Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2017 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Dave Lingle Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit 39TUhttp://www.fcgov.com/fctv/U39T for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: 39TUhttp://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.phpU39T. Regular Meeting March 15, 2017 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • STAFF REPORTS • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. UCONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission 2. ULIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a three-story residential project that would be a Net Zero Energy building on a 4,600-square-foot site at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The development site is within the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT/OWNER: Laurie and Bob Davis, Davis Davis Architects 3. UINTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program process, review criteria, and scoring. 4. U231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1998. The proposed work includes gutter replacement and repair and rehabilitation of fascia and soffits. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen Slezak 5. UJAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATIOUN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the James Ross Proving-Up House, a 1890 residence that served as a residence to satisfy the requirements of the 1862 Homestead Act. APPLICANT: Bob Adams, Recreation Director • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Roll Call and Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission Date: 3/15/17 ROLL CALL Ernest X Frick X Gensmer absent Hogestad X Lingle X Simpson X Wallace X Zink X Dunn X VOTING RECORD Item: #1 - Minutes Item: #4 231 S. Howes – Move to Final Item: #4 231 S. Howes – Approval Ernest Y Ernest Y Ernest Y Frick Y Frick Y Frick Y Gensmer absent Gensmer absent Gensmer absent Hogestad Y Hogestad Y Hogestad Y Lingle Y Lingle Y Lingle Y Simpson Y Simpson Y Simpson Y Wallace Y Wallace Y Wallace Y Zink Y Zink Y Zink Y Dunn Y Dunn Y Dunn Y RESULTS: Passed 8:0 RESULTS: Passed 8:0 RESULTS: Passed 8:0 Item: #5 James Ross Designation Ernest Y Frick Y Gensmer absent Hogestad Y Lingle Y Simpson Y Wallace Y Zink Y Dunn Y RESULTS: Passed 8:0 Log of Packet Additions Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Date: 3/15/17 Item # Exhibit # Rec’d Description N/A N/A 3/15/17 Public Comment – Heritage Culturalist Program Information 2 1 3/15/17 Determination of Eligibility for 300 E. Oak 2 2 3/15/17 Updated Applicant Presentation 2 3 3/15/17 Photos of Materials Samples 2 4 3/15/17 Citizen Letter of Support Coy‐Hoffman Farmstead, Fort Collins Great Western Sugar Company Effluent Flume and Bridge, Fort Collins Bellvue Hydraulics Laboratory, Bellvue Public Comment - Heritage Culturist Program Information Ogilvy Ditch & Diversion Structure, Greeley Nathan Meeker Home, Greeley Kaplan‐Hoover Bison Bonebed, Windsor Public Comment - Heritage Culturist Program Information Public Comment - Heritage Culturist Program Information Public Comment - Heritage Culturist Program Information Public Comment - Heritage Culturist Program Information Public Comment - Heritage Culturist Program Information Public Comment - Heritage Culturist Program Information Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 15, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 3 City of Fort Collins Page 1 February 15, 2017 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Dave Lingle Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting February 15, 2017 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Ernest called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson ABSENT: Gensmer STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager • STAFF REPORTS Ms. Bzdek informed the Commission about the release of the new economic benefits study. The report, “Preservation for a Changing Colorado” was prepared by Clarion Associates. Ms. Bzdek noted that two Fort Collins case studies were included in the report, the Old Town Historic District and the Northern Hotel. The report can be accessed by clicking on the “Popular Report” button at www.preservationbenefitscolorado.com. She encouraged the Commission and members of the public to explore the site. Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 2 February 15, 2017 Ms. McWilliams provided an update on the status of the Historic Preservation code and process review project. The RFP has been issued and closes on the 24th, and the firm will be selected by a committee. An early March kick-off meeting is scheduled, and the project will be fast-tracked. She noted that Meg Dunn was invited to join the committee, which will also include a Planning and Zoning Board member, members of the development community, home owners and others. Ms. McWilliams also updated the Commission on the Alta Vista survey project. She explained that the City has partnered with Dr. Sara Payne’s historic preservation class at CSU to conduct the survey, which is now underway. Brochures have recently been mailed to all of the property owners, and an initial public meeting was held to provide information about the project. Most properties will be surveyed from the public rights-of-way, but all sides of the buildings will be surveyed for those properties whose owners have granted permission. Dr. Payne and her students are expected to provide a report to the Commission at the April 19th meeting. Acting Chair Ernest thanked Staff for the reports, adding that he was pleased to hear Ms. Dunn would be participating in the code committee, and that the Alta Vista survey was moving forward. • AGENDA REVIEW Agenda Item #3 has been moved to follow Item #5. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. Ms. Dunn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of January 18, 2017. Ms. Zink seconded. The motion passed 8:0. 2. INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the program, the loan process, and the role of the LPC. She also reviewed code section 14-48 and the criteria by which the applications should be evaluated. Commission Questions and Discussion Acting Chair Ernest reviewed the order of proceedings for the forthcoming design reviews. [Secretary’s Note: Item #3 was moved to follow item #5.] 4. 525 SMITH STREET (THE GEORGE W. COFFIN HOUSE PROPERTY) - CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The George W. Coffin House Property at 525 Smith Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1996. The proposed work includes the restoration of six, original wood windows for functionality and increased energy efficiency. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Lisa and Daniel Regan Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, providing a summary of the proposed work, and a review of the Applicant’s responses to the questions raised by the Commission at the work session, which are included in the updated staff report. 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 3 February 15, 2017 Applicant Presentation The contractor on the project, Mark Wernimont from Colorado Sash & Door, Inc., spoke about the method to be used for installation of the storm windows. These windows currently have no weather stripping. He discussed the challenges of heating the upstairs bedrooms. The homeowner, Mr. Regan, reiterated the issues with the heating, stating that they would like to make the home more energy efficient while maintaining its historic character. Staff Response None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked Mr. Wernimont to explain the difference between the new storms and the existing storms, and to address why the originals couldn’t be retained. Mr. Wernimont explained that not all of the existing windows have storms. He added that the quality of the wood on the originals may not support the double-strength glass needed to withstand the wind loads over time. Mr. Frick suggested an alternate method to fix the windows. Mr. Wernimont responded that the side and bottom rails were too narrow to allow for adequate venting surface. He noted that the fact that the windows are on the second floor, combined with their height, make them more difficult to put on and take off. The intent for the hanging screens was to make them more functional and usable over a longer period. Mr. Hogestad asked about the hardware, hinges and mounting. Mr. Wernimont said they were mounted like a traditional storm top hanger, with a hook to allow the window to be tipped out further. He explained that the window will open about 7”, utilizing a thumb screw or friction, and the hinge folds into the opening on the inside. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the Conceptual Review and move to Final Review. Ms. Zink seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the installation of six, wood storm windows and weather stripping of the same six windows to the George W. Coffin Property at 525 Smith Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Frick seconded. Ms. Dunn asked for additional insight from the Members who are more knowledgeable about the details of the windows. Mr. Hogestad asked for clarification on whether the rails and styles of the new units were the same as the originals, to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Mr. Wernimont added that the work would not prevent the original storms form being put back at a later date, although he does not believe there is any historic glass in the storm windows at this point. Mr. Hogestad said the treatment was a light touch and would make the home more livable. Ms. Simpson asked if the weather stripping would be added to the original windows and the storms. Mr. Wernimont explained that they would be weather stripping the original windows, but it was not necessary on the storms. Mr. Hogestad asked whether the glazing would be single strength, and Mr. Wernimont replied that it would be double strength so that it would be less prone to breakage. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 4 February 15, 2017 Ms. Simpson asked if the weather stripping could be removed without causing permanent damage to the original windows, and Mr. Wernimont confirmed that was the case. Mr. Frick commented that they were not aluminum storms. Mr. Hogestad said it was a good solution to storm windows that will be functional for the homeowners. The motion passed 8:0. 5. 304 EAST MYRTLE (JF FARRAR HOUSE & GARAGE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The J. F. Farrar Property at 304 East Myrtle, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1996. The proposed work includes preventative sealing of the failing foundation, installation of gutter system, and regrading of the ground near the alley. This work is a combination of mitigation and preventative measures to help the foundation of the residence. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Arvin I. and Judith B. Lovaas Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, providing a summary of the proposed work, and a review of the Applicant’s responses to the questions raised by the Commission at the work session, which are included in the updated staff report. Applicant Presentation The contractor for the project, Kevin Murray from Empire Carpentry, walked the Commission through the project in more detail. He explained the problems with the foundation, and discussed the plans for the gutter system and regrading, which they hope will prevent further failure of the foundation. Ms. Lovaas, the property owner, stated that the loan process was great. She said they were delighted with Mr. Murray’s proposal, and thanked the City and the Commission for providing the tools to address these issues. Commission Questions Ms. Zink asked about the existing conditions of the gutters and why K-style was chosen. Mr. Murray responded that the house originally had no gutters. While half-round might have been more common to the original time period, the east side of the house already has K-style gutters at this point, so it made sense to match that. The existing house has crown mold on top of the fascia, which K-style mimics pretty well. They will not remove the existing trim, but rather install the gutter over the top of the existing trim so it can be removed without altering the original structure. Mr. Hogestad commented that the grade comes right up to the sill of the cellar window, and inquired as to whether the planned regrading would address that. Mr. Murray explained that they would not be grading up to the house because of that window. They would cut a swale in the middle along the property line and create positive drainage from the window toward the center and south. He stated there was currently no moisture problem with that window. Ms. Simpson asked for clarification on the location of the swale. Mr. Murray stated it would be along the property line, rather than 8 feet from the house as had been stated in the documentation. Ms. Simpson inquired as to the direction of the drainage flow. Mr. Murray said it would flow toward the poured driveway, which they would have to work around. Ms. Simpson asked how the area was irrigated, and Mr. Murray relayed Ms. Lovaas’ response that they watered by hand when needed. Staff Response None Public Input None 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 5 February 15, 2017 Commission Discussion Mr. Frick inquired about the exposed root. Mr. Murray explained that they would dig under it, rather than remove it, in order to avoid killing the tree. Mr. Hogestad asked whether they would install a pipe or lay gravel to stabilize the drainage route. Mr. Murray said they would only add grass seed. They would also chip a joint into the foundation and the siding to allow monitoring of further movement. Mr. Hogestad asked how much water would be moved under the root. Mr. Murray said this would drain the gutters from half the house, but he hopes the use of gutter extensions will better direct the water flow to the center. He would also like to move the water away from the house to avoid hazardous ice accumulation. Ms. Wallace asked about the foundation on the other sides of the house, other than the west elevation. Mr. Murray said just the one area on the west side was affected. The objective is simply to move the water away from the building in accordance with today’s standards. Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the Conceptual Review and move to Final Review. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the preventative sealing of foundation gaps and cracks, gutter installation, and regrading to the J. F. Farrar Property at 304 East Myrtle Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Dunn seconded. Ms. Dunn thanked Mr. Murray for his clear explanations. Mr. Hogestad added that he’d like to see the cellar window dealt with at some point. Ms. Simpson suggested the owners consider moving the plantings away from the cellar window. Ms. Lovaas said there was a hollyhock there that she would move. Mr. Lingle commented that while he understood Mr. Murray’s decision to start with the least invasive solution, if it doesn’t achieve the desired outcome, the owners may need to apply for another loan to mitigate the foundation issues. Mr. Murray agreed, adding that the intent was to remedy the situation sufficiently with minimal cost. The motion passed 8:0. 3. 2306 WEST MULBERRY STREET (THE EMPIRE GRANGE HALL) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The Empire Grange Hall at 2306 West Mulberry Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2003. The proposed work includes replacement of non-historic, vinyl windows and repair of two original windows. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Erich Stroheim, Master of Empire Grange 148 Acting Chair Ernest disclosed having worked with Erich Stroheim in the past, but stated he did not believe it created any bias. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, providing a summary of the proposed work, and a review of the Applicant’s responses to the questions raised by the Commission at the work session, which are included in the updated staff report. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 6 February 15, 2017 Applicant Presentation Mr. Wernimont explained the work to be done to the windows in more detail, and elaborated on his responses to the Commission’s questions from the work session. Commission Questions Mr. Hogestad asked whether the thickness of the new unit and brick mold would allow for proper exposure of the brick return. Mr. Wernimont explained that the process they plan to use would allow the same type of reveal and appearance as the original. He also confirmed that the new window setback would be no more than ¼ inch from where original window sat. Mr. Wernimont said the wall was standard double brick and that he believed there was a space between outer and inner brick. He also explained that if needed, they would add a piece to fill in between the jam extension and the new unit. Mr. Lingle asked for clarification as to whether screens were included in the loan application. Mr. Wernimont explained that they could do screens, but that was not provided in his estimate. He stated screens had been highlighted in the packet, but that was done in error. Mr. Lingle suggested adding a condition that if screens came up later, it would come back to the Commission for approval. Staff Response None Public Input None Commission Deliberation Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive the Conceptual Review and move to Final Review. Mr. Lingle seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Ms. Zink moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for the wood window installation and repair of historic windows to the Empire Grange Hall Property at 2306 West Mulberry Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Wallace seconded. Mr. Lingle requested the addition of a condition that the approval does not include the provision of screens, and if screens are desired, that discussion would come back to the LPC for consideration of the details and materials. Ms. Zink accepted the addition to the motion. Ms. Wallace seconded. The motion passed 8:0. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a brief recess to complete the scoring of the loan applications.] 6. POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK (PDP160039) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Poudre River Whitewater Park project is located on the Poudre River, east of College Avenue and north of Downtown Fort Collins. The project area includes and is adjacent to several designated landmarks and eligible historic resources. Final review will be a Type II hearing with the Planning and Zoning Board.. APPLICANT: Roger Sherman, BHA Design Ms. Simpson recused herself due to a conflict of interest as a member of the design team. 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 7 February 15, 2017 Acting Chair Ernest disclosed he had been in contact with Ron Sladek on another matter earlier in the week, but stated that this review was not mentioned. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, clarifying the Commission’s role in the process. She also pointed out the proposed area of adjacency in the staff report. Ms. Bzdek noted that the Applicant had provided responses to the Commission’s questions from the work session, and that a revised staff report and attachments were included in the packet. Applicant Presentation Matt Day with the City’s Parks Department addressed the Commission, introducing the project’s team members, including Roger Sherman with BHA Design and Ron Sladek with Tatanka Historical Associates. He mentioned that Anderson Consulting was also part of the team. Mr. Day began the Applicant presentation by discussing the Poudre River Master Plan. He explained that they had divided the river into three reaches and identified the vision for each. The Stormwater, Natural Areas and Parks and Recreation Departments worked together on the goals for the project. He discussed the existing conditions and the relevant historic structures, including the Coy diversion structure, the headgate and the wall, which were all tied to the function of the dam. He discussed the various sites that were critically evaluated for the whitewater park, and explained why the Reach 3 location was the best suited for the project. He talked about the benefits of removing the Coy diversion structure and how that would be facilitate the creation of a terraced river bank. Mr. Day described the planned heritage walk loop which would tie together the history and character of Fort Collins. He gave a broad overview of the approved concept for the master plan with its river improvements, hardscape on the south bank, soft bank on the north, gathering areas and boating features. ADA access to the river is included in the plan. The north bank will provide more access for wildlife connectivity, while the south bank will provide more pedestrian gathering spaces and river recreation. Mr. Sherman with BHA Design talked about some of the landscaping features of the project. He talked about the grade change being conducive to an overlook and pointed out river access areas that allow people to engage with the river. He said there will be a lot of rock in the channel to protect the improvements from flooding. He described the pedestrian bridge, sandstone terrace area, and stone steps. Mr. Sherman explained that they are working with Art in Public Places on the design for the open air structure along the trail, which isn’t final yet. He talked about some of the design elements which play off the old industrial power racks. He discussed the plan to use a fence to dress up the two buildings at Jerome and Vine Streets which have not been acquired by the City. He showed some possibilities for lamps to be used in the project. Mr. Day continued the presentation with information about the timeline and process for the work. He spoke in detail about the historic resources identified within the relevant section of the river, as well as the adjacent historic resources, and the buildings that are in the area. He pointed out those that are non-eligible and will be removed, and those that are eligible will remain and be repurposed. Mr. Day explained that the Coy headgate and ditch wall would remain, but the Coy diversion dam would be removed. He talked about the need to make the headgate safe for a public gathering area by filling in the hole behind it. He said they will leave the original character and integrity of the headgate, so that it could be reversed if needed, and will keep the mechanics exposed for interpretation. Acting Chair Ernest asked about the first Quonset hut, which was labeled as 105 E. Vine on a photo in the packet. Ms. Bzdek clarified that is actually 107 E. Vine, the Hersh Shop Quonset. 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 8 February 15, 2017 Staff Response None Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Lingle asked about a gate shown in one of the photos, and Mr. Day explained that was a non- historical measuring device. He said it was not identified as part of the area of adjacency and will be removed. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the area of adjacency as shown in the staff report. Ms. Dunn seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Commission Discussion Mr. Lingle asked how the diversion dam would be interpreted. Mr. Day said they originally thought from a flood conveyance perspective, that the entire headgate, wall and tree line on the south bank would have to be removed, but they worked hard to preserve as much as possible. They are preserving a representative section of the diversion dam to provide a visual cue, without interfering with water flow. Mr. Sherman said they plan to have signage with photos and a history of the diversion dam and a diagram showing how the dam worked. They are working with the Poudre River Heritage Alliance and the Poudre History Walk, and there is an ongoing discussion about how to tell that story. He expects to come back to the Commission for input when they get further along. He also explained that lowering the river at the dam would get the 100 year flood under College Avenue. Mr. Lingle commented that it would be a challenge to interpret the dam due to its placement. Mr. Sherman said there are still a lot of details to work out, but they want to keep the profile exposed. Mr. Frick asked how long the measuring device had been there. Mr. Sherman said it had been installed when the dam was reconstructed in 1987. Acting Chair Ernest asked Mr. Sladek to talk about the diversion dam and its interpretation, noting that it is a complex object in terms of its history. Mr. Sladek talked about the history and progression of the dam. He said we don’t know what the original Coy Dam looked like, but in the 30’s it was reconstructed as the Power Plant Dam. The third and current dam was built in 1987. He mentioned the significant impact of this dam on Colorado water law. He said that interpretation of the dam should highlight its evolution from agricultural use to the power plant to its impact on the law. He said it would be important to have a remnant still standing and adequate signage nearby to tell the story of the Coy ditch, the power plant and the evolution of Colorado water law. Acting Chair Ernest emphasized the importance of conveying the evolution of the dam. Acting Chair Ernest asked about the unidentified concrete structure. Mr. Sladek explained it was the base of the pump house for the sugar factory’s water pump, which was used to wash the beets into the plant. Mr. Sladek brought up the diversion structure in relation to the conclusions in his 2016 report. He stated that due to the significance of the Power Plant Dam from the 30’s through the 80’s, and its potential eligibility for the national register as well as local landmark designation, it would be worthwhile for the City to do a Level I or II documentation (not a full HABS/HAER) to provide measured drawings and photographs of the dam. He said it has already been documented, but the photos and measured drawings should be done before it’s gone. Mr. Frick asked if the water would have to be drained to do measured drawings. Mr. Sladek said it would need to be done when the water level is low. Mr. Frick suggested retaining a remnant of the dam from the south side to provide a visual cue of where it existed. Mr. Sherman said they could look into that, and if it weren’t possible to salvage a piece of it, they may be able to recognize where it was in some way in the pavement or on a wall. 1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 9 February 15, 2017 Mr. Hogestad asked how the buildings to be demolished were reviewed. Ms. Bzdek said they were reviewed through the standard demolition alteration review process. Mr. Sladek said he had produced site forms on all the buildings, and Ms. Bzdek said the site forms for 105 and 107 E. Vine were included in the packet. There was some discussion about whether there may have been any cultural significance tied to any of those homes. Mr. Sladek was unaware of any, but Mr. Hogestad suggested it might be worth a little more attention. Mr. Hogestad asked how long the river had been its current width and wondered whether that was historically significant. Mr. Sladek said the Core of Engineers came in the mid-1930’s to dredge the river and change it from braided to single channel. He went on to note that the river has changed significantly from what it had been before that. Mr. Hogestad questioned how the wetlands buffer was established. Mr. Sherman said they had worked with the Natural Areas and Environmental Planning departments. There was some discussion about wildlife in the area. Mr. Sherman explained that they are trying to maximize the benefits to stormwater, recreation and wildlife, and the concept had been approved by City Staff in the master plan. Ms. Dunn asked about the cement retaining wall. Mr. Sherman said it would be removed and replaced with cement. Ms. Dunn also commented that the pictures of the lamps were helpful. Mr. Hogestad asked what one would expect to see on the history walk. Mr. Sherman said it could include art, interaction with social media through QR codes and other elements. He said there will be extensive communication with the Bohemian Foundation, the Poudre Heritage Alliance, and the Landmark Preservation Commission as the plan progresses. Acting Chair Ernest noted that questions about the social and cultural significance of the non-historic structures to be demolished could be resolved with the site forms. Mr. Sladek added that since the headgate for the Coy ditch would be filled in, it would be wise to record that as well with Level I or II photos and measured drawings. He noted that there is concrete work on top of old stone work which would no longer be visible if it’s filled in. Ms. Zink asked about the role of archeology in this process. Mr. Sladek said an archeological team had surveyed the project area and found nothing of significance. He pointed out that they weren’t looking at the built structures, since he had documented those. Mr. Sladek said it would be advisable to have an archeologist in the field when excavation is being conducted, adding that there is a stone wall under the river that could be recorded by an archeologist while the excavation is going on. Acting Chair Ernest suggested creating a condition in the motion to document the dam and head gate. Ms. Dunn wondered whether the motion could also include Mr. Frick’s suggestion to explore the idea of incorporating a portion of the south side of the dam into the new landscape. Commission Deliberation Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Poudre River Whitewater Park (PDP160039), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the reasons stated in the staff report. Any future plans for alterations to 107 E. Vine will require a separate review process, which should be noted on all final plans and documents. In addition, the Commission recommends the following to the Applicant: 1. Complete a Level I or II documentation of the dam and headgates as they exist today. 2. Consider retaining a portion of the dam on the south side of the river as part of the interpretation of the entire dam site. 3. Provide archeological monitoring during construction. [Proposed as a friendly amendment by Mr. Lingle.] 4. Allow the Commission to review plans for public art or interpretive elements for the history walk and interpretation of the dam as the design progresses. [Proposed as a friendly amendment by Ms. Zink.] Mr. Frink accepted the proposed amendments. 1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 10 February 15, 2017 Ms. Dunn seconded. Mr. Hogestad stated that it was a handsome project with interesting and exciting things going on in the project. However, he explained that he has a fundamental problem with the performance standard on the buffers, and will abstain from voting. Ms. Dunn commented that it seemed appropriate that the historic water law issues dealt with recreational use, and this part of the river will now be even more of a recreational area. Mr. Yatabe questioned Mr. Hogestad about his abstention in relation to the natural area buffer which is unrelated to the decision before the Commission. Mr. Hogestad stated that it was related to his personal opinion and his previous experience with the City on performance standards and buffer zones. Mr. Yatabe asked whether this was in regards to the Landmark Apartments Expansion appeal, to which Mr. Hogestad replied in the affirmative. The motion passed 6:0, with Mr. Hogestad abstaining. 7. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2017 ELECTION OF OFFICERS The purpose of this item is to elect 2017 officers for the Landmark Preservation Commission. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad nominated Ms. Dunn for Chair. Mr. Frick seconded the nomination. Ms. Dunn accepted the nomination. Mr. Frick nominated Mr. Hogestad for Vice Chair. Ms. Dunn seconded the nomination. Mr. Hogestad accepted the nomination. Both were elected unanimously. • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Ernest adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________. __________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: LPC February 15, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5385 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 15, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a three-story residential project that would be a Net Zero Energy building on a 4,600-square-foot site at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The development site is within the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT/OWNER: Laurie and Bob Davis, DavisDavis Architects RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review regarding compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for the proposed design of a net-zero energy, four-unit residential building at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The PDP application is in its first round of review and the first staff review meeting to review comments is also scheduled for March 15, 2017. PROPOSED DESIGN: The proposed 9,200-square-foot building consists of four 2,300 square-foot townhomes with a design based on a nineteenth-century commercial storefront topped by upper masonry floors with punched windows. The primary building material is a terra cotta rainscreen cladding in a 12” by 48” format, with glass storefront and wood or aluminum-clad columns on the ground floor. LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will provide conceptual review of the project’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7, which will allow the applicant to incorporate any design updates into the resubmittal, which will return to the Commission for final development review and a recommendation to the hearing officer. Because the applicant is receiving initial PDP staff comments concurrently with this review, it is not appropriate for the Commission to make a recommendation at this time. After the design of the proposed building is final or nearly finalized, the project team will return to request a recommendation to the decision maker from the Commission, as required by 3.4.7(6). POTENTIAL AREA OF ADJACENCY: Staff offers the following information for consideration regarding the area of adjacency for the proposed project. The proposed project is immediately adjacent to the Laurel School National Register Historic District. In addition to the historic district, the Landmark Preservation Commission should consider compatibility with the individually designated and eligible properties in the area of adjacency, according to 3.4.7(B). There are six properties in the 2 Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 300 block of E. Oak that will requires determinations of eligibility if they are to be included. 1. Individually Designated Fort Collins Landmarks a. 200 Mathews (Carnegie Library, designated as a Fort Collins Landmark, 1985) b. Historic Landmark Cabins in Carnegie Library Courtyard: Franz-Smith Cabin (designated 2000), Janis Cabin (designed 1985), Auntie Stone Cabin (designated 1985) - mistakenly omitted from report draft reviewed at work session c. 148 Remington (Poudre Garage, designated as a Fort Collins Landmark, 1997) d. 202 Remington Street (the McHugh-Andrews House, National Register of Historic Places, 1978; designated as a Fort Collins Landmark, 1983) 2. Properties Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) a. 210 E. Oak (Zoric Cleaners) b. 215 E. Oak (carriage house for McHugh-Andrews House) c. 216 E. Oak (was incorrected categorized as “not eligible” in report draft reviewed at work session) d. 221 Mathews (Park View Apartments) 3. Not Eligible for Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) a. 217 E. Oak b. 220 E. Oak (Community of Christ Church) c. 207 Mathews - constructed in 1966 d. 334 E. Oak 4. Eligibility Unknown (list updated based on 3-8-17 request from LPC) a. 300 E. Oak (Mennonite Church) - constructed in 1954 b. 308 E. Oak (apartments) - constructed in 1967 c. 318 E. Oak - constructed in 1906 d. 322 E. Oak - constructed in 1892/remodeled 2010 e. 330 E. Oak - constructed in 1929/remodeled in 2011 f. 340 E. Oak (formerly 336 E Oak) - constructed in 1900 Staff recommends that the Commission carefully consider the transitional nature of the NCB zone and the varying ages, styles, and typologies present in the buildings that would make up the area of adjacency. REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. LUC Section 3.4.7(A), Purpose, states in pertinent part: “This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: … new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site.” LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard states: “If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State Register of Historic Properties or National Register of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated national, state or City historic district or area, then, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and 2 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above . . . . . . New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” LUC 3.4.7(F) New Construction: “(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located…. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site.” The applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(1). The proposed setback pattern on the west side of Mathews Street between Oak Street and Olive Street would reflect two corner anchors with zero lotlines that frame the streetscape of the block with 16-feet setbacks in the middle, creating a larger siteline pattern that would carry through to the north upon the construction of the new MAVD building approved at 221 Mountain Avenue. The height and width of the three-story building is generally consistent with the range of buildings in the area of adjacency, which consist of one-story, two-story, and three-story buildings that are from 38 feet to 83 feet wide. The applicant suggests that the PV panels should be difficult to see from a pedestrian viewpoint facing the building’s façade on Oak Street. Generally speaking, the height, setback, and width of the proposed new building seem to avoid negatively impacting the exterior integrity and significance of individually designated and eligible buildings along Oak Street and Mathews Street based on scale, in part because those buildings are not immediately abutting the proposed new construction. “(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.” The applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(2). As the basis for the proposed design, they have used an urban commercial typology of a glass commercial storefront with two upper floors of masonry with punched windows. The applicants also reference Section 5.5 of the Old Town District Design Guidelines, which call for a tall first floor, vertically proportioned upper story windows, window sills and frames that provide detail (in this case, through the use of metal sills that match the frames), horizontal elements ( a first-floor belt course) and vertical features (first-floor columns), a similar solid-to-void ratio (based on the design of the upper floors), and building that has a base, middle, and cap (provided by the kickplate, transoms, and PV trellis). Staff feels that the Old Town commercial building typology is not specifically called for at this site because it lacks immediate proximity to similar buildings and also does not reflect a predominant historic pattern in the area of adjacency. The applicant has chosen the typology based on the logic that the more immediate surroundings lack a clear pattern of character and typology, i.e. the proposed historic area of adjacency is a varying mix of types and styles. Additionally, the building would sit in a transition area between the Downtown District and the Neighborhood Conservation - Medium Density (NCM) District, so the applicant has an interesting design challenge regarding this section of the code. “(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be 2 Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 4 appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.” The applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(3). The building construction method will rely upon a breathable rainscreen cladding that is separated from the structure to provide ventilation. To harmonize with the use of brick masonry in the area of adjacency, the applicants have chosen a terracotta panel product in the 12” x 48” size for the rainscreen. The proposed windows are triple-glazed, bronze aluminum clad wood. The storefront is glass and wood or aluminum clad columns. Staff feels that the dominant building material choice of terracotta panels is a sensitive modern construction material that would visually harmonize with the existing, varying pattern of brick and stone masonry in the area of adjacency. However, the panels will differ from the appearance of the traditional building materials in the area based on the modular installation, the larger-format size of the panels, the pattern of installation and the lack of mortar-replaced by suspension on a frame. The overall effect of building style, material choice, and construction methodology is thus indirectly referential and one of contrast and differentiation, representing a modern addition to an area of adjacency that ranges in age from the 1880s to the 1930s. “(4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.” The applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(4). They present the argument that placement of the structure at the lot edge enhances the open space of Library Park across Mathews Street because the building anchors and frames the currently vacant corner. While that benefit may be somewhat indirect or debatable, the general visual and pedestrian connections between the site and the park and Carnegie Library building are not a current concern for historic preservation staff. “(5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. The applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(5). The proposal calls for preserving one existing tree along Oak Street, adding a second tree, and adding plantings along the sidewalk. The applicants propose to move an existing tree along Mathews Street slightly to the north and add a second tree north of the relocated tree, maintaining the existing pattern. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION AT WORK SESSION: At its March 8, 2017 work session, Commission members requested additional information on this item. The applicant will provide answers to the following questions at the meeting on March 15 in the applicant presentation and in dialogue with the Commission. An updated project summary from the applicant has been added to the packet as well. 1. Please provide a more extensive explanation/justification for the building typology. Relate that choice specifically to the proposed historic area of adjacency. 2. Please provide a more extensive explanation of space functions, particularly the delineated flex space, sliding panels, and ground floor space behind the “storefront” windows. What sort of activity will be seen from the street in those spaces? Type of glass? Live/work intention? Otherwise, what is meant by “flex space?” 3. Provide rationale on floor-to-floor heights for proposed building and how they relate to surrounding buildings in the historic area of adjacency. 4. Please provide details on the rainscreen construction system: corners, head, jambs, sills (details on all). 5. Please bring in material samples of the rainscreen system and the fiber cement alternative to the March 15 meeting. 6. In general, streamline slide deck presentation to relate only to the historic buildings in the area of adjacency. Other buildings outside the area of adjacency are not relevant for the LPC’s application of 3.4.7. 2 Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 5 7. Elevations that show potential build out are not relevant to application of LUC 3.4.7. Please remove the potential build out building outlines from those illustrations. Staff is responsible for providing responses to the following requests. See below as well as updated attachments. 1. Provide determination of eligibility form for 220 E Oak (attached) 2. Add map showing all historic buildings in proposed area of adjacency (attached) 3. Get determination of eligibility for 300 E Oak (not completed, and note that additional determinations may be required based on updated list for 300 E Oak) 4. Add Parkview Apartments to area of adjacency list (see above list and attached map) 5. Add dates of two 1970s-era apartment buildings to adjacency map (see attached map) 6. Add designated and eligible buildings north of Carnegie Library on Oak Street to proposed area of adjacency (see attached map and list in area of adjacency) 7. Include list of buildings used for area of adjacency for 215 Mathews development review (see below) The area of adjacency for 215 Mathews was defined as “an area of ½ block in each direction from the block upon which the building is proposed, including specifically those properties that are individually designated or individually eligible, under LUC 5.1.2.  200 Mathews (designated)  148 Remington (designated)  202 Remington (designated)  220 Remington (designated)  221 Mathews (individually eligible)  210 E. Oak Street (individually eligible)  215 E. Oak Street (individually eligible)  218 Remington Street (individually eligible)  230 Remington Street (individually eligible)” 8. Include brief summary of initial comments and questions from the assigned planner (Clay Frickey) regarding the flex space design, transparency of storefront, and floor-to-floor heights. (see below) Related Comments from Planning Staff: 03/10/2017: Where are the front doors? The elevations do not show a clearly defined front entrance. Please provide more detail on this element of the building. 03/10/2017: In looking at Terreal's terracotta panels, it looks like there are multiple textures available. Which texture are you proposing to use on the building? 03/10/2017: On a more general level, the building reads more like a commercial building than a residential building. Staff is concerned about the scale of elements of the building and how this makes the building appear commercial (fenestration, store front appearance along Oak, large sliding doors on the south side). Staff would like to meet to iron out these details after your work session with Landmark Preservation Commission. LPC will likely give you more specific direction on how the building can better fit in with the context of the neighborhood. Based on this direction, staff would like to work with you on how to best integrate this feedback into the building design. 03/13/2017: Thank you for your modification requests. You will require one additional modification to the ones you have already applied for. Section 3.5.2(D)(2) requires buildings with 4 or more units to have a building entry or doorway face any adjacent street smaller than a full arterial. The building does not have any entry feature facing Mathews, so you will need to get a modification to this standard as well. Staff will likely support this modification request given the size of the site and location on a corner. 2 Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (PDF) 2. Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (PDF) 3. LO_PDP Application (PDF) 4. Living Oaks_Historic Adjacency Map (PDF) 5. 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (PDF) 6. DDA Letter - 221 E Oak St - 3/14/17 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 19 REMINGTON ST REMINGTON ST PETERSON ST E OLIVE ST MONTEZUMA FULLER ALLEY E OAK ST E MATHEWS ST MATHEWS ST PETERSON ST E OLIVE ST E O PETERSON ST MATHEWS ST E OLIVE ST MATHEWS ST E OAK ST E OAK ST N O R T H CONTEXT MAP LIVING OAKS - 221 E OAK STREET: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SITE LG001 Cover Page 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 1 02.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AR C H DAVI S I DAV I S S T E C T LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 02/21/17 MT CR OAKS SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 s. college ave., suite 104 fort collins, co 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios 2.a 2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - # # 5' 02.5' 5' 10' N O R T H LD101 Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 1 02.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AR C H DAVI S I DAV I S S T E C T LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 02/21/17 MT CR OAKS SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 s. college ave., suite 104 fort collins, co 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios 2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DN UP UP UP DN DN UP DN 5' 02.5' 5' 10' N O R T H LS100 Overall Site Plan 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 1 02.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AR C H DAVI S I DAV I S S T E C T LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 02/21/17 MT CR OAKS SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 s. college ave., suite 104 fort collins, co 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios 2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - LS501 Site Details 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 1 02.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AR C H DAVI S I DAV I S S T E C T LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 02/21/17 MT CR OAKS SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 s. college ave., suite 104 fort collins, co 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios 2.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - LP001 Landscape Schedule and Notes 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 1 02.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AR C H DAVI S I DAV I S S T E C T LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 02/21/17 MT CR OAKS SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 s. college ave., suite 104 fort collins, co 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios 2.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DN UP UP UP DN DN UP DN 5' 02.5' 5' 10' N O R T H LP100 Overall Landscape Plan 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 1 02.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AR C H DAVI S I DAV I S S T E C T LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 02/21/17 MT CR OAKS SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 s. college ave., suite 104 fort collins, co 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios 2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - LP501 Landscape Details 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 1 02.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AR C H DAVI S I DAV I S S T E C T Living Oaks Concept Review 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO 02/21/17 MT CR OAKS SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 s. college ave., suite 104 fort collins, co 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios 2.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street A NET ZERO DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSESSION March 15, 2017 2b. Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) CONTENTS: PROJECT OVERVIEW Narrative 3 Contextual and Urban Design Goals 4 Building Design Goals 4 SITE AND CONTEXT 5-7 PROPOSED BUILDING Plans 8-9 Building Elevations 10 Street Elevations 11-12 Renderings in Context 13-16 Materials 17 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVES Land Use Code 3.4.7 (1) Dimensional Compatibility 18-23 (2) Character and Pattern Compatibility 24 (3) Building Material Compatibility 24 (4) Visual Connections 25 (5) Preservation of Landscape 25 (6) Impact on Historic Context 25 City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan 2016 26 APPENDIX 1 Urban Typologies 27 APPENDIX 2 Photo Survey of Areas of Adjacency 28 - 29 2b. Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) SRS RB Parking Garage L1 | Physician Parking February 20, 2015 Rancho Bernardo LHP  141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 3 PROJECT OVERVIEW: Narrative Project Narrative The proposal is for a three (3) story residential project designed to be a Net Zero Energy Ո`ˆ˜}­ < ®Ài}ˆÃÌiÀi`ÜˆÌ …Ì …iˆÛˆ˜} Ո`ˆ˜} …>i˜}i­ ®°/ …i ViÀ̈wV>̈œ˜Ã>Ài the most advanced measures of sustainability in the built environment. The metric is comprised of seven performance categories, or Petals: Place, Energy, Water, Materials, Health and Happiness, Equity and Beauty. The Petals are subdivided into a total of twenty Imperatives, i>V …œvÜ …ˆV …vœVÕÃiÃœ˜>ëiVˆwVë …iÀiœvˆ˜yÕi˜Vi°7ˆÌ …Ì …i  < ViÀ̈wV>̈œ˜]Üi>Ài not only required to prove that 100% of the building’s energy needs will be supplied by on-site renewable energy, with no combustion sources on site, we are also required to also meet three additional imperatives: 01 Limits to Growth, 19 Beauty + Spirit, and 20 Inspiration + Education. It is for this reason we are proud to see this project through as a demonstration case to what is possible to achieve in Fort Collins. The Living Building Challenge metric is important to our project because it is our compass, and all issues and determinants that follow, are guided by this goal. For more information on the Living Building Challenge see: http://living-future.org / …iÈÌiˆÃ>Ó>]˜œ˜‡Vœ˜vœÀ“ˆ˜}{]Èää-ÕÀL>˜ˆ˜wÈÌi>ÌÌ …iVœÀ˜iÀœv">Ž-ÌÀiiÌ>˜` Mathews Streets in Old Town Fort Collins. It is currently vacant, having formerly been an auto garage some 40 years ago. Three orphan tanks will have to be removed. This lot is in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) zone. The program includes four 2,300 SF residential townhomes for a total of 9,200 SF. Also on site will be up to nine (9) geothermal heating wells and a 31.2 kW photovoltaic array to meet the energy goal of NZE. In addition, one community owned electric vehicle with charging station is on site for the residents. As a condition of our alternative compliance for parking, each unit will have one spot reserved in the Old Town Garage and a transit pass for a year. The project has been accepted in the Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) and therefore will be guided by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department to help achieve the elevated energy goals. This project’s goals are also in line with the City of Fort Collins 2016 Strategic Plan, especially in implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) which aligns the city with carbon neutrality by 2050. We have included (in the appendix) a compliance narrative to demonstrate this projects alignment to those CAP goals. Living Building Challenge Categories 2b. Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 4 Contextual and Urban Design Goals Our goal is to contribute to the history of Fort Collins with a building in the urban context of Old Town that strives for an authentic materiality and form that answers the call of our time. True to the tenants of sustainable architecture, our building will be embedded in place, have a œ˜}ˆviÌ …ÀœÕ} …ˆÌÏœœÃiwÌ]>˜`܈LiœÜœ˜i˜iÀ}ÞÕÃi]LÕÌ …ˆ} …ˆ˜«iÀvœÀ“>˜Vi° We have explored design and implementation strategies to reach the NZEB goal including «>ÃÈÛi`iÈ}˜ÃÕV …>ÃLՈ`ˆ˜}È̈˜}>˜`“>ÃȘ}]>˜`>V̈Ûi`iÈ}˜]ÃÕV …>Ã>ÃÕ«iÀ‡ivwVˆi˜Ì building envelope and HVAC system, as well as, geothermal wells and on site photovoltaics. These are the critical challenges of a living building in a living city today, especially in light of global warming. This is our context and our purpose. Building Design Goals The building will be a demonstration case for high performance, low impact living. The ̜ܘ …œÕÃiÃ܈ …>Ûi>Ì>yœœÀ̜yœœÀ …iˆ} …Ì̜ˆ“«i“i˜ÌœÕÀ`>ޏˆ} …̈˜}ÃÌÀ>Ìi}Þ°ƂÌÞ«ˆV> œv“œÃÌ̜ܘ …œÕÃi]Ì …iÀiˆÃ˜œÌ>`iÈ}˜>Ìi`}>À>}iœ˜Ì …i}ÀœÕ˜`yœœÀ]LṎ˜ÃÌi>`]>ºyiÝ ë>Vi»Ì …>ÌVœÕ` …œÕÃi>˜œvwViœÀÃÌÕ`ˆœë>VivœÀÌ …iœÜ˜iÀˆÛˆ˜}>LœÛi°/ …iLՈ`ˆ˜} massing is in keeping with the historic typology of a 19th century commercial storefront ÜˆÌ …ÌܜÕ««iÀyœœÀÃœv“>ܘÀÞ>˜`«Õ˜V …i`܈˜`œÜÃ]ÜVœ““œ˜ˆ˜"`/œÜ˜°/ …ˆÃˆÃ> «>À̈VՏ>ÀÞivwVˆi˜Ì>˜`ÃÕÃÌ>ˆ˜>LivœÀ“Ì …>Ì«ÀœÛˆ`iÃ>œ˜}>Ã̈˜}LՈ`ˆ˜}̜Li«ÀiÃiÀÛi` and adapted for generations to come. It is our belief that history is not just in the distant past, LÕÌºÌ …iVœ˜Ìˆ˜ÕՓœviÛi˜ÌÃœVVÕÀÀˆ˜}ˆ˜ÃÕVViÃȜ˜i>`ˆ˜}vÀœ“Ì …i«>ÃÌ̜Ì …i«ÀiÃi˜Ì>˜` even into the future.” The exterior materials are timeless and durable; from yesterday and today. We plan to use a rain screen construction method that fosters a healthy building, letting the building ºLÀi>Ì …i»°˜Ì …ˆÃ“iÌ …œ`]Ì …iœÕÌiÀLՈ`ˆ˜}V>``ˆ˜}ˆÃÃi«>À>Ìi`vÀœ“Ì …iÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀi̜ manage moisture and energy transfer. The air gap allows for ventilation in the wall that also has open joints (no caulking or grout). The rain screen terra cotta material we are proposing ˆÃiÃÃi˜Ìˆ>Þº“œ`iÀ˜»LÀˆVŽ>È̈Ș>>À}iÀvœÀ“>Ìœv£Ó»Ý{n»°IƂ˜>ÌiÀ˜>ÌiÀ>ˆ˜ÃVÀii˜ material proposed is Fiber Cement wall panels, which have a similar feeling of permanence and robustness. The fenestration is vertically composed with high performance windows, triple- glazed with aluminum-clad wood to contrast but complement the wall material. The storefront is glass and columns clad in dark painted wood or aluminum with bay sizes typical of Old Town historic buildings. PROJECT OVERVIEW: Design Goals 2b. Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) DOWNTOWN DISTRICT NO REQUIRED SETBACKS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - BUFFER DISTRICT (NCB) 15’ FRONT YARD SETBACK 5’ SIDEYARD SETBACK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT (NCM) SITE OLIVE STREET REMINGTON STREET MATHEWS STREET PETERSON STREET OAK STREET MOUNTAIN AVENUE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT NCB NCM TOWNHOMES AT LIBRARY PARK MAV DEVELOPMENT POUDRE GARAGE 60’ 50’ 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 5 SITE & CONTEXT: Land Use Code & Zoning 2b. Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 VIEW FROM THE NORTH 6 SITE AND CONTEXT: Existing Site Conditions SITE E OAK ST. E OLIVE ST. REMINGTON ST. MATHEWS ST. SITE AND CONTEXT: Existing Site Conditions 2b. Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 7 SITE REMINGTON ST MATHEWS ST. MATHEWS ST. E OAK ST. SITE AND CONTEXT: Existing Site Conditions VIEW FROM THE EAST 2b. Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 8 PROPOSED BUILDING: Site & First Floor Plan EXISTING 2- STORY APARTMENT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING PARKING Line of Floor Above EXISTING 1.5 STORY HOUSE Planting Along Sidewalks Handicap Parking Space New Tree New Tree Remove Existing Curb Cut Existing Tree Removed Sliding Gate Electric Vehicle Electric Vehicle Charging Station New Curb Cut Permeable Area of Pavers 6’ Fence Existing Tree to be Preserved UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 Remove Existing Curb Cut Bike Rack In Each Unit 7 New Street Parking Spaces EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING ALLEY TOD OVERLAY ZONE 50' - 0" 40' - 0" 30' - 0" 21' - 10" 12' - 0" 92.16’ 87’- 0” E OAK ST. MATHEWS STREET DN UP UP UP DN DN UP DN A B C D E 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 1 86' - 4" 464 SF FLEXSPACE 4 141 29' - 5" 0' - 10" 411 SF FLEXSPACE 3 131 411 SF FLEXSPACE 2 121 464 SF FLEXSPACE 1 111 ENTRY 120 20' - 8 1/2" 20' - 9 1/4" 20' - 9 1/4" 20' - 8 1/2" 10' - 8" 10' - 5 5/8" 4' - 3" 4' - 3" BUILDING ABOVE ENTRY 130 0' - 6 7/8" G1 G2 G3 G4 H H C H H H H H 12 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 161 SF ENTRY 110 160 SF ENTRY 140 WALL HANGING BIKE RACK 4' - 1" 17' - 6" 8' - 4" 0' - 4" 7F736C UP DN DN REF. REF. DW DW REF. DW REF. DW UP UP 2412'46;.+0' 2412'46;.+0' /CVJGYU 5VTGGV                       2412'46;.+0' 2412'46;.+0' 1CM 5VTGGV       ƒ       1CM 5VTGGV 2412'46;.+0' 2412'46;.+0'                   ƒ   /CVJGYU 5VTGGV 2412'46;.+0' 2412'46;.+0'        141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 11 PROPOSED BUILDING: Street Elevations Oak Street Mathews Street 50’ Remington Street Proposed Poudre Garage Addition (Beyond) MAV Development 221 Mountain Proposed Living Oaks Mathews Street Elevation Oak Street Elevation Carnegie Library 217 East Oak St. McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) McHugh- Andrews Carriage House Proposed Living Oaks 50’ 75’ Mountain Street 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) 2b. Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 12 50’ 50’ Oak Street Mathews Street Proposed Living Oaks Proposed Living Oaks 217 East Oak St. McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) McHugh-Andrews Carriage House 215 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) (In Construction Parkview Apartments Townhomes at Library Park Carnegie Library PROPOSED BUILDING: Enlarged Street Elevations Mathews Street Elevation Oak Street Elevation 2b. Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 13 PROPOSED BUILDING: Renderings in Context Overview of block from the northeast 2b. Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 14 PROPOSED BUILDING: Renderings in Context From northeast corner of Oak and Mathews Streets looking southwest 2b. Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 15 PROPOSED BUILDING: Renderings in Context From Oak Street looking East From Zoric Cleaners 2b. Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 16 PROPOSED BUILDING: Renderings in Context From Library Park looking northwest 2b. Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) ƒ 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 17 PROPOSED BUILDING: Materials PROPOSED MATERIALS D - ALUMINUM CLAD TRIPLE GLAZED HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS A - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR: RED C - METAL PANEL E - STEEL (FIRST FLOOR) B - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS (ALT) A - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS (ALT) SIMILAR TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN SYSTEM 200 FILLMORE STREET, DENVER CO CHANNEL GLASS ENTRY FEATURE (SEE NORTH ELEVATION) A C B D E C B - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR EBONY 2b. Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 18 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Land Use Code 3.4.7 LAND USE CODE COMPLIANCE 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources (F) New Construction Dimensional Compatibility (1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located; or (b) when a block does not exist, similar to those on any land adjacent to the property on which the new structure is to be located. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior KPVGITKV[CPFUKIPKƂECPEGD[TGCUQPQHVJGPGYUVTWEVWTGDGKPIEQPUVTWEVGFCVC dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, GNGOGPVUUWEJCUYCNNUEQNWOPUJGFIGUQTQVJGTUETGGPUUJCNNDGWUGFVQFGƂPGVJG edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. Given the transitional nature of the N-C-B zone, the buildings are disparate in heights, ÃiÌL>VŽÃ]܈`Ì …Ã]>˜`v՘V̈œ˜Ã°/ …iÀi>ÀiÃiÛi˜LՈ`ˆ˜}Ãœv …ˆÃ̜ÀˆVÈ}˜ˆwV>˜Viˆ˜Ì …ˆÃ area of adjacency and how they relate to our project height, setback and width. For reference, Living Oaks is 36’ high, 87’ wide, and sited at zero lot line at Oak and Mathews. 1. McHugh-Andrews House (MHA) which is a local landmark and on the National Historic Register. This building is on the west corner of our block opposite our site (we are on the east). Its’ orientation is to Remington Street, not Oak, so our relationship is not similar along the Oaks Street frontage. MHA is 38’ high, 60’ wide, and setback 10’ from Oak. Incidentally, the MHA carriage house is Oak facing and on zero lot line. 2. Poudre Garage which is a local landmark. Its’ orientation is also to Remington although the new addition that faces Oak Street is 46’ high, zero lot line, and 70’ wide on Oak Street. 3. The Carnegie Library is a local landmark situated in Library Park. It faces Mathews Street. It 32’ high, 83’ wide, and setback 60’. Rather than being an urban street edge building, it is a monumental object building in a park setting. 4. The Carriage House for McHugh Andrews House. Is individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark Designation. It faces Oak Street, and is 27’ high, 42’ wide, and setback 0’. 215 E Oak St. 1.5-story triplex Cladding: stone, wood shingles Roof: gable, red asphalt shingles Date: 1895 with 1968 addition 202 Remington St. (McHugh-Andrews House) 3-story house turned into retail Cladding: stone Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date:1889 148 Remington St. (Poudre Garage) 4-story mixed use (addition/renovation currently under review) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 19 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Land Use Code 3.4.7 5. Zorich Cleaners Is individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark Designation. It faces Oak Street, and is 17’ high, 59’ wide, and setback 0’ to 5’. 6. Parkview Apartments Is individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark Designation. It faces Mathews Street, and is 3 stories high, 70’ wide, and setback 10’ 7. 216 East Oak Street Is individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark Designation. It faces Mathews Street, and is 1 stories (17’) high, 27’ wide, and setback 5’ We feel that these three “such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity CPFUKIPKƂECPEGD[TGCUQPQHVJGPGYUVTWEVWTGDGKPIEQPUVTWEVGF at a dissimilar height, setback and width.” Our reasons for siting the building at the lot line are three: 1. Anchoring the corner is an appropriate urban design strategy for this transitional zone especially in light of Library Park across the street. 2. South block corner at Olive (Townhomes at Library Park) also is at the lot line on Mathews, as is, an approved building at Mathews and Mountain (MAVD). Both these precedents frame the corner with their siting. 3. The streets and Right of Way (ROW) areas in this zone are already more than generous in width, not requiring additional setbacks. (Streets are 100’ ROW including 20’ of greenway and sidewalk from curb to property line.) Street width ratios of 2:1 are best to facilitate pedestrian comfort, and while our building is not tall enough to hit that ratio, setting it back further only dilutes its presence on the street. 216 E Oak St. (Parsonage) 1-story commercial Cladding: stucco ,œœv\y>Ì Date: unknown, estimated 1940s 210 E Oak St. (Zorich Laundry) 1-story commercial Cladding: yellow brick ,œœv\y>Ì Date: 1940 221 Mathews St. (Parkview Apartments) 3-story apartments Cladding: red brick, half-timber Roof: mansard, slate Date: 1936 2b. Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 20 SITE 221 SURROUNDING BUILDINGS 220 Old Town Lofts 110 148 210 133 215 217 202 216 220 137 143 221 207 215 300 308 318 200 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Neighborhood Context Neighborhood Context Below is and a listing of the near by properties and their varying heights, setbacks and widths and a site map for reference. North Side of Oak Street 202 Remington Street (McHugh-Andrews House): local landmark and NHR HT: 3 story (38’) SETBACK: 24’ WIDTH: 38’ 215 E. Oak St. (Carriage House for McHugh-Andrews House) HT: 2 story (27’) SETBACK: 0’ WIDTH: 42’ 217 E. Oak Street (house/duplex) HT: 1.5 story (20’) SETBACK: 1’/6’ WIDTH: 27’ South Side of Oak Street 148 Remington Street /205 East Oak Street / (Poudre Garage): local landmark HT: 2 story (27’) SETBACK: 0’/6 ‘ WIDTH: 93’ The new addition currently in construction will be 4-stories (46’) 210 East Oak Street (Commercial; old Zoric Cleaners) HT: 1 story (17’) SETBACK: 0’/5’ WIDTH: 59’ 216 E. Oak Street (converted house to commercial) HT: 1 story (16’) SETBACK: 5’ WIDTH: 27’ 220 E. Oak Street (church) HT: 1 story (23’) SETBACK: 0’/5’ WIDTH: 27’/45’ 300 E. Oak Street (Mennonite Church) HT: 1 story (26’) SETBACK: 15’ WIDTH: 47’ 308 E. Oak Street (Apartment Bldg) HT: 4 story (35’) SETBACK: 5’ WIDTH: 45’ 318 East Oak Street (converted house) HT: 2 story (35’) SETBACK: 29 ft WIDTH: 43 ft West Side of Mathews Street SITE Proposed Building Footprint - 0’ lot setback facing Oak and Mathews Street Existing Corner Buildings with 0’ lot setback facing Oak and Mathews Streets MAVD Neighborhood Setback Diagram Townhomes @ Library Park Old Town Lofts 110 East Oak Home State Bank ern Corner Buildings at Zero Lot Lines Corner Buildings at Zero Lot Lines 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 21 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Corner Lot Setbacks 2b. Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 22 Zero Lotline Along Mathews Street CORNER BUILDINGS AT ZERO LOT LINES Aerial view looking northwest Mathews St. Oak St. Remington St. TOWN HOMES AT LIBRARY PARK POUDRE GARAGE PROPOSED LIVING OAKS MAVD 2b. Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 23 Zero Lotline Along Oak Street BUILDINGS AT ZERO LOT LINES Aerial view looking Southwest PROPOSED LIVING OAKS MCHUGH-ANDREWS HOUSE OLD TOWN LOFTS CARRIAGE HOUSE FOR MCHUGH- ANDREWS HOUSE) Oak St. Mathews St. Remington St. 2b. Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 24 Character and Pattern Compatibility (2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned YKVJVJQUGQHUWEJGZKUVKPIJKUVQTKEUVTWEVWTGUVQUVTGPIVJGPVJGXKUWCNVKGUCOQPIDWKNFKPIU 9KPFQYRCVVGTPUQHUWEJGZKUVKPIUVTWEVWTGU UK\GJGKIJVPWODGT UJCNNDGTGRGCVGFKPPGY EQPUVTWEVKQPCPFVJGRCVVGTPQHVJGRTKOCT[DWKNFKPIGPVTCPEGHCEKPIVJGUVTGGVUJCNNDG OCKPVCKPGFVQVJGOCZKOWOGZVGPVHGCUKDNG The neighborhood context in the N-C-B zone, is composed of a hodgepodge of eras, styles, sizes, cladding and roof forms. As this is a corner site, the immediate context relating to both Oak and Mathews (207 Mathews and 217 Oak) are extremely dissimilar in character. (see photos) To our knowledge, 207 Mathews, a 1960’s plain-Jane apartment pancake, is not eligible for historic status. The 1890’s wood frame house to the west, 217 ">Ž]“>Þ …>ÛiºLii˜iÛ>Õ>Ìi`ˆ˜Ì …i«>ÃÌ>˜`vœÕ˜`˜œÌ̜ …>ÛiVÕÀÀi˜Ì`iÌiÀ“ˆ˜>̈œ˜Ã of eligibility for local landmark status.” (footnote from LPC staff review of 215 Mathews, PDP150020, dated November 15, 2015.) Because of the diversity of this block, we feel this requirement is unattainable, so have drawn from the larger context of Old Town for Character and Compatibility. We have chosen the urban store front as a typology of form that relates to the broader context of Old Town, not only because it is contextual, but because a simple volume with a yi݈LiwÀÃÌyœœÀ>˜` …ˆ} …Viˆˆ˜}ë>ViÈÃՏ̈“>ÌiÞÃÕÃÌ>ˆ˜>Li>˜`Àiȏˆi˜Ì° Building Material Compatibility   6JGFQOKPCPVDWKNFKPIOCVGTKCNQHUWEJGZKUVKPIJKUVQTKEUVTWEVWTGUCFLCEGPVVQQTKP VJGKOOGFKCVGXKEKPKV[QHVJGRTQRQUGFUVTWEVWTGUJCNNDGWUGFCUVJGRTKOCT[OCVGTKCNHQT new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing FKUVTKDWVKQPQHOCVGTKCNUKPVJGUCOGDNQEM As noted earlier, buildings in the immediate vicinity lack any kind of coherence in terms of V>``ˆ˜}>˜`Àœœw˜}“>ÌiÀˆ>Ã°œÜiÛiÀ]vœÀ“>ÌiÀˆ>«>iÌÌiVœ“«>̈LˆˆÌÞ]Üi>Ài`À>܈˜} rust tones from the stone of the Carnegie Library in Library Park and the McHugh-Andrews and carriage house stone. In keeping with the classic materiality of Downtown, the dominant façade material of the proposed building is to be terracotta, which is brick in a modern form and application. Instead of load bearing as brick is traditionally installed, the terracotta is to be installed in >À>ˆ˜ÃVÀii˜“iÌ …œ`Ü …ˆV …ˆÃÃÕ«iÀˆœÀ>Ã>˜iÝÌiÀˆœÀÜ>>È̺LÀi>Ì …iû>˜``œiؽÌÌÀ>« moisture. The earthy colors, relate to the two historic structures in our area of adjacency. The pedestrian street frontage is classically articulated and visually inviting with large expanses of glass at the base. Columns are expressed in between window bays and base kick plates are consistent. 217 E Oak St. 1.5-story house Cladding: horizontal wood siding and wood shingles, painted white Roof: gable, black asphalt shingles Date: 1899 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) 2-story apartments Cladding: mixed tone brick Roof: mansard, faux wood shingles Date: 1966 SITE OAK STREET PLAZA LIBRARY PARK DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 25 Visual Connections (4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and PGKIJDQTJQQFHQECNRQKPVUUWEJCUCRCTMUEJQQNQTEJWTEJUJCNN DGRTGUGTXGFCPFGPJCPEGFVQVJGOCZKOWOGZVGPVHGCUKDNG The siting of the structure at the lot edges of Oak and Mathews enhances the open space of Library Park by anchoring and framing the corner. This is a well-documented aspect of good VˆÌÞ«>˜˜ˆ˜}Ì …>̈˜ÕÀL>˜>Ài>Ã]LՈ`ˆ˜}Ã`iw˜iÌ …iÃÌÀiiÌ and corner buildings anchor the block to make the experience pedestrian friendly. By creating a strong corner, open space that is adjacent, as Library Park is, becomes more valued and `iw˜i`° Preservation of Landscape  6QVJGOCZKOWOGZVGPVHGCUKDNGGZKUVKPIJKUVQTKECPFOCVWTG landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street tree RNCPVKPIUCTGRTQRQUGFVJGCNKIPOGPVCPFURCEKPIQHPGYVTGGU UJCNNOCVEJVJCVQHVJGGZKUVKPIVTGGU We are saving the existing Ash tree on Oak, and propose to replace one <6” caliper tree with two new street trees and plant additional landscaping. Impact on Historic Context  +PKVUEQPUKFGTCVKQPQHVJGCRRTQXCNQHRNCPUHQTRTQRGTVKGU EQPVCKPKPIQTCFLCEGPVVQUKVGUUVTWEVWTGQDLGEVUQTFKUVTKEVUVJCV (a) have been determined to be or potentially be individually GNKIKDNGHQTNQECNNCPFOCTMFGUKIPCVKQPQTHQTKPFKXKFWCNNKUVKPI KPVJG0CVKQPCN4GIKUVGTQH*KUVQTKE2NCEGUQTVJG5VCVG4GIKUVGT QH*KUVQTKE2TQRGTVKGUQT D CTGQHƂEKCNN[FGUKIPCVGFCUCNQECN QTUVCVGNCPFOCTMQTCTGNKUVGFQPVJG0CVKQPCN4GIKUVGTQH *KUVQTKE2NCEGUQT E CTGNQECVGFYKVJKPCQHƂEKCNN[FGUKIPCVGF national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker UJCNNTGEGKXGCPFEQPUKFGTCYTKVVGPTGEQOOGPFCVKQPHTQOVJG .CPFOCTM2TGUGTXCVKQP%QOOKUUKQPWPNGUUVJG&KTGEVQTJCUKUUWGF CYTKVVGPFGVGTOKPCVKQPVJCVVJGRNCPUYQWNFPQVJCXGCUKIPKƂECPV impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility QHVJGUKVGUVTWEVWTGQDLGEVQTFKUVTKEV#FGVGTOKPCVKQPQT recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to VJG%KV[%QWPEKNWPFGT%JCRVGTQHVJG%KV[%QFG 7i`œ˜œÌLiˆiÛiÌ …i«Àœ«œÃi`«ÀœiVÌ܈ …>ÛiÈ}˜ˆwV>˜Ì impact on the potential eligibility of any adjacent properties, nor will it negatively impact the historic exterior integrity and È}˜ˆwV>˜Viœv>˜Þi݈Ã̈˜}>˜`“>ÀŽi`ÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀið 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 26 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2016 STRATEGIC PLAN COMPLIANCE The proposed building at 221 Oak Street (Living Oaks) responds directly to many aspects of the Fort Collins 2016 Strategic Plan œLiV̈Ûið7i …>Ûiˆ`i˜Ìˆwi`>««ˆV>LiˆÌi“Ã>˜`à …œÜ˜ …œÜ this development will bring the City of Fort Collins closer to achieving its goals. NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY & SOCIAL HEALTH 1.1 Improve access to a broad range of quality housing that is safe, accessible and affordable. Housing continues to be an issue for Fort Collins residents, and the only way to truly increase affordability is to increase the amount of housing available on the market. Located in downtown and close to the library and other public services, including transportation, the units at Living Oaks will provide a desirable alternative for residents who want to be downtown but who don’t want the responsibility of a stand- alone dwelling. Retirees or couples who are downsizing, or professionals who work in downtown and want to be close to their place of business are part of the target market. 1.4 Protect and preserve the City’s quality of life and neighborhoods. The lot located at 221 Oak Street is currently vacant, utilized by a carriage company to store wagons and carriages when not in use. The site has become an attractive nuisance, and incidents of vandalism and transient activity have and >ÀiœVVÕÀÀˆ˜}° Þwˆ˜}Ì …iVœÀ˜iÀ]Ì …ˆÃ`iÛiœ«“i˜Ì܈ eliminate an underutilized space which has been an area of concern to the community. 1.5 Guide development compatible with community expectations through appropriate planning, annexation, land use, historical preservation and development review processes. The proposed project is following the city review processes, helping the city to break new ground in supporting modern sustainable development within the existing urban fabric. The project is utilizing the Integrated Design Assist Program (IDAP) implemented by the City to maximize energy ivwVˆi˜VÞ>˜`ˆ˜VÀi>ÃiÌÀ>˜Ã«>Ài˜VÞ̜ ˆÌÞÀiµÕˆÀi“i˜Ìð  +ORTQXGPGKIJDQTJQQFRCTMKPICPFVTCHƂEKUUWGU A key element of the Living Oaks project is to minimize parking requirements. Part of our proposal is geared to encourage residents to utilize one common electric vehicle provided at the building and utilize the long-term lease in the garage on the southeast corner of Remington and Mountain Streets, which is included in the sale. In addition to the four garage spots, we have added seven diagonal parking spaces on the street (including one handicap spot) which is now taken up by a curb cut on Oak Street. Secure 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 27 APPENDIX 1: Urban Typologies Precedents Relevant Fort Collins Urban Typologies Whitton Block 252 Walnut Street, Fort Collins Antlers Hotel 223 Linden Street, Fort Collins Opera Galleria North College Avenue, Fort Collins 2b. Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 28 220 E Olive St. (Townhomes Library Park) 3- and 4-story townhome Cladding: brick and stucco ,œœvÃ\y>Ì]à …i` Date: New/2017 217 E Oak St. 1.5-story house Cladding: horizontal wood siding and wood shingles, painted white Roof: gable, black asphalt shingles Date: 1899 215 E Oak St. 1.5-story triplex Cladding: stone, wood shingles Roof: gable, red asphalt shingles Date: 1895 with 1968 addition 202 Remington St. (McHugh-Andrews House) 3-story house turned into retail Cladding: stone Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date:1889 221 Mathews St. (Parkview Apartments) 3-story apartments Cladding: red brick, half-timber Roof: mansard, slate Date: 1936 215 Mathews St. 3-story mixed use Cladding: red brick, stucco ,œœv\y>Ì Date: New/2017 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) 2-story apartments Cladding: mixed tone brick Roof: mansard, faux wood shingles Date: 1966 221 Mountain St. 3-story mixed use Cladding: brick ,œœv\y>Ì Date: new/proposed (construction not yet begun) APPENDIX 2: Photo Survey of Areas of Adjacency 2b. Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 29 300 E Oak St. (Mennonite Church) 1-story church Cladding: red brick Roof: gable & hip, gray asphalt shingles Date: 1954 216 E Oak St. (Parsonage) 1-story commercial Cladding: stucco ,œœv\y>Ì Date: unknown, estimated 1940s 210 E Oak St. (Zorich Laundry) 1-story commercial Cladding: yellow brick ,œœv\y>Ì Date: 1940 148 Remington St. (Poudre Garage) 4-story mixed use (addition/renovation currently under review) Cladding: yellow brick ,œœv\y>Ì Date: 1936 200 Mathews St. (Carnegie Library) 2-story museum Cladding: stone Roof: hipped, red clay tile Date: 1903 308 E Oak St. (Parklane Arms) 4-story apartments Cladding: mixed tone brick Roof: mansard, gray asphalt shingles Date: 1967 318 E Oak St. ӇÃ̜ÀÞ …œÕÃiVœ˜ÛiÀÌi`̜œvwVià Cladding: yellow-gray brick Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date: 1906 220 E Oak St. (LDS Church) 1- and 2-story church with multiple additions Cladding: stucco, brick painted white, scored and battered concrete, painted CMU block ,œœv\«>ÀÌy>Ì>˜`«>ÀÌ}>Li`]Ài`>ë …>ÌȘ}ià Date: unknown, estimated 1940s - 1970s APPENDIX 2: Photo Survey of Areas of Adjacency 2b. Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 2.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: LO_PDP Application (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1967 1954 1966 1906 1892 1929 1900 E Mountain Ave Remington St Wal n ut St E Oak St E Olive St Mathews St Peterson St Area of Adjacency Study for Living Oaks © 1 inch = 138 feet 2.d Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Living Oaks_Historic Adjacency Map (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.f Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: DDA Letter - 221 E Oak St - 3/14/17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2.f Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: DDA Letter - 221 E Oak St - 3/14/17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-1 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-2 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-3 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-4 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-5 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-6 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-7 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-8 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-9 Exhibit 1: Living Oaks, 300 E. Oak Non-Binding Determination of Eligibility Item 2, Exhibit 1 300 E Oak Determination of Eligibility Packet Pg. 70-10 LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street A NET ZERO DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSESSION March 15, 2017 Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-11 SRS RB Parking Garage L1 | Physician Parking Rancho Bernardo LHP February 20, 2015 Living Building Challenge Categories Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-12 Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-13 SIT E REMINGTON STREET MATHEWS STREET PETERSON STREET OAK STREET DOWNTOWN DISTRICT NCB NCM TOWNHOMES AT LIBRARY PARK OLIVE STREET MOUNTAIN AVENUE MAV DEVELOPMENT POUDRE GARAGE 50 60’ ’ Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-14 SIT E E OAK ST. E OLIVE ST. VIEW FROM THE NORTH Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-15 SITE REMINGTON ST MATHEWS ST. VIEW FROM THE EAST Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-16 EXISTING 2- STORY APARTMENT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING PARKING EXISTING 1.5 STORY HOUSE Planting Along Sidewalks Handicap Parking Space New Tree New Tree Existing Tree Removed Remove Existing Curb Cut Electric Vehicle Charging Station Electric Vehicle Sliding Gate New Curb Cut Permeable Area of Pavers Line of Floor Above 6’ Fence Existing Tree to be Preserved UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 Remove Existing Curb Cut Bike Rack In Each Unit 7 New Street Parking Spaces EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING ALLEY TOD OVERLAY ZONE 50' - 0" 30' - 0" 21' - 10" 12' - 0" 92.16’ 87’- 0” E OAKST. MATHEWS STREET FRON T UNIT 1 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 DN UP UP UP DN DN DN UP UP UP DN DN UP DN A B C D E 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 1 86' - 4" FLEX SPACE 4 141 464 SF 29' - 5" 0' - 10" FLEX SPACE 3 131 411 SF FLEX SPACE 2 121 411 SF FLEX SPACE 1 111 464 SF ENTRY 120 20'-81/2" 20'-91/4" 20'-91/4" 20'-81/2" 10' - 8" 10'-55/8" 4' - 3" 4' - 3" BUILDINGABOVE ENTRY 130 0' - 6 7/8" G1 G2 G3 G4 H H C H H H H H 12 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 ENTRY 110 161 SF ENTRY 140 160 SF WALLHANGING BIKERACK 0' - 4" 8' - 4" 17' - 6" 4' - PROPERTY LINE Mathews Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 36'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 40'-8" PROPERTY LINE Oak Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 40'-8" 36'-0" 11'-0" Oak Street PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 11'-0" 2'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 29'-8" 10'-0" 4" 40'-0" 11'-0" 36'-0" Mathews Street PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 5'-3" 6'-0" 6'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" Building Elevations A. Terracotta Rainscreen B. Bronze Aluminum Clad Windows C. Steel D. PV Structure E. Channel Glass A B C E BA C ABC PROPERTY LINE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” PROPERTY LINE EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WEST ELEVATION Looking Southwest from Oak and Mathews Streets Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-20 From Oak Street looking East From Zoric Cleaners Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-21 D - ALUMINUM CLAD TRIPLE GLAZED HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS Proposed Materials A - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR: RED E – STEEL OR WOOD CLAD (FIRST FLOOR) B - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS (ALT) A - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS (ALT) TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN SYSTEM 200 FILLMORE STREET, DENVER CO CHANNEL GLASS ENTRY FEATURE (SEE NORTH ELEVATION) C A B D E C B - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR EBONY C - METAL OR FIBER CEMENT PANEL Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-22 TERRA COTTA RAIN SCREEN EXAMPLES Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-23 FIBER CEMENT SIDING EXAMPLES Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-24 Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-25 GENERAL COMPATIBILITY LUC 3.4.7 (B) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-26 SITE 22 1 SURROUNDING BUILDINGS 22 0 Old Town Lofts 11 0 14 8 21 0 13 3 21 7 21 20 5 2 21 6 22 0 13 7 14 3 22 1 20 7 21 5 30 0 30 8 31 8 20 0 Neighborhood Context Below is and a listing of the near by properties and their varying heights, setbacks and widths and a site map for reference. North Side of Oak Street 202 Remington Street (McHugh-Andrews House): local landmark and NHR HT: 3 story (38’) SETBACK: 24’ WIDTH: 38’ 215 E. Oak St. (Carriage House for McHugh-Andrews House) HT: 2 story (27’) SETBACK: 0’ WIDTH: 42’ 217 E. Oak Street (house/duplex) HT: 1.5 story (20’) SETBACK: 1’/6’ WIDTH: 27’ South Side of Oak Street 148 Remington Street /205 East Oak Street / (Poudre Garage): local landmark HT: 2 story (27’) SETBACK: 0’/6 ‘ WIDTH: 93’ The new addition currently in construction will be 4-stories (46’) 210 East Oak Street (Commercial; old Zoric Cleaners) 202 Remington St. (McHugh-Andrews House) 3-story house turned into retail Cladding: stone Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date:1889 148 Remington St. (Poudre Garage) 4-story mixed use (addition/renovation currently under review) Cladding: yellow brick Roof: flat Date: 1936 200 Mathews St. (Carnegie Library) 2-story museum Cladding: stone Roof: hipped, red clay tile Date: 1903 Buildings with Landmark Status Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-28 216 E Oak St. (Parsonage) 1-story commercial Cladding: stucco Roof: flat Date: unknown, estimated 1940s 210 E Oak St. (Zoric Laundry) 1-story commercial Cladding: yellow brick Roof: flat Date: 1940 221 Mathews St. (Parkview Apartments) 3-story apartments Cladding: red brick, half-timber Roof: mansard, slate Date: 1936 215 E Oak St. 1.5- story triplex Cladding: stone, wood shingles Roof: gable, red asphalt shingles Date: 1895 with 1968 addition Buildings Eligible for Landmark Status Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-29 NEW CONSTRUCTION LUC 3.4.7(F) 1.Dimensional Compatibility 2.Character and pattern Compatibility 3.Building Material Compatibility 4.Visual Connections Continuity 5.Landscape Preservation 6.Historical Context Impact Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-30 DIMENSIONAL COMPATIBILITY LUC 3.4.7(F) (1) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-31 50’ Mathews Street Proposed Living Oaks 217 Oak Street McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) McHugh-Andrews Carnegie Carriage House Library Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-32 Oak Street Proposed Poudre Garage Addition (Beyond) MAVDevelopment 221 Mountain Proposed Living Oaks 75’ 50’ 50’ Oak Street Proposed Living Oaks 207 Mathews Street (Library Apartments) 215 (In Construction Parkview Apartments Townhomes at Library Park Mathews Street Elevation South Block Mathews Street Elevation North Block Mathews Street Elevations Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-33 Level 2 Existing 111'-9 1/2" T.O. E PARAPET 123'-0" T.O. Parapet3 133'-91/2" Level 1 100'-6 1/2" Ground T.O. Parapet 5 144'-9 1/2" 8 8 8 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 8 5 5 5 5 5 2 T.O. Parapet 4 142'-3 1/2" 2 2 2 1 1 1 Level Mezz. 131'-9 1/2" 1 2 2 2 Level 3 121'-9 1/2" 5 T.O. Parapet 1 114'-0" 2 2 5 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE Mathews Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 36'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 40'-8" Level 2 Existing 111'-9 1/2" T.O. E PARAPET 123'-0" Level3 121'-91/2" Aerial view looking Southwest PROPOSED LIVING OAKS MCHUGH-ANDREWS OLD TOWN LOFTS HOUSE ZORIC CLEANERS POUDRE GARAGEADDITION CARRIAGE HOUSE FOR MCHUGH- ANDREWS HOUSE) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-35 CHARACTER AND PATTERN COMPATIBILITY LUC 3.4.7(F) (2) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-36 Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-37 Whitton Block - 252 Walnut Street, Fort Collins Relevant Fort Collins Urban Typologies Opera Galleria North College Avenue, Fort Collins Antlers Hotel 223 Linden Street, Fort Collins Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-38 BUILDING MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY LUC 3.4.7(F) (3) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-39 Zoric Cleaners McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) Parkview Apartments Carnegie Library Color and Scale 44 Inches 12 Inches 12 Inche s 12 Inche s 48 Inches Living Oaks McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-40 VISUAL CONNECTIONS CONTINUITY LUC 3.4.7(F) (4) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-41 SIT E OAK STREET PLAZA LIBRAR Y PARK DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL Visual and Pedestrian Connections Between Site and Neighborhood Focal Points Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-42 Proposed Building Footprint - 0’ lot setback facing Oak and Mathews Street Existing Corner Buildings with 0’ lot setback facing Oak and Mathews Streets MAV D Neighborhood Setback Diagram SITE Townhomes @ Library Park Old Town Lofts Home State Bank ern 110 East Oak Corner Buildings at Zero Lot Lines Corne r Buildings at Zero Lot Lines Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-43 LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION LUC 3.4.7(F) (5) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-44 PRESERVE EXISTING TREE Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-45 HISTORICAL CONTEXT IMPACT LUC 3.4.7(F) (6) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-46 - Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-47 THANK YOU “Ethics deals with your reasons for doing something, for acting, and esthetics deals with the consequences of your acts; they are different sides of the same coin…For example, you cannot really understand Frank Lloyd Wright unless you understand that the central problem for Wright was this interconnection between ethics and esthetics and his determination that the final visible form of his acts would be an expression of his ethics.” -James Marston Fitch Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-48 Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-49 Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-50 From Library Park looking northwest Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-51 220 E Olive St. (Townhomes Library Park) 3- and 4-story townhome Cladding: brick and stucco Roofs: flat, shed Date: New/2017 217 E Oak St. 1.5-story house Cladding: horizontal wood siding and wood shingles, painted white Roof: gable, black asphalt shingles Date: 1899 215 E Oak St. 1.5-story triplex Cladding: stone, wood shingles Roof: gable, red asphalt shingles Date: 1895 with 1968 addition 202 Remington St. (McHugh-Andrews House) 3-story house turned into retail Cladding: stone Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date:1889 221 Mathews St. (Parkview Apartments) 3-story apartments Cladding: red brick, half-timber Roof: mansard, slate Date: 1936 215 Mathews St. 3-story mixed use Cladding: red brick, stucco Roof: flat Date: New/2017 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) 2-story apartments Cladding: mixed tone brick Roof: mansard, faux wood shingles Date: 1966 221 Mountain St. 3-story mixed use Cladding: brick Roof: flat Date: new/proposed (construction not yet begun) Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-52 300 E Oak St. (Mennonite Church) 1- story church Cladding: red brick Roof: gable & hip, gray asphalt shingles Date: 1954 216 E Oak St. (Parsonage) 1- story commercial Cladding: stucco Roof: flat Date: unknown, estimated 1940s 210 E Oak St. (Zorich Laundry) 1-story commercial Cladding: yellow brick Roof: flat Date: 1940 148 Remington St. (Poudre Garage) 4-story mixed use (addition/renovation currently under review) Cladding: yellow brick Roof: flat Date: 1936 200 Mathews St. (Carnegie Library) 2-story museum Cladding: stone Roof: hipped, red clay tile Date: 1903 308 E Oak St. (Parklane Arms) 4- story apartments Cladding: mixed tone brick Roof: mansard, gray asphalt shingles Date: 1967 318 E Oak St. 2-story house converted to offices Cladding: yellow-gray brick Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date: 1906 220 E Oak St. (LDS Church) 1- and 2-story church with multiple additions Cladding: stucco, brick painted white, scored and battered concrete, painted CMU block Roof: part flat and part gabled, red asphalt singles Date: unknown, estimated 1940s - 1970s Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-53 Aerial view looking Northwest TOWN HOMES AT LIBRARY PARK POUDRE GARAGE PROPOSED LIVING MAVD OAKS Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-54 Living Oaks - Photos of Building Material Samples on Display at 3-15-17 LPC Meeting Exhibit 3: Living Oaks, Building Material Sample Photos Submitted at Meeting Item 2, Exhibit 3 Photos of Materials Samples Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-55 Exhibit 3: Living Oaks, Building Material Sample Photos Submitted at Meeting Item 2, Exhibit 3 Photos of Materials Samples Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-56 Exhibit 4: Living Oaks - Citizen Letter Item 2, Exhibit 4 Living Oaks - Citizen Letter Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-57 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 15, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program process, review criteria, and scoring. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation - Intro to Loan Program (PDF) 2. Rating Criteria (PDF) 3. Scoring Sheet (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 71 1 Design Reviews – 2017 Landmark Rehabilitation Loans Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, March 15, 2017 Design Reviews for the Landmark Rehab Loan Program • Loan eligibility: Local landmarks with approved alterations • Exterior rehabilitation projects • 50% minimum match • Approved projects are ranked by need, proposed rehab methods, and matching funds percentage • 0% Interest • $7,500 per property per year [demand may exceed budget] • $25,000 annual budget • Loan payoffs recycle back into program • Projects also eligible for Design Assistance Program 2 3.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Intro to Loan Program (5372 : INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM) Loan Process 1. Applicant Submittal Deadline: Third Tuesday in January 2. Application Screening 3. LPC Design Reviews and Ranking 4. Loan Award Decision 5. 6-Month Project Progress Deadline 6. 1 - Year Completion Deadline 7. Inspection, Closing, Deed 8. Disbursement of Funds 3 Role of the LPC 1. Conduct Landmark Design Review for each proposed project 2. Score each project using established program criteria • Preservation Necessity (evaluates degree of threat to property’s integrity) • Work Quality (evaluates proposed preservation practices to complete the work) 4 3.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Intro to Loan Program (5372 : INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM) Section 14-48, “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. 5 3.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Intro to Loan Program (5372 : INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM) 1 2017 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Rating Criteria A. Match (points automatically awarded based upon applicant submittal) Points: 1 100% - 150% match 2 151% - 200% match 3 201% - 250% match 4 251% - 300% match 5 301%+ match B. Preservation Necessity Points: 0 – 1 UDegree of threat is minimal due to all of the following reasons: 1) alterations have not significantly diminished the structure’s appearance; 2) the structure does not need any significant repair due to neglect, 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions do not adversely effect the structure or its setting; 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs would not significantly diminish the livability, economic viability, or integrity of the structure. 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to certain structures do not significantly affect the character of the structure or its setting. 2 – 3 UDegree of threat is moderate due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) alterations have diminished the structure’s appearance but could be corrected; 2) the structure has one or more significant defects constituting a dangerous, unhealthy or unsightly habitat which could be corrected and made sound. 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions present that moderately affect the structure or setting. 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs could significantly diminish the livability, economic viability, or integrity of the structure. 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to certain structures could significantly affect the character of the structure or its setting, but can be reasonably mitigated. 4 – 5 UDegree of threat is severe due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) structure has been significantly altered or the historical features have been covered up which have resulted in the loss of some or all of its significant historic characteristics; 2) the structure is no longer safe or adequate for use; 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions present that 3.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Rating Criteria (5372 : INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM) 2 significantly affect the structure or setting and will eventually lead to its destruction or demolition; 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs will likely lead to the destruction or demolition of the historic structure; 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to the structure will significantly 10 affect the structure and will eventually lead to its destruction or demolition. C. Work Quality Points: 0 – 1 The historic appearance of the resource will not be restored or questionable preservation practices will be employed. 2 - 3 The historic appearance will be restored adequately and preservation practices proposed are adequate. 4 - 5 The effort to restore the resource to its historic appearance will be exceptional; preservation practices proposed are excellent. 3.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Rating Criteria (5372 : INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM) Property Address (Landmark Date) Description of Proposed Work Criteria A Match $ Criteria B Preservation Necessity Criteria C Work Quality Total Score Rank Design Review #4: 231 S Howes (Humphrey-Davis House - 1998) gutter replacement and "drip edge" installation 3 fascia and soffit repair 3 Design Review #5: 121 E Laurel - formerly 701 Remington (Schroeder House - 2012) Porch balcony restoration 1 Design Review #6: 618 W Mountain (Crose-Scott-Dickey House - 2013) Replace aluminum storms with wooden storm/screens on façade 2 Remove non-historic front steps and replace with wooden steps similar to original style; repair and rebuild "wings" 2 2017 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Landmark Preservation Commission Design Review Scoring Sheet 3.c Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Scoring Sheet (5372 : INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 15, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1998. The proposed work includes gutter replacement and repair and rehabilitation of fascia and soffits. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen Slezak RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street was designated as an individual Fort Collins Landmark in 1998. It is a good example of an Italianate middle class residence in Fort Collins with very good physical integrity. It is also significant for its historical associations as the residence of Captain Harry Humphrey, head of the Military Department at Colorado Agricultural College at the turn of the twentieth century, and as the residence of Adelia Davis, Fort Collins’ first registered woman pharmacist. The property also contains a two-bay, shingle-clad garage, which is not part of the landmark designation PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The original eight-room portion of this large, two-story house was built in 1903. The house was designed by Fort Collins architect Arthur N. Garbutt, who was in partnership with Montezuma Fuller. It was constructed by contractor C. J. Loveland for approximately $4,500. The stucco-clad brick house sits on a foundation of dressed sandstone. Between 1906 and 1909, the house was enlarged significantly by construction of a two-story rear addition on the west side. The interior of the house was divided into a duplex at some point in the mid-twentieth century, which did not detract from the exterior character-defining features of the building. After its designation as a local landmark in 1998, it was converted for use as an office building. The property underwent structural stabilization, re-roofing, added insulation, boiler and radiator rehabilitation, plumbing and electrical work and extensive rehabilitation of the interior woodwork, flooring, and original plaster. Empire Carpentry (Kevin Murray) was instrumental in that rehabilitation work, for which the owner received a landmark rehabilitation grant. Since the initial rehabilitation, water intrusion has caused some damage to the structure and nearby demolition on the block caused cracking in the exterior stucco. The 6-inch half-round gutters around the perimeter have rusted and do not effectively protect the building, which is experiencing rotting in the fascia and soffits. 4 Packet Pg. 78 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability for the following items:  Remove and replace existing 6” half-round gutters with new 6” half-round gutters. Replace deteriorated or damaged 4”-round downspouts. Fabricate a “drip edge” to be installed below the initial shingle starter row and into the half-round gutter. Paint replaced gutters and downspouts as required.  Replace rotted fascia, moldings, and bead board soffit at select locations where the half-round gutters have leaked. Paint to match. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Report of Acceptability” states, “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; 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: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 4 Packet Pg. 79 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 Exterior Integrity Exterior integrity is the composite of seven (7) aspects or qualities, which convey a property’s identity for which it is significant. These seven aspects are: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, or site. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION AT WORK SESSION: At its March 8, 2017 work session, Commission members requested additional information about this item as follows. The responses from the property owner are attached as an addendum to this staff report. 1. When the fascia is repaired, will it then be covered up with half-round gutter on the lower level, or not? What is the extent of the work on the gutters-all the way around the perimeter? 2. How will moldings be restored? Will it be exactly the same profile or is that a standard profile that’s available off-the shelf? 3. If rot on lower part is extensive and affects brackets, will you repair or replace the brackets? 4. Is there a contingency plan for any needed structural repair you might identify when you open up soffit? 5. When was building re-roofed and with what material? EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed work as described complies with Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and would retain a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. The replacement and augmentation of the half- round gutters with a “drip edge” feature, as well as repair of the rotted fascia and soffit sections, will protect the structure from further damage and enhance the exterior integrity of the Humphrey/Davis House. SAMPLE MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for gutter replacement and fascia and soffit work on the Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for gutter replacement and fascia and soffit work on the Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) would erode the authenticity 4 Packet Pg. 80 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 and/or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is not compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation - 231 S Howes (PDF) 2. 231 S Howes_Slezak_landmarkloanapplication_Redacted (PDF) 3. 231 S Howes_Elevations (PDF) 4. 231 S Howes_updated detail of work_Redacted (PDF) 5. Revised Estimate_213 Howes_ Empire_Redacted (PDF) 6. 231 S Howes Nomination Form (PDF) 7. Addendum for Staff Report_follow up QA (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 81 231 S Howes– Humphrey/Davis House • Owner: Steve Slezak • Italianate residence constructed in 1903 • Designated in 1998 • Need: Existing half-round gutters are inadequate and failing; fascia and soffits rotting in places • Proposed Work: Gutter replacement and augmentation with a “drip edge” element; repair of rotted sections; repainting as needed 231 S Howes– Humphrey/Davis House Staff findings: The proposed work complies with Section 14-48, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and will improve the energy performance of the building. 4.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 231 S Howes (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 1 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application Applicant Information Stephen Slezak 970-484-5907 Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone 561 S. York Street, Denver CO 80209 State Zip Code s.amshel@comcast.net Email Property Information Stephen Slezak 231 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins Owner’s Name(s) (as it appears on the Deed of Trust) Landmark Property Address Project Description Total Project Cost: Project Start Date: 4/2017 Loan Requested (up to $7,500): Project Completion Date: 7/2017 Owner Match: (if you have additional contractors list them below) Check if work is to be completed by owner Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, why the project needs funding, sources of funding and other information as necessary to explain your project. 231 S. Howes Street was designated a Fort Collins landmark in 1998. At that it went through a comprehensive renovation including structural stabilization, enhanced floor capacity to comply with current building codes, roofing, insulation, boiler & radiator rehabilitation, plumbing, electrical services lines and extensive rehabilitation on the interiors bringing back the grandeur of its original woodwork, flooring & plastering from 1898 when the building was constructed. Over the past 18 years several basic elements have experienced unusual damage generally caused by water intrusion. Cracking in the exterior stucco was experienced during the demolition of the Key Bank drive-thru where the Cortina Building now exists. The existence of a half round gutter, more prevalent at the time, has been ineffective and severe rotting at the fascia & soffits can be seen. These conditions need to be corrected and this loan would go a long way in facilitating this work. Work would begin in April, 2017 and would be expected to take 2-3 months to complete. Spring or summer is a better time of year to address water issues. Although the owner is a licensed General contractor in the City, it is our belief that it would be more efficient to contract with a builder experienced in historic properties. We have collaborated with Kevin Murray of Empire Carpentry to perform the necessary work for the detailed items. Kevin was instrumental in the original rehabilitation process in 1999. Funding will be provided from reserves set aside for building maintenance. We estimate that a total of nearly may be spent with this latest rehab process.* This total amount will stress the coffers and without the loan would force the process to be split into several iterations. The property is currently fully leased but office space in Fort Collins without parking has a unique cliental. Rental rates just do not keep pace with the costs to maintain a building like the Humphries-Davis House. Property taxes alone amount to almost 40% of the income stream. This loan will assist in preserving this community treasure. Empire Carpentry PO Box 245, Bellvue, CO 80512 970-493-3499 Contractor Name Address Phone 4.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 231 S Howes_Slezak_landmarkloanapplication_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide individual costs for each feature. Feature A Name: Perimeter Gutters UCost Existing 6” half-round gutters around full perimeter have rusted through & drip. Moreover, water shedding from the roof surface will sheet flow between the fascia & the gutter. These type of gutters do not have a lip or flashing that would channel watershed into the gutter. Describe proposed work on feature: Remove & replace all gutters with new 6” half-round gutters. Replace deteriorated or damaged 4” round downspouts. Fabricate “drip edge” to be installed below initial shingle starter row & into ½ round gutter. Paint replaced gutters & downspouts as required. Feature B Name: Fascia & Soffit Fascia & soffit system at select locations around the perimeter where half-round gutters leak due to improper water diversion. This leakage runs across fascia surface causing rot. Describe proposed work on feature: Remove gutter & replace (feature D). Replace fascia, mouldings & bead board soffit. Paint to match. 4.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 231 S Howes_Slezak_landmarkloanapplication_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 3 Feature C Name: Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature D Name: UCost Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: 4.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 231 S Howes_Slezak_landmarkloanapplication_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 4 Feature E Name: Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature F Name: Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Attach Additional Sheets As Needed TOTAL COST: 4.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 231 S Howes_Slezak_landmarkloanapplication_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 5 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. At least one detailed, itemized construction bid for each feature of your project. Bids must include product details for replacement materials, a basic description of the repair/installation methodology that will be used, and a breakdown of labor and materials costs. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product spec sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. 4.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 231 S Howes_Slezak_landmarkloanapplication_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – 231 S. Howes Street Elevation photos East (front) Elevation North Elevation West (rear) Elevation South Elevation 4.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 231 S Howes_Elevations (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street FEATURE ‘A’ Perimeter gutters Half round gutters around full perimeter have rusted through & drip. Moreover, water shedding from the roof surface will sheet flow between the fascia & the gutter. These type of gutters do not have a lip or flashing that would channel watershed into the gutter. Remove & replace all gutters. Fabricate “drip edge” to be installed below initial shingle starter row & into ½ round gutter. Paint replaced gutters & downspouts as required. FEATURE ‘B’ Fascia & soffit Fascia & soffit system at select locations around the perimeter where ½ round gutters leak due to improper water diversion. This leakage runs across fascia surface causing rot. Remove gutter & replace (feature A). Replace fascia, mouldings & bead board soffit. Paint to match. 4.d Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 231 S Howes_updated detail of work_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – 4.d Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 231 S Howes_updated detail of work_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – General Contracting & Design - Residential & Commercial - Remodeling - Preservation ESTIMATE Empire Carpentry LLC PO Box 245 Bellvue, Colorado 80512 Phone: (970) 493-3499 Fax: (970) 493-2088 18TUempire@verinet.comU18T Date: January 20, 2017 TO: Steve Slezak Job Location: 231 S. Howes Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Phone: 970-484-5907 Email: 18TUs.amshel@comcast.netU18T Job Scope & Description: Revised 012017 Replace all existing 6” ½ round gutter with New 6” ½ Round gutter, replace deteriorated or damaged 4” round downspouts around entire house Repair or replace all deteriorated soffit and fascia trims, as needed around the entire house, prime all bare wood, Paint not included City mandated waste management plan, debris removal and recycling, portable toilet Billable Categories Not Included in Estimate: Environmental testing / environmental mitigation and hygiene, submittals, plans, demolition permits, building permits, parking permits, obstruction permits, municipal fines and fees related to regulations and codes mentioned and not mentioned above, painting, landscaping, snow removal This estimate is for completing the job as described above. It is based on our evaluation and should not be taken as a fixed bid. Estimate is good for thirty days. ESTIMATED JOB COST $ Estimated by: Terry Schmitz 4.e Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Revised Estimate_213 Howes_ Empire_Redacted (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – 4.f Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 4.f Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 231 S Howes Nomination Form (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN STEPHEN SLEZAK 231 S. Howes Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Landmark Preservation Commission City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 March 10, 2017 Re: Follow up question/answer Board, Following, please find answers & comment to the questions sent March 9, 2017 in preparation to the scheduled interview on March 15, 2017. 1. The half round gutter will be replaced entirely around the perimeter of the upper roof. The drainage system on the lower, front porch is a ‘trough’ type integral gutter at the edge of the roof sloping toward a single scupper & downspouts at the southeast corner. This repair is not included in this loan request. The soffit on the upper area is generally intact & is not experiencing any rot or decay. This includes the bead board soffit, the large bracketing & ‘bed molding’. The fascia is 5/4” clear material that was replaced entirely in 1998 when the original restoration was performed. At that time the fascia had experienced rot through the fascia boards presumably because of the same inherent deficient design as we are experiencing today; that being that watershed runs between the gutter & the fascia board. This detail wants to be rectified with the total replacement of the gutters and fascia utilizing the flashing detail as specified in the loan request documents. Additionally, the 5/4” material used is only 16 years old & only displays rot on the surface. It has not deteriorated completely through as did the original 100 year old fascia seen in 1998. 2. The ‘bed moldings’ on this building have nearly the same profile as the WM profiles seen today except that they are not exact. In 1999/2000 when this property was being renovated, I had either custom profiles made to match existing or the exact profile that 4.g Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Addendum for Staff Report_follow up QA (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL was available from Wood Originals in Greeley, Colorado. They stock limited quantities of the ‘old’ profiles that tend to be slightly thicker than today’s shapes. The brackets will not need replacement as they are in fine shape. It might be interesting to note however, that I have a couple extra brackets made exactly to match the building left over from the original work. 3. When the lower roof & fascia work is performed at a later date, there is one bracket, at the scupper location, that will need to be replicated & replaced. The crown is available off the shelf. 4. As always in these sort of restoration projects, there are unforeseen circumstances that need to be considered. In 1999, when the old fascia was replaced, the rafter tails were in perfect shape & were suitable to attach the new fascia. Because the watershed in not channeling behind the fascia there is no reason to expect that the existing rafter tails have decayed to the point of needing to be replaced. In the unlikely event this condition is found, a sister tail would be applied in a fashion that complies with regulations governing these sort of repairs. 5. The building was re-roofed in November, 1998 using a CertainTeed shingle. The type is Gran Manor, a 425 pound, 50 year limited warranty shingle with a UL Class A rating. The same shingle is used on the building at 227 S. Howes & is expected to be used on the proposed apartments at 312 W. Olive. The roof on the lower, front porch was never replaced & had developed leaks primarily at the edge & internal gutter. This work is not included in this loan request. I trust these discussion answer any questions the board may have. I look forward to interviewing on the 15 th . Regards, Stephen Slezak 4.g Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Addendum for Staff Report_follow up QA (5373 : 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 15, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the James Ross Proving-Up House, a 1890 residence that served as a residence to satisfy the requirements of the 1862 Homestead Act. APPLICANT: Bob Adams, Recreation Director OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The James Ross Proving-Up House is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard A, for its association with homesteading, Standard B, for its association with the Ross family, and Standard C, for its identifiable design and construction. The residence served as a “filing” house for the James Ross family. Built in 1890, the one room building housed the family of five for five years as part of the requirements of the Homestead Act. James Ross built his home on the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal ditch, north of what became 1600 West Horsetooth Road. James was the great-grandfather of Senator Wayne Allard and Kermit Allard, CPA in Fort Collins. James Ross’ son William became the President of the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley; he impacted the university so much that they named Ross Hall after him, which completed construction his last year as president. The current owner of this property, the City of Fort Collins Recreation Department, has submitted an application requesting consideration for Fort Collins local landmark designation. COMMISSION ACTION Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures,” provides the process and standards for designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Commission shall adopt a motion providing a recommendation on eligibility to City Council. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The James Ross Proving-Up House has exceptional significance to Fort Collins and Larimer County as the only 5 Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 documented, extant “proving-up” or “filing” house in Larimer County. The Ross House serves as a rare example of the region’s cultural heritage, and represents the early pioneer and settlement context, advances in water technology and irrigation systems, and early development in Fort Collins and Larimer County. Built in 1890, this small (12 ½ feet by 16½ feet) one room building was inhabited by the Ross family of five to satisfy the 1862 Homestead Act requirements for receiving land. A settler needed to “prove-up” that they had lived on a property for five years before they could file with the Land Office for ownership of that land. The building has additional significance for its association with the James Ross family. James Ross first built his little house on the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal ditch north of what became 1600 West Horsetooth Road. James Ross was the great-grandfather of Senator Wayne Allard and Kermit Allard, CPA in Fort Collins. James Ross’ son William became the President of UNC in Greeley and was so beloved that they named their library the William Ross Library. The James Ross House further tells about the evolution of water delivery systems and early water use in Larimer County. The earliest pioneers, such as George Strauss and John Coy, settled in the 1850s-60s in the rich bottom lands adjacent to the Poudre River, ensuring a steady supply of water. Once the land along the rivers and streams was taken, settlers were forced to dig wells for water, a difficult and often futile task in the arid, rocky soil. As irrigation ditches were built, land farther away from the rivers and streams could be farmed. Ross built his house along the 1880 Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, ensuring his fine large farm prospered. At the Farm at Lee Martinez Park, along the Poudre River, the Ross Proving-Up House will be restored and interpreted, bringing back to life the themes of early settlement and community development, the 1862 Homestead Act, agriculture, and the history of water that made it all possible. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is not present, as the proving-up house has been moved from its original location; however, the interpretation of the home will reflect the original location and purpose. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The building retains integrity of design, as the residence’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. Standard C: Setting. The integrity of setting is not present, as the building’s setting has changed from the original. While the building’s current setting is contained within the Lee Martinez Farm, this Farm is a City recreational and educational resource, rather than a working farm. Standard D: Materials. This building retains good integrity of materials, as much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the building remain. Missing portions of materials are being restored. Standard E: Workmanship. This building retains good evidence of the workmanship, materials and techniques of the settlement period in Fort Collins, c. 1880-1900. This consists of evidence of the artisans' labor and skill in constructing the building. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." The home’s physical characteristics and its environment evoke strong feelings relating to the homesteading lifestyle. Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as the direct link between an important historic event and a historic property. Through its physical characteristics, the property is able to convey its strong association with the early settlement period in Fort Collins. HISTORICAL INFORMATION History of the Ross Proving-Up House: 5 Packet Pg. 104 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 James Ross was born in Insch, Scotland on February 28, 1867. Ross was able to achieve his dream of moving to America when, in the Fall of 1887, he was given the opportunity to care for a shipment of Percheron horses for Jessie Harris. Ross spent the trip in the hold of the ship with the horses and was so sick when he arrived that he vowed never to make the trip again. He worked for Harris for a time, as well as hauled stones from the Stout Quarry to town for various construction projects, including the laying of stone sidewalks. On January 19, 1889, he married a fellow Scot, Jane Wilson Nichol. The following year the couple filed a homestead claim on a 160-acre parcel of land southwest of Fort Collins, along the banks of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Ditch. The Homestead Act requirements included improving the property by the construction of a home and by farming the property for a period of five years, before a claim could be filed and the property deeded over. Ross built a small, one-room homestead house for his young family. The couple’s third child, Ethel, was born in the proving-up house. When she was about two, her mother went to the garden and Ethel woke up from a nap to look for her. Ethel drowned in the ditch on June 19, 1895. Afterwards, James Ross moved the proving-up house to the southwest, farther away from the ditch. Then the family continued to live in the little one room “proving-up” house, where they raised Hereford cattle. Their fourth child, Nellie (Jean Allard’s mother), was born in the proving-up house in 1896. In 1898, the Ross’s had a brick house constructed in front of the proving-up house, along what would become West Horsetooth Road. Two more children were born in the brick house, William (Bill) in 1899 and Leona in 1906. Times were difficult for the family, and in addition to his cattle, James also worked as the road overseer in District 3 of Larimer County between 1902 and 1917. James Ross passed away on August 9, 1929. Jane Nichol Ross lived to be 90 years old, passing away on January 1, 1958. After having been owned by the Ross family for 87 years, the farm was sold to Trend Homes in 1977. In 2005, Plantation Manor P.D.P. was proposed for the site. Recognizing the importance of the proving-up house to the community, the house was donated to the City of Fort Collins, and moved to a Parks Department storage yard until a permanent site could be located. In the fall of 2016 the City moved it to its new location at The Farm at Lee Martinez Park where it will be restored and interpreted for future generations. The Homestead Act of 1862: The Homestead Act set in motion a program of public land grants to small farmers. Before the Civil War, the southern states had blocked attempts at homestead legislation because they correctly foresaw that the law would hasten the settlement of western territory, ultimately adding to the number and political influence of Free states. When the southern states seceded during the Civil War, the Homestead Act was passed. Signed into law in May 1862, the Homestead Act opened up settlement in the western United States, allowing any adult citizen (or person intending to become a citizen) who had never borne arms against the U.S. government to put in a claim for up to 160 free acres of surveyed government land. By the end of the Civil War, 15,000 homestead claims had been established, and more followed in the postwar years. Eventually, 1.6 million individual claims would be approved for a total of 420,000 square miles of territory, nearly ten percent of all government-held property. The Homestead Act remained in effect for more than 100 years. The final claim, for 80 acres in southeastern Alaska, was approved in 1988. Claimants were required to “improve” the plot by building a dwelling and cultivating the land continuously for five years. After five years on the land, the original filer was entitled to the property, free and clear, except for a registration fee. Title could also be acquired after only a 6-month residency and trivial improvements, provided the claimant paid the government $1.25 per acre (or $200 for 160 acres), a relatively large sum of money for many settlers to amass. The provisions of the Homestead Act largely dictated the home’s design and construction. The Act mandated that the dwelling had to be at least ten by twelve feet in size, and contain at least one glass window. A final filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers. Frugality was a homesteader's chief concern when building a home. Settlers constructed their houses of the materials most readily -- and cheaply -- available to them. Sometimes called “filing houses” or “claim shanties,” a proving-up house had no foundation and were constructed to be moved, reused, or improved when and if "proving up" time ever came. Comfort was often a secondary issue. Often these portable houses became an addition to a more substantial dwelling, converted to animal shelters, or moved to other homestead parcels to be used again to “prove-up” another’s holding. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION 5 Packet Pg. 105 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 Constructed in 1890, the James Ross Proving-Up House is a one room wooden residence measuring 12½ by 16½ feet. The walls of the single story building were constructed of narrow lap siding on a wood frame. The side gable roof is currently covered with asphalt composition shingles. The façade has a single wooden door, offset towards the right. The door originally featured two long vertical panels over two shorter vertical panels. Currently, the two longer panels have been broken out, leaving an opening where they existed. The façade also contains a single, vertical oriented narrow window, located off center towards the left. The window used to be a four-over-four light window; however, the bottom sash has deteriorated, and only a portion of the wood framing still exists. The building’s right side, when viewed from the façade, has a single matching long, narrow four-over-four light window with; the bottom sash has deteriorated on this window. The back of the home has no openings. The left side also has no openings, but does show signs of a past exterior chimney centered on this elevation. The chimney was likely installed in the early 1950s when the proving-up house was converted to a bunk house. This chimney has since been demolished. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION AT WORK SESSION: At its March 8, 2017 work session, Commission members requested additional information on this item as follows: 1. Why was it relocated to The Farm at Lee Martinez Park? Saved from demolition in 2005, the City of Fort Collins moved the historic building to storage until an appropriate permanent placement for educational purposes could be found. Last fall, the Ross House was relocated to The Farm at Lee Martinez Park along the Cache la Poudre River in Fort Collins. At the Farm at Lee Martinez Park, visitors will be able to experience the Ross Proving-Up House and learn about early settlement and water history, including how the Homestead Act encouraged farming, and how farming is so closely tied to water history and technology. The public will learn of the difficulties our arid land imposed on settlement, and how, through the development of a system of ditches and water rights, agricultural cultivation was able to extend outward from the rich, naturally irrigated bottom lands along the river to generate new farmland. Children and adults alike will also be taught about early sustainable living methods, through The Farm's existing agricultural activities and museum. The Farm at Lee Martinez Park is adjacent to the Cache la Poudre River. The restored historic building will be visible from the Poudre River Trail, encouraging trail users to visit. All ethnicities, cultures, and ages will enjoy the history lesson to be learned from Larimer County's only known "proving-up house." The location at the Farm at Lee Martinez Park provided an agricultural context and association with water with its proximity to the Poudre River. The physical location on site at the Farm will allow the James Ross Proving-Up House to be interpreted in its own right without further complicating the history of the site. 2. What kind of interpretation of the house will be provided for visitors? Subject experts will provide the interpretation of the Ross Proving-Up House and its ties to westward expansion, the Homestead Act, pioneer settlers, and farming and irrigation. Along with the Poudre Heritage Alliance, the City's Historic Preservation Division and members of the Landmark Preservation Commission will review all history-related interpretive material, ensuring its historical accuracy. Material related to agriculture will be reviewed by the City's Natural Resources and Landscape Planning Divisions, before being provided to the Poudre Heritage Alliance for its review. 3. Provide more information on the restoration. The City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division has applied for a grant from the Poudre Heritage Alliance for the restoration of the James Ross Proving-Up House. The singular goal for the project is to restore the Ross House to its original appearance as closely as possible, as documented in a pre- 1950 photograph. The plan is to remove existing non-original brick chimney remnants and rehabilitate the roof framing as needed. Two layers of roofing will be torn off, down to the deck, and repair/replace 1x skip decking on roof as needed. Traditional wood shingles will be installed at an 8/12 slope. Then they will remove the trim and clapboard siding to assess any rot of wall studs. As needed, rafters, floor 5 Packet Pg. 106 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 5 joists, studs and ceiling joists will be sistered or replaced. The trim and clapboard siding will be repaired or replaced where needed with salvaged material and or new material to match the original, and reinstalled. It is anticipated that lead abatement will be a necessary component of the clapboard and trim work, and if needed, this will be done to ensure a safe environment. Wood door buck, frame and sill will be repaired and re-installed. Completing the exterior work is the repair, re-glazing with restoration glass to match original, and re-installation of the two windows' jambs, frames and sills. Interior work is the second phase of the project, and includes the removal of electric wiring and equipment, plaster repair/replacement, flooring repair/replacement, case and base trim rehabilitation, and installation of a wood stove, pipe and stone base. STAFF EVALUATION Staff finds that the James Ross Proving-Up House qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standards A, B, and C as a good example of a filing house with a preponderance of exterior integrity. The dwelling’s location and setting have both changed; however, the interpretation of the home will reflect the original location and function. The dwelling continues to uphold a preponderance of integrity: materials, association, design, feeling, and workmanship. SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission finds that the James Ross Proving-Up House meets one or more of the criteria for Fort Collins landmark designation, the Commission shall adopt the following motion: That the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the James Ross Proving-Up House as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards A, B, and C for its history and design as a filing house, association with the Ross family, and its preponderance of exterior integrity. If the Commission finds that the James Ross Proving-Up House does not meet the criteria for landmark designation, it shall adopt a motion to this effect, and state its reasoning. ATTACHMENTS 1. Landmark Designation Application (PDF) 2. Location Map (PDF) 3. Land Patent (PDF) 4. Staff Presentation (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 107 Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: James Ross Proving-Up House, at The Farm at Lee Martinez Park, 600 North Sherwood Street Legal Description: The 12 ½ feet by 16½ feet, one room frame building known as the James Ross Proving-Up House, located at The Farm at Lee Martinez Park Property Name (historic and/or common): The James Ross Proving-Up House OWNER INFORMATION: Name: City of Fort Collins, Colorado Address: P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 -0580 Contact: Marc Rademacher, Recreation Area Manager, 112 East Willow Street, 970-221-6309, MRADEMACHER@fcgov.com; or Bob Adams, Recreation Director, 215 N. Mason Street, 970-221-6354, badams@fcgov.com CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Contact: cbumgarner@fcgov.com; 970-416-4250 Relationship to Owner: None. DATE: 02/21/2017 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 5.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the building being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the footprint of the building described above. SIGNIFICANCE: Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, state or nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities, below. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible, as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Location. Integrity of location is not present, as the proving-up house has been moved from its original location; however, the interpretation of the home will reflect the original location and purpose. Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The building retains integrity of design, as the residence’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. Setting. The integrity of setting is not present, as the building’s setting has changed from the original. While the building’s current setting is contained within the Lee Martinez Farm, this Farm is a City recreational and educational resource, rather than a working farm. Materials. This building retains good integrity of materials, as much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the building remain. Missing portions of materials are being restored. Workmanship. This building retains good evidence of the workmanship, materials and techniques of the settlement period in Fort Collins, c. 1880-1900. This consists of evidence of the artisans' labor and skill in constructing the building. Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." The home’s physical characteristics and its environment evoke strong feelings relating to the homesteading lifestyle. Association. Integrity of association is defined as the direct link between an important historic event and a historic property. Through its physical characteristics, the property is able to convey its strong association with the early settlement period in Fort Collins. 5.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 3 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: The James Ross Proving-Up House has exceptional significance to Fort Collins and Larimer County as the only documented, extant “proving-up” or “filing” house in Larimer County. The Ross House serves as a rare example of the region’s cultural heritage, and represents the early pioneer and settlement context, advances in water technology and irrigation systems, and early development in Fort Collins and Larimer County. Built in 1890, this small (12 ½ feet by 16½ feet) one room building was lived in by the Ross family of five to satisfy the 1862 Homestead Act requirements for receiving land. A settler needed to “prove-up” that they had lived on a property for five years before they could file with the Land Office for ownership of that land. The building has additional significance for its association with the James Ross family. James Ross first built his little house on the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal ditch north of what became 1600 West Horsetooth Road. James Ross was the great-grandfather of Senator Wayne Allard and Kermit Allard, CPA in Fort Collins. James Ross’ son William became the President of the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley; he impacted the university so much that they named Ross Hall after him, which completed construction his last year as president. The James Ross House further tells about the evolution of water delivery systems and early water use in Larimer County. The earliest pioneers, such as George Strauss and John Coy, settled in the 1850s-60s in the rich bottom lands adjacent to the Poudre River, ensuring a steady supply of water. Once the land along the rivers and streams was taken, settlers were forced to dig wells for water, a difficult and often futile task in the arid, rocky soil. As irrigation ditches were built, land farther away from the rivers and streams could be farmed. Ross built his house along the 1880 Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, ensuring his fine large farm prospered. At the Farm at Lee Martinez Park, along the Poudre River, the Ross Proving-Up House will be restored and interpreted, bringing back to life the themes of early settlement and community development, the 1862 Homestead Act, agriculture, and the history of water that made it all possible. HISTORICAL INFORMATION History of the Ross Proving-Up House: James Ross was born in Insch, Scotland on February 28, 1867. Ross was able to achieve his dream of moving to America when, in the Fall of 1887, he was given the opportunity to care for a shipment of Percheron horses for Jessie Harris. Ross spent the trip in the hold of the ship with the horses and was so sick when he arrived that he vowed never to make the trip again. He worked for Harris for a time, as well as hauled stones from the Stout Quarry to town for various construction projects, including the laying of stone sidewalks. On January 19, 1889, he married a fellow Scot, Jane Wilson Nichol. The following year the couple filed a homestead claim on a 160-acre parcel of land southwest of Fort Collins, along the banks of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Ditch. The Homestead Act requirements included improving the property by the construction of a home and by farming the property for a period of five years, before a claim could be filed and the property deeded over. Ross built a small, one-room homestead house for his young family. The couple’s third child, Ethel, was born in the proving-up house. When she was about two, her mother went to the garden and Ethel woke up from a nap to look for her. Ethel drowned in the ditch on June 19, 1895. Afterwards, James Ross moved the proving-up house to the southwest, farther away from the ditch. Then the family continued to live in the little one room “proving-up” house, where they raised Hereford cattle. Their fourth child, Nellie (Jean Allard’s mother), was born in the proving-up house in 1896. In 1898, the Ross’s had a brick house constructed in front of the proving-up house, along what would become West Horsetooth Road. Two more children were born in the brick house, William (Bill) in 5.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 4 1899 and Leona in 1906. Times were difficult for the family, and in addition to his cattle, James also worked as the road overseer in District 3 of Larimer County between 1902 and 1917. James Ross passed away on August 9, 1929. Jane Nichol Ross lived to be 90 years old, passing away on January 1, 1958. After having been owned by the Ross family for 87 years, the farm was sold to Trend Homes in 1977. In 2005, Plantation Manor P.D.P. was proposed for the site. Recognizing the importance of the proving-up house to the community, the house was donated to the City of Fort Collins, and moved to a Parks & Recreation storage yard until a permanent site could be located. In the fall of 2016 the City moved it to its new location at The Farm at Lee Martinez Park where it will be restored and interpreted for future generations. The Homestead Act of 1862: The Homestead Act set in motion a program of public land grants to small farmers. Before the Civil War, the southern states had blocked attempts at homestead legislation because they correctly foresaw that the law would hasten the settlement of western territory, ultimately adding to the number and political influence of Free states. When the southern states seceded during the Civil War, the Homestead Act was passed. Signed into law in May 1862, the Homestead Act opened up settlement in the western United States, allowing any adult citizen (or person intending to become a citizen) who had never borne arms against the U.S. government to put in a claim for up to 160 free acres of surveyed government land. By the end of the Civil War, 15,000 homestead claims had been established, and more followed in the postwar years. Eventually, 1.6 million individual claims would be approved for a total of 420,000 square miles of territory, nearly ten percent of all government-held property. The Homestead Act remained in effect for more than 100 years. The final claim, for 80 acres in southeastern Alaska, was approved in 1988. Claimants were required to “improve” the plot by building a dwelling and cultivating the land continuously for five years. After five years on the land, the original filer was entitled to the property, free and clear, except for a registration fee. Title could also be acquired after only a 6-month residency and trivial improvements, provided the claimant paid the government $1.25 per acre (or $200 for 160 acres), a relatively large sum of money for many settlers to amass. The provisions of the Homestead Act largely dictated the home’s design and construction. The Act mandated that the dwelling had to be at least ten by twelve feet in size, and contain at least one glass window. A final filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers. Frugality was a homesteader's chief concern when building a home. Settlers constructed their houses of the materials most readily -- and cheaply -- available to them. Sometimes called “filing houses” or “claim shanties,” a proving-up house had no foundation and were constructed to be moved, reused, or improved when and if "proving up" time ever came. Comfort was often a secondary issue. Often these portable houses became an addition to a more substantial dwelling, converted to animal shelters, or moved to other homestead parcels to be used again to “prove-up” another’s holding. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Constructed in 1890, the James Ross Proving-Up House is a one room wooden residence measuring 12½ by 16½ feet. The walls of the single story building were constructed of narrow lap siding on a wood frame. The side gable roof is currently covered with asphalt composition shingles. The façade has a single wooden door, offset towards the right. The door originally featured two long vertical panels over two shorter vertical panels. Currently, the two longer panels have been broken out, leaving an opening where they existed. The façade also contains a single, vertical oriented narrow window, located off center towards the left. The window used to be a four-over-four light window; however, the bottom sash has deteriorated, and only a portion of the wood framing still exists. 5.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 5 The building’s right side, when viewed from the façade, has a single matching long, narrow four-over-four light window with; the bottom sash has deteriorated on this window. The back of the home has no openings. The left side also has no openings, but does show signs of a past exterior chimney centered on this elevation. The chimney was likely installed in the early 1950s when the proving-up house was converted to a bunk house. This chimney has since been demolished. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Allard, Jean Stewart (81 years old, death 2016; granddaughter of James Ross and mother of Senator Wayne and Kermit Allard). Interview, August 9, 2001. Fort Collins Public Library, Local History Archive (online). History Connection. Accessed via http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Fort Collins Weekly Courier and Fort Collins Courier, accessed via coloradohistoricnewspapers.org. Swanson, Evadene Burris. Fort Collins Yesterday’s. Fort Collins: George and Hildegard Morgan, 1975. United States Census data, Ancestry.com, accessed via http://ancestry.com. Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County, Colorado. 5.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 6 Photographs Photo from previous location, façade, July 2016. 5.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 7 Photo from previous location, July 2016. 5.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 8 Photo from previous location, July 2016. 5.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 9 Photo from previous location, July 2016. 5.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 10 The James Ross House at 1600 W Horsetooth, photograph taken pre-1950s 5.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK Revised 08-2014 Page 11 Previous location, July 17, 2005. Location unknown, undated. 5.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 5.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK N WhSittcomb N S herwoo d S t Elm St © Proposed Landmark Location Preservation for James Commission Ross Proving-March Up 15, 1 inch House 2017 = 109 feet ^ 5.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Location Map (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 5.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Land Patent (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 1 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – James Ross Proving-Up House Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 03.15.2017 James Ross Proving-Up House Facade, 2016 2016 2 5.d Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION) James Ross Proving-Up House 2016 2016 3 James Ross Proving-Up House • Constructed in 1890 • Standard A: Events – The Homestead Act of 1862, Irrigation • Standard B: Persons/Groups – The Ross Family • Standard C: Design/Construction – 1890s vernacular, proving-up • Exterior Integrity: Materials, Workmanship, Design, Association, Feeling 4 5.d Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Location and Context 5 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:” • Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark • Must possess both significance and exterior integrity • Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered Sec. 14-22(a): If all owners consent in writing, and a majority of Commission approves: • Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation 6 5.d Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 7 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – James Ross Proving-Up House Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 03.15.2017 5.d Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5387 : JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION) T.O. Parapet 4 142'-3 1/2" T.O. Parapet3 133'-91/2" T.O. Parapet 1 114'-0" 100'-61/2" Level 1 Level 1 100'-6 1/2" Ground 100'-0" T.O. Parapet5 144'-91/2" 1 2 Level 2 3 111'-9 1/2" 4 4 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 2 Level Mezz. 131'-9 1/2" 1 1 8 8 Oak Street PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 11'-0" 2'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 29'-8" 10'-0" 4" 40'-0" 11'-0" 36'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” South Elevation of Poudre Garage SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” West Elevation of Poudre Garage SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” Living Oaks Poudre Garage Addition Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-34 HT: 1 story (17’) SETBACK: 0’/5’ WIDTH: 59’ 216 E. Oak Street (converted house to commercial) WIDTH: 27’ WIDTH: 27’/45’ WIDTH: 47’ WIDTH: 45’ WIDTH: 43 ft HT: 1 story (16’) SETBACK: 5’ 220 E. Oak Street (church) HT: 1 story (23’) SETBACK: 0’/5’ 300 E. Oak Street (Mennonite Church) HT: 1 story (26’) SETBACK: 15’ 308 E. Oak Street (Apartment Bldg) HT: 4 story (35’) SETBACK: 5’ 318 East Oak Street (converted house) HT: 2 story (35’) SETBACK: 29 ft West Side of Mathews Street 207 Mathews Street (Library Apartments) HT: 2 story (18’) SETBACK: 16 ft WIDTH: 80 ft 215 Mathews Street (Office Building under construction)) HT: 3 story SETBACK: 6’/8’ ft WIDTH: 40 ft 221 Mathews Street (Parkview Apartments) HT: 3 story SETBACK: 10’ WIDTH: 70’ 220 Olive Street (Side of Townhomes at Library Park) HT: 4 story (48’) SETBACK: 0’ WIDTH: 80’ East Side of Mathews Street 200 Mathews Street (Carnegie Library): local landmark HT: 2 story (32’) SETBACK: 60’ WIDTH: 83’ 250, 270, 286, Mathews Street (cabins): local landmark/special objects HT: 1 story SETBACK: 66, 54, 56 ft WIDTH: 32, 26, 18 ft Buildings of Historical Significants Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-27 SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” D Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-19 1" 7F736 C UP DN DN RE F. DW DW RE F. DW RE F. DW UP UP DN UP DN A B C D E 1 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 85' - 4" 39' - 5 1/2" 87' - 0" E1 3' -45/8" 12' - 9" 3' - 3 5/8" 12' - 117/8" UNIT 4 240 723 SF UNIT 3 230 724 SF UNIT 1 210 717 SF UNIT 2 220 724 SF 4'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0" 5' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 0" 21'-75/8" 21'-103/8" 21'-103/8" 21'-75/8" 1 3 2 A4.0 4 12' - 0" 8' - 0" 20' - 0" 12' - 0" 8' - 0" 20' - 0" 6' - 0 5/8" 20'-91/4" 20' - 6" BALCONY 211 60 SF 4'-0" 12'-0" 3'-7" 2'-0" 2' -75/8" 12' - 0" 4' - 2" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 2" 12' - 0" 2' -75/8" 2' - 0" 3' - 7" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" BALCONY 221 60 SF BALCONY 231 60 SF BALCONY 241 60 SF 1' - 5" 2' - 10 5/8" REF. B B B B B D D D D E E E E C C C C BATHROOM 212 39 SF 5' - 1 5/8" 39 SF 5' -21/4" BATHROOM 222 BATHROOM 232 39 SF BATHROOM 242 39 SF 1' - 5" 21 1' - 6 1/2" 22 23 24 6' - 0" 5' - 7" 5' - 7" 10' - 10" W W DN DN W W A B D E 1 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 85' - 4" 5'-129/32" 5'-129/32" C 87' - 0" 40' - 0" 43' - 6" 43' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 6' -61/4" 10' - 1 3/4" 8' - 0" 3' - 2" 13' - 0" 8' - 0" 6' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 0" 5' - 0" 8' - 0" 5' - 0" 6' - 0" 8' - 0" BEDROOM 310 265 SF BEDROOM 318 132 SF DN HALL 317 184 SF BEDROOM 320 295 SF HALL 328 212 SF BEDROOM 326 120 SF BATH 322 88 SF BATH 324 BATH 312 114 SF BATH 315 WC 314 CLOSET 319 CLOSET 327 WC 323 BEDROOM 330 DN HALL 338 BEDROOM 336 BATH 334 BATH 332 WC 333 BATH 342 BEDROOM 340 BATH 345 BEDROOM 348 CLOSET 349 W/D 346 WC 344 CLOSET 337 HALL 437 W/D 325 W/D 335 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 9' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 9' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 10' - 1 3/4" 13'-81/4" 4'-55/8 8' - 6" 5' - 0" 10'-01/8" 10'-27/8" 2' -43/4" 47 SF 8' - 0" 1' - 5" 1' - 5" 21'-75/8" 21'-103/8" 21'-103/8" 21'-75/8" 40' - 0" BUILDING CENTERLINE ROOFACCESSHATCH 53 SF 9' - 41/8" A A A A A A A A A 4' -0" A 4' -0" A 4' -0" A 4' -0" A 4' -0" A 4' -0" D 2' -0" D 2' -0" D D D 33 32 35 37 38 39 41 40 42 43 45 44 2' - 4 3/4" 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 56 58 59 60 3' - 2 1/4" 2' - 5 3/8" 8' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 12' - 0" 2' -43/8" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 8' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' -6" 1' - 4"1' - 4" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 0" 7' -115/8" 7' -115/8" 7' -61/4" 2' - 0" 1' - 0" 11' - 8" 32 ' -2 0S "F WD 316 A B C D E 1 0' - 10" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 0'-0" 21'-4" 21' - 4" 0' - 10" PV's ROOFACCESSHATCH 87' - 0" 0' - 10" Skylights PVPanels: 4 arrays of 30 panels each total 120panels 0' -57/8" 0' -57/8" PLANS ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-18 UP DN A B C D E 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 1 86' - 4" FLEX SPACE 4 141 464 SF 29'4-5"0' - 0" 0' - 10" FLEX SPACE 3 131 411 SF UNIT 2 FLEX SPACE 2 121 411 SF FLEX SPACE 1 111 464 SF ENTRY 120 10' - 8" 10'-55/8" 4' - 3" 4' - 3" BUILDING ABOVE ENTRY 130 G1 G2 G3 G4 H H C H H H H H 12 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 161 SF ENTRY 110 ENTRY 140 160 SF WALL HANGINGBIKE RACK 0' - 4" 8' - 4" SITE & FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” Exhibit 2: Living Oaks - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 2, Exhibit 2 Living Oaks Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 70-17 bike storage for tenants is available inside the building. ECONOMIC HEALTH (QUVGTUWUVCKPCDNGKPƂNNCPFTGFGXGNQROGPV Living Oaks is a net zero energy project. This development could become the poster child for the city’s sustainable development initiative. It incorporates geothermal and solar energy and encourages residents to reduce dependency on individual cars. In addition to raising Ì …iL>ÀvœÀÌ …i«œÃÈLˆˆÌˆiÃœvº}Àii˜>˜`Vi>˜»ˆÛˆ˜}] the project entails an environmental cleanup of an urban site which contains buried fuel tanks and possibly contaminated soil. By allowing Living Oaks to go forward, the city has an opportunity to show future developers the preferred direction of development. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 4.1 Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals by reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs). Living Oaks will have substantially lower greenhouse gas emission than the surrounding buildings. In keeping with its NZE status, it is expected that there will be no emission after construction is complete. 4.3 Engage citizens in ways to educate and encourage behaviors toward more sustainable living practices. Just by its presence, Living Oaks is an illustration of the possibilities of sustainable development. Open house or tour of the building which are required by the Living Building Challenge will show interested community members and businesses the advantages of green design. The building is an example of how multiple sources COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: 2016 Strategic Plan of green energy can be utilized together to increase ivwVˆi˜VÞ]>˜` …œÜÓ>ˆviÃÌޏiV …>˜}iÃœvˆ˜`ˆÛˆ`Õ> residents (i.e. sharing a car or eschewing one all together) can make a difference, especially when the building is designed to make those lifestyle choices easier and more practicable. 4.5 Work towards long term net zero energy goals within the community and the City organization using a systems approach. Living Oaks is a net zero energy project, a direct contributor and forerunner to achieving these goals. The project is utilizing the Integrated Design Assist Program (IDAP) implemented by the City to maximize energy ivwVˆi˜VÞ>˜`ˆ˜VÀi>ÃiÌÀ>˜Ã«>Ài˜VÞ̜ ˆÌÞÀiµÕˆÀi“i˜Ìð 4.9 Meet all regulatory requirements while supporting programs that go beyond compliance. As a net zero energy building, Living Oaks goes far Liޜ˜`Vœ“«ˆ>˜Vi°Ìi“Lœ`ˆiÃ>º …ˆ} …iÀ>˜`ɜÀLiÃÌ use” of the property, with requested variances in order to maximize this use. Regulatory requirements by their nature do not always facilitate innovation, based as they are on past uses and abuses. By meeting the spirit of the requirements and pushing the envelope on sustainability, Living Oaks is an invitation for the City to review the requirements and adjust for the future. 2b. Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Visual & Pedestrian Connections Visual and Pedestrian Connections Between Site and Neighborhood Focal Points 2b. Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Land Use Code 3.4.7 200 Mathews St. (Carnegie Library) 2-story museum Cladding: stone Roof: hipped, red clay tile Date: 1903 202 Remington St. (McHugh-Andrews House) 3-story house turned into retail Cladding: stone Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date:1889 2b. Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) 207 Mathews Street (Library Apartments) HT: 2 story (18’) SETBACK: 16 ft WIDTH: 80 ft Ó£x>Ì …iÜÃ-ÌÀiiÌ­"vwVi Ո`ˆ˜}՘`iÀVœ˜ÃÌÀÕV̈œ˜®® HT: 3 story SETBACK: 6’/8’ ft WIDTH: 40 ft 221 Mathews Street (Parkview Apartments) HT: 3 story SETBACK: 10’ WIDTH: 70’ 220 Olive Street (Side of Townhomes at Library Park) HT: 4 story (48’) SETBACK: 0’ WIDTH: 80’ East Side of Mathews Street 200 Mathews Street (Carnegie Library): local landmark HT: 2 story (32’) SETBACK: 60’ WIDTH: 83’ 250, 270, 286, Mathews Street (cabins): local landmark/special objects HT: 1 story SETBACK: 66, 54, 56 ft WIDTH: 32, 26, 18 ft 2b. Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) Cladding: yellow brick ,œœv\y>Ì Date: 1936 200 Mathews St. (Carnegie Library) 2-story museum Cladding: stone Roof: hipped, red clay tile Date: 1903 2b. Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009)                  141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 10 PROPOSED BUILDING: Building Elevations A. Terracotta Rainscreen B. Bronze Aluminum Clad Windows C. Steel D. PV Structure E. Channel Glass AB C E BC A ABC NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” D 2b. Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) DN UP DN A B C D E 1 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 85' - 4" 39' - 5 1/2" 87' - 0" E1 3' - 4 5/8" 3' - 3 5/8" 12' - 11 7/8" 12' - 9" 723 SF UNIT 4 240 724 SF UNIT 3 230 717 SF UNIT 1 210 724 SF UNIT 2 220 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 0" 21' - 7 5/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 7 5/8" A4.0 1 2 3 4 20' - 0" 8' - 0" 12' - 0" 20' - 0" 8' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 1 5/8" 6' - 0 5/8" 5' - 2 1/4" 20' - 9 1/4" 20' - 6" 60 SF BALCONY 211 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 3' - 7" 2' - 0" 2' - 7 5/8" 12' - 0" 4' - 2" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 2" 12' - 0" 2' - 7 5/8" 2' - 0" 3' - 7" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 60 SF BALCONY 221 60 SF BALCONY 231 60 SF BALCONY 241 1' - 5" 2' - 10 5/8" B B B B B D D D D E E E E C C C C 39 SF BATHROOM 212 39 SF BATHROOM 222 39 SF BATHROOM 232 39 SF BATHROOM 242 1' - 5" 21 1' - 6 1/2" 22 23 24 6' - 0" 5' - 7" 5' - 7" 10' - 10" DN W W DN DN DN W W A B C D E 1 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 85' - 4" 5' - 1 29/32" 5' - 1 29/32" 87' - 0" 40' - 0" 43' - 6" 43' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 6' - 6 1/4" 10' - 1 3/4" 8' - 0" 3' - 2" 13' - 0" 8' - 0" 2' - 0" 6' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 0" 8' - 0" 265 SF BEDROOM 310 132 SF BEDROOM 318 184 SF HALL 317 295 SF BEDROOM 320 212 SF HALL 328 120 SF BEDROOM 326 88 SF BATH 322 53 SF BATH 324 114 SF BATH 312 47 SF BATH 315 WC 314 CLOSET 319 CLOSET 327 WC 323 BEDROOM 330 HALL 338 BEDROOM 336 BATH 334 BATH 332 WC 333 BATH 342 BEDROOM 340 BATH 345 BEDROOM 348 CLOSET 349 W/D 346 WC 344 CLOSET 337 HALL 437 W/D 325 W/D 335 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 9' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 9' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 10' - 1 3/4" 13' - 8 1/4" 4' - 5 5/8" 5' - 0" 8' - 6" 10' - 2 7/8" 2' - 4 3/4" 10' - 0 1/8" 2' - 4 3/4" 8' - 0" 1' - 5" 1' - 5" 21' - 7 5/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 7 5/8" 40' - 0" BUILDING CENTER LINE ROOF ACCESS HATCH 9' - 4 1/8" A A A A A A A A D A A A A A A D D D D 33 32 35 37 38 39 41 40 42 43 45 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 56 58 59 60 3' - 2 1/4" 2' - 5 3/8" 8' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 12' - 0" 2' - 4 3/8" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 8' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 6" 1' - 4" 1' - 4" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 7' - 11 5/8" 7' - 11 5/8" 7' - 6 1/4" 1' - 0" 11' - 8" 22 SF WD 316 A B C D E 1 0' - 10" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 0' - 0" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 0' - 10" PV's ROOF ACCESS HATCH 87' - 0" 0' - 10" PV Panels: Skylights 4 arrays o 30 anels each total 120 anels 0' - 5 7/8" 0' - 5 7/8" 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 3/15/17 9 PROPOSED BUILDING: Plans PLANS ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” 2b. Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) FRONT SITE & FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” 2b. Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Applicant Presentation LPC Review - Revised 3.14.17 (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 20170221-PDP Submittal 1 Landscape.pdf (5381 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) -