Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/2014 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting City Council Chambers - 300 Laporte Avenue April 9, 2014 5:00 p.m. Commission’s Dinner 5:30 p.m. Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call Public Comment on Items Not on the Agenda 1. Approval of Minutes: March 12, 2014 2. Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program: Extension for 618 West Mountain Avenue, Bill Whitley 3. Conceptual Design Review: Rear Addition - 116 North Pearl Street, Ken and Michelle Christensen, Owners 4. Landmark Designation: 116 North Pearl Street, Ken and Michelle Christensen, Owners 5. Final Design Review: Rehabilitation of Goodwill Building, 320 Walnut Street – Tim Politis, One Line Studio LLC; Pete Turner, Illegal Pete’s 6. Other Business: Discussion – Downtown Poudre River Historic Resources Update – Historic Preservation Process Improvements & Code Changes 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 SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission: • Heard and discussed public input about the demolition of the Button House. • Approved February 12, 2014 Minutes as presented. • Approved a request to provide a letter of support for a State Historic Fund Grant for the Carnegie Building at 200 Matthews Street. • Heard a Conceptual Review of 222 Laporte Avenue, Relocation of the Poudre Valley Creamery Butterfly Building on site. • Heard a Preliminary Design Review of 201 South College Avenue for addition of new building and plaza on site of Old Post Office building. • Approved demolition/alteration of 1214 West Mountain Avenue, Jordan and Annie Oberman. • Discussed revisions to City Code, Chapter 2 “Administration” and Chapter 14 “Landmark Preservation” and recommended adoption by City Council. • Approved the Landmark Preservation Commission 2014 Work Plan. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting 300 Laporte Avenue March 12, 2014 Minutes Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chair Sladek. Members present were: Ron Sladek, Maren Bzdek, Meg Dunn, Kristin Gensmer, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Alexandra Wallace, Belinda Zink and Doug Ernest. Staff present: Historic Preservation Planner Karen McWilliams, City Planner Joshua Weinberg, and Administrative Staff Cindy Cosmas and Gretchen Schiager. PUBLIC INPUT ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Karyl Ting, 720 Peterson Street, expressed concerns about the unannounced demolition of the Button House on Remington Street, and what she characterized as the developer’s disregard for the neighborhood community, the Landmark Preservation Commission and City Council. She asked that the developer be held accountable. Mr. Sladek summarized Ms. Ting’s request that the Commission express its concern about the incident and potential future impact to City Council. Commission Discussion Commission members also expressed concerns about what had transpired with the Button House. Ms. McWilliams summarized what had occurred, and said that the latest plans included replacing the Button House with a close replicate of it. She said a neighborhood meeting had been scheduled for March 27 th to explain the sequence of what occurred and discuss with the neighbors follow up actions that could be taken. Ms. McWilliams said staff was looking at adding some new language to the codes to prevent this from occurring in the future. Mr. Sladek stated he might like to put this item on the next meeting agenda for further discussion. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Landmark Preservation Commission minutes of February 12, 2014 were approved by acclamation. Time Reference: 5:44 p.m. LETTER OF SUPPORT – STATE HISTORIC FUND GRANT FOR THE CARNEGIE BUILDING, 200 MATHEWS STREET Jill Stilwell, Cultural Services Director Applicant Presentation Ms. Stilwell requested a letter of support from the Commission for a grant from the State Historic Fund to begin a restoration project on the Carnegie Building. Ms. Stilwell showed historic and current photos of the building and provided some background and history of the building. The building has been repurposed as a gathering space for local artists to exhibit their work. The restoration project will happen in three phases. The focus of the first grant is the west façade facing Matthews Street, and the south façade, and will include restoration of the windows, pointing of sandstone, eave work and addressing drainage issues. The estimated budget is $120,000, and they anticipate having a 50% match to put toward the grant from the state. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek explained that the request for a Letter of Support had come to him, and that he wanted input from the rest of the Commission members. Ms. Stilwell pointed out that this building, and the four log structures in the courtyard, had all been previously designated by the Commission, and the plans will be brought to the Commission for approval later. Commission members clarified that the grading improvements would be done in the courtyard. There was discussion about protecting the cabins on the site, their condition, and the fact that they are considered artifacts. Ms. Stilwell clarified that this grant is just for the first phase, focusing on the west and south façades, which are the sides requiring drainage work, and are the public access components. Phase Two would address the other two façades. Phase Three would focus on the area where the two buildings connect, restoring the sandstone windows, and replacing the HVAC system. There was discussion about the drainage issues and removal of sediment, and concern was expressed by members about archeological considerations in that process and whether the budget allowed for appropriate handling of any found artifacts. Ms. Stilwell said they would budget for that, or would reallocate funds, as needed. She also offered assurances that there are processes in place for dealing with archeological finds. Commission members inquired about the source of the matching funds. Ms. Stilwell said the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) had offered to match some of the money for the façade work. In addition, Operations Services would contribute some maintenance funds related to the 3 drainage work, the Cultural Services Department would also contribute, and they hoped that Historic Preservation would provide a small sum to help meet the match. Public Input: None Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a Letter of Support for the State Historic Fund grant for the Cultural Services Department of the City of Ft. Collins for rehabilitation of the Carnegie Building. Ms. Zink seconded. Motion passed 9-0. Mr. Sladek will coordinate with staff to provide the letter prior to the April 1 deadline. Time Reference: 6:00 p.m. COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW – 222 LAPORTE AVENUE, RELOCATION OF THE POUDRE VALLEY CREAMERY BUTTERFLY BUILDING ON SITE Brian Hergott, Operations Services; Dominic Weilminster, Design Lead, RNL Design Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, including background and information about the design of the building. The City of Fort Collins Operations Services Department has asked the Commission to provide comments on the proposed relocation, and address any concerns about its effect on the building’s continued eligibility for landmark designation. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek asked whether anyone felt he might have a conflict of interest in his participation with this topic, since he was involved in documentation of the building a few years prior. Ms. McWilliams clarified with him that he did not have any financial interests in the proposed project or other perceived or potential conflict, other than documenting the building. No concerns were expressed by any commission members. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hergott provided background information about how the vision plan for the future Civic Center Plaza and Utility Services Building was developed. Mr. Weilminster explained the role of RNL Design in the project, which began with a three- day participatory charrette, attended by more than 70 people throughout the City, to develop a vision plan. Subsequently, a two-day charrette was held to focus on Phase One of the vision plan, which is the new Utilities Services Building to be located at the corner of Laporte and Howes. The design process balanced working with the future vision plan, and the existing context of the site and the Butterfly Building. Conversations with the Poudre Fire Authority, the City’s Engineering Department, and Historic Preservation have contributed to the design process. 4 Mr. Weilminster gave an overview of the various options for dealing with the Butterfly Building. Option 1 is to leave the building in place; Option 2 is to relocate the building to the east, but still within the new public plaza; Option 3 is the recommended option, which would move the building temporarily to a different location, and later move it to a prominent location on the South side of the Civic Center. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek asked for clarification on the location option toward Haiston Oil. Mr. Weilminster said that was one possibility for a temporary location for the immediate term, because the Butterfly Building can’t be moved to Howes Street immediately, and the construction for the new building will start this year. Public Input: None Commission Discussion Mr. Sladek emphasized that this is a complimentary review. There would be no voting, but this was a great opportunity to ask questions and provide comments to the City on what could or should happen with the building. Mr. Sladek pointed out that it has already suffered from a loss of its setting with the RISCO building having been torn down behind it, as the Butterfly Building’s association with the creamery was the reason it was there in the first place. The building has still been found to be eligible. Mr. Sladek stated that he believed this building to be the only example of the Googie style of architecture in the city. Ms. McWilliams could not confirm this without more research, but said it is certainly rare. Mr. Ernest commented that the construction of the new Utility Services Building is going to be starting fairly soon, but the closure of Howes Street and the creation of the Civic Center Plaza is further out. He expressed concern that if Option 3 were selected to locate the building where Howes Street is now; and the Civic Center project took years; then the building could be in a temporary location at the north end of block 32 for a long time. Mr. Hergott stated that the only project with funding now is the Utilities Service Building. The second building might be the parking garage north of 215 N. Mason. The third building would probably be the new City Hall, and could be 8-10 years out, which would be when Howes Street would be closed. Mr. Sladek commented that it would be a long time to be in temporary “storage”. Ms. Bzdek asked about eligibility for landmark status. She questioned whether the building would still be eligible if both the location and setting are lost, considering that the only remaining aspects of eligibility would be materials, design and workmanship. Mr. Sladek stated that any of the options would still result in having a new Utility Services Building nearby, whether the building is moved slightly to the east or to the west toward Howes Street. Ms. Wallace commented that if Option 1, 2 or 3 were to come to the commission later, it would probably not be designated as eligible anyway. The integrity would be lost, even if it remained where it is, because the Utility Services Building would be behind it. Ms. Wallace clarified that any of the options would equally infringe upon the building’s eligibility. Mr. 5 Lingle further stated that potential development of the Civic Center Plaza appears to be driving other decisions, including the potential loss of integrity of the Butterfly Building. He also stated a concern that the “temporary” location could reach far into the future. Ms. Wallace inquired about plans to protect the building if it were temporarily relocated. Mr. Hergott stated that siting it near the Haiston Oil building, which also had historical preservation purposes, would help to protect it. Mr. Sladek was concerned about what will happen to the Haiston Oil building down the road as well. Mr. Weilminster provided some context around the process used in siting the new building, which included interviewing all of the City’s departments on blocks 32 and 42, understanding current functions, and where there were spaces on the block that could feasibly be developed. Mr. Weilminster said he doesn’t think any portion of block 42 was in consideration at this point. He stated that they tried to respect the vision, while also selecting the building site that would be least impactful to the existing historic structures. Mr. Sladek asked if the new Utilities Service Building could be moved a little further north, away from the Butterfly Building. Mr. Weilminster stated that preserving green space, and creating a good urban environment on Laporte Street were important considerations for the site. Additionally, the east-west orientation of the building is important to creating geothermal conditions conducive to achieving the City’s energy goal of a net-zero energy city campus in the future. There are a number of factors from a systems perspective that are working together to site the building where it is. There may be some ability to explore moving the building slightly north; however, the Poudre Fire Authority considerations will still need to be addressed. Mr. Sladek stated that his impression is that the best option would be to leave the building where it has stood since 1964, and move the Utility Services Building further north. He expressed concern that this building would be put in storage and forgotten about after many years, or lost through vandalism or neglect. He stated that if it were to be moved, there would need to be a strong memorandum in place to ensure it would be moved back later. Mr. Lingle stated that while he recognized there are multi-departmental concerns, he believed that Historic Preservation should be equally important in the decision making process for the siting of the Utility Services Building. He stated that the Butterfly Building should be left where it is, creating an island, with parking east and west of it. He thought this placement would be a signal to the public that the City is respecting, and developing around, historic elements. Ms. Bzdek inquired about the skew orientation of the building and whether that was due to a functional purpose. Mr. Sladek stated that he researched it in depth and didn’t find anything to indicate why it was skewed. There was nothing encroaching upon it that would have pushed it to be set at a skewed angle. 6 Ms. Bzdek mentioned that the large creamery building was demolished about five years ago, and asked whether there were other structures on the creamery site. Mr. Sladek said that was the only other building, and it occupied the square area to the north of the Butterfly Building. Mr. Hergott interjected that after they were already starting the review process, they learned that the current location of the Butterfly Building is in the 100 year flood plain. If it is touched in any way, it must be raised a minimum of 18 inches to bring it out of the flood plain. Mr. Ernest asked for additional explanation of whether the building would have a functional purpose, or serve as a gateway to the new Civic Center Plaza, rather than just an unoccupied historic building. Mr. Weilminster stated that there are potential options on table, including an opportunity for an interpretive center that is ancillary, but educational about the City of Fort Collins. It is currently a bike library and could continue to function as such. He stated that the goal was to make it a viable part of the future vision plan as much as any of the new buildings. Mr. Sladek acknowledged that there are competing interests and needs relating to that area. He stated that the Commission’s preference would be to leave the building standing where it is. If it were to be moved, they would need to have another discussion about where would be the best place. Mr. Sladek also pointed out for future planning purposes, that not only has Haiston Oil already been determined to be eligible, but the 1950’s City building was also found to be eligible for the National Register. Mr. Hergott said the plan does show that building remaining. Mr. Sladek said that as they plan for the future, the Commission would like some early discussions about what might be done with those buildings. Time Reference: 6:51 p.m. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW – 201 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, ADDITION OF NEW BUILDING AND PLAZA ON SITE OF OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING Jeff Hansen, VFLA, Project Developer Staff Report Ms. McWilliams provided a description of the proposed Little Man Ice Cream project, including some background, and information about the review process. The presentation included site photos, concept renderings and a site plan. Commission Questions Josh Guernsey of Brinkman Partners, and owner of the building at 201 South College Avenue, provided an overview of the project, how they became involved with Paul Tamburello and Loren Martinez, the owners of Little Man Ice Cream, and how their vision for the space evolved. He described the deal structure with Little Man as a ten-year lease, with multiple five-year options. Mr. Tamburello provided some background about himself, his credentials, and the history of the Little Man Ice Cream store in Denver. He explained that they had won a Historic Denver 7 Design Award for the renovation of the former Olinger Mortuary office building, and Little Man is adjacent to it. It is between two of the Olinger Mortuary buildings, on an odd-shaped piece of land. Mr. Guernsey added that, above the dock on the back part of the property, are 15 HVAC units for the building next door. That will stay in place, but they are looking at making modifications to enhance the dock, including screening it and using it for seating on the stair steps going up. Mr. Sladek commented that the presentation materials mentioned removing that dock. Mr. Guernsey clarified that it would be modified, not removed, partly to help the museum with ADA access, and also because there is no other place for the HVAC equipment. Mr. Sladek said this was an interesting concept and asked about the origin of the Little Man name. Mr. Tamburello said it was named after his father, who was a little Italian guy, and that was his nickname. Public Input: none Commission Discussion Mr. Lingle asked whether the dock is part of the National Register listing for the property. Ms. McWilliams said the dock is part of the Ft. Collins landmark designation for the property, but the National Register listing is rather vague. It was designated in 1978 when their standards weren’t as specific, and it is not clear whether the dock was specifically included in that nomination. The dock was built in 1960, and was only 18 years old at the time of the designation. Mr. Sladek commented that whether or not the dock was a character-defining feature was probably not discussed at the time. Mr. Lingle asked for clarification about how the five review criteria from Section 14-48 were to be evaluated, since this isn’t really an addition, but rather a relation to a historic building. Ms. McWilliams said that the code does not specifically state whether all, a preponderance, or only one of the criteria, need to be met in order for the Commission to approve or disapprove a project, but rather leaves that to the Commission’s discretion. However, Criteria #5 in the City Code addresses the ability to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards, which requires that all ten of the standards be met. Ms. Bzdek asked about the location of the two related out-buildings. Mr. Sladek said that they were located in the southwest corner of the property behind the milk-can. Mr. Tamburello said one of those was a walk-in freezer and the other was for dry storage, and he clarified that those structures were also temporary. Mr. Lingle asked how the two out- buildings relate to the dock, since the site plan didn’t show the existing dock. Mr. Hansen, representing Vaught Frye Larson Architects (VFLA), explained that the existing dock is an unusual T-shape, and they would be extending the surface to make usable space for Little Man customers. The temporary structures nest against the existing canopy and dock. Mr. Sladek asked about space to walk around the building, to which Mr. Hansen replied that due to traffic problems, the area had been blocked off with concrete barriers. He said they are 8 still working on the exact configuration, but the dock must continue to function as a loading dock for the museum. Currently, trucks are backing in from College Avenue, but with the new plan, trucks would be using the dock from the Oak Street side. Mr. Hansen also clarified that the temporary buildings would be at grade level, adjacent to the dock, not on the dock platform. Mr. Lingle commented that building #2 on the drawing appeared to be far wider north-south than where the dock would end. Mr. Hansen, explained that it fits in the nesting space on the southwest corner of dock, where the existing parking spots are now. Mr. Sladek commented that the milk-can looks small in the aerial rendering, but looks much larger in some of the other renderings from different angles, and asked for clarification on the size and scale. Mr. Hansen explained that the front of Ace Hardware is taller, but then steps down to 15’ in the back portion. The milk-can would be about twice the height of the back portion of Ace Hardware, at 28’ tall, which is about four feet shorter than the Post Office roofline. Mr. Hansen explained that another component of the project would be to make the site wheelchair accessible, and it is currently too steep. At the point where the milk-can is sitting, the ground would be 18” lower than it is now. Ms. Tvede asked how the dock would be modified. Mr. Hansen pointed out on the site plan where the dock surface would be expanded. There would also be some enhancement to the screening of the HVAC equipment. The canopy would be left as is. Mr. Guernsey added that the because museum only uses the dock four times a year for switching art displays, the space is underutilized. They are looking at creating year-round seating, and adding ADA access, while still allowing the museum to utilize the dock to bring art in and out. Mr. Sladek asked whether they had spoken to anyone at the State Historical Society about any impact of this project on the National Register designation. Mr. Guernsey stated that they had started with getting input from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and the Landmark Preservation Commission, and the State would probably be the next step. Mr. Sladek emphasized the importance of finding out as soon as possible whether the project would threaten the National Register listing of the property, given the landmark status of the entire site. He suggested Ms. McWilliams could provide some direction on who the applicant should contact to open that dialogue. Mr. Sladek then asked whether this building had received any grant funds from the state. Ms. McWilliams said the museum had received a couple of State Historic Fund grants, but she did not believe they resulted in any easements. Mr. Guernsey said he was not aware of any easements, or tax credits, related to grants. Mr. Ernest asked for confirmation that the canopy roof would be kept in place, as the staff report stated it was to be demolished. Mr. Hansen said it would be kept in place. Mr. Sladek suggested the Commission look whether the project would negatively impact Section 14-48 of the City Code and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Sladek asked whether the Commission members had any concerns related to the five City of Fort Collins criteria. He added that since the proposal would not be touching the building, it is more a question of how the setting of the building and its site would be impacted. 9 Ms. Bzdek asked the staff to summarize the contents of the preliminary comments the property owners received from City Staff, which were referenced in the DDA Letter of Support. Mr. Mapes, City Planner, explained that this project is subject to three different review processes, including the Landmark Preservation Commission, which may ultimately have the ability to approve or deny it. Staff has determined that the building, as proposed, does not comply with a number of Land Use Codes. Building compatibility standards require new buildings to use elements and materials that are similar to historic buildings and other commercial buildings in the vicinity. Some of these standards list elements such as eaves, cornices and windows. Fundamentally, this is a different kind of building that would require modification of the standards. Also, the sign code limits the size and height of a sign. In this case, the name of Little Man is on an object which commercially represents the business. Therefore, it is both a building and a sign; a situation that is not accounted for in the City’s Land Use Code standards. Mr. Mapes said that if the project moves forward, variances to those standards must be brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Dunn asked whether having a “milk jug” next to a regal historic building affects the character of the building, and she tied that to Criteria #1 of the City Codes, relating to the architectural character of the building. Mr. Sladek mentioned Criteria #2 also applies, with regard to the architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of the existing and proposed structures. Ms. Dunn pointed out that the materials are very different. Mr. Sladek asked whether the Commission had concerns about Criteria #3. Mr. Lingle said the only one of the five criteria he felt was not impacted was #4, because the structure is isolated and would not impact the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark. However, he believed it does impact the other four, including the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Ms. Dunn asked whether it made a difference if the structure is temporary. Mr. Lingle pointed out that it was a ten-year lease with five-year options in perpetuity. He also pointed out that the landscaping in the renderings looked very mature and was not a very realistic depiction of how it would look initially. He also said that, since the building would be temporary, it could be considered reversible under Standard 10, but could also be there for a very long time. Ms. Tvede suggested that, if it really is a temporary structure, is not attached to anything, and could be easily removed, that may negate some of the historical considerations. Mr. Sladek said the proposal includes lowering the ground and putting in a plaza with paving stones, where there has been a driveway for over 50 years. This would constitute a change to the site whether the building is still there or not. Ms. Tvede commented that the landscaping seems to be an asset that would remain even if the milk-can structure were removed. Ms. Zink said that the landscape around the entire building would be modified significantly. Mr. Sladek said his primary concern is that the building would remain freestanding, since it was designed with ornamentation on all sides that was clearly meant to be seen. Ms. Tvede said it was a funky structure to be placed in a historic district. She would like to see it there, but would not want it attached to anything, so that it could be easily removed. Ms. Bzdek said that whether the structure is temporary was less important to her than whether it fits with the character of the site. She thought it was a great concept that might fit better in the River 10 District. She said the plaza improvements are potentially good for the building, as it would keep the area open, protect the building, and allow it to be seen, but questioned whether the milk-can structure was appropriate for that space. She said she would love to see the project in Fort Collins, just not at that site. Ms. Bzdek said she was most concerned about Criteria #1, but was also concerned about 2, 3 & 5, and would not even eliminate #4, as the increased activity on the plaza would impact the current use of the landmark. Mr. Sladek said he could see it on Linden, across Jefferson, in the River District. Ms. Tvede said it is a fun and funky idea, but would be better sited elsewhere. Ms. Wallace said she was a fan of the design, and was fond of roadside architecture, but was concerned about the location, because people could mistake it for being part of the original site. Mr. Sladek expressed concern about setting a precedent if they allow a project like this within the historic district, or adjacent to it. Ms. Dunn said if it were a food truck rather than a milk-can, it would be different. It would still have the fun atmosphere, but it would clearly be mobile and not a permanent part of the site. Mr. Ernest said the closest analog to this milk-can structure he could think of located in downtown is the big vat next to Coopersmith’s, and asked how that related to the Old Town Historic District and whether it was grandfathered in. Mr. Mapes said the grain silo at Coopersmith’s is viewed as being an accessory structure that is customarily associated with the brewing operation, and serves a function. There are grain silos in other locations. Originally, it didn’t have Coopersmith’s sign on it, but does now. It was allowed because it is an accessory associated with the brewery. Ms. Zink said another thing to consider is that this is a duplication of a structure in Denver, and not something designed specifically for this site. Down the road, if there are 40 of them around Colorado, or 400 around the country, it might feel a little different. Mr. Sladek concluded the discussion by reiterating the Commission’s concerns about a structure of this character being placed adjacent to one of the most prominent historic buildings in downtown Fort Collins. He also said it sounded like everyone would be thrilled to have it somewhere in town. Since this is a preliminary design review, they were simply providing feedback and there would not be a vote. He thanked the applicants for their presentation, and invited them to come back if their plans proceed. Time Reference: 7:47 p.m. DEMOLITION/ALTERATION FINAL HEARING – 1214 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE Jordan and Annie Obermann, Owners Mr. Sladek recused himself from this item due to his involvement in the project design. Staff Report 11 Mr. Weinberg introduced project, providing background information, a description of the property, the proposed alteration, and a staff analysis of the project. Commission Questions Mr. Lingle asked whether the applicant had met with the Design Review Committee prior to the 2013 addition, and whether that came to a successful conclusion. Mr. Weinberg said that was correct. Mr. Lingle asked whether the applicant had declined to meet with the Design Review Committee again for this particular application, and whether there was something in the process that could have been improved upon. Mr. Weinberg said the applicant was present and could better address that. Mr. Obermann said they met with the Design Review Committee about the proposal, but there didn’t seem to be any compromise available. He further stated that the plans had been modified to meet their needs and reflect much of the original plans. Public Input: none Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve on final hearing the addition of a front elevation second story to the house at 1214 West Mountain Avenue, finding that the applicants have complied with all of the required provisions of Section 14- 72 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process”. Ms. Zink seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0. Time Reference: 7:59 p.m. DISCUSSION – HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS STUDY: COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE AND THE LAND USE CODE Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented background information and a description of the revisions to City Code Chapters 2 “Administration” and 14 “Landmark Preservation”. Commission Questions Mr. Sladek clarified that staff is seeking a recommendation on the code changes to take forward to Council, and that a vote would take place. Public Input: None Commission Deliberation The Commission members discussed whether three citizens should be enough to initiate a non-consensual designation. A suggestion was made to increase the minimum to five; however, members expressed concerns that raising the bar too high would discourage public input. 12 Commission asked staff to clarify the process by which non-consensual designations are made. Staff clarified that according to existing codes, one citizen can bring forth any application, but there is still a multi-meeting process, and then a supermajority of the Commission would be required before an application is forwarded to Council for a decision. The proposed revision increases the number of citizens required to initiate an application from one to three. The rest of the process stays the same. The Commission members commented that having three citizens required, rather than one, would make it less likely to have spurious applications made by a single individual or household. Commission members agreed that there are enough fail-safes in the process that three citizens would be adequate. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council for adoption the proposed revisions to City Code Chapter 2 “Administration” and Chapter 14 “Landmark Preservation”. Mr. Lingle seconded the motion. Motion passed 9- 0. Time Reference: 8:23 p.m. DISCUSSION – LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2014 WORK PLAN Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Staff Report Ms. McWilliams submitted the Work Plan, with the revisions previously requested by the Commission, to be consideration for adoption. Public Input: None Commission Deliberation Ms. Tvede moved to accept the 2014 Work Plan as written. Ms. Wallace seconded the motion. Motion passed 9-0. Chair Sladek thanked Ms. McWilliams for her hard work on the code revisions and work plan. OTHER BUSINESS: None Mr. Sladek adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager 13 Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Landmark Preservation Commission FROM: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Loan Extension Request – 2013 Loan Applicant – William Whitley, 618 West Mountain Avenue Staff received a request for an extension to the loan period for 618 West Mountain Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the loan extension. If approved, the loan commitment would be extended for up to one year, to expire on April 5, 2015. 14 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 9, 2014 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Conceptual Design Review for the Landblom Property at 116 North Pearl Street, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Kenneth and Michele Christensen, Property Owners BACKGROUND: The property owners, Ken and Michelle Christensen, are seeking a conceptual design review of a proposed rear addition to the residence prior to designating the property as a Fort Collins Landmark. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The owners would like to expand the residence’s rear addition. The new addition will be two stories and, at its widest, cover approximately half of the northern portion of the western elevation. The existing lower-level addition will be removed, while the shed-roof second-level addition will be added onto with the new addition. The addition’s roof form is primarily a slightly upsloped shed-roof, with a second-level intersecting gabled element, which ties into the side gable of the historic building. Windows are divided light with thick trim and eaves have decorative braces and exposed structural elements. A section of brick wraps the floor level of the addition. This design was done by architect Per Hogestad, using the City’s Design Assistance Program. Review Criteria at time of Final Review: While this is a Conceptual Review, at time of Final Approval, Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work”: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 15 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 16 17 18 Ken and Michele Christensen 116 Pearl St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 March 7, 2014 RE: Historic Landmark Designation of 116 Pearl Street, Fort Collins We are very pleased to submit our application for our home to be designated as a Fort Collins Local Historical Landmark. We are asking that the Committee also perform a preliminary design review of a remodel/addition that we are planning to the rear of the home and comment on the addition’s affect on the home’s historic landmark designation. There are a number of issues with the home that we hope to mitigate with this remodel/addition. Attic wiring, Insulation, wallboard: The attic bedroom ceiling is insulated with 2-3” of insulation (2x4 rafters). We will remove the existing fiberboard/wallboard and existing insulation. While the wiring is exposed, we will replace the existing knob and tube wiring with code-compliant wiring. We intend to insulate with closed-cell foam insulation and cover with dry-wall. The existing windows on the north and south elevations will remain unchanged. HVAC issues: The house is currently heated with steam/radiator heat and no air conditioning. We plan to add a forced air furnace and central air conditioning system for dependable heat and AC for the Attic suite and for the dining and living rooms on the first floor. The window air conditioner on the North side of the attic suite will be removed returning the window to its original state. Basement Steps: The steps to the basement are non-conforming (narrow and steep). We plan to abandon the existing stairs and enclose the existing outside stairs to the basement in a rear addition to the home. Attic Stairs: The existing staircase to the upstairs bedroom is too narrow to add a railing and still be able to move normal items (laundry, boxes, etc.) up and down the staircase. These stairs will also be abandoned and access will be via a new staircase in the rear addition. Closet space: We will use some of the existing attic space for closet space. The existing space has 6 linear feet of closet rod which is inadequate for two people. Bathroom: The existing 3 piece bathroom is 4’x8’ which is not up to contemporary standards. The bathroom will be reconfigured to add a second sink, tub, and separate toilet area. The design of the rear addition was done by Per Hogestad, a local architect with a long history of designing additions to historic building and homes in Fort Collins. The exterior design is sympathetic to 19 the existing structure and is composed of features true bungalow style homes of the era. Our home was originally built in 1927. The materials are complimentary, but distinctively separate from the existing structure. The windows are in the same style as the existing windows. The roofline does not extend above the existing roofline. The curved roof and exposed beams add a true craftsman/bungalow feel to the design. We have done a short design review with the planning department and this preliminary design does meet all of the requirements of the recently adopted East Side/West Side building ordinances. If there are any questions we can answer, please contact us at: Cell: (720) 369-7712 eMail: MicheleAndKen@gmail.com Thank you for your consider of our Historic Landmark Designation and rear-addition design. Ken and Michele Christensen 20 1 Conceptual Review of Rear Addition to 116 North Pearl Street Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2014 21 2 116 North Pearl Proposed Rear Addition 22 3 Application for Designation of 116 North Pearl Street as a Fort Collins Landmark Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2014 23 4 Vicinity Map 24 5 Property Significance • Significant under Landmark Designation Standards 2 and 3 • Associated with A.E. "Nellie" Landblom • Excellent example of one-story Craftsman style residence 25 6 116 North Pearl Street Residence built 1927 Western elevation Western Elevation (1968) 26 7 116 North Pearl Street Southern elevation Eastern elevation 27 8 116 North Pearl Street Garage - Western elevation Garage - Western elevation 28 9 Conceptual Review of Rear Addition to 116 North Pearl Street Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2014 29 10 116 North Pearl Proposed Rear Addition 30 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 9, 2014 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Landblom Property at 116 North Pearl Street, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Kenneth and Michele Christensen, Property Owners BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Landblom Property located at 116 North Pearl Street. The property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Preservation Standards (2) and (3). The residence at 116 Pearl 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 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 include varying colors of brick, exposed roof elements, prominent front entry, divided light windows, and substantial front porch. Additionally, the building is significant under Designation Standard 2 for its association Mrs. A.E. "Nellie" Landblom, an early professor of Mathematics and a Research Statistician at Colorado A & M (now Colorado State University). Staff Analysis: Staff finds that the Landblom Property qualifies for Landmark designation under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standards (2) and (3). If the Landmark Preservation Commission determines that the property is eligible under this standard, then the Commission may pass a resolution recommending City Council pass an ordinance designating the Landblom Property as a Fort Collins Landmark according to City Code Chapter 14 under Designation Standards (2) and (3). Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 31 32 Western Elevation Western Elevation 33 Northern and Western Elevations Southern Elevation 34 Southern Elevation Eastern Elevation 35 Eastern Elevation 1968 Tax Assessor Record 36 Garage – Western Elevation Garage – Northern and Western Elevations 37 Garage - Eastern and Southern Elevations Interior 38 Interior Interior 39 Childrens House Montessori School City Park W Oak St Pearl St Scott Ave Sylvan Ct Jackson Ave N Mckinley Ave C i ty P ar k D r Juniper Ct Jamith Pl Leland Ave N Mckinley Ave W Mountain Ave Laporte Ave SSt Shields St N Shields © Fort Collins 116 North Landmark Pearl Street Designation 1 inch = 200 feet Site 40 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 116 North Pearl Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: Lot 7, Hensel's Subdivision in the City of Fort Collins, Together with portions of vacated alleys adjoining said Lot on the South and East as vacated by Ordinance No. 147, 1977, recorded March 29, 1978 in Book 1845 at Page 89, Together with all that portion of vacated alleys adjoining Lots 2 and 3, Hensel's Subdivision, as conveyed by Deed recorded August 20, 1992 at Reception No. 92050690 and at Reception No. 92050691, and Together with the South Halfofthe vacated alley adjoining Lot 1, Hensel's Subdivision, as vacated by Ordinance No. 147, 1977, recorded March 29, 1978 in Book 1845 at Page 89, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Landblom Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Kenneth and Michele Christensen Phone: N/A Address: 116 North Pearl 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 FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner; research prepared by Rose Laflin, Historic Preservation Intern in 2003 Address: City of Fort Collins Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-221-6206 Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 41 DATE: April 9, 2014 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 brick residence and brick 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, and large porch columns. Additionally, windows often were 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 116 Pearl 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 Designation Standard 3. This detailed house exhibits 42 exceptional features the Craftsman architectural style, constructed during the height of the style’s popularity in Fort Collins. The building’s distinctive features include varying colors of brick, exposed roof elements, prominent front entry, divided light windows, and substantial front porch. Additionally, the building is significant under Designation Standard 2 for its association Mrs. A.E. "Nellie" Landblom, an early professor of Mathematics and a Research Statistician at Colorado A & M (now Colorado State University). HISTORICAL INFORMATION The 1927 bungalow at 116 Pearl Street in Fort Collins represents a unique period in the history of the city. Bungalows were primarily purchased by middle class, suburban families. The presence of this style of home in Fort Collins demonstrates the growth of the city in the first three decades of the twentieth century and its increased wealth and diversity. According to building permits, the bungalow at 116 Pearl Street was purchased by Nellie A. Landblom in 1927 for $6,000. This was rather expensive for a Fort Collins' bungalow during this period. Census records indicate the average home in Fort Collins in the 1920s was $4,500. Additionally, bungalows were usually considered an economical housing style because they were mass-produced and had little ornamentation. Part of the expense of Nellie Landblom's bungalow may have gone towards quality exterior building materials, interior trim and modern appliances such as gas, electricity and modern plumbing. Mrs. A.E. "Nellie" Landblom also applied for a permit to build a brick garage at the rear of the property. This suggests she owned an automobile. Her husband Axel E. Landblom is not listed as a resident of the house in 1927, although his name does appear in title records for that year. By 1933, Nellie is listed as a widow in Fort Collins City Directories. From the 1920s until the 1950s, Nellie Landblom was an Assistant Professor of Mathematics and a Research Statistician at Colorado A & M (now Colorado State University). This was noteworthy because, despite the increased presence of women in the workplace in the 1920s and 1930s, few women held professional positions. After her husband's death, Nellie Landblom did not remarry. She lived at 116 Pearl Street either alone or with her daughters from its construction in 1927 until her death in 1973. In 1951, Nellie entered into a joint tenancy agreement with her daughters Eleanor and Lois. In 1974, after Nellie's death, Eleanor and Lois sold the property. The house has had five separate owners since that time. Kenneth and Michele Christiansen are the current property owners and are seeking Landmark Designation. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1927 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Brick Architectural Style: Arts and Crafts/Craftsman Description: The bungalow was one of the most popular housing styles among middle and working class Americans in the first three decades of the twentieth century. This style is ubiquitous in Fort Collins, as it was simple, affordable, and easily adaptable to small, suburban lots. Bungalows ranged in cost from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars as builders and homeowners customized the standard style. The typical bungalow is identified by overhanging eaves, exposed rafter ends, a gabled roof, ample front porch with massive 43 support pillars, use of rustic, "natural" materials such as wood, brick, stone or stucco and simple floor plans. They are typically one to one and a half stories tall. The residence at 116 Pearl Street was built in 1927. This was rather late for this style which was popular on the West Coast in the early 1900s. However, the inter-mountain West was settled later than most of the country and building materials, architects and architectural styles were slow to reach the area. Many Fort Collins’ bungalows were built in the late 1920s. This particular bungalow is one story with a gabled roof, overhanging eaves and exposed rafter ends. A front gable projects from the center of the facade and covers a projecting vestibule. Concrete steps lead up to a short landing before this vestibule. Thus, this house lacks the prominent front porch with support pillars of most typical bungalows. The front door has multiple glass panes and two side light windows are also multi-paned and trimmed in wood. The exterior is of brick with few decorative elements. Beneath the gabled peaks on the façade and north and south elevations are square butt shingles stained a dark brown. Pairs of 6-over-6 windows are present in the gable ends of the north and south elevations. There is a small single-story rectangular flat-roofed element projecting from the northern elevation. This is constructed of the same light colored brick as the residence. Additionally, there is a rear addition to the building, which consists of a dormer element protruding from the residence’s upper level with a small square flat-roofed portion that extends from the main floor. The rear addition is clad in wooden shingle siding. Multi-light sash windows are located in groupings of two on either side of the front door. These windows may not be original to the house as they lack the typical bungalow pane design and appear neo-colonial. Windows on the side elevations are located on the top third of the walls. This technique was common in Chicago where bungalows were popular but situated very close to each other on small lots. Windows were placed high on walls in order to maximize natural light but minimize the closeness of a neighbor’s house. There is a two-stall brick garage situated to the northwest of the residence. The garage is constructed in the same style as the residence, with similar materials: front gabled roof with large overhangs and exposed purlins; light colored brick with dark brick sills, lintels, and trim; and shingles in gable ends. The two sets of doors are barn style and each door of the two pairs feature three vertical lights above large wooden panels. REFERENCE LIST Ahlbrandt, Arlene and Kathryn Stieben, eds. The History of Larimer County, Vol. 2. (Curtis Media Corporation: Dallas, 1987) 406. Clark, Clifford. The American Family Home: 1800-1960 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986). Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering, http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/craftsman McAlester, Virginia and Lee. 2006. A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, NY. Morris, Andrew J., ed. The History of Larimer County, Vol. I. (Curtis Media Corporation: Dallas, 1985) 97-98. Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's Records Larimer County Tax Assessment Records 44 Planning, Development & Transportation LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 9, 2014 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: 320 Walnut Street CONTACT: Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Tim Politis, One Line Studio LLC REQUEST: Final Design Review of Alterations to 320 Walnut Street BACKGROUND: The building at 320 Walnut Street, formerly the Goodwill Building, is located within the National, State, and local Historic Old Town District. This simple one story blonde brick façade building was likely constructed as an automotive garage. In 1933, it was the Fort Collins Rubber Company, followed in 1935 by the Farr-King Implement Company. In the late 1940s, it became the Montgomery Ward Farm Store and Warehouse, a use it fulfilled until circa 1965, when it became Goodwill Industries. For the last few years, the building has been vacant. Building permits exist for unspecified remodeling work in 1924 and 1929. In 1936, when it was the Farr- King Implement Company, the building’s rear door was enlarged to 12’ x 12’, housing an overhead wood door. A new chimney was built in 1938, and another, unspecified, remodel occurred in 1948. A final “front facing remodel” took place in 1959. At some point in its history, the garage bay openings on either side of the central door were turned into storefront windows. As depicted in the 1950 Assessor’s photograph, the entry with three transom lights above, may still retain much of its original configuration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) The applicant is requesting to construct a second story addition to the building, which will be set back from the Walnut Street façade by 35’ 5”, largely out of public view. It will be clad in standing-seam metal panels. The color of the metal panel cladding will match that of the storefront materials, which is a described as “light bronze.” A railing is proposed to enclose the space between the addition and the edges of the existing building. The railing will be set back 2’ 6” from the edge of the Walnut Street elevation, while railings along the side elevations will attach behind the parapet. Additionally, the existing deteriorating cementitious parapet cap will be replaced with a new light bronze colored metal cap. Previously, in the applicant’s conceptual design review proposal, a shade structure was proposed on the southern portion of the addition. This aspect of the project is not being proposed at this time. 2) On the western elevation, an existing window opening is proposed to be lengthened to accommodate a new alcove and door for egress. This will allow the entry to meet egress requirements, preventing the door from crossing the property line. Brick surrounding the new opening will be patched and match the established pattern. 3) The front elevation windows are proposed to be replaced with aluminum framed roll-up doors. The vertical and horizontal mullions have been designed to match those in the rollup door of the ca. 1950 45 historic photo of the building. Existing kickplates will be replaced with storefront frame and recessed metal panels, resembling the pattern of the new rollup doors above and garage doors of the historic photo. Product detail for the rollup doors and storefront panel system are included as an attachment to this staff report. 4) The windows and door of the recessed front elevation entry feature are also proposed to be replaced with the same type of aluminum framed storefront system as the proposed rollup doors. This alteration would take the entry back to a similar configuration as the 1950 historic photo, but with large single-light window panes flanking the door, rather than the historic divided light pattern. In addition to the aluminum storefront, the applicant proposes to retain the historic wood-framed transom window above the front entry. 5) A new storefront entry is proposed for the rear, Old Firehouse Alley, elevation. Existing sideframe and cornice elements will be retained. Transom windows, a single storefront entrance, and divided light side panels will be installed to give the appearance of a rollup door, which was likely historically present in the opening. According to a 1936 building permit, there was once an overhead door in this location. 6) Stonco exterior sconce lighting is proposed for the Walnut Street elevation. Signage is also proposed for the Walnut Street elevation; however, the design/size could vary slightly from what is shown in the submittal depending on Zoning Department requirements. Sign anchors will be pin-mounted through mortar joints to minimize impacts to historic brick. Please reference the enclosed packet from the applicant for elevations, photographs, and narrative regarding the proposal. Produce details for lighting, storefront materials, and overhead doors are also attached. The applicant’s narrative contains a project description and specific responses to many of the provisions outlined in the draft Design Standards for the Old Town Historic District. The narrative also contains responses to Section 14-48 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Review Criteria: The applicant is seeking Final Design Approval at this time, thus alterations to properties in Fort Collins Landmark Districts are reviewed for compliance with Municipal Code Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work,” the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for Rehabilitation, and the Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. The Commission may also reference the draft update to the Design Guidelines for suggestions, but not for a motion. Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work. In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. 46 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 47 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 1 One Line Studio LLC 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 28 March 2014 Landmark Commission City of Fort Collins Project: 320 Walnut Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Dear members of the Landmark Commission and city staff, We greatly appreciate the comments received during the Concept Review on February 12th, 2014. Our project goals remain unchanged; preserving the built environment and the character built upon generations of development is essential to establishing a sense of place. As a sustainable practice, the reuse and adaptation of historical elements equates to being respectful of the local environment, being part of a community and being a good neighbor. At 320 Walnut Street, the proposed design aims to:  Maintain the original character of the brick building while refurbishing the entrances which have been left to neglect and modified from their original historic character.  Activate the streets and alleys surrounding the building in the historic district by adding an entrance off of Seckner Alley and providing a tenant space with primary access to the Old Firehouse Alley.  Establish an active district destination by adding a second floor structure and rooftop patio that is designed to be concealed from view at the street level in respect of the contributing character that the structure at 320 Walnut provides to this historic district. Based upon comments that were received during the Concept Review and the discovery of a photograph showing the building circa 1950, we have prepared an updated narrative describing the revised design and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. We appreciate the opportunity to submit improvements to 320 Walnut Street for your review and request your approval to proceed with the proposed design. Respectfully, Tim Politis, AIA, LEED AP One Line Studio LLC 48 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 2 Narrative: Revisions to the design since the Landmark Commission meeting on February 12th, 2014 include the following:  The location of the addition has been finalized. The addition was moved closer to Walnut Street to reduce the area of the proposed rooftop patio. This was a requirement of the building department.  The guardrail design and location has been finalized. Per the Landmark Commission’s request, the guardrail parallel to Walnut Street is offset 2’-6” from the Walnut Street façade.  The color and material palette have been finalized.  Revisions resulting from a discovered photograph of the building circa 1950 which indicated roll-up garage doors on the Walnut façade.  The shade structure previously indicated in the Concept submittal has been removed from the submittal. It was discovered that additional research and design development is required to finalize this design. The shade structure will be submitted for review at a separate time.  Changes to the ‘Old Firehouse Alley’ entrance based upon comments received from members of the Landmark Commission. Based upon the comments received during the February 12th Landmark Commission meeting, the following items are addressed in narrative: 1. Walnut Street Entrance and Storefront 2. Lighting on the Walnut Street Façade 3. Signage on the Walnut Street Façade 4. Existing Windows in the Alleys 5. Seckner Alley Entrance 6. Old Fire House Alley Entrance 7. Parapet Cap 8. Rooftop Guardrails 9. Rooftop Addition and Setbacks 1. Walnut Street Entrance and Storefront The proposed design maintains the original brickwork including the Rowlock cornice detailing on the facade at Walnut Street. Volumetrically, the design maintains the historic openings. The recessed entry on Walnut is to remain in place preserving the historic façade composition. The existing commercial storefront entrance is not original and has been poorly maintained. The Storefront will be replaced to meet current energy code requirements with a door in a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. As part of the design, roll-up doors are proposed with a grid pattern of horizontal mullions and vertical muntins that match the proportion of the roll-up door pictured in the circa 1950 photograph. Below the roll-up doors will be a storefront frame with recessed metal panels. The goal is to maintain the pattern of the roll-up doors above and the original design presented in the circa 1950 photograph. The basis of design for the storefront frame is EFCO model S433 and includes a profile that aligns the glass to the exterior of the frame, matching the historic profile. The recessed panel will fit in the storefront frame and will match the storefront color 49 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 3 and finish. The basis of design is model Mapes-R panel by Mapes Architectural Panels. A brochure has been included in the submittal. The color and finish of the roll-up doors, storefront and metal panels is based upon ‘Ultralock Light Bronze’ by EFCO. While the title of the color is ‘light bronze’, its appearance is dark and warm. The dark bronze color is intended to compliment the light colored brick on the Walnut façade. The proposed design complies with guidelines for ‘Contemporary Storefront Design’ indicated in the Old Town Historic District Design Standards - Fort Collins, Colorado, dated 4 November 2013: Contemporary Storefront Designs When a historic storefront is largely missing, it may be appropriate to design a replacement that is a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. A contemporary replacement design should:  Promote pedestrian interest and an active street-level façade  Use high-quality, durable materials that are similar in type and scale to traditional materials  Be located within the historic structural frame of sidewalls and lintel or cornice that spaces the storefront opening  Convey the characteristics of typical historic storefronts  Include traditional storefront elements such as a bulkhead and transom  Maintain the transparent character of the display windows  Provide a recessed entry  Use a simple and relatively undecorated design  Relate to traditional elements of the façade above  Preserve early storefront alterations 2. Lighting on the Walnut Street Façade The existing Walnut Street façade includes 4 globe sconce light fixtures. The circa 1950 photograph does not include any light fixtures. The proposed design replaces the globe light fixtures with a new fixture, ‘STONCO VW-1-GC EXTERIOR SCONCE.’ A lighting cut-sheet has been submitted for reference. The proposed Stonco light sconce is the preferred exterior sconce fixture used by all Illegal Pete restaurants. The fixture is appropriate for the Walnut Street façade in that it is minimal and industrial in appearance. The original use of the utilitarian building was a garage. The design of the light fixture includes a wire cage, reminiscent to what one might find in garages of this time. Furthermore, the smaller size of the proposed light fixture coupled with its transparent cage and glass minimize the presence of the fixtures on the building. The addition of the globe light fixtures sometime after 1950 will include junction boxes and disturbances to the original brick façade. By replacing the lights with the proposed fixtures, the new fixture will serve to conceal this latter improvement while reducing their significance and presence on the Walnut Street façade. 3. Signage on the Walnut Street Façade The signage indicated in the renderings is conceptual and will need to meet city requirements. Sign elements are to be pin-mounted into the mortar joints so as to minimize 50 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 4 impact to the existing brick. The goal is that if the sign was to ever be removed, that minimal repair to the mortar would be required to restore the mortar to the original design. 4. Existing Windows in the Alleys Existing windows will be repaired as needed and painted to match the existing paint color and finish. This is applicable to all windows in the Seckner Alley and Old Firehouse Alley. This also includes the existing transom above the entry on Walnut Street. 5. Seckner Alley Entrance To minimize impact to the existing structure, the design includes removal of one window and sill allowing the extension of the opening to grade. The opening will allow access to an exterior covered alcove that leads to a door under the existing roof. The door and alcove is required to meet the egress requirements for the building and to prevent the exit door from crossing over the property line. The brick surrounding the opening is to be patched and repaired to match the existing pattern. Bricks removed below the window for the lengthened opening should be carefully salvaged and retained for use at the sides of the new opening. The mortar is to match the existing. 6. Old Fire House Alley Entrance A new storefront entrance will maintain the existing side frames and cornice elements. The new storefront will include transom windows, a single storefront entrance, and fixed storefront side panels with horizontal and vertical elements that are reminiscent of a roll-up garage door. While historic photographs of this elevation are not available, we assume that the original entrance may have utilized a roll-up door for the passage of cars through the garage. The new roll-up door will be transparent, rather than solid. The intention is to create an entry to the rear tenant space while maintaining the character typical of rear alleys in the district. The basis of design for the storefront frame is EFCO model S433 and includes a profile that aligns the glass to the exterior of the frame, matching the historic profile of the windows. The color and finish of the roll-up doors, storefront and metal panels is based upon ‘Ultralock Light Bronze’ by EFCO. The color is intended to match the gutter and parapet cap flashing. The proposed design complies with guidelines for ‘Contemporary Storefront Design’ indicated in the Old Town Historic District Design Standards - Fort Collins, Colorado, dated 4 November 2013: Contemporary Storefront Designs When a historic storefront is largely missing, it may be appropriate to design a replacement that is a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. A contemporary replacement design should:  Promote pedestrian interest and an active street-level façade  Use high-quality, durable materials that are similar in type and scale to traditional materials 51 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 5  Be located within the historic structural frame of sidewalls and lintel or cornice that spaces the storefront opening  Convey the characteristics of typical historic storefronts  Include traditional storefront elements such as a bulkhead and transom  Maintain the transparent character of the display windows  Provide a recessed entry  Use a simple and relatively undecorated design  Relate to traditional elements of the façade above  Preserve early storefront alterations 7. Parapet Cap A new parapet cap is proposed. The parapet cap on Walnut Street will be built-up with additional wood nailers so that the extension does not conceal the existing brick cornice. Currently, the top of the parapet walls is covered with a cementitious material that is cracking and chipping away. The new cap is necessary to preserve the existing brick walls. A detail has been included in the drawing package. The color and finish of the sheet metal cap flashing is to match the storefront ‘Ultralock Light Bronze’ by EFCO. The proposed bronze color is intended to compliment the light colored brick on the Walnut façade and the red colored brick on the sides of the building. 8. Rooftop Guardrails The guardrail design and location has been finalized. Per the Landmark Commission’s request, the guardrail parallel to Walnut Street has been offset 2’-6” from the Walnut Street façade. Guardrails parallel to Seckner alley will be located inside of the parapet. Structural connection details have been included in the submitted drawing package. The anchors into the existing parapet wall will be located on the inside portion of the parapet, concealed from view from the public streets and alleys. 9. Rooftop Addition and Setbacks To activate the building and the surrounding public ways, a rooftop addition and patio is desired. In consideration of the design criteria, the contemporary addition will be set back from the primary façade on Walnut by 35’-5” and from Seckner Alley by a distance of 6’-8”. The goal is to minimize visibility of the new structure from Walnut Street and the surrounding alleys. Moreover, the new addition is differentiated from the older structure by use of contemporary building materials including the use of standing seam metal panels to contrast the older structure. The color and finish of the standing seam metal panels and coping is to match the storefront ‘Ultralock Light Bronze’ by EFCO. By matching the bronze color of the flashing and the storefront, the dark color allows the addition to appear further recessed minimizing its presence, preserving the traditional character of the existing structure. While essential to the function of the proposed restaurant, the design of the new rooftop addition minimizes its impact to the existing building. 52 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 6 The following criteria and responses are referenced from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Response: The proposed design maintains the existing brick features, spatial relationships and features of the original design. The storefront entries are being improved to a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront per the guidelines established by the City of Fort Collins and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for Rehabilitation. As part of the proposed design, opening that had previously been covered will be restored. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Response: The proposed design attempts to maintain the existing materials and relationships. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Response: The new rooftop addition uses contemporary materials such as standing seam metal panels to contrast the older structure. The proposed design does not create a false sense of historical development; rather, it builds upon the character of the existing building. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Response: Noted. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Response: The evident craft most pronounced in the existing structure’s brick detailing, is to be maintained as is. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Response: The historic recessed entry on Walnut is to remain in place preserving the historic façade composition. The existing commercial storefront entrance is not original and has been poorly maintained. The Storefront will be replaced to meet current energy code requirements with a door in a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. The 53 1ine studio 6806 S. Locust Ct. Centennial, CO 80112 | p: 303.437.7712| e: politis.onelinestudio@gmail.com 7 proposed design complies with guidelines for ‘Contemporary Storefront Design’ indicated in the Old Town Historic District Design Standards - Fort Collins, Colorado, dated 4 November 2013. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Response: Noted. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Response: Not applicable. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Response: To activate the building and the surrounding public ways, a rooftop addition and patio is desired. In consideration of the design criteria, the contemporary addition will be set back from the primary façade on Walnut. The goal is to minimize visibility of the new structure from Walnut Street and the surrounding alleys. Moreover, the new addition is differentiated from the older structure by use of contemporary building materials including the use of standing seam metal panels to contrast the older structure. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Response: Noted. Being set back from the parapet and concealed from view, should the proposed addition be removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. PROJECT 214033 2432 W. 32nd Avenue Denver, CO 80211 303.296.4584 1line studio One Line Studio LLC 6806 S. Locust Court | Centennial, CO 80112 303.437.7712 ARCHITECT: DESIGNER: CONSULTANT: SHEET: LANDMARK SUBMITTAL 03.28.2014 FRAMING PLANS S2.1 63 ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. PROJECT 214033 2432 W. 32nd Avenue Denver, CO 80211 303.296.4584 1line studio One Line Studio LLC 6806 S. Locust Court | Centennial, CO 80112 303.437.7712 ARCHITECT: DESIGNER: CONSULTANT: SHEET: LANDMARK SUBMITTAL 03.28.2014 DETAILS S3.1 64 Linden Street Old Firehouse Alley Seckner Alley Walnut Street Tenant 1 Entry Tenant 2 Entry Demising Wall Proposed Rooftop Addition Proposed Rooftop Patio 50.0’ 180.1’ 320 Walnut Street Proposed Use: Restaurant | Bar To Be Determined Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D Zone: D 0’ 100’ N Orientation Plan | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 Alley Entry 9 Indicates Image Number and View Vantage Point. Images can be found on the proceeding pages. 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 1 11 10 65 Building from Old Firehouse Alley Seckner Alley from Walnut Street Building from Walnut Street Existing Photos | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 The existing building is characterized by brickwork with entrances and storefronts in disrepair. Openings have been covered particularly on the back alley side of the building. The existing paint colors on the storefront entrances include blue and white, colors that are not traditional to the historic district but rather match the color scheme of the logo from the previous tenant, Goodwill. 66 Photo Circa 1950 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 The following photograph was discovered by Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planner with the City of Fort Collins and was presented to our design team following the Concept Review Submittal. The photo shows a utilitarian service garage building with roll-up doors. Since 1950, the building was converted into a retail store where the roll-up doors were removed and new storefront was added. The transom above the entrance remains intact as well as the original brick. 67 Goals, Proportions and Design Elements | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 Design goals include: preserving the existing transom window, brick, massing and openings. The proposed design returns the structure to the original design theme by reintroducing the roll-up doors with for the intended new use as a restaurant. GOAL: PRESERVE THE EXISTING COMPOSITION INCLUDING MASSING AND OPENINGS GOAL: PRESERVE EXISTING BRICK GOAL: PRESERVE EXISTING TRANSOM GOAL: REINTRODUCE ROLL-UP DOORS AND ORIGINAL PROPORTIONS 68 Image 1 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 The recessed entry on Walnut is to remain in place preserving the historic façade composition. The existing commercial storefront entrance is not original and has been poorly maintained. The Storefront will be replaced to meet current energy code requirements with a door in a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. As part of the design, roll-up doors are proposed with a grid pattern of horizontal mullions and vertical muntins that match the proportion of the roll-up door pictured in the circa 1950 photograph. Existing Condition Proposed 69 Existing Condition Image 2 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from Walnut Street looking southeast. Note that the proposed addition is stepped back from the street and concealed from view. Trees in the ROW further serve to conceal the new structure. Visible from the street is a new rooftop guardrail setback 18” from the inside edge of the parapet (approximately 30” from the face of the building). The guardrail is designed minimally in an attempt to limit its visible signifi cance and impact to the existing structure. Proposed 70 Image 3 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from Walnut Street looking northwest. Note that the proposed addition is stepped back from Walnut Street and is visible due to the open parking located southeast of the existing building. When the neighboring parcels become developed, the new addition will be concealed from street view. The color of the materials on the new addition are intentionally monotone (to match the bronze color of the storefront) so as to minimize focus on the new structures. Proposed 71 Image 4 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from Walnut Street looking northeast through Seckner Alley. The rooftop addition is primarily concealed from view. A new recessed opening is proposed. To minimize impact to the existing structure, the design includes removal of one window and sill allowing the extension of the opening to grade. The opening will allow access to an exterior covered alcove that leads to a door under the existing roof. The door and alcove is required to meet the egress requirements for the building and to prevent the exit door from crossing over the property line. Existing Condition New Opening Proposed 72 Image 5 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley looking southwest through Seckner Alley. The rooftop addition is set back from existing brick wall on Seckner Alley by 6’-8”, further minimizing its presence in relation to the existing structure. Existing Condition Proposed 73 Image 6 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley looking southeast. Note that the rooftop addition is not visible. Proposed 74 Image 7 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley at the intersection with Seckner Alley. A new storefront entrance will maintain the existing side frames and cornice elements. The new storefront will include transom windows, a single storefront entrance, and fi xed storefront side panels with horizontal and vertical elements that are reminiscent of a roll-up garage door. While historic photographs of this elevation are not available, we assume that the original entrance may have utilized a roll-up door for the passage of cars through the garage. The new roll-up door will be transparent, rather than solid. The intention is to create an entry to the rear tenant space while maintaining the character typical of rear alleys in the district. Existing Condition Proposed 75 Image 8 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from the Old Firehouse Alley looking northwest. Note that the rooftop addition is not visible. Proposed 76 Image 9 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from Walnut Street looking northwest. Note that the rooftop addition is stepped back from the street and will be concealed by a street tree. Existing Condition Proposed 77 Image 10 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View across the street on Walnut. Note that the addition is dark in color so as to appear further recessed and minimize its presence, preserving the traditional character of the existing structure. Note that signage is conceptual and will need to meet city requirements. Sign elements are to be pin-mounted into the mortar joints so as to minimize impact to the existing brick. Existing Condition Proposed 78 Existing Condition Image 11 | 320 Walnut Street | One Line Studio & Xan Creative | 28 March 2014 View from the sidewalk fronting the building on Walnut Street. Note that from the sidewalk, the rooftop addition is not visible. Furthermore, the entrance has been revitalized and includes the replacement of the existing light fi xtures with a new light fi xture that is more minimal in nature. The globe fi xtures were added sometime after 1950 and include junction boxes and disturbances to the original brick façade. By replacing the lights with the proposed fi xtures, the increased transparency will serve to conceal these latter improvement while reducing their signifi cance and presence on the Walnut Street façade. Proposed 79 Product521 Line 511 INDUSTRY LEADING COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS Aluminum Door Systems 80 An Attractive Solution for Maximum Visual Access and Light Infiltration GENERAL FEATURES AND BENEFITS Durable Construction for Years of Reliable Operation • 1 3/4" (45 mm) thick, corrosion-resistant 6063-T6 aluminum sections with galvanized fixtures and hinges promotes durability and trouble-free operation • 1/4" (6 mm) diameter through-rods on all stiles and rails enhances strength and sturdiness • Top-quality materials, excellent field service and optional maintenance program contribute to extended door life, low maintenance costs and maximum productivity A Variety of Standard Features and Options • Doors up to 26'11" (8204 mm) wide and 20'1" (6121 mm) high • Glazing choices include DSB glass, plexiglass, tempered glass, clear Lexan ® , multi-wall polycarbonate and wire glass • Standard clear anodized finish for low-maintenance and corrosion-resistance • Optional finishes include bronze anodization or a variety of standard powder coat paint colors • Manual pull rope operation with optional chain hoist or electric motor operator Information is subject to change. Please call your local Overhead Door distributor for special applications or if your application is not listed. Panel thickness Max. width Max. height Rails Standard material Rails Standard finish Center stile widths End stile widths Top rail widths Intermediate rail pair widths Bottom rail widths SERIES AluminumSPECIFICATIONS GENERAL Sectional 511 1 3/4” 16’2” 16’1” 6063–T6 204R–1 clear 21/32” 2 3/4” 2 3/8”, 3 3/4” 1 3/8” 2 3/8”,3 3/4”,4 1/2” (45 mm) (4928 mm) (4902 mm) aluminum anodized (17 mm) (70 mm) (60 mm, 95 mm) (40 mm) (60 mm/95 mm/114 mm) Sectional 521 1 3/4” 26’11” 20’1” 6063–T6 204R–1 clear 2 11/16” 3 5/16” 2 3/8”, 3 3/4” 3 11/16” 3 3/4”,4 1/2” (45 mm) (8204 mm) (6121 mm) aluminum anodized (68 mm) (85 mm) (60 mm, 95 mm) (94 mm) (95 mm/114 mm) 1/8” (3 mm) DSB 1/8” (3 mm) or 1/4” (6 mm) plexiglasss 1/8” (3 mm) or 1/4” (6 mm) tempered 1/8” (3 mm) or 1/4” (6mm) clear Lexan® 1/4” (6 mm) wire glass 1/2”(12mm) insulated glass Electric operator Bottom sensing edge Chain hoist 3” track Bracket mounting High-cycle springs Posi-Tension drums AluminumDoor Systems Overhead Door Corporation’s aluminum sectional doors offer an attractive solution for commercial and industrial applications where visual access, light infiltration and aesthetics are key design considerations. Offered with a variety of stile widths, glazing materials, track styles, and finish options — and in sizes up to 26'11" (8204 mm) wide and 20'1" (6121 mm) high — these doors feature 1 3/4"(45 mm) sections and 1/4" (6 mm) diameter through-rods for strength and stability. A clear- anodized 204R-1 standard finish affords corrosion resistance, and bronze anodization and a spectrum of powder coat paint finishes are additionally available. Ideal for service stations, fire stations, professional facilities and retail environments, our sectional aluminum doors are practical, durable and handsomely styled — and engineered for long life, low maintenance and enduring beauty. Installation and Service provided by Overhead Door Company of Southwestern Idaho Series 521 Clear Anodized OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION 2 82 Sectional Aluminum Doors The 511 Series doors are designed in sizes up to 16’2” wide and 16’1” high (4928 mm and 4902 mm). Featuring a narrow center stile width of 21/32” (17 mm), these doors are sleek, attractive and permit maximum visibil- ity. An array of glazing choices, top-and bot- tom-rail widths, finishes and special options customizes the 511 Series to satisfy nearly any project requirement. Standard Features At a Glance Panel thickness 1 3/4" (45 mm) Maximum standard width 16'2" (6147 mm) Maximum standard height 16'1" (4902 mm) Material 6063-T6 aluminum Standard finish 204R-1 clear anodized Center stile width 21/32" (17 mm) End stile width 2 3/4" (70 mm) Top rail width 2 3/8" (60 mm) or 3 3/4" (95 mm) Top intermediate rail width 3/4" (19 mm) Bottom intermediate rail width 5⁄8" (16 mm) Bottom rail width 2 3/8" (60 mm) or 3 3/4" (95 mm) or 4 1/2" (114 mm) Weatherseals Bottom, flexible PVC Standard springs 10,000 cycle Track 2" (51 mm) Mounting Angle Operation Manual pull rope Hinges and fixtures Galvanized steel Lock Galvanized, interior-mounted single unit Options • Glazing options*: 1⁄8" (3 mm) DSB; 1⁄8" (3 mm) or 1⁄4" (6 mm) plexiglass; 1⁄8" (3 mm) or 1⁄4" (6 mm) tempered; 1⁄8" (3 mm) or 1⁄4" (6 mm) clear Lexan ® ; 3⁄8" (10 mm) and 1⁄4" (6 mm) multi-wall polycarbonate; 1⁄4" (6 mm) wire glass; 1⁄2" (12 mm) insulated glass • Electric operator or chain hoist • Bottom sensing edge • 3" track • Bracket mounting (not available on full vertical door tracks) • Higher-cycle springs in 25k, 50k, 75k, 100k cycles • Exhaust ports *Contact your local Overhead Door Corporation Red Ribbon Distributor for special glazing requirements. Verify 1/4” (6 mm) glass applications with factory The Color Palette for Sectional Aluminum Door Products 197 powder coat finishes are available from your Overhead Door distributor. 197 Standard Powder Coat Finishes Panel Schedule Section Schedule Door Width Number AluminumDoor Systems Installation and Service provided by Overhead Door Company of Hartford Series 511 Clear Anodized OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION 4 84 Sectional Aluminum Doors The 521 Series is a sectional aluminum door appropriate for environments where maxi- mum light infiltration and/or visual access is required. Designed to fit openings up to 26’11” (8204 mm) wide and 20’1” (6121 mm) high, the 521 Series features a wide, 2 11/16” (68 mm) center stile, a 2 3/8” (60 mm) or 3 3/4” (95 mm) top rail, and 3 3/4” (95 mm) or 4 1/2” (114 mm) bottom rail. Like the 511 Series, the 521 Series is available with a variety of glazing choices, finishes and special options. Standard Features At a Glance Section thickness 1 3/4" (45 mm) Maximum standard width 26'11" (8204 mm) Maximum standard height 20'1" (6121 mm) Material 6063-T6 aluminum Standard finish 204R-1 clear anodized (painted white at no charge) Center stile width 2 11/16" (68 mm) End stile width 3 5/16" (85 mm) Top rail width 2 3/8" (60 mm) or 3 3/4" (95 mm) Top intermediate rail width 2 1/8" (54 mm) Bottom intermediate rail width 1 19/32" (40 mm) Bottom rail width 3 3/4" (95 mm) or 4 1/2" (114 mm) Weatherseals Bottom, flexible PVC Standard springs 10,000 cycle Track 2" (51 mm) Mounting Angle Operation Manual pull rope Hinges and fixtures Galvanized steel Lock Galvanized, interior-mounted single unit Options • Glazing options*: 1⁄8" (3 mm) DSB; 1⁄8" (3 mm) or 1⁄4" (6 mm) plexiglass; 1⁄8" (3 mm) or 1⁄4" (6 mm) tempered; 1⁄8" (3 mm) or 1⁄4" (6 mm) clear Lexan ® ; 3⁄8" (10 mm) and 1⁄4" (6 mm) multi-wall polycarbon- ate; 1⁄4" (6 mm) wire glass; 1/2" (12mm) insulated glass • Electric operator or chain hoist • Bottom sensing edge • 3" track • Bracket mounting (not available on full vertical door tracks) • Higher-cycle springs in 25k, 50k, 75k, 100k cycles • Exhaust ports • Four-section pass door *Contact your local Overhead Door Corporation Red Ribbon Distributor for special glazing requirements. Verify 1/4” (6 mm) glass applications with factory The Color Palette for Sectional Aluminum Door Products 197 powder coat finishes are available from your Overhead AluminumDoor Systems Installation and Service: Overhead Door Company of Twin Falls Series 521 Dark Bronze Anodized SERIES 521 OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION 6 86 2” (51 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Door Height Centerline of Shaft Minimum Headroom Thru 12’0” (3658 mm) O.H. + L.C. + 5 5/8” (143 mm) L.C.+ 8 3/4” (222 mm) Thru 16’0” (4877 mm) O.H. + L.C. + 5 5/8” (143 mm) L.C.+ 11 1/4” (286 mm) 3” (76 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Thru 22’0” (6706 mm) O.H. + L.C. + 6 5/8” (168 mm) L.C.+ 11 1/2” (292 mm) Thru 32’0” (9754 mm) O.H. + L.C. + 6 5/8” (168 mm) L.C.+ 12 1/4” (311 mm) Lift Clearance Track Standard Track Detail Any of the following track configurations can be selected for 511 and 521 Aluminum door models. O.H.=Opening Height L.C.=Lift Clearance D.H.=Door Height Standard Lift Track Low Headroom Track Springs to Front Low Headroom Track Springs to Rear Full Vertical Track 2” (51 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Door Height Centerline of Shaft Minimum Headroom Thru 12’0” (3658 mm) O.H. + 11 5/8” (295 mm) 14 1/4” (362 mm) Thru 16’0” (4877 mm) O.H. + 12 5/8” (321 mm) 20 1/2” (521 mm) 3” (76 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Thru 18’0” (5486 mm) O.H. + 14 5/8” (372 mm) 18” (457 mm) Thru 32’0” (9754 mm) O.H. + 16 7/8” (429 mm) 21 1/2” (546 mm) 2” (51 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Door Height Centerline of Shaft Minimum Headroom Thru 12’0” (3658 mm) D.H. + 8” (203 mm) 11 3/4” (299 mm) Thru 16’0” (4877 mm) D.H. + 8” (203 mm) 12 1/2” (318 mm) 3” (76 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Thru 12’0” (3658 mm) D.H. + 9” (229 mm) 13” (330 mm) Thru 32’0” (5486 mm) D.H. + 9” (229 mm) 13 3/4” (349 mm) 2” (51 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Door Height Centerline of Shaft Minimum Headroom Thru 11’0” (3353 mm) O.H. + O.H. + 3/8” (10 mm) O.H. + 10 1/4” (260 mm) Thru 16’0” (4877 mm) O.H. + O.H. + 3/8” (10 mm) O.H. + 10 1/4” (260 mm) 3” (76 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Thru 18’0” (5486 mm) O.H. + O.H. + 3/8” (10 mm) O.H. + 10 1/4” (260 mm) 2” (51 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Door Height Centerline of Shaft Minimum Headroom Thru 12’0” (3658 mm) O.H. + 2” (51 mm) 7 1/2” (191 mm) Thru 16’0” (4866 mm) O.H. 2” (51 mm) 8” (203 mm) 3” (76 mm) Track [15” (381 mm) Radius] Thru 18’0” (5486 mm) O.H. 6 3/4” (171 mm) 9 3/4” (248 mm) 7 87 AluminumDoor Systems Framing and pad details for common installation of Aluminum doors in steel, wood, concrete and masonry jambs are provided here. If you require additional information or have special project requirements, refer to the Overhead Door Architectural Design Manual, (www.OverheadDoor.com/ADM/base.html) or consult with the Overhead Door Applications Engineering Group or your local Overhead Door distributor. 2" (51 mm) Track 3” (76 mm)* Track Steel Jambs 2” (51 mm) Track 3” (76 mm)* Track Wood Jambs 2” (51 mm) Track 3” (76 mm)* Track Concrete/Masonry Jambs Minimum Required Sideroom Track Type 2” Track (51 mm) 3” Track (76 mm)* Standard Lift 4 1/2” (114 mm) 6 1/2” (165 mm) Low Headroom 9” (229 mm) 10” (254 mm) Lift Clearance 4 1/2” (114 mm) 6 1/2” (165 mm) Full Vertical 4 1/2” (114 mm) 6 1/2” (165 mm) Minimum Required Sideroom Track Type 2” Track (51 mm) 3” Track (76 mm)* Standard Lift 3 1/2” (89 mm) 5 1/2” (140 mm) Low Headroom 8” (203 mm) 9” (229 mm) Lift Clearance 3 1/2” (89 mm) 5 1/2” (140 mm) Full Vertical 3 1/2” (89 mm) 5 1/2” (140 mm) Minimum Required Sideroom Track Type 2” Track (51 mm) 3” Track (76 mm)* Standard Lift 4 1/2” (114 mm) 6 1/2” (165 mm) Low Headroom 9” (229 mm) 10” (254 mm) Lift Clearance 4 1/2” (114 mm) 5 1/2” (140 mm) Full Vertical 4 1/2” (114 mm) 5 1/2” (140 mm) * 3" (76 mm) track not available with 598 Series. Framing & Pad Detail OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION 8 88 Electric Operators Operator Control Options • Push-button, key or combination stations; surface- or flush-mounted for interior and/or exterior locations • Vehicle detectors, key card reader, photocell and door timer controls • Treadle or pull switch stations • Telephone entry and coded keyboard stations • Universal programmable door timer • Radio control systems (24 VAC or 120 VAC) • Explosion and dust ignition-proof systems Electric Operator Selection Guide Horsepower/ Newtons Max. height of door Max. weight of door Super Belt™/Polybelt Worm gear Adjustable clutch Totally enclosed Continous duty Explosion proof Mounting type RHX® 1/2 HP, 3/4 HP 1 HP, 3 HP 24’ (7315 mm) 3696 lbs (1676 kg) • • • • T, S, C RSX® 1/2 HP, 3/4 HP 1 HP 24’ (7315 mm) 1620 (735 kg) • • • • T, S, C RMX® 1/2 HP 14’ (4267 mm) 620 (281 kg) • T, S RDX® 650 N, 1300 N 33’ (10,057 mm) 900 (509 kg) • S Mounting Options: T=Trolley S=Side mount C= Center mount Safety Recommendations Overhead Door Corporation strongly recommends the use of a primary safety device as defined by UL325 2010. A primary safety device can be approved monitored photo- eyes or an approved monitored sensing edge. If a primary safety device is not installed, a constant contact control switch must be used to close the door. Contact Overhead Door for more information. Minimum Headroom Requirements RMX ® Track Requirements +4 1/2” (114 mm) RSX ® Track Requirements +5” (127 mm) RHX ® Track Requirements +5” (127 mm) AluminumDoor Systems 5 3/4" TYPICAL MIN. SIDE ROOM 5 1/2" 4 3/16" 7 5/16" 12 13/16" 3 5/8" Mounting Details Trolley-type (Drawbar) operators feature a power unit mounted between, above and to the rear of the horizontal tracks. The drawbar drive provides positive control of the door at all times, making this operator the preferred choice whenever possible. Maximum door width is 20' per drawbar. Door width over 20' requires dual drawbar installation. Available on Models RMX ® , RSX ® and RHX ® . Trolley-type (Drawbar) RMX®, RSX®,RHX® Side-mounted (Jackshaft) RMX ® , RSX ® , and RHX ® operators feature a power unit mounted on the inside front wall and connected to the crosshead shaft, with an adjustable coupling or drive chain and sprockets. Side-mounted (jackshaft) RDX ® operators feature a power unit mounted directly to the cross header shaft, and secured to the door track. Side Mount Type (Jackshaft) RMX®, RSX®, RDX®, RHX® Center-mounted (Jackshaft) operators fea- ture a power unit on the front wall above the door opening. No additional backroom is required. Available on models RSX ® The Original, lnnovative Choice for Unequalled Quality and Service Overhead Door Corporation pioneered the upward-acting door industry, inventing the first upward-acting door in 1921 and the first electric door operator in 1926. Today, we continue to be the industry leader through the strength of our product innovation, superior craftsmanship and outstanding customer support, underscoring a legacy of quality, expertise and integrity. That’s why design and construction professionals specify Overhead Door Corporation products more often than any other brand. The Overhead Door Red Ribbon is a mark of quality that also reflects the pride we take in the people who support our products. Our family of over 400 Ribbon Distributors across the country not only share our name and logo, but also our commitment to excellence. Your Ribbon Distributor will work with you in a consultative role to ensure that product selections achieve your design and application requirements — in addition to offering expert installation, professional field service and ongoing maintenance. From project design and manufacturing to installation and service, the Overhead Door Red Ribbon is your guarantee of genuine quality and turnkey service excellence. Together with our Red Ribbon Distributors, we offer comprehensive technical information and resource materials to support your project, including: • Architectural Design Manual – a comprehensive guide to selecting, specifying and detailing all commercial and industrial Overhead Door products can be found at www.OverheadDoor.com/ADM/base.html • Operation & Maintenance Manual – detailed product information, customized for your project, to ensure reliable, long-life door system operation • Custom application and technical assistance through ordering plants’ customer service and technical services respectively • Visit our Architect’s Corner at www.OverheadDoor.com Today, Overhead Door Corporation – along with our Horton Automatics division, for automated pedestrian entrances – is recognized as the leading, single-source manufacturer of integrated door and operator systems for commercial, industrial and residential applications. With multiple manufacturing locations throughout the United States, a state-of-the-art TREQ (Testing, Reliability, Engineering, and Quality) Center for design and engineering, and a national network of authorized Red Ribbon Distributors, our capabilities are leading-edge and our field service and technical support second to none. Built best and backed best, Overhead Door is the industry’s leading choice for quality that shows and lasts. To talk with the Overhead Door distributor nearest you, call 1-800-929-DOOR. Overhead Door Corporation 2501 S. State Hwy. 121 Bus., Suite 200 Lewisville, Texas 75067 1-800-929-DOOR www.OverheadDoor.com The Overhead Door Corporation family of quality commercial and industrial products includes: A part of Sanwa Holdings Corporation INDUSTRY LEADING COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS ©2012 Overhead Door Corporation. Overhead Door, Thermacore, RHX, RSX, RapidSlat and the Ribbon logo are registered trademarks of Overhead Door Corporation. All other trademarks are property of their rightful owners. Consistent with our policy of continuing product improvement, we reserve the right to change product specifications without notice or obligation. C900-069 2M 7/12 JAR Advanced Rolling Steel Door RapidSlat® Thermacore® Sectional Doors Rolling & Side Folding Security Grilles & Closures Rolling Service Doors Commercial Operators 91 UL Wet Location Listed. UL File Number: E57163 D H DIMENSIONS Catalog No. Height (H) Dia. (D) VW1 4-1/4” 5-3/8” VW2 4-1/4” 5-7/8” VW1K 9-1/4” 5-3/8” VW2K 11” 5-7/8” VW1GC 9-3/4” 5-1/2” VW2GC 11-1/2” 6” Series Wall Mount ORDERING INFORMATION Catalog Number: Example: VW1GC ACCESSORIES TECHNICAL INFORMATION PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS • VW Roughlyte™ fixtures are for use on walls and columns. VW guard against moisture and debris in exterior applications (for globe down mounting only). Not recommended for use in hazardous locations. • Fits all 4” round and octagon boxes. • Order VCA1 mounting plate for all 3-1/2” 4” recessed octagon box mounting. • Order VCP mounting plate for all 3-1/2” 4” recessed octagon and round boxes for plumb alignment. • Heat and shock resistant glass globe. • Sockets are pre-wired with extra long 1/2” stripped leads. • For 3/4” conduit, use VW series with VXL13 universal box. • Patented. Roughlyte is a registered trademark of Stonco and is not for use in hazardous areas. Accessories - See page 5-A 1-100W 2-200W GC- Glass Globe and Cast Guard K- Glass Globe No Suffix for unit only VW FIXTURE WATTAGE DESCRIPTION VW-Wall Mount VW1GC Wall Unit with Cast Guard and Glass Globe Product Overview www.mapes.com Insulated Infill Spandrel Panels Impact, Sound, Water, and Fire Resistant Panels Insulated Spandrel Glass Composite Panels Insulated Formed Edge Panels Glazing Replacement Panels 93 R-Values: Mapes Panels vs. Insulated Glass 25 20 15 10 5 0 1" 2 1/4" 3 1/4" 1.79 4.74 6.41 15.16 10.68 15.43 22.16 Insulated Glass Styrene Isocyanurate Mapes Panel Design Alternatives Available in all architectural finishes: Porcelain / Kynar / Anodized / Baked Enamel Typical Panel Installation Formed Edge Glazing Detail Veneer/Glazing Detail MAPes-R® PAneL Laminated glazing infill that improves energy efficiency, abuse resistance and design flexibility. • For use in all major window and curtainwall systems mapes.com/panels/infill MAPestOP® Fire resistant infill panels designed to meet local code requirements. • Class A rated • 15-30 minute fire rated mapes.com/panels/mapestop MAPesOunD® Panels designed to improve the acoustical performance of window and curtainwall systems. • STC up to 55 • Available in all architectural finishes mapes.com/panels/mapesound MAPeshAPe® Formed edge panels improve energy efficiency and design options. • Flush with frame glazing option • Butt glazing mapes.com/panels/mapeshape MAPeshIeLD® Impact resistant infill panels designed for coastal or high security areas. • Large and small missile impact rated • Explosion and bullet- resistant glazing mapes.com/panels/mapeshield consult the “spec Builder” at mapes.com/panels/spec_builder for complete details. interior skin exterior skin substrate insulating core substrate selection Guide TEXTURE STANDARD CUSTOM AVAILABLE WIDTHS FINISH SKINS THICKNESS EMBOSSED SMOOTH COLORS COLORS 48" 60" WARRANTY Porcelain on Aluminum 0.016 • 24 • • • 25 Porcelain on Steel 0.014 • 8 • • • 20 Standard .032 Kynar 0.032 • • 18 • 20 Custom Kynar 0.036 - 0.125 • • • • • 10 Spandrel Glass 0.25 • 8 • • • 5 Colorlume E 0.012 • 6 • • 5 Colorlume S 0.022 • 2 • • 5 .025 Clear Anodized (Coil) 0.025 • 1 • N/A .025 Bronze Anodized (Coil) 0.025 • 1 • N/A Class 1 Anodized 0.036 - 0.125 • • • • • LAMINATION SUBSTRATES WARRANTY 1/8" Hardboard 0.125 MOST ECONOMICAL • • 25 3/16" Hardboard 0.187 MOST ECONOMICAL • • 25 1/2" Gypsum 0.5 FIRE RESISTANT • 25 Cement Board 4mm WATER/IMPACT RESISTANT • 25 Corelite (H.D.P.E.) 4mm WATER RESISTANT • • 5 CORES 2# Density Polystyrene most economical per inch (4.74 - 20.31 R-Values) Isocyanurate most insulation value per inch (6.41 – 27.79 R-values) Micore Class A Fire Rated (3.05 - 15.50 R-Value) GRAffItI ResIstAnce Because porcelain enamel is a vitreous glass finish that is fused to the base metal, it is nearly impervious to any graffiti and abuse. It can be cleaned to its original appearance simply and easily. cOLORfAst Porcelain is one of the most color-stable products ever developed. The color oxides become part of the finish and are fused to the base metal at temperatures in excess of 1,000 degrees F. That is why porcelain is known as the “permanent” finish. cOLOR MAtchInG Porcelain finishes can be formulated to match almost any project design. Mapes has 24 standard colors and an in-house ability to match custom colors quickly and accurately. ALuMInuM AnD steeL Mapes porcelain panels are available in both textured aluminum and smooth steel surfaces. The unique textured porcelain on aluminum eliminates oil canning and will not rust or spall. Porcelain on smooth steel is also available for those applications where a ferrous product is required. Both finishes will not crack or craze when subjected to long-term harsh environments. Porcelain The lifetime finish for schools, hospitals, and high-traffic areas. 95 647 Parchment White 650 Champagne 720 Sandstone 450 Seawolf 590 Autumn Beige 175 Buff 762 Rust 751 Mocha Brown 275 Rosewood 375 Azure Gray 735 Charcoal Gray 588 Marsh Green 350 Colonial Blue 560 Interstate Blue 520 Cherokee Blue 624 Interstate Green 7130 Briar Brown Extra Dark Bronze Medium Bronze 920 Claret Dark Ivy Hartford Green 704 Night Horizon Blue Silver Metallic* Champagne Metallic* 733 Hartford Green Cityscape Sierra Tan 911 Bronzetone Light Classic Bronze Matte Black 912 Bronzetone Medium Sherwood Green Mansard Brown 913 Bronzetone Dark 9588 Black Classic Copper* Charcoal Gray Stone White Sky Blue Teal Regal Red Bone White Regal Blue Hemlock Green Brandywine Almond Electric Blue* Tropical Patina Colonial Red Sandstone Patina Green Terra Cotta Slate Gray Alpine White Regal Bronze Clay Red (TCM-27) Dark Bronze (TCM-60) White (PEI-118) Sahara Sand (TCM-37) Black (PEI-28) Sky Blue (PEI-29) Bronze (PEI-N50) Powder Gray (PEI-22) A25 Aztec Bronze A21 Warm White A22 Sunset Beige A29 Silver A11 Dover White A30 Quaker Bronze Mapes color Options STANDARD PORCELAIN - EMBOSSED ALUMINUM Custom color matching available COIL COATED KYNAR ON SMOOTH ALUMINUM COLORLUME E Polyester Baked Enamel - Embossed Aluminum COLORLUME S Polyester Baked Enamel - Smooth Aluminum PORCELAIN ON SMOOTH STEEL Semi-matte Semi-gloss Create a customized panel spec online. www.mapes.com/panels/spec_builder. Available through your favorite local glass and glazing dealer. For a complete list of local manufacturer’s reps, visit mapes.com/panels/reps. Due to printing process, colors are a general guide only. Please consult your manufacturer’s representative for actual color samples. Due to printing process, colors are a general guide only. Please consult your manufacturer’s representative for actual color samples. Spec sheets are available for each of the following panel types: • MapeStop • Mapes-R • MapeShape • Porcelain • MapeShield • Corelite • MapeSpan Call toll-free, 800-228-2391 or visit mapes.com for more details. Rev. 03/10 Printed in U.S.A. Mapes Panels, LLC 2929 Cornhusker Hwy / Lincoln, NE 68504 800-228-2391 / 800-737-6756 fax panels@mapes.com / www.mapes.com 1 320 Walnut Street Final Review of Proposed Alterations Josh Weinberg Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission April 9, 2014 97 2 320 Walnut Street 98 3 320 Walnut Street Ca. 1950 99 4 Location 100 5 Proposed Alterations for Front Elevation 101 6 Proposed Alterations for Front Elevation 102 7 Rear Elevation 103 8 Rear Elevation – Proposed Alterations 104 9 Thank You 105 Fort Collins, Colorado HISTORIC STRUCTURES ALONG THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR MULBERRY STREET TO SHIELDS STREET prepared by Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, CO 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 27 December 2013 106 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 27 December 2013 Greg Koch, Vice President Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 375 Horsetooth Rd., Building 5 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Project: Cache la Poudre River Corridor Historic Resources Analysis Dear Greg, In compliance with my proposal and task order with Anderson Consulting Engineers, I have completed the fieldwork and research related to historic resources located along the Cache la Poudre River corridor between Mulberry Street and Shields Street. This work involved several trips to the corridor over the past couple of months to locate and visit each of the resources discussed below. Archival research was conducted online, as well as in the Museum of Discovery and various city offices. The following report presents the results of my work along the river corridor. However, it should be noted that the current task was not comprehensive in the sense that a deeper level of physical and archival documentation can be completed on each of the historic resources. As we have discussed, this may become necessary as the City determines how it would like to proceed with removal, alteration or retention of the various historic resources in the corridor. Sincerely, Ron Sladek President 107 CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER CORRIDOR MULBERRY STREET TO SHIELDS STREET HISTORIC RESOURCES ANALYSIS The purpose of this first phase of the Cache la Poudre River project is to identify and collect information on historic and potentially historic built resources along the river corridor, specifically focusing upon the approximately two-mile stretch from Mulberry Street to Shields Street. A number of resources relevant to the purpose of the project were found in this area, all of them dating from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These are individually addressed in the following text. While the State and National Registers of Historic Places use a basic guideline that calls for potentially eligible resources to be at least fifty years old unless of tremendous modern importance, the City of Fort Collins imposes no such restriction. Therefore, all major resources within the corridor were reviewed during the course of this project. This included automobile bridges, railroad bridges, irrigation structures, and other structures that are potentially significant from a historical standpoint. Excluded from this discussion were the many common features along the river that included stormwater discharge pipes, pipes of unknown origin and use, unidentified slabs of concrete and sandstone, riprap and concrete bank stabilization walls, and other small or inconsequential items that did not appear to have any historical significance. The project also did not stray from the river corridor, defined by its adjacent banks, and consequently refrained from including nearby buildings. A few of these, such as Ranch-Way Feeds, the Fort Collins Power Plant (now CSU engines lab), and some of the buildings along Vine Street, are historic and potentially significant. If they may be impacted by work along the river, they will have to be evaluated at the appropriate time. The historic resources documented along the river corridor are addressed below, moving upstream from southeast to northwest. Coy Farm Dam The Coy Farm Dam is located in the Cache la Poudre River, along the southern edge of the Woodward Development Site and north of the Mulberry Wastewater Treatment Plant’s northwest corner. It consists of a large horizontal rectangular block of rough poured concrete that extends into the river from the north bank. The dam could not be reached for close inspection because Woodward has closed the site to pedestrian access while earth moving is underway. However, observation from the high riverbank to the south showed that the concrete block is approximately 3’ across the top and perhaps 25’ in length. It is broken and weathered by water and ice. Due to the steep slope covered with vegetation, it 108 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life could not be determined whether any remnant of the dam remains along the base of the south bank. The Coy Farm was settled in 1862, and has long been recognized as one of the first agricultural properties to be developed in the Fort Collins area. Arapahoe Indians also camped on this land until they were pushed north into Wyoming in 1869. During the mid-1860s, the military camp known as Fort Collins was established less than one-half mile to the west, and the town that emerged from the fort began to grow in the 1870s. Despite the elevation change, the Coy Farm extended both north and south of the Cache la Poudre River, and the dam was situated well within the property’s boundaries. The farm remained in the Coy family and continued to be worked until the late 1980s, when the property was converted into the Link-N-Greens golf course. In the field several hundred yards northeast of the dam, close to where Woodward’s new headquarters will soon be constructed, the Coy barn, silos and milk house remain standing today. These were listed in the State Register of Historic Properties in 1995. Distant from the buildings, the dam was not included in this landmark designation. Coy Farm Dam (center of photo) View to the Northeast Exactly when the Coy Farm Dam was constructed is not currently known. However, it appears on a 1918 Larimer County district court map (see Appendix D). The “Map of Josh Ames, Coy and Other Ditches,” located in Colorado State University’s Morgan Library, simply identifies the feature at this location as a “concrete dam” that spanned the river within the Coy Farm. Other than mention 109 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life on this map, the archival research completed for this project uncovered no other information about the dam’s exact age, builders, or purpose. Given the dam’s location and the fact that it was developed prior to 1918, it appears likely to have been constructed by members of the Coy family and was somehow related to their agricultural operation. Additional research and field inspection may reveal at least some of the answers to these remaining questions. In the meantime, because of its age and association with the historically prominent Coy Farm, the dam should be considered potentially eligible for local landmark designation. It should not be removed or otherwise altered until it is fully documented and reviewed under the City’s historic preservation code. U.S. Geological Survey River Gauge This feature is located on the sloped north bank of the river, adjacent to the Poudre River Trail about 50’-75’ southeast of the Lincoln Avenue Bridge. It consists of a tall vertical large-diameter corrugated metal pipe with a conical metal cap. Small solar panels and an antenna are mounted on the roof. The corrugated pipe is painted green, except for a small panel on its west face. At this location are the following notations, written in permanent marker: -- HWM High 11.28 9/13/2013 -- HWM Low 11.19 These are clearly high water markings made during the flood event of September 2013. The high and low numbers represent feet above flood stage. A short metal ladder is attached to the pipe’s lower west side, above which is a locked and hinged door that can be opened to access the interior of the corrugated pipe. This indicates that the structure is essentially a chart house that records water levels in the river. Projecting toward the west from the lower area of the corrugated pipe is a small-diameter horizontal pipe. This is suspended above the river by two metal pipe posts. While this structure may appear to have been at this location for some time, it was actually installed during the fall of 2013. The previous river gauge was located on the north bank just west of the Lincoln Avenue Bridge, and also involved the use of a vertical corrugated pipe as a chart house. However, this was damaged in the 2013 flood and required replacement. The gauge was rebuilt in its current location with new materials a short distance downstream on the east side of the bridge. Horizontal piping associated with the earlier gauge remains in its original location today, marking where it previously stood. 110 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Although the current river gauge plays an important role in the federal government’s collection of data regarding stream flow, it is a modern feature that was recently constructed. For this reason, it is not considered a historic structure and is unlikely to be eligible for any form of landmarking or preservation regulation for many years to come. USGS River Gauge Harmony Mill (left) and Ranch-Way Feeds (right) View to the West Lincoln Avenue Bridge The Lincoln Avenue Bridge crosses the Cache la Poudre River on the eastern edge of downtown Fort Collins, just east of Ranch-Way Feeds. The reinforced concrete deck girder bridge is 195’ in length, with a roadway width of 28’. Concrete abutments and a single concrete pier along the river’s north bank support the two-span bridge. Four-foot sidewalks run along both sides of the roadway, and steel pipe guardrails are bolted to the tops of the concrete sidewalls. The paved Poudre River Trail runs beneath the northern span, with the river itself running underneath the southern span. Beneath the bridge, the sloped riverbanks are shored up with concrete riprap. The Lincoln Avenue crossing of the Cache la Poudre River is one of the earliest in the Fort Collins area and dates back to 1873, when the town was being established. Throughout the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, this road served as the primary wagon and auto route between Fort Collins and Greeley. Consequently, the Lincoln Avenue crossing was of utmost importance to the growing community and saw frequent traffic. (see Appendices) 111 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life The first bridge constructed there is likely to have been assembled from timbers. An 1884 bird’s eye illustration of Fort Collins shows a two-span open truss bridge at this location. Over the following decades, this was replaced by at least two subsequent steel truss bridges. The first of these, constructed in 1895, was a narrow Pratt through truss bridge supported by concrete and stone abutments. This bridge served the community for decades until it collapsed in November 1943 as two automobiles attempted to cross the light structure at the same time and one hit the bridge, dislodging it from its abutments. Sergeant Charles Montgomery, a young local man on furlough from the Army, died in the accident. Due to this collapse, the next bridge would have been constructed in 1944 to get the crossing reopened as soon as possible. The replacement was a sturdier open Parker (Camelback) truss bridge with heavier gauge metalwork designed to handle vehicles that weighed more than horse carts and Model T automobiles. While this bridge remained in use for more than thirty years, over time it became obsolete and had to be replaced. Lincoln Avenue Bridge Harmony Mill (left) and Ranch-Way Feeds (right) View to the West According to City of Fort Collins records, the bridge located at the Lincoln Avenue crossing today appears to have been constructed in 1977. Although a cultural resource survey completed in 1994 suggested that it might be as much as several years older, city documents from 1976 include plans and photographs taken that summer of the 1944 metal truss bridge, which remained in use. These provide clear evidence that the current bridge could not have been completed prior to 1977. 112 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life The 1994 cultural resource study concluded that the current bridge was not old enough to be considered eligible for the State or National Registers of Historic Places. This remains the case today. In addition, the bridge is not particularly rare or unique, nor does it exemplify any major development in bridge construction. It is simply representative of the many hundreds of similar reinforced concrete deck bridges constructed throughout Larimer County and Colorado over the past four decades. For the same reasons, the current Lincoln Avenue Bridge is unlikely to be considered eligible for local historic designation and subject to preservation regulation in Fort Collins. Unidentified Concrete Structure This low rectangular structure is located along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River, adjacent to and west of the Lincoln Avenue Bridge. It faces toward the southwest in the direction of the opposite bluff, on top of which is the Ranch- Way Feed Mill. Behind it to the north is the Oxbow Property, a vacant piece of land containing a long arc of mature trees that mark the former route of the river’s main channel. The unidentified concrete structure is located at the historic confluence of the oxbow with the river’s current main channel, which may explain something about its original purpose. The structure itself consists of a low board-formed concrete wall that projects from the earthen bank into the river, rising perhaps three feet above the winter water level. It appears to have a footprint of at least 10’ x 30’, but could in fact be larger. To the northeast, the structure disappears beneath the riverbank. The concrete wall also disappears beneath a mature tree to the northwest. However, the wall re-emerges beyond the tree and continues for some distance to the northwest before it disappears again beneath a build-up of soil and vegetation. The riverside edges of the wall, both to the southwest and southeast, are broken by a regular pattern of rectangular openings with metal lips along the bottom, suggesting that these allowed for drainage. Between the openings are vertical metal I-bars, and the concretework behind each of these along the inner wall surface is buttressed with thicker angled concrete. Metal bolts rise from the top of the wall at regular intervals, suggesting that at one time these secured sill plates or a cover (perhaps a floor) on top of the structure. Now out of use, the bolts have been bent to a horizontal position. Two non-historic features are also present on the structure, neither of which would have been associated with its original use. One is a combination of connected horizontal and vertical pipes that were associated with the river gauge that until recently was mounted adjacent to the structure (see discussion above). This gauge appears to date back no earlier than the 1980s. The other is an unidentified concrete box with a concrete lid and metal door that may also have been related to the river gauge. It appears to be of relatively modern construction. 113 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life The interior area of the unidentified concrete structure is filled with rocks, sand, plants and riverside debris, much of which may be due to recent flooding. The bank to the northeast is also eroding into the structure, and appears to have been reshaped and raised higher than it was originally. It is very likely that additional features of the historic structure are buried at the present time. The original use of this structure is unclear and will require further investigation. So far, research has revealed little about it, as it does not appear in most historical records. Also, no living persons have been located who might remember the structure when it was in use. However, it does appear in a circa 1930 photograph located in the Museum of Discovery archives. (see Appendix F) In this photo, which focuses upon the Lincoln Avenue Bridge, the structure is seen at the confluence of the main channel (now the abandoned oxbow) and a smaller slough to the south (now the main channel). The historic primary river channel flowed around the structure’s northwestern corner. The low concrete wall is apparent in the photo, complete with its rectangular openings and vertical metal bars. The openings were partially filled with either water or silt, raising a still unanswered question about why it was designed to allow flow through the structure. Above the concrete wall, the structure appears to have had a floor, possibly constructed of wood. A wood railing set back from the river’s edge about eight feet surrounded a small wooden shed that rested upon the deck and faced toward the northeast. Near the structure’s southwest corner was a short stairway with wood handrails that allowed access to and from the riverbank next to the bridge abutment. Finally, the entire structure was exposed, with no built-up riverbank rising behind it. Concrete Structure North Bank of the River West of the Lincoln Avenue Bridge 114 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life While the circa 1930 photograph does not fully explain the structure’s use, it answers numerous questions about its original or early appearance, which was in the form of a riverside platform that allowed water to flow underneath the floor. At this time, two possibilities come to the forefront in terms of its possible historic use. One is that it could have had a recreational purpose. The other is that it utilized the flow of water from the oxbow (the main channel) to operate some sort of machinery associated with the shed. In either case, the structure was likely abandoned during the 1950s, when the river through this area was channelized and reshaped. This work diverted the main river flow from the oxbow to its current channel, causing the oxbow to dry up. Additional research may uncover more information on the background and use of this unusual feature, and should be pursued. Because of its age, location, and known characteristics, this historic resource should be considered potentially eligible for local landmark designation. It should not be removed or otherwise altered until it is fully documented and reviewed under the City’s historic preservation code. In addition to the possibility that further archival research and interviews may reveal more about its origins and use, the resource appears to be an excellent candidate for archaeological investigation. Linden Street Bridge The Linden Street Bridge crosses the Cache la Poudre River on the northeastern edge of downtown Fort Collins in the historic vicinity of the fort that gave the town both its start and its name. This reinforced concrete deck girder bridge is 204’ in length, with a roadway width of 36’. Concrete abutments and a single concrete pier on a narrow island in the middle of the river support the two-span bridge. Sidewalks run along both sides of the roadway, and steel pipe guardrails are bolted to the tops of the concrete sidewalls. The first crossing of the Cache la Poudre River along Linden Street was completed in 1903, coinciding with construction of the Great Western Sugar Company factory across the river northeast of downtown. Prior to that time, the river at the northern end of Linden Street presented a challenge to cross. This was due to the presence of two river channels that were separated by an oval body of land known as Grand Island. Due to this topography, the crossing developed in 1903 required the construction of two bridges. (see Appendices) In 1908, the Denver & Interurban Railroad extended a streetcar line up Linden Street and over the bridges to provide factory workers with access to the sugar plant. During the summer months, this line also offered rides to the recreational facilities and picnic grounds at Lindenmeier Lake. The streetcar system suffered financially during and after World War I, and service across the river was discontinued in 1923 when a flood destroyed the bridges. However the crossing remained important for automobiles, and the bridges were quickly rebuilt. 115 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Over the past 110 years, the Linden Street Bridge has been replaced several times. In 1904 and 1923, replacement became an urgent necessity due to destruction caused by major floods. These events not only destroyed the bridges, but also reshaped the course of the river. For example, by the mid- 1920s Grand Island had been cut in two, probably as a result of the 1923 flood. This resulted in the need for three bridges at the Linden Street crossing. Over the following two decades, the naturally braided river channel was intentionally reshaped into a single stream that required just one bridge to span. A new bridge, a Pratt through truss, was erected on Linden Street in 1944. Additional work completed during the 1950s realigned the river’s main channel away from the now-abandoned oxbow to the northeast. This restricted its previously arcing course to the straightened stretch that now runs between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue. Plans were drafted for another new bridge across the river in 1955, although it is not clear whether these were implemented. Linden Street Bridge View to the North The current Linden Street Bridge was constructed in 1984, replacing the open metal truss bridge that had been constructed there thirty to forty years earlier. It is not old or significant enough to be considered eligible for the State or National Registers of Historic Places. The bridge is not particularly rare or unique, nor does it exemplify a major development in bridge construction. It is simply representative of the many hundreds of similar reinforced concrete deck bridges constructed throughout Larimer County and Colorado over the past several decades. For the same reasons, the Linden Street Bridge is unlikely to be considered eligible for local historic designation and subject to preservation regulation in Fort Collins. 116 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Colorado & Southern Railway (BNSF) Bridge The Colorado & Southern Railway Bridge, now owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, crosses the Cache la Poudre River on the northern edge of downtown Fort Collins. It is located between the College Avenue and Linden Street bridges, just east of the old Fort Collins Power Plant (Colorado State University’s Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory) and south of the Gustav Swanson Natural Area. This narrow steel girder bridge is over 200’ in length and carries a single track across the river. Concrete abutments and four piers support the bridge, which consists of five spans. Two of the piers rest upon the embankments, and the other two are mounted atop concrete foundations within the river channel. Each pier is formed of four heavy vertical steel I-beam piles with smaller I-beam cross braces. A large horizontal rectangular concrete block rests upon each set of piles. These support the two parallel lines of heavy horizontal steel girders that span the length of the bridge. Wood beams rest on top of the girders at regular intervals and are cantilevered to the sides about four feet beyond the tracks. These support metal walkways that flank the tracks, along with wire rope handrails mounted to vertical angle bars. The standard gauge steel rails rest upon a closely placed pattern of wood ties. C&S/BNSF Railroad Bridge View to the West The bridge runs between downtown Fort Collins and the Vine Drive marshaling yards (known as North Yard) to the northeast. From there, the rail line runs 45 miles north to Wellington and Cheyenne. To the south, the line runs about 60 miles to Boulder and Denver. This crossing over the Cache la Poudre River is 117 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life consequently important to the rail line as a whole. The Poudre River Trail runs along the bank of the river beneath the bridge’s southern span. Incorporated in 1898, the Colorado & Southern Railway (C&S) eventually ran from Casper and Cheyenne, Wyoming south to Texline, Texas. From there, a subsidiary known as the Fort Worth & Denver Railway transported C&S railcars to the Gulf Coast city of Galveston. The railroad primarily became known for hauling freight, including grain, sugar beets and coal. Passenger service also ran along the route between 1905 and 1967. Its most famous train, the Texas Zephyr, provided first class service between Denver and Dallas. The Pioneer Zephyr ran between Cheyenne and Denver, with regular stops at the C&S passenger station at the intersection of Laporte Street and Mason Street in downtown Fort Collins. In 1908, the C&S became an independent subsidiary of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad (CB&Q). Decades later, in 1981, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) acquired full ownership and operation of the Colorado & Southern. The C&S, and the bridge over the Cache la Poudre River, continue to be owned and operated by the BNSF today. The first bridge at this crossing of the Cache la Poudre River was constructed in 1903, when the sugar factory was being completed northeast of downtown. (see Appendix E) It appears to have been erected by the recently formed Fort Collins Development Railway Company, which was controlled by the C&S. The rail line crossed the river, ran east along Vine Drive to the sugar plant and marshaling yards, and then curved north to Wellington and Waverly. Passenger service was inaugurated along the route in 1905, after additional track was completed between Wellington and Cheyenne. A series of bridges appear to have stood at this historic river crossing over the past century, each one replaced due to flood damage or obsolescence. In fact, below the north embankment of the current bridge are the weathered remnants of the previous bridge’s wood pilings. The present steel girder bridge resting upon steel pilings appears to have been constructed around the 1980s, and may not be significant enough to qualify for local landmarking or for the State or National Registers of Historic Places. However, whether this is a common bridge type in Colorado has yet to be determined. It does not appear to be common to the Fort Collins area, which may raise its level of significance even though it is only a few decades old. Additional research and analysis may conclude that the bridge exhibits a rare or unique engineering design, one that represents a major development in bridge construction. On the other hand, it may turn out to be unremarkable. For this reason, it is recommended that additional work be completed to answer these questions before any replacement or alteration of the bridge takes place. 118 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Coy Diversion Dam, Headgate & Ditch The Coy Diversion Dam and Headgate are located along the Cache la Poudre River, north of the old Fort Collins Power Plant (Colorado State University’s Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory) and about eighty yards east of the College Avenue Bridge. The low concrete dam spans the entire width of the river. At the center of the river, the structure includes a fish ladder and a boat chute. These are flanked on either side by spillways. The steep southern riverbank, at the south end of the dam below the Poudre River Trail, is supported by a vertical concrete retaining wall. A metal headgate operated by an electric motor is recessed into the dam, about four feet south of its northern end near the Coy Ditch headgate. Coy Diversion Dam, Headgate and Concrete Wall View to the North The Coy Ditch headgate is situated along the river’s north bank at the north end of the dam, where it has historically drawn water into the ditch. Board formed concrete walls flank the headgate to the east and west of its inlet. To the west, the wall extends along the north bank of the river all the way to the College Avenue Bridge. Several feet within the concrete inlet structure is the recessed metal headgate for the Coy Ditch. The metal gate is raised and lowered with a simple geared ratchet bar system that is commonly found on similar structures. Just outside the concrete wall west of the gate is a vertical metal pipe and box with a hinged lid that were presumably used as the ditch’s charthouse. Running from the headgate to the northeast and then east is the Coy Ditch. This extends through the Gustav Swanson Natural Area, passing through two small ponds along the way. It continues east just south of Vine Drive, and then turns to 119 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life the south at Linden Street. The ditch runs south and then southwest for several blocks along the west side of Linden Street. It wraps around the west side of the Gustav Swanson Natural Area parking lot and finally tails out in the Cache la Poudre River just west of the Linden Street Bridge. The pioneer Coy family settled in the countryside east of today’s downtown Fort Collins in 1862, before the fort had even been established (see the Coy Farm Dam above). In the arid climate, it quickly became apparent that irrigation would benefit their crop production. Three years after they arrived, the Coys acquired water rights along the Cache la Poudre River (priority number 13) and set to work developing their own irrigation ditch. A headgate was constructed along the north bank of the river across from the fort, and excavation of the ditch was accomplished by hand and with the aid of a horse-drawn scraper. When completed, the Coy Ditch extended for about 1.5 miles to the southeast, crossing through the open fields that today are occupied by the New Belgium Brewery and Buckingham neighborhood. (see Appendix C) It continued across Lincoln Avenue into the Coy farm (now the Woodward development site), where for over a century it supported the growth of crops such as alfalfa, corn, grains, and later sugar beets. The ditch tailed out in the Cache la Poudre River near today’s intersection of Mulberry Street and Lemay Avenue. After the farm was converted into the Link-N-Greens golf course in the late 1980s, it continued to provide water to the site. With development increasing in the area, over the past two decades the ditch has been truncated and substantially altered, leaving it a remnant of what it was historically. With the constant flow of water and ice, riparian irrigation structures such as dams and headgates require periodic repair and even reconstruction. The Coy Dam and Headgate have been no exception to this rule. Both of these structures have seen at least portions of their concrete and metalwork repaired over the past century, with some of this work completed during the past few decades. For example, it appears that the dam’s downstream face was covered with rocks until about a decade ago, when these were removed and replaced with smooth concrete. The headgate structure and wall to the west do not appear to have been altered for many decades. Additional research is likely to answer more questions about possible changes to these structures over the past century. At this time, it seems unlikely that the Coy Diversion Dam, Headgate and Ditch would be eligible for designation to the State or National Registers of Historic Places. The dam appears to have been constructed much later than the headgate and has experienced alterations that might disqualify it for local landmarking. The ditch itself has been substantially altered and is clearly not eligible. However, given the fact that the headgate was developed during the 1860s by one of the area’s most prominent pioneer families, it should be considered potentially eligible for local landmark designation despite the fact that it has most likely been rebuilt. It should not be removed or otherwise altered until it is fully documented and reviewed under the City’s historic preservation code. 120 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life College Avenue Bridge The College Avenue Bridge (U.S. Highway 287) crosses the Cache la Poudre River on the northern edge of downtown Fort Collins, carrying heavy traffic along the city’s main north-south thoroughfare. The reinforced concrete box girder bridge is 228’ in length, with a four-lane roadway width of 76’. Concrete abutments and three large piers support the four-span bridge, which crosses both the river and the Poudre River Trail. Concrete sidewalks run along both sides of the asphalt roadway, separated from the traffic by low guardrails. Viewing platforms project from the walkways in three locations (directly above the piers) along each side of the bridge, allowing pedestrians to step out of the way and observe the river from above. Metal guardrails rise from the outer edges of the sidewalks. Four reproduction light fixtures featuring a vintage design with glass globes rise from concrete bases on either side of the bridge. Below the deck, the concrete piers are ornamented with vertical striations. Overall, it is apparent that the structure was designed to be both functional and attractive, marking the northern entrance into downtown Fort Collins. Recognizing its important role and location, in the 1990s the city named the structure the “North College Gateway Bridge.” College Avenue Bridge View to the Northeast The College Avenue crossing of the Cache la Poudre River is one of the earliest in the Fort Collins area and dates back to the 1870s, when the town was first established. (see Appendices) In 1873, the Larimer County Commissioners earmarked $1,200 for the construction of a bridge over the Cache la Poudre River at the north end of College Avenue. The street was anticipated to develop 121 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life into the town’s primary north-south commercial artery, and the trail north of the river provided access to the countryside as far as Laramie, Wyoming. Consequently, a reliable crossing over the river at this location was of utmost importance to the growing community. In March 1875, R. W. Cloud was engaged to erect the first bridge at this location for $864. The county paid his fee with the stipulation that the Town of Fort Collins improve the approach to the bridge from the south. It is very likely that the first bridge erected at the College Avenue crossing was constructed of timbers. According to an 1873 map, it spanned the river’s main channel, but a small slough to the south evidently had to be forded. An 1884 bird’s eye illustration of the town showed two bridges spanning the river, one over the main channel and another over the small slough. The short road segment between them crossed over a small island. From the illustration, these appear to have been deck bridges resting upon pilings. Ten years later, the slough and island were gone, and just one bridge was used to cross the river. By the early 1900s, the Cache la Poudre River at the College Avenue crossing was spanned by a metal truss bridge, possibly a Pratt through truss. This is likely to have been erected after the devastating 1904 flood that destroyed most of the bridges in the vicinity. At that time, most of the traffic over the bridge would still have been horse-driven. By the 1910s and 1920s, automobiles were commonplace on area roads. The earlier truss bridge was replaced in the 1930s by a concrete and metal I-beam structure capable of handling heavier vehicles and faster traffic. Laborers employed by the federal Works Progress Administration reportedly constructed this bridge. U.S. Highway 287 was established in 1939, running from Denver to Yellowstone National Park through the center of Fort Collins and over the College Avenue Bridge. In 1955, a modern five-span steel girder deck bridge was constructed at the crossing, paid for by the Colorado Department of Highways. The project may actually have involved a major expansion and improvement of the 1930 bridge. With a length of 303’, the new bridge included sidewalks, handrails, and pole lights. Concrete abutments and four large piers supported it from beneath. At that same time, new bridges were constructed to the north at the College Avenue crossings over the Lake Canal and Eaton Ditch. Located along a federal highway, the current College Avenue Bridge over the Cache la Poudre River was constructed in 1995 and is owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation. At this time, it is not old or significant enough to be considered eligible for the State or National Registers of Historic Places. The bridge is not particularly rare or unique, nor does it exemplify a major development in bridge construction. It is simply representative of the many hundreds of similar bridges constructed throughout Larimer County and Colorado over the past few decades. For the same reasons, the bridge is unlikely to be considered eligible for local historic designation and subject to preservation regulation in Fort Collins. 122 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Union Pacific Railroad Bridge The Union Pacific Railroad Bridge crosses the Cache la Poudre River on the northern edge of downtown Fort Collins. It is located about 200’ west of the College Avenue Bridge, just east of Lee Martinez Park and the River’s Edge Natural Area. Not only does the bridge span the Cache la Poudre River, it also crosses the Poudre River Trail and the broad floodplain north of the river channel. Due to its historic use, visible location, and physical characteristics, the structure is well known in the community and for several generations has been referred to as the “Telephone Pole Bridge.” This open deck timber bridge is over 500’ in length and carries a single track across the river. Wood and earthen abutments, along with multiple sets of evenly spaced pole pilings, support the bridge, which consists of 31 spans. Each set of five pilings is constructed of heavy vertical poles supported by horizontal and diagonal dimensional lumber braces. Sturdy horizontal wood beams rest on top of the pilings and project to the sides about two feet. These support the long parallel lines of heavy horizontal wood girders that span the length of the bridge. Numerous wood ties cap the girders, held in place by thick boards that run the length of the bridge’s upper surface. Between these boards are the steel rails upon which the trains travel. All of the bridge’s wooden members are held together with metal bolts. Union Pacific Railroad Bridge View to the Southeast In 1911, the Union Pacific Railroad arrived in Fort Collins, extending its main line into the downtown area from the southeast parallel to Jefferson Street. Separate passenger and freight depots were constructed, both of which remain standing 123 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life today. Eager to capture new business, in 1924 the railroad constructed an agricultural spur line that would run from its main line in downtown Fort Collins into the countryside to the north. (see Appendix E) Key to the route’s success, a long timber bridge was erected across the Cache la Poudre River and its floodplain that year, just west of and parallel to College Avenue. Opened to traffic on September 1st, the 17-mile route extended to Waverly and Buckeye, where a wye allowed the engines to turn around and head back south. With the bridge and tracks completed, trains began traveling north several times each week during the growing season. At Waverly and Buckeye, they picked up loads of alfalfa, sugar beets and livestock, and hauled them back to Fort Collins. In 1926, a spur was extended from this line into the developing oilfield north of town, delivering supplies and hauling crude oil to market in tanker cars. Another spur to the northwest allowed the Union Pacific Railroad to serve the Ideal Cement Plant, which opened in 1927 north of Laporte. The oilfield spur was abandoned in 1946, and traffic ceased along the line to Waverly and Buckeye in 1965. What remained active was the spur that served the cement factory. Trains still traverse this route today, crossing over the wooden bridge in Fort Collins and heading to and from the cement plant, which halted production in 2002 and has since been used as a distribution center. Over the decades since it was constructed, the bridge has had to be repaired on a number of occasions due to flood damage. A major flood in 1976 forced the railroad to replace many of the timbers, and additional repairs were completed following the 2013 flood. Although this work changed out some of its wooden parts, these appear to be duplicates of the originals. Overall, the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge remains in its original location and appears to have retained its original style, wood construction, and historic appearance. It is also a rare example of a substantial open deck timber bridge, very few of which remain standing in the region today. For ninety years, this bridge has played a key role in the development of agriculture and industry in the countryside north of Fort Collins. For this reason, and despite the fact that some of its wooden members have been replaced over the years, the bridge appears to be eligible for local landmarking. In addition, it may be eligible for State and/or National Register designation. In any case, it is important that the bridge be fully documented and preserved, if at all possible, and that no attempts be made to have it demolished. Lake Canal Diversion Dam & Headworks The Lake Canal Diversion Dam and Headworks are located along the Cache la Poudre River, about 1,000’ west of College Avenue along the south side of Woodlawn Drive south of Legacy Park and northeast of Lee Martinez Park. The low concrete, two-step dam spans the entire width of the river, with vertical 124 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life concrete wingwalls stabilizing the banks at either end. At the eastern end of the dam (essentially the north bank of the river) are the ditch headworks, surrounded by chain link fencing. Diverted by the dam, river water must first pass through a long horizontal grizzly, or screen, formed of vertical metal pipes before it approaches the gates. This prevents larger floating objects such as wood and ice from clogging the gates or getting into the ditch. A narrow concrete sidewalk with metal pipe handrails and supported by two concrete piers runs along the top of the grizzly. The intake structure is lined with concrete walls that direct the water to two side- by-side gates at its eastern end. While much of the structure appears to be decades old, the gates and their surrounding concretework are of modern construction and are controlled by electric motors. After passing through the gates, the water enters the earthen Lake Canal. This snakes eastward beneath College Avenue, through the northern area of the city, and into the countryside beyond. The canal runs twenty miles to the southeast, supplying water to numerous agricultural users and filling Thompson Lake and Lake Canal Reservoir No. 1 between Windsor and Timnath. Lake Canal Diversion Dam with the Headworks in the Distance View to the East The Lake Canal was constructed in 1873, when the Fort Collins Agricultural Colony and the Town of Fort Collins were established. (see Appendices B & C) To build the irrigation system, the Colony engaged John C. Abbott, a former member of the Union Colony (which became the town of Greeley) and future state auditor, along with Benjamin H. Eaton, a prominent pioneer farmer and future Colorado governor. As they oversaw construction of the Lake Canal, the 125 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life men were also busy coordinating development of the Larimer County Canal #2, which diverted river water through the countryside west and south of Fort Collins. During the drought of 1874, a heated dispute arose between the Fort Collins and Union Colonies over water diversions into these ditches. The Union Colony threatened legal action, claiming that the Fort Collins Colony was removing so much water from the river that it was leaving downstream users without adequate supplies for their crops. Settlement of the conflict led to adoption of the Colorado system of water appropriations that remains in place today. During the early decades of irrigation in Colorado prior to 1900, the ditch companies recognized that water storage was critical to their operations. Many began to construct reservoirs that would capture and hold water for use late in the growing season and during period of drought. The Lake Canal Company, which owned and managed the ditch, built reservoirs of its own in the countryside southeast of Fort Collins. The Lake Canal remains in use today, providing water to numerous irrigators along its length. In 1994, a cultural resource survey was completed on the Lake Canal Diversion Dam and Headworks. This document concluded that the resource was eligible for both local landmarking and the National Register of Historic Places. While the diversion dam and headgate have been reconstructed, perhaps several times, since they were first built well over a century ago, they remain in their original locations and are still used for their original purpose. Photographs taken during the course of the 1994 project show that the headgate structure, but not the entire headworks, was rebuilt during the past twenty years. Subject to the constant forces of water and ice, it is common for structures such as this to require regular maintenance and periodic reconstruction. Despite this, the Lake Canal remains notable as a prominent early irrigation ditch associated with Benjamin Eaton, and for its role in the early development of the system of water appropriations in Colorado. Due to its significance and probable eligibility for landmark designation on some level, any plans for alteration or removal of these features should involve careful documentation of the structure and mitigation planning prior to any work being completed. At minimum, the headworks should be left in place even if the diversion dam is removed. Mason & Hottel Mill Race Headgate Two modern pedestrian bridges cross the Cache la Poudre River west of the Lake Canal between the McMurry and Salyer Natural Areas to the north and the Poudre River Trail to the south. Built since 1980, neither of these is of historic interest. West of these, where a line drawn due north from Loomis Street meets the trail and south bank of the river, is a large concrete structure that appears to be associated with the historic Mason & Hottel Mill Race. (see Appendices A-C) 126 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Located adjacent to the Poudre River Trail, the board formed concrete structure sits about twenty feet south of the river. It is also several feet above the river’s surface. Since the late 1800s, periodic floods have substantially altered the river’s course and reshaped its banks. Soils and debris built up against the concrete walls, partially obscuring them from view. A large tree has also grown up against the structure’s northeast riverside face. The western wingwall has shifted outward and is no longer fully upright. Overall, the structure appears to have been both constructed and abandoned many decades ago. The riverside length of the eastern wingwall is perhaps ten feet longer than the others. Opposite this toward the river is a parallel, slightly lower concrete wall, with a gap between them of about five feet. The walls were constructed so they form a channel that narrows to the west and is open to the east. About halfway along their lengths are opposing vertical recessed panels with bolts that still retain wood boards. Weathered horizontal boards also currently span the gap between the walls at this location. A tree is growing within the channel. An old wood fencepost wrapped in wire still stands at the eastern end of the upper wall. Mason & Hottel Mill Race Headgate View to the Northeast A map from 1873 and an 1884 bird’s eye illustration of Fort Collins both show a bridge located across the river at the north end of Sherwood Street, two blocks east of this location. In addition, the 1884 illustration places the headgate of the Mason & Hottel Mill Race next to the bridge. However, this appears to be in error. Plans for the town during those early years did call for development to extend northward along a number of the north-south streets all the way to the river. But this did not occur and the low-lying area between the river and Elm Street remained agricultural and undeveloped, possibly due to periodic flooding. 127 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Later maps from 1906, 1918 and 1929 show that the mill race headgate was actually located farther west at a point due north of Loomis Street. This is where the large concrete structure is found today. Whether a bridge was ever constructed there is unclear, and seems very unlikely. All of this points to the likelihood that the structure on this site is in fact the Mason & Hottel Mill Race headgate. Drawing water from the south bank of the river, the mill race extended toward the southeast through present-day Lee Martinez Park in the direction of downtown Fort Collins. After crossing College Avenue just north of Cherry Street, it continued to the southeast down Willow Street. The mill was located along the south bank of the river at today’s intersection of Willow Street and Lincoln Avenue, a property now occupied by Ranch-Way Feeds (the old mill is incorporated into this facility). Constructed in 1869 by Elizabeth “Auntie” Stone and Henry Peterson, both prominent founders of the town of Fort Collins, the business initially operated as the Lindell Mill and was the first in the region to produce flour marketed under the names Defiance, Jack Frost, Snow Trader, and Pride of Colorado. Powered by water drawn from the river, the headgate and race were constructed at the same time the mill was being built. Joseph Mason purchased the business in 1873, and in 1880 sold half of it to Benjamin Hottel. They remained partners until Mason’s death in 1881, after which Hottel continued to fully own and operate the business. Four years later, he sold the mill to the Denver-based Colorado Milling & Elevator Company, a growing western agricultural processing enterprise with facilities in several states. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the headgate and mill race would have required regular maintenance and periodic replacement. This would especially have been the case following floods. River water continued to power the mill until the facility switched over to electricity in 1919. This suggests that the headgate structure along the river dates from sometime prior to that year. Additional research may determine exactly when the current structure was constructed, as it may have replaced the original headgate. In any case, the mill race was abandoned and over the years was erased from the landscape, leaving the headgate along the river as its sole surviving structure. The mill continued producing flour until 1948, after which it shifted to the production and sale of animal feeds. The expanded facility remains in operation today as Ranch-Way Feeds, the oldest continually operating business in the city of Fort Collins. Due to its significance as an important resource related to early agricultural industrial production in Fort Collins, the headgate structure is likely to be eligible for local landmark designation. Whether it might be eligible on the state or national levels is currently unclear. However, any plans for alteration or removal of the structure should involve careful documentation and mitigation planning prior to any work being completed. Ideally, the headgate should be left in place and interpreted for visitors along the Poudre River Trail. 128 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life APPENDIX A Franklin Avery’s Map of Fort Collins, 1873 129 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life APPENDIX B Willits Map of Fort Collins, 1894 130 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life APPENDIX C Map of Josh Ames, Coy & Other Ditches, 1918 Lincoln Avenue Bridge (lower right) to Hottel Mill Race Dam (upper left) Source: Morgan Library, Special Collections, Colorado State University 131 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life APPENDIX D Map of Josh Ames, Coy & Other Ditches, 1918 Coy Farm Dam (lower right) to Lincoln Avenue Bridge (upper left) Source: Morgan Library, Special Collections, Colorado State University 132 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life APPENDIX E Map of Fort Collins, 1925 133 Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. Bringing the Past to Life APPENDIX F Lincoln Avenue Bridge & Concrete Structure circa 1930 View to the northwest Source: Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives (Image #H19791) 134 *Premium Charges Apply 96 MAPesPAn® Spandrel glass laminated into a unitized panel with an interior finish. • Single source factory laminated • Reduces field labor and fabrication mapes.com/panels/mapespan cOReLIte® Laminated infill panels with corrugated high density polyethylene substrates. • Water resistant substrates • Light weight mapes.com/panels/corelite MAPes® VeneeR & GLAzInG Panels designed to replace standard glass for all glazing infill. • Abuse resistant / unbreakable • Fascia, soffit, wall facing applications mapes.com/panels/veneer MAPes® custOM PAneLs Laminated panels for a custom application. • Interior wall panels • Cafeterias / kitchens / clean rooms mapes.com/panels/custom MOLDInGs 1/4" and 1" moldings. • Veneer applications • Window replacement infill mapes.com/panels/moldings Window Details For complete details, please visit mapes.com/panels. 94 VW1 Wall Adapter ™ W H W H All incandescent Roughlyte ceiling and wall fixtures are not supplied with a lamp. This fixture requires a medium base incandescent A lamp. The lamp can be clear or coated. CATALOG NO. TYPE NO. JOB NAME Crescent/Stonco • 200 Franklin Square Drive • Somerset, NJ 08873 • 800-334-2212 • www.stoncolighting.com 01/13 Stonco is a Philips company 92 and RHX ® Center Mount Type/Jackshaft RSX®, RHX® Depth Requirements - “A” Dimension (Backroom) RMX ® Door Height +4’ 0” (1219 mm) RSX ® Door Height +4’ 0” (1219 mm) RHX ® Door Height +4’ 10” (1219 mm) “A” Dimension - Minimum (Sideroom) 2” Track (51 mm) 3” Track (76 mm)* RMX ® 18 1/2” (470 mm) 19 1/2” (495 mm) RSX ® 21” (533 mm) 22” (559 mm) RHX ® 21” (533 mm) 22” (559 mm) RDX ® 5 3/4” (146 mm) 5 3/4” (146 mm) 5 3/4" TYPICAL MIN. SIDE ROOM 5 1/2" 4 3/16" 7 5/16" 12 13/16" 3 5/8" Mounting Details Trolley-type (Drawbar) operators feature a power unit mounted between, above and to the rear of the horizontal tracks. The drawbar drive provides positive control of the door at all times, making this operator the preferred choice whenever possible. Maximum door width is 20' per drawbar. Door width over 20' requires dual drawbar installation. Available on Models RMX ® , RSX ® and RHX ® . Trolley-type (Drawbar) RMX®, RSX®,RHX® Side-mounted (Jackshaft) RMX ® , RSX ® , and RHX ® operators feature a power unit mounted on the inside front wall and connected to the crosshead shaft, with an adjustable coupling or drive chain and sprockets. Side-mounted (jackshaft) RDX ® operators feature a power unit mounted directly to the cross header shaft, and secured to the door track. Side Mount Type (Jackshaft) RMX®, RSX®, RDX®, RHX® Center-mounted (Jackshaft) operators fea- ture a power unit on the front wall above the door opening. No additional backroom is required. Available on models RSX ® and RHX ® Center Mount Type/Jackshaft RSX®, RHX® Minimum Headroom Requirements RSX ® Track Requirements +14” (356 mm) RHX ® Track Requirements +23 5/8” (600 mm) OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION 10 90 Overhead Door Corporation offers the broadest line of electric operators to suit new construction and retrofit applications, as well as unusual or special requirements. Manufactured by Overhead Door Corporation to meet the exacting performance requirements of Overhead Door’s upward-acting doors, our ribbon branded operators afford precise control of door action for years of trouble-free operation. In order to improve safety and enhance door and motor life, industry quality assurance guidelines recommend the choice of a single manufacturer for both door and operator applications. Overhead Door Corporation is one of the only national manufacturers to offer a full line of commercial and industrial doors and operators specifically designed for integral applications. Operator Models Model RMX ® Model RMX® is our newest, most advanced medium-duty operator. It is designed for quicker installation and hassle-free operation and operates doors up to 14' (4267 mm) in height and 620 pounds (282 kg). It is available as a trolley-type or side-mounted unit. Model RSX ® Model RSX® is a standard duty commercial operator designed to operate doors up to 24' (7315 mm) in height and 1620 pounds (735 kg). It offers unique features like LimitLock® , SuperBelt™ & 16 digit menu setup. Model RHX ® Model RHX® is a heavy duty commercial operator designed to operate doors up to 24' (7315 mm) in height and 3696 pounds (1676 kg). Available as either a trolley, sidemount or centermount. S Model RDX ® The RDX ® is designed for limited space applications and is available in both medium and standard duty motor options designed to operate doors up to 40' (12,192 mm) in height and 900 pounds (409 kg). It offers unique features like a lightweight DC motor, automatic limit setting and sensitive obstruction detection. 9 89 Door distributor. 197 Standard Powder Coat Finishes Panel Schedule Section Schedule Door Width Number of Panels Door Height Number of Sections to 8’2” (to 2489 mm) 2 to 8’6” (to 2591 mm) 4 8’3” to 12’2” (2515 mm to 3708 mm) 3 8’7” to 10’1” (2616 mm to 3073 mm) 5 12’3” to 16’2” (3734 mm to 4953 mm) 4 10’2” to 12’1” (3099 mm to 3683 mm) 6 16’3” to 19’2” (4978 mm to 5842 mm) 5 12’2 to 14’1” (3708 mm to 4293 mm) 7 19’3” to 20’11” (5867 mm to 6375 mm) 6* 14’2” to 16’1” (4318 mm to 4902 mm) 8 21’0” to 23’11” (6401 mm to 7290 mm) 8* 16’2” to 18’1” (4928 mm to 5512 mm) 9 24’0” to 26’11” (7315 mm to 8204 mm) 10* 18’2” to 20’1” (5537 mm to 6121 mm) 10 *Special construction. Consult your local Overhead Door Red Ribbon Distributor for additional information. SERIES 521 5 85 of Panels Door Height Number of Sections to 8’11” (2718 mm) 2 to 8’6” (2591 mm) 4 9’0” to 11’11” (2743 mm to 3632 mm) 3 8’7” to 10’1” (2616 mm to 3073 mm) 5 12’0” to 14’11” (3658 mm to 4547 mm) 4 10’2” to 12’1” (3099 mm to 3683 mm) 6 15’0” to 16’2” (4572 mm to 4928 mm) 5 12’2” to 14’1” (3708 mm to 4293 mm) 7 14’2” to 16’1” (4318 mm to 4902 mm) 8 SERIES 511 3 83 Pass door Exhaust ports Bronze anodization Powder coat paint finish SERIES AVAILABLE OPTIONS c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 511 521 Sectional Sectional 1-800-887-DOOR Selection of Overhead Door products automatically includes the unequaled expertise and experience of Overhead Door Red Ribbon Distributors. Nationwide coverage by our over 400 Red Ribbon Distributors is unique in our industry–providing a single source for design and application consulting, installation, service and ongoing maintenance. Turnkey services to maximize the lasting value of your product choice. Your Overhead Door distributor is also your only source for a full line of commercial and industrial door and operator systems specifically designed for integrated applications. For over four generations, our Red Ribbon Distributors have been committed to providing commercial and industrial door solutions. Combined with Overhead Door product design and manufacturing superiority, our distributors are a proud part of the Overhead Door family, sharing our name, our Ribbon logo and our commitment to industry leading innovation and excellence. THE TURNKEY SOURCE FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS AND SERVICE 1 81