The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/16/2018 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. 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 2:00 p.m. on Friday, May 18, 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 May 16, 2018 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS Landmark Preservation Commission • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018 REGULAR MEETING The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 18, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Jeff Emmel, owner. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for new storm and screen units in the first and second stories. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sally and Robert Linton 4. 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW 5. 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for rehabilitation of the windows on the residence, which will include installation of wood storm windows and wood screens, weather stripping, in-kind replication and replacement of missing blind stops, and weather stripping and repair of the front door. APPLICANT/OWNER: Victoria Bridges The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ● Approval of Minutes ● Items of no perceived controversy ● Routine administrative actions Agenda Item #4 was withdrawn from the agenda. With the Commission's permission at the work session, this review will be handled administratively. [NOTE: Packet Pages 99-130 have been removed from the packet.] 6. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449-acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection, and also fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction 7. P.D.P. #180003 OASIS ON OLIVE, 310 WEST OLIVE STREET FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to construct a three-story, seven-unit multi-family building between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The project is adjacent to several designated and individually eligible buildings. The development proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. APPLICANT: Steve Slezak, Oasis Development, 231 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Date: Roll Call Bello Dorn Vacant Gensmer Hogestad Murray Simpson Wallace Dunn Vote N/A  absent absent  CONSENT (Minutes & 1518 Peterson) - Approve Murray Hogestad Simpson Dorn Vacant Bello Gensmer Wallace Dunn Yes absent Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes absent Yes 6:0 3 - 1501 Peterson - Move to Final Hogestad Simpson Dorn Vacant Bello Gensmer Wallace Murray Dunn absent Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes absent Yes Yes 6:0 3 - 1501 Peterson - Approval Simpson Dorn Vacant Bello Gensmer Wallace Murray Hogestad Dunn Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes absent Yes absent Yes 6:0 5 - 725 Mathews - Move to Final Dorn Vacant Bello Gensmer Wallace Murray Hogestad Simpson Dunn Yes N/A Yes Yes absent Yes absent Yes Yes 6:0 5 - 725 Mathews - Approval Vacant Bello Gensmer Wallace Murray Hogestad Simpson Dorn Dunn N/A Yes Yes absent Yes absent Yes Yes Yes 6:0 7 - Oasis on Olive - Approval Bello Gensmer Wallace Murray Hogestad Simpson Dorn Vacant Dunn Yes Yes absent Yes absent Yes Yes N/A No 5:1 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 5/16/2018 6 present DATE: 5 -tl.'7 _. 12 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sign In Sheet nns IS A p ART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schlager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Mollie Simpson Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Member Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): 221 E. Mountain Conceptual Development Review Brief statement of interest: ~r~'-', t~"~cJ w~ f\A."\ C...M~ \? ~~,,~ 0~ ~~ f"Olu)r- • Date: o-g, .. l'f- lfl Signatu~I r- ·- - REMOVAL OF CONFLI~ OF INTEREST I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 16, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the April 18, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 April 18, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson 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 April 18, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Wallace, Hogestad, Gensmer, Simpson, Dorn, Bello, Murray ABSENT: None STAFF: Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • STAFF REPORTS None Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 April 18, 2018 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2018 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 21, 2018 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 21, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 3. 524 WHEDBEE STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, 1 ½ story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Alison Johnson, ABD. Ms. Wallace moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 8:0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 NORTH GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the McMillen-Patterson Property, an excellent example of an Eastlake-style home from the late 1880s. APPLICANT: Susan Hoskinson, Owner Chair Dunn recused herself from this item. Vice Chair Wallace acted as Chair for this item. Ms. Gensmer disclosed she was not present for the work session, but had reviewed the recording and is prepared to participate in the discussion. Staff Report Ms. Bumgarner presented the staff report. She provided some background on the property, its architectural style and features, and explained staff’s rationale for recommending landmark designation of the property. Applicant Presentation Ms. Hoskinson, the homeowner, spoke to the Commission about the landmark application. She expressed appreciation for the City Historic Preservation staff and the State Historical Fund for supporting the Loomis Addition survey, which was a key factor in her decision to apply for landmark status. Public Input Ms. Humstone, the consultant who prepared the application, thanked Ms. Hoskinson and her family for their dedication to this historic resource. She noted that this will be the second home in the Loomis Addition to be designated. 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 April 18, 2018 Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray commented that this a “no-brainer” for designation, and added that the inside is as well- kept as the outside. Ms. Dorn thanked the Applicant for bringing this forward and recommended she apply for future financial incentives. Acting Chair Wallace asked if the Commission members had any comments about the property’s significance under Standard A. She also asked staff if they had considered significance under Standard B. Ms. Bumgarner said the Commission could consider Standard B at their discretion. Ms. Gensmer supported designation under Standards A and C alone, but stated she would not object to adding Standard B, if other Commission members felt strongly about it. Acting Chair Wallace asked the Commission if they agreed with that the property has retained all aspects of exterior integrity, and everyone agreed that all seven aspects were intact. Ms. Simpson asked about the location of the additions to the home, which Ms. Bumgarner pointed out in the back of the home. Acting Chair Wallace noted that the additions were done with great sensitivity to the original architecture, and are not easy to spot. Commission Deliberation Ms. Gensmer moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the McMillen-Patterson Property at 121 N. Grant as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards A and C; under A for its history in the development of the Loomis Addition and its use as a show home in the marketing of one of the earliest neighborhoods in the City, and under C for its design as an Eastlake style residence, and also finding that it retains a preponderance of exterior integrity. Ms. Simpson seconded. The motion passed 7:0. 5. 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for repair of damaged material on the front porch of the residence, a drainage mitigation solution to prevent future damage, and preparation and painting of the repaired porch and the entire residence. APPLICANT/OWNER: Karen and Timothy Bren Chair Dunn returned to the meeting. Mr. Murray recused himself from this item due to a conflict. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She described the property and its significance under Standards B & C for which it was designated a landmark. She discussed the proposed alterations. She described Staff’s findings of fact to support approval of the alterations. Ms. Bzdek reminded the Commission that they are in a conceptual review until they determine they are ready to move to final review. Finally, she reviewed the questions and conditions the Commission brought up at the work session, and explained the applicant and contractor responses. Applicant Presentation Mr. Bren addressed the Commission, commenting on the condition of the porch and emphasizing the need for drainage mitigation. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad said that power washing at 1000 psi would blow holes in the wood, and that 30 psi is probably more accurate. Ms. Bzdek said that was likely in error, adding that the contractor had 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 April 18, 2018 characterized the strength of the spray as that of a soft rain, safe to spray at a person. Mr. Bello said the power washing was probably the right methodology, as long as it is not actually 1000 psi. Mr. Bren stated that the contractor had told him it was 1000 psi when it leaves the hose, but not when it reaches the home. Ms. Simpson asked where the moisture on the porch goes currently. Mr. Bren explained that the water accumulates in the front corners. The purpose of the vent is to create increased evaporation. Mr. Hogestad asked exactly where the vent would go. Mr. Bren was uncertain of its exact location. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern about how much historic material will be removed to install the vent, adding that installing it above the cleat would be preferable. Mr. Bren replied that they will try to keep it “as is” as much as possible. There was discussion among the members that they were not ready for final review without more details about the psi and the positioning of the vent. Mr. Hogestad said it was unfortunate that the contractor was not present to provide clarification. Ms. Bzdek said the contractor had stated he would cut the vent in the vertical wood section right at grade, not above the cleat. Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Simpson noted that the drawing does not portray that, making it difficult to approve. Chair Dunn asked Mr. Yatabe if the Commission could provide a report of acceptability with conditions. Mr. Yatabe said he was not seeing any provision for the imposition of conditions of approval on a report of acceptability. Regarding whether the Commission can move to final review without all the information, he said that would depend on the vote on the motion. Chair Dunn asked if someone wanted to make a motion to move to final review. Mr. Hogestad restated that there are two pieces of missing information: the psi and the vent positioning. Ms. Gensmer and Ms. Wallace agreed that the Commission needed more information on those. Chair Dunn suggested the contractor come to the next meeting. Ms. Bzdek asked for clarity on what the Applicant needs to bring to the next meeting. Chair Dunn asked for the exact psi of the power washing, and detail about the cut for the vent. Mr. Hogestad said more specifically that they need an elevation drawing of where the air vent will be placed, and an accompanying section to show what material is being affected by it. He said they would also like to know what psi pressure range is standard for power washing historic buildings, and whether the proposed power washing will meet that standard. 6. 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for new storm and screen units in the first and second stories. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sally and Robert Linton Mr. Murray returned to the meeting. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She discussed the property’s designation under Standard A, reviewed the proposed alterations, and explained that the window work would be accomplished in phases. She addressed the questions the Commission had asked during the work session, and outlined staff’s findings of fact. Applicant Presentation Mr. Linton, the homeowner, thanked the Commission for their important work, and thanked Ms. Bzdek for her assistance. He explained the reasoning for doing the work in phases. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray brought up the psi for the power washing of the windows, and suggested testing the power washer on a piece of wood before using on the windows. Mr. Hogestad asked if the Commission is only considering the work for Phase 1 at this time, and not any of the carpentry work. Chair Dunn answered in the affirmative. 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 April 18, 2018 Mr. Murray asked about the clips on the storms. Mr. Linton said the current hanging systems will be replaced with like mechanisms, identical to those that were there in 1918. He explained that the window systems are necessary to facilitate ventilation and efficiency of cooling and heating without removing and replacing the storms with the seasons. Chair Dunn asked about the mechanism, and Mr. Linton and Ms. Bzdek clarified that it is a hinge, not a crank, and would not be seen from the exterior. Mr. Murray asked for a drawing of the system. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern about how the system fits in the space, and the thickness of the assembly. Mr. Linton explained that Phase 1 includes the exterior storms only, and Ms. Bzdek clarified that the porch windows and mull cap will not be dealt with in Phase 1. Mr. Murray said he supports the storm windows, but needs to understand the system. Mr. Linton said there would be no variations in the interior depth. Mr. Murray said it sounded like a storm/screen combination. Mr. Hogestad said the Commission needs to see a cut sheet with detail on the entire assembly and how it is mounted. Ms. Simpson asked if the screen was hidden when the window is closed, and how it interacts with the opening and closing of the window. Mr. Linton said his contractor would need to answer that. Mr. Hogestad said he needs to know more about the windows. Mr. Murray stated that he trusts the contractor, Mark Wernimont, to know what he’s doing, but would still like to see the system and more information. Mr. Hogestad stated he doesn’t think the sections are correct, and suggested the contractor revisit them. Mr. Murray proposed that the Commission wait until the next meeting, when they can have more information. Chair Dunn said they need the contractor to provide the cut sheets and the psi for the power washing. Mr. Hogestad added that they need more detail about the depth of space for assembly to fit and how will it fit without removing stops or doing carpentry work on the historic fabric. 7. 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed 5-story, multi-family apartment project at 223 Willow in the River District. The current use of this 2.04-acre lot is industrial, storage, and truck parking. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the south. APPLICANT: Katy Candau, Oz Architecture Ms. Simpson disclosed that her firm is working on another project in the area, but does not believe this creates any bias. [Secretary’s Note: Throughout the meeting, the Giddings Machine Shop at 401 Pine Street is also referred to as Bas Blue or the machine shop; and Ginger and Baker at 359 Linden is also referred to as the Feeder Supply.] Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, describing the location and the proposed area of adjacency for this proposed development. She described the architectural features of 200 Jefferson, which is a contributing building to the National Register Historic District. She also provided information about 401 Pine, which is a local landmark. She discussed the questions from the work session. She also referenced the correspondence received about his project, and the Applicant’s response. Applicant Presentation Eduardo Illanes of Oz Architecture gave the Applicant presentation. He discussed the redevelopment of the area. He talked about the adjacent buildings, and pointed out the ways in which the proposed project complies with the guidelines for the River District in Section 4.17 of the Land Use Code. He mentioned the importance of maintaining and respecting the urban grid. He explained that the site is broken into two buildings to articulate the visual connectivity to Pine and the alignment of the Depot as the focal point. He discussed the mass of the buildings and how they step into the river and the street. He talked about how the project relates to pedestrian connectivity, and creating gathering places with community pocket parks. He talked about compatibility with the character of the adjacent buildings, stating that the project relates to the machine shop in terms of height. He pointed out the community green space in the design. 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 6 April 18, 2018 He stated the buildings hide the cars from the street. He pointed out the planned parking garage with two levels and the outdoor deck for future occupants on the third level. He explained the cross sections provided in the packet, drawing attention to the heights of Ginger and Baker and the new Millhouse, which is four stories. He discussed the proposed buildings in relation to the neighboring buildings, such as Ginger and Baker, the machine shop and the Depot, pointing out the areas where the buildings are stepped down, and set back. He talked how the design relates to the adjacent buildings in materials, texture and pattern. He discussed breaking up the mass of the façade along Willow, and how it mimics the size of the machine shop in terms of width. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad asked Ms. Bzdek if any part of the Feeder Supply property is within the 200’ area of adjacency. She pointed out where the property boundary touches the buffer area. Mr. Hogestad said he believed the Feeder Supply should be included in the area of adjacency, noting that it offers a lot of architectural clues. Ms. Simpson asked for clarification about the cross section showing the offsets from the right-of-way line. Mr. Illanes said the offset was measured from the main façade. Mr. Bello asked about the lap siding that was mentioned as a nod to the residential buildings. Mr. Illanes pointed out its location on the back side of the building. Chair Dunn asked if any of the houses on Pine were eligible, noting that that they are located outside the buffer at Poudre and Pine. Ms. Bzdek was uncertain about the eligibility of those houses. Mr. Murray commented that the sign shop was brick, and said he thought the houses on Pine were wood frame. Mr. Hogestad asked the Applicant to explain the different materials and the systems used, and how they are attached. Mr. Illanes described the various materials. In response to another question from Mr. Hogestad, he said the brick was “true brick” and the cement panels are a rainscreen system. Mr. Murray asked how the building connects to Giddings and Union Pacific. Mr. Illanes explained that the top of the brick is the same as what is across the street. Chair Dunn noted that the building recesses back on Willow to reference Giddings, and asked how it is set back to reference the Depot. Mr. Illanes said that based on the guidelines in Section 4.17, the reference is to Willow Street, not to the Depot. However, he noted that the massing is reduced at the ends of the building on the Depot side. Mr. Hogestad asked for details about the lap siding. Mr. Illanes said it was cement board, and described the panels. Mr. Hogestad commented on the lack of grounding for the brick, stating that it doesn’t address the historic building and ignores the character of brick. He added that if it were a thin veneer, it might work, but this is a big heavy band in full width brick with no visible means of support. Ms. Simpson asked the Applicant to expand on his concept of pushing the first level back from the right- of-way. Mr. Illanes responded by explaining the code requires a setback at the third level on the street sides or the river front, but does not specify how far back. He said the first floor is recessed back so that it feels a like porch for the occupants. Ms. Simpson said the shadow line makes the brick look more daunting. Mr. Hogestad noted that the recessed ground level is problematic and is a programmatic element rather than responding to anything historic. He suggested the building could push back or scale down to allow more room for patios and soften the building quite a bit. Mr. Bello probed for more insight about the grounding of the brick, and asked whether square brick columns instead of the round columns might satisfy Mr. Hogestad’s concerns. Mr. Hogestad explained that there is historic precedent for how brick is handled, how it meets grade, and how it is an extension of the load bearing brick wall. Mr. Illanes asked if he would rather have the brick wall come to the ground for the purpose of historical reference. Mr. Hogestad answered in the affirmative, and noted that the examples of brick buildings used in the presentation are like that. Mr. Bello asked whether more substantial brick columns might satisfy that need. Mr. Hogestad said that might be something to look at, but he was not offering a solution. 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 7 April 18, 2018 Ms. Wallace asked how the design shows sensitivity to the height of the historic buildings per Section 3.4.7. Mr. Illanes explained how the design complies with Section 4.17 which allows for 5 stories and requires the building to be set back from the street. Chair Dunn commented that while the setback on the 4th story may match Giddings, there is no reference to the Depot in terms of height. Mr. Illanes mentioned that the machine shop was 38’ and the Depot was 42’4” at its highest point. Mr. Bello commented that there may be two conflicting historic building heights to reference. Chair Dunn said the predominant height of the Depot is 25’8”, but the gable reaches to 42’, and commented that they really aren’t that different in comparison to 65’ for the new construction. Mr. Hogestad suggested that a more significant stepback might help to mitigate that. He also suggested something in the architecture, possibly a material change or change in planes, would help indicate the rhythm of historic building fronts which is lacking. Chair Dunn brought up building width as discussed in Section 3.4.7(f). She noted that the building to the northeast of Pine Street approximates the width of historic buildings, but the building to the southwest of Pine Street is quite wide compared to Giddings, which the brick ribbon accentuates rather than mitigates. Mr. Hogestad said typical historic windows are taller than they are wide, and recommended reconsidering the proportion of the windows to be more vertical, based on the requirements of Section 3.4.7. He also requested a section showing the relationship between the rainscreen and the windows. Chair Dunn asked Mr. Illanes to address maintaining the pattern of primary entrances per 3.4.7(f)2. Mr. Illanes explained that the building gateway is in the space between the buildings, connected by a pocket park. Chair Dunn requested a better view of the doors, noting that historic buildings have a very clear entrance and that Section 3.4.7(f)2 states the pattern of entrances facing the street shall be maintained. Chair Dunn reviewed Section 3.4.7(f)3, and commented that brick is the primary material on the adjacent historic buildings, but is not primary on this. Mr. Illanes noted that the guidelines for the district allow a diversity of materials, and this design breaks up the mass by breaking up the materiality. Mr. Hogestad noted that the Commission is looking at the Land Use Code, not the suggested guidelines for the district. Chair Dunn referred to the Code language requiring that new construction maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. Chair Dunn noted that Giddings, the Depot and Ginger & Baker are all brick. Mr. Illanes talked about referencing the white color of the materials, and ground level light masonry, adding that it is very challenging to do an all brick building. Chair Dunn clarified that brick should be the dominant material. Mr. Bello asked if it was enough to reference the white brick by color. Chair Dunn talked about the scale of brick versus cement board. Mr. Illanes asked if using a different rhythm of smaller scale would suffice. Mr. Hogestad said they need to find a human scale. Mr. Illanes asked whether human scale was most important at the pedestrian level. Mr. Hogestad said some of the panels could be broken into a scale more closely resembling masonry. Chair Dunn pointed out there is no brick on the back of the building to relate to the Depot. Mr. Illanes mentioned that the parking structure is on that side because of the train, and the material there is cement board. He said the panel could be broken into more of a brick scale. Ms. Simpson commented that the rendering facing south has a lot more variation and is more broken up, making that side more inviting. Mr. Hogestad said that side relates more to the historic module. He mentioned again that the unsupported brick is unsettling, but clarified that he isn’t suggesting a colonnade, just that the brick needs to be grounded so it looks like it is bearing some weight. Mr. Bello agreed that the more visible side is disappointing in terms of human scale. Mr. Illanes interpreted these comments as direction to play with the materiality and make the back more similar to the front. Mr. Bello clarified it should be similar in terms of colors and materials. Ms. Dorn said the back of the building was a good opportunity to reference the Depot with materials and height, but also in terms of breaking up materials. Ms. Gensmer mentioned that the dark gray color behind the Depot feels like a fortress, and suggested keeping color in mind as they play with the materials. Ms. Wallace noted that the prominent elevation in the rear serves as an introduction to the River District, and she would like to see more creativity in the design. Mr. Illanes mentioned that the River District is agricultural and industrial, using a lot of metal, which is encouraged in guidelines. Chair Dunn reminded Mr. Illanes that the Commission is only concerned with the historic buildings. 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 8 April 18, 2018 Ms. Simpson said using corten or other materials could make the buildings feel warmer. She also said, while she thinks they can make improvements with stepbacks and massing in terms of height and form, she appreciated that they created three individual pieces, which makes the overall scale smaller. Chair Dunn said she was glad to see Pine Street included. Mr. Hogestad said aside from setbacks, there is no modulation of the height of the buildings, which would reduce the horizontal, bunker effect on the front of the building. He also agreed with previous comments that the dark gray color on the back doesn’t help. Chair Dunn summarized the Commissions comments as follows: • The brick wall should come to ground in some way. • There should be a more significant stepback. • There should be some modulation to mimic the width of the Giddings building. • The window proportions should have more verticality. • Consider materiality. Ms. Simpson suggested including comments about the height. Mr. Hogestad said the modulation of the parapet, and stepping of buildings, would speak to the height. Chair Dunn agreed that modulation and other things could moderate the height. Mr. Illanes thanked the Commission for their comments. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn explained that Staff has written a letter in support of the Colorado State Tax Credits for the Commission to consider sending. Chair Dunn read the letter to the Commission. Chair Dunn said encouraged the members to also send letters as individuals. Members supported sending the letter. Chair Dunn shared that Historic Larimer County will be showing “The Greenest Building” which talks about LEED certification and historic buildings. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on _____________________________. ________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 1.a Attachment: LPC April 18, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6757 : MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018) Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Jeff Emmel, owner. OWNER: Jeff Emmel and Karen Lennon, owners RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the applicants have complied with all code requirements in Municipal Code Section 14-72. Because they have submitted all required materials, staff recommends approval without conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The owners of the property located at 1518 Peterson Street, Jeff Emmel and Karen Lennon, are proposing to make major alterations to their property. In accordance with Fort Collins City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, the property was reviewed on March 30, 2017, and has officially been determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under criterion C, Design/Construction. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: This 1-story single family dwelling was constructed in 1938, according to building permit #5167, found through History Connection. The house is an example of a minimalist Craftsman cottage. The home’s original owner was George Konrad Jr., who was also listed on the permit as the contractor. He likely purchased the lot in order to build and sell the home as a business venture. The first recorded occupants of the home were Lawrence T. Garner and his wife Carey in 1940. Taylor owned the Central Barber Shop at 100 West Mountain Avenue. More detailed architectural and historical information can be found in the attached Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is proposing to add a 1 story, rear addition to the residence. The proposed plans, approved by all other departments, are attached. PROCESS: Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code provides the process and requirements for the review of alterations or demolition of structures 50 years of age or older. Commonly referred to as demolition/alteration review, the process begins when the owner submits an application for City approval of the demolition or exterior alteration of the structure. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such application, the Director and the Chair of the Commission (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair), determine if the proposed work constitutes a demolition or a minor or major alteration of the exterior. 2 Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 If the work is determined to be a demolition or major alteration, the Director and the Chair refer the matter to either a subcommittee, or to the Commission for a hearing. Prior to the Commission meeting, public notice occurs, and there are submittal requirements that must be fulfilled: a. A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an approved expert in historic preservation; b. Detailed plans and specifications describing and depicting the appearance of the site, structure or object that is the subject of the application, in context, after the proposed alteration or demolition; c. Evidence that all administrative and quasi-judicial approvals necessary to accommodate the proposed demolition or alteration have been obtained; d. A plan of protection acceptable to the Commission showing how the applicant will ensure that no damage will occur to other historic resources on or adjacent to the site. e. Applicable fees FINDINGS: Staff has made the following findings of fact as it relates to this application: • The residence at 1518 Peterson is more than 50 years of age, dating to 1938; • The work proposed was determined to be “major,” affecting 2 or more aspects of integrity; • The residence at 1518 Peterson was determined to qualify for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, for its architecture; • The applicant has complied with all of the applicable requirements. COMMISSION ACTION: At this demolition/alteration review hearing, the Commission shall approve the application for demolition (with or without conditions) unless such approval is postponed as described below. The LPC may impose conditions of approval requiring the property owner to provide the City with additional information to mitigate the loss caused by the demolition or alteration. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to: • Comprehensive photographic documentation; • Comprehensive historical, developmental, social and/or architectural documentation of the property and the neighborhood containing the property; and/or • Any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties. Alternatively, the Commission may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days for additional information needed for its consideration, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark designation of the property. In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within the forty-five-day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed work. SAMPLE MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, proposed major work to an individually eligible property is reviewed by the Commission at a final hearing. The Commission may approve the application (with or without conditions), or, in the alternative, may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five days, in order to facilitate the gathering of additional information needed for the full and complete consideration of the request by the Commission, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark or landmark district designation of the property in accordance with Article II of this Chapter. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the application for final demolition/alteration review for 1518 Peterson Street as presented, finding that the applicant has complied with all code requirements and purpose of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. The Commission may alter this motion to include conditions or delay the application for a period not to exceed forty-five days as put forth in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. 2 Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. Approved Plans (PDF) 3. Contextual Elevations (PDF) 4. Plan of Protection (PDF) 5. Architectural Inventory Form (PDF) 6. 2017-03-30 Historic Review (PDF) 7. Staff Presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 15 Colorado State University Parker St E Lake St Whedbee St Circle Dr Smith Pl Peterson St Mathews St Peterson Pl Buckeye St Person Ct Deines Ct Peterson St Mathews St E Prospect Rd © 1518 Peterson St SITE 1 inch = 200 feet 2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Location Map (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 2.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Approved Plans (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 2.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Approved Plans (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 2.c Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Contextual Elevations (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION PLAN of PROTECTION Jeff and Karen Emmel Project 1st Story Addition 1518 Peterson St Fort Collins, CO 80524 Form prepared by: Eric Newcomer, Owner Sol Structures, Inc. 1724 Ridgewood Rd, Fort Collins, CO 1.0 Introduction: - This project is located at 1518 Peterson Street in the Old Fort Collins High School Neighborhood. -All of the work will be completed and supervised by Sol Structures. -The proposed project is a 1st story addition which includes a master bedroom suite, laundry room, living room and kitchen extension. The design retains the original front portion of the existing main house roof. The remaining rear portion of roof will be rebuilt to integrate properly with a the new roof over the addition. The design calls for retaining the majority of the existing window openings on the first floor. - There is an existing detached garage located approximately 50 feet to the rear of the house that will remain undisturbed in the construction process. The date of construction of the garage is unknown by us. 2.d Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 2.0 Scope Of Work: - The project will include modifying the existing interior of the house; including raising the ceiling height to 10 feet. The addition to the rear of the house will include a full basement with exterior stair access and crawl space under the master bedroom suite. None of the work will affect the existing detached garage or the neighboring properties. There is an existing driveway along the north side of the proprty that will be used to stage the majority of the construction activity. 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities: - Eric Newcomer will be the on-site project manager who will be responsible for overseeing daily construction operations. He may be reached at 970-443-3233. Jeff Henke will be the Site Supervisor. He can be reached at 970-214-2596. 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials: - The deconstruction will be completed by authorized professionals that are allowed to mitigate lead based paint. All non- contaminated materials will be removed and disposed of in trash containers and removed from the site. If any existing, architecturally significant materials can be salvaged, then they will be donated to a reuse store. Untreated wood and metal will be recycled to Hageman Earth Cycle and/or CO Iron and Metal. The remaining deconstruction will need to be mitigated and transferred to the landfill in order to meet state and federal guidelines. 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property: - 5.1 Site Conservation: The existing fence along the south side yard and the trees in the same location will be protected as needed from the construction activity. - 5.2 Demolition of Building: All deconstruction will be done by hand or labor as not to include heavy equipment. 2.d Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) - 5.3 Foundation Stability: The new concrete foundation will be built according to the structural design plans. - 5.4 Structural: All of the new structural materials will comply with the construction plan and will be installed according to the engineer’s specifications. - 5.5 New Construction: All new materials will be installed to preserve the existing home not to be damaged during the construction process. All efforts will be made to protect the existing home from any and all damage to the existing finishes except where noted for deconstruction. - 5.6 Historic Opening & Materials: There is 1 window openings that get filled in on the existing south wall of the home to allow for a stairway to the basement. There will be a new window opening adjacent to these same windows to allow for light into the stair hallway.All the other window openings are to remain as is. The plan calls for replacing the existing windows with new windows that match the current grid design (bottom sash has no grids; top sash has 6 divided light grids). - 5.7 New Openings: All of the new opening and or windows on the 2nd Floor will be energy efficient units to comply with the construction plans. - 5.8 Floor Framing: The new floor joists will be installed to match the existing floor height and keep consistency with the original home. All construction will comply with the construction plans provided by local professionals. - 5.9 Roof Structural & Roof Framing: All existing roof structure will be deconstructed by hand and the new roof will be built by hand with engineered trusses and comply with the construction plans. - 5.10 Structural Loads: All structural loads have been evaluated by a local structural engineer and complies with local building codes through the permitting process. All work and new construction will comply with construction plans. - 5.11 Supporting & Shoring Existing Structure: All construction shall comply with the construction plans and need to support or protect the existing structure. 2.d Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) - 5.12 Excavation & Shoring Existing Structure: The existing concrete foundation is at full basement height. The excavation will expose the entirety of the east wall of the existing foundation. This will be done in order to connect the new foundation to the old foundation according to the engineering plan. - 5.13 Site Cleanup: At the commencement of the project, the site will be cleaned of all construction materials. The site will be readied for restoration of the landscape (mostly sod) that currently surrounds the existing home. 6.0 Documentation for Record: - All documents, pictures and relevant information will be kept on site in our Permit box during the construction process. 7.0 Archeology: - If something is found during the excavation of the porch or the removal of the roof then we will contact the City to determine the proper authorities that need to be contacted to determine relevance and next steps. 2.d Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.3166 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Whitney Residence 6. Current building name: None 7. Building address: 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 8. Owner name and address: Jeffrey D. Emmel and Karen J. Lennon 1518 Peterson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W ¼ of ¼ of SE ¼ of SW ¼ of section 13 10. UTM reference Zone 13; m E; m N 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15' 12. Lot(s): Lot 5 Block: 9 Plat: L.C. Moore’s 3rd Addition to Fort Collins Platted: 1924 Parcel Number: 97133-34-005 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97133-34-005, comprised of Lot 5 of Block 9 in L.C. Moore’s Third Addition as platted in 1924. According to the Larimer County Assessor’s property record, the 9,883 ft² rectangular parcel measures approximately 50 feet wide (N-S) by 197.5 feet deep (E-W), and encompasses the single-family dwelling at 1518 Peterson Street as well as a detached garage, driveway and surrounding yards and landscaping. The site boundary encompasses the area associated with its historic residential use. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length: 24.0 ft. x Width: 31.5 ft. 16. Number of stories: 1.0 17. Primary external wall material(s): Stucco 18. Roof configuration: Gable - Clipped Side Gable Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date ____________ Initials ________________ ______ Determined Eligible- NR ______ Determined Not Eligible- NR ______ Determined Eligible- SR ______ Determined Not Eligible- SR ______ Need Data ______ Contributes to eligible NR District ______ Noncontributing to eligible NR District OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form 2.e Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 19. Primary external roof material: Composition shingles 20. Special features: Porch, chimney 21. General architectural description: This modest, single-story, wood frame and stucco-covered Craftsman-style cottage is situated on the east side of the 1500 block of Peterson Street, midway between Lake Street (on the north) and Prospect Road (on the south). The main mass of the building has a rectangular plan, measuring 31.5 ft wide and 24 feet deep, and encompasses 774 square feet of living space. The modest-sized home contains only four (4) rooms, including two (2) bedrooms and one (1) bathroom. The house was constructed atop a full-size basement; however, only 227 ft² of the basement was finished, and the remainder was apparently used mainly for coal storage. Numerous small rectangular 3-light basement windows are installed around the perimeter of the home for basement illumination. The house features a symmetrically-arranged façade and a low-pitched clipped side gable roof with very wide overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails supported by Craftsman-style knee braces. The main entry is centrally placed on the façade, and is shaded by a gambrel-roofed canopy that repeats the form of the clipped gable roof. The main entry is accessed by a substantial set of concrete stairs fitted with wrought-iron handrails. Large window openings are placed on the façade on either side of the front porch. The northernmost of these windows is a large, nearly square 9-light fixed picture window. To the right/south of the front porch is a tandem set of original 1-over-1 light, wood frame, sash and transom windows. The ornamental woodwork and braces attached to the eaves of the house are perhaps its most distinctive feature., which are equipped with elaborate woodwork brackets and stringers that extend from and around the corners of the façade. The woodwork stringers, which are supported by Craftsman-style knee braces, resemble a very narrow pergola structure. This pergola extends along the entire north elevation, but only rounds the buildings southwest corner (and does not extend the length of the south elevation). Another feature of the building’s north elevation is a small, hinged, white-painted metal door near ground level close to the house’s northwest corner. This metal door was intended and used to facilitate storage of coal used for heating – a common practice in the early 20th century Fort Collins and throughout the region. The dwelling’s south elevation is symmetrically fenestrated with two, evenly spaced, sash-and transom lights with multi-light upper sashes over single light lower sashes. The house’s rear/east elevation is dominated by a large, projecting, shed-roofed, wood frame enclosed rear porch. The rear porch is clad with wooden vertical beadboard siding, and contains an entry door offset to the right/north that is accessed by a simple set of non-historic wooden stairs. Modern sliding sash windows are installed on the rear porch. Presumably the rear porch also contains the basement entry stairwell. A stucco-covered brick interior chimney stack rises from the rear slope of the roof near the ridgeline, offset to the north. 2.e Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 22. Architectural style/building type: Craftsman cottage 23. Landscaping or special setting features: This historic residence is situated in the middle of the east side of the 1500 block of Peterson Street. An asphalt-paved driveway extends from the street to the detached garage, passing the north side of the dwelling. The front yard consists of a manicured grass lawn that is bisected by an attractive modern pathway made of precast tinted concrete pavers, which extends from the concrete sidewalk to the front porch stoop. The backyard is not fully enclosed by fences with gates. Only one large older tree is located on the parcel: a very tall and unidentified deciduous specimen located in the backyard near the southern lot line. Near the rear, northeastern corner of the backyard are three young and recently planted spruce trees as well as what appear to be vegetable gardens. The property is situated a short distance east of the Colorado State University Campus, in a neighborhood comprised of “middle class” twentieth century single-family residences built after 1924. The property is located near Prospect Road, which for many years was essentially the southern limit of Fort Collins prior to the end of World War II (1945). 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A detached garage is located behind on northeast of the dwelling, at the end of an asphalt-paved driveway. The garage is historic, and was built at the same time as the house (1938). It is a front-gabled building covered with stucco, and the large garage door opening is sealed with what appears to be a non-original tilt-up wooden garage door. The south elevation of the garage is equipped with a large set of (replacement) sliding wood sash windows, as well as an entry with a modern glazed panel door. A modern prefabricated garden shed is located directly behind/east of the detached garage. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1938 Source(s) of information: • City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 5167, issued on March 16. 1938 26. Architect: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 27. Builder/Contractor: George Konrad Jr. Source(s) of information: City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 5167, issued on March 16, 1938 28. Original owner: George Konrad Jr. Source(s) of information: City of Fort Collins Building Permit No. 5167, issued on March 16, 1938 to George Konrad Jr. 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The Larimer County Assessor’s property record provides an inaccurate construction date of 1934 for the house at 1518 Peterson Street; it was actually constructed in 1938. According to the building permit (No. 5167), issued by the City of Fort Collins in March of 1938, the applicant intended to “Build frame/stucco [house with] 5 rooms and bath, 24 [feet] x 2.e Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 32 [feet] , oak floors, composition roof, full basement, joists 2 x 10 [inches] on 16-inch centers, studding 2 x 4 [inches lumber] on 16-inch centers, ceiling joists 2 x 8 [inches], also on 16-inch centers, plates and header 2 x 4 [inch] doubles, two car garage 18 x 20 on rear half of lot.” The estimated cost of the home building project was $3,800. No other building permits prior to c. 1955 were recorded, and the house and garage appear to be largely unaltered. Both buildings (built in 1938) were originally coated with stucco. Old Larimer County Assessor’s property card photos show that at least from 1948 – 1968 the windows on the façade were shaded with rigid sheet metal awnings. Also, sometime between 1948 and 1968, the wrought iron handrails visible today were installed on the front porch steps. The only other alterations noted involved the replacement of some original windows with modern units of the same size. In 1977, owner “Red” Whitney obtained a building permit to have contractor William P. Krog “install deck and cover … Enclose deck to rail with 3/8” plywood siding.” Since no enclosed rear porch is depicted on both the 1948 and 1968 Assessor’s property record sketch map, it appears likely that the enclosed rear porch was constructed in 1977. The home was re-roofed by Onstad Construction in the fall of 1986. In 2013, soon after the property was acquired by Jeff Emmel, he obtained a building permit to “enlarge two existing basement windows to meet egress requirements.” One other substantial exterior modification that was constructed sometime after 1968 is the pergola-style woodwork that is applied to and wraps around the front corners of the house. Although it is not an original feature, this decorative woodwork is visually compatible with the Craftsman architectural style. Mr. Emmel’s latest application for a building permit was submitted to the City of Fort Collins in 2018. The proposed project involves “construction of a 1-story, 1,260 square foot addition on the rear of the house to include master bedroom suite, living room, and extension of existing kitchen.” 30. Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): None 33. Current use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling 34. Site type(s): House 35. Historical background: This small single family dwelling was constructed in 1938 in L.C. Moore’s 3rd Addition to Fort Collins, which was platted approximately 14 years earlier, in 1924. L.C. Moore’s 3rd Addition encompassed a 42-acre at what was then the south end of Fort Collins (see attached map). The dwelling is located on the east side of the 1500 block of Peterson Street, midway between Lake Street and Prospect Road near the grounds of the (former) Fort Collins High School. The house was built during the latter years of the Great Depression (1929-c. 1941), when the national economy was slowly improving. Nevertheless, population growth in Fort Collins was very low in the 1930s, when an increase of only 762 new residents raised the city’s population to 12,251 for a growth rate of only 6.6%. With so few new residents, coupled with the economic crisis of the Depression, home building slowed considerably. Not surprisingly, 2.e Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins relatively few new homes were built during the 1930s. The notably small size of the home at 1518 Peterson Street may also be the result of financial constraints brought on by the Depression-era economy. The original building permit (Permit # 5167), was issued by the City of Fort Collins to parcel owner George Konrad Jr. on March 16, 1938. George Konrad was also listed on the permit as being the contractor for the proposed house construction project, and it appears likely that he had obtained the lot in order to build and sell a new house as a business venture. According to the 1938 Fort Collins city directory, George Konrad Jr. and his wife Pauline lived at 123 Riverside Street, and George was then (1938) employed as a driver for the Consumers Oil Company in Fort Collins. The first recorded occupants of the house (in 1940) were Lawrence T. (“Taylor”) Garner and his wife Carey. Taylor Garner was the owner of the Central Barber Shop located at 100 West Mountain Avenue in “Old Town” Fort Collins, and his brother William B. Garner was also employed as a barber at the shop. Taylor’s wife Carey was the employed as a cashier at the Woolworth store in downtown Fort Collins. In 1938 Taylor Garner was living at an address on a rural route outside Fort Collins, and William Garner lived on Harmony Road, then just south of Fort Collins, but by 1940, Taylor and Carey Garner had relocated to 1518 Peterson Street. William Garner had also relocated by 1940 with his wife Eleanor to a small dwelling at 116½ Grant Avenue. Sometime in the 1940s, the Garners had evidently moved away from Fort Collins, and by 1948 the house at 1518 Peterson Street had new occupants: Albert W. Whitney and his wife Edna Mae. Mr. Whitney was born December 1, 1901 in Brooklyn, Iowa, and in 1906 his family relocated to Fort Collins in the midst of explosive population growth following construction of a massive beet sugar refining plant on the outskirts of Fort Collins. Edna Mae Bright was born in Fort Collins on March 24, 1906 The couple wed in Denver on January 22, 1928. In 1948, Albert Whitney, who was nicknamed “Red,” was employed as the Secretary of the Standard Mercantile Company located at 154 West Mountain Avenue. The Standard Mercantile store, led by President Louis A. Hunter, Vice President William S, Hill, and Secretary Albert Whitney, sold a variety of merchandise including “Hardware, Paints, Household Appliances, Radios, Phonograph Records and Sporting Goods.” The Whitney family inhabited the Peterson Street home approximately 45 years, from the mid- 1940s until c. 1989. By 1954, Albert Whitney had changed jobs; his new employer was the Cooper Music and Appliance Company, located at 144 North College Avenue. The Cooper Music and Appliance Company was started by Walter B. Cooper, and Albert Whitney served as the store’s manager. However, by 1956, three of the partners in the music and appliance company entered into a new, and potentially more lucrative business – selling automobiles. Walter Cooper and new partner F.W. Michael opened Cooper-Michael Motors at 303 North College Avenue. Albert Whitney was a salesman for the car dealership, which offered new and used cars as well as a repair shop. By 1960, Albert Whitney had changed jobs again; this time he was hired by Colorado State University (CSU) to serve as the business manager of the college’s Athletics Department. It was to be his last workplace. The 1963 Fort Collins city directory lists as occupants, in addition to 2.e Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins Albert and Edna Whitney, their only child, son Jon R. Whitney, who was then a student at CSU. As of 1968 Jon Whitney was working as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), and had moved with his wife Cindy and 1-year-old daughter to a residence at 308 Clover Lane. In 1969, after working for 10 years as CSU Athletic Department Manager, Albert Whitney retired. Sometime around 1988 and in failing health, the Whitneys moved into a nursing home located at 1000 East Stuart Street. On January 4, 1989, Albert Whitney passed away in the nursing home at age 87. Less than a year later, on December 11, 1989, Edna Mae Whitney also passed away in the nursing home; she was 83 years old. The Whitneys were both buried in Fort Collins’ Grandview Cemetery. Following the passing of the Whitneys, city directories do not list any occupants at 1518 Peterson Street. The family still retained ownership of the house, and for several years from c. 2000 through 2004, it appears that renters Brandon and Kelsey Dreiling lived in the home. However, by 2007, Jon R. and Cynthia L. Whitney are listed as the occupants until c. 2011; until the home was sold two years later, in 2013, the Dreilings were again listed as the occupants of the home. The home was sold in September of 2013 to Robert Benham, and in 2015 the property was acquired by its current owners, Karen Lennon and Jeff Emmel. Jeff Emmel previously lived at 335 Parker Street in Fort Collins. application to substantially modify the dwelling triggered the need for this documentation and evaluation of this historic home, and because it is more than 50 years old, the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department required this documentation to be completed in order to assess the property’s historical and architectural significance. In March of 2018, historic preservation consulting company Retrospect was hired by Mr. Jeff Emmel to research and document the property onto this Colorado Architectural Inventory Form. 36. Sources of information: Beier, Harold 1958 Fort Collins, History and General Character. Research and Survey Report, Part 1. Prepared by Harold Beier, Community Development Consultant, Fort Collins, Colorado, for the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, April 1958. City of Fort Collins Log of Building Permits, 1920 – c. early 1950s, on file at the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1931, 1933-1934, 1936, 1938, 1940, 1948, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956-1957, 1960, 1962-1964, 1966, 1968-1973, 1975-1976, 1979, 1981, and 1983-2016. From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Fort Collins Coloradoan 1989a Obituary of Albert W. Whitney, January 6, 1989, n.p. On file at the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 2.e Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1989a Obituary of Edna Mae Whitney, December 12, 1989, n.p. On file at the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. Larimer County Assessor 1948 Property Card for 1518 Peterson Street (Parcel No. 97133-34-005). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 1968 Property Card for 1518 Peterson Street (Parcel No. 97133-34-005). From the collection of the Fort Collins Discovery Museum Local History Archive. 2018 Property information record for 1518 Peterson Street (Parcel No. 97133-34-005). Accessed online, March 17, 2018. Moore, L.C. 1924 Plat titled “L.C. Moore’s Third Addition to the City of Fort Collins,” Scale 1 inch = 100 feet. Approved by City Engineer on June 21, 1924. Reception Number 275864. On file at Larimer County Assessor’s office, Fort Collins. Simmons, Thomas, and Laurie Simmons. 1992 City of Fort Collins Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture Historic Contexts. Report prepared by Front Range Research Associates for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ____ No __X__ Date of designation: Not Applicable Designating authority: Not Applicable 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: ___ __ A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; ______ B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ______ C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ______ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. ________ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) ___X ___ Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Not Applicable 40. Period of significance: Not Applicable 41. Level of significance: National _____ State _____ Local _____ Not Applicable 42. Statement of significance Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility: 2.e Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins The Whitney House is not associated with any significant trends in Fort Collins history. The house was built during the latter years of the Great Depression (1929 – c. 1941), and its small size (744 ft²) may reflect the economic constraints of the stagnant economy in the 1930s. During the decade of the 1930s, population growth and home building in Fort Collins were reduced significantly by the lackluster economy. Based on this information, this residential property does not qualify for Local Landmark designation under Criterion A. Archival research verified that 1518 Peterson Street is not associated with any historically important people; therefore, it cannot qualify for Local Landmark designation under Criterion B. Nevertheless, this small-scale example of Craftsman domestic architecture is evaluated as qualifying for Local Landmark designation under Criterion C as a well-preserved and distinctive small-scale example of a house in Fort Collins exhibiting character-defining elements of the Craftsman style. It is a simplified and late example of the style; architectural historians Virginia and Lee McAlester suggest a 1905-1930 time period for the Craftsman style, but there are always later “outlier” examples. The architectural significance of the small Craftsman home is sufficient to meet the Local Landmark requirements. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The Whitney House retains integrity of location design, materials, craftmanship, setting, feeling and association, as does the contemporaneous detached garage. Exterior alterations to the building include the enlargement of two basement windows, and the same size replacement of many windows. One other modification is the post-1968 addition of decorative Craftsman-inspired pergola-type woodwork to the front corners of the building. While visually compatible with the building’s architectural style, this woodwork is entirely removable. The age of the enclosed rear addition could not be definitively determined; however, based upon the building footprint sketches on the 1948 and 1968 County Assessor’s property records, as well as the 1977 building permit for enclosing a deck, it appears that the extant enclosed, shed-roofed rear porch was constructed c. 1977. The dwelling’s integrity is sufficient to meet the integrity requirement of both the National Register of Historic Places and the City of Fort Collins Local Landmark program. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register (individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not (Individually) Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X _ No Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing X _ Noncontributing _ 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing _ Not Applicable X _ VIII. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 47. Local Landmark (individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not (Individually) Eligible Need Data 2.e Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins IX. RECORDING INFORMATION 48. Photograph numbers: 5LR.3166 #1-31 Negatives or digital photo files filed at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center (Current Planning) - Historic Preservation Department, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 49. Report title: Historic and Architectural Assessment for 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins, CO 50. Date(s): April 1, 2018 51. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor 52. Organization: RETROSPECT 53. Address: 1031 East 4th Street, Unit B, Loveland, CO 80537 54. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155 History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 2.e Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins Location of 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins (5LR.3166), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984). ▪ 1518 Peterson Street 5LR.3166 2.e Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins Sketch map of 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins (5LR.3166). 190 feet Detached garage PETERSON STREET N 50 feet Large deciduous tree Modern storage shed Asphalt-paved driveway Enclosed rear porch Alley 2.e Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1924 Plat of L.C. Moore’s 3rd Addition to Fort Collins. Arrow shows location of lot containing 1518 Peterson Street. 2.e Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1948 View of 1518 Peterson Street, from old Larimer County Assessor’s property card. On file at the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 1968 View of 1518 Peterson Street, from old Larimer County Assessor’s property card. On file at the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 2.e Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), looking southeast. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), looking southeast. 2.e Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), looking northeast. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), front porch, looking northeast. 2.e Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), façade, looking east. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), house and detached garage, looking ESE. 2.e Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), front porch, looking northeast. 2.e Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), front porch canopy with stuccoed brackets exposed rafter tails. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), elaborate Craftsman brackets and pergola woodwork on southwest corner of façade, looking northeast. 2.e Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), tandem windows and basement window on right side of façade, looking northeast. 2.e Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), south elevation, looking northwest. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), original basement window on south elevation. 2.e Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), closeup of sash-and-transom window located on south elevation, near southwest corner of house. 2.e Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166),north elevation, lookingwest-southwest. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), basement window on north elevation. 2.e Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), door to coal chute on north elevation, looking southeast. 2.e Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), close-up of coal chute door on north elevation. 2.e Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), rear/east elevation, looking west-southwest. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), rear/east elevation, looking west. 2.e Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), original window on rear/east elevation, adjacent to projecting enclosed rear porch. 2.e Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), projecting enclosed rear porch, looking north. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), enclosed rear porch, looking northwest. 2.e Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), detached garage and paved driveway running along north side of house, view looking east. 2.e Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), detached garage, looking northeast. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), detached garage, looking east. 2.e Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), detached garage and modern prefabricated backyard, looking north. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), south elevation of detached garage, looking north. 2.e Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), modern shed adjacent to rear end of detached garage, looking NE. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), looking . 2.e Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), view of backyard, looking WNW. 1518 Peterson Street (5LR.3166), view from backyard, looking WNW towards Peterson Street. 2.e Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins APPENDIX: TABLE IDENTIFYING ARCHITECTURE OF THE 1500 BLOCK OF PETERSON STREET IN FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 2.e Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.3166 – 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins Table 1. Residential properties in the 1500 Block of Peterson Street, Fort Collins Address Stories Year Built Year Remodeled Wall Material Roof form Style EAST SIDE OF PETERSON STREET 1500 Peterson 1.0 1939 NA Stucco over wood frame Gable Tudor Revival 1506 Peterson 1.0 1926 NA Stucco over wood frame Gable Craftsman Bungalow 1510 Peterson 1.0 1930 2007 Stucco over wood frame Gable 1514 Peterson 2.0 1924 NA Wood frame Gable Craftsman 1518 Peterson 1.0 1938 NA Stucco over wood frame Gable Craftsman 1520 Peterson 1.0 1940 NA Brick Gable Minimal Traditional 1526 Peterson 2.0 2000 NA Wood Frame Gable 1532 Peterson 1.0 1941 2013 Wood frame Hip/Gable Minimal Traditional 1536 Peterson 1.0 1928 NA Stucco over wood frame Gable Spanish Colonial Revival WEST SIDE OF PETERSON STREET 1501 Peterson 2.0 1918 2002 Stucco and fieldstone over wood frame Hip Prairie 1507 Peterson 1.0 1924 NA Stucco over wood frame Gable Craftsman 1511 Peterson 1.0 1928 NA Wood frame Gable Minimal Traditional 1515 Peterson 1.0 1940 NA Wood frame Gable Minimal Traditional 1519 Peterson 1.0 1949 NA Wood frame Gable Minimal Traditional 1523 Peterson 2.0 1948 2003 Wood frame Gable 1527 Peterson 1.0 1948 NA Wood frame Hip 1531 Peterson 1.0 1948 2007 Wood frame Gable Minimal Traditional 1535 Peterson 2.0 1941 1983 Wood frame Hip 1539 Peterson 1.0 1949 NA Wood frame Gable Minimal Traditional 2.e Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 2.f Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 2017-03-30 Historic Review (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 2.f Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2017-03-30 Historic Review (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 05-16-2018 1518 Peterson Street— Final Demolition/Alteration Review Background and History 2 • Construction Date: 1938 (Larimer County Tax Assessor) • Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair Review: • Proposed work is major • Property is individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard C: Design/Construction - intact example of transitional architecture from Craftsman cottage to more Minimal Traditional style 2.g Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Location and Context 3 1518 Peterson Street West Elevation Southwest Elevation 2.g Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 524 Whedbee October 2017 Note: this is the greenhouse that is talked about in the Architectural Inventory Form and Demolition/Alteration Review form. It was demolished East sometime Elevation between May 30 and November Northwest 16, Elevation 2017. Project Summary 6 Rear, 1 story addition 2.g Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Approve the application, finding that the applicant has met each of the steps and submittals required by the code; • Fees, posting and notice requirements have been met; • Documentation of the existing structure • Plan of Protection • Fully approved plans - plans comply with relevant city codes 7 • Approve with conditions; conditions may include, but not limited to: • comprehensive photographic documentation; • comprehensive historical, developmental, social and/or architectural documentation of the property and neighborhood and/or • any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties 8 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission 2.g Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) • Postpone the decision for more information • Information may include the benefits to the City of Landmark designation • Postpone for up to 45 days 9 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Staff Evaluation and Recommendation • Finding: Staff finds that the applicants have complied with all code requirements in Municipal Code Section 14-72 • Recommendation: Approval without conditions 10 2.g Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 11 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 05-16-2018 1518 Peterson Street— Final Demolition/Alteration Review 2.g Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6763 : 1518 PETERSON STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Architecture Planning Interior Design + RBB 04 May 2018 RB+B Architects, Inc. 315 East Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 · Fort Collins CO 80524-2913 (970) 484-0117 Cassandra Bumgarner Historic Preservation Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 Re: 1518 Peterson Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Cassandra, I have reviewed Jeff and Karen's plans for their addition and remodeling of the above address and find in both looks and materials it is an appropriate addition to their property and our neighborhood! Lucy and I have owned and lived in the home at 1535 Peterson Street since 1966, so we and our neighbors appreciate the efforts your Department make to review home owners' plans for additions and changes to make sure of neighborhood compatibility. Since, as you know, there is a lot of variety of size of homes and materials of finish in the homes on our block, Lucy and I have no objections to what Jeff and Karen are planning! Sincerely, 1�L/ B enner, Principal (retired) R B Architects, Inc. Phone:970.484.0117 rbbinc@rbbarchitects.com 315 East Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80524 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 2, PUBLIC COMMENT, B. BRENNER Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for new storm and screen units in the first and second stories. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sally and Robert Linton RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Crane Property at 1501 Peterson Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 137, 2013, under Criterion C as an excellent example of Prairie style architecture. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-46, “Work requiring building permit,” requires that the applicant obtain a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The property at 1501 Peterson Street was designated under Standard C as an excellent example of Prairie style architecture with a high level of historic integrity. Originally developed and championed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the Prairie style was used almost exclusively for residential buildings. Most commonly found in the Midwest, the short-lived style originated in Chicago around 1900 and was in decline by 1920; most Prairie style houses were built between 1905 and 1915. Adding to the local significance of 1501 Peterson is the fact that it is one of only a very few Prairie-style houses built in Fort Collins during this period; the estimated construction date of the house is 1918. Emphasis on horizontal lines created by low-pitched hipped roofs; wide, boxed, overhanging eaves; and contrasting wall and trim materials that create a high-waisted appearance mark some of the major character defining features of the style found on this house. Adding to the uniqueness of this house is the use of natural red sandstone instead of the more typical manufactured brick for the exterior cladding. Natural materials were more common to Craftsman style buildings which were popular during the same period. Separated from the red sandstone by a concrete lugsill, the upper portion of the house is clad with stucco, which was a more common material than stone for Prairie-style houses. Other classic Prairie-style features include two-story construction with one-story wings or porches, the porches often having massive, square roof supports, and panels of windows to connect with the exterior landscape. 1501 Peterson has all of these features and fits within the subtype known as the Prairie Box due to the simple, symmetrical square plan of the main mass of the house. As originally built, only the one-story wing projecting from the east façade interrupted the square footprint of the building. Other notable features of the house are the off-center porch housing the main entry, double-hung sash windows with geometric patterns of glass in the upper sashes created by wooden muntins, and the use of copings to further accentuate the horizontal lines of the building. 1501 Peterson offers a striking contrast to the vertical emphasis of the many Victorian houses found throughout the eastside Fort Collins neighborhoods. 3 Packet Pg. 66 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is presenting for conceptual/final design review a proposal to install new storms and screens on the first and second floor windows. The new units will be operable for ventilation, with center rails matching the existing windows. A complete window survey is attached to this report. Due to the extent of work needed on the many windows at this residence, the contractor has provided a phased plan for addressing the primary needs with this 2018 application, and then the applicant will return in subsequent years for additional window work on the basement windows, weather stripping and operability for all windows, interior painting, and repair of the frame at the front entry. That full scope of work is summarized on the last two pages of the attached window survey. At the April 18 regular meeting, the Commission noted the following: • Need for clarification about what work will be done in the first phase that is currently under review. • Concern about the maximum psi level that would be used for removal of the plant material (vines) during the preparation phase. The contractor will be present to discuss and resolve this with the LPC at the meeting. • Thickness of the storms relative to the brickmold - the contractor notes that both are 1 and 1/8 inches for this property, but will be prepared to discuss at the meeting what his methodology entails when that is not the case for the purpose of general edification. • Clarification about the hardware and what is visible from the outside - contractor will address at meeting. REVIEW CRITERIA: Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, “Work requiring building permit,” describes a two- phase review process for the Commission to consider applications for a report of acceptability. The conceptual review allows the Commission to identify problems and propose solutions prior to final review. If upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines there is no significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may waive conceptual review and proceed to consideration of the proposed work for final review at the same meeting. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Report of acceptability” for compliance with the following Standards: (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. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or 3 Packet Pg. 67 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. STAFF EVALUATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff finds that the proposed methodology for the repair of the porch is generally in keeping with the City code requirements and federal guidelines for rehabilitation. More specifically, staff finds that the project complies with the standards as follows: (1) The proposed work enhances the general historical and architectural character of the landmark; (2) The style and materials of proposed improvements is appropriate for the property; (3) The proposed work preserves the exterior characteristics of the structure; (4) The proposed work protects, enhances, and perpetuates the use of the landmark. (5) The proposed work meets all applicable federal rehabilitation standards. RECOMMENDATION: 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. Staff recommends that the Commission move to final design review and approve the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street. SAMPLE MOTION FOR MOVE TO FINAL REVIEW: Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property and with all necessary information in place, I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street, finding that the it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. 3 Packet Pg. 68 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. May 2018 Staff Presentation_1501 Peterson (PDF) 2. Window Survey and Scope of Work (PDF) 3. 2018 bid_1501 Peterson (PDF) 4. Opening Schedule (PDF) 5. Additional Photos (PDF) 6. 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 69 1 1501 Peterson Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, May 16, 2018 The Crane Property, 1501 Peterson • Constructed c.1918 • 2013: Property designated as Fort Collins Landmark • Standard C: excellent example of Prairie Style architecture • Subtype: Prairie Box—symmetrical square plan of main portion • Low-pitched hipped roofs • Wide boxed overhanging eaves • Contrasting wall and trim materials • Stucco and natural red sandstone • 2-story with 1-story wings 3.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: May 2018 Staff Presentation_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3 Proposed Alterations Install new storms and screens on first and second floor windows Full set of photos in attached window survey 4 3.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: May 2018 Staff Presentation_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5 Storm Hangers 6 3.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: May 2018 Staff Presentation_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Findings of Fact Staff finds that the project complies with the standards as follows: (1) The proposed work enhances the general historical and architectural character of the landmark; (2) The style and materials of proposed improvements is appropriate for the property; (3) The proposed work preserves the exterior characteristics of the structure; (4) The proposed work protects, enhances, and perpetuates the use of the landmark. (5) The proposed work meets all applicable federal rehabilitation standards. 7 LPC Role Conceptual/Final Review: Conceptual review: opportunity to identify any concerns regarding requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to designated landmarks. Final review: Determine if proposed work meets Section 14-48 8 3.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: May 2018 Staff Presentation_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9 1501 Peterson Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, May 16, 2018 3.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: May 2018 Staff Presentation_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1501 Peterson For: Robert & Sally Linton Window Assessment and Costs 3.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Basement windows are typical. The unit on the right has a dryer vent that needs to remain. Painting of the sills and frames needs to be done. Adding storms or screens is done based on operation. Several south facing windows have etched glass with a bevel edge. Also note the hinged screen that was added to these. Not affective with large gap at the check rail. These windows have the storm set in where the blind stop should be. Mull needs to be rebuilt to the correct sized & storms added. They would then match the rest of the house. 3.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) The front and side windows are typical and match the south at the entry. Decision needs to be made on the vine covering the windows. New fixed or push out storm units will be installed. Typical Condition of existing storms on the East and North side. Many have met- al repair plates used to keep them togeth- er. Upper floor north win- dows also covered with vines. These windows would have push out storms installed so that they can open for ventila- tion or closed for thermal protection. 3.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Interior Elevations of different windows. Main, upper and basement level Notice the amount of light coming thru the windows to the right and the window to the right of the chair above. Compare these with the exteri- or view of the same windows. 3.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Interior windows are all painted interior and in very good condition. 3.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) The following pictures are of the 2nd floor porch units. Currently these windows do no fit will and most do not operate. We are proposing to fix the north and south and then operate the center 4 of the west units. These will have storms and screens that can be changed out each season reached by the roof. I would also make the storms and screens as a one light. See how the sash fits to the frame in the picture to the right. The frame member appears to be out of plumb. Our intent would be to leave in place but add a tapered shim so a square sash would now fit and operate if as noted. North and South would have fixed storms. 3.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) All sash in the porch have similar fit issues. Units in the corners are not able to operate based on how they are installed. 3.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Scope of Work to Be Done The windows in the entire home are in very good shape. The lower level sills could use some paint, but the balance of the windows are in very good shape. The biggest issue is that there is no weather stripping on any of the operating windows. So the windows rely on the existing storms, where they exist, to stop the air flow. The storm that exists in one window opening are installed where the blind stop should be, which needs to be corrected. The balance are in poor shape and have been falling apart if taken down. So they remain up which does not al- low fresh air when wanted. There are a few screens, but most are in worse shape than the storms. The screens on the south side were installed as hinged over the lower sash at some point. These do not operate or seal well at all. We are proposing that all the double hung windows will be pulled, with new weather stripping added at the lower sash on the sides and a bulb weather strip at the check rail and bottom rail. Upper sash will be fixed in place to cut down on air infiltration and give us a solid locking point for the lower sash. The basement windows will have three units opened up and made operable with screens built. Units will be weather stripped to help seal them. The hardware used will be cor- rect vintage hardware and will hinge in at either the top or the bottom. All the main and second floor windows will have new storm installed. Part of the units will be made operable for ventilation. The appearance from the outside will be the same as the operable and if at a later point more windows are to be operat- ed, the hinges and handle can be installed. The porch windows all need to be re- placed. The units have been trim out of square to try and work with the frames. These were built to be set in place and are a thickness that is two thin to survive our weather. The north and south sides will be installed fixed with a storm win- dow on the outside (having similar look as the balance of the hours). The frame between will be fixed with tapered shims and then a mull cover to be installed. Units will look level and plumb. The west units will be made to operable on the center 4 sash, operation is to be determined but could hinge on the side or top. The outer sash will be installed fixed. All windows will get a storm window, but the operable units will get a screen as well. On all storms and screens, the center rail will be located to match the window be- hind. For those with out one the sash will be a one lite. All storms and screens will be painted to match the existing storms. The exterior of the window sash and frames can be painted before the storms go into place. The storms will go on first so that we have some protection and security while the sash are prepared for the new weather stripping. This work may be done off site at our shop. The 3.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Windows can be painted at our shop before them come back, as well as the part- ing stop and interior stop. This would give you a completed product inside the window frames. I am not sure if any of the interior sills, jamb extensions or trim will need to be painted. We will be cutting the parts loose to keep this at a mini- mum and will touch up as needed. This process will probably take 3 to 4 weeks to complete after we have measured and built the storm windows. So I would plan on 6 to 8 weeks for the total pro- cess which will allow for time of any putty glazing to dry prior to priming and primer and paint to dry prior to installation. The storms will be field sized in a primed condition and then taken back to the shop to have the glass added and then painted. Once in place, the window behind can be pulled and worked on. Based on funding, we are breaking this into three packages. Package #1 for 2018 year would include all the storm windows on the first and second floor with out the front entry porch and the upper porch. This would include painting all the ex- terior of the frames, brick mould and storm windows. The second phase in 2019 would include doing the last of the storm windows, repair the frame at the front entry and make all windows operate add weather stripping and paint the interior. The last phase is for the basement windows done in 2020. Respectfully Mark Wernimont President Colorado Sash & Door, Inc. 3.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1501 Peterson Street - Linton BID DATE: YES NO FOB Job Site: XX Installed: XX Tax Included: 7.3% XX Bond Included: XX Addenda: Section BID AMOUNT Remove Basement Windows from work S/T Basement Windows S/T Terms: Section: YES NO Section: YES NO Other Information: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE TITLE: Mark J. Wernimont President Weather Stripping of Window Sash $6,210.00 Paint Window Sash and Frame $5,850.00 $2,090.00 $14,150.00 50% Start up Costs, Balance due when completed. Paint Storm and Screens Total Combined Bid: $18,920.00 $33,070.00 February 22, 2018 $14,440.00 $3,750.00 $2,820.00 -$2,090.00 New Exterior Blind Stop and Frame at Porch Storm and Screen Sash Installed Mark J. Wernimont President Description COLORADO SASH & DOOR, INC. PO Box 270682 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 Phone (970)226-1460, Cell (970)402-2623 E-Mail mwernimont@colosash.com 3.c Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 2018 bid_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Current Exist New Width Height Width Height Width Height Operation Basement 38 21.75 35.5 19 34 17 Note - 1 Fixed 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Storm 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Storm 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Screen 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Screen 40 41 37.5 38 36 36 Fixed Storm 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Screen Main Floor 36 43 33.5 40 32 38 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 40 48 37.5 45 36 43 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 70 58.75 30.5 55.75 29 53.75 Note - 2 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 30.5 55.75 29 53.75 Note - 2 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 141 60.5 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 70 60.5 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 55.5 30 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 34 35 31.5 32 30 30 Dbl Hung Storm 34 35 31.5 32 30 30 Dbl Hung Storm 105 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm Upper Floor 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 36.5 58.5 34 55.5 32.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 34.5 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 34.5 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 34.5 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 36.5 58.5 34 55.5 32.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Masonry Opening Frame Size Sash Opening 1501 Peterson - Linton Residence 3.d Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Opening Schedule (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Porch 36 29.5 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.5 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.5 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 30 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 31 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.5 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.25 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.5 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.75 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.75 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm Note 1 Current sash has a dryer vent in place that needs to stay - No Work Note 2 The current frame is missing the center mull covers and the storm windows have been set in to the space where the blind stop should be. Needs to be corrected. Note 3 Porch units that do not fit will and will be made fixed with exterior storms Note 4 Porch units that do not fit will and will be made to operate with both storm and screens Window Openings to Operate 3.d Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Opening Schedule (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1501 Peterson Street, Fort Collins Landmark Designation East elevation; facing west from Peterson Street. Northeastern elevation, from corner of Peterson and Lake Streets. 3.e Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Additional Photos (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) North elevation looking south from Lake Street. South elevation from the southwest. Greenhouse is in the foreground; enclosed sleeping porch with ribbon windows projects from the second story. 3.e Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Additional Photos (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) West elevation of garage and greenhouse with sleeping porch beyond. Looking southeast from Lake Street at northwest elevation. 3.e Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Additional Photos (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) North elevation of the garage with the sleeping porch above the new entry alcove. Principle 9/1 double-hung sash with wood surround and concrete sill. 3.e Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Additional Photos (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Entry alcove/patio area on the north side of the house. 3.e Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Additional Photos (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6748 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) From: Maren Bzdek Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:04 PM To: Gretchen Schiager <gschiager@fcgov.com> Subject: FW: Mark Wernimont Hi Gretchen, This needs to be added to the packet for 1501 Peterson, with attachments. I’ll come explain in person. Maren From: Kevin [mailto:kevinmurray@verinet.com] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 6:59 PM To: Per Hogestad <per.hogestad@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Mark Wernimont Hi Per, Here you go! circa full scale....... Should be what the lower right double window (p76) would look like. Like I said, I think the Brick Mould is an old standard, and the bead is part of it (see photo). We run many lineal feet of this at different widths. The center window weight pocket (on the double windows) hasn’t been built out far enough to accept a storm. This is where Mark wants to place the “cap”. Take a look and see if it makes sense. It sure would have been easier if Mark had just delivered what we asked for! Thanks, Kevin From: Per Hogestad Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 12:04 PM To: 'Kevin' Subject: RE: Mark Wernimont Kevin, Thanks for the note. I am still confused. Where is the window casing on the section drawing? The casing extends to the masonry. What is being called the brick mould (the half round moulding) is not at the masonry but adjacent to the window jamb. I still don’t think that the sections illustrate the condition as it is. Adding a mullion cap looks as though it may lap the existing head condition or if the cap is not extended to the casing or top of the window unit it may stand proud of the moulded edge of the jamb. Re: packet pg. 76. Kevin can you draw what you think the existing section looks like? nothing complicated or even to scale. This would really help me understand. Thanks, Per From: Kevin [mailto:kevinmurray@verinet.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:53 PM To: Per Hogestad <per.hogestad@comcast.net>; Kevin Murray <kevinmurray@verinet.com> Subject: Mark Wernimont Hi Per, I think what is shown on the photos is a 5/4 Brick Mould; kind of like I drew for you on your notes. This is usually a 5/4 product, varying in width, to match the masonry or siding. This style was the standard before Anderson came up with the newer style we’re used to now. The reason for Mark’s cap is because the center of the window is recessed, compared to the outside. This allows for a 5/4 storm to align with the Brick Mold, instead of being attached to the outer sash. It helped to get a cleaner copy of Mark’s diagram from Cassie. I couldn’t read the one in the packet. Anyway, here’s the cleaner version of the diagram and your notes. I think it’s all OK as long as the mull cap is reversable. Your thoughts are appreciated. Kevin ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON MURRAY-HOGESTAD EMAILS ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON MURRAY- HOGESTAD EMAIL ATTACHMENTS ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON MURRAY- HOGESTAD EMAIL ATTACHMENTS From: Mark Wernimont [mailto:mwernimont@colosash.com] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:39 PM To: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com> Subject: RE: LPC window questions Maren, On 1501 Peterson, See the attached drawing (same one that is in the package). I have added a note, on how the balance of the house that has storms, where they are located. This one opening does not match and we are making it match. Attached are photos of our storms installed on a project here in Fort Collins. Shows them closed from inside and outside, open for inside and outside and from inside with the expanding screen in place. I showed these to Robert and Sally and it answered all their questions. As to a rabbit on the storm, yes we would if the brickmould is not 1 1/8” in thickness. If less then we rabbit the back of the storm to be flush unless the original was not flush, which was the case on 525 Smith Street we did in 2017. Mark From: Maren Bzdek [mailto:mbzdek@fcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:13 AM To: Mark Wernimont (mwernimont@colosash.com) Subject: LPC window questions Hi Mark, The LPC had further discussion about the clarifications they are asking for on the two projects you’ll be talking to them about at next week’s meeting. This is a summary of their questions and requests—would you please let me know if you have any concerns about addressing these? 1501 Peterson: • One member asked for an accurate section through the head and jamb of the specific windows on this home. It looks to him like you are adding material with the mullion cover and wants a visual diagram to understand how that works and how that works in relation to screens/storms. Also wants to know materials of mullion cover. Doesn't think will plane out. Also wondering if you have considered rabbiting the storm window to fit rather than furring out the window. In general, they want to know how it will all fit together, in particular because the windows on this property are atypical. They would like to receive this before the meeting. • Another member asked if there are cut sheets for the storm windows—if so, they want to see that. Maren Bzdek Senior Historic Preservation Planner Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department City of Fort Collins P.O Box 580 (281 N. College Avenue) Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6206 mbzdek@fcgov.com ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT-BZDEK EMAILS Exterior Storm Closed ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES Exterior Storm Open with Screen ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES Interior Storm Open No Screen ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES Interior Storm Open with Screen ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES Picture of Missing Mull Post ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES Picture of Correct Storm Location ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES Picture of Window With Storm in Wrong Location ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES Storm Window Location ITEM 3, 1501 PETERSON WERNIMONT IMAGES AGENDA ITEM #4 903 Stover Conceptual/Final Design Review This item was withdrawn from the agenda. Packet Pages 99-130 have been removed from this FINAL post-hearing packet. Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for rehabilitation of the windows on the residence, which will include installation of wood storm windows and wood screens, weather stripping, in-kind replication and replacement of missing blind stops, and weather stripping and repair of the front door. APPLICANT/OWNER: Victoria Bridges RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Littler-Baker House and Carriage House at 725 Mathews Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 96, 1995, under Standard B for its association with its first two residents, rancher Edward Littler and family and Amanda McCall Baker, widow of Larimer County pioneer William Baker; and under Standard C as an excellent example of a Victorian Eclectic dwelling with an accompanying architecturally compatible carriage house that dates to the period of significance. The residence is also a contributing property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. The current owners have owned the property since 1991. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-46, “Work requiring building permit,” requires that the applicant obtain a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The Littler-Baker House and Carriage House is a two-story wood frame vernacular dwelling with a steeply pitched cross gable roof, boxed eaves with returns, and decorative shingles in the upper gable ends on all elevations. It was constructed between 1900-1903. The home has a full- width, hipped roof front porch that was restored in 1995 with the support of a Landmark Rehabilitation Grant. Most of the windows of the home are original wood windows with original glass and the front door is original. The carriage house dates to the period of significance and has had some historic changes to the openings. In 2003, the Landmark Preservation Commission approved a rear addition project that included removal of a one-story, shed- roofed extension addition. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is presenting for conceptual/final design review a proposal to rehabilitate the historic windows with in-kind replication and replacement of missing blind stops, along with the installation of wood storm windows and screens and weather stripping to improve the energy performance of the home. The project will also include weather stripping and minor repairs of the front door. Detailed information about the proposed work is available in the attached “window survey and scope” document provided by the contractor. 5 Packet Pg. 131 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 REVIEW CRITERIA: Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, “Work requiring building permit,” describes a two- phase review process for the Commission to consider applications for a report of acceptability. The conceptual review allows the Commission to identify problems and propose solutions prior to final review. If upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines there is no significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may waive conceptual review and proceed to consideration of the proposed work for final review at the same meeting. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Report of acceptability” for compliance with the following Standards: (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. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 5 Packet Pg. 132 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 STAFF EVALUATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff finds that the proposed methodology for the window work is generally in keeping with the City code requirements and federal guidelines for rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: 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. Staff recommends that the Commission move to final design review and approve the proposed work at 725 Mathews. SAMPLE MOTION FOR MOVE TO FINAL REVIEW: Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property and with all necessary information in place, I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 725 Mathews Street. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 725 Mathews Street, finding that the it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation (PDF) 2. Window Survey and Scope (PDF) 3. Window Schedule (PDF) 4. Bid Form (PDF) 5. Landmark Loan Application (PDF) 6. 1995 Designation Packet (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 133 1 725 Mathews Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, May 16, 2018 The Littler-Baker House and Carriage House • Constructed 1900-1903 • 1995: Designated as Fort Collins Landmark • Standard B: Edward Littler and Amanda McCall Baker • Standard C: excellent example of “Victorian Eclectic” • Contributing: Laurel School National Register District 5.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3 Proposed Alterations 4 • Replicate and install exterior blind stops • Replace missing interior stops in-kind • Weather strip lower sash • Install wood storms (hinged on 4 upper floor windows, side elevations; remainder removable for seasonal rotation with new wood screens) • Paint or stain new storms, screens, and trim • Front door maintenance adjustments for operation and weather stripping 5.a Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Findings of Fact Staff finds that the project complies with the standards as follows: (1) The proposed work enhances the general historical and architectural character of the landmark; (2) The style and materials of proposed improvements is appropriate for the property; (3) The proposed work preserves the exterior characteristics of the structure; (4) The proposed work protects, enhances, and perpetuates the use of the landmark. (5) The proposed work meets all applicable federal rehabilitation standards. 5 LPC Role Conceptual/Final Review: Conceptual review: opportunity to identify any concerns regarding requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to designated landmarks. Final review: Determine if proposed work meets Section 14-48 6 5.a Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 7 725 Mathews Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, May 16, 2018 5.a Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 725 Mathews Street For: Victoria Bridges / Dave Randel Window Assessment and Budget 5.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) South Dining Room Windows, note the missing exterior blind stop on both sides of the left sash and left side of the right sash. There is no interior wood stops on either window. Most of the windows are missing the exterior blind stops to hold the upper sash in place. We will be installing new as shown in the lower pho- tograph. Upper Bedroom win- dows have eased edge interior wood stops, and we would provide this pattern for the full house. The lower level and public windows will be set for a stain and clear finish but both will use mix grain fir, simi- lar to the existing. 5.b Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Living Room Windows—South similar to dining room but paint is still on the trim. Front window will have a fixed lower sash due to weight and size, but upper sash will operate. Front window is currently fixed and will stay that way. East upper level windows, missing exte- rior blind stop and interior wood stops. 5.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) North Elevation with main floor bed- room and upper floor open area. Lower window with the exterior blind stop in place. Condition of the sills is good for the entire project. Currently the front door is in ok shape. The dogs have done some damage to the face, but it is structur- ally sound. The door however does not fit the frame well, there is no weather stripping and the lockset is poor functioning at best. I would not spend much time on the door but weather stripping could be added and possibly replace the lock with a period cor- rect but with new mechanism. 5.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Scope of Work to Be Done The windows are in very good shape and appear that some repairs and restoration work had taken place in the past. The current homeowner stated that they started stripping the paint 10 / 15 years ago, but lost momentum on the work. At this point the majority of the exterior blind stops have been removed. With this, there is nothing really holding the upper sash in place. These need to be replicat- ed and installed. Once these are installed, the upper sash can be fixed in place to cut down on air infiltration. The lower sash will be removed and set up for brush weather striping installed on the edge along with a bulb weather stripping at the check and bottom rails. This will help stop air from blowing past and reduce the work load on the furnace. The missing interior stops will be replaced with a similar profile and made out of mix grain fir that will match the original. The exception of this would be the front larger window that we will make the bottom fixed and have the upper sash operate. To help control the home temperatures in the winter time a wood storm window will be installed on all windows. The upper floor on the sides will be hinged, so they may stay in place year round. The balance will be removable to install a new wood screen in the spring time. An expanding screen can be used on the windows where the storm stays up year round for ventilation. The new storms and screens will be hung with a historic top hanger and use a hook and eye to hold them in place. The new storms and screens will be painted either white as the exterior trim or blue to match the window sash. I do not feel that there is any reason to do one or the other, so it comes down to an owners preference. The interior trim should be stained and finished or painted based on the opening. At this point we are not looking at removing paint off any additional window sash or trim. Last item is to do a little maintance work on the front door. The door is structur- ally sound, but does not fit the frame well and there is no weather stripping. Also the lockset is difficult to operate and may be worth changing to a historically ap- propriate but newer style lockset. We can add some weather stripping and do some adjustments for operation. 5.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Change Casing Sill 0.5 0.375 2 2.125 Width Height Width Height Width Height First Floor 32 74.5 29.5 71.5 28 69.5 Storm Screen 32 74.5 29.5 71.5 28 69.5 Storm Screen 34 74.5 31.5 71.5 30 69.5 Storm Screen 48 74.5 45.5 71.5 44 69.5 Storm Screen 35.25 28.5 32.75 25.5 31.25 23.5 Storm 32 74.5 29.5 71.5 28 69.5 Storm Screen 32 74.5 29.5 71.5 28 69.5 Storm Screen Second Floor 30.25 66.5 27.75 63.5 26.25 61.5 Hinge Storm 30.25 66.5 27.75 63.5 26.25 61.5 Hinge Storm 30.25 66.5 27.75 63.5 26.25 61.5 Storm Screen 30.25 66.5 27.75 63.5 26.25 61.5 Storm Screen 30.25 66.5 27.75 63.5 26.25 61.5 Hinge Storm 30.25 66.5 27.75 63.5 26.25 61.5 Hinge Storm Unit Dimension Frame Size Sash Opening New 725 MATHEWS STREET 5.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Window Schedule (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 725 Mathews - Bridges / Randel BID DATE: YES NO FOB Job Site: XX Installed: XX Tax Included: 7.3% XX Bond Included: XX Addenda: Section BID AMOUNT Terms: Section: YES NO Section: YES NO Other Information: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE TITLE: Mark J. Wernimont President Front Door Wether Striping and Repair Total Combined Bid: $225.00 $11,865.00 50% Start up Costs, Balance due when completed. $6,240.00 $1,800.00 $2,700.00 $900.00 Weather Stripping of Window Sash New Exterior Blind Stop and Interior Stop Storm and Screen Sash Installed Paint Storm and Screens February 21, 2018 Mark J. Wernimont President Description COLORADO SASH & DOOR, INC. PO Box 270682 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 Phone (970)226-1460, Cell (970)402-2623 E-Mail mwernimont@colosash.com 5.d Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Bid Form (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 1 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving loan-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information Owner’s Name(s) (as it appears on the Deed of Trust) Landmark Property Address Project Description Total Project Cost: Project Start Date: Loan Requested (up to $7,500): Project Completion Date: 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. Contractor Name Address Phone 5.e Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Landmark Loan Application (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 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: Cost Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: 5.e Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Landmark Loan Application (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 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: Cost Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: 5.e Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Landmark Loan Application (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 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: 5.e Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Landmark Loan Application (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 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. 5.e Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Landmark Loan Application (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 6 Assurances The Owner and Applicant hereby agree and acknowledge that: A. Loan recipients agree to supply at least an equal match to the requested loan amount. B. Funds received as a result of this application will be expended solely on described projects, and must be completed within established timelines. C. The subject structure must have local landmark designation or be a contributing structure in a local landmark district. D. Loan funds may be spent only for exterior rehabilitation of the structure. E. Matching funds may be spent for exterior rehabilitation/stabilization of the property, interior structural work, and/or the rehabilitation of electrical, heating or plumbing systems, including fire sprinkler systems in commercial buildings. F. Neither loan monies nor matching funds may be spent for the installation of or rehabilitation of signage, interior rehabilitation or decorations, building additions, or the addition of architectural or decorative elements which were not part of the original historic structure. G. All work must comply with the standards and/or guidelines of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. H. Loan recipients must submit project for design review by the Landmark Preservation Commission and receive approval for loan funding before construction work is started. I. All work approved for loan funding must be completed even if partially funded through the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program. J. Loan recipients will receive disbursement of loan funds not sooner than thirty (30) days after all work has been completed and approved, receipts documenting the costs of the work have been submitted to the City, and physical inspection has been completed by the City. K. Loan recipients agree to place a sign, provided by the City, on the property stating that the rehabilitation of the property was funded in part by the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for the duration of the rehabilitation work. L. The award and disbursement of this loan shall be governed by the provisions of the ordinance of the Council of the City of Fort Collins establishing the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program as an ongoing project of the City. M. The owner agrees to maintain the property after rehabilitation work has been completed. N. Loans are provided at zero percent interest. Upon successful completion and inspection of the project, loan recipients will be required to sign a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust to secure loan funds. Repayment will be required upon sale or transfer of the property, except for public and non-profit projects which are required to repay the loan within 5 years. O. Loans may be subordinated in second position below the property's mortgage. Subordination below second position will require the owner to demonstrate that the equity in the property exceeds its debt. Signature of Applicant (if different than owner) Date Signature of Legal Owner Date 5.e Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Landmark Loan Application (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 7 Affidavit-Restrictions on Public Benefits AFFIDAVIT Pursuant to section 24-76.5-103(4)(b), C.R.S. I , Swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that I am (check one of the following): A United States citizen; A Legal Permanent Resident of the United States; or Otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to Federal law. I understand that this sworn statement is by law because I have applied for a public benefit as defined by law. I understand that state law requires me to provide proof that I am lawfully present in the United States prior to receipt of this public benefit. I further acknowledge that making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in this sworn affidavit is punishable under the criminal laws of Colorado as perjury in the second degree under Colorado Revised Statute §18-8-503 and it shall constitute a separate criminal offense each time a public benefit is fraudulently received. If I checked the second or third option above, I understand that my lawful presence in the United States will be verified through the Federal Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement Program (SAVE Program). Printed Name of Legal Owner _______________________________________________ ________________ Signature of Legal Owner Date 5.e Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Landmark Loan Application (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.f Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 1995 Designation Packet (6751 : 725 MATHEWS – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449- acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection, and also fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments regarding the proposed project’s compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) provided initial conceptual review comments at its March 21, 2018 meeting and the applicant subsequently submitted a development review application in April 2018, which is currently undergoing staff review. The applicant is requesting additional conceptual review comments from the LPC based on the revisions to date and will return in June for a recommendation to the decision maker. LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will conduct conceptual review of the project’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7 based on the attached plans. Because the applicant has not yet incorporated responses to staff comments, the LPC may not offer a recommendation to the decision maker at this time. POTENTIAL AREA OF ADJACENCY: The potential area of adjacency consists of historic properties within a 200-foot radius of the project parcel. 1. Abutting Properties Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) • 133 Mathews (Frozen Food Center) 2. Other Designated Fort Collins Landmarks within 200-foot radius • Old Town Historic District (250 E. Mountain) • Poudre Garage, 148 Remington 6 Packet Pg. 181 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 3. Other Properties Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designation within 200-foot radius • 37-143 Mathews (McIntyre House) • 210 E Oak (Zoric Cleaners) • 300 E. Oak (Mennonite Church) - constructed 1954 • 142 Remington 4. At Least 50 Years Old--Not Eligible for Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) • 216 E. Oak • 220 E. Oak (Community of Christ Church) The Commission should consider the nature of the Historic Core Subdistrict of the Downtown Zone and the varying ages, styles, proximity, and typologies present in the buildings within the Area of Adjacency to determine those that are most relevant to the review of this project. 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 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.” • This project site does not contain designated or eligible historic resources and is not within the Old Town Historic District. • There are several historic resources within the proposed area of adjacency, noted above. 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.” 6 Packet Pg. 182 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 • The proposed building height is 54 feet. The height of the abutting Frozen Food Center is 26 feet. At its March meeting, the LPC discussed several ways to improve the height response to the abutting building, including a stepback or a material change. The current, revised design indicates that the height of the material change at the abutting corner, at the base of the glass railing, is 30’-2” to provide a reference to the height of the historic building. • The proposed façade width is 150 feet on Mountain and 130 feet on Mathews. The façade width of the abutting Frozen Food Center is 45 feet, and the Mathews street elevation contains a massing element of equivalent length on its north end for reference. • Facades are articulated into discernable sections through the use of varying materials and material planes. • The setback on both streets will be within 1 foot of the property line, with some variations due to façade detailing. The abutting Frozen Food Center building at 133 Mathews also has a zero-lot line. • The applicant notes that the header height of the second-floor windows and the width of the material change and architectural articulation on the proposed building relate directly to the dimensions of the Frozen Food Building. “(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.” • The applicant notes that the window fenestration is intended to reflect the scale and patterning seen throughout the downtown district, with expressed window headers and sills. At the March LPC meeting, a member noted the importance of the return on windows and other design details. • Horizontal ties include similar sill and head heights on the windows and building breaks. • The building includes vertical column elements at the street level to reinforce the street level scale of the area. “(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.” • The project consists of a steel super structure with a composite concrete/steel floor system with balloon framed metal studs at the exterior skin. • The proposed skin will consist of brick and stone masonry, prefinished cementitious smooth wall panels, prefinished smooth metal panels, and aluminum glazing systems with clear glass. The roofing system will be an adhered TPO membrane. • The applicant has responded to LPC comments from the March conceptual review with a simplified material palette and one that is more specifically referencing the abutting Frozen Food Center at the building’s southeast corner. “(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 applicant notes that the project will improve existing pedestrian conditions on the southwest corner of East Mountain and Mathews. Sidewalks will be repaired and/or replaced and widened to meet the building edge. 6 Packet Pg. 183 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 4 “(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 project will incorporate new landscaping elements at the building base and will include new street trees as required by City code. The existing trees on East Mountain Avenue along the north property line and in the landscaped island will remain. . ATTACHMENTS 1. May LPC_221 E Mtn Concept Review_Staff Pres_ (PDF) 2. LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (PDF) 3. LPC March 21 2018 Minutes - 221 Mountain Excerpt (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 184 5/2/2018 1 1 221 East Mountain – Conceptual Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, May16, 2018 Project Summary • Historic Core Subdistrict of the Downtown (D) District • Half-acre lot at 221 East Mountain Avenue (former location of Goodyear Tire) • Fronts East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner (alleys to west and south) • 4-story mixed-use: office, retail and residential uses • Single-level parking structure below grade • Approximate square footage, including garage = 90,172 square feet 2 6.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: May LPC_221 E Mtn Concept Review_Staff Pres_ (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 5/2/2018 2 3 4 6.a Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: May LPC_221 E Mtn Concept Review_Staff Pres_ (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 5/2/2018 3 Area of Adjacency 5 137/143 Mathews 6 300 E. Oak 210 E. Oak 6.a Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: May LPC_221 E Mtn Concept Review_Staff Pres_ (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 5/2/2018 4 Area of Adjacency 7 250 E Mountain Area of Adjacency 8 6.a Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: May LPC_221 E Mtn Concept Review_Staff Pres_ (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 5/2/2018 5 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission • Conceptual review comments re: compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources” (new construction shall respect historic character of historic properties on or adjacent to development site) • No formal recommendation at this time 9 10 221 East Mountain – Conceptual Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018 6.a Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: May LPC_221 E Mtn Concept Review_Staff Pres_ (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ ,/',dK&&ZKE&KKh/>/E' +&+$,1/,1.)(1&(6(7%$&. )((7)520)$&(2)%8,/',1* &ZKE &KK EdZ >>z ϮϮϭ͘DKhEd/E +25,=217$/5()(5(1&(/,1(6 7+( :,'7+2)7+()52=(1)22'&(17(5 %8,/',1*,6(48$/727+($5&+,7(&785$/ 0$66,1*(/(0(1721(02817$,1 KtEdKtE^dZd^WWZK&/>^ 6.b Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ ,1752'8&7,212)*/$665$,/,1* 725('8&(35(&(,9('+(,*+7 35(&(,9('%8,/',1*352),/( 6,08/$5722/'72:1 675((76&$3(352),/(6 (/,0,1$7,212)*5281' )/225:,1'2:6 0$7(5,$/&+$1*( #$%877,1*&251(5 60227+7(;785(0212721( &2/25:,7+0,1'(7$,/,1* Z&ZE^dKd,&ZKE&KKh/>/E' 6.b Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ h/>/E'Zd/h>d/KE 7(;785$/9$5,$7,21%(7:((1 0$7(5,$/6 )$&$'(5(/,()$7 0$66,1*&+$1*(6 0(7$/3$1(/672%(5(&(66(' 6725()52176<67(065(&(66(' $3352; :,1'2:65(&(66(' %5,&.%$6()$&$'(5(/,()('%< :,7+$57,&8/$7('%5,&.&251,&( 35(&$67&21&5(7(+($'(5 5(/,()(' &21&5(7(&251,&($1'0(7$/&$3 5(/,()(' )$&$'(5(/,() $70$66,1*&+$1*(6 %5,&.:,1'2:6,//65(/,()(' 6.b Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ &KZdK>>/E^>Eh^K͕^͘ϯ͘ϰ͘ϳͲ,/^dKZ/Eh>dhZ>Z^KhZ^ 6.b Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL Packet Pg. 193 ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ 1257+(/(9$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21 (/(9 6(&21')/225 (/(9 *5281'/(9(/),567)/225 (/(9 7+,5')/225 (/(9 )2857+)/225 (/(9 522)'(&. (/(9 6(&21')/225 (/(9 *5281'/(9(/),567)/225 (/(9 7+,5')/225 (/(9 )2857+)/225 (/(9 522)'(&. 0(7$/+($'(563$,17(' 352326('6,*1$*( /2&$7,21 %5,&.9(1((5 &2/25 &(0(17,7,2863$1(/ 60227+35(),1,6+(' ;3$1(/667$&. %21' */$665$,/7<3 $7%$/&21,(6 352326('6,*1$*( /2&$7,21 35(&$67%$6( 7<3$7&2/%$6(6 &+$,1/,1.)(1&+ $7'2*581%(<21' 7232)3$5$3(7 7232)3$5$3(7#67$,572:(5(/(9$72572:(5 9'(&.3$1(/6 $70(&+6&5((1:$// ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ :(67(/(9$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,21 (/(9 6(&21')/225 (/(9 *5281'/(9(/),567)/225 (/(9 7+,5')/225 (/(9 )2857+)/225 (/(9 522)'(&. 678&&2),1,6+ &2/25720$7&+&(0(17,7,286 3$1(/6$%29( 6.b Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ 6,7(3/$1 5(6,'(17$/(175$1&( ($6702817$,1$9( ($6702817$,1$9( (;,67,1*$//(<:$< (;,67,1* 3$5.,1* 6758&785( :($60(17 *$5$*((175< 6.b Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ $ % & ' ( ) * $ 72%(9(5,),(' 3523(57</,1( :$7(5(175< ),5(3803 %2267(53803 612:0(/7&21752/6 5220 ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ )8785(.,7&+(1 /2&$7,21 )8785(5(675220/2&$7,216 0$,/%2;(6 5(48,5('(;,7 )520*$5$*(/(9(/ (;,67,1*75$16)250(5 72%(5(/2&$7(' 52: 52: '2:1 :&21&5(7( $3521#7232)5$03 Z52//836(&85,7<*$7( 83 ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ 83 5,6( '1 5,6( '2:1 5,6( 83 5,6( /(1*7+2)',$*21$/ ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ 23(1$%29( 83 5,6( '1 5,6( '2:1 5,6( 83 5,6( %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220Z'(1 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 64)7*5266 $3352; 0(&+&+$6( (/(&75,&$/&+$6( (/(9 (/(&7&/26(7 0(&+&+$6( (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( 7+,5')/2253/$1 %('5220 %('5220Z'(1 75$6+50 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 $ % & ' ( ) * $ 1 6.b Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ 83 5,6( '1 5,6( '2:1 5,6( 83 5,6( %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220Z'(1 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 %('5220Z'(1 %('5220 %('5220 64)7*5266 $3352; 23(1 72 %(/2: (/(9 (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( 0(&+&+$6( (/(&75,&$/&/26(7 (/(&75,&$/&+$6( 5$,/,1*#23(1,1* &+$6( %('5220 %('5220 %('5220 75$6+50 )2857+)/2253/$1 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 $ % & ' ( ) * $ 1 6.b ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 DĂǇ͕ϭϲ͕ϮϬϭϴ 62/$5$55$</2&$7,21 522)3/$1 '1 5,6( '1 5,6( +0(&+$1,&$/ 6&5((1 0(&+$1,&$/81,767+,6$5($ 5(6,' (/(9 '2*581 522)7233/$=$ ; 6.</,*+76 7<3RI '2*:$6+67$77,21 7+,6$5($+26(%,% 5(48,5(' 287'225.,7&+(1 7+,6$5($ :$7(56285&(5(48,5(' 48$5'5$,/7<3,&$/# ('*(2)3/$=$ +)(1&(7<3,&$/ $73(5,0(7(5 2)'2*581 (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( $ % & ' ( ) * $ 522)7233/$=$ 1 6.b Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 21, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Bud Frick Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson 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 March 21, 2018 Minutes – Excerpt for 221 E Mountain • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Frick, Dorn, Bello, Murray ABSENT: Simpson STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager, Wray ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** 3. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449-acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection, and also fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction Landmark Preservation Commission 6.c Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: LPC March 21 2018 Minutes - 221 Mountain Excerpt (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 21, 2018 Staff Report Maren Bzdek presented the staff report and provided an updated map for potential considerations for the area of adjacency. She reviewed nearby eligible and designated structures and noted the Commission will not be providing a formal recommendation for the project at this time. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hosanna, representing the owner and developer, gave the Applicant presentation and discussed the proposed project. Regarding compatibility, Mr. Hosanna discussed the taller first floor height, similar window sizes, uniformity in massing and brick patterning, and signage. He discussed the aspects of the frozen food building next door and the efforts his team has made toward compatibility with that structure and the alley and parking garage on the other side. Mr. Hosanna discussed the proposed materials which include brick, metal, Cementous panels, sandstone, and stucco. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn stated the Commissions comments should be focused on the historic and eligible properties in the area, after determining an area of adjacency. Mr. Murray stated this is the corner of Old Town and it is important for it to present itself as an entrance to the Old Town Historic District. Ms. Dorn asked for input regarding 137-143 Mathews, the McIntire house, and how it plays into the adjacency discussion. Chair Dunn replied materials and massing are considered in determining adjacency. Mr. Hogestad stated materials and material scale are important to consider. Mr. Yatabe noted the Code in place at the time of application submittal would be the Code applicable to the project. Mr. Frick stated the design seems to miss the context of the frozen food building in terms of window patterns and building height. He made some suggestions for design changes. Mr. Hosanna discussed the patio step backs and stated the façades on Mathews and Mountain were deemed the primary frontages. Mr. Frick stated he would prefer a setback and balcony step back between the two buildings to accentuate the visual relationship between the frozen food building and the corner of the new building. Mr. Bello suggested the applicant consider a material change at the level of the frozen food building. Chair Dunn summarized the comments stating the Commission would like to see more of a relationship between the two buildings where the new building is in deference, perhaps in the form of a setback or step back or change in materials or height. Ms. Gensmer agreed that the corner is giving her pause due to the comparative massing. She suggested a material change may alleviate that. Mr. Hogestad asked how much differential exists between the face of the pilasters and the face of the building. Mr. Hosanna replied it is about two feet. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern the building feels a bit fragmented and stated the balconies on the corner at Mathews and Mountain are not in keeping with historic buildings. He asked if the windows are flush mounted. Mr. Hosanna replied there is a 2.5 to 3-inch return and stated they are looking at opportunities for more articulation. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like to see more shadow lines if possible. Mr. Hosanna stated they are still working to define the cornice at the top of the wall. Mr. Bello commented on the heaviness of the materials and building. Mr. Hosanna stated the brick is planned to be in the light red clay family. 6.c Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: LPC March 21 2018 Minutes - 221 Mountain Excerpt (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 21, 2018 Ms. Dorn asked if it would be possible to keep the warm color family with some of the materials. Mr. Hosanna replied that the grays are actually warm. Mr. Hogestad asked if the rain screen is typical. Mr. Hosanna replied it will include closed joints. Chair Dunn summarized the Commission members’ comments stating they would like the frozen food building and corner to be better addressed, include additional historic patterning and shadow lines, and ensure materials are compatible. ***END EXCERPT*** 6.c Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: LPC March 21 2018 Minutes - 221 Mountain Excerpt (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) IMAGE #1 – 221 E MOUNTAIN ITEM 6, 221 EAST MOUNTAIN 3D MODELING SLIDES IMAGE #2 – 221 E MOUNTAIN ITEM 6, 221 EAST MOUNTAIN 3D MODELING SLIDES IMAGE #3 – 221 E MOUNTAIN ITEM 6, 221 EAST MOUNTAIN 3D MODELING SLIDES IMAGE #4 – 221 E MOUNTAIN ITEM 6, 221 EAST MOUNTAIN 3D MODELING SLIDES Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 16, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME P.D.P. #180003 OASIS ON OLIVE, 310 WEST OLIVE STREET FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to construct a three-story, seven-unit multi-family building between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The project is adjacent to several designated and individually eligible buildings. The development proposal will be subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. APPLICANT: Steve Slezak, Oasis Development, 231 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: This Old Howes LLC, 561 York Street, Denver, CO 80209 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a recommendation to approve the Oasis on Olive P.D.P. #180003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a review and recommendation regarding compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for the proposed project. The applicant shared the project with the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) at a work session on March 21, 2018. Based upon comments received from LPC members, as well as from Development Review staff, the applicant has revised the plans. The developer owns both 227 and 231 S Howes Street; this lot was created from their two backyards. The LPC held a conceptual review on the creation of the third lot at its September 14, 2016 Regular Meeting. ROLE OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will provide review of the project’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7. Planning staff has determined that the design of the proposed buildings and the site plan will not undergo significant further changes to meet other areas of the Land Use Code, and thus it is appropriate for the Commission to provide a recommendation to the decision maker as provided for by Sec. 3.4.7(6). If the Commission feels it lacks sufficient information to provide a recommendation, it may table the item for further review or may place agreed upon conditions on its recommendation for staff to verify in the approval process for the final development plan. AREA OF ADJACENCY: At its March 21, 2018 meeting, The Landmark Preservation Commission discussed relevant properties for its evaluation for compliance with Sec. 3.4.7, and adopted a motion identifying the following properties. Staff offers additional information on those properties for consideration in the LPC evaluation of the proposed project: 7 Packet Pg. 206 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 1. Abutting (Touching): a. 231 S. Howes Street, the Humphry-Davis House, constructed in 1898 (Landmark) b. 223 South Howes Street, the Dealy-Goode House, constructed in 1922 (Landmark) c. 227 S. Howes Street - Old Towne Wealth Advisor, constructed in 1905 d. 316 W. Olive Street - Miscio Real Estate Services, constructed in 1900 2. Adjacent (Near): e. 315 W. Oak/211 W. Canyon - The Old Town Professional Center Building, constructed in 1966 AREA OF ADJACENCY CHARACTERISTICS Type and Style: • Four c.1900 residential: a 1 story Hip Box; 1 story Queen Anne; 1½ story Craftsman Bungalow, and 2½ story Four Square • One 1966 commercial: 7 story International Style office building • Proposed building: Multi-family, 3 stories Heights (based on dimensions provided by applicant): • Historic buildings range from 19 feet 1 inch to approx. 77 feet at peak • Average height of all five historic buildings: approx. 37 feet • Average height of the four residential buildings: approx. 26 feet • Proposed building: 39’ 2” Primary Cladding Materials: • 3 of the 5 are primarily clad in unpainted brick on high stone foundations, with some painted wood details: two Fort Collins red brick, and one blonde and light brown brick, with red brick detail. Brick is of common, historic dimensions • 1 is painted stucco, with some painted wood details • 1 is stone veneer main floor, with large concrete panels and windows on the tower, with painted wood, brick and metal details • Proposed building: Roman smooth textured brick in red shades; buff colored, smooth texture cut-stone veneer; horizontal architectural metal panel, in dark bronze; and, to match the existing house at 227 Howes Street, three-coat cement stucco siding in antique green. Roof Forms: • Residential roof forms are a mix of hipped, gable, and intersecting gable; the office building is flat- roofed. • Proposed building’s roof has intersecting gables 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 7 Packet Pg. 207 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 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 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.” • This project site does not contain designated or eligible historic resources and is not within the Old Town Historic District. • There are designated and eligible historic resources within the proposed area of adjacency, noted above. • Staff finds, that to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design protects the historical and architectural value of the historic properties located adjacent to the development site, and that the new structures are compatible with the historic character of the surrounding historic properties. 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.” Heights (based on dimensions provided by applicant): • Historic buildings range from 19 feet 1 inch to approx. 77 feet at peak, with the average height of all five historic buildings measuring approx. 37 feet. • The height of the proposed building is 39 feet 2 inches. • The proposed façade is a total of 75’ wide, broken through articulation into roughly 25’ sections. Elevations are articulated into discernable sections through the use of setbacks, stepbacks, balconies, and varying materials. • The width of the 316 West Olive building is not known, but is likely about 30 feet. • The setback on Olive Street approximates the side yard setback of the 231 South Howes building and the front setback of 316 West Olive. • The project’s overall footprint is dissimilar to the individual historic buildings, but the massing strategy and use of similar materials and roof forms mitigate the negative impact on directly adjacent historic resources. • The applicant notes that the building height helps to diminish the visual impact of the 7 story Cortina Lofts on the historic residential buildings by visually stepping down from the 76-foot Cortina, to the 31-foot 231 S. Howes to the 28 feet at 227 S. Howes to the 19 feet at 316 W. Olive. • The applicant notes that these variances between buildings are no more of an impact than any other two- story building adjacent to a single-story building, and contribute to the diversity of the block without adversely affecting the integrity of the historic properties. “(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 roof forms of the historic residential buildings are mix of hipped, gable, and intersecting gable. The proposed building is primarily intersecting gables. 7 Packet Pg. 208 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 4 • Staff did not identify any specific attempt for the proposed building to align horizontal elements with those of the existing historic buildings; however, given the variety and discrepancy of the horizonal elements of the existing historic buildings, the proposed building often “splits the difference.” • The projecting, hip roof garage on Olive Street is similar in shape to the 316 West Olive building. • The overall design of the project is a modern addition to the area. Like the massing strategy, the project design relies on use of intersecting gables, traditional stucco, and red brick to create compatible transition to the historic buildings rather than horizontal lines. • Staff believes that the height of the proposed stone base does not reflect the use of stone on the historic structures, and recommends that the stone base be reduced. “(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.” • The mix of building materials of the adjacent buildings is reflected on the new. The proposed building elevation materials include brick and cut-stone veneer, architectural metal panel, and three-coat cement stucco siding to match the existing house at 227 Howes Street. • The authentic cement based stucco provides an irregular texture rather than the mono-chromatic, perfectly consistent coat of modern day synthetic stucco. • The horizontal metal panel references the horizontal wood siding found on many historic buildings. “(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.” • Visual and pedestrian connections between the proposed project and the two historic properties that the lot was previously associated with will be maintained by not building fencing between the lots. This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. • Trash and recycling containers are located within the covered parking level of the building and will be screened from view outside of this building. “(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 P.D.P. provides an approximate 22’ landscape setback from back of sidewalk to closest building façade on Olive Street, consistent with existing abutting buildings on the block face. Additionally, the parkway landscaping along Olive Street is approximately 20 feet in width between the curb and sidewalk, with turf grass and street trees consistent with the traditional neighborhood pattern. • A key feature that staff strongly supports is that no fencing is proposed between this lot and the rear lots of 227 and 231 South Howes that this lot was historically part of. This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. • Roses grown by the original owner, Adelia Davis, as well as multi- colored Iris have provided the foundation for garden beds. To the extent possible these gardens will remain and the roses will be the central feature. • The many street trees along Olive and Howes Street will remain; as needed, replacement trees will be approved according to the requirements of the City Forester. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings of fact, staff concludes that the development plan does not impact the eligibility of adjacent historic properties and its design is compatible with the existing historic character in the area of adjacency, and thus supports a recommendation for approval of Oasis on Olive P.D.P. #180003. 7 Packet Pg. 209 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 5 SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION: For a recommendation of approval: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Oasis on Olive project, P.D.P. #180003, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: • The project does not negatively impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore complies with 3.4.7 (A) Purpose, and (B) General Standard. • The project design’s overall height, setback and width is compatible with the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore, complies with 3.4.7(F)(1). The project’s massing strategy and use of similar materials and roof forms mitigate the negative impact on directly adjacent historic resources. • The project complies with 3.4.7(F)(2) through the use of gable and intersecting gable roof forms and similar roof pitches to the historic resources. Additionally, the projecting garage on Olive Street is similar in shape to the 316 West Olive building. • The project design includes primary building materials reflective of the dominant historic materials, and therefore complies with 3.4.7(F)(3). • The focal and pedestrian points between the PDP gardens and the historic lots will be maintained, and no fencing is proposed between this lot and the rear lots of 227 and 231 South Howes which this lot was historically associated with. This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association, and so complies with 3.4.7(F)(4). • The purposeful omission of fencing between the new and historic lots significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. To the extent possible the historic rose beds and gardens will remain. Replacement trees will be approved according to the requirements of the City Forester. For these reasons, the project complies with 3.4.7(F)(5). Note: The Commission may propose additional findings of fact or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. For a recommendation of denial: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the Oasis on Olive project, P.D.P. #180003, finding it does not comply with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons [state which reasons are applicable]: • The project does negatively impact the individual eligibility for designation of one or more of the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency, and therefore does not meet 3.4.7 (A) Purpose, or (B) General Standard. • The project design’s [specify: height, setback and/or width] is not compatible with the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency, as evidenced by…..., and therefore does not comply with 3.4.7(F)(1). • The project’s design does not create visual ties to historic buildings within the adjacent historic context, and therefore does not comply with 3.4.7(F)(2). • The project’s design includes primary building materials that are not reflective of the dominant historic materials, and therefore does not comply with 3.4.7(F)(3). • The project does not retain relevant focal and pedestrian points, and therefore does not comply with 3.4.7(F)(4). • Existing historic and mature landscaping will not be preserved to the maximum extent feasible, and so, the project does not comply with 3.4.7(F)(5). Note: The Commission may propose additional findings of fact or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. 7 Packet Pg. 210 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Narrative (DOC) 2. Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (PDF) 3. Howes Street Elev (PDF) 4. Olive Street Elev (PDF) 5. Oasis on Olive_3D Views (PDF) 6. Oasis on Olive_A1 of 2 (PDF) 7. Oasis on Olive_A2 of 2 (PDF) 8. Product Indentification (PDF) 9. Oasis on Olive_ELEVS (PDF) 10. Oasis on Olive -Site Plan-05-3-18 (PDF) 11. Oasis on Olive LPC Concept Rev Comments 3-21-18 (DOCX) 12. Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (PDF) 13. Staff Presentation (PDF) 14. Plan of Protection (DOC) 7 Packet Pg. 211 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net Compliance with 3.4.7 Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code states…”to the maximum extent feasible, historic sites, structures or objects are preserved…” and “new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site…” The Oasis on Olive does just that in every sense of the word. The Oasis, a small seven unit condominium property, designed by acclaimed Fort Collins architect, John Dengler, has fit a compatible property in an otherwise eclectic neighborhood actually enhancing the historic nature by downplaying those buildings that detract from that character. Dengler has artfully utilized many of the architectural features seen in adjacent historic properties without seeming to copy any particular style. By setting a single garage unit outside the parking structure, the leading face of the project exhibits the hip roof consistent with three of the adjacent historic buildings along with complementary window size and spacing, stone base and a mixture of brick or stucco wall covering materials hi-lighted with a horizontal metal panel tied in with patio rail heights. Window placement is sensitive to existing structures in symmetry and groupings without copying the surrounding historic buildings. Multiple balconies break up massing and the stone base anchors the property giving the sense of permanence and endurance. Dengler has excelled in fitting this design into the developers objective that the building wants to look as if its’ been there for decades. This desire can also be seen in the historic renovations owned by this same developer. 3.4.7 (F) is satisfied in part by the lining up of the front setback. The new buildings face is directly in line with both the 231 S. Howes and the 316 W. Olive buildings thus diminishing the impact of the larger structure. The smaller appearance of the garage with its hip roof and side loaded overhead door eliminates the possibility of any negative visual impact to the adjacent structures. Building heights, shown on the PDP submittal drawings, indicate new roof lines certainly compatible with the existing while diminishing the visual impact of the 76’ Cortina Lofts. At the request of the LPC board the height of the tower as been reduced by nearly 2 feet to 38’-4” while the ridge of the building is 39’-2”. Two of these historic properties are 2- story and the other two properties are single story, however these details seem insignificant. What makes the new building compatible is that the roof itself is much shorter than the historic properties giving the appearance of a stepping effect from the 76’ Cortina, to the 39’ ridge at 231 S. Howes to the 28’ at 227 S. Howes to the 19’ at 316 W. Olive. These variances between buildings are no more of an impact than any other two story building adjacent to a single story building. In fact they contribute to the diversity of the block without adversely affecting the integrity of the historic properties. 7.a Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Applicant Narrative (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net The architect skillfully mixes the building materials of the adjacent buildings into a seamless blend on the new while picking up the dominant elements of the old. Stone, brick and real, old fashion cement based stucco, with all its inconsistencies, gives way to the craftsman’s art that has the irregular texture rather than the mono-chromatic, perfectly consistent coat of modern day synthetic stucco. Wrought iron fences, contoured gutters and a mix of steel & stone lintels and window sills, combined with scale and proportion, are thoughtfully repeated and the workmanship is assured by the years of construction experience of the owner/developer. Two of the properties, owned by This Old Howes, LLC, have long been admired not only for the quality of the renovations but also by the landscaped gardens that surround the buildings. Recycled, City of Fort Collins sidewalk stones form expansive patios and walking paths. Award winning roses lovingly grown by Adelia Davis as well as multi- colored Iris have provided the owner a foundation for incredible gardens. To the extent possible these garden will remain and the roses will be the central feature. If possible the many street trees along Olive and Howes Street will remain and they exhibit that old town feel for which Fort Collins is known. Every aspect of the historic properties is of paramount concern to the developer. The new becomes an extension of the portfolio controlled by the developer rather than a variety of ownership groups that may have conflicting ideas for the outdoor space that is to be shared by all residents and tenants. These gardens and exteriors will be covenant controlled and maintained by an Owners Association. It is evident that the Oasis on Olive has thoughtfully considered the land use code section 3.4.7 to insure the integrity of the historic properties to use their value to enhance the entire block and that area of the downtown. 7.a Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Applicant Narrative (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 231 S. Howes Street Front (east) elevation The Humphries-Davis house was built in 1898 and renovated in 1998 by the current owner/developer, Stephen Slezak. It was designated as a historic landmark in 1998. The building is currently occupied as commercial offices by various tenants in the energy industry. In comparison, the building height at the roof peak is 31’ 7.b Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 231 S. Howes Street North elevation Rear (west) elevation South elevation 7.b Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 227 S. Howes Street Front (East) elevation Built in 1905 this building was completely renovated in 2006. Currently occupied as commercial offices by Old Towne Wealth Advisors For comparison, the height of this building from roof peak to top of curb is approximately 28’ 7.b Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 227 S. Howes South elevation Rear (west) elevation North elevation 7.b Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 316 W. Olive Street Front (south) elevation West elevation Rear (north) elevation East elevation In comparison this building is 19’ in height. 7.b Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 223 S. Howes Street Front (east) elevation This building is currently occupied as commercial offices by the Linden Company. It was renovated in 1995 and was later designated as a historic landmark. 7.b Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR Howes streetscape looking north Streetscape with Cortina in background 7.b Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 301 S. Howes St. Federal Building/ Post Office 4- stories in height 320 W. Olive Street Single story office building constructed in 1976 7.b Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 205 S. Meldrum streetscape w/ OtterBox Cortina Lofts 224 Canyon 7-story 76 foot high condominium. Located at the north end of the block. 7.b Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Area of Adjacency - Building Descriptions (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 7.c Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Howes Street Elev (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 7.d Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Olive Street Elev (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 7.e Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.e Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_3D Views (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST 7.f Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_A1 of 2 (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 7.g Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Oasis on Olive_A2 of 2 (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR PAC-CLAD Horizontal Metal Accent Panel Percision Series HMP Dark Bronze Roof Shingle Certain Teed Grand Manor Weathered Wood 7.h Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Product Indentification (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION Brick: Cloud Ceramics Color: Blended CHEROKEE & CRIMSON Style: ROMAN smooth texture BRICK STONE / Lintles & trim bands COTTONWOOD BUFF Smooth texture 3cm adhered STUCCO Three coat Portland cement Finish coat COLORTEX Sand finish Antique Green 7.h Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Product Indentification (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION 7.i Attachment: Oasis on Olive_ELEVS (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 7.j Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Oasis on Olive -Site Plan-05-3-18 (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & Oasis on Olive Development Review No disclosures or recusal Steve Slezak - applicant presentation - Windows on the tower - these are the windows on the tower as originally shown Projections - shingles used Area of Adjacency: Will not include post office; Do include the Old Town Professional Building; the three Howes Street buildings, and the Olive Street building Questions for applicant: **Noted that the application has been submitted Brad: could vote on the area of adjacency tonight Bud: move that the above five properties are accepted as area of adjacency: Bud: likes the vertical ribbon of corner windows on the tower. Window pattern on the southwest corner elevation has changed - double sets in various locations, rest are more contemporary; construction documents seem to be all fixed or casement with variations of double and single; pattern on the original rendering is more pleasing than that on the construction document. Pattern of windows need to be corrected in the renderings - the working drawings are the current proposal (except the tower) Steve: heard from LPC it was more important to reflect the adjacent historic window patterns; so now using 2.5 x 5 windows with some rare instances of smaller windows, in bathrooms; windows are operable mullion-less double-hung. LPC: Not what is shown on plans. Plans depict casement or fixed. What’s your intent? Double-hung cannot be mullion-less if they are operable. Steve: Double-hung. Bud: Windows should be drawn to show double-hung with horizontal mullion Steve: Window size on historic buildings is 2.5 x 5 Need more information on windows. Meg: zoom in on garage section to show the screen - Right Side Elevation - shows the garage is totally enclosed Per: need to know where eave and window heights are relative to the historic buildings. Steve - doesn't have that yet. Per: why is the tower at that height? Could it be lowered? Steve: the eave could go down Per: it feels taller than everything around it - can still be a tower without being higher than the ridge on the main part of the building Per: the tower feels out of proportion Katie: which is the correct tower design? Steve: the one with the corner windows - vertical ribbon window. Stone base with stucco above. Per: what kind/pattern of stone? Steve: match Cortina. LPC – not whats shown on plans. Plans need to be corrected. Steve: traditional thought process is articulation in the roofline; something needs to soften impact of Cortina building on the whole block; helps to soften it as an in between 7.k Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Oasis on Olive LPC Concept Rev Comments 3-21-18 (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR Meg: agrees it gives a transition to Cortina, but historic buildings don't have a lot of articulation; houses don't have complex rooflines Kevin: is roofline of stairway affecting buildings in front of it? Per: hard to tell without having an elevation that shows the relationship of the buildings to historic buildings; tower feels like a freestanding tower so it should be carefully considered in relationship to historic buildings Bud; and it doesn't need the added height because it IS freestanding; perceived as taller because it is freestanding Steve: 40 feet Per: Also tower feels out of proportion to rest of proposed building Per: overhead views - is the siding of the tower no longer on the project? Steve: shingles for the bump outs - used in the garage - trying to bring it back Per: the building needs something to give it some scale - a blank wall of stucco doesn't do that. Stone, siding, other materials can do that. Need horizontal alignment Per: Need heights of eaves and other details relative to the historic buildings; Per: Need Tower height relative to the historic buildings. SUMMARY: LPC needs 1.) a better sense of proportion of the tower to the historic buildings 2.) comparison of eave heights and alignments with historic buildings 3.) info on the windows 4.) clear up uncertainty of materials and whether you plan to use shingles and where; what is the stone? Is it ashlar, or something else? 5.) materials should give a sense of scale 6.) Drawings needs to be specific. Meg: we are generally in favor but we need more information before we can give any recommendation Steve - the tower sits way back – providing an elevation showing the historic buildings next to it will be false information (Meg explained that other renderings provide that more accurate building relationship) 7.k Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Oasis on Olive LPC Concept Rev Comments 3-21-18 (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview April 13, 2018 Oasis Development 231 S Howes St Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Oasis on Olive, PDP180003, Round Number 1 Comment Summary: Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Katie Andrews, 970-221-6501, kandrews@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/09/2018: Please clarify what’s happening with the two drive approaches – does 2’ curb typical existing mean vertical or rollover? The driveways should be brought up to current LCUASS standards and designed and reconstructed in accordance with detail 706.1 (or 707.1 if the traffic warrants a high-volume drive). Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: The minimum width for a private drive approach is 24 feet – a variance would be required to allow for the reduced width. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: If you do not wish to dedicate the standard utility easements, please provide a variance request in accordance with 1.9.4 of the LCUASS. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: The diagonal chase is not a standard design nor is it ideal for this area from the City’s perspective. We’d like to work with you on the chase design in this area, there are some locations around the City where the drain directly abuts the drive approach – a good example is 619 S College Ave. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: It appears that a portion of the fence is being left in the ROW frontage – an encroachment permit would need to be approved in order for this to remain. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: I did not notice signage for the entrance only/exit only – this is a critical part of the access/drive design, please include a proposal for this with the next submittal. It might be beneficial to include this information in the variance request for the reduced-width driveway as well. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Pete Wray, at 970-221-6754 or pwray@fcgov.com. Page 1 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04/11/2018: Covered chase drains have been approved in the past in the City. Please include a design for review with your next submittal or provide an exhibit directly to me for a quick review prior to the next submittal. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018 Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/09/2018: LANDSCAPE PLAN: At the time of Final Plan, please provide detailed species, quantities and planting locations for all shrubs, perennials and grasses, including species for the turf areas and rain gardens. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: Thank you for selecting 3000K, full cutoff light fixtures for this project. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: Environmental Planning is ready for hearing. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 Department: Forestry Contact: Molly Roche, , mroche@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans 04/10/2018: There appears to be existing trees on-site. Please schedule an on-site meeting with City Forestry to obtain tree inventory and mitigation information. All existing trees should be retained and protected to the extent reasonably feasible. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Will the new driveway installation require any grading? Please note that the Ash tree adjacent to the proposed driveway is planned to receive treatment for Emerald Ash Borer by City Forestry. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 4/9/2018: Three of the Ash trees shown on landscape plans will not be treated for Emerald Ash Borer by City Forestry. This means that they will be removed within the next couple years. City Forestry would like to discuss a few planting management options with the developer: 1) Developer remove and replace (3) Ash trees within the right-of-way at time of project approval. Replace Ash trees with approved species from the City of Fort Collins Street Tree list. 2) City Forestry remove and replace (3) Ash trees within the right-of-way. Replacement trees to be included in the Ash Replacement Program – paid for and planted by City Forestry. 3) Consider ‘shadow-planting’ between existing Ash trees. This will allow new trees to start establishing before the Ash are removed. I am throwing out these options so that landscape updates coincide with site improvements. It will benefit the development to establish new trees now instead of later. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Page 2 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04/10/2018: Please include any proposed landscaping, including trees, on the landscape plan and provide a plant legend to detail quantity, species, size, method of transplant, and species diversity (see LUC 3.2.1). Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: There appears to be areas of the site that could benefit from additional trees (east side of parcel). Please consider ornamentals, upright species, or smaller evergreen plants to this area and others where feasible. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Department: Historic Preservation Contact: Karen McWilliams, 970-224-6078, kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/06/2018: The project is subject to land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources. 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. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: At its March work session the LPC identified the Area of Adjacency for the historic review of this project. Designated Fort Collins Landmarks within this area are 231 S. Howes Street, the Humphry-Davis House, and 223 South Howes Street, the Dealy-Goode House. Properties with a non-binding determination of individual eligibility are 227 S. Howes Street, 316 West Olive Street, and the Old Town professional Center Building at 315 West Oak/211 W. Canyon Avenue. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: The project was discussed at a Conceptual Review by the LPC on March 21, 2018, and is scheduled to return to the LPC on May 16, 2018. Upon completion of its review, the LPC will provide a recommendation on the project to the P&Z. At this meeting, the LPC requested additional information to be provided by the applicant, which staff has made the applicant aware of. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: The applicant has indicated that the design will change from that shown on the submittal and presented to the LPC. Historic Preservation staff will provide comments on the design compliance with applicable standards when the revised plans are submitted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 Department: Light And Power Contact: Clint Reetz, 970-221-6326, creetz@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/06/2018: Currently single phase power is serving the existing property. Any upgrades or changes to the existing electric infrastructure will incur system modification charges. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: Developer will be responsible for supplying and installing electric service from the transformer to the multi-family units. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 Page 3 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04/06/2018: Transformer locations will need to be coordinated with Light & Power. Transformers must be placed within 10 ft of a drivable surface for installation and maintenance purposes. The transformer must also have a front clearance of 10 ft and side/rear clearance of 3 ft minimum. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: Meter locations for multi-family attached units will need to be coordinated with Light and Power Engineering. Each unit will need its own meter, it is recommended that the meters be located in one common area. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any questions call me directly at 970-221-6326. Please reference our policies, development charge processes, and use our fee estimator at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/13/2018: Per a discussion had at PDP where the possibility of an existing transformer on the site may need to be moved, after a site visit it looks like no conflict exists. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/13/2018 Department: PFA Contact: Andrew Rosen, , arosen@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 4 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04-11-2018 UPDATE The project owner requested clarification on whether an NFPA 13 or 13R sprinkler system would be required. From the provided documentation, this appears to be a multi-family project which will require a full NFPA 13 system. If it can be shown that these are individually owned homes with a lot line between each, then a 13R may be allowed if there is a 2hr vertical and horizontal separation between units. Please contact the Fort Collins building department for further information. 04-10-2018 UPDATE The project team stated that the building was at grade level and that the 29ft 10in height was taken from true ground level. 04/05/2018: AUTOMATED FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM This building will require an approved NFPA 13 automated fire sprinkler system. This typically requires a 6" supply line and the plan shall be provided to PFA for approval under separate permit. Please contact PFA at 970-416-2891 with any fire sprinkler questions. Code language follows: GROUP S-2 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS > IFC 903.2.10: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings classified as enclosed parking garages (Group S-2 occupancy) in accordance with IBC 406.6 OR where located beneath other groups. BALCONIES AND DECKS > IFC 903.3.1.2.1: Sprinkler protection shall be provided for exterior balconies, decks, and ground floor patios of dwelling units where the building is of Type V construction. FDC The FDC should be located where it is easily visible and accessed from Olive street. This location will require PFA approval. Code language follows: >IFC 912.2: Fire department connections shall be located on the street side of the building, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access. The location of the FDC shall be approved by PFA. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018 04/05/2018: ADDRESSING/WAYFINDING To assist with prompt emergency response, an overall addressing and wayfinding plan will be required that involves the whole building, the two towers and the single unit. The street address and number should be clearly visible from Olive street. Signage shall be affixed to the elevation facing Olive to indicate the appropriate accessway to each unit. KNOX BOXES If garage doors, security gates or access doors into the towers are required to be opened to gain entrance into the garages or towers, then each one will be designed with an approved Knox Key Switch or other approved access mechanism. The overall access plan should be submitted to PFA for approval. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018 Page 5 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04/05/2018: PUBLIC-SAFETY RADIO AMPLIFICATION SYSTEM TEST > IFC 510 & 1103.2: New & existing buildings require a fire department, emergency communication system evaluation after the core/shell but prior to final build out. For the purposes of this section, fire walls shall not be used to define separate buildings. Where adequate radio coverage cannot be established within a building, public-safety radio amplification systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with criteria established by the Poudre Fire Authority. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018 04/05/2018: ACCESS >Access is required to within 150ft of all exterior portions of the building. On the provided site plan dated 3-14-2018, this criteria has been met by measuring from Olive St and Canyon Ave. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018 04/05/2018: HYDRANT A hydrant is required within 300ft of the building. This criteria appears to be met by the hydrant on Olive St. However it is the project team's responsibility to verify volume and pressure. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/05/2018 Department: Planning Services Contact: Pete Wray, 970-221-6754, pwray@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations 04/10/2018: Add color to elevations or on separate sheet with material color legend to match call outs. If these exist by Architect, then use if they match elevations. Are there any roof chimney or FP vents used in units? Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Refer to Historic Preservation staff and LPC comments for building design compatibility requirements. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Topic: General 04/10/2018: Utility Plans. Label all sheet title blocks and on plans correct address of 310 W Olive, not 312 typ. all sheets. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Utility Plan shows new site wall Sheet 3 in front of garage on Olive Street. Need to show on all other plans including detail of this design. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: PDP R2 Review. If staff determines this PDP is ready for P & Z Board hearing in May during the staff review meeting on April 11, I will need a revised plan set (same as LPC plan set) submitted by May 2 for packet. Prior this this date, please confirm with Katie Andrews Engineering comments are addressed in revised plan set, including any variances as identified in her comments. If they are not addressed and she determines this project is not ready for hearing, it will be deferred to June meeting with the Board. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Page 6 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR Topic: Landscape Plans 04/10/2018: See site plan redline notes for ex. tree on Olive, and ex. metal fence. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Please add foundation planting on garage wall facing Olive Street, see redline. Add some additional taller planting in foundation strip at base of stair tower to soften tall wall. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Sheet LS-2. Add planting legend, and details of all landscape materials such as cobble mulch, LID rain garden planters, fencing, other? Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Topic: Site Plan 04/10/2018: Fencing: Label existing metal fence column if maintaining this with removal of remainder of fence. Add labels for new 6' cedar fence in all locations. New site wall shown on Utility Plan Sheet 3 in front of garage on Olive St. needs to be shown on all plans. Need detail of this design. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Site Plan Legend: Add parking calculation for existing standard (Required spaces), then compare to TOD Overlay calculations. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Exist. Ash tree on Olive label either retaining or removal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Jesse Schlam, 970-218-2932, jschlam@fcgov.com Topic: Erosion Control 03/30/2018: The site disturbs more than 10,000 sq. ft. and therefore Erosion and Sediment Control Materials need to be submitted. (the lot is ~9700 SF but the off lot work with curb gutters and utilities installations put this project about ~11,000 SF) The erosion control requirements can be located in the Stormwater Design Criteria under the Amendments of Volume 3 Chapter 7 Section 1.3.3. a copy of the erosion control requirements can be found at www.fcgov.com/eroison. The Erosion Control Materials will need to be submitted at time of the first round of FDP. If you need clarification concerning the Erosion Control Material Requirements or Comments presented above please contact myself. Jesse Schlam (970) 224-6015 jschlam@fcgov.com Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 03/30/2018 Contact: Mark Taylor, 970-416-2494, mtaylor@fcgov.com Topic: Drainage Report 04/09/2018: Please describe portions of the site as being in the City's Old Town Basin and indicate the presence of the City-regulated 100-year floodplain, as well as the FEMA Map Panel number and the date of the City's Master Plan. Also, include a copy of the FEMA Map Panel with the site location noted in red. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 Page 7 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04/09/2018: The second half of the paragraph CITY FLOODPLAIN/FLOODWAY should be changed. The building is not in the floodplain, so there is no need for an RFPE, a minimum elevation of the building, for venting to be provided, or any sort of hold on the certificate of occupancy. Any grading in the floodway, utility cuts, or driveway changes will need a floodplain use permit and a no-rise certification. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 Topic: Floodplain 04/09/2018: On Sheets 4 and 5 of the Utility Plans, please add a note that any utility work in the floodway must be preceded by a floodplain use permit and no-rise certification. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: On Sheets 4 and 5 of the Utility Plans, please add a note stating that storage of equipment and materials is not allowed within the floodway. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: On Sheet 5 of the Utility Plans, an RFPE is listed with XS #3164. Since the building is not in the floodplain, this elevation is not relevant and does not need to be included. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 Topic: Site Plan 04/09/2018: Please show and label the current effective City-regulated 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/10/2018: The LID concept meets City Criteria. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations 04/06/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: There is text that needs to be masked. Mask all text in hatched areas. See redlines. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 Topic: Construction Drawings 04/06/2018: Please add the Lot, Block, and Subdivision of this project to the sub-title on sheet 1. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: Please revise the Benchmark Statement as marked. See redlines. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 04/06/2018: Some of the sheet titles in the sheet index do not match the sheet titles on the noted sheets. See redlines. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 Page 8 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04/06/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 Topic: Landscape Plans 04/06/2018: There are line over text issues. See redlines. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/06/2018 Department: Traffic Operation Contact: Tim Tuttle, , TTUTTLE@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/09/2018: The distance from the new diagonal parking on Canyon to the driveway should be 5 ft. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: Please show the location of any new or relocated signs. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: Signing and striping redlines will be provided at the Staff Review meeting. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 Department: Water Conservation Contact: Eric Olson, 970-221-6704, eolson@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/10/2018: A landscape plan shall contain accurate and identifiable hydrozones, including a water budget chart that shows the total annual water use, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) gallons per square foot over the site. If you have questions contact Eric Olson at eolson@fcgov.com or 970-221-6704. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Irrigation plans are required no later than at the time of building permit. The irrigation plans must comply with the provisions outlined in Section 3.2.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Direct questions concerning irrigation requirements to Eric Olson, at 221-6704 or eolson@fcgov.com Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General 04/10/2018: The water service does not meet City distance requirements form other improvements and will need to be relocated. Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 04/10/2018: Please draw the water meter pit per scale. A 2-inch meter pit requires a 4-foot manhole. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/10/2018 Department: Zoning Contact: Missy Nelson, , mnelson@fcgov.com Topic: General Page 9 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 04/09/2018: The correct address is 310 W. Olive St (I confirmed this with our GIS department). Please correct on all documents for next round's submittal. GIS contact: Email: gis@fcgov.com Phone: 970.416.2483 Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: What is your exiting plan for garage bay/parking space number 8? Is there an interior pedestrian access? Also, for the car to then exit, will they have to open the other garage to go through and exit? I have a feeling they won't do so and will just exit through the entrance. Pedestrian access to and from parking garage? Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view from both above and below by integrating it into building and roof design to the maximum extent feasible. Where will the mechanical equipment be located? In addition, conduit, meters, vents and other equipment attached to the building or protruding from the roof shall be painted to match surrounding building surfaces. Please make sure there's a note on the site plan. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: Please add drive aisle dimensions. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/09/2018: A full landscape plan will need to be submitted at Final. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 04/09/2018 04/11/2018: LUC 3.2.2The 1 handicap parking space shall be designated as van-accessible and must be a minimum of 8 feet wide and adjoin a minimum 8 foot wide access aisle. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 04/11/2018 Page 10 of 10 7.l Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Oasis on Olive PDP R1 - Final Staff Comments (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR 1 Oasis on Olive – Final Development Review Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager Landmark Preservation Commission, May 16, 2018 Project Summary • 3-story multi family residential project with 7 units • Located behind 227 S. Howes and 231 S. Howes Street • New lot created from rear portions of these lots • Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) 2 7.m Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission • Provide a recommendation to the Decision Maker regarding the proposed project’s compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, which requires new construction to respect the historic character of surrounding historic properties on or adjacent to the development site. 3 4 7.m Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 5 231 S. Howes • Landmark • 4-Square •2 ½ Stories • Stucco • Raised foundation 6 223 S. Howes • Landmark • Craftsman bungalow •1 ½ Stories • Blonde brick • Raised foundation 7.m Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 7 227 S. Howes • Queen Anne •1 Story • Red brick • Raised foundation 8 316 W. Olive • Hip Box •1 Story • Red brick • Raised foundation 7.m Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 9 315 W. Oak/ 211 Canyon • International • 7 Stories • 32,000 sq. ft. • Concrete panels/ glass/stone Staff’s Findings Staff recommends approval: 3.4.7 (A) Purpose, and (B) General Standard: • The project does not negatively impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency 10 7.m Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION Staff’s Findings 3.4.7 (F)(1): Height, setback and width: • The project design’s overall height, setback and width is compatible with the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency. • The project’s massing strategy and use of similar materials and roof forms mitigate the negative impact on directly adjacent historic resources. 11 Staff’s Findings 3.4.7 (F)(2): Character – Horizontal elements, window pattern, primary entrance: • Use of gable and intersecting gable roof forms and similar roof pitches • The projecting garage is similar in shape to the 316 West Olive building. 12 7.m Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION Staff’s Findings 3.4.7 (F)(3): Building materials: • The project design includes primary building materials reflective of the dominant historic materials: red brick, buff stone, stucco, horizontal metal panels. 13 Staff’s Findings 3.4.7 (F)(4): Visual and pedestrian connections: • Visual and pedestrian connections maintained by not building fencing between the new and historic lots. • This significantly helps to retain and promote the historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. 14 7.m Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION Staff’s Findings 3.4.7 (F)(3): Landscaping: • No fencing is proposed between this lot and the rear lots of 227 and 231 South Howes: promotes historic buildings’ setting and association with the historic rose gardens. • To the extent possible rose gardens will remain. • Street trees will remain; replacement trees according to the requirements of the City Forester. 15 7.m Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net Plan of Protection for Historic Properties Project Title: Oasis on Olive Full Property Address: 312 W. Olive Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Form Prepared by: Stephen Slezak/ developer Please complete the following as applicable. Please answer each question thoroughly, and add additional pages if needed: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Legal Description: 312 W. Olive Street Lot 3 Olive Street Apartments SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 7 N, RANGE 69 W OF THE SIXTH P.M. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 1.2 General description of work: Project is owned & developed by Stephen Slezak dba Oasis Development, LLC. This will be the new construction of a 3- story condominium building with ground floor ‘tuck-under’ parking. There are 7 condominiums that will be FOR SALE & will be controlled by a Homeowners Association. Construction by Amshel Corporation, 231 S. Howes Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 1.3 Eligible historic structures are at 223 & 231 S. Howes Street. Eligible structures include 227 S. Howes & 316 W. Olive. 1.4 The building at 316 W. Olive is immediately to the west of the new construction and will be separated by a total of 15 feet. The new building will sit the required 5 feet east of property while the 316 building sits 10 feet west of property line. The buildings at 227 & 231 S. Howes are considerable distance from the new construction with the 227 building a full 21’ from the closest construction element & the 231 building 25’ from the closest element. Foundation over dig is generally 3-5 feet from the outside edge of the concrete wall so there will remain between 10 feet & 22 feet respectively from any open excavations. These locations are detailed on the building SITE PLAN & enclosed in this submittal package. 1.5 223 S. Howes is a designated historic landmark. Construction date is unknown 227 S. Howes is eligible for designation & was built in 1905 231 S. Howes is a designated historic landmark & was built in 1898 316 W. Olive is eligible for designation. Date of construction is unknown. 7.n Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net 2.0 Scope of Work Describe the work, and how it will affect any historic building(s) (both on the subject property and on adjacent properties, if applicable). Provide descriptions on each of the following, as applicable: 2.1 Demolition: N/A 2.2 Site preparation: Erosion controls will be installed on the subject property & streets ONLY. A temporary fence will be erected around the perimeter with weighted stands. 2.3 Excavation: A 30” deep trench will provide for the foundation wall except at the ground floor unit #1. That 850 s.f. area will have a basement where sufficient excavation will be required with anticipated haul of excess material. Access will be on to Olive at an existing drive approach. There is no anticipation of shoring on underpinning. 2.4 Utilities: Water & Sewer excavations will be between two existing street trees out to Olive Street sufficiently away from existing structures. Electrical has been installed from the ground vault to the SW corner of the building so will not require additional excavation near the 316 building. Gas will come from Olive directly north 60’ east of the 316 building. 2.5 New foundation: The new foundation will be grade beam spanning drilled piers. Foundation at the basement will be spread footings with concrete walls. The drilled piers will cause less impact adjacent to the 316 W. Olive building while the top of pier will be mitigated to 30” meaning a more shallow excavation. 2.6 New construction: Exterior walls of the parking area will be concrete block with brick veneer. Scaffolding will be set on the west exterior but access will be limited to within property line without encroachment onto the 316 W. Olive property. Building line of that property is 10 feet from property so masonry construction will be 15 feet from existing building. Structure above the garage level will be steel beams with concrete toping. All work will be from the garage side or from the street. Cranes will not swing over the 316 building, rather only over the new construction. Permits will be secured for street closures if necessary. No work will be allowed over others existing structures. 2nd & 3rd floor exterior walls will be either brick or stucco & again will be performed within ‘enclosed” scaffolding on subject property. No access from adjacent property will be allowed. 2.7 Parking lot: Parking area is poured concrete on the enclosed area only. 2.8 Driveways/alleyways: Existing curb approaches on Olive & Canyon will be removed & replaced according to city engineer specifications. Work must be performed by licensed ‘right of way’ contractors who are bonded & insured. 2.9 Landscaping: Most of the existing landscaping will be preserved with new ‘rain gardens’ constructed according to civil engineers design in compliance with City of Fort Collins storm drainage requirements. 2.10 Drainage: Low Impact Development Site drainage will be incorporated using ‘rain gardens from roof downspouts & underground piping. 7.n Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities 3.1 General Contractor: Amshel Corporation Stephen Slezak 970-484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net 231 S. Howes, adjacent to the proposed construction site. Superintendent: Wayne Hupp 970-545-0687 3.2 Wayne will be on site daily while work is occurring. 3.3 If not, how may they be contacted if needed when that work is underway? n/a 3.4 What specific coordination practices will be used to coordinate work activities? Wayne has been in the business for almost 50 years. Wayne will coordinate subcontract activities & schedule, maintain safety practices & tool box meetings weekly. Amshel has written Safety Manual & requires all trades to follow industry safety practices. 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials 4.1 Which historic materials will be deconstructed and salvaged? n/a 4.2 Which historic materials will not be salvaged, and how will they be disposed of? n/a 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property How will you ensure that historic buildings, structures, and surface features will not be damaged during work? What means will be used to protect them? 5.1 Site Conservation The building was designed to take advantage of the Landscaping element that existed. The new building footprint is essentially where the old garages were with much of the existing landscaping meant to provide the project with the amenity of the “outdoor space”. While care will be used in the protection of existing landscape elements, much of the site requires modification for storm drainage requirements. Existing Ash street trees will be fenced with signage that those areas are Tree Protection Zones. 5.2 Demolition of Building n/a 5.3 Foundation Stability adjacent building is of sufficient distance & separated by the construction fence that no additional protections are anticipated. 5.4 Structural New construction is independent from other structures. No overhead material movement (crane) will be allowed. 5.5 New Construction: The building is entirely independent of any existing buildings whether designated historic or not. State & City laws & codes regulated the protection & exposure mitigation for all construction projects & are monitored by building officials 7.n Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net & inspectors, bank inspectors, insurance inspectors & of course by the decades of construction experience of the general contractor & the field supervision. Many layers of insurance serve to protect to the greatest extent any damage that may occur. Nothing is 100% certain but the safeguards that are delineated in code & law serve to protect the best anyone can expect. 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials n/a 5.7 New Openings n/a 5.8 Floor Framing n/a 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing n/a 5.10 Structural Loads n/a 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning n/a 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure None 5.13 Site Cleanup: Tracking pads are required to knock mud & debris from equipment tires prior to entering roadway. Street will be cleaned according to City requirements. Trash & recycles will be confined to designated dumpsters located is specified areas. Concrete washout will be controlled by City standards. 6.0 Documentation for Record 6.1 Does the project include measured drawings and/or photographs? Yes. Project will be constructed from plans that are stamped by State Certified engineers and architects. City of Fort Collins requires licensed trades including right-of way, framing & structural steel, mechanical & electrical. Time lapse photography is not anticipated on a project of this size. 6.2 Where will these be stored? Hard copies & digital copies will be maintained with the City Building Department as well as with the developer/ property owner. 7.0 Archeology How will you address archeological resources if they are likely to be present or if you should unexpectedly find them? (e.g., contact the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery; have an archeologist on site to monitor the work; have an archeologist on call.) None expected. Garage demolition was completed with no discoveries & no evidence of artifacts within the soil borings. 7.n Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6778 : OASIS ON OLIVE - FINAL DESIGN REVIEW & REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION SHRUB BED AREAS TO RECEIVE MINIMUM 2"- 4" COBBLE OVER WEED BARRIER FABRIC SMOOTH RIVER COBBLE TURF AREA STEEL EDGER SHRUB BED AREAS 227 SOUTH HOWES STREET SCALE 1" = 10'-0" 0 10' 15' 20' NORTH Legal Description: HANDICAP PARKING STALL PROPERTY LINE Site Legend: Landscape Plan LOT 3, OLIVE STREET APARTMENTS LS-1 BIKE RACKS Of: Sheet Number: PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL March 14, 2018 DATE PREPARED FOR 312 West Olive Street Fort Collins CO 80521 Oasis on Olive This Old Howes LLC 561 York Street Denver CO 80209 OWNER: 231 SOUTH HOWES STREET WEST OLIVE STREET NEW DRIVEWAY EXISTING SIDEWALK STAIR TOWER RAIN GARDEN OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR ENTRANCE ONLY EXIT ONLY 312 WEST OLIVE STREET OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR COVERED OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP GROUND COVER & SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3 COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.) 3" MIN. 2" AWAY FROM FOLIAGE EXISTING SOIL FOR SHRUBS THAN DIA. OF TO BE 6" LARGER PLANTING HOLE ROOTBALL FOR DIA. OF ROOTBALL 12" LARGER THAN GROUNDCOVER. KEEP MULCH LAYER TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE CEDAR MULCH RING TO BE TWICE DIAMETER OF ROOT BALL - 2" DEPTH MULCH - SEE NOTES - 5" DEPTH MAXIMUM TRUNK TREE 2" MULCH 12" MIN. SECTION 12" MIN., TYP. NOTE: CEDAR MULCH TREE RING SHALL BE 36" DIA. BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3 COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE TIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIRE ENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRS AND WHITE PVC PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FOR VISUAL AND SAFETY THAN FINISH GRADE TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER EXISTING SOIL SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.) DRIVE TWO (2) T-POST STAKES PER TREE. REMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP PLAN THAN DIA. OF 24" GREATER ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE T-POST TREE TRUNK WIRE, TYP. ITEM #7, Oasis on Oak Exhibit 1, Entrance Option #1 ITEM #7, Oasis on Oak Exhibit 1, Entrance Option #2 ITEM #7, Oasis on Oak Exhibit 1, Entrance Option #3 ITEM 7, EXHIBIT 2 MATERIAL SAMPLES ITEM 7, EXHIBIT 2 MATERIAL SAMPLES Brick Color Samples Brick Size Sample ITEM 7, EXHIBIT 2 MATERIAL SAMPLES ITEM 7, EXHIBIT 2 MATERIAL SAMPLES NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE AND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACK 5' MIN. GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP. NOTE: WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION. THAN FINISH GRADE TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER DRIVE THREE (3) T-POSTS PER TREE FOR TREES OVER 6' IN HEIGHT. DRIVE TWO (2) T-POSTS FOR TREES 6' IN HEIGHT OR LESS. SPACE ANCHORS EQUALLY AROUND TRUNK. AVOID DAMAGE TO BRANCHES. EXISTING SOIL SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLET (TYP.) BACKFILL W/ 2/3 NATIVE SOIL & 1/3 COMPOST. THOROUGHLY WATER SETTLE REMOVE WIRE CAGE AND/OR TWINE. OPEN BURLAP AROUND TRUNK. CUT & REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP 18" MIN., TYP. SECTION 12" MIN. ROOTBALL THAN DIA. OF 24" GREATER FINISH GRADE PLAN TREE TRUNK T-POST GROMMETED NYLON STRAP, TYP. WIRE, TYP. NOTE: THE WIRE BETWEEN THE STAKE AND THE TREE MUST HAVE SLACK TOP OF ROOT CROWN TO BE 1" HIGHER THAN FINISH GRADE NOTE: WIRE BASKETS AND TWINE SHALL BE COMPLETELY REMOVED PRIOR TO TREE INSTALLATION. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOTE: CEDAR MULCH TREE RING SHALL BE 36" DIA. 2" MULCH ROOTBALL DEPTH ROOTBALL DEPTH ROOTBALL DEPTH TIE GROMMETED NYLON STRAPS TO STAKE WITH WIRE. WIRE ENDS SHALL BE BENT BACK TO ELIMINATE BURRS AND WHITE PVC PIPE ALONG ENTIRE LENGTH OF WIRE FOR VISUAL AND SAFETY Landscape Notes & Details Of: Sheet Number: PROJECT TITLE REVISIONS ISSUE DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET INFORMATION DATE SEAL March 14, 2018 DATE PREPARED FOR 312 West Olive Street Fort Collins CO 80521 Oasis on Olive This Old Howes LLC 561 York Street Denver CO 80209 OWNER: 1. PLANT QUALITY: ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE A-GRADE OR NO. 1 GRADE - FREE OF ANY DEFECTS, OF NORMAL HEALTH, HEIGHT, LEAF DENSITY AND SPREAD APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIES AS DEFINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN (AAN) STANDARDS. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALL AND BURLAP OR EQUIVALENT. 2. IRRIGATION: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE INCLUDING TURF, SHRUB BEDS AND TREE AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES, INCLUDING IN NATIVE SEED AREAS, SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC DRIP (TRICKLE) IRRIGATION SYSTEM, OR WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE CITY WITH THE IRRIGATION PLANS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE WATER REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLANT MATERIAL. 3. TOPSOIL: TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 4. SOIL AMENDMENTS: SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND DOCUMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE SECTION 12-132. THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT(8) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX(6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPE AREA. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY THAT ALL PLANTED AREAS, OR AREAS TO BE PLANTED, HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY LOOSENED AND THE SOIL AMENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-132. 5. INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE: ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SOUND HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE QUICK ESTABLISHMENT AND HEALTHY GROWTH. ALL LANDSCAPING FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE EITHER INSTALLED OR THE INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND, OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE MATERIALS AND LABOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING IN SUCH PHASE. 6. MAINTENANCE: TREES AND VEGETATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH THESE FINAL PLANS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE SAME MANNER AS PARKING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND OTHER SITE DETAILS. THE APPLICANT, LANDOWNER OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING ELEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WEEDS AND LITTER, AND ALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES SUCH AS FENCES AND WALLS SHALL BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED PERIODICALLY TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURALLY SOUND CONDITION. 7. REPLACEMENT: ANY LANDSCAPE ELEMENT THAT DIES, OR IS OTHERWISE REMOVED, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE PLANS. 8. THE FOLLOWING SEPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN TREES/SHRUBS AND UTILITIES: 40 FEET BETWEEN CANOPY TREES AND STREET LIGHTS 15 FEET BETWEEN ORNAMENTAL TREES AND STREETLIGHTS 10 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER MAIN LINES 6 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND PUBLIC WATER, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER SERVICE LINES. 4 FEET BETWEEN SHRUBS AND PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER LINES 4 FEET BETWEEN TREES AND GAS LINES 9. ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE PLACED A MINIMUM EIGHT (8) FEET AWAY FROM THE EDGES OF DRIVEWAYS AND ALLEYS PER LUC 3.2.1(D)(2)(a). 10. PLACEMENT OF ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGHT DISTANCE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. NO STRUCTURES OR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS GREATER THAN 24" SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DECIDUOUS TREES PROVIDED THAT THE LOWEST BRANCH IS AT LEAST 6' FROM GRADE. ANY FENCES WITHIN THE SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OR EASEMENT MUST BE NOT MORE THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AND OF AN OPEN DESIGN. 11. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ALL OTHER FINAL PLAN ELEMENTS SO THAT THE PROPOSED GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH NOR PRECLUDE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ON THIS PLAN. 12. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION -AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS OR PLANT AVAILABILITY. OVERALL QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND DESIGN CONCEPT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH THE QUANTITIES INCLUDED IN THE PLANT LIST, SPECIES AND QUANTITIES ILLUSTRATED SHALL BE PROVIDED. ALL CHANGES OF PLANT SPECIES AND LOCATION MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 13. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF THREE INCHES. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. General Landscape Notes 1. A PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FORESTER BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CODE SUBJECT TO CITATION (SECTION 27-31) AND MAY ALSO RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 2. CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL MUST BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. 3. STREET LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING STREET TREES, SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL CITY CODES AND POLICIES. ALL TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORKS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CITY OF FORT COLLINS LICENSED ARBORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE.STREET TREES SHALL BE SUPPLIED AND PLANTED BY THE DEVELOPER USING A QUALIFIED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REPLACE DEAD OR DYING STREET TREES AFTER PLANTING UNTIL FINAL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY DIVISION. ALL STREET TREES IN THE PROJECT MUST BE ESTABLISHED, WITH AN APPROVED SPECIES AND OF ACCEPTABLE CONDITION PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. 5. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER -STREET TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, UTILITY SEPARATIONS BETWEEN TREES, STREET SIGNS AND STREET LIGHTS. STREET TREES TO BE CENTERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON PLAN MUST BE INSTALLED UNLESS A REDUCTION IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO MEET SEPARATION STANDARDS. Street Tree Notes 1. ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITHIN ANY NATURAL AREA BUFFER ZONES SHALL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNLESS NOTED ON THESE PLANS FOR REMOVAL. 2. WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. 3. ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A BUSINESS THAT HOLDS A CURRENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS ARBORIST LICENSE WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE. 4. PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (½) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 5. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. 6. NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. 7. LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET APART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. 8. THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART BELOW: TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (INCHES) AUGER DISTANCE FROM FACE OF TREE (FEET) 0-2 1 3-4 2 5-9 5 10-14 10 15-19 12 OVER 19 15 9. ALL TREE REMOVAL SHOWN SHALL BE COMPLETED OUTSIDE OF THE SONGBIRD NESTING SEASON (FEB 1 - JULY 31) OR CONDUCT A SURVEY OF TREES ENSURING NO ACTIVE NESTS IN THE AREA. Tree Protection Notes LS-2 2 ITEM 7, OASIS ON OLIVE LANDSCAPE DETAILS CONCRETE PARKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RESIDENTIAL UNIT #1 COVERED BIKE PARKING -8 SPACES RECYCLE BINS DUMPSTER FENCED YARD EXISTING PATIO PRIVATE DRIVE 6' CEDAR SCREEN FENCE 316 WEST OLIVE STREET 324 CANYON AVENUE FIXED BIKE PARKING 4 SPACES EXISTING RAMP RAINGARDEN/PLANTER WITH VINES THAT WILL GROW ON METAL SCREENS 6.7' 10.2' 13.8' NEW 4' SIDEWALK 6.6' PROPERTY LINE CANYON AVENUE 2 Landscape Legend: 6' CEDAR SCREEN FENCE SHRUB BED TO BE PLANTED WITH HISTORIC ROSES & NEW PLANTINGS SHRUB BED TO BE PLANTED WITH HISTORIC ROSES & NEW PLANTINGS STONE PATH TURF TURF TURF GROUND COVER TYPICAL GRAVEL MULCH TYPICAL TURF EXISTING PLANTINGS TYPICAL RAINGARDEN/PLANTER WITH VINES THAT WILL GROW ON METAL SCREENS GRAVEL MULCH TYPICAL ITEM 7, OASIS ON OLIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL 5(48,5('6(3(5$7,212)(;,76 6(3(5$7,21#(;,76 5(48,5(' 5(6,' (/(9 (/(9 /($6(63$&( 64)7 &200(5&,$/ /2%%< 0(16 5(6750 :20(16 5(6750 -$1 &+$6( '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 64)7*5266 $3352; (;7(5,25 '(&. (/(& 50 0(&+$1,&$/&+$6( )520)8785(.,7&+(1 %(/2: (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( /($6(63$&( 64)7 ( ) /($6(63$&( 64)7 * 6(&21')/2253/$1 $ % & ' ( ) * $ 1 6.b Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL 5,6( '1 5,6( 83 5,6( 127((/(&75,&$/75$16)250(5 72%(/2&$7(',168%0(56('9$8/7 /2&$7,21$1'6,=(72%('(7(50,1(' ($6702817$,1$9(18( 0$7+(:6675((7 0$,/ 50 *5($6(75$3/2&$7,21 6(7#(/(9$7,21 (/(9 (/(9 <''80367(5V [ 75$6+ (1&/2685( *$60(7(56 %2//$5'6 (;,67,1*$//(< 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57< /,1( 5(6,'(17,$/ /2%%< /($6(63$&( 64)7 /($6(63$&( 64)7 5(6,' (/(9 [ (/(&7,&$/ &+$6(72&21'26 [ (/(&75,&$/ &+$6(72)/2256 (/(9 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 /($6(63$&( 64)7 64)7*5266 $3352; &200(5&,$/ /2%%< 5(6,'(17,$/(175$1&( &200(5&,$/(175$1&( 0(16 5(6750 :20(16 5(6750 0*5 -$1 2)),&( 0') (/(&7 5220 5$03'2:1 5(48,5('(;,7 /($6(63$&( 64)7 ,1&/8'(6.,7&+(1$5($ [*$5$*( (;+$8679(17(;7(1' 72),567)/225&(,/,1* 3/(180 [*$5$*( (;+$8679(17(;7(1' 72),567)/225&(,/,1* 3/(180 ,17$.( 9(17/2&$7,21)25 *$5$*( '5,1.,1*)2817$,16 127(2876,'()$&(2) )281'$7,21:$//6(7 )5203523(57</,1( 7<3,&$/$71257+:(67 $1'($676,'(6 2))6(7216287+6,'(72 %( [*$5$*( (;+$8679(17(;7(1' 72),567)/225&(,/,1* 3/(180 (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( /($6(63$&( 64)7 $ % & ' ),567)/2253/$1 $ % & ' ( ) * $ ( 1 6.b Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL 1 : 6 ( 1RR ( 6 : 52: 52: (/(&7 50 (/(9 (/(9 5$0383 9(67 9(67 9(67 ($6702817$,1$9(18( 0$7+(:6675((7 (;,67,1*$//(< 3$5.,1*63$&(6 67$,583 7<3 :[ ' 3$5.,1*67$//6 &08RU7+. &21&:$//6 ',$&21&5(7( &2/80167<3,&$/# 3$5.,1*67$//6 7+.&08 3285(',13/$&( &21&:$//7+. &21&75(7()/2256/23(72'5$,16# &21&5$0383 (/(9 (/(9 (/(9 (/(9 67$,5683 5,6( *5($6(75$3/2&$7,216(7$7(/(9$7,21 81'(5$352172*$5$*(5$03 [ (/(9$7256+$)7 7<3,&$/2) 127(2876,'()$&(2) )281'$7,21:$//6(7 )5203523(57</,1( 7<3,&$/$71257+:(67 $1'($676,'(6 2))6(7216287+6,'(72 %( 64)7*5266 %,.(6725$*( 7+,6$5($ %,.(6725$*( 7+,6$5($ 6725$*(81,76Z52//83 '22567<3,&$/2) # [ # [ (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( $&&(66$%/( 3$5.,1*67$// 6758&785$/ &5266%5$&( 7+,6%$< *$5$*(/(9(/)/2253/$1 1 6.b Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL 6.b Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: LPC Package resubmittal 5.1.18 compressed (6749 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL