability of applications for the erection, removal, restoration, demolition or alteration of signs may be appealed to the Commission, provided that any such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision of the Director. The Director shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The Director shall provide the appellant written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing. (Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 130, 2002, §§ 11, 21, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 18, 1-7-03; Ord. 132, 2009, § 10, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 13, 8-21-12) Sec. 14-5049. Denial of building permit. If the proposed work is not approved by the Commission, the Director of Building and Zoning shall deny the application for the building permit and shall advise the applicant. No reapplication shall be submitted pursuant to § 14-46 et seq., under the original plans and specifications found unacceptable by the Commission except upon a showing of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the reapplication. (Code 1972, § 69-9(D); Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 11, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 19, 1-7-03) Sec. 14-51. Action of Commission on unacceptable proposed work. (a) If the proposed work is not acceptable, the Commission, acting with all due diligence, shall explore with the applicant all means for substantially preserving the landmark site, structure or object, or landmark district which would have been affected by the required permit. These investigations may include, by way of example and not of limitation: 22 98 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING (1) Feasibility of modification of the plans; (2) Feasibility of any alternative private use of the site, structure or object which would substantially preserve the original character; (3) Possibility of public acquisition for a public purpose of the site, structure or object involved. (b) If the Commission is unsuccessful in developing either alternate plans or an appropriate public or private use for such site, structure or object, which are acceptable to the applicant, it shall notify the owner and the Director of Building and Zoning in writing. No work, erection, construction, reconstruction or alterations or demolitions of landmarks or sites, structures or objects in landmark districts shall be allowed except upon approval of the Commission as provided in this Chapter. (Code 1972, § 69-9(E), (F); Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 11, 9- 17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 20, 1-7-03) Sec. 14-5450. Appeal of decisions. Decisions of the Commission regarding the acceptability of applications for building permits under § 14-46 or applications for approval of work not requiring a building permit under § 14-47, or appeals of applications regarding signs under § 14-49, shall be considered final decisions within the meaning of § 2-46 et seq.; and such decisions shall be subject to the right of appeal to the City Council as set forth in § 2-46 et seq. (Code 1972, § 69-9(I); Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 14, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 89, 1989, §§ 2, 3, 6-20- 89; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 23, 1-7-03) Sec. 14-521. Remedying of dangerous conditions. In any case where the Director of Building and Zoning, the Poudre Fire Authority or any other public authority having the power, orders or directs the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, relocation or demolition of any landmark improvement for the purpose of remedying conditions determined by that officer, department or authority to be imminently dangerous to life, health or property, nothing contained herein shall be construed as making it unlawful for any person to comply with such order. Any such officer, department or authority shall take immediate steps to notify the Commission of the proposed issuance of any such order or directive and may include in such order or directive any timely received requirements or recommendations of the Commission. (Code 1972, § 69-9(G); Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 11, 9-17- 02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 21, 1-7-03) Cross reference—Dangerous buildings, § 5-46 et seq. 23 99 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Sec. 14-55. Extension of time limits. Any time limit set forth in this Chapter may be extended by mutual consent of the Commission and the applicant, or the Commission, the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the applicant, whichever is applicable. (Code 1972, § 69-10; Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 15, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 20, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 24, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 11, 12-15-09) Sec. 14-562. Normal maintenance and repair. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prohibit the accomplishment of any work on any landmark or in any landmark district which will neither change the exterior appearance nor the exterior characteristics of improvements, nor the character or appearance of the land itself and which is considered necessary as a part of normal maintenance and repair. (Code 1972, § 69-11; Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 25, 1-7-03) Sec. 14-573. Minimum maintenance requirements. (a) All sites, structures or objects designated as landmarks and all sites, structures or objects located within a landmark district shall be maintained in such fashion as to meet the requirements of the International Property Maintenance Code or the Uniform Code for Building Conservation, as adopted by the City. The owner of such sites, structures or objects shall also keep in good repair all structural elements thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portions of such sites, structures or objects to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair which would have a detrimental effect upon the historic character of such sites, structures or objects or the landmark districts, if any, in which they are situated. (b) The Commission may request that the Director of Building and Zoning require correction of defects or repairs to any sites, structures or objects regulated by this Section. (Ord. No. 56, 1994, § 1, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 11, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 26, 1-7-03) Sec. 14-58. Notification of state or national designation. The Director shall promptly notify the Commission of any known national or state designations which occur within the City. (Code 1972, § 69-12; Ord. No. 78, 1988, § 16, 6-7-88; Ord. No. 89, 1989, § 2, 6-20-89; Ord. No. 56, 1994, § 1, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 21, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 27, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 12, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 13, 8-21-12) 24 100 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Secs. 14-61574—14-70. Reserved. ARTICLE IV. DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION ALTERATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES NOT DESIGNATED AS FORT COLLINS LANDMARKS OR LOCATED IN A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DISTRICT Sec. 14-71. General. With the exception of any structure found to pose an imminent danger under Section 109.1 108.1 of the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code as adopted and amended by the City, or any structure designated as a Fort Collins landmark or located in a Fort Collins landmark district, no structure (or portion thereof) fifty (50) years of age or older which meets one (1) or more of the criteria standards of eligibility contained in § 14-5 of this Code may be demolished or altered nor shall any permit for such demolition or alteration be issued unless the owner of such structure has complied with the provisions of this Section and § 14-72 below. (This Article shall not apply to interior demolition or alteration activities, or to demolition or alteration activities as they affect the surface or subsurface of the ground, or any archeological impacts pertaining thereto.) (Ord. No. 56, 1994, § 2, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 31, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 11, 8-21-12) Sec. 14-72. Procedures for review of applications for demolition or alteration. (a) The owner of any structure governed by this Article shall make application for City approval of the demolition or alteration of such structure (or portion thereof) on forms prescribed by the City. Said application shall be filed with the Director. Within ten (10) 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) shall determine the structure's current level of eligibility (individual, contributing to a district or not eligible) for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, and determine the effect of the proposed work on the structure’s eligibility, and shall determine whether demolition approval should be granted by the Director or whether the application should instead be referred to the Commission for either or both determinations. The Director shall promptly publish the determinations in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition or alteration stating that the building or structure is undergoing historic review. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. Such approval shall be granted, subject to compliance with all other applicable laws, under the following circumstances: (1) The Director and chair of the Commission (or designee) agree that the structure (or portion thereof), upon review, is not eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins landmark, and the structure is not designated on the National and/or State 25 101 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Registers of Historic Places, either individually or as a contributing element of a National and/or State Register district; or (2) The Director and chair of the Commission (or designee) agree that the structure (or portion thereof), upon review, is eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins landmark, or the structure is designated on the National and/or State Registers of Historic Places, either individually or as a contributing element of a National and/or State Register district, and Tthe proposed demolition or alteration of the structure (or portion thereof), in the judgment of the Director and the chair of the Commission (or designee), would not be detrimental to the current level of eligibility of the remaining structure, if any, adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the National and/or State Register district in which the structure is located, if any. If none of the foregoing circumstances is are determined to exist, the Director shall refer the application to the Commission for consideration pursuant to Subsection (b) below. Any determination made by the Director and the chair of the Commission, or his or her designee, regarding major alterations may be appealed to the Commission by any citizen or owner of property in the City, which appeal shall include a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. Such report need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Director shall also promptly publish the decision in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Director's decision. The Commission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The Commission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. In addition, the Commission shall cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition stating that the building or structure is being considered for demolition. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. Any action taken in reliance upon the decision of the Director shall be totally at the risk of the persons taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. (b) If it is determined by the Director and/or chair of the Commission (or designee), pursuant to Subsection (a) above, that a demolition or alteration permit should not be issued without review by the Commission, then the application shall first be reviewed by the Design Review Subcommittee of the Commission. The Director shall schedule a meeting on the application before the Subcommittee as expeditiously as possible following such determination, and following receipt of such information, including 26 102 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING sketches, plans and other documents as required by the Subcommittee. At the meeting, the Design Review Subcommittee shall explore with the applicant all means for substantially preserving the eligibility of the structure which would be affected by the required permit. In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Subcommittee shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. If the Subcommittee unanimously agrees on alternative plans acceptable to the applicant, it shall provide to the Director a report of acceptability. Upon application for a required permit, such permit shall reflect the agreed upon alternative plans, whereupon a building permit may be issued. Following review by the Design Review Subcommittee of the Commission pursuant to Section 14-72(b), any determination made pursuant to Section 14-72(a) by the Director and the chair of the Commission (or his or her designee), regarding major alterations or the structure’s level of eligibility; or the report of acceptability of the Design Review Subcommittee, made pursuant to Section 14-72(b), may be appealed to the Commission by any citizen or owner of property in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Director's decision. The appeal shall include a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report, prepared by an expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. Such form and report need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Commission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, the Commission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing 27 103 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing. In addition, the Commission shall cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition or alteration stating that the building or structure is undergoing historic review. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. (bd) If it is determined by the Director and/or chair of the Commission (or designee) Design Review Subcommittee of the Commission, pursuant to Subsection (ab) above, that a demolition or alteration permit should not be issued without review by the Commission, then the Director shall schedule a public hearing on the application before the Commission as expeditiously as possible following such determination, and following receipt of such information, including sketches, plans and other documents as required by the Commission. All such applications shall be processed as follows: (1) A fee in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.) shall be paid by the applicant to cover the costs of processing the request for demolition or alteration at the final hearing before the Commission. (2) The application shall include such information from the applicant as the Director believes is necessary for the full and complete consideration of the request, which information shall include, but not be limited to: a. A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. b. A plan for the redevelopment of the property, which plan shall first be approved by all administrative and/or quasi-judicial decision-making officials and/or boards or commissions as are necessary as a prerequisite to the presentation of construction specifications to the Director of Building and Zoning if applicable, and if not applicable, then as a prerequisite to the commencement of construction (for purposes of this requirement, allowing the property to lie vacant or fallow shall not constitute "redevelopment"). (3) Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing of the Commission, the applicant shall: a. Cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition or alteration, stating that the building or structure is being considered for such demolition undergoing historic review. Said sign shall be at least four (4) 28 104 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. b. Request that the City generate a list of owners of record of all real property within eight hundred (800) a minimum of five hundred (500) eight hundred (800) feet (exclusive of public rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the property lines of the parcel of land upon which the structure is situated, which list shall be prepared from the records of the County Assessor. (4) Written notice of the hearing shall be mailed by the Director to all persons named on the list generated under Paragraph (3)b above. Said mailing shall occur at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date. The applicant shall pay postage and handling costs as established by the Director. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been mailed or received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. (5) The Commission shall approve the application (with or without conditions) at the hearing or, in the alternative, it may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days, in order to facilitate the gathering of additional information needed for the full and complete consideration of the request by the Commission, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark or landmark district designation of the property in accordance with Article II of this Chapter. (6) In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within said forty- five-day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed demolition or alteration. (ce) The Commission shall schedule a date for any hearing to be held by the Commission under Subsection (a) or (bd) as expeditiously as possible and shall provide the applicant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. (Ord. No. 56, 1994, § 2, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 22, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 32, 1-7-03; Ord. 132, 2009, § 13, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 004, 2012, 1-17-12; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 12, 8-21-12) 29 105 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Sec. 14-73. Requirements and conditions for approval of demolition and relocation or alteration. (a) Upon approval of the application by the Director or the Commission, the owner may obtain a demolition or relocation alteration permit and may thereafter demolish or relocate alter the structure (or portion thereof) in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. (b) The Commission may, as a condition of its approval of the demolition or relocation alteration of a structure (or portion thereof), require the property owner to provide the City with such additional information which, in the opinion of the Commission, will help to mitigate the loss to the City caused by the demolition or relocation alteration of the structure (or portion thereof). These conditions may include: (1) Comprehensive photographic documentation of such structure, with prints and negatives; (2) Comprehensive historical, developmental, social, and/or architectural documentation of the property and the neighborhood containing the property; and/or (3) Any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties. (c) The Commission shall have the authority to enter into an agreement with the owner of any structure (or portion thereof) proposed for demolition whereby the city or certain designated third parties may enter upon the property upon which such structure is situated, for the purpose of removing and taking possession and ownership of any particular artifacts and other items of historic interest or value, identified in such agreement. (Ord. 56, 1994, § 2, 4-19-94; Ord. No. 130, 2002, § 22, 9-17-02; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 33, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 132, 2009, § 14, 12-15-09; Ord. No. 067, 2012, § 13, 8-21-12) Secs. 14-74—14-80. Reserved. ARTICLE V. LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM Sec. 14-81. Purpose. The City Council hereby establishes a landmark rehabilitation loan program and finds that the program promotes a valid public purpose of increasing the quality, exterior integrity and permanence of the City's stock of historic landmarks for the enjoyment and benefit of present and future generations of citizens of the City by making available to the owners of designated Fort Collins landmarks or contributing structures in designated Fort 30 106 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Collins landmark districts a source of funding for exterior rehabilitation of such structures. (Ord. No. 137, 2000, § 2, 10-17-00; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 34, 1-7-03) Sec. 14-82. Establishment; funding. The City Manager shall administer the program for awarding zero-interest loans for the rehabilitation of Fort Collins landmark structures and/or contributing structures in Fort Collins landmark districts. The City Manager may promulgate procedural rules and regulations for the efficient administration of the program. No such loan shall exceed the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.) unless the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, authorizes a larger loan. All loans shall be funded solely from those funds held by the City for financial support of the program in the General Fund, and all loans shall be expressly contingent upon the availability of sufficient funds to support the loan. Loan recipients shall, as a condition of obtaining the loan, agree to repay the loan in full upon sale or transfer of the property. All loan repayments shall be returned to the landmark rehabilitation loan program. (Ord. No. 137, 2000, § 2, 10-17-00; Ord. No. 186, 2002, § 35, 1-7-03; Ord. No. 108, 2009, § 1, 11-3-2009) Sec. 14-83. Criteria. No landmark rehabilitation loan shall be awarded unless the following criteria and requirements have been met: (1) The subject structure must have been designated as a Fort Collins landmark or be a contributing structure in a Fort Collins landmark district pursuant to this Chapter before the landmark rehabilitation loan can be awarded. (2) All loan recipients shall provide matching funds in an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the loan. (3) The matching funds provided by the loan recipient may be utilized only for exterior rehabilitation of the subject property and/or the stabilization of the structure, the rehabilitation of electrical, heating or plumbing systems, and/or the rehabilitation or installation of fire sprinkling systems in commercial structures. Neither the loan nor the matching funds shall be used for the installation of nor rehabilitation of signage or interior rehabilitation or decoration, nor the installation of building additions or the addition of architectural or decorative elements which are not part of the landmarked structure. (4) Loan funds may be expended only for rehabilitation of the exterior of a designated Fort Collins landmark structure or contributing structure in a Fort 31 107 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Collins landmark district. No interior improvements may be purchased utilizing City loan funds. (5) The standards and/or guidelines of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources then in effect shall serve as the standards by which all rehabilitation work must be performed. (6) No loan funds shall be disbursed until after the recipient has completed the work, the work has been physically inspected by the City and has been approved by the City Manager and the loan recipient has documented the cost of the work by submitting to the City copies of all bills, invoices, work orders and/or such other documentation showing, to the satisfaction of the City, that the funds requested are reasonable and are supported by actual proof of expense. (7) Loan recipients shall, as a condition of the loan, prominently place a sign upon the property being rehabilitated stating that such rehabilitation has been funded, in part, through the City's landmark rehabilitation loan program. (8) Property owners who have previously received loans shall be eligible for subsequent loans. (9) All rehabilitation work shall be completed within one (1) year from the date upon which the loan was awarded; provided, however, that upon application and a showing of good cause as to why the project cannot be timely completed, the Commission may authorize an extension of up to one (1) additional year for completion of the work. (10) No landmark rehabilitation loan shall be awarded unless the Commission (or in cases of loans exceeding the maximum amounts established herein, the City Council) first determines that: a. The applicant has demonstrated an effort to return the structure to its original appearance; b. It is in the best interests of the public welfare that the structure proposed to be rehabilitated be preserved for future generations; and c. The amount proposed to be spent on exterior rehabilitation is reasonable under the circumstances. (11) No landmark rehabilitation loan shall be awarded unless the loan recipient has, as a condition of obtaining the loan, agreed to repay the loan in full upon sale or transfer of the property. (Ord. No. 137, 2000, § 2, 10-17-00; Ord. No. 186, 2002, §§ 36—39, 1-7-03) 32 108 DRAFT - LEGAL REVIEW PENDING Sec. 14-84. Reserved.* *Editor's note—Ord. No. 108, § 2, 2009, adopted Nov. 3, 2009, repealed § 14-84 in its entirety. Copyright © 2012, Colorado Code Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved. Visit the City of Fort Collins web site. Site design by: Jolene Fox Last updated: 10-24-2012 33 109 1 Proposed Municipal and Land Use Code Revisions Karen McWilliams Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 110 2 Items Seeking Board Direction Municipal Code • Chapters 2: “Administration” • Chapter 14: “Landmark Preservation” Land Use Code • Section 3.4.7: “Historic and Cultural Resources” 111 3 Phase 1: Code Changes Already Adopted – Appeal process added – Certified Local Government requirements for specialized experience 112 4 Phase 2: Comprehensive Assessment of Program and Processes • Citizen’s Advisory Committee • Historic Preservation Best Practices • Survey of citizens who have experience with the Historic Review process 113 5 Substantive Changes to the Landmark Preservation Code • LPC recommendation on compatibility to Decision Maker • LPC Subcommittee may recommend approval of alterations to Director • CDNS Director may approve minor permits 114 6 Municipal Code Revisions • Reorganize Chapter 14 • Add explanations for clarity • Add context to reviews • Require minimum number of citizens on applications 115 7 Municipal Code Revisions (cont.) Change Approval Authority: • Director can approve more building alterations and signage • Subcommittee can make a recommendation to the Director 116 8 Land Use Code (LUC) Revisions • Ability for LPC to review development projects affecting historic properties, and provide a recommendation on compatibility • Change 3.4.7(F), “New Construction,” to better clarify what are adjacent properties 117 9 Action Sought: Comments on Code Changes • Comments on changes to Municipal Code Chapter 2, “Administration,” and Chapter 14, “Landmark Preservation;” • Comments on changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources.” 118 10 Proposed Municipal and Land Use Code Revisions Karen McWilliams Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 119 Community Development & Neighborhood 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2014 STAFF REPORT DISCUSSION: Comments and feedback on the draft modeling document for the Old Town Historic District Design Standards/Guidelines Document BACKGROUND: The objective of this project is to create updated design standards and guidelines for the Fort Collins Old Town Historic District. These will include a section on sustainability guidelines for historic preservation, in addition to addressing other contemporary issues with new construction and redevelopment within the historic district. This was identified as a high priority action item in the Commission’s annual 2012 and 2013 Work Programs. The project purpose is to develop comprehensive standards and guidelines to guide property owners, staff, and the LPC’s review of alterations, additions, and new construction within the District. Winter & Co. out of Boulder have been employed as the project consultants. The Commission provided feedback on the first draft document at its October 23, 2013 Work Session. A revised second draft will be presented to the Commission in the spring of 2014. REQUEST: At this time, staff is requesting the Commission’s review of a supplemental document that can be included as an appendix to the final design standards/guidelines for the Old Town Historic District. The document includes potential massing, setback, and height scenarios for building additions on various lot configurations within the historic district. 120 1 Existing Middle Block - - Axonometric View Existing Middle Block - - Perspective View OLD TOWN FORT COLLINS NEW MID-BLOCK ADDITION SCENARIOS Dec 3, 2013 In this series of study models an addition is proposed on a one-story historic building between two his- toric structures within the district. These scenarios illustrate how an addition might impact the context of the district. Existing Conditions 121 2 Middle Block #1 - - Axonometric View Middle Block #1 - - Alley Setback - - Axonometric View Middle Block #1 - - Alley - - Axonometric View Middle Block #1 - - Perspective View Middle Block #1 - - Alley Setback - - Perspective View Middle Block #1 - - Alley - - Perspective View 2nd Story Addition Setback = 1.5x Front Facade Height 2nd Story Addition Setback from Alley = 1 x Facade Height No Setback from Alley 122 3 Middle Block #2 - - Axonometric View Middle Block #2 - - Alley Setback - - Axonometric View Middle Block #2 - - Alley - - Axonometric View Middle Block #2 - - Perspective View Middle Block #2 - - Alley Setback - - Perspective View Middle Block #2 - - Alley - - Perspective View 2nd Story Addition Setback = 1.5 x Front Facade Height, 3rd Story Adition Setback = 1 x Front Facade Height 2nd and 3rd Story Addition Setback from Alley = 1 x Rear Facade Height No Setback from Alley 123 4 Middle Block #3 - - Axonometric View Middle Block #3 - - Alley Setback - - Axonometric View Middle Block #3 - - Perspective View Middle Block #3 - - Alley Setback - - Perspective View 2nd and 3rd Story Addition Setback = 1.5 x Front Facade Height 2nd and 3rd Story Addition Setback from Alley = 1.0 x Front Facade Height 124 5 Middle Block #4 - - Axonometric View Middle Block #5 - - Axonometric View Middle Block #4 - - Perspective View Middle Block #5 - - Perspective View Three Stories No Setback Two Stories No Setback 125 6 Existing Corner Addition - - Axonometric View Existing Corner Addition - - Perspective View OLD TOWN FORT COLLINS CORNER BLOCK SCENARIOS In this series of study models an addition is proposed on a one-story historic building that is located on a corner lot within the district These scenarios illustrate how an addition might impact the context of the district. Existing Condition 126 7 Corner Block #1 - - Axonometric View Corner Block #2 - - Axonometric View Corner Block #2 - - Axonometric View Corner Block #1 - - Perspective View Corner Block #2 - - Perspective View Corner Block #2 - - Perspective View 2nd Story Addition Setback = 1.5 x Front Facade Height 2nd Story Addition Setback = 1.5 x Front Facade Height, Side Setback = .5 x Front Facade 2nd and 3rd Story Addition Setback = 1.5 x Front Facade Height, Side Setback = .5 x Facade 127 8 Corner Block #4 - - Axonometric View Corner Block #4 - - Perspective View Two Stories No Setback 128 9 Existing Double Plot - - Axonometric View Existing Double Plot - - Perspective View OLD TOWN FORT COLLINS MULTI-BLOCK SCENARIOS In this series of study models an addition is proposed on an open block with two separate lots that are located within the district These scenarios illustrate how an addition might impact the context of the district. Existing Condition 129 10 Double Lot Addition #1 - - Axonometric View Double Lot Addition #2 - - Axonometric View Double Lot Addition #1 - - Perspective View Double Lot Addition #2 - - Perspective View 3rd Story Addition Setback = 0.5 x Front Facade Height 3rd Story Addition Alley Setback = 0.5 x Front Facade Height, 4th Story Addition Alley, Front, and Side Setback = .5 x Front Facade 130 11 Double Lot Addition #3 - - Axonometric View Double Lot Addition #3 - - Perspective View 3rd Story Addition No Setback, 4th Story Addition Alley, Front, and Side Setback = .5 x Front Facade 131 1 Height, Massing, and Height Studies for Old Town Historic District Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 2014 132 2 133 3 134 4 135 5 136 6 137 7 138