Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2018 - 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 Anne Nelsen 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 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 December 19, 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. Landmark Preservation Commission Packet Pg. 1 • STAFF REPORTS • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2018. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 14, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. FARRINGTON PROPERTY 322 EDWARDS STREET - 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 Farrington Property, a great example of a late-Victorian Classic Cottage built circa 1900. APPLICANT: Adrian, Alan, and Elizabeth MacDonald, Owners 3. 201 LINDEN STREET, LINDEN HOTEL – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of replacement windows at the Linden Hotel, 201 Linden Street. The property is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. The proposed work involves replacing historic windows with new windows. APPLICANT: Stephani Unfug, Project Manager, Dohn Construction. 4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND USE CODE CHANGES PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, as they relate to standards governing the review of developments affecting historic resources. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 2 Roll Call Bello Dorn Gensmer Hogestad Murray Nelsen Simpson Wallace Dunn Vote   Absent  Absent  Late   7 present 1 – Minutes for November Nelsen Simpson Gensmer Murray Wallace Bello Dorn Hogestad Dunn Yes Late Absent Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6:0 2 - 322 Edwards Designation Simpson Gensmer Murray Wallace Bello Dorn Hogestad Nelsen Dunn Late Absent Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6:0 3 - 201 Linden Design Review - Move to Final Simpson Gensmer Murray Wallace Bello Dorn Hogestad Nelsen Dunn Yes Absent Absent Yes Yes Yes Recused Yes Yes 6:0 3 - 201 Linden Design Review - Recommend Approval Gensmer Murray Wallace Bello Dorn Hogestad Nelsen Simpson Dunn Absent Absent Yes No Yes Recused Yes Yes Yes 5:1 4 - Historic Preservation LUC Changes Murray Wallace Bello Dorn Hogestad Nelsen Simpson Gensmer Dunn Absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Absent Yes 7:0 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 12/19/18 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) DISCUSSION AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC November 14, 2018 Hearing 2. FARRINGTON PROPERTY 322 EDWARDS STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION • Citizen emails/letters: o None • Designation Application (Att 1) updated in packet on 12/17/18 • Site Plan (Att 4) Received from Applicant on 12/17/18 3. 201 LINDEN STREET, LINDEN HOTEL – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW • Citizen emails/letters: o Joan Day opposes the proposed work. • Updated Staff Report • Updated Staff Presentation (Att 14) • DDA Easement (Att 15) 4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND USE CODE CHANGES • Citizen emails/letters: o None • Updated Staff Presentation (Att 1) EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 3 A DDA Letter and Facade Agreement 3 B Visual aid used by Myrne Watrous during public comment. 3 C Photos of a piece of wood used by Robert Anthony during public comment to demonstrate how wood ages. Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 19, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2018 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 14, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC November 14, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Pg. 3 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 November 14, 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 Anne Nelsen 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 November 14, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Wallace called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Wallace, Hogestad, Simpson, Dorn, Bello, Murray ABSENT: Dunn, Gensmer, Nelson STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Gloss, Wray, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. McWilliams stated there were no changes to posted agenda. Mr. Murray pulled Item #2 from the Consent Agenda. • STAFF REPORTS Ms. McWilliams reminded the Commission members that the ribbon cutting for the Ross Proving Up house will be Thursday beginning at 4:00 at the Farm at Lee Martinez Park. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 November 14, 2018 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 19, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the September 19, 2018 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Dorn seconded. The motion passed unanimously. • PULLED FROM CONSENT 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2018 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 17, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Murray requested a change on the last page of the minutes, changing architectural to archeological. Ms. Schiager confirmed the change would be made prior to publication of the minutes. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the October 17, 2018 regular meeting with the specified change. Mr. Bello seconded. The motion passed unanimously. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. DOWNTOWN AND TRANSITION AREAS - LAND USE CODE CHANGES DESCRIPTION: Revisions to Land Use Code Divisions 4.16 (Downtown) and 4.9 (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) as they relate to development standards governing these two zone districts. STAFF: Cameron Mr. Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Pete Wray, Senior City Planner Staff Report Mr. Gloss presented the proposed Downtown Code revisions. He discussed the unique character of Downtown which is based on the pedestrian experience and noted the proposed Code changes are not meant to be a style manual but rather to provide a framework for urban design. The goal of the changes is to provide additional clarity in regulations. The revisions would also expand the Downtown district. Mr. Gloss discussed the set backs and build-to zones for the proposed revisions and noted language has been added to require installation to manufacturer standards. He stated staff has found one item to be incomplete related to the maximum building footprint above the 6th story and requested the Commission consider the changes except that specific change. Mr. Wray presented the proposed Code revisions to the related to the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB). He stated these changes act as implementation of the approved Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. The three key NCB Code changes are to remove the minimum lot area requirement, to provide new choices for multi-family, non-residential design standards and options, and to include a building shading step back for larger buildings. Mr. Wray discussed the key parameters in terms of design standard changes. He stated staff is requesting a recommendation from the Commission for approval of the proposed Code changes. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 November 14, 2018 Public Input No members of the public were present. Commission Questions Ms. Simpson asked whether Willow Street should be a storefront rather than mixed use. Mr. Gloss replied it is somewhere in between, but it makes more sense as mixed use due to the rights-of-way distances. He stated he would look again at the curb line. Ms. Simpson asked how 'parkway' is defined. Mr. Gloss replied a parkway could be concrete with trees in grates and stated the distance from the back of the curb to the building will be driving the dimension more than anything. Mr. Murray asked about the image of the River District. Mr. Gloss replied it has a more industrial character, but dimensions and setbacks match a more mixed-use street. Mr. Murray asked about building heights given historic structures. Mr. Gloss replied heights were not created based on historic structures; that will be handled through the preservation Code. Mr. Hogestad asked about the zoning of the Oxbow area. Mr. Gloss replied it is CCR zoning which allows three stories. He noted the riparian forest is protected by a buffer zone. Mr. Murray asked how much of the Oxbow area is developable. Mr. Gloss replied it is a heavily constrained property given the river step back, floodplain, riparian forest, and the green street build-to line requirement. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern about heavy commercial traffic on 1st Street. Mr. Gloss replied any proposed development would be evaluated and mitigation measures could be required. He clarified the Buckingham area could potentially be surrounded by four-story structures. Mr. Hogestad asked if the neighborhood has had an opportunity to participate in this process. Mr. Gloss replied workshops have been ongoing for a year and a half, and some from this neighborhood had participated; however, individuals from the Buckingham neighborhood have not been specifically targeted for feedback. Mr. Hogestad asked if there has been a survey of the Buckingham area. Ms. McWilliams replied there have been historic surveys of the area, most recently from 2002-2004. She stated that survey revealed a portion of the neighborhood could potentially be considered an historic district; however, given changes that have occurred, she is unsure the neighborhood continues to meet those standards. She stated a new survey is not scheduled at this time. Mr. Murray asked if Buckingham residents would have the opportunity to object should these changes be approved. Mr. Gloss replied a citizen can initiate a Code change; however, those are not common. Mr. Murray asked if upper story and contextual step back definitions are clearly defined. Mr. Gloss replied clarity is paramount and staff has worked with legal counsel to perfect the wording. Mr. Bello asked about the purpose of the section Mr. Gloss mentioned staff would like to further research. Mr. Gloss replied the intent is to allow air, light, and views to penetrate through buildings and taller, slender tower structures would better meet those goals. He stated staff has yet to determine how many towers should be allowed on a block and what appropriate separation requirements would be. Ms. Wallace commended the work on building base materials. She asked why staff opted to exclude copper. Mr. Gloss replied it is part of the architectural metal category and the DDA has approved the materials list. Ms. Dorn asked about removing the minimum lot area requirement in relation to the accessory dwelling unit provisions. Mr. Wray replied the existing 5,000 square foot lot requirement is proposed to be removed. Ms. Dorn asked if any incentives have been considered for people to keep and maintain a potentially historic building on a lot. Mr. Wray replied Ms. McWilliams could speak to the existing Code provisions for encouraging preservation. He stated the proposed changes allow for higher density with a transition zone. Mr. Murray asked about off-street parking requirements. Mr. Wray replied the proposed changes do not relate to existing parking requirements which discourage parking between sidewalks and buildings. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 November 14, 2018 Ms. Simpson asked about front entry placement. Mr. Wray replied that is an existing standard that recognizes the contextual character of Downtown neighborhoods. Ms. Dorn asked if someone would be able to demolish existing buildings, build a new building, and add an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Wray replied that would depend on the type of building being considered. Mr. Murray asked how the proposed changes relate to solar access. Mr. Wray replied there are proposed changes for larger buildings. Ms. Wallace asked why the wording has changed from solar access to shading. Mr. Wray replied that change resulted from a Planning and Zoning Board discussion and addressed the intent to reduce shading to a certain degree. Commission Discussion Ms. Simpson requested Commission member feedback on the four-story allowance in the Oxbow area. Mr. Bello stated new development will need to go up and it provides a transition between Buckingham and other existing development. Mr. Hogestad stated he is troubled by the Buckingham area being surrounded by four-story buildings and does note believe it is appropriate to have that height on four sides of the neighborhood. Ms. Dorn asked if the proposed heights around the Buckingham neighborhood adversely affect a potential historic district. Mr. Hogestad replied it changes the context and decreases livability. Ms. Dorn suggested the Commission could make a statement that the height allowances could impact a potential historic district. Mr. Bello stated height and density can allow for a greater degree of affordability. Ms. Simpson requested a brief synopsis on Buckingham's history. Ms. McWilliams replied the neighborhood was established around 1904 as housing for sugar beet workers, primarily Germans from Russia. The area was isolated and faced discrimination for a fair amount of its history. Committee members discussed the riparian forest and Oxbow area. Mr. Gloss stated the environmental planning staff would do what it could to maintain as much of the forest as possible if a development application were submitted. Ms. Simpson asked how proposed upper story setbacks would be applied to adjacent buildings if the Oxbow site were to be developed. Mr. Gloss replied the fourth story would need to be stepped back at a minimum average of 10 feet along the street frontage. Additionally, a contextual step back would be required on the Buckingham neighborhood side. Mr. Bello stated he is struggling with how the four-story zones impact the neighborhood as setbacks keep the neighborhood from being crowded. Ms. Simpson asked if there is anything preventing O'Dell or New Belgium from building four stories in their parking lots. Mr. Gloss said there was not. Ms. Dorn suggested the Commission should support the Downtown Code changes but should make its concerns known, particularly around the height allowances near the Oxbow site as they may adversely affect a potential historic district. Mr. Hogestad agreed and stated the buildout of the properties to the north and east will affect the neighborhood as well. Ms. Wallace stated the addition of a four-story area would impact the neighborhood but would not necessarily impact the formation of a historic district. Ms. Dorn discussed the importance of a thoughtful transition from a potential historic district to new development. Mr. Gloss stated there has been resistance among property owners in the area to reduce the proposed heights. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 November 14, 2018 Commission Deliberation Ms. Dorn moved the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval to City Council of the Downtown Code and NCB Transition Code changes as presented noting its concern, however, that the height change in the Oxbow district from three to four stories would radically change the context due to the height of proposed new buildings and potential traffic patterns affecting the potential historic character of the Buckingham neighborhood, which should be recognized as an essential part of the sugar beet heritage and area history relating to Germans from Russia. The Commission also acknowledges the maximum footprint for buildings over six stories is still under review and may be revised. Mr. Hogestad seconded. The motion passed 5-1, Bello dissenting. 4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODES AND PROCESS REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Planning & Zoning Board consideration of a recommendation to City Council to adopt revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (Historic and Cultural Resources). These Codes direct the review and approval processes for developments affecting historic resources. STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. She discussed the history of the Code changes and noted the area of adjacency has been identified as 200 feet, which provides a tremendous amount of predictability. All historic buildings within the buffer are examined for eligibility or are already designated. Ms. McWilliams stated the new language allows greater flexibility for properties that are further away from historic resources. Public Input No members of the public were present. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray asked about non-binding decisions. Ms. McWilliams replied a non-binding decision involves an incomplete property survey or lack of permission from the owner to complete a survey; therefore, any decision made is not binding on future development proposals. She noted a survey can be completed from rights-of-way; however, it may not generate enough information to make a decision. Ms. Dorn asked about the statement related to the director determining eligibility. Ms. McWilliams replied there are many situations wherein there is no specific need for an eligibility determination. She noted the director referenced is Tom Leeson, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Ms. Dorn asked if there will be changes to the existing third-party experts being used by the City. Ms. McWilliams replied there will always be changes to that list as the experts must meet the Secretary of the Interior standards. Ms. Dorn expressed concern the Commission does not always agree with the determinations of the experts. Ms. McWilliams replied it is important to have an independent recommendation; however, the Commission can disagree. Ms. McWilliams stated implementing the proposed Codes will allow decisions of eligibility to be made based on the best possible information fully documented through surveys. She noted a survey was not conducted for the Spradley Barr property. Ms. McWilliams clarified the Land Use Code changes will go before Council on December 6th and Municipal Code changes will go before Council in February. Ms. Dorn noted both Codes apply at times. Ms. McWilliams replied staff has ensured the Codes can stand alone and integrate when the Chapter 14 Municipal Code changes are adopted. Mr. Hogestad requested examples of how the proposed Codes would apply to projects such as Landmark Apartments at Prospect and Shields. Ms. McWilliams replied the project would need to meet requirements for abutting buildings. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 6 November 14, 2018 Mr. Hogestad expressed concern the Code changes focus on Downtown and will not work in other areas. Ms. Dorn asked when the Commission needs to make a recommendation. Ms. McWilliams replied the recommendation is needed this evening and noted the Codes have been written to apply to every parcel in town. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a 10-minute break at 8:20] Mr. Hogestad stated any building on the abutting property must meet Section 3.4.7. Ms. McWilliams replied in the affirmative and stated any lots or parcels adjacent to or abutting historic resources, or that are within the 200-foot area of adjacency, would be subject to Section 3.4.7. She read those requirements. Mr. Bello expressed concern the proposed language does not properly apply to large properties, such as the one mentioned by Mr. Hogestad. Ms. Wallace stated the 200-foot area of adjacency is a good formula to follow. Mr. Bello asked if language addressing non-urban parcels could be included. Ms. McWilliams stated the Citizen Advisory Committee did focus on the Downtown area given the number of historic properties; however, staff has done considerable research on how the Code would apply in all other areas of the city and believes the standards will provide a great deal of compatibility for a new development without requiring it to mimic historic structures. Mr. Bello disagreed and stated the language is more urban-based. Mr. Hogestad stated he does not believe Section 3.4.7 is particularly onerous. He asked if properties are considered abutting if they are on the opposite side of a natural feature. Ms. McWilliams replied in the affirmative, provided the parcel has not been subdivided. Mr. Hogestad asked about parcels near Laurel and College and whether a single owner of multiple parcels would need to meet standards. Ms. McWilliams replied all new development on the parcel, if all buildings were combined into one parcel, would be subject to Section 3.4.7 for abutting properties. If all buildings were kept as individual parcels, the two that flank the historic buildings would each need to meet the standards, and the others falling into the 200-foot area of adjacency would need to meet the standards for adjacent properties. Mr. Yatabe stated the term 'development site' in Section 3.4.7 was assuming a single property; however, the term may merit a definition in the Land Use Code. Ms. Dorn suggested the definition should be based on the parcel size as the project boundary could be different from the parcel size, and the project boundary may cross parcel boundaries or take up a small space in the parcel. Ms. McWilliams stated staff will determine a defensible definition of 'development site;' however, that will be unavailable this evening. Mr. Bello expressed concern that the development of 1 acre of a 100-acre site would need to meet the Code. He suggested staff present both the city block example and the Sheely neighborhood example as Council will need to see both sides. Ms. Simpson agreed with Mr. Bello. Ms. McWilliams suggested possibly looking at only the 200-foot area of adjacency for new developments, and if those developments are not occurring within that boundary, the Code language would not apply. Ms. Dorn expressed concern about applying that to larger parcels that develop in phases. Ms. McWilliams noted the context is established by the historic building. Mr. Yatabe noted the definition of abutting is sharing a property line; therefore, the properties within the 200-foot area of adjacency are adjacent unless they are abutting. Ms. McWilliams suggested a brief recess for Staff to confer with the City Attorney about language to define development site and special cases for large parcels. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a 25-minute break at 9:23.] ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 7 November 14, 2018 Ms. McWilliams recommended that going to Council with this be delayed until the February Council meeting, when the Chapter 14 Code will also be presented, in order to properly vet the language changes. The Commission members agreed to the postponement. Ms. McWilliams stated staff has developed draft language for the Commission’s feedback. On large parcels that share a property line with a historic resource, significant historic resources within a 200- foot buffer would be identified. If a property line of any such resource intersects with the development parcel, a 200-foot measurement would be taken, and that area would be considered abutting property subject to the abutting standards. Anything outside that 200-feet would not be subject to the standards. Mr. Bello suggested staff provide a graphic at the next meeting. • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hogestad asked about the drive-up window building in the alley behind the Rio. Ms. McWilliams replied the building has come down as part of the alley development. Mr. Hogestad stated that building was to remain in the plan the Commission saw and expressed disappointment that change did not come back before the Commission. Ms. Bzdek noted the building was determined not to be eligible. Ms. McWilliams stated the building was not in use very long before being abandoned and the design had been changed considerably. Mr. Hogestad suggested the drive-up windows were some of the oldest in town and may have been significant for that reason. • ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Wallace adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tara Leman, Tripoint Data, and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 19, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME FARRINGTON PROPERTY 322 EDWARDS STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Farrington Property, a great example of a late-Victorian Classic Cottage built circa 1900. APPLICANT: Adrian, Alan, and Elizabeth MacDonald, Owners RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Farrington Property is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C, as a great example of a late-Victorian Classic Cottage. Like many of the houses constructed during this time (1890-1910) the house at 322 Edwards Street is small with a single-story and has minimal decorative embellishment but still evokes a Victorian feel. The current owners of this property, Adrian, Alan, and Elizabeth MacDonald, have submitted an application requesting consideration for Fort Collins local landmark designation. COMMISSION ACTION Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures,” provides the process and standards for designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Commission shall adopt a motion providing a recommendation on eligibility to City Council. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The Farrington Property is significant under Standard C. Architecturally the property is a good example of middle- class residences in Fort Collins from 1890 to 1910. Like many of the houses constructed during this time (1890- 1910) the house at 322 Edwards Street is small with a single-story and has minimal decorative embellishment but still evokes a Victorian feel. The house, in suite, is a good example of a Classic Cottage home that many middle- class families embraced around the turn of the 20th century because of its more simplistic, less expensive design. Indicative of a Classic Cottage style, the home has a single story, moderate-pitched gabled roof with a triangle- shaped eyebrow dormer, open front porch, and boxed eaves. Furthermore, the small embellishments with decorative wood shingles and clapboard siding give the house an overall asymmetric shape, multi-textured feel, and picturesque details demonstrating Victorian styling. Packet Pg. 11 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 After the arrival of the railroad in the 1870s, Fort Collins saw a significant period of growth and development. In response, a number of residential neighborhoods were quickly established throughout the city starting as early as 1880. The Crafts Resubdivision, in addition to 322 Edwards Street, display the socio-cultural makeup of the ever- growing middle-class at that time. The first owners were middle-class individuals who moved to Fort Collins, presumably for the growing economic opportunities. The property was likely rented for a period between 1900 to 1918, and almost certainly housed middle-class individuals who worked in the sugar beet industry, as maintenance workers, laborers, and small business owners. Continuing this trend, the longest known residents of the home (1919-1962) were presumably small business owners who owned and operated a mechanic shop. It can, therefore, be assessed that the history of the property aligns with overreaching trends of residential development and key architectural styles that emerged and continued at that time among the middle-class. Under Standard C, this property embodies the identifiable characteristics of the Classic Cottage. Features of the Classic Cottage style include a one-story, rectangular plan, masonry building with a central dormer, hipped roof, and front porch. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is present, as the residence is still in its original location. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The building retains integrity of design, as the residence’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. The one known alteration is at the rear of the residence and does not significantly impact design. Standard C: Setting. The integrity of setting is present, as the building’s residential setting in a residential block remains. Standard D: Materials. This building retains good integrity of materials, as much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the building remain. Standard E: Workmanship. This building retains good evidence of the workmanship. This consists of evidence of the artisans' labor and skill in constructing the building. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." The home’s physical characteristics and its environment evoke strong feelings relating to the period of construction. Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as the direct link between an important historic event and a historic property. Through its physical characteristics, the property is able to convey its strong association with the early 1900s in Fort Collins. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The earliest property record found for 322 Edwards Street (east 45 feet of Lot 17 in Block 9 of the Sub Crafts Resub) dates to June 9, 1908. Grantor/Grantee records available at the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office demonstrate that at that time Henderson C. Howard deeded both 320 Edwards Street (Lot 16) and 322 Edwards Street (Lot 17) to his son Ross D. Howard.1 City directories indicate that Henderson C. and Cathryn (Dalby) Howard, along with their son lived at 638 College Avenue at the time of the transfer.2 Although a tenant for 322 Edwards Street could not be established, early records show that Perry and Julia Harrington lived at 320 Edwards Street as early as 1902,3 and it appears that for significant part of the Howards’ ownership of both addresses they leased the residences to various occupants.4 1 Warranty Deed, Book, June 9, 1908, Book 246, Page 5110. 2 1907 Fort Collins City Directory; 1909 Fort Collins City Directory. 3 1902 Fort Collins City Directory, 71. 4 1902-1920 Fort Collins City Directories. Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 3 Historical data shows that Henderson Calvin (H.C.) Howard was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania on September 16, 1839 to Thomas Howard and Margaret Clark McLain Howard. H.C. Howard served as a Union soldier in the 11th Pennsylvania Reserves during the Civil War and earned a Medal of Honor for his efforts during the Peninsular Campaign of 1862. He married Cathryn Dalby on March 4, 1879 in Pennsylvania. They had their only child, Ross Dalby Howard in Greensburg, Pennsylvania on May 15, 1882.5 In 1890 the Howards moved to Fort Collins and enrolled Ross in public school until his graduation in 1896.6 After grade school Ross D. Howard was listed on a Battalion Roster for Company C in 1899, 1900, and 1901.7 The 1902 Fort Collins City Directory lists Ross D. Howard as a student residing with his parents,8 and a local newspaper article published in 1903 notes that Ross D. Howard graduated in 1901 from the mechanical engineering department at Colorado State Agricultural College and was offered a position in Buffalo, New York.9 The 1904 Fort Collins City Directory, however, listed Ross D. Howard as a draftsman living in Fort Collins,10 and a World War I Service System Draft Registration Card shows he worked as a farmer in 1918 at the age of 36 and resided in Larimer County.11 Both Henderson and Ross were buried at Grandview Cemetery in Fort Collins; Henderson C. Howard in 1919 and Ross D. Howard in 1942. The next property record found through historical research shows that Ross D. Howard sold 322 Edwards Street to Asa W. (A.W.) Farrington on September 8, 1919,12 and city directories illustrate that A.W. Farrington and Mary E. Farrington, owned, and lived on the property until 1962 when A.W. Farrington died. Census data further shows that A.W. Farrington was born in January of 1892 in McCracken, Kansas. His parents were Edwards A. Farrington of Iowa and Phebe M. Farrington of New York. He had three sisters, two older and one younger. 13 A.W. Farrington married Mary E. Farrington on July 3, 1912 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Mary E. Farrington was born on April 27, 1882 in Sutton, Nebraska to German immigrants, and she died in 1961 of heart complications, roughly one year before her husband of nearly 50 years.14 1940 and 1930 census data shows that they had one son Edmond R. Farrington, who was born in 1916. Shortly after the birth of their son in 1916, A.W. was drafted to the United States Military for World War I. He was exempted from service, however, because of his dependents (son and wife); he never served. During their ownership, A.W. and Mary Farrington constructed a garage in 1924, a storage shed, and a 1936 machine shed. Although historical data could not confirm that A.W. and Mary Farrington operated a business on the property it is thought that towards the middle of the 1920s the Farringtons started to extend the property to include an auto mechanic garage and shop. Automobiles and auto travel became a mainstay in the area during the early-to-mid 1900s, and as a result, Fort Collins and the surrounding areas saw major improvements in road and bridge development and an influx in tourism and greater automobile use. Horse-related livery and industry were quickly replaced by “numerous garages, automobile sales and repair firms, filling stations,”15 and a large collection of independently owned repair and service companies. By the mid-1940s the automobile had taken hold.16 5 “Henderson C. Howard.” Revolvy.com, accessed November 27, 2018, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Henderson-C.- Howard. 6 Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume X, Number 4, May 1, 1901. 7Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume IX, Number 3, December 1, 1899; Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume IX, Number 4, January 1, 1900; Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume X, Number 7, April 1, 1901. 8 1902 Fort Collins City Directory, 75. 9 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, March 25, 1903. 10 1904 Fort Collins City Directory, 139. 11 "United States World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KZKN-K5Y : 13 March 2018), Ross Dalbey Howard, 1917-1918, Larimer County, Colorado, United States. 12 Warranty Deed, September 9, 1918, Book 394, Page 509. 13 "United States Census, 1910," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MK4C-LQH : accessed 27 November 2018), Asa W Farrington in household of Edmond A Farrington, Collins, Larimer, Colorado, United States. 14 "United States Census, 1930," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X748-WSK : accessed 28 November 2018), Mary E Farrington in household of Asa W Farrington, Fort Collins, Larimer, Colorado, United States; "United States Census, 1940," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VR6N-825 : 13 March 2018), Mary Farrington in household of Asa Farrington, Ward E, Fort Collins, Fort Collins City, Larimer, Colorado, United States. 15 Fort Collins History Connection, Post World War I Urban Growth, 1919-1941. 16 WorkPower. A Brief history of the Auto Mechanic’s Trade. Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 4 Coinciding with this growth, Mary E. Farrington pulled a building permit on September 9, 1924 for a frame garage that was seemingly constructed for A.W. Farrington’s listed trade as a mechanic. A large service pit, the somewhat atypical two-car garage size, and the large swing-out carriage doors allude to the use of the garage as a mechanic/automobile service shop. Presumably to help build A.W. Farrington’s trade, a machine shed was constructed at the back of the property in 1936. It is though that this building was added to the property to provide additional workspace and/or storage for specialized machinery and/or equipment necessary in automobile repairs and services. However, information pertaining to the specific use of the building was not obtained. City directories from the 1920s through to the 1950s show A.W. Farrington as living at 322 Edwards Street and working as a mechanic or mechanical engineer. A World War II draft card indicates that at the age of 50 A.W. Farrington was self-employed and resided on Edwards Street. By 1959 A.W. Farrington was retired but still resided at 322 Edwards Street.17 Permits pulled for the property were primarily in Mary E. Farrington’s name and it appears the she took and active role in her husband’s trade and/or business and subsumed the overall household operations. Documentation of her employment was not located. A gap in ownership exists from the time of A.W. Farrington’s death in 1962 and April 1973 when Ralph Mills and Ronald A. Mills deeded Lot 16 (320 Edwards Street) and the west 5 feet of Lot 17 (322 Edwards Street) to Ronald A. Mills and Marilyn R. Mills.18 The next record found shows that on January 1, 1981, Ronald A. Mills obtained a Quit Claim Deed from Ralph R. Mills, Thomas Terry Tucker for 322 Edwards Street. At this time Ronald A. Mills gained sole ownership. 19 On July 2, 2003, Ronald A. Mills deeded 322 Edwards along with two additional properties to Wendy Irving-Mills, seemingly as a rental property.20 In March of 2018 Adrian MacDonald, in addition to Alan and Elizabeth MacDonald, purchased the parcel from Wendy Irving-Mills.21 Adrian MacDonald, along with Alan and Elizabeth MacDonald currently retain ownership of the parcel, and Adrian MacDonald requests that the site be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. No additional archival research regarding ownership was recovered. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Circa 1900 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Brick, Sandstone Architectural Style: Free Classic Queen Anne Description: The Asa W. and Mary E. Farrington House includes a Classic Cottage Style home (Feature 1), a 1920s garage (Feature 2), a tool/tac shed of an undetermined age (Feature 3), and a 1930s machine shed (Feature 4). The lot is in the 300 block of Edwards Street in the Crafts Resub Addition. The property has paved concrete sidewalks, street parking on Edwards Street, a road verge or medium separating the sidewalk from the active roadway, and alley access (Fort Collins Alley #2323) at the back, north end, of the property. There is minimal private parking in front of the 1930s garage (Feature 2) via a narrow gravel driveway. Due to the small size of the lot, landscaping is minimal and consists of flower beds along the south and north elevations of the house, rock beds in front of the west wall of both the 1920s garage (Feature 2) and tool/tac shed (Feature 3), a backyard lawn, a pathway that leads from the alley to the back, north elevation of the house, and a privacy fence that divides sections of the property from the neighboring lots and public alleyway. The Classic Cottage Style house (Feature 1) is located at the front of the property and has a single-story and partial basement (cellar) that is accessible at the back, north end of the house. The home has a rectangular footprint and measures roughly 36 ft (N/S) x 33 ft (E/W). There are no additions and the house maintains its original, circa 1900 form and shape. A dimensional lumber roof with a moderate-pitched front gable covers the house. The house also has a triangle-shaped eyebrow dormer on the south-facing façade, boxed eaves enclosed 17 1957 Fort Collins City Directory. 18 Warranty Deed, April 4, 1973, Reception No. 54714. 19 Quit Claim Deed, January 1, 1981, Reception No. 394717. 20 Quit Claim Deed, July 2, 2003, Reception No. 20030082588. 21 Warranty Deed, March 6, 2018, Reception No. 20180013349. Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 5 with wood fascia, and wide band trim. Overlaying the roof are composition shingles that were last replaced in 2010. Under the eave of the west elevation is a soffit vent allowing for attic ventilation. The installation of new gutters and downspouts, in addition to tuck paint, were completed in the last 10 years. Illustrated in images dating from the 1940s to 1990s is the presence of a ridge chimney; however, by documentation in 2018, the chimney had been removed. A modern heating system is exhibited by a metal ventilation pipe that extends from the slope of the roof. Furthermore, an electrical box located on the north elevation, as well as a plumbing vent pipe projecting from the western slope of the roof demonstrate modern utilities. Walls of the house are predominately red brick laid in a running bond pattern; however, decorative wood shingles or clapboard cover the central, south-facing wall of the triangle, eyebrow dormer. Windows on the main level are almost solely single-hung with metal rails and fixed upper sashes. Both the upper and lower sashes are bounded with aluminum stiles and wood jambs, and it seems that nearly all wooden headers and brick moldings associated with the windows have been consciously preserved. Modern screens cover all windows on this main level. A singular, fixed window, located on the large triangle-shaped eyebrow dormer, is set in a wood frame, and appears historic in age. Above the windows of the main level are segmental arch lintels, and below the windows are thick, 1.5 to 2-inch stone sills. The front, south-facing wood panel salvage door is historic but not original to the home.22 On the upper half of the door is a fixed window set in a wood frame. The back, north door is metal with a fixed window on the upper one-third; this window has wood muntin bars that divides the sash into six panels giving the door an overall historic look and feel. Remodel plans created in 2017 show that a kitchen window, located on the north end of the east elevation, was shortened to create more workable space inside. As part of construction some portions of the outside wall just below the extant window were damaged. However, contractors made considerable efforts to salvage brick from an interior project to repair exterior damages and consciously preserved the stone sill, wooden headers, brick moldings, and segmental arch lintels. These actions, in turn, helped to maintain the overall historical integrity of the east, exterior wall.23 Also proposed in 2017 was a new steel angle lintel at the cellar door and work to level the west portion of the north wall at the cellar. Presently, a thick plywood hatch door with a dimensional lumber frame provides outdoor access to the cellar. Found on both the north and south elevations are two small entry porches. The back porch is centrally located and configured with a dropped hipped roof covered in composition shingles. Lining the north plane is a modern gutter system. The porch is open and supported with two 4 x 4-inch columns mounted in wood blocks at the base. Decking is dimensional lumber. A set of three stairs drop from the deck and corrugated metal sheets boarder the deck foundation. Remolding in 2017 replaced the stairs and floor boards to meet city code.24 The front porch is also centrally located and configured with a drop hipped roof covered with composite shingles. Like the back porch a gutter system lines the horizontal extent of the porch, the foundation of the deck is covered with corrugated metal sheets, and a set of three stairs drop from the deck. Decking is newly replaced (2017) dimensional lumber. Enforcing the deck are four turned spindles and square porch headers, and the porched is enclosed with a classic spindle rail. Railing continues downward on either side of the stairs. The exposed sandstone foundation of the house is exhibited on all elevations. Positioned on the east elevation is a cast-iron coal chute once used for coal deliveries and coal storage. No markings were visible on the exterior of the door and the chute mimics that of others in the region. Four cellar windows, two on the west elevation and two on the east elevation, are single-pane hopper set in wood frames. Stone and brick window wells tightly encircle each cellar window. The house is indicative of a Classic Cottage style home because of its more simplistic, less expensive design. The home has a single-story, moderate-pitched gabled roof with a triangle-shaped eyebrow dormer, open front porch, and boxed eaves, all of which further represent a Classic Cottage, and the small embellishments with decorative wood shingles and clapboard siding give the house an overall asymmetric shape, multi-textured feel, and picturesque details demonstrating Victorian styling. Contributing to the overall history of the property are three associated outbuildings: Features 2, 3 and 4. Feature 2, a 1920s two-car garage, is located at the east boundary line of the property, near the northeast corner of the home. The garage has a rectangular footprint measuring approximately 20 ft (E/W) x 21 ft (N/S). The front- 22 Meirose, Dave, 322 Edwards St. New Floor Plan. (Fort Collins: Wildwood Construction, 2017), 1. 23 Meirose, Dave, 322 Edwards St. New Floor Plan. (Fort Collins: Wildwood Construction, 2017), 1. 24 Meirose, Dave, 322 Edwards St. New Floor Plan. (Fort Collins: Wildwood Construction, 2017), 1. Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 6 gabled, dimensional lumber roof is covered with composition sheets that were replaced in 2017.25 The eaves are open with exposed rafters. Walls are clad with simple drop horizontal siding. A grouping of three fixed windows with wooden glazing bars, wood casings, and wood frames are on the west elevation. An additional set of windows are on the east wall of the building, and like the windows on the west wall, these windows are fixed, enclosed with wood frames, have wooden glazing bars, and wood casings. All windows are historic and thought to be original to the building. A historic, wood-paneled door with a fixed single-pane window on the upper portion allows pedestrian access to the garage on the west elevation. Two sets of swing-out carriage garage doors have tongue-and-groove paneling, diagonal “Z” braces, and are mounted with metal hinges. These doors open to the narrow gravel driveway off the south elevation of the building. The entire garage sits on a poured concrete foundation. Just north of the 1920s garage is a rectangular-shaped shed that measures about 12 ft (N/S) x 10 ft (E/W). The entire building sits on a poured concrete foundation. Walls are clad with a beveled hewn log veneer. A small portion of the north elevation wall is repaired with modern dimensional lumber. Windows are located on the west, east, and north elevations and include three fixed single-panel sashes enclosed in wooden frames. Covering the windows on the east and north elevations are metal mesh screens that are secured to the wood casings around each window. Entry to the shed is on the west elevation and is provided by a wood paneled door that appears to have been added to the building sometime after original construction. Covering the building is a shed roof with exposed rafters and slight eave overhangs. Protecting the dimensional lumber roof are tin corrugated metal sheets. Although pulled permits and accessor information did not allude to an estimated construction date, based on the tight placement of the building under the north eave of the garage, it is thought that the shed was added to the property sometime after the garage was constructed in the 1920s. And, based on the tin roof, fixed single- panel sashes, and wooden frames enclosing each window it is probable that the shed was added to the property sometime in the 1930s when a machine shed was built at the back of the property. A 1930s rectangular-plan machine shed (Feature 4) is at the back, northeast corner of the property adjacent to the alley. It is roughly 27 ft (N/S) x 18 ft (E/W). The building has a moderate-pitched front gabled roof with a north- facing façade and close eaves. The dimensional lumber roof, slightly exposed on the south and north ends near the eaves, is covered with a tin roof. Wall cladding on the east and west elevations are board-and-batten. The north and south elevations are flush horizontal boards with visible nail finishes. There is minimal wood rot near the base of the south and west elevations. Windows are located on the east, west, and north walls. A wood framed sliding widow with wood casing is at the northwest corner of the west wall, and found just south of the pedestrian door on the west elevation is a sliding window boarded-up with deteriorating plywood. A sole sliding window with a wood frame and wood casing is centered on the east elevation. Centrally located on the south elevation is a ribbon of three windows. Each window is fixed and has 6-panes secured with wood muntin bars, wood frames, and bracketed with wood casings. All fenestrations are original to the building. As indicated above, a pedestrian door is positioned on the west elevation. The door itself is made with flush horizontal boards enforced with a “Z” brace and mounted with mental gate hinges that allows the door to open outward onto a concrete pad and a ribbon pathway. Doors allowing for machinery access are on the north elevation and open to the alley. These doors are board-and-batten with “Z” braces, and metal gate hinges allow the doors to open outward. The building sits on a poured concrete foundation. All materials are historic and likely original to the building, and minimal to no modifications have been done to the exterior of the building throughout its rough 85-year history. STAFF EVALUATION Staff finds that the Farrington Property qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standard C as an excellent example of Classic Cottage residence with a preponderance of exterior integrity. The dwelling continues to uphold all seven aspects of integrity. 25 Irving-Mills, Wendy, Seller’s Property Disclosure (Residential), (Fort Collins: Downtown Real Estate Partners, LLC., 2017), 1. Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 7 SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission finds that the Farrington Property meets one or more of the criteria for Fort Collins landmark designation, the Commission shall adopt the following motion: That the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the Farrington Property as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standard C for its design as a Classic Cottage style residence, and its preponderance of exterior integrity. If the Commission finds that the Farrington Property does not meet the criteria for landmark designation, it shall adopt a motion to this effect, and state its reasoning. ATTACHMENTS 1. Landmark Designation Application (Updated in packet on 12-17-18) 2. Location Map 3. Staff Presentation 4. Site Plan (Added to Supplemental Documents on12-17-18) Packet Pg. 17 pg. 1 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 322 Edwards Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: East 45 feet of Lot 17, Block B9 in Sub Crafts Resub Property Name (historic and/or common): Farrington Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Adrian MacDonald, Alan MacDonald, and Elizabeth MacDonald Phone: (617) 462-5367 Email: adrian.s.macdonald@gmail.com CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation ☒ Building ☐ Public ☒ Occupied ☐ Commercial ☐ Nat’l Register ☐ Structure ☒ Private ☐ Unoccupied ☐ Educational ☐ State Register ☐ Site ☐ Religious ☐ Object ☒ Residential ☐ District ☐ Entertainment ☐ Government ☐ Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Eva M. Garner, Historian (Centennial Archaeology) Address: 413 Thrasher Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Phone: (970) 402-7340 Email: emdonkin@gmail.com Relationship to Owner: Historical Consultant DATE: December 3, 2018 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 pg. 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES ☒ Individual Landmark Property ☐ Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property consists of a circa 1900 Classic Cottage, a 1920s garage, a tool/tac shed, and a 1930s machine shed. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: ☐Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; ☐Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; ☒Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; ☐Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (Please describe why the property is significant, relative to the Standard(s) above.) 322 Edwards Street is historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard 3 for how the property embodies distinctive characteristics of a late-Victorian Classic Cottage. After the arrival of the railroad in the 1870s, Fort Collins saw a significant period of growth and development. In response, a number of residential neighborhoods were quickly established throughout the city starting as early as 1880. The Crafts Resubdivision, in addition to 322 Edwards Street, display the socio-cultural makeup of the ever-growing middle-class at that time. The first owners were middle-class individuals who moved to Fort Collins, presumably for the growing economic opportunities. The property was likely rented for a period between 1900 to 1918, and almost certainly housed middle-class individuals who worked in the sugar beet industry, as maintenance workers, laborers, and small business owners. Continuing this trend, the longest known residents of the home (1919-1962) were presumably small business owners who owned and operated a mechanic shop. It can, therefore, be assessed that the history of the property aligns with overreaching trends of residential development and key architectural styles that emerged and continued at that time among the middle-class. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 pg. 3 Architecturally the property is a good example of middle-class residences in Fort Collins from 1890 to 1910. Like many of the houses constructed during this time (1890-1910) the house at 322 Edwards Street is small with a single-story and has minimal decorative embellishment but still evokes a Victorian feel. The house, in suite, is a good example of a Classic Cottage home that many middle-class families embraced around the turn of the 20th century because of its more simplistic, less expensive design. Indicative of a Classic Cottage style, the home has a single story, moderate-pitched gabled roof with a triangle-shaped eyebrow dormer, open front porch, and boxed eaves. Furthermore, the small embellishments with decorative wood shingles and clapboard siding give the house an overall asymmetric shape, multi-textured feel, and picturesque details demonstrating Victorian styling. Although the home has undergone some alterations to correspond with modern living practices and amenities, the home is relatively unchanged and is felt to maintain integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association thereby further qualifying the property under Standard 3 Fort Collins Landmark Designation. HISTORICAL INFORMATION (Please include city directory research and/or title search if the property is important for its association with a significant person) Coinciding with the arrival of the Colorado and Central Railroad in the late 1870s and slightly later the Greeley, Salt Lake, and Pacific Railroad (GSL&P) in the early 1880s, Fort Collins saw a significant period of growth and development. Growth was further accelerated by the budding agriculture in the region, the institutionalization of Colorado State Agricultural College (Colorado State University) in 1879, sandstone quarries, and the rise of the sugar beet industry in the 1890s. Resulting from the influx in population, residential subdivisions were platted in portions of Fort Collins to delineate between housing, commercial, and industrial areas. One of the earliest subdivisions was the Lake Park Addition, platted in 1881. By the mid-1890s residential growth continued to include the Harrison Addition, A.L. Emigh Subdivision, the Loomis Addition, and the West Side Addition.0F 1 A large section of the southeast quarter of the original 1870s town plat, now known as the Laurel School Neighborhood or the Midtown Historic District, was initially platted, with the partial aid of the Larimer County Land Improvement Company (1872), an organization that worked to encourage immigration and settlement in Fort Collins by purchasing, acquiring, selling, transferring, and disposing of land, by Abraham L. Emigh in 1881 as the Lake Park Addition.1F 2 In 1877 Lizzie C. Emigh transferred the northern one-half of the Lake Park Addition to Henry A. Crafts, a well-known newspaperman and developer. Henry A. Crafts subsequently transferred the tract as a gift to Elizabeth McKee D. Crafts, seemingly in that same year. In 1890 Elizabeth Mckee D. Crafts along with K.D. Craft resubdivided east portions of the Lake Park Addition to established the Crafts’ Resubdivision. The extant 322 Edwards Street falls within the boundaries of the 1890 Crafts’ subdivision. The Crafts’ subdivision and immediate areas were predominately occupied by “a middle-class farming community.”2F 3 The Crafts’ Resubdivision appealed to many because individuals with a fixed, low income could purchase lots on installment and at low rates of interest.3F 4 In-suite, 1 Fort Collins History Connection, “The Railroad Era, Colorado Agricultural College, and the Growth of the City, 1877-1900.” 2 Fort Collins Courier, “Lake Park,” September 8, 1881. 3 National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form for the Fort Collins Midtown Historic District, 1980. 4 Fort Collins History Connection, “The Railroad Era, Colorado Agricultural College, and the Growth of the City, 1877-1900.” ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 pg. 4 buildings were typically “small, one-story brick or frame cottages rectangular in shape” and had few decorations but were “unmistakably late Victorian.”4F 5 Development in the beginning (1880s- 1890s) was spread out with no real symmetry; some blocks had multiple dwellings while others were sparsely populated with just a few dwellings surrounded by farmland. By the turn of the 20th century many blocks were fully developed, larger plots were subdivided to further accommodate growth, and schools, grocers, and churches occurred in higher frequencies to serve the growing needs of the community. After a slow period of growth in the 1910s, sparked by a local depression, the 1920s and 1930s saw an influx in construction as more and more single-dwelling homes erupted within the community.5F 6 Today the area consists mostly of historic buildings (1890s – 1950s) punctuated with modern businesses, especially near College Avenue, newer homes, and historic homes that have undergone significant changes over the years. 322 Edwards Street, Fort Collins, Colorado The earliest property record found for 322 Edwards Street (east 45 feet of Lot 17 in Block 9 of the Sub Crafts Resub) dates to June 9, 1908. Grantor/Grantee records available at the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office demonstrate that at that time Henderson C. Howard deeded both 320 Edwards Street (Lot 16) and 322 Edwards Street (Lot 17) to his son Ross D. Howard.6F 7 City directories indicate that Henderson C. and Cathryn (Dalby) Howard, along with their son lived at 638 College Avenue at the time of the transfer.7F 8 Although a tenant for 322 Edwards Street could not be established, early records show that Perry and Julia Harrington lived at 320 Edwards Street as early as 1902,8F 9 and it appears that for significant part of the Howards’ ownership of both addresses they leased the residences to various occupants.9F 10 Historical data shows that Henderson Calvin (H.C.) Howard was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania on September 16, 1839 to Thomas Howard and Margaret Clark McLain Howard. H.C. Howard served as a Union soldier in the 11th Pennsylvania Reserves during the Civil War and earned a Medal of Honor for his efforts during the Peninsular Campaign of 1862. He married Cathryn Dalby on March 4, 1879 in Pennsylvania. They had their only child, Ross Dalby Howard in Greensburg, Pennsylvania on May 15, 1882.10F 11 In 1890 the Howards moved to Fort Collins and enrolled Ross in public school until his graduation in 1896.11F 12 After grade school Ross D. Howard was listed on a Battalion Roster for Company C in 1899, 1900, and 1901.12F 13 The 1902 Fort Collins City Directory lists Ross D. Howard as a student residing with his parents,13F 14 and a local newspaper article published in 1903 notes that Ross D. Howard graduated in 1901 from the mechanical engineering department at Colorado State Agricultural College and was offered a position in Buffalo, New York.14F 15 In the 1904 Fort Collins City Directory, however, Ross D. Howard was listed as a draftsman living in Fort Collins,15F 16 and a World War I Service System Draft Registration Card shows he worked as a farmer in 1918 at the age of 36 and resided in 5 National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form for the Fort Collins Midtown Historic District, 1980. 6 Fort Collins History Connection, “The Railroad Era, Colorado Agricultural College, and the Growth of the City, 1877-1900.” 7 Warranty Deed, Book, June 9, 1908, Book 246, Page 5110. 8 1907 Fort Collins City Directory; 1909 Fort Collins City Directory. 9 1902 Fort Collins City Directory, 71. 10 1902-1920 Fort Collins City Directories. 11 “Henderson C. Howard.” Revolvy.com, accessed November 27, 2018, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Henderson-C.-Howard. 12 Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume X, Number 4, May 1, 1901. 13Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume IX, Number 3, December 1, 1899; Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume IX, Number 4, pg. 5 Larimer County.16F 17 Both Henderson and Ross were buried at Grandview Cemetery in Fort Collins; Henderson C. Howard in 1919 and Ross D. Howard in 1942. The next property record found through historical research shows that Ross D. Howard sold 322 Edwards Street to Asa W. (A.W.) Farrington on September 8, 1919,17F 18 and city directories illustrate that A.W. Farrington and Mary E. Farrington, owned, and lived on the property until 1962 when A.W. Farrington died. Census data further shows that A.W. Farrington was born in January of 1892 in McCracken, Kansas. His parents were Edwards A. Farrington of Iowa and Phebe M. Farrington of New York. He had three sisters, two older and one younger. 18F 19 A.W. Farrington married Mary E. Farrington on July 3, 1912 in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Mary E. Farrington was born on April 27, 1882 in Sutton, Nebraska to German immigrants, and she died in 1961 of heart complications, roughly one year before her husband of nearly 50 years.19F 20 1940 and 1930 census data shows that they had one son Edmond R. Farrington, who was born in 1916. Shortly after the birth of their son in 1916, A.W. was drafted to the United States Military for World War I. He was exempted from service, however, because of his dependents (son and wife); he never served. During their ownership, A.W. and Mary Farrington constructed a garage in 1924, a storage shed, and a 1936 machine shed. Although historical data could not confirm that A.W. and Mary Farrington operated a business on the property it is thought that towards the middle of the 1920s the Farringtons started to extend the property to include an auto mechanic garage and shop. Automobiles and auto travel became a mainstay in the area during the early-to-mid 1900s, and as a result, Fort Collins and the surrounding areas saw major improvements in road and bridge development and an influx in tourism and greater automobile use. Horse-related livery and industry were quickly replaced by “numerous garages, automobile sales and repair firms, filling stations,”20F 21 and a large collection of independently owned repair and service companies. By the mid-1940s the automobile had taken hold.21F 22 Coinciding with this growth, Mary E. Farrington pulled a building permit on September 9, 1924 for a frame garage that was seemingly constructed for A.W. Farrington’s listed trade as a mechanic. A large service pit, the somewhat atypical two-car garage size, and the large swing- out carriage doors allude to the use of the garage as a mechanic/automobile service shop. Presumably to help build A.W. Farrington’s trade, a machine shed was constructed at the back of the property in 1936. It is though that this building was added to the property to provide additional workspace and/or storage for specialized machinery and/or equipment necessary in automobile repairs and services. However, information pertaining to the specific use of the building was not obtained. 17 "United States World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KZKN-K5Y : 13 March 2018), Ross Dalbey Howard, 1917-1918, Larimer County, Colorado, United States. 18 Warranty Deed, September 9, 1918, Book 394, Page 509. 19 "United States Census, 1910," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MK4C-LQH : accessed 27 November 2018), Asa W Farrington in household of Edmond A Farrington, Collins, Larimer, Colorado, United States. 20 "United States Census, 1930," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X748-WSK : accessed 28 November 2018), Mary E Farrington in household of Asa W Farrington, Fort Collins, Larimer, Colorado, United States; "United States Census, 1940," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VR6N-825 : 13 March 2018), Mary Farrington in household of Asa Farrington, Ward E, Fort Collins, Fort Collins City, Larimer, Colorado, United States. 21 Fort Collins History Connection, Post World War I Urban Growth, 1919-1941. 22 WorkPower. A Brief history of the Auto Mechanic’s Trade. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 pg. 6 City directories from the 1920s through to the 1950s show A.W. Farrington as living at 322 Edwards Street and working as a mechanic or mechanical engineer. A World War II draft card indicates that at the age of 50 A.W. Farrington was self-employed and resided on Edwards Street. By 1959 A.W. Farrington was retired but still resided at 322 Edwards Street.22F 23 Permits pulled for the property were primarily in Mary E. Farrington’s name and it appears the she took and active role in her husband’s trade and/or business and subsumed the overall household operations. Documentation of her employment was not located. A gap in ownership exists from the time of A.W. Farrington’s death in 1962 and April 1973 when Ralph Mills and Ronald A. Mills deeded Lot 16 (320 Edwards Street) and the west 5 feet of Lot 17 (322 Edwards Street) to Ronald A. Mills and Marilyn R. Mills.23F 24 The next record found shows that on January 1, 1981, Ronald A. Mills obtained a Quit Claim Deed from Ralph R. Mills, Thomas Terry Tucker for 322 Edwards Street. At this time Ronald A. Mills gained sole ownership. 24F 25 On July 2, 2003, Ronald A. Mills deeded 322 Edwards along with two additional properties to Wendy Irving-Mills, seemingly as a rental property.25F 26 In March of 2018 Adrian MacDonald, in addition to Alan and Elizabeth MacDonald, purchased the parcel from Wendy Irving-Mills.26F 27 Adrian MacDonald, along with Alan and Elizabeth MacDonald currently retain ownership of the parcel, and Adrian MacDonald requests that the site be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark. No additional archival research regarding ownership was recovered. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Circa 1900 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Brick, Sandstone Architectural Style: Free Classic Queen Anne Description: The Asa W. and Mary E. Farrington Property includes a Classic Cottage Style home (Feature 1), a 1920s garage (Feature 2), a tool/tac shed of an undetermined age (Feature 3), and a 1930s machine shed (Feature 4). The lot is in the 300 block of Edwards Street in the Crafts Resub Addition. The property has paved concrete sidewalks, street parking on Edwards Street, a road verge or medium separating the sidewalk from the active roadway, and alley access (Fort Collins Alley #2323) at the back, north end, of the property. There is minimal private parking in front of the 1930s garage (Feature 2) via a narrow gravel driveway. Due to the small size of the lot, landscaping is minimal and consists of flower beds along the south and north elevations of the house, rock beds in front of the west wall of both the 1920s garage (Feature 2) and tool/tac shed (Feature 3), a backyard lawn, a pathway that leads from the alley to the back, north elevation of the house, and a privacy fence that divides sections of the property from the neighboring lots and public alleyway. Residential Architectural Description The Classic Cottage Style house (Feature 1) is located at the front of the property and has a single-story and partial basement (cellar) that is accessible at the back, north end of the house. 23 1957 Fort Collins City Directory. 24 Warranty Deed, April 4, 1973, Reception No. 54714. 25 Quit Claim Deed, January 1, 1981, Reception No. 394717. 26 Quit Claim Deed, July 2, 2003, Reception No. 20030082588. 27 Warranty Deed, March 6, 2018, Reception No. 20180013349. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 pg. 7 The home has a rectangular footprint and measures roughly 36 ft (N/S) x 33 ft (E/W). There are no additions and the house maintains its original, circa 1900 form and shape. A dimensional lumber roof with a moderate-pitched front gable covers the house. The house also has a triangle- shaped eyebrow dormer on the south-facing façade, boxed eaves enclosed with wood fascia, and wide band trim. Overlaying the roof are composition shingles that were last replaced in 2010. Under the eave of the west elevation is a soffit vent allowing for attic ventilation. The installation of new gutters and downspouts, in addition to tuck paint, were completed in the last 10 years. Illustrated in images dating from the 1940s to 1990s is the presence of a ridge chimney; however, by documentation in 2018, the chimney had been removed. A modern heating system is exhibited by a metal ventilation pipe that extends from the slope of the roof. Furthermore, an electrical box located on the north elevation, as well as a plumbing vent pipe projecting from the western slope of the roof demonstrate modern utilities. Walls of the house are predominately red brick laid in a running bond pattern; however, decorative wood shingles or clapboard cover the central, south-facing wall of the triangle, eyebrow dormer. Windows on the main level are almost solely single-hung with metal rails and fixed upper sashes. Both the upper and lower sashes are bounded with aluminum stiles and wood jambs, and it seems that nearly all wooden headers and brick moldings associated with the windows have been consciously preserved. Modern screens cover all windows on this main level. A singular, fixed window, located on the large triangle-shaped eyebrow dormer, is set in a wood frame, and appears historic in age. Above the windows of the main level are segmental arch lintels, and below the windows are thick, 1.5 to 2-inch stone sills. The front, south-facing wood panel salvage door is historic but not original to the home.27F 28 On the upper half of the door is a fixed window set in a wood frame. The back, north door is metal with a fixed window on the upper one-third; this window has wood muntin bars that divides the sash into six panels giving the door an overall historic look and feel. Remodel plans created in 2017 show that a kitchen window, located on the north end of the east elevation, was shorten to create more workable space inside. As part of construction some portions of the outside wall just below the extant window were damaged. However, contractors made considerable efforts to salvage brick from an interior project to repair exterior damages and consciously preserved the stone sill, wooden headers, brick moldings, and segmental arch lintels. These actions, in turn, helped to maintain the overall historical integrity of the east, exterior wall.28F 29 Also proposed in 2017 was a new steel angle lintel at the cellar door and work to level the west portion of the north wall at the cellar. Presently, a thick plywood hatch door with a dimensional lumber frame provides outdoor access to the cellar. Found on both the north and south elevations are two small entry porches. The back porch is centrally located and configured with a dropped hipped roof covered in composition shingles. Lining the north plane is a modern gutter system. The porch is open and supported with two 4 x 4-inch columns mounted in wood blocks at the base. Decking is dimensional lumber. A set of three stairs drop from the deck and corrugated metal sheets boarder the deck foundation. Remolding in 2017 replaced the stairs and floor boards to meet city code.29F 30 The front porch is also centrally located and configured with a drop hipped roof covered with composite shingles. Like the back porch a gutter system lines the horizontal extent of the porch, the foundation of the deck is covered with corrugated metal sheets, and a set of three stairs drop from the deck. Decking is newly replaced (2017) dimensional lumber. Enforcing the deck are four turned spindles and square porch headers, and the porched is enclosed with a classic spindle rail. Railing 28 Meirose, Dave, 322 Edwards St. New Floor Plan. (Fort Collins: Wildwood Construction, 2017), 1. 29 Meirose, Dave, 322 Edwards St. New Floor Plan. (Fort Collins: Wildwood Construction, 2017), 1. 30 Meirose, Dave, 322 Edwards St. New Floor Plan. (Fort Collins: Wildwood Construction, 2017), 1. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 pg. 8 continues downward on either side of the stairs. The exposed sandstone foundation of the house is exhibited on all elevations. Positioned on the east elevation is a cast-iron coal chute once used for coal deliveries and coal storage. No markings were visible on the exterior of the door and the chute mimics that of others in the region. Four cellar windows, two on the west elevation and two on the east elevation, are single-pane hopper set in wood frames. Stone and brick window wells tightly encircle each cellar window. The house is indicative of a Classic Cottage style home because of its more simplistic, less expensive design. The home has a single-story, moderate-pitched gabled roof with a triangle- shaped eyebrow dormer, open front porch, and boxed eaves, all of which further represent a Classic Cottage, and the small embellishments with decorative wood shingles and clapboard siding give the house an overall asymmetric shape, multi-textured feel, and picturesque details demonstrating Victorian styling. Outbuildings Architectural Description Contributing to the overall history of the property are three associated outbuildings all in a vernacular style: Feature 2; Feature 3; and Feature 4. Feature 2, a 1920s two-car garage, is located at the east boundary line of the property, near the northeast corner of the home. The garage has a rectangular footprint measuring approximately 20 ft (E/W) x 21 ft (N/S). The front- gabled, dimensional lumber roof is covered with composition sheets that were replaced in 2017.30F 31 The eaves are open with exposed rafters. Walls are clad with simple drop horizontal siding. A grouping of three fixed windows with wooden glazing bars, wood casings, and wood frames are on the west elevation. An additional set of windows are on the east wall of the building, and like the windows on the west wall, these windows are fixed, enclosed with wood frames, have wooden glazing bars, and wood casings. All windows are historic and thought to be original to the building. A historic, wood-paneled door with a fixed single-pane window on the upper portion allows pedestrian access to the garage on the west elevation. Two sets of swing-out carriage garage doors have tongue-and-groove paneling, diagonal “Z” braces, and are mounted with metal hinges. These doors open to the narrow gravel driveway off the south elevation of the building. The entire garage sits on a poured concrete foundation. Just north of the 1920s garage is a rectangular-shaped shed that measures about 12 ft (N/S) x 10 ft (E/W). The entire building sits on a poured concrete foundation. Walls are clad with a beveled hewn log veneer. A small portion of the north elevation wall is repaired with modern dimensional lumber. Windows are located on the west, east, and north elevations and include three fixed single-panel sashes enclosed in wooden frames. Covering the windows on the east and north elevations are metal mesh screens that are secured to the wood casings around each window. Entry to the shed is on the west elevation and is provided by a wood paneled door that appears to have been added to the building sometime after original construction. Covering the building is a shed roof with exposed rafters and slight eave overhangs. Protecting the dimensional lumber roof are tin corrugated metal sheets. Although pulled permits and accessor information did not allude to an estimated construction date, based on the tight placement of the building under the north eave of the garage, it is thought that the shed was added to the property sometime after the garage was constructed in the 1920s. And, based on the tin roof, fixed single-panel sashes, and wooden frames enclosing each window it is probable that the shed was added to the property sometime in the 1930s when a machine shed was built at the back of the property. 31 Irving-Mills, Wendy, Seller’s Property Disclosure (Residential), (Fort Collins: Downtown Real Estate Partners, LLC., 2017), 1. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 pg. 9 A 1930s rectangular-plan machine shed (Feature 4) is at the back, northeast corner of the property adjacent to the alley. It is roughly 27 ft (N/S) x 18 ft (E/W). The building has a moderate-pitched front gabled roof with a north-facing façade and close eaves. The dimensional lumber roof, slightly exposed on the south and north ends near the eaves, is covered with a tin roof. Wall cladding on the east and west elevations are board-and-batten. The north and south elevations are flush horizontal boards with visible nail finishes. There is minimal wood rot near the base of the south and west elevations. Windows are located on the east, west, and north walls. A wood framed sliding widow with wood casing is at the northwest corner of the west wall, and found just south of the pedestrian door on the west elevation is a sliding window boarded-up with deteriorating plywood. A sole sliding window with a wood frame and wood casing is centered on the east elevation. Centrally located on the south elevation is a ribbon of three windows. Each window is fixed and has 6-panes secured with wood muntin bars, wood frames, and bracketed with wood casings. All fenestrations are original to the building. As indicated above, a pedestrian door is positioned on the west elevation. The door itself is made with flush horizontal boards enforced with a “Z” brace and mounted with mental gate hinges that allows the door to open outward onto a concrete pad and a ribbon pathway. Doors allowing for machinery access are on the north elevation and open to the alley. These doors are board-and-batten with “Z” braces, and metal gate hinges allow the doors to open outward. The building sits on a poured concrete foundation. All materials are historic and likely original to the building, and minimal to no modifications have been done to the exterior of the building throughout its rough 85-year history. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Fort Collins City Directories (1902-1962), accessed through Fort Collins History Connection, an online collaboration of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and the Poudre Valley River Public Library District. Fort Collins History Connection, “The Railroad Era, Colorado Agricultural College, and the Growth of the City, 1877-1900.” Fort Collins Public Library, Local History Archive (online). History Connection, including Building Records and Permits. http://history.poudreilbaries.org/ Fort Collins Weekly Courier, Fort Collins Courier, and Rocky Mountain Collegian from 1881 to 1920, accessed via coloradohistoricnewpapers.org. Grantor/Grantee Records at the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s Office, 200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO. A Brief History of the Auto Mechanic’s Trade, accessed via WorkerPower.ca, http://iamdistrict250.ca/our-skilled-trades/a-brief-history-of-the-auto-mechanics-trade/. Irving-Mills, Wendy, Seller’s Property Disclosure (Residential), Fort Collins: Downtown Real Estate Partners, LLC., 2017. Larimer County Tax Assessor Records, accessed via https://www.larimer.org/assessor/search#/property/ and at their offices at 200 W. Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO. McAlester, Virginia. A Field Guide to American Houses, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 2014. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 pg. 10 Meirose, Dave. 322 Edwards St. New Floor Plan. Fort Collins: Wildwood Construction, 2017. The National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the Fort Collins Midtown Historic District, 1980, accessed November 28, 2018, https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/9bdeedec-9b54- 4e49-807f-0d5527768cfa. “Henderson C. Howard.” Revolvy.com, accessed November 27, 2018, https://www.revolvy.com/page/Henderson-C.-Howard. United States Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1946, accessed via FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/ark. United States Federal Census, 1880-1940, accessed via FamilySearch, https://familysearch.org/ark. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 pg. 11 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 pg. 12 Photo and Map Attachments - 322 Edwards Street, Fort Collins Landmark Designation South Elevation of Feature 1 (residence) South and East Elevation of Feature 1 (residence) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 pg. 13 North Elevation of Feature 1 (residence) West Elevation of Feature 1 (residence) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 pg. 14 North Elevation of Feature 2 (1920s Garage) West Elevation of Feature 2 (1920s Garage) and Feature 3 (Tool/Tac Shed) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 pg. 15 West and North Elevations of Feature 2 (1920s Garage) and Feature 3 (Tool/Tac Shed) West Elevation of Feature 4 (1930s Machine Shed) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 pg. 16 South Elevations of Feature 4 (1930s Machine Shed) North Elevations of Feature 4 (1930s Machine Shed) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 pg. 17 322 Edwards Street, 1948-1953. View of South Elevation. From Fort Collins History Connection and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Historic Archive. 322 Edwards Street, 1940-1950. View of South Elevation. From Fort Collins History Connection and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Historic Archive. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 pg. 18 320, 322, 326, 332 Edwards Street, circa 1995. View of Edwards Street. From Fort Collins History Connection and the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Historic Archive. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 pg. 19 F igure 1. USGS map at 1:24,000 scale showing the location of 322 Edwards Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 36 pg. 20 Figure 2. Neighborhood Map Showing Location of 322 Edwards Street in Reference to Side Streets. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 37 E Elizabeth St E Pitkin St Mathews St Peterson St Garfield St Edwards St © Local Landmark 322 Edwards Designation 1 inch = 137 feet ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 38 1 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – Farrington Property Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 12.19.2018 322 Edwards – Farrington Property 2 Façade South Elevation East Elevation ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 39 322 Edwards – Farrington Property 3 North Elevation West Elevation 322 Edwards – Farrington Property 4 Garage ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 40 322 Edwards – Farrington Property 5 Tool/Tac Shed 322 Edwards – Farrington Property 6 Machine Shed ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 41 322 Edwards – Farrington Property 7 Machine Shed 322 Edwards – Farrington Property 8 322 Edwards Street, 1948-1953. View of South Elevation. 322 Edwards Street, 1940-1950. View of South Elevation. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 42 Farrington Property • Constructed circa 1900 • Standard C: Design/Construction – Classic Cottage • Exterior Integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association 9 Location and Context 10 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 43 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:” • Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark • Must possess both significance and exterior integrity • Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered Sec. 14-22(a): If all owners consent in writing, and a majority of Commission approves: • Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation 11 12 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – Farrington Property Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 12.19.2018 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 44 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 4 - SITE PLAN Packet Pg. 44-1 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 19, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 201 LINDEN STREET, LINDEN HOTEL – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of replacement windows at the Linden Hotel, 201 Linden Street. The property is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties. The proposed work involves replacing historic windows with new windows. APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephani Unfug, Project Manager, Dohn Construction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request for replacement windows. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street, constructed in 1882, is a Fort Collins Landmark and a contributing property to the National and State Register Old Town Historic District. The building was rehabilitated through a significant public-private effort in 1994. • The current owner is converting the second and third stories to residential condominiums and as part of that effort hired a contractor to conduct repair and rehabilitation work on the existing historic windows. • Historic Preservation staff did not receive a scope of work indicating the extensive alterations to the windows before the work was completed and did not have the opportunity to facilitate the applicant seeking written approval of the Landmark Preservation Commission for the work required by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-47, “Work not requiring building permit; application for approval.” • The applicant is now seeking to remove all of the historic windows and replace them with new units. • Staff’s recommendation of denial of the application is based on the findings that the proposed work does not comply with any of the five requirements for alterations to designated Fort Collins historic resources found in Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48(1-5). As a result, there is no basis in the code for a recommendation of approval. • Additionally, the proposal to remove the historic windows is not consistent with or supportive of the previous public and private investments in maintaining the historic materials and character-defining features of the designated landmark. BACKGROUND: 1. Building History The historic 1882 “Linden Hotel” building at the northwest corner of Walnut and Linden Streets, originally owned by Fort Collins pioneers’ Abner Loomis and Charles B. Andrews, was designed by prominent Denver Packet Pg. 45 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 2 architect William Quayle and constructed by John F. Colpitts just nine years after Fort Collins was incorporated as a town. Until 1917, its first floor housed the Poudre Valley Bank, the oldest banking institution in Larimer County. Other primary uses in its early years included the post office, the Masonic Lodge, a tavern, and the Linden Hotel. The Linden Hotel was individually designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in 1974—the third property in the city to receive this official recognition. It was also designated as a contributing building to the National Register Old Town Historic District in 1978 and the local Old Town Fort Collins Historic District in 1979. The building’s history, important location, and distinctive architectural features all combine to make the Linden Hotel, in the words of the National Register nomination, “the central anchor for the district.” The three-story red brick and native sandstone structure has several notable architectural details, including the prominent corner entry with its double oriel windows. According to previous surveys, there are a total of 51 windows on the second and third floors. Each oriel contains three double-hung wood sash windows, in wood surrounds, with ornate carved decorative wood details. Other than the oriel, the second-floor windows are surrounded with pointed half-arch stone lintels and stone sills. Third floor windows have flat stone lintels and stone sills. Windows on the second and third floors are historic double hung wood windows. Four windows on the west wall of the second floor are non-historic replacement windows; the original windows were lost during the collapse of the west wall associated with the 1994 rehabilitation. 2. Rehabilitation History In 1993, the Linden Hotel was selected as the study site for the week-long Preservation Leadership Training Institute sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park Service, which brought experts from around the country to examine the structure’s rehabilitation needs and its relationship to the revitalization of the historic downtown towards the river beyond Old Town Square. In 1994, Mayor Ann Azari recognized the Linden Hotel as the “highest historic priority in Fort Collins” for its potential to contribute to the long-term economic welfare and cultural identity of the city. The then-vacant building was rehabilitated through a public-private effort, which included a State Historical Fund grant, Downtown Development Authority funding and City monies. The National Park Service approved the project’s full compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and praised the extensive effort, noting that “local support by the community and the City of Fort Collins make this project unique among the many rehabilitation projects we review within a 16-state region.” In 1995, the City of Fort Collins recognized building owners Dave Veldman and Mitch Morgan of Veldman Morgan Commercial with a “Friend of Preservation” Award for their “courageous effort” to rehabilitate the building. In 2005, the building owner proposed replacing some of the wood windows. In response to that request, a window survey and assessment of 51 windows was conducted by Angie Aguilera, Edge Architecture. The report noted that windows were in relatively good condition for their age and provided three repair and performance improvement options along with two comparative estimates for replacement. Subsequently, the owner neither repaired nor replaced any of the windows. The current remodeling project involves a change of use from offices to residential on the second and third floors. Staff has conducted administrative design review and design review with an LPC Design Review Subcommittee and provided Design Assistance Program funds for other components of the project, including the rooftop installation of patio doors and deck and stabilization of the sandstone pilasters through the east wall at the second and third stories, to ensure the proposed work met the standards in Section 14-48(b), including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Old Town Historic District Design Standards. The applicant also briefly indicated an intention to clean and re-glaze the historic windows as another component of the conversion to residential units on the second and third floors of the building. As there were no plans for additional work to the windows at that time, the cleaning and re-glazing would comply with the definition of normal maintenance and repair (Ch. 14, Sec. 14-52). The information did not include a request to change the lift system and add extra panes to the windows, which required channeling out significant portions of wood from the sash. On August 22, 2018, the windows contractor contacted staff after the windows had been reinstalled in their original openings, and provided a detailed explanation of the work that had been done and the owner’s concerns with the results, and a request Packet Pg. 46 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 3 to review options for next steps including replacement of the historic windows with a product that the contractor had shared with the architect and owner’s representative. In response, staff accompanied an LPC Design Review Subcommittee (Hogestad, Murray) to a site visit at the building on September 4, 2018 to examine the condition and operability of the reinstalled historic windows and to examine four windows on the second floor of the west alley elevation. These four windows were installed in association with the reconstruction of the west wall, which collapsed during the 1994 rehabilitation project. Three of the four windows were modern replacements, and the fourth was a historic window with details, sections, shape, and cut lites that indicated it was moved to this location. On October 21, 2018, the applicant received administrative approval to replace those four windows based on the recommendation of the LPC Design Review Subcommittee (Hogestad, Murray). The replacement windows are Kolbe Sterling Double Hungs with LoE2-270 glass, a full hidden jamb liner, historic sill nosing, matching two-inch beaded brickmould, and custom matching color. The original dimensions of the window openings remained intact for each of the four windows. While the subcommittee did provide a recommendation of approval for the administrative design review regarding replacement of the four windows on the west wall due to their lack of significance, the subcommittee members directed the matter of the building’s historic windows to the full Landmark Preservation Commission for a design review hearing. In referring the matter to the full Commission, the subcommittee members noted that the prior work on the windows had resulted in operability issues and each had concerns about the suitability of the rehabilitation approach that the applicant’s contractor had used and the fact that the work had been performed without prior review and approval. They also noted that the historic windows could be further adjusted to improve operability and performance. To provide independent analysis of these comments, staff ordered a third-party analysis of the current condition and repairability of the historic windows from Barlow Cultural Resource Consulting, LLC. That report, dated November 29, 2018, is attached. 3. Rehabilitation Chronology (added in response to LPC work session request on 12/12/18): 1994: Original rehabilitation project of interior and exterior, addressing structural issues and restoration of facade (public-private partnership with owner, DDA, City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado) 2005: Edge Architecture window survey and assessment regarding rehabilitation options (no work completed) 2011: LPC Design Review of additional work on sandstone columns 1/11/2017: Design Review Subcommittee Review of rooftop penthouse mechanical and stairs, third floor roof gardens and deck, new exterior windows at patios and back alley, patio covers (approved administratively) August 2018: Design Review Subcommittee review of façade stone stabilization (anchor to brick walls from interior face) (approved administratively) 8/22/2018: Applicant emailed staff with summary of work completed on windows to date and request to replace windows. 9/4/2018: Design Review Subcommittee site visit to assess historic window condition. Referred to Landmark Preservation Commission for design review. 9/4/2018: Design Review Subcommittee site visit to review replacement of four non-historic windows on west wall, second floor (alley) elevation with new wood windows, no change to opening (approved administratively). 4. Communication with Applicant about Design Review Process (added in response to LPC work session request on 12/12/18): Packet Pg. 47 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 4 As indicated in the above “Rehabilitation History” summary, staff has worked with the applicant on various Design Review requests throughout the process of converting the second and third stories of 201 Linden to condominiums and addressing the stabilization of the sandstone pilasters with an appropriate treatment methodology. In all other matters, the applicant notified staff of proposed work and received administrative approval or Design Review Subcommittee approval before proceeding with proposed work. The applicant’s window contractor has been part of multiple applications in the recent past for design review of designated Fort Collins landmarks. REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF ANALYSIS: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Report of Acceptability” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: Sec. 14-48(b)(1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; • Staff finds that this requirement is not met by the proposal to replace the historic windows, which are prominently visible character-defining features on the primary, street-facing facades of the landmark. Sec. 14-48(b)(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; • Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this requirement because the existing historic texture and historic materials in the wood windows would not be retained. Sec. 14-48(b)(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; • Staff finds that the proposal to remove and replace all the historic windows on the second and third floors will destroy the exterior characteristics of the historic windows and the historic building, and thus it does not meet this requirement. Sec. 14-48(b)(4): The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and • Staff finds that the proposed work does not protect the landmark and that replacing the windows is not required to perpetuate the building’s use, as substantiated in the Barlow report. Sec. 14-48(b)(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. • To understand how each of the ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation work together, it is important to review the explanatory text found in “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.” The document presents a clear, unambiguous hierarchy of priorities as follows: 1) identify and retain the historic materials and features of a building; 2) protect and maintain those features, 3) repair those features when the physical condition warrants it, and finally, 4) replace deteriorated historic materials only when “the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair” (see “Introduction” section, page 77). Packet Pg. 48 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 5 • Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet several of the requirements in the two sets of standards required for review of a contributing property in the Old Town Historic District, which are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation and the adopted Old Town Historic District Design Standards (Ordinance No. 094, 2014). The relevant standards and associated staff analysis immediately follow. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: Standard 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. • Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard because the proposal to replace rather than repair the windows constitutes more than minimal change to a defining characteristic of the property, i.e. the historic windows. Standard 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. • Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard, which requires retention and preservation of historic windows that characterize a property. Standard 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. • Staff finds that the proposed work would meet this standard because replacement windows would not create a false sense of historical development. Standard 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. • Staff finds that there are no changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right associated with the proposed work. Standard 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. • Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard, which is unambiguous in regard to retention of historic materials, stating that distinctive character-defining features, including their materials and construction techniques, “will be preserved.” The applicant’s work to date on the property resulted altered historic windows, each reinstalled in its original opening. The applicant now has concerns about operability of the windows associated with their weight, gaps in the fit of windows to opening, and structural instability due to channeling of some of the sash to accommodate the additional pane of glass. • The Commission should note that this work was done without consultation and approval from staff or the LPC and there was no opportunity to evaluate what alternatives might have been used to address the described need without impacting the window character and performance. Further discussion related to that concern is noted under Standard 6. 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. • Staff finds that the proposal to replace all of the historic windows due to dissatisfaction with the windows’ performance and appearance does not meet this standard. The central and unambiguous idea in Standard 6 is similar to the previous standard, stating that distinctive features “will be repaired rather than replaced.” Packet Pg. 49 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 6 In addition, it provides requirements for replacement when damage precludes the possibility of repair. In such cases, the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate that the severity of deterioration “requires replacement,” which means that there is no option for repair. • In correspondence with staff, the applicant noted that they believe replacement is the most appropriate route and that “all windows meet enough of the many reasons noted to qualify for a singular solution.” Despite this request, successful design review applications for alterations to historic windows rarely include a single treatment plan of replacement for all windows, as it must be demonstrated for each window that there is no possibility of repair. • Without confirmation that the windows are beyond repair, staff cannot find a basis for claiming that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards have been met. The third-party professional assessment provided by Barlow Cultural Resource Consulting suggests that repair options have not been exhausted and further investigation and testing of improved repair methods is in order to verify or challenge the applicant team’s claims about the current conditions of the historic windows. Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. • Based on the information provided in the Barlow report, staff finds that the contractor used a physical treatment, without approval, that caused damage to the historic windows. • The Barlow report notes that the cleaning was not done properly—paint/lead remains on the windows. Standard 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. • Staff finds that this standard is not relevant for the current application. Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. • Based on the information provided in the Barlow report, staff finds that the contractor used a physical treatment, without approval, that caused damage to the historic windows. Glass panes were added to the interior of the upper and lower sash. A groove was cut into the interior face of the historic sash to a depth of approximately 3/16" and a width of 3/8" for the glass to fit into, removing historic material and changing the appearance of the windows. Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. • Staff finds that this standard is not relevant for the current application. Old Town Historic District Design Standards: Windows (page 50) states: “Historic windows help convey the significance of historic structures, and shall be preserved. They can be repaired by re-glazing and patching and splicing elements such as muntins, the frame, sill and casing. Repair and weatherization also is often more energy efficient, and less expensive, than replacement. If a historic window cannot be repaired, a new replacement window shall be in character with the historic building. 3.8 Maintain and repair historic windows. > Preserve historic window features including the frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. > Repair and maintain windows regularly, including trim, glazing putty and glass panes. > Repair, rather than replace, frames and sashes. Packet Pg. 50 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 7 > Restore altered window openings to their historic configuration.” • Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard because, while it preserves the existing openings in their historic configuration, it fails to follow the requirements to maintain and repair the historic windows. FINDINGS OF FACT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the current application to replace the historic windows at 201 Linden based on the following findings of fact: • The proposed work is not consistent with or supportive of the previous public and private investments in the historic rehabilitation of the structure. • The proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48(1) because it creates an adverse effect on the general historical character of the landmark. • The proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48(2) because it does not preserve the historic window materials. • The proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48(3) because it changes a key exterior characteristic of the landmark building. • The proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48(4) because it fails to demonstrate its necessity for the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation and use of the landmark building. • The proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Section 14-48(5) because it fails to satisfy all of the applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (specifically standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9), as required, and also does not comply with section 3.8 of the City’s adopted Old Town Design Standards (Ordinance No. 094, 2014) as discussed in detail in the staff report. • Because the proposed work to replace the historic windows meets none of the requirements of the Municipal Code, there is no basis for approval. SAMPLE MOTIONS: SAMPLE MOTION (TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW): I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Linden Hotel, 201 Linden Street. SAMPLE MOTION (APPROVAL): I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the request for approval for the plans to replace the windows of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street as presented, finding that the proposed work complies with Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, based on the following specific findings of fact: [insert findings.] SAMPLE MOTION (DENIAL): I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans to replace the windows of the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) would remove and destroy distinctive, character-defining historic features of the property; and (b) does not comply with Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, based on the findings of fact presented in the staff report. STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS: • The applicant should hire a window rehabilitation contractor, approved by City staff, to test on one representative historic window the efficacy of the rehabilitation treatment methods proposed in the Barlow report, which would salvage the historic windows and mitigate some of the issues created by the work that was done without design review approval. Packet Pg. 51 Agenda Item 3 updated 12-17-18 Item 3, Page 8 • The contractor should also conduct a revised and detailed window study to provide an individual assessment and plan for each window that considers their existing condition and the methods that prove effective from the test window. • If the original weights and pulleys have not been discarded or if appropriate replacements are available, they should be considered for the revised rehabilitation plan to achieve the greatest level of compliance with the standards. • The applicant should then return to the Landmark Preservation Commission to seek approval for a revised rehabilitation plan based on the above testing and window study. That plan should include a plan for repair and rehabilitation of all historic windows that are repairable and replacement only for windows that are beyond repair (based on expert analysis). The replacement windows must also meet the standards. • Only after the question of whether or not some or all of the existing windows could be salvaged is definitively answered should the Commission then turn to the question of replacement for some or all of the windows and, if appropriate, whether or not the proposed replacement solution meets the requirements in the standards regarding form, design, scale, materials, and appearance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter of Introduction 2. Narrative on the Secretary of Interior Standards 3. Photos of Existing Windows 4. Elevations of Existing and New Windows 5. Product Info for Proposed Windows 6. Installation Information 7. Window Study (2016) 8. Addendum - Additional Work to Be Done 9. Letter of Recommendation 10. Applicant Presentation 11. Plan of Protection 12. Barlow Resume 13. BDRC Window Evaluation (2018) 14. Staff Presentation - 201 Linden 15. DDA Easement Packet Pg. 51-1 LETTER OF INTRODUCTION To Whom It May Concern, The following letter is a proposal and rational for the replacement of nonfunctioning windows, with a goal of protecting the historic infrastructure, at the address of 201 Linden Street. 201 Linden Street is undergoing a remodel to accommodate an occupancy change from a commercial to residential space on the Second and Third floors. Because the owners are looking at this as a long term investment, major structural improvements are being made to maintain the integrity of the building. All 2nd and 3rd floor roof joists have been ‘sistered’ with additional joists or were replaced after discovering that the existing structure was compromised. Additional steel structure was also added to 2nd and 3rd floors to secure the masonry and stone exterior façade that had begun to ‘bow’ outwards. All items were inspected and designed by a licensed structural engineer. The roof membrane is also being replaced to eliminate potential leaks that will cause extensive damage to the interior of the space. Again, all of the above mentioned actions were completed due to owner and team’s commitment to extend the life expectancy, and protect the historic fabric of this building. In the 1990’s, metal sill covers were installed to protect the existing wood sills. Upon investigation, we have discovered that the wood beneath has severely deteriorated. Although this may have been a successful short term solution, the metal sills do not provide long term protection against air infiltration, sound and thermal issues, and extensive physical deterioration to the sills and surrounding window components. The deteriorating window components allow moisture and other elements to invade the structure of the building. They also cannot function to a level that would allow egress in an emergency. We have performed extensive rehabilitation in the hopes of retaining the existing windows, and bringing them to a functioning, code compliant state for the new occupants. A second pane had been added to the windows for improved thermal and noise reduction, spiral bound operators were added to help increase the operability of the windows, and weather stripping has been added to the sash stops to limit air infiltration. After completing this work, the windows still do not provide adequate protection from the elements, and are barely operable by the average resident. There are visible gaps in multiple instances that are large enough to fit a finger through to the outside. Light can be seen through gaps in the sides of the windows where they no longer sit and seal properly. Portions of the structure are visibly weathered, damaged, and falling apart, and the sashes are able to rock back and forth within the opening with little effort. The existing windows are not capable of protecting the components of the building or meeting the needs of the occupants any longer. They cannot seal to be weather tight which will allow moisture into the structure, and cause further damage for years to come. They do not provide sound control, and cannot function properly to allow the occupants to safely exit the building in the case of emergency. These existing windows likely survived the length that they did due to the use of the building. As a commercial space, the area is occupied only though typical working hours of roughly 8am to 5pm Monday through Friday. The windows were seldom operated. Many benefits could be gained with the installation of new windows. The proposed new windows are manufactured with a pair of balances that increase ease of operability in windows of this size and weight. They will also receive a baked on four-step coating that is an exact match to the color of the existing windows. This coating process has been implemented at Colorado State University, and is proven to perform for 20 years without needing to be repainted. This maintenance and aesthetic advantage could never be achieved using the existing windows. The new windows also have a weather tight system, which will increase thermal ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 52 performance from roughly a U1 to U.32 value. This will protect the interior historic fabric and structural components of the building from dust, moisture, and other harmful elements. The proposed new windows will also decrease sound infiltration from a 1-4 to 5-7 range, provide structural support to the fragile exterior façade, and provide a functional exit in case of emergency. Many lasting and beneficial gains would be realized by inserting windows that met or exceeded code expectations. We understand the importance of maintaining the aesthetic of the existing exterior façade. The new windows we are proposing will look virtually identical to the existing, with only small fractions of difference in the daylight opening dimensions. A difference that is undetectable even to the trained eye. No changes to the existing openings is required. Our goal is to improve the function of the windows while protecting and maintaining the historic fabric of this cherished, and monumental building. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 53 NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO REPLACE THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR WINDOWS IN THE LINDEN HOTEL Applicant is requesting permission to remove and replace the second and third story windows in the Linden Hotel. The wooden frames of the windows are deteriorated. Applicant has attempted to repair the windows without success. Applicant is proposing to replace the existing windows with new windows of the same material, same color, same style, same design, same method of operation, and same size, except each pane of glass in the new windows will be 3/16ths of an inch narrower and approximately 1/2 inch shorter than the panes of glass in the existing windows. The following provisions from the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings published by the United States Department of Interior support Applicant’s request: Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard 6 p. 76: “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.” The Standards for Rehabilitation are set forth in 36 Code of Federal Regulations § 68.3 (b). Standard 6 quoted above is most directly applicable to Applicant’s request for permission to replace the existing windows. The existing window frames and sills are severely deteriorated. Applicant has attempted to repair the window frames and sills without success. Applicant is proposing to replace the existing windows with new windows that will match the original windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. Introduction, p. 2: “The purpose of the [Guidelines] is to provide guidance to historic building owners and building managers, preservation consultants, architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to beginning work. . . . The Guidelines are intended as an aid to assist in applying the Standards to all types of historic buildings. They are not meant to give case- specific advice or address exceptions or unusual conditions.” [emphasis added] The guidelines are intended to provide guidance and assist in deciding how best to meet the Standards. They are not intended to be inflexible rules applicable in all cases without exception. As discussed above, Applicants request will meet the Standards by replacing deteriorated windows that cannot be repaired with new windows that will match the original windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 Introduction, p. 2: “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. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” [emphasis in original] The building is being converted to residential use. The windows are severely deteriorated and cannot be repaired. The windows permit significant air and noise infiltration which is unacceptable for urban residential condominiums. Altering the building by replacing the windows will meet the reasonable requirements for urban residential condominiums while retaining the building’s historic character because the new windows will match the old windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. Introduction, p. 77: “Greater latitude is given in the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either the same material or compatible substitute materials.” [emphasis in original] Applicant is requesting greater latitude be given to replacing the extensively deteriorated and damages windows using compatible windows that will match the old windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. Repair Historic Materials and Features, p. 77: “In rehabilitation, repairing also includes the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes features that can be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Although using the same kind of material is always the preferred option, a substitute material may be an acceptable alternative if the form, design, and scale, as well as the substitute material itself can effectively replicate the appearance of the remaining features.” Applicant is requests that the extensively deteriorated windows be replaced with windows that will match the old windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 55 Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials and Features, P. 77: “Following repair in the hierarchy, Rehabilitation guidance is provided for replacing an entire character-defining feature with new material because the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair.” [emphasis in original] In this case Applicant has attempted to repair the windows, but the level of deterioration and damage to the windows is such that the windows cannot be repaired. Therefore, Applicant is requests that the extensively deteriorated and damaged windows be replaced with new windows that will match the old windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials and Features, P. 78: “As with repair, the preferred option is always replacement of the entire feature in kind (i.e., with the same material, such as wood for wood). However, when this is not feasible, a compatible substitute material that can reproduce the overall appearance of the historic material may be considered.” In this case the windows will be replaced in their entirety with new windows that will match the old windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. The overall appearance of the of the windows will not be changed. Recommended, p. 105: “Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated, broken, or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as sash, sills, hardware, or shutters.” The existing windows are extensively deteriorated and will be replaced with windows that will be compatible with the original windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. Recommended, p. 105: “Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.” [emphasis in original] ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 In this case the windows are too deteriorated to repair and will be replaced in their entirety with windows compatible with the original windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation. Recommended, p. 106: “Replacing all of the components in a glazing system if they have failed because of faulty design or materials that have deteriorated with new material that will improve the window performance without noticeably changing the historic appearance.” The existing windows have failed because of deteriorated materials. The new windows will improve the performance of the windows immensely without changing the historic appearance. Recommended, p. 106: “Replacing incompatible, non-historic windows with new windows that are compatible with the historic character of the building.” The existing windows sills have been covered with metal which is not compatible with the historic character of the building. Installing new windows that will be compatible with the original windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation will restore the historic character of the building. Recommended, p. 109: “Replacing windows that are too deteriorated to repair using the same sash and pane configuration, but with new windows that operate differently, if necessary, to accommodate a new use. Any change must have minimal visual impact.” The existing windows are too deteriorated to repair. The new windows will have substantially the same sash and pane configuration and will operate the same as the existing windows. The difference of 3/16ths of an inch in the width of the pane of the windows on the second and third floor of the building will have minimal, if any, visual impact. Not Recommended, p. 105: “Removing a character-defining window that is unrepairable . . . and replacing it with a new window that does not match. . . . Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving components of the window or that is physically incompatible.” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 57 Applicant is not proposing to replace the existing windows with new windows that do not match or that do not convey the same appearance of the window or that is physically incompatible. The new windows will match the existing windows in design, dimensions, materials, finish, color, location, and method of operation. The new windows will not have a negative impact on the visual appearance or character of the building. Not Recommended, p. 109: “Replacing a window that contributes to the historic character of the building with a new window that is different in design (such as glass divisions or muntin profiles), dimensions, materials, (wood, metal or glass), finish or color, or location that will have a noticeably different appearance from the historic windows, which may negatively impact the character of the building.” Applicant is not proposing to replace the existing windows with new windows that are different in design, dimensions, materials, finish, color, location, or method of operation. The new windows will not have a negative impact on the visual appearance or character of the building. SUMMARY Applicant’s request for permission to replace the existing windows meets the Standards for Rehabilitation are set forth in 36 Code of Federal Regulations § 68.3 (b) because the existing window frames and sills are severely deteriorated; Applicant has attempted to repair the window frames and sills without success; the new windows will match the original windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation; and the difference in width and height of the glass panes in the second and third floor windows will not be detectible. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 58 2 0 1 L I N D E N Fort Collins, CO PHOTOS OF EXISTING WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 59 2 0 1 L I N D E N Fort Collins, CO PHOTOS OF EXISTING WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 60 2 0 1 L I N D E N Fort Collins, CO PHOTOS OF EXISTING WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 61 ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING AND NEW WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 62 Heritage Series Product Catalog PRODUCT INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 63 Smooth operation, venting options, removable sash for easy cleaning, and classic styling are only the most obvious features of Heritage Series double hung windows. Kolbe offers a variety of double hung models to suit your project, whether it be residential, commercial, large scale, historic preservation or remodeling. There are many options and configurations to choose from as well, including bow and bay units, cottage-style units or triple pane glass options for increased energy efficiency. Double Hungs Sterling Double Hungs | Majesta® Double Hungs | Traditional Double Hungs Magnum Double Hungs | Old World Classic Double Hungs Cottage-Style & Reverse-Cottage Style | Studio & Transom Units Picture Combination Units | Bay Units | Segment Head & Half-Circle Top Units Single Hungs | Replacement Sash Kits Photo courtesy of Kenneth M. Wyner Photography, Inc. Photo courtesy of Kenneth M. Wyner Photography, Inc. Photo Ph ttfK courtesy of Kenneth thM M. W Wyner Ph Photography, t h Inc. I Kolbe Heritage Series 65 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 64 ` 1-3/4" thick sash ` Overall jamb width is 4-9/16" (basic box width is 4-9/16") ` Frame thickness is 3/4" at side jambs and head ` Sill thickness is 1-3/16", slope is 14° ` Constructed of pine, with pine interior stops and wood mull casings on mulled units ` Energy efficient, insulating LoE2-270 glass ` Glazed to the interior with beveled wood glazing beads ` 1-15/16" exterior brickmould applied ` All exterior wood parts are preservative-treated ` Exterior frame and sash are latex primed ` Wood interior head parting stop ` Fully weatherstripped for a tight seal ` Clay-colored heavy duty sash lock with a dual positioning lever allows sash to be unlocked, operated and tilted in from one location ` Spring-loaded block-and-tackle mechanical balances to carry the sash weight ` Concealed PVC jambliners ` Patented wood-wrapped jambliner closure on the interior (unless interior is prefinished white or primed, then jambliner will be white) and a primed, extruded aluminum jambliner closure on the exterior hides PVC jambliners ` Pine-veneered head and seat boards; unique narrow mullions on bay units Heavy duty sash lock with dual positioning lever allows sash to be unlocked, operated, and tilted in from one location. A wood wrapped jambliner closure on the interior (shown) and a primed, extruded aluminum jambliner closure on the exterior hide the PVC jambliners. Patents 7,296,381 | 7,448,164 | 8,196,355 | 8,429,856 Sash lock in Clay (standard) Square style sash lift handle in Satin Nickel Traditional style sash lift handle in Matte Black Tim Cuppett Architects & Vogel Builders Sterling Double Hung Standard Features Sterling double hungs feature a pick resistant cam lock with a concealed locking mechanism and tilt latches installed into an interlock channel. Optional sash lift handles are available for easy operation. All double hung hardware is available in Clay (standard), White, Beige, Brass, Antique Brass, Satin Nickel, Antique Nickel, Rustic Umber, and Matte Black finishes. Hardware NOTE: All measurements are nominal. Sterling Double Hungs Sterling double hungs are made to blend seamlessly with the grandest décor. A patented interior wood cover conceals the jambliner, while giving the windows a rich, full-wood appearance. The lock system boosts performance to a level not often reached by double hung windows. 66 Kolbe Heritage Series ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 65 NOTE: All measurements are nominal. Glass (pgs. 184-185): `LoE-180 ` LoE2-240 ` LoE3-366 ` ThermaPlus™ LoE ` Patterned, bronze- or gray-lite ` Tempered or laminated ` Other options standard to the industry Divided Lites (pgs. 186-187): ` Performance divided lites with 5/8", 7/8", 1-1/8", 1-3/4", 2-1/4", or 4-1/2" bars ` True divided lites with 5/8" LoE2 insulating glass and 1-1/8" bars ` Grilles-in-the-airspace ` Interior removable wood grilles with 7/8" or 1-1/8" bars and full surrounds Exterior Finishes (pg. 189): ` K-Kron II exterior paint finish Other Options: (custom options are also available) ` Other wood species and FSC-certified wood (pg. 188) ` Interior prefinishing (pg. 188) ` Interior casing (pg. 190) ` Prep for stool ` 3-1/2" flat or profiled brickmould, backband on 3-1/2" brickmould and other custom millwork (pg. 190) ` Projected sill nosing, extended sill horns or no nosing Photo courtesy of Kenneth M Wyner Photography Sterling Double Hung Optional Features ` Ovolo and square profile glazing beads and interior divided lite bars (pg. 192) ` Class 5 balances available for larger units ` Sash locks in White, Beige, Brass, Antique Brass, Satin Nickel, Antique Nickel, Rustic Umber, and Matte Black finishes ` Sash lift handles in Clay, White, Beige, Brass, Antique Brass, Satin Nickel, Antique Nickel, Rustic Umber, and Matte Black finishes `Custodial locks ` Universal design crank handle hardware kit in White ` Full or half screens with aluminum frames and options for BetterVue® or UltraVue® fiberglass screen mesh or aluminum screen mesh in either aluminum or charcoal colors; frames will match the exterior color of the unit ` Retractable screen kit (pg. 191) ` Retractable screen covers available as beveled (standard) or square ` StormGuard combination storm/screen units (pg. 191) ` Extension jambs (up to 12" applied; over 12" shipped loose for field application) ` Sash limiters for safety ` Galvanized steel installation clips ` Insulated platforms, support brackets and oak- veneered head and seat boards for bay units ` High performance and K-Force® impact performance modifications Kolbe Heritage Series 67 Traditional Double Hung 1 3/16" UNIT DIMENSION WIDTH JAMBS 1/4" ROUGH OPENING WIDTH 3 1/4" D.L.O. FRAME WIDTH 1/4" 3 1/4" Horizontal Section Sterling Double Hung NOTE: Drawings are not to scale. Additional and the most current drawings are available in the Architect Library at www.kolbe-kolbe.com. Horizontal Section 4 9/16" 5 5/8" 3 1/4" D.L.O. 3 1/4" UNIT DIMENSION WIDTH FRAME WIDTH 1 3/16" Vertical Section Vertical Section S��� ��A� 1/�" D.L.O. 3 3/16" UNIT DIMENSION HEIGHT ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT FRAME HEIGHT �" � 1/4" D.L.O. �/16" 3 1/�" 1 �/�" 1 �/16" 4 �/16" � �/�" Double Hungs Cross Section Drawings Kolbe Heritage Series 91 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 67 5/8" beveled PDL 1-1/8" beveled PDL 7/8" beveled PDL 1-3/4" beveled PDL 2-1/4" beveled PDL 1-1/8" ovolo PDL 1-3/4" ovolo PDL 2-1/4" ovolo PDL 7/8" ovolo PDL 5/8" ovolo PDL 4-1/2" beveled PDL 4-1/2" ovolo PDL Divided Lites | Cross Section Drawings NOTE: Drawings are not to scale. Additional and the most current drawings are available in the Architect Library at www.kolbe-kolbe.com. Beveled Performance Divided Lites Ovolo Performance Divided Lites 180 Kolbe Heritage Series ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 68 Craftsmanship and artistry are hallmarks of Kolbe products. We build innovative windows and doors with a wide array of options. But, don’t let the standard options limit your imagination. At Kolbe, we love a good challenge. We welcome projects that require special wood species, custom divided lite patterns, unique shapes, custom finish colors, unusual mulling configurations – you dream it, we’ll build it. We can even help inspire and develop your designs. Whatever the opening, we will help you fill it with style. Our windows and doors are built to order, which allows you to choose the options that best fit with the design of your home and vision for your project. We offer many customizable options that blend beautifully with your home’s décor. Options Kolbe Heritage Series 183 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 69 LoE²-270 LoE³-366 Laminated IG LoE²-240 86% 95% 99% UV BLOCKAGE 84% NOTE: Tested units include argon. The laminate has 1/4" inner pane. Based on Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) Window 5.2 © 2003 analysis for classical UV transmission data. Glass Options Kolbe offers numerous options to achieve the optimum energy efficiency for the geographic region in which you live. To improve thermal efficiency, microscopically thin coatings are applied to the glass that is used in the insulated glass units incorporated into our windows and doors. The state-of-the-art application of the LoE coating is known as sputter coating. There are a number of coating options available, and the appropriate one should be chosen for either the specific geographic region or building construction design required to help achieve the highest level of energy performance possible. As standard, we use double strength annealed glass in most units, with double-pane insulating LoE2-270 glass. In energy zones with a warmer climate, LoE coatings can be used to significantly block the amount of heat transfer, reducing the load of air conditioning systems. In colder climate zones, LoE coatings can be used to allow for high solar heat gain, resulting in reduced heating and cooling costs throughout the year. LoE coatings also reduce the potential for condensation, as well as provide protection against fading of furniture, fabrics and carpeting. Numerous glass options and combinations are available for different applications and various geographic regions. Special glass requests are also welcomed. LoE-180 When the weather turns frigid, LoE-180 glass is the perfect cold remedy. It keeps homes warmer and more comfortable by blocking heat loss to the outside and letting the sun’s heat stream in to increase solar heat gain. LoE2-240 Wherever glare is a problem, LoE²-240 glass is a solution to maintain year-round comfort in warmer climates. In summer, it blocks oppressive solar heat gain and maintains cool glass temperatures. When winter rolls around, it keeps inside glass temperatures warm. LoE2-270 LoE²-270 glass delivers year-round comfort in most types of weather. Offering a balance of high clarity and low solar heat gain, LoE2-270 is standard in most Kolbe products. In summer, it rejects the sun’s heat and damaging UV rays. In winter, it reflects heat back into the room. LoE3-366 For warm climates, LoE³-366 delivers a balance of solar control and high visibility. This coating helps provide protection of fading, blocking up to 95% of the sun’s damaging rays. ThermaPlus™ LoE ThermaPlus LoE is an additional interior coating applied to help meet the strictest energy requirements and provide protection against heat loss and UV damage. LoE Coatings Argon gas is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic, naturally-occurring element that is inert, meaning it will not react with other elements or gasses. Because argon gas has a thermal conductivity 30% lower than air, the use of argon gas in a LoE coated insulated glass unit allows it to provide for an incremental improvement to the overall U-factor of the unit. For increased energy efficiency, argon is supplied, at no additional cost, in all LoE coated insulated glass units, with the exception of those units when glass dimensions are less than 14" x 14" or units that require capillary/breather tubes due to being shipped over or installed in high altitude elevations. Units constructed without argon gas will have higher U-values. High altitude situations occur when Kolbe double pane insulated glass units are shipped over or installed in areas that begin at 5000 feet above sea level. For triple pane insulated glass units, high altitude begins at 3500 feet above sea level. To find the energy performance for units in high altitude situations, use our energy database at kolbe-kolbe.com and select Air as the fill option for double or triple pane glass. Argon Gas Thermo-Edge Spacer Kolbe’s standard glass offerings are complemented by a state-of–the-art, stainless steel spacer bar system on most units. The advanced design of this system incorporates a stainless steel spacer with airtight bent corners and a dual- seal construction of compressed polyisobutylene (PIB) and silicone. Desiccants are contained in the spacer to eliminate the potential for moisture. These features combine to reduce the thermal transmission through the edge seal, creating better energy performance and increasing the roomside glass temperature while reducing the potential for condensation at the sash to glass interface as compared to aluminum spacer designs. Thermo-Edge spacers are one of the many quality details that define Kolbe windows and doors. Thermo-Edge spacers are not available on very small radius units, units with ½" insulated glass, with the champagne or dark Bronze Anodized spacer option, units with “pencil” bar grilles-in-the-airspace, Exterior Interior or true divided lites. Available in stainless steel (standard) and black painted. Stainless Steel Spacer Primary Seal Silicone Secondary Seal Desiccant Fill LoE Coating Surface #2 Surface #1 Surface #4 Surface #3 Additional Glass Options Triple Pane Provides a greater energy performing window that keeps indoor air warm and comfortable, prevents heat loss and lowers your heating bills. Available with a variety of LoE coatings that best suit your needs. Mountain Air Energy Package Specifically designed to meet a U-factor of .30 without argon gas. Consists of a specially- constructed frame, second-generation ThermaPlus glass with LoE³-366 and a capillary/breather tube within the insulating glass unit. Available on Crank-Out Casements and Awnings, Sterling Double Hungs, and Studio/Picture, Transom and Direct Set units to match Crank-Out Casements and Sterling Double Hungs. Preserve Film A protective film that protects the glass surfaces from scratches during transit and construction, as well as reducing the time involved in job site clean-up. Tinted, Colored or Patterned Provides shading, privacy or visual interest. Finely Crafted Glass (not available with argon gas) Decorative glass created with a variety of caming options. Tempered Standard in Kolbe doors to address safety concerns. Also available in window units to meet specific building codes. Laminated Benefits include safety, security, sound control and provides the ultimate in UV blockage. Impact Glazing utilized to withstand harsh environmental conditions, especially in coastal regions. Combined with an impact product, such as K-Force®, this product offers the highest level of security. Neat® Harnesses the sun’s UV rays to loosen dirt so water can rinse it away, leaving windows virtually spotless. A special sputter- coating process makes the exterior glass surface ultra smooth, so the water “sheets off” more readily than it would on uncoated glass, allowing you to spend less time cleaning. NOTE: Not all glass is available on all products. Please contact your Kolbe dealer for product specifics. LoE2, LoE2-240, LoE2-270, LoE3-366, Neat and Preserve are trademarks of Cardinal IG. LoE insulating glass with a stainless steel spacer bar carries a 20-year warranty. Not all glass options listed have the same glass warranty. Please contact your dealer for details. Inert gas dissipates over the life of the insulated glass unit. Kolbe does not warrant the amount or percentage of argon Expand the character of your home or project by adding one of our divided lite options to your windows and doors. Choose anything from a traditional, colonial-style pattern to a unique, custom design to accentuate the overall appearance of your project. Kolbe offers four types of divided lites: grilles-in-the-airspace, wood removable grilles, performance divided lites and true divided lites. As standard, wood bars have a beveled profile, however, an ovolo profile or a square profile is also available. (See pg. 192, Glazing Beads & Muntin Bars.) Divided lite cross section drawings can be found on pgs. 180-181. Divided Lites Kolbe’s performance divided lite (PDL) glazing system gives the appearance of true divided lites without sacrificing energy efficiency. Extruded aluminum bars are adhered to the exterior and unfinished pine bars are adhered to the interior of the single lite of insulating glass. Aesthetically pleasing spacer bars are installed within the insulating glass unit. Together, these bars create the illusion of true divided lites. PDL bars are available in 5/8", 7/8", 1-1/8", 1-3/4", 2-1/4" or 4-1/2" bar widths. The exterior finish of the aluminum bars will match the exterior finish on the unit. Variations on the PDL option may include custom grille patterns, custom bar widths or no spacer bars. Some designs may have a composite material for the exterior PDL bar. Performance Divided Lites True divided lites (TDL) give each unit the traditional look often found in historical projects. Units with TDL are comprised of wood muntin bars in between glass panes. The horizontal and vertical, colonial-style wood TDL bars use interlocking half-lap joints. Profile shadow lines enhance the warm, richness of the wood on both the interior and exterior. The exterior finish on the bars will match the exterior finish of the unit. TDL options include custom patterns and bar widths, other wood species and interior stain or paint finishes. Depending on glass options chosen, standard bar widths are available in 7/8" or 1-1/8". TDL glass units are not filled with argon gas. True Divided Lites 186 Kolbe Heritage Series ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 72 contour bars flat bars “pencil” bars Grilles-in-the-airspace are constructed with aluminum bars sealed between two panes of insulating glass, offering the look of divided panes while reducing cleaning time. For units with 7/8" insulating glass, contoured, 3/4" wide bars are standard in White, Beige, Sand, Rustic, Hartford Green and Chutney. Optional colors are light wood and dark wood faux finishes. Flat, 5/8" wide grille bars are also available in White, Beige, Sand, Rustic, Hartford Green, Chutney, light wood and dark wood faux finishes and Brass. Two-tone contour or flat grilles are available with either light or dark wood faux finishes to the interior and White to the exterior. Also available for 7/8" insulating glass are 5/16" wide Brass and Pewter pencil bars. Grilles-in-the-Airspace Wood grilles are built with a full surround frame and bars that interlock at the joints for stability. Grilles are applied to the interior of the window using an exclusive hidden clip system.* This system makes unsightly pins and attachment points unnecessary and removal or replacement easy. As standard, bars are constructed of unfinished pine and are 7/8" wide on windows and 1-1/8" wide on doors. Custom grille patterns, bar widths, wood species and interior stains may be available upon request. * A clear pin system will be used for Garden-Aire sliding patio doors. Wood Removable Grilles Kolbe Heritage Series 187 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 73 Swinging screen doors are available for field installation with Kolbe single and double inswing doors. Screen doors feature an adjustable self-closing mechanism. Double swinging screen doors are equipped with spring-loaded locking mechanisms on the head and sill of the passive door. Energy efficiency is provided by weatherstripping around the frame perimeter and on the astragal of double screen doors; rubber door sweeps meet the sill. Swinging screen door frames are available in over 30 colors, plus custom colors. Keystones and pediment heads add a classic touch to the exterior of Heritage Series windows or doors. Pine keystones and pediment heads may be ordered unfinished, primed or prefinished with K-Kron II to match your windows or doors. Ask your Kolbe dealer for more details. Keystone Pediment Head Most Kolbe products can be modified to meet even the most strict building code requirements. Depending on the criteria, Kolbe offers high performance and K-Force® impact performance products to improve air, water and structural ratings or sound transmittance ratings. With each level of modification, window and door strength is enhanced. This could be by using additional sash locks, alternate glazing methods or K-Force impact laminated glass. Contact your Kolbe dealer for further details. Beveled Profile Ovolo Profile Square Profile Options & Accessories Swinging Screen Doors As standard, glazing beads have a beveled profile, but may also be ordered with a square or ovolo profile. Matching muntin bars are available on units with true divided lites (TDL), performance divided lites (PDL) and wood removable grilles. Units ordered with TDL and PDL will have ovolo muntin bars on the interior and beveled muntin bars on the exterior regardless of the profile chosen for the interior. (See divided lite cross section drawings on pgs. 180-181.) Glazing Beads & Muntin Bars Product Performance Modifications Keystones & Pediment Heads 192 Kolbe Heritage Series ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 74 Kolbe Bulletin Title New Spoon Lock Bulletin # 739 Type Product Date 3/16/2016 We are pleased to announce the introduction of a new spoon lock option for our Sterling and XL Sterling hung products. This lock is specially-designed to meet the old world aesthetic of historical renovation projects. The new spoon lock utilizes the same hole prep as our standard Signature lock, which means the lock can be retrofitted in the field. Please note that the new spoon lock is not available on units with wood removable grilles. Following are the part numbers and available colors for the new spoon locks. Kits include matching screws. Color Spoon Lock Part # Spoon Lock Kit Part # Spoon Keeper Part # Spoon Keeper Kit Part # Antique Brass 5159790 8159790 5158890 8158890 Bright Brass 5159510 8159510 5159850 8159850 Beige 5158670 8158670 5158970 8158970 Matte Black 5159830 8159830 5159780 8159780 Rustic Umber 5159130 8159130 5159440 8159440 Clay/Rustic 5159840 8159840 5157740 8157740 Satin Nickel 5159650 8159650 5158710 8158710 White 5159060 8159060 5158600 8158600 *Due to the complexity of the design/shape/process, there will be variations in the finish consistency. This new product option will be available for order within our ProQuote program today, with PK version #395 or later. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 75 FRAME HEIGHT UNIT DIMENSION HEIGHT 4 9/16" [116 mm] 5 5/8" [143 mm] 3 1/16" [78 mm] D.L.O. 2 3/8" [60 mm] D.L.O. 5" [127 mm] 8B9073 09/12/18 HERITAGE SERIES STERLING DOUBLE HUNG - STANDARD PERFORMANCE - OPERATING 4-9/16 JAMB - FULL SCREEN DOUBLE PANE GLASS VERTICAL CROSS SECTION ADV.1 1 3/16" [30 mm] 1/2" [13 mm] OPTIONAL BEVELED EXTENSION JAMB OPTIONAL BEVELED EXTENSION JAMB ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 76 602BDE 09/11/18 HERITAGE SERIES STERLING DOUBLE HUNG - STANDARD PERFORMANCE - OPERATING 4-9/16 JAMB - FULL SCREEN DOUBLE PANE GLASS HORIZONTAL CROSS SECTION ADH.1 D.L.O UNIT DIMENSION W IDTH FRAME W IDTH 3 1/4" [83m m ] 3 1/4" [83m m ] 1 3/16" [30m m ] 4 9/16" [116m m ] 5 5/8" [143m m ] OPTIONAL BEVELED EXTENSION JAMB ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 77 Ultra Pure White Cloud White Abalone Alabaster Camel Mudpie Nutmeg Sahara Spiced Vinegar Natural Khaki Beige Cotton Gingersnap Truffle Bronze Rustic Shadow Shale Smokestack Onyx Coal Black MidnightSlateCastlerockTimberwolf Steel Gray Corbeau Sapphire Coastal Storm Anchor Gray Lunar Emerald Isle Mediterranean Anodized Mica Galaxy Silver Silverstorm Black Cider Cosmic Gray Papaya Copper Canyon Roma Green Tea Leaf Night Sky Create Your Color Your project is a reflection of your unique style – whether your preference is muted or bold, every color makes a statement. Our large palette of exterior colors can help you express your aesthetic in a unique way. Choose a Mica or Anodized finish for a distinct touch on your Ultra Series or VistaLuxe® Collection project. Or, for a truly one- of-a-kind statement, create a color to make your windows and doors far from ordinary. Visit kolbewindows.com for more information about our striking color options. Mystic Ivy Champagne Dark Bronze Hartford Green Clear Maize Basil Chutney Options Exterior Title Color Options Printedimagesofexteriorfinishesmayvaryslightlyfromactualcolors.SelectionsshouldbemadebasedonactualsamplesavailablefromyourKolbedealer.CheckwithyourKolbedealerfor furtherdetailsonpricingandavailabilitybyproductline.©2017Kolbe&  KolbeMillworkCo.,Inc.Kolbe&KolbeMillworkCo.,Inc.reservestherighttochangespecificationswithoutnotice. 5160910-10K-0117-SPP ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 78 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 79 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 80 AVAILABLE WOOD SPECIES: * Pine is the standard species for most Kolbe wood window and door products. Printed images of wood species will vary from actual colors. Selections should be made based on samples available from your Kolbe dealer. Ask about the availability of additional wood species. pine* oak fir mahogany alder walnut maple cherry See the Difference Quality Makes™ www.kolbe-kolbe.com © 2007 Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc. 5131650-5M-0207-RP Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., Inc. reserves the right to change specifications without notice.Printed on recycled paper Your home is not only your sanctuary, but also a reflection of your individual tastes. The natural beauty of wood windows and doors really add a feeling of warmth to your home and also highlight your unique sense of style. Kolbe windows and doors can be built for you in a wide variety of special wood species, each offering its own unique grain and color characteristics. Most of our products can be further enhanced by choosing divided lites in a matching wood species. We also offer specialty mouldings in both our standard and special wood species in a wide array of profiles. Interior prefinishing and custom stain matching are also available. No matter if your style is traditional or contemporary, we can craft windows and doors for you in a wood species that will be of unparalleled beauty. Natural beauty. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 81 On Behalf Of: Colorado Sash & Door Inc Address: Phone: Fax: Contact: Email: Phone: Mobile: Fax: 4521 Endeavor Drive, Unit C Johnstown, CO 80534 970-226-1460 9707976392 Mark Wernimont mwernimont@colosash.com Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 970-226-1460 970-402-2623 970-797-6392 Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Project: Dohn Construction Printed: 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Printed By: Mark Wernimont Created: 8/28/2018 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 82 Line Label UOM Quantity Cubic Feet Type A EA ( 14 ) 27.19 Scaled to Fit 001 Rough Opening: 36- 1/2" X 103-1/16" Frame Size: 36" X 102- 1/2" Unit Dimension: 38-3/8" X 105-9/32" *** Unit *** WDH (Assy 1) Heritage Rectangle Double Hung *** Unit *** Unit 1.1: Wood Sash, Sterling *** Glass *** Unit 1.1: Dual Glazed, H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass, Mill Finish Spacer, High Altitude, Glass Preserve without Neat Coating, Ovolo Bead Unit 1.1 Lower, 1.1 Upper: Clear glass *** Hardware-Accessories *** Unit 1.1: Matte Black Hardware, Spoon Lock, No Screen - No Prep *** Species-Finish-Color *** Unit 1.1: Pine, Custom Exterior Color = Custom Match Exterior, K-Kron2 Exterior Sash, K-Kron2 Exterior Frame, Match All Ext Colors, Custom Exterior, Colored Prefinish Interior Sash, Colored Prefinish Interior Frame, Match All Interior Colors, Coal Black Interior, Wood Wrapped Jambliner *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Unit 1.1: 2" Beaded Casing, 2" x 2" Sill Nosing, 6-5/16" Clips Installation Clips, No Back Priming of Casing, No Back Priming of Frame, Exterior Casing/Accessories Applied, 4-9/16" Jambs Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Printed By: Mark Wernimont * Indicates Increased Rough Opening Created: 8/28/2018 Summary Page 2 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 83 Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Type B EA ( 2 ) 21.90 Scaled to Fit 002 Rough Opening: 29- 1/2" X 103-1/16" Frame Size: 29" X 102- 1/2" Unit Dimension: 38-1/2" X 108-27/32" *** Unit *** WDH (Assy 1) Heritage Rectangle Double Hung *** Unit *** Unit 1.1: Wood Sash, Sterling *** Glass *** Unit 1.1: Dual Glazed, H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass, Mill Finish Spacer, High Altitude, Glass Preserve without Neat Coating, Ovolo Bead Unit 1.1 Lower, 1.1 Upper: Clear glass *** Hardware-Accessories *** Unit 1.1: Matte Black Hardware, Spoon Lock, No Screen - No Prep *** Species-Finish-Color *** Unit 1.1: Pine, Custom Exterior Color = Custom Match Exterior, K-Kron2 Exterior Sash, K-Kron2 Exterior Frame, Match All Ext Colors, Custom Exterior, Colored Prefinish Interior Sash, Colored Prefinish Interior Frame, Match All Interior Colors, Coal Black Interior, Wood Wrapped Jambliner *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Unit 1.1: 5 1/2" Flat Casing, 2" x 2" Sill Nosing, 6-5/16" Clips Installation Clips, No Back Priming of Casing, No Back Priming of Frame, Exterior Casing/Accessories Applied, 4-9/16" Jambs Printed By: Mark Wernimont * Indicates Increased Rough Opening Created: 8/28/2018 Summary Page 3 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 84 Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Type C EA ( 1 ) 24.92 Scaled to Fit 003 Rough Opening: 33- 1/2" X 103-1/16" Frame Size: 33" X 102- 1/2" Unit Dimension: 42-1/2" X 108-27/32" *** Unit *** WDH (Assy 1) Heritage Rectangle Double Hung *** Unit *** Unit 1.1: Wood Sash, Sterling *** Glass *** Unit 1.1: Dual Glazed, H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass, Mill Finish Spacer, High Altitude, Glass Preserve without Neat Coating, Ovolo Bead Unit 1.1 Lower, 1.1 Upper: Clear glass *** Hardware-Accessories *** Unit 1.1: Matte Black Hardware, Spoon Lock, No Screen - No Prep *** Species-Finish-Color *** Unit 1.1: Pine, Custom Exterior Color = Custom Match Exterior, K-Kron2 Exterior Sash, K-Kron2 Exterior Frame, Match All Ext Colors, Custom Exterior, Colored Prefinish Interior Sash, Colored Prefinish Interior Frame, Match All Interior Colors, Coal Black Interior, Wood Wrapped Jambliner *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Unit 1.1: 5 1/2" Flat Casing, 2" x 2" Sill Nosing, 6-5/16" Clips Installation Clips, No Back Priming of Casing, No Back Priming of Frame, Exterior Casing/Accessories Applied, 4-9/16" Jambs Printed By: Mark Wernimont * Indicates Increased Rough Opening Created: 8/28/2018 Summary Page 4 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 85 Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Type D EA ( 22 ) 25.20 Scaled to Fit 004 Rough Opening: 36- 1/2" X 95-9/16" Frame Size: 36" X 95" Unit Dimension: 38-3/8" X 97-25/32" *** Unit *** WDH (Assy 1) Heritage Rectangle Double Hung *** Unit *** Unit 1.1: Wood Sash, Sterling *** Glass *** Unit 1.1: Dual Glazed, H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass, Mill Finish Spacer, High Altitude, Glass Preserve without Neat Coating, Ovolo Bead Unit 1.1 Lower, 1.1 Upper: Clear glass *** Hardware-Accessories *** Unit 1.1: Matte Black Hardware, Spoon Lock, No Screen - No Prep *** Species-Finish-Color *** Unit 1.1: Pine, Custom Exterior Color = Custom Match Exterior, K-Kron2 Exterior Sash, K-Kron2 Exterior Frame, Match All Ext Colors, Custom Exterior, Colored Prefinish Interior Sash, Colored Prefinish Interior Frame, Match All Interior Colors, Coal Black Interior, Wood Wrapped Jambliner *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Unit 1.1: 2" Beaded Casing, 2" x 2" Sill Nosing, 6-5/16" Clips Installation Clips, No Back Priming of Casing, No Back Priming of Frame, Exterior Casing/Accessories Applied, 4-9/16" Jambs Printed By: Mark Wernimont * Indicates Increased Rough Opening Created: 8/28/2018 Summary Page 5 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 86 Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Type E EA ( 2 ) 20.30 Scaled to Fit 005 Rough Opening: 29- 1/2" X 95-9/16" Frame Size: 29" X 95" Unit Dimension: 38-1/2" X 101-11/32" *** Unit *** WDH (Assy 1) Heritage Rectangle Double Hung *** Unit *** Unit 1.1: Wood Sash, Sterling *** Glass *** Unit 1.1: Dual Glazed, H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass, Mill Finish Spacer, High Altitude, Glass Preserve without Neat Coating, Ovolo Bead Unit 1.1 Lower, 1.1 Upper: Clear glass *** Hardware-Accessories *** Unit 1.1: Matte Black Hardware, Spoon Lock, No Screen - No Prep *** Species-Finish-Color *** Unit 1.1: Pine, Custom Exterior Color = Custom Match Exterior, K-Kron2 Exterior Sash, K-Kron2 Exterior Frame, Match All Ext Colors, Custom Exterior, Colored Prefinish Interior Sash, Colored Prefinish Interior Frame, Match All Interior Colors, Coal Black Interior, Wood Wrapped Jambliner *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Unit 1.1: 5 1/2" Flat Casing, 2" x 2" Sill Nosing, 6-5/16" Clips Installation Clips, No Back Priming of Casing, No Back Priming of Frame, Exterior Casing/Accessories Applied, 4-9/16" Jambs Printed By: Mark Wernimont * Indicates Increased Rough Opening Created: 8/28/2018 Summary Page 6 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 87 Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Type F EA ( 1 ) 23.10 Scaled to Fit 006 Rough Opening: 33- 1/2" X 95-9/16" Frame Size: 33" X 95" Unit Dimension: 42-1/2" X 101-11/32" *** Unit *** WDH (Assy 1) Heritage Rectangle Double Hung *** Unit *** Unit 1.1: Wood Sash, Sterling *** Glass *** Unit 1.1: Dual Glazed, H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass, Mill Finish Spacer, High Altitude, Glass Preserve without Neat Coating, Ovolo Bead Unit 1.1 Lower, 1.1 Upper: Clear glass *** Hardware-Accessories *** Unit 1.1: Matte Black Hardware, Spoon Lock, No Screen - No Prep *** Species-Finish-Color *** Unit 1.1: Pine, Custom Exterior Color = Custom Match Exterior, K-Kron2 Exterior Sash, K-Kron2 Exterior Frame, Match All Ext Colors, Custom Exterior, Colored Prefinish Interior Sash, Colored Prefinish Interior Frame, Match All Interior Colors, Coal Black Interior, Wood Wrapped Jambliner *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Unit 1.1: 5 1/2" Flat Casing, 2" x 2" Sill Nosing, 6-5/16" Clips Installation Clips, No Back Priming of Casing, No Back Priming of Frame, Exterior Casing/Accessories Applied, 4-9/16" Jambs Printed By: Mark Wernimont * Indicates Increased Rough Opening Created: 8/28/2018 Summary Page 7 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 88 Line Number 001-1 Label Type A Product Name Heritage Rectangle Double Hung (WDH) Configured in PK Version 515 Scaled To Fit Quantity (14) Cubic Feet 27.19 *** Overall Dimensions *** Overall Frame Width 36" Overall Frame Height 102 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Width 36 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Height 103 1/16" Overall Unit Dimension Width 38 3/8" Overall Unit Dimension Height 105 19/64" *** Dimensions *** Call Width Custom Call Height Custom Individual Frame Width 36" Individual Frame Height 102 1/2" Glass Width 30 1/2" Glass Height 47 1/32" *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Exterior Casing/Accessories 2" Beaded Casing Back Bevel No Back Band No Sill Nosing 2" x 2" Sill Nosing Extended Horns No Apply Exterior Casing/Accessories Yes Back Priming of Casing No Back Priming of Frame No Jamb Depth 4 9/16" Installation Clips 6 5/16" Clips *** Performance *** Performance Standard Performance *** Unit *** Unit Type Complete Unit ModelSterling Production Current SashWood Material *** Glass *** Glass Thickness Double Glazed Glass H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass Spacer Mill Finish High Altitude Yes Glass Preserve without Neat Coating Glass Preserve / Neat Coating Glazing Bead Ovolo Upper Glass - Glass Type Clear Upper Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Upper Glass NOT Tempered Lower Glass - Glass Type Clear Lower Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Lower Glass NOT Tempered *** Hardware-Accessories *** Lock Style Spoon Hardware Color Matte Black Bottom Sash Lift Handle(s) No Screen No Screen - No Prep Storm Window Combination No Jambliner Black Window and Door Details Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Line Number 002-1 Label Type B Product Name Heritage Rectangle Double Hung (WDH) Configured in PK Version 515 Scaled To Fit Quantity (2) Cubic Feet 21.9 *** Overall Dimensions *** Overall Frame Width 29" Overall Frame Height 102 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Width 29 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Height 103 1/16" Overall Unit Dimension Width 38 1/2" Overall Unit Dimension Height 108 55/64" *** Dimensions *** Call Width Custom Call Height Custom Individual Frame Width 29" Individual Frame Height 102 1/2" Glass Width 23 1/2" Glass Height 47 1/32" *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Exterior Casing/Accessories 5 1/2" Flat Casing Back Bevel No Back Band No Sill Nosing 2" x 2" Sill Nosing Extended Horns No Apply Exterior Casing/Accessories Yes Back Priming of Casing No Back Priming of Frame No Jamb Depth 4 9/16" Installation Clips 6 5/16" Clips *** Performance *** Performance Standard Performance *** Unit *** Unit Type Complete Unit ModelSterling Production Current SashWood Material *** Glass *** Glass Thickness Double Glazed Glass H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass Spacer Mill Finish High Altitude Yes Glass Preserve without Neat Coating Glass Preserve / Neat Coating Glazing Bead Ovolo Upper Glass - Glass Type Clear Upper Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Upper Glass NOT Tempered Lower Glass - Glass Type Clear Lower Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Lower Glass NOT Tempered *** Hardware-Accessories *** Lock Style Spoon Hardware Color Matte Black Bottom Sash Lift Handle(s) No Screen No Screen - No Prep Window and Door Details Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Line Number 003-1 Label Type C Product Name Heritage Rectangle Double Hung (WDH) Configured in PK Version 515 Scaled To Fit Quantity (1) Cubic Feet 24.92 *** Overall Dimensions *** Overall Frame Width 33" Overall Frame Height 102 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Width 33 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Height 103 1/16" Overall Unit Dimension Width 42 1/2" Overall Unit Dimension Height 108 55/64" *** Dimensions *** Call Width Custom Call Height Custom Individual Frame Width 33" Individual Frame Height 102 1/2" Glass Width 27 1/2" Glass Height 47 1/32" *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Exterior Casing/Accessories 5 1/2" Flat Casing Back Bevel No Back Band No Sill Nosing 2" x 2" Sill Nosing Extended Horns No Apply Exterior Casing/Accessories Yes Back Priming of Casing No Back Priming of Frame No Jamb Depth 4 9/16" Installation Clips 6 5/16" Clips *** Performance *** Performance Standard Performance *** Unit *** Unit Type Complete Unit ModelSterling Production Current SashWood Material *** Glass *** Glass Thickness Double Glazed Glass H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass Spacer Mill Finish High Altitude Yes Glass Preserve without Neat Coating Glass Preserve / Neat Coating Glazing Bead Ovolo Upper Glass - Glass Type Clear Upper Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Upper Glass NOT Tempered Lower Glass - Glass Type Clear Lower Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Lower Glass NOT Tempered *** Hardware-Accessories *** Lock Style Spoon Hardware Color Matte Black Bottom Sash Lift Handle(s) No Screen No Screen - No Prep Window and Door Details Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Line Number 004-1 Label Type D Product Name Heritage Rectangle Double Hung (WDH) Configured in PK Version 515 Scaled To Fit Quantity (22) Cubic Feet 25.2 *** Overall Dimensions *** Overall Frame Width 36" Overall Frame Height 95" Overall Rough Opening Width 36 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Height 95 9/16" Overall Unit Dimension Width 38 3/8" Overall Unit Dimension Height 97 51/64" *** Dimensions *** Call Width Custom Call Height Custom Individual Frame Width 36" Individual Frame Height 95" Glass Width 30 1/2" Glass Height 43 9/32" *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Exterior Casing/Accessories 2" Beaded Casing Back Bevel No Back Band No Sill Nosing 2" x 2" Sill Nosing Extended Horns No Apply Exterior Casing/Accessories Yes Back Priming of Casing No Back Priming of Frame No Jamb Depth 4 9/16" Installation Clips 6 5/16" Clips *** Performance *** Performance Standard Performance *** Unit *** Unit Type Complete Unit ModelSterling Production Current SashWood Material *** Glass *** Glass Thickness Double Glazed Glass H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass Spacer Mill Finish High Altitude Yes Glass Preserve without Neat Coating Glass Preserve / Neat Coating Glazing Bead Ovolo Upper Glass - Glass Type Clear Upper Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Upper Glass NOT Tempered Lower Glass - Glass Type Clear Lower Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Lower Glass NOT Tempered *** Hardware-Accessories *** Lock Style Spoon Hardware Color Matte Black Bottom Sash Lift Handle(s) No Screen No Screen - No Prep Window and Door Details Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Line Number 005-1 Label Type E Product Name Heritage Rectangle Double Hung (WDH) Configured in PK Version 515 Scaled To Fit Quantity (2) Cubic Feet 20.3 *** Overall Dimensions *** Overall Frame Width 29" Overall Frame Height 95" Overall Rough Opening Width 29 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Height 95 9/16" Overall Unit Dimension Width 38 1/2" Overall Unit Dimension Height 101 23/64" *** Dimensions *** Call Width Custom Call Height Custom Individual Frame Width 29" Individual Frame Height 95" Glass Width 23 1/2" Glass Height 43 9/32" *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Exterior Casing/Accessories 5 1/2" Flat Casing Back Bevel No Back Band No Sill Nosing 2" x 2" Sill Nosing Extended Horns No Apply Exterior Casing/Accessories Yes Back Priming of Casing No Back Priming of Frame No Jamb Depth 4 9/16" Installation Clips 6 5/16" Clips *** Performance *** Performance Standard Performance *** Unit *** Unit Type Complete Unit ModelSterling Production Current SashWood Material *** Glass *** Glass Thickness Double Glazed Glass H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass Spacer Mill Finish High Altitude Yes Glass Preserve without Neat Coating Glass Preserve / Neat Coating Glazing Bead Ovolo Upper Glass - Glass Type Clear Upper Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Upper Glass NOT Tempered Lower Glass - Glass Type Clear Lower Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Lower Glass NOT Tempered *** Hardware-Accessories *** Lock Style Spoon Hardware Color Matte Black Bottom Sash Lift Handle(s) No Screen No Screen - No Prep Window and Door Details Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Line Number 006-1 Label Type F Product Name Heritage Rectangle Double Hung (WDH) Configured in PK Version 515 Scaled To Fit Quantity (1) Cubic Feet 23.1 *** Overall Dimensions *** Overall Frame Width 33" Overall Frame Height 95" Overall Rough Opening Width 33 1/2" Overall Rough Opening Height 95 9/16" Overall Unit Dimension Width 42 1/2" Overall Unit Dimension Height 101 23/64" *** Dimensions *** Call Width Custom Call Height Custom Individual Frame Width 33" Individual Frame Height 95" Glass Width 27 1/2" Glass Height 43 9/32" *** Casing-Jambs-Trim *** Exterior Casing/Accessories 5 1/2" Flat Casing Back Bevel No Back Band No Sill Nosing 2" x 2" Sill Nosing Extended Horns No Apply Exterior Casing/Accessories Yes Back Priming of Casing No Back Priming of Frame No Jamb Depth 4 9/16" Installation Clips 6 5/16" Clips *** Performance *** Performance Standard Performance *** Unit *** Unit Type Complete Unit ModelSterling Production Current SashWood Material *** Glass *** Glass Thickness Double Glazed Glass H-K LoE 270 Insulated Therma Plus Glass Spacer Mill Finish High Altitude Yes Glass Preserve without Neat Coating Glass Preserve / Neat Coating Glazing Bead Ovolo Upper Glass - Glass Type Clear Upper Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Upper Glass NOT Tempered Lower Glass - Glass Type Clear Lower Glass - Obscure / Opaque Glass None Lower Glass NOT Tempered *** Hardware-Accessories *** Lock Style Spoon Hardware Color Matte Black Bottom Sash Lift Handle(s) No Screen No Screen - No Prep Total Quantity: 42 Total Cubic Feet: 1,067.37 Total Perimeter Feet: 11,191.00 Total Amount includes Kolbe and/or Non-Kolbe lines if applicable Signature: Purchase Order: Date: Notes / Totals / Signature Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Printed By: Mark Wernimont Created: 8/28/2018 Notes / Totals / Signature Page 14 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 95 Installation Information Step 1. Remove existing sash and provide to ownership. Step 2. Selective Demo of Existing Frame – Prepping of Opening - Remove existing brick molding - Remove existing sill as required - Selective demolition to frame - Add structural framing and blocking Step 3. Membrane flash and seal to create a weathertight install Step 4. The opening is now ready to receive new window Step 5. Set window in to prepared opening so surface of brick mold is in the same location as original Step 6. Secure with hidden anchoring in jambs Step 7. Install spray foam Step 8. Follow up with interior trim as necessary ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 96 PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 Window Study September 23, 2016 Dohn Construction 2642 Midpoint Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Attn: Josh Wallace Re: 201 Linden Josh, Attached with this letter is the window survey that we performed on the Historic Linden Hotel located at 201 Linden. We were looking at the condition of the windows on the 2 nd and 3 rd floor and did not review or comment on the 1 st floor windows and doors. In reviewing the photos in the entry way as well as a little research on the project we believe that the windows were restored or at least repainted in 1994. From what I had found, it appeared that the city of Fort Collins and/ or the State of Colorado contributed to the restoration of the exterior façade. But it does not appear that much if any work or maintenance has been done on the windows since then. After going through all the windows the condition of the majority are fairly similar. The paint on the West sills and lower sash are some of the worst. Sills and lower sash on the South are a little better and the East side, are the best. However, all of the sash should be pulled upper and lower and repainted. The sills in some locations show a little more deterioration which could be repaired by epoxy fillers and then painted or a metal sill cover done to and match the existing wood. This would provide a longer lasting finish and a better slope for water drainage. There are a few check rails, bottom rails that should be repaired or replaced, but this affects less than 5% of the project. However something that was not done in the prior restoration would be to add some weather stripping to the lower sash. Most of the upper sash are fixed in place. I would again fix them in place after taking them out to clean, paint and repair the frame and exterior trim. The lower sash should have a bulb weather stripping at the bottom of the bottom rail to the sill and on the check rail to contact the check rail on the upper sash. The ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 97 PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 page two sides could be done with either a metal ‘T’ rail system or brush weather stripping. I have had better results with the brush, but either could be done. This will help cut down the air and dirt that is blowing into the building. The glazing of the windows is all complete with just a few windows that have had a film applied to the interior to block out some sunlight and heat. The sash could have an interior RDG (removable double glazing) applied to each sash in an opening. This would be not seen from the exterior and could be painted to blend into the sash. This same system was done on all the historic windows in the Northern Hotel Project. We would need to re-weight the sash, install new cords and change the sash locks. Only the sash lock would be seen and there are some that are similar to the existing. If some additional thermal performance and even some solar heat gain reductions requested, a low-e hard coat could be add to the RDG with the coating being located in the cavity. This has been done on several of the Historic Denver Public School Buildings. This option would double the thermal performance of the windows. I really do not see a reason to replace any of the windows in the project. A few on the alley side on the third floor are proposed to be removed and replaced with doors. But this can’t be seen from any of the side unless you are in one of the adjacent buildings on an upper floor. Along with the survey are a set of photographs that depict the condition of the openings. From this I used a simple rating system for the condition: 1) This is the worst condition for this part, needs paint cleaned maybe some epoxy fillers, priming and painting. 2) This is normal condition where the part needs to be cleaned would not need epoxy repairs just primed and painted. 3) This is for the best conditions. This may just need to be scuff sanded primed and painted. I have listed all the glass as in #3 conditions, as there is no broken glass. There will be some glazing putty that needs to be repaired but that would be related to the work done on the wood parts noted as #1, maybe #2 after the paint is removed. Also, since these windows were restored in the 90’s we would believe that there is no lead paint on the sash. I am not sure without any testing if there is lead paint on the frame or exterior trim. Respectfully, Mark Wernimont ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 98 201 Linden Linden Street Residence Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Existing Condition Opening Sizes Operation Cut Light Special Shape Sash Notes Opening Day Light Sash Masonry Upper Lower Sill Frame Trim Upper Lower Glass Screen 301 24.50 35.75 29.25 78.50 33.50 81.50 Double Hung 2w1h 2w1h Arch Top 1 2 2 2 1 3 Change to a door 302 27.75 27.50 31.75 61.50 36.00 64.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 1 2 2 2 1 3 303 28.50 35.75 32.50 79.50 36.75 83.00 Double Hung 2w2h 2w2h Arch Top 1 2 2 2 1 3 Change to a pair of doors 304 24.50 35.00 28.75 78.50 39.25 81.50 Double Hung 2w2h 2w2h Arch Top 1 2 2 2 1 3 305 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 306 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 307 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 308 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 309 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 1 2 2 3 2 3 310 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 311 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 312 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 313 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 314 22.75 47.50 27.50 102.50 N/A N/A Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 Corner Unit 315 25.75 47.50 30.25 102.50 N/A N/A Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 Corner Unit 316 22.75 47.50 27.50 102.50 N/A N/A Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 Corner Unit ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 99 201 Linden Linden Street Residence Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Existing Condition Opening Sizes Operation Cut Light Special Shape Sash Notes Opening Day Light Sash Masonry Upper Lower Sill Frame Trim Upper Lower Glass Screen 317 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 318 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 319 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 320 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 321 29.75 47.25 34.25 102.50 38.50 105.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 2 2 3 322 27.75 27.75 32.00 61.50 36.00 64.50 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 3 2 3 Change to a Door ??? Bathroom Window? ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 100 201 Linden Linden Street Residence Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Existing Condition Opening Sizes Operation Cut Light Special Shape Sash Notes Opening Day Light Sash Masonry Upper Lower Sill Frame Trim Upper Lower Glass Screen 201 ??? 202 ??? 203 32.25 24.75 36.75 57.50 42.00 62.50 Double Hung 1 2 2 2 2 3 204 25.25 23.75 27.75 57.50 33.00 62.25 Double Hung 2w2h 2w2h 1 2 2 2 2 3 205 32.75 25.63 36.75 57.50 42.00 62.00 Double Hung 2w2h 2w2h 1 1 2 2 1 3 3/4" Horz, 1 1/8" Vert Bars 206 32.75 25.63 36.75 57.50 42.00 62.50 Double Hung 1 2 2 2 2 3 207 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 208 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 209 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 210 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 211 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 212 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 213 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 2 Film on Glass 214 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 2 Film on Glass 215 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 2 Film on Glass 216 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 2 Film on Glass 217 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 218 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 219 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.75 Double Hung 2 2 2 2 2 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 101 201 Linden Linden Street Residence Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Existing Condition Opening Sizes Operation Cut Light Specila Shape Sash Notes Opening Day Light Sash Masonry Upper Lower Sill Frame Trim Upper Lower Glass Screen 220 22.75 43.50 25.75 94.50 N/A N/A Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 2 2 3 Corner Windows 221 25.75 43.50 30.25 94.50 N/A N/A Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 2 2 3 Corner Windows 222 22.75 43.50 27.50 94.50 N/A N/A Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 2 2 2 2 3 Corner Windows 223 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 224 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 225 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 226 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 227 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 228 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 229 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 230 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 2 3 231 29.75 43.75 34.25 93.75 39.00 97.34 Double Hung 1 Lite 1 Lite 2 3 2 2 1 3 Tapered Bottom Rail Replace ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Packet Pg. 102 PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 October 29, 2018 Dohn Construction 2642 Midpoint Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Attn: Stephani Unfug Re: 201 Linden Stephani, The outline of the work that we had in the 2016 documents was as follows:  Remove existing stop to gain access to the lower sash  Remove Lower sash and remove sash weight with cord  Remove parting stop  Remove upper sash  Take sash to the shop repair sash as needed  Repair glazing as needed  Route sash to receive RDG Panel (removable double glazing glass panel)  Fill and or route for finger lifts  Prep sash for bulb weather stripping on top and bottom of the lower sash  Prep the bottom sash for brush weather stripping on the sides.  Prime and Paint Sash  Manufacture RDG unit and Install  Install upper sash fixed in place  Install new painted parting stops  Install repaired sash using new sash cord and weights (use weights from upper sash for additional balance  Install new Interior stops  The outside of the frames and the metal sill covers are to be field painted by others. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 103 PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 Items that Changed or Additional Work:  The upper sash was caulked in from the exterior, needed to bring in a lift to get to the sash and remove them  Found no weights for the upper sash, had already been removed. Changed to a spiral balance to support the sash  Spiral balance required 5/8” groove for the balance to set in. Eliminated the space to put weather stripping on the side  Move side weather stripping to the interior stop running on the face  With the weights removed, we were able to insulate the weight pocket, decreasing the air infiltration around the frame, as well increased sound and thermal protection.  Provided new interior stops with weather stripping at the lower sash  Installed sash stops to limit height of movement to 12”, and then changed to 18”  Added two finger lifts on the sash to help balance the sash.  Removed small amount of width on the lower sash and added a strip of plastic laminate to ease operation.  Adjusted the balances so it raises easier but a little harder to fully close Respectfully, Mark Wernimont ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Packet Pg. 104 PO Box 270682, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-0682 (970) 226-1460 FAX (970) 797-6392 CELL (970) 402-2623 October 29, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission Fort Collins, CO Attn: Landmark Preservation Commission Re: 201 Linden To Whom It May Concern, At the beginning of this process, I had fully believed we could save the original windows and make the building work. We made them more energy efficient by adding the additional glass panel along with new weather stripping. However, based on the size, weight, and thickness of the sash we are not able to make a fully functional window system. Given all the years, projects and opening we have done, I can’t make this work, which is a first in 30 years. The best solution would be to replace the existing with a new window system that can function at the size and look just like the original which is what we are proposing. Respectfully, Mark Wernimont ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 105 201 LINDEN WINDOWS Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting: November 14th 2018 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 106 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 107 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS Applicant’s request for permission to replace the existing windows meets the Standards for Rehabilitation are set forth in 36 Code of Federal Regulations § 68.3 (b) because the existing window frames and sills are severely deteriorated; Applicant has attempted to repair the window frames and sills without success; the new windows will match the original windows in design, color, texture, materials, finish, and method of operation; and the difference in width and height of the glass panes in the second and third floor windows will not be detectible. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 108 PHOTOS OF EXISTING WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 109 THE EXISTING WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 110 THE EXISTING WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 111 ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 112 ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 113 PRODUCT INFORMATION FOR THE PROPOSED WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 114 PRODUCT INFORMATION FOR THE PROPOSED WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 115 INSTALLATION METHODS AND MATERIALS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 116 INFORMATION ON THE INSTALLATION METHOD, INSTALLATION MATERIALS Step 1. Remove existing sash and provide to ownership. Step 2. Selective Demo of Existing Frame – Prepping of Opening  Remove existing brick molding  Remove existing sill as required  Selective demolition to frame  Add structural framing and blocking Step 3. Membrane flash and seal to create a weathertight install Step 4. The opening is now ready to receive new window Step 5. Set window in to prepared opening so surface of brick mold is in the same location as original Step 6. Secure with hidden anchoring in jambs Step 7. Install spray foam Step 8. Follow up with interior trim as necessary ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 117 WINDOW STUDY AND ADDENDUM ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 118 WINDOW STUDY At the beginning of this process, [we] had fully believed we could save the original windows and make the building work. We made them more energy efficient by adding the additional glass panel along with new weather stripping. However, based on the size, weight, and thickness of the sash we are not able to make a fully functional window system. The best solution would be to replace the existing with a new window system that can function at the size and look just like the original which is what we are proposing. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 119 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 120 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – STC RATING ORDINANCE NO. 030, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS ADOPTED WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the City and its citizens to better align Fort Collins’ built environment with community goals of improved indoor environmental quality, protection of the natural environment, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy use and reduced water use; and 3603.3.1.1 Exterior sound transmission. Where a Group A1, A3, E and I occupancy building, a Group B occupancy building used for educational purposes, or a Group R occupancy building is constructed at a location listed herein, the wall and roof- ceiling assemblies making up the building thermal envelope shall have a composite sound transmission class (STCc) rating of 40 or greater in the following locations: 1. within 500 feet (300 m) of a multi-lane highway (road) designed for high-speed travel by large numbers of vehicles, and having no traffic lights, stop signs, nor other regulations requiring vehicles to stop, fire station, heavy industrial or manufacturing zone or facilities, commercial storage facility with back-up alarms, outdoor music amphitheater, or sports arena or stadium; 2. within 250 feet (150 m) of a truck route roadway containing four or more traffic lanes; or 3. within 1,000 feet (900 m) of an active railway. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 121 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – STC RATING CONT’ ORDINANCE NO. 030, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS ADOPTED WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the City and its citizens to better align Fort Collins’ built environment with community goals of improved indoor environmental quality, protection of the natural environment, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy use and reduced water use; and Given the current conditions it would not be possible to maintain the desired STC rating for this building. As this building with now be residential versus commercial and iswithin view of multiple railroads we find it would be best for the health of the tenants to have a higher STC rating better suited for residences. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 122 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – OPERATING FORCE OPERATING FORCE REQUIREMENTS It is believed that the force required to operate the existing windows is above what can be considered ‘operable’. It is a concern that life safety may be at risk if the Fire Department were to need to utilize exterior ladder access through these windows as- is for any emergency. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 123 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – SAMPLE WINDOW A sample window will be on site the week of November 5th -14th available for viewing between the hours of 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM. We ask for review of proposed window for similarity to existing and the minimum affect the change will have to the exterior of the building. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 10 Packet Pg. 124 PLAN OF PROTECTION FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES Project Title: 201 Linden Full Property Address: 201 Linden St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Form Prepared by: Dohn Construction, Inc. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Description of project location: 201 Linden St. on the corner of Linden St. and Walnut St. in Old Town Fort Collins. 1.2 General description of work to be performed, including which firm(s) will be doing the work: Renovation and structural improvements of 1st floor lobby, and 2nd and 3rd floor of 201 Linden Street to accommodate occupancy change from office space to private residences. Colorado Sash and Door will be performing the work, Dohn Construction, Inc. will be performing supervision and safety. 1.3 Building(s) or portions(s) of designated and eligible buildings within the area of adjacency that will be affected: No adjacent buildings will be affected. 1.4 Is building adjacent to other buildings or structures, on or off site, and if so, how close? Building is adjacent and connected to 213 Linden St. 1.5 Are any of these other buildings or structures 50 years old or older (which ones, and what are their dates of construction, if known): All adjacent buildings are older than 50 years old. 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: Removal of existing windows to improve longevity and appearance of exterior of building. 2.2 Site Preparation: Will obtain permits for sidewalk closure and sidewalk protection during replacement. 2.3 Excavation: Not applicable. 2.4 Utilities: Not applicable. 2.5 New Foundation: Not applicable. 2.6 New Construction: Not applicable. 2.7 Parking Lot: Not applicable. 2.8 Driveways / Alleyways: Not applicable. 2.9 Landscaping: Not applicable. 2.10 Drainage: Not applicable. 2.11 Other: Not applicable. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 125 3.0 COORDINATION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES 3.1 Name of person or persons responsible for overseeing the demolition and/or construction activities: Jeff Johnson Dohn Construction, Inc. (970) 566-7358 jjohnson@dohnconstruction.com 3.2 Will they be on site when the work is occurring? Yes. 3.3 If not, how may they be contacted if needed when that work is underway? See above contact information. 3.4 What specific coordination practices will be used to coordinate work activities? Jeff Johnson works with the group of subcontractors as a team. He will be coordinating every aspect of construction between the subcontractor and adjacent building owners during the entire duration of work activities. 4.0 DECONSTRUCTION, SALVAGING, & RECYCLING MATERIALS 4.1 Which historic materials will be deconstructed and salvaged? Any window components that are removed will be protected to the best of our abilities, and passed to the applicable City Society. 4.2 Which historic materials will not be salvaged, and how will they be disposed of? See above. We will take every possible measure to salvage all window components for use by the city. 5.0 PROTECTION OF EXISTING HISTORIC PROPERTY 5.1 Site Conservation: Exterior façade of building will not be disturbed during removal and replacement of windows. Sidewalks are to be protected during all working hours. 5.2 Demolition of Building: Not applicable. 5.3 Foundation Stability: Not applicable. 5.4 Structural: Not applicable. 5.5 New Construction: Not applicable. 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials: Existing openings will not be altered, and existing windows will be salvaged and protected. 5.7 New Openings: Not applicable. 5.8 Floor Framing: Not applicable. 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing: Not applicable. 5.10 Structural Loads: Not applicable. 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning: Not applicable. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 126 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure: Not applicable. 5.13 Site Cleanup: We will employ continuous site maintenance during the entire process that will include any adjacent properties. 6.0 DOCUMENTATION FOR RECORD 6.1 Does the project include measured drawings and/or photographs? Yes, detailed construction documents will be utilized. All drawings have been submitted to the City of Fort Collins. 6.2 Where will these be stored? Job site office. 7.0 ARCHEOLOGY 7.1 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.) No archeologic resources are anticipated to be encountered during demolition, construction or site clean-up. However, in the event any are encountered, the resources will be protected and preserved and we will contact the Museum of Discovery. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 127 Phillip Barlow, M.S. 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder CO 80301 Phone: 303-746-1602 barlowpl@gmail.com PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY Historic preservation specialist with thirteen years of experience providing consultation and conducting rehabilitation projects. Experienced in restoration carpentry and masonry, project management, training volunteers and staff, and educating the public on the environmentally sustainable characteristics of historic buildings. Diverse skill set includes a strong background in traditional trades, utilizing new technologies, and producing technical reports. EXPERIENCE 2017-Present: Barlow Cultural Resource Consulting LLC Boulder, CO Historic Preservation Specialist, Owner ➢ BCRC LLC provides consulting, grant writing, historic resource surveys, building condition assessments, and materials analysis services for historic structures. The following are a selection of recently completed projects. o El Jebel Shrine: Survey and Evaluation of 258 windows o Acme Lofts: Survey and creation of restoration program for 162 windows o Wonder View Tower: Mortar Analysis o La Veta: Adobe and Stucco Analysis o Walsenburg Museum: Mortar Analysis o Leadville IOOF: SHF Grant Writing o American Legion of Estes Park: SHF Grant Writing 2015-2017: Heritage Window Restoration LLC Denver, CO Project Manager ➢ Participate as a member of the management team in activities designed to enhance the overall performance and profitability of the business ➢ Manage assigned projects to ensure projects are completed on time and within budget ➢ Meet regularly with President and General Superintendent to review project status, scheduling, and budget ➢ Develop and maintain project schedules and phasing ➢ Coordinate with the General Superintendent regarding the allocation of all company resources ➢ Formulate project required transmittals, submittals, and RFI’s ➢ Maintain and facilitate open communication between Superintendent, Shop Supervisor, and Foremen 2010-2015: Barlow Preservation Services, LLC Boulder, CO Historic Preservation Specialist, Owner Note: Barlow Preservation Services merged with Heritage Window Restoration in 2015 ➢ BPS, LLC has performed restoration services in the Boulder-Denver region including window restoration, custom storm window manufacture, masonry tuckpointing, carpentry repairs, and various other projects for historic property owners. Clients have ranged from small homeowners to architects and general contractors on multi- million dollar projects. Experience with reading blueprints and other construction documents and preparing/understanding Gantt charts. ➢ Contractor to Historic Denver, Inc. (2010-2012) as coordinator of the Preservation for Living program which seeks to educate homeowners on the topics of historic preservation basics, energy efficiency in the older home, window restoration and weatherization, and masonry and exterior wood maintenance. Responsibilities include the creation of curricula for each program, creating presentations and accompanying videos, and conducting the workshops in communities in and around Denver. In addition to organizing and directing the videos, I also perform in the mortar analysis, window, energy efficiency, and wood trim videos. The videos are available online at: https://historicdenver.org/resources/building-owners/ ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet Pg. 128 Phillip Barlow, M.S. 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder CO 80301 Phone: 303-746-1602 barlowpl@gmail.com 2009-2010: Mead & Hunt Madison, WI Historic Preservation Specialist ➢ Conducted research for historic preservation compliance projects and completed Section 106 reports ➢ Surveyed and evaluated historic resources in Wisconsin and Minnesota; including residential homes, commercial buildings, and bridges 2006-2009: Paul Davis Restoration Cottage Grove, WI Historic Preservation Specialist / Estimator ➢ Bid and managed the restoration of historic double-hung windows at the Washburn Observatory at the University of Wisconsin. In addition to physically restoring the windows, I also managed and educated a variety of employees and subcontractors in the methodologies of preservation ➢ Performed mortar analysis to aid in the reconstruction of a fire-damaged historic roundhouse in Madison, WI ➢ As the preservation specialist on a development proposal I identified grant opportunities, prepared estimates for potential tax credit funds, and then defined the ownership structure necessary to syndicate these funds through the National Trust Community Investment Corporation 2004-2005: Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning Burlington, VT Surveyor As part of a collaborative effort between the Vermont State Historic Preservation Office and the Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning, I surveyed the portion of Burlington known as Prospect Park utilizing a combination of hardware and customized GIS software. In addition to standard survey work, my role also included integrating the new digital methodology into existing systems. SELECT PRESENTATIONS 2018 – February 2 "Panned in Colorado" Saving Places Conference, Colorado Preservation Inc. 2015 – February 5 “Hands On With Historic Windows” Saving Places Conference, Colorado Preservation Inc. 2010 – Multiple presentations through the Preservation for Living program described above. Other presentations include invitations to speak at the Louisville Historic Preservation Commission and the CPI conference on the topic of energy efficiency, and Historic Denver’s Realtors Seminar on the topic of historic home maintenance. 2009 – February 11th “Historic Window Repair and Weatherization Workshop” 2009 – January 14th “Getting To Know Your Old House, Focus on Antique Energy Conservation Methods” 2008 – May 22nd “LEED Certification and How It Relates to Historic Preservation” 2005 – July 13th “The Use of ArcPad Software at the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation” 2005 – April 5th “The Use of GIS within State Historic Preservation Offices” VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE 2018-Present: Association for Preservation Technology International Board Member- Rocky Mountain Chapter 2008-2010: Association for Preservation Technology International Board Member- Western Great Lakes Chapter 2005: Ferrisburgh Grange Ferrisburgh, VT Documented and catalogued various remaining features of the building with digital photographs and drawings following its destruction by arson in February of 2005. A finishes analysis report was created to aid in the accurate reproduction of the building in the future. EDUCATION M.S., Historic Preservation - 2005: University of Vermont Burlington, VT Thesis: The Current State of Historic Structure Survey Methodology and the Incorporation of Digital Technology B.A., Anthropology - 2000: Eckerd College St. Petersburg, FL ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 12 Packet Pg. 129 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 WWiinnddooww E Evvaalluuaattiio onn for 201 Linden Street fort collins, CO 80524 Prepared for: city of fort collins Office of Historic Preservation 281 North college fort collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: Phillip Barlow Historic Preservation Specialist barlow cultural resource consulting llc 4576 Tanglewood Trail Boulder, CO 80301 Evaluation Date: November 29, 2018 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 130 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: ..................................................................................................................... 1 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ................................................................................................. 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPICAL WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG WINDOW SYSTEM ........................... 3 REVIEW OF CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Example of Full Restoration process for: Wood Double-Hung, Casement, and Fixed Windows ........ 25 Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows ......................................................... 28 Photo Documentation............................................................................................................................ 35 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 131 1 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Located in the Old Town Historic District in Fort Collins, the Linden Hotel at 201 Linden Street was constructed in 1883 and designed by William Quayle. Originally housing the Poudre Valley National Bank on the street level with a Masonic Lodge above, the building became the Linden Hotel in 1904. 1 A good example of late 19th century commercial architecture, the Linden Hotel features a clipped corner entry with full-height oriel above, crowned with a pyramidal hood. The building utilizes a tripartite division of the facade, dividing the building into the ground level storefront, a central level characterized by arched stone lintels over the windows, and capped by a third level featuring a metal bracketed cornice. The City of Fort Collins contracted with BCRC LLC to evaluate the windows in their existing condition to determine if recent alterations rendered them unsalvageable and in need of replacement. The evaluation consisted of deconstructing one window to determine the scope of the previous repairs and alterations, and examining all windows visually to determine if conditions were consistent around the building. Photo documentation of the interior and exterior of each window and a layout of the window numbering system is available in the appendix. The deconstruction of the test window revealed that the original weight and pulley balance system had been discarded and a modern spiral balance system, which relies on spring tension to balance the sash, had been installed. To install this system a groove was cut on the vertical sides of the window sash (the stiles) to house the mechanism. This groove weakened the stiles and made weatherstripping on the sides of the sash impossible. A pane of glass was installed on the interior face of the upper and lower sash. To install this pane of glass flush with the interior face of the sash a groove was cut into the sash. Repairs made during this restoration phase appear to be minimal and many major repairs remain to be addressed. Paint and glazing putty were not fully removed from the sash. Lead paint remains on a least one sash that was tested. The final finding is that, despite the destructive nature of the alterations made, these window sash can be brought back to full function by following a full restoration program, the full details of which can be found in the body and appendix of this report. To meet the goals of energy efficiency and sound reduction, preservation appropriate modifications are detailed, including a weatherstripping program and storm windows. As a historic building, modifications to character defining features like the window system should be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. To establish a baseline of information, these standards are stated in full in the following section. Throughout the report these standards will be referenced to illustrate how the proposed work will be fully compliant. Thank you for the opportunity to visit this property. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 303-746-1602, or barlowpl@gmail.com Regards, Phillip Barlow, Owner BCRC LLC (303)746-1602 1 Noel, T. J. (2002). Buildings of Colorado. New York: Oxford University Press. Pg. 225 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 132 2 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 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. The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project. 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. 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. 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. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 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. 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. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 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 will 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. 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. Rehabilitation as a treatment When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment." 2 2 https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 133 3 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPICAL WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG WINDOW SYSTEM 3 The typical double-hung wood window system consists of the jamb, which are the sides and upper portion of the window that remain static within the wall. At the bottom of the jamb is the sill, which slopes to the exterior of the building to allow for drainage. On the interior, the stool projects into the room and is the flat decorative trim that abuts the lower sash and is typically not sloped. The illustration above shows the sash, which are the wood frames that hold the window glass and are the only parts of the window that move. The sash of the Linden Hotel are 1/1, which means that there is a single pane of glass in the upper sash and a single pane of glass in the lower sash. The upper sash has four components; the upper rail, which is the top of the sash, the meeting rail, which is the bottom of the sash that "meets" the same rail on the lower sash, and the left and right stiles, which are the vertical members that connect the upper rail and the meeting rail. The lower sash has the meeting rail at the top of the sash, a lower rail at the bottom of the sash which is typically taller than the other sash members, and a left and right stile. Double-hung operation means that both the upper and the lower sash are designed to move. This is a common configuration because it allows for natural air flow, with the hot air leaving through the top and cooler air coming in through the bottom. The Linden Hotel utilized a rope-and-pulley counterbalance system to allow for ease of operation and to ensure that the windows stay open when desired. This system consists of a rope or chain that is attached to each side of the sash which goes over a pulley which is mortised into the top of each side of the jamb. There is an open space on each side of the jamb that allows room to house the window weights. These weights each weigh half the weight of the sash so that the window can easily open and then stay where ever the occupant desires. The rope or chain that was attached to the sash and brought over the pulley is connected to the weights and the system is balanced. 3 Myers, J. H. (1981) "Preservation Briefs: 9 The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows" U.S. Dept. of Interior, Heritage Preservation Services, Pg. 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 134 4 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Between the upper and lower sash is a piece of trim called the "parting stop", and on the interior side of the jamb is a strip of trim called the "interior stop" which keeps the lower sash in place and tight to the parting stop. 4 4 Old House Journal “Repairing Hopeless Windows” April 1982, pg. 87 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 135 5 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 REVIEW OF CONDITIONS Window sash do not operate easily. The original balance system would have consisted of window weights, ropes, and pulleys. The windows were altered by adding a second pane of glass on the interior, increasing the weight. A modern spiral balance system was installed with the intention that it would provide the necessary counterbalance for the additional weight. This system has not proven effective. When this system was introduced the weight pockets were filled with blown-in insulation and the window pulleys and weights were presumably discarded. Defect 1: Image 1: Note missing window pulley. A cover, visible at the bottom of the image, was milled to prevent the window from opening fully, to cover the space left by the removed pulley, and to cover the end of the spiral balance. Image 2: Cover in place. Black plastic tube houses the spiral balance mechanism. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 136 6 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 The best solution would be to return the window pulleys and weights to the window system. This may not be possible if these components have already been discarded. A good solution at this point would be to utilize spring balances. Unlike spiral balances, the spring balance uses the existing pulley mortises and does not require any additional removal of wood from the window sash. Spring balance technology also has a long track record and has proven to be durable. Proposed Solution: Note: Specific products and manufacturers are noted in this report as examples of currently available products and are not recommendations. The author has no business or personal relationship with any of the noted companies. It is the responsibility of the contractor and architect to research all options and choose the products that best fit the needs of the project. One supplier of spring replacement balances that has a good history with historic windows is the Pullman Manufacturing Corporation. https://www.pullmanmfg.com/window-balances-standard-balances/ These balances can accommodate sash up to 105 pounds and can be installed with minimal mortise work in the existing openings. The blown-in insulation can stay in place with this recommendation. These balances are ordered based on the weight of the sash and the length of sash travel. In my experience, it is best to order the tape long to allow for easier operation. If the upper sash are not scheduled for operation, there is no need to install any operating hardware on these sash and they can simply be blocked and caulked in place. Image 3: Pullman balance installed in place of a window pulley. Photo courtesy of the Pullman website Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: The removal of the traditional balance system and installation of a modern spiral balance does not comply with standards 5 and 6, which address the retention of historic materials and the importance of repair versus replacement. If a treatment, like adding a secondary pane of glass, necessitated the removal of traditional materials then it should not have been considered. Previous treatment ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 137 7 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 If the original weights and pulleys can be located then their reintroduction into the window system is fully in compliance. The introduction of the spring balance is not ideal, as it is not the original design. However, it is an alteration that has been found acceptable when the original balance system has been lost. Proposed treatment ________________________________________________________________________________________ The introduction of a spiral balance system necessitated the cutting of a channel into the left and right stiles of each sash to house the hardware. On the examined window, this channel was 5/8" in width with a rounded bottom with max depth of 1/2". This left approximately 1/4" of material on one side of the groove and 7/16" on the other. The sides of the channel had already split in some places and will continue to fail going forward. Defect 2: Image 4: Groove cut into one stile. White arrows notate the groove. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 138 8 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 5: Attachment hardware was added to the bottom of the sash for the spiral balance Image 6: Note the split that has already developed as a result of the removal of supporting material. In addition, note the thinly filled epoxy repairs that are adjacent ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 139 9 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 The following are two options for addressing the lost material which has degraded the integrity of the window sash. The Dutchmen solution is likely the most stable and durable, but it does mean that more of the historic window sash is lost. However, it will enhance the structural stability of the remaining material and retain the look and feel of the historic sash. The epoxy solution will retain all of the existing historic material, but it may be more prone to failure and will essentially "glue" many components of the window together. Proposed Solution: Dutchmen Solution • Remove all spiral balance hardware from the sash • Determine the max depth of the channel as it may vary due to how the cut was made. • Make notes if the depths vary • Make notes of where the sash cord knot hole and channel were • Make notes on the full width of the meeting rail in case any portion of it will be cut • Cut the sides of the sash down even with the depth of the channel • Cut new wood slightly thicker than the sash stile and as wide as the previous channel- depth measurement • Glue the new wood to the sides of the sash and clamp on. Use high quality indoor/outdoor carpenters glue. Allow to dry according to manufacturers specifications o Note: If full reversibility is desired, then the new wood should be screwed tightly onto the sash without the use of glue • If the original weights and pulleys are to be used, route a groove and drill a knot hole according to the previously recorded measurements • If spring balances are to be used, follow the manufacturer's installation instructions • If any portion of the meeting rail profile as removed then cut a matching piece per the recorded measurements and attach • Sand and/or plane the portions of the new wood that are not flush with the original sash to create a smooth appearance Epoxy Solution • Remove all spiral balance hardware from the sash • Make notes of where the sash cord knot hole and channel were • Select an epoxy system. The following are three epoxy systems that have been used successfully on historic properties o https://www.abatron.com/ o https://www.westsystem.com/ o http://www.conservationtechnology.com/building_repair.html • Prep the wood according to manufacturers recommendations • Fill the groove with the selected epoxy • Sand the epoxy back to the smooth finish and down to the original dimensions of the window • If the original weights and pulleys are to be used, route a groove and drill a knot hole according to the previously recorded measurements • If spring balances are to be used, follow the manufacturer's installation instructions Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: Previous treatment ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 140 10 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 The installation of a modern spiral balance required the removal of substantial historic material and altered the original design of the window. This does not comply with standards 5 and 6, which address the retention of historic materials and the importance of repair versus replacement. If a treatment, like adding a secondary pane of glass, necessitated the removal of traditional materials then it should not have been considered. Both of the proposed treatments focus on preserving as much of the original material as possible. The Dutchmen repair is more appropriate as it is a replacement in-kind, although it does have the drawbacks noted above. If completed with screws and no glue, then the Dutchmen repair has the added benefit of being reversible. Proposed treatment __________________________________________________________________________________________ Glass panes were added to the interior of the upper and lower sash with the goal of reducing sound transference and improving energy efficiency. A groove was cut into the interior face of the sash to a depth of approximately 3/16" and a width of 3/8" for the glass to fit into. The glass is held in place with four turn button clips. During inspection the panels did not fit tight into this groove and rattled when pressed against. In some locations the glass panels had slipped out of the groove leaving air gaps. The lack of a seal negates significant noise reduction or improved energy efficiency. If a better seal is achieved, then there is a risk that condensation will be exacerbated on the interior face of the primary glazing, which will then be trapped in between the two layers of glass and hasten deterioration of the historic sash. The glass pane on the upper sash covers the historic location of the sash lock. Defect 3: Image 7: Groove cut to house glass panel. The open space underneath the sash is due to the sill and stool being missing, presumably awaiting restoration. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 141 11 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 8: Note that glass panel does not fit tight in groove Image 9: Glass panel is slipping. Fit is loose Remove the added glass panes. The benefit they provide is negligible and their presence makes operation of the window difficult. Energy efficiency will be addressed in a separate section. Unfortunately the groove that Proposed Solution: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 142 12 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 was cut for the glass to set in is likely best left alone. If a repair to return the window sash to their original look is desired then strips of wood will need to be glued into the channel and custom router bits manufactured to allow the profile to be recreated on the sash. However, this solution would require complete disassembly of each window sash, and as such may not be practical. The most realistic way forward may be to consider this groove as a part of the windows history. Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: The addition of a glass panel caused the destruction of historic materials and led to other incompatible alterations, which is prohibited by Standard 9. Previous treatment The removal of the glass panel will return the window to its original condition as closely as possible, which is in compliance with the Standards. Proposed treatment __________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard practice for restoring historic wood sash is the removal of, at a minimum, loose and flaking paint so that new paint has a solid surface to adhere to. Better practice is to completely remove all paint layers so that the wood can be fully evaluated for defects that would need to be addressed. During evaluation it was noted that paint was not removed in any significant way from the sash and many needed repairs to the sash were left untreated. Defect 4: A 3M LeadCheck product was used on the lower sash of window 003-12. The test came back positive for lead paint. Image 10: Note the condition of the lower rail and the built-up paint ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 143 13 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 11: Note flaking paint Image 12: 3M LeadCheck test. Red indicates the presence of lead. Many paint layers were visible when scoring down to bare wood All of the sash should be stripped of all paint down to bare wood. Each sash should then be evaluated to determine if additional repairs are needed. Proposed Solution: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 144 14 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: Leaving the paint on the sash and performing minimal repairs is acceptable per the Standards. However, more maintenance will soon be necessary as the windows continue to degrade. Previous treatment Removing all paint layers is an acceptable practice as part of the restoration process. No historic material is lost via this process. If a record of the historic paint layers is desired, then samples can be collected from a variety of locations before the windows are removed for stripping. Proposed treatment The EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Program (EPA RRP) likely applies to this project. Please ensure that all activities that disturb paint follow the guidelines specified by the EPA, which are available online at: https://www.epa.gov/lead/renovation-repair-and-painting-program __________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard practice for restoring historic wood sash is the removal of failed glazing compound and replacement with a comparable putty that replicates the look of the original and, to the extent possible, the performance. Some of the sash did not have putty removed, presumably because it was still in good condition. The condition of the old putty cannot be verified due to the paint layer on top. Many sash have a white compound applied which appears to be a DAP window glazing caulk, although this cannot be verified without a submittal from the contractor. This DAP product is acceptable, as are other caulk-tube extruded glazing compounds, however it was applied leaving a concave surface and was applied quite thinly in several areas which will lead to premature failure. Finally, several of the windows were overpainted onto the glass significantly. While this is not a structural or performance concern, it negatively impacts the aesthetic of the window and reduces occupant enjoyment. Defect 5: Image 13: Note the concave surface of the glazing compound. This is less effective at shedding water and does not replicate the historic appearance ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 145 15 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 14: Note how the new glazing compound does not come up to the edge of the bed and has a ragged edge Image 15: Evidence of overpainting. A section of paint was removed to show where the paint should have ended. The area between the arrow points is over painted As part of the paint removal process, all glazing putty should be removed as well. The glass should be removed from the sash, cleaned, and reset in a new bed of glazing compound with new points. All efforts should be made to save original glass whenever possible. Only one pane of original glass was noted during the evaluation, located on the lower sash of window 003-3. Proposed Solution: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 146 16 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 There are a variety of window putties available that are appropriate for historic windows. Please conduct research to determine the best fit for skill level and application. The following are two examples of glazing putty products that have been successfully used on historic wood windows. Advanced Repair Technology's Glaze-Ease 601 http://www.advancedrepair.com/glazing_glaze_ease_601.html Sarco's Multi-Glaze Type M Putty (Available online from a variety of suppliers) https://www.srshardware.com/product/sarco-multi-glaze-type-m-putty/ Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: The durability of the current glazing is unknown but suspected to be relatively short. More information about the product used would be necessary to determine if it does not meet the Standards. Previous treatment Reglazing with a product designed for historic wood windows is fully compliant with the Standards. Proposed treatment __________________________________________________________________________________________ The window sash weatherstripping consists of a pile weatherstripping applied to the exterior face of the interior stop so that it seals against the lower sash when the window is closed. There is also bulb weatherstripping applied to the exterior face of the lower-sash meeting rail to seal the upper sash to the lower sash when the window is closed. Finally, there is also bulb-seal applied to the bottom of the lower sash to seal with the sill. The bulb seals are all appropriate and within standard practice for weatherstripping historic wood sash. The pile weatherstripping, while acceptable, isn't sealing the window to the extent desired. Defect 6: T-rail metal weatherstripping is a traditional system that is still in use today and would have been available at the time of the building's construction. The system consists of metal strips that are affixed to the jamb that have a protrusion that interfaces with a 5/32" x 7/16" groove cut into the side of the sash. For additional sealing and smoother operation, it is recommended that single-sided glazing tape be affixed to the back of the metal strip to seal between it and the jamb. This method of weatherstripping is compatible with the spring balances described earlier. The bulb seals that are currently in place at the meeting rail and the bottom rail should stay as they are, although some of the meeting rail bulb seals may need to be replaced as they were damaged during lock installation. Proposed Solution: Image 16: Example of single-sided foam glazing tape ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 147 17 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 17: Damaged seal at meeting rail Image 18: Image from Accurate Weatherstripping. The sill strip can be omitted in the described application ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 148 18 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 There are a variety of similar options to the described approach. Please conduct research to determine the best fit for the situation at hand. As an example, Accurate Metal Weatherstrip Co. Inc. has a variety of products that have successfully been installed in historic buildings. The product closest to what has been described, and installation instructions, can be viewed online at: http://metalstrips.accurateweatherstrip.com/product/window-weatherstrips/s-series-no-10-up-1-3-8-or-1-3- 4-double-hung-sash- Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: The previous treatment is compatible with the Standards Previous treatment The proposed treatment is adding new material to the window system, but it is reversible without causing damage or loss of historic materials which is compatible with the Standards. The proposed treatment is also a well-established protocol for historic windows with a track record of durability. Proposed treatment __________________________________________________________________________________________ Structural repairs were treated with a skim-coat of epoxy when dutchmen repairs would have been more appropriate. Some meeting rails on the upper sash are slipping, which should have been addressed during the most recent restoration. The following list of items is not comprehensive and consists only of what was noticed during the evaluation. All paint layers should be removed so that the full extent of necessary repairs can be discerned. Defect 7: Window 2-6: Lower sash, crack in lower rail Window 2-7: Upper sash, meeting rail is slipping Window 2-9: Lower sash, left stile is cracked Window 2-10: Upper sash, meeting rail is slipping Window 2-14: Upper sash, meeting rail is slipping Window 2-20: Lower sash, lower rail may need replacement Window 2-25: Lower sash, lower rail may need replacement Window 3-4: Lower sash, lower rail may need replacement Window 3-14: Lower sash, lower rail may need replacement Window 3-15: Lower sash, lower rail may need replacement Window 3-18: (Interior window, sealed off on one side) Upper sash, upper pane is broken ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 149 19 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 19: Window 002-6, note crack in lower rail Image 20: Window 002-11, note meeting rail slipping down ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 150 20 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 21: Window 002-21 deterioration at the upper sash stiles and meeting rail left untreated Following the removal of paint and glazing putty, all of the sash should be evaluated for repairs. If Dutchmen repairs are determined to provide a more durable repair, then that approach should be taken. The use of epoxy is appropriate for filling in checks and cracks, but should not be applied as a skim coat as it would then trap moisture. The use of epoxy to replace rotted mortise and tenon joinery is also not appropriate as these joints were designed to move and the epoxy will eventually crack and fail. Proposed Solution: For a full description of the proposed restoration process please refer to appendix items titled: REPAIR PROCESS FOR: WOOD DOUBLE-HUNG, CASEMENT, AND FIXED WINDOWS and PRESERVATION BRIEF 9: THE REPAIR OF HISTORIC WOODEN WINDOWS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 151 21 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: The previous repair work, aside from the addition of a glass pane and replacement of the balance system, is compatible with the Standards. Additional work is necessary to fully stabilize the window system. Previous treatment The proposed treatments are compliant as they focus on repairs rather than replacement, and utilize products that are compatible with preservation standards. Proposed treatment __________________________________________________________________________________________ The existing windows do not perform up to the energy efficiency or noise reduction standards desired. The fact that historic windows do not meet modern standards is not a valid argument for replacement. There are acceptable treatments that can be applied to meet the desired goals while still adhering to historic preservation guidelines. Defect 8: In combination with the repairs and installation of additional weatherstripping described above, the installation of an operable interior storm window will greatly improve the energy efficiency and noise reduction of the window system. Proposed Solution: There are many storm window manufacturers. As an example, an Allied Window product is detailed in this report to show one of the options available. Coordination with the architect, contractor, manufacturer, and building owner will be necessary to determine the best option to achieve the clients goals. Allied Window #MOL-OP, operating magnetic one-lite storm window with screen. This storm window mounts on the interior of the window in the ample space available. Image 22: Red lines indicate plane where a storm window would be installed ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 152 22 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 The upper panel of the storm window is fixed, and the lower panel is operable. A screen option is also available. These storm windows can be custom colored to match any sample given, and the entire system can be removed for cleaning the window glass. There are several glazing options that address UV reduction, noise reduction, and other considerations. For additional information, including all options available and detailed drawings, please visit: https://catalog.alliedwindow.com/item/interior-magnetic-storm-windows/operating-magnetic-one-lite-mol- op-with-screen-2/item-1057?&bc=100|1064 Many studies have been conducted on the subject of historic windows and energy efficiency. The common take-away is that historic windows, when properly repaired and weatherstripped, with the combination of a storm window, can achieve similar energy efficiency performance as a replacement window and provide a better return on investment then wholesale replacement. Links below provided via the National Park Service Technical Preservation Services. Please click on the title for access to the full reports https://www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability/research.htm A Comparative Study of the Cumulative Energy Use of Historical Versus Contemporary Windows—A 2010 study by Boston professionals funded by the Boston Society of Architects. Life cycle costs were calculated and compared for a typical wood double-hung window with an added Low-E storm window and a new vinyl replacement window. Using modeling and adapting previous field studies to a Boston location, it was determined that the thermal performances of the two window systems are similar; and taking all costs into account, the historic window with a storm has a much lower life-cycle cost throughout a 100-year period. It does not seem, however, that the sources used for air leakage numbers take into account the infiltration that can occur between the window unit and the wall assembly and how that may differ between the historic window/storm and the new window. The Effects of Energy Efficiency Treatments on Historic Windows—Published in January, 2011, by the Center for Resource Conservation in Boulder, Colorado. This study focuses on empirical testing of the energy efficiency and economy of a range of options for upgrading the energy performance of historic windows. It involved retrofitting windows in a test home in a historic district in Boulder, Colorado as well as testing in a laboratory facility developed for the study. Summary tables cover the eleven different preservation treatment options that were investigated and then compared to a new vinyl window. Most of the proposed treatments were able to outperform a new vinyl window. The study has lots of technical information and the results from both field and lab testing. While there is not a great deal of detail about the cost of the various options, there is enough cost information to provide relative payback savings. Field Evaluation of Low-E Storm Windows— A study conducted in Chicago in 2007 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. While based on only six homes in the Chicago area, data collected from field monitoring for this study indicates a consistent benefit to using storm windows. Clear glass storm windows reduced the heating load by 13% with a 10-year simple payback. Low-e storm windows also showed an additional improvement on top of the clear glass benefits, amounting to 21% heating savings and an average payback of less than five years. Pointed out as an ancillary benefit of installing storm windows is reduced air infiltration. Measured Winter Performance of Storm Windows—A 2002 study completed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In testing under actual winter weather conditions, the study finds that a north-facing, wood, double-hung, single-glazed (AND intentionally leaky), sash in combination with a low-E storm window, performed very similarly to the standard low-E vinyl replacement window. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 153 23 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Testing the Energy Performance of Wood Windows in Cold Climates—A 1996 study which showed that window replacement will not necessarily reduce energy costs more than an upgrade utilizing the existing sash. It found that effectively sealing between the window frame and rough opening was important in reducing the infiltrative thermal losses associated with any window renovation. Storm windows, either existing or replacements, were found to be effective in reducing both infiltrative and non-infiltrative losses. This study was funded by the State of Vermont Division for Historic Preservation utilizing a grant received from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training of the National Park Service. Thermal Performance of Traditional Windows—Published in 2008 by Glasgow Caledonian University for Historic Scotland. This study investigated various options for reducing heat loss through windows. Among the options tested were secondary glazing systems (storm windows), insulating shades, and more traditional window treatments like shutters and curtains. Although secondary glazing was found to be the most effective option (reducing heat loss by 63%), timber shutters were also found to be effective (reducing heat loss by 51%.) Findings indicate that the most effective reductions in heat loss were attained by combining several treatments. Links below provided via the California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation. Please click on the title for access to the full reports http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25935 A report produced by the National Trust for Historic Preservation Green Lab provides cost guidance for homeowners weighing the financial and energy tradeoffs between replacing or repairing older, less efficient windows. This report, "Saving Windows, Saving Money: Evaluating the Energy Performance of Window Retrofit and Replacement", builds on previous research by examining multiple window improvement options, comparing them to replacement windows across multiple climate regions. "Window Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement" , Peter Baker, P.E. This report was prepared for Building America, Building Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy to evaluate advanced retrofit measures. A balanced approach is presented to guide contractors and homeowners to decide whether to repair or replace considering many factors, one of which is historic preservation. November 2011 "Thermal Assessment of internal Shutters and Window Film Applied to Traditional Single Glazed Sash and Case Windows" by John Currie, Julio Bros Williamson, Jon Stinson & Marie Jonnard, Historic Scotland Technical Report 23 assesses the effectiveness of two inexpensive and minimally invasive methods for improving the thermal performance of single glazed windows. This technical paper demonstrates that a range of options, including minimally invasive and inexpensive methods, can play a worthwhile role in the overall thermal improvement of buildings. "Of Paint and Windows - Replace or Repair" by Bob Yapp "Thermal Performance of Historic Windows" by Chris Wood, www.buildingconservation.com (England) "An Analysis of the Thermal Performance of Repaired and Replacement Windows", PDF, Robert Score and Bradford Carpenter, APT Bulletin 40:2, 2009 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 154 24 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Window Energy Analysis, Keith Haberern, P.E. “Replacement Windows and Furnaces in the Heartland: Indiana’s Energy Conservation Financial Assistance Program” by William H. Hill. This is the 1990 study that demonstrates a four hundred year payback using replacement windows. “Building Regulations and Historic Buildings: balancing the needs for energy conservation with those of building conservation” The English Heritage Interim Guidance article touches on all parts of preservation and conservation of power and fuel, and the chapter on windows is very relevant. “Repair or Replace Windows in Historic Buildings: Arriving at a Sustainable Solution” The Heritage Canada file contains two articles, one from Andrew Powter and Craig Sims discussing how to arrive at a decision to replace or repair original windows, and Susan Turner explains the sustainable nature of window repair rather than replacement. “Life Cycle Of Window Materials - A Comparative Assessment” by Asif, Davidson and Muneer. A comparative life cycle assessment of the environmental impact of different window materials is included for its interesting materials energy cost analysis. “Domestic Retrofitting Strategies in the UK: Effectiveness vs. Affordability” is an interesting presentation of the effectiveness of different energy retrofitting strategies, including shutters. “What Replacement Windows Can’t Replace: The Real Cost of Replacing Historic Windows” Walter Sedovic and Jill Gotthelf provide an excellent discussion of the comparative value of window replacement versus repair. Many aspects of sustainability are considered. “Lincoln Hall Windows Research Report: A Case Study of Options for Treatment for Windows at Lincoln Hall, University Of Illinois, Urbana Champaign” This report provides empirical data to assess window repair or replacement options for a proposed LEED Gold project, addressing the existing windows in terms of energy consumption. Compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: N/A Previous treatment The introduction of a storm window is an approved preservation practice and fully reversible with minimal damage to historic materials. Therefore, the proposed treatment is compatible with the Standards. Proposed treatment __________________________________________________________________________________________ ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 155 25 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 APPENDIX Example of Full Restoration process for: Wood Double-Hung, Casement, and Fixed Windows On-Site Method of Procedure Window Sash Removal: 1.) When required per EPA regulations, place poly-sheeting on the floor at the work area to collect any dust or debris created during the sash removal process. The sheeting will extend 10 feet from the window opening towards the interior of the room and 6 feet on either side of the opening. If these minimum distances cannot be achieved, the sheeting will extend as far as possible into the room as well as side to side in front of the window opening. 2.) Remove the left and right sash from the opening by removing the hinge pins or by unscrewing the hinge from the jamb 3.) Number each sash for each opening according to the window schedule using a “Sharpie” to write the corresponding number on the unfinished side of the stile of each sash. Where multiple sashes are present in one opening, a dash (-) followed by a sequential numbering system will be used. For example; a window opening designated 236C has 4 total sashes. There are two upper sashes and two lower sashes. As viewed from the interior, if sash removal will begin in the lower left hand corner of the opening: The lower left hand sash will be labeled 236C-1, the upper left hand sash will be labeled 236C- 2, the lower right hand sash will be labeled 236C-3, and the upper right hand sash will be labeled 236C- 4. This system will be utilized in the same order where transom windows are present. The interior stop will be labeled with 236C and differentiated by an “L,” “C,” or “R” to designate its original location (Left, Center, or Right). The parting stop is not typically labeled or restored as it is most often time damaged beyond repair during the removal process and new parting stop will be fabricated to match the existing for every opening. 4.) When required per EPA regulations, bag or wrap all components; including sash, interior stop, parting stop and trash in heavy duty poly-sheeting or poly-bags to assure containment of any dust or debris during transport. 5.) When required per EPA regulations, cleaning verification will be provided following a thorough cleaning of the area using damp wipes and/or HEPA vacuums; including, but not limited to, all sills, stools, floors, weight pockets, poly-bags and poly-sheeting. Installation of Temporary Enclosures: 1.) The material selected for use as the temporary enclosure, “Verolite” or similar, will be cut to fit inside the existing opening whenever possible. If not specified, plywood or OSB will be utilized. When required, the perimeter of the Verolite, plywood, or OSB will be wrapped in foam tape in an effort to create the most effective weather seal possible. The wood backing for this will be screwed to the existing frame where the interior stop and/or parting stop was located. The screw holes created will be hidden by the interior stop or parting stop upon reinstallation of the restored components and causes little to no damage to the frame. The verolite will then be attached to this backing material utilizing screws. Existing Frame Restoration: 1.) Loose and flaking or failed paint is removed following the National Park Service Preservation Brief number 10. A “wet method” utilizing chemical strippers, carbide scrapers, or HEPA approved mechanical sanders (or a combination of all three) will ensure that no lead based paint dust is created. Following the paint stripping process, a thorough visual and tactile examination of the existing wood substrate will be performed. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 156 26 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 2.) If there are any pieces or components that have shifted or become loose on the frame, counter-sunk coated screws and/or galvanized brad nails will be utilized to restore the integrity of the components. 3.) If it is determined that the existing substrate is beyond repair through the use of epoxy, the deteriorated wood will be “cut” out of the existing frame and a replacement piece fabricated to replicate the removed component, commonly referred to as a “Dutchman,” will be installed in its place. After all of the Dutchmen have been installed, epoxy will be utilized to make any other repairs that are deemed necessary. 4.) When the epoxy has dried, it will be sanded to shape. A thorough review by our staff will determine if any additional epoxy consolidate is required. 5.) All window frame components will then be primed, and an additional review completed to ensure that we have achieved the acceptable criteria set forth by the “Mock-up Review.” If more consolidation is deemed necessary, the primer at that location will be removed and steps 5-7 will be repeated. 6.) A modified polyurethane sealant will then be applied to any and all areas that require it. The sealant will either be color matched and/or paintable. It will be a low-modulus elastomeric product. 7.) A minimum of two finish coats of paint will then be applied and given ample drying time before the restored sash will be installed. Sash Installation: 1.) The sash will be delivered pre-finished to site and will be installed per the plans and specifications. Depending on the specifications, metal interlocking weather stripping will be utilized in conjunction with compression bulb weatherstripping for casement sash. The sashes are installed in a manner which attempts to balance the ease of operation while still maintaining the best possible seal against air infiltration. 2.) The locking hardware will then be installed. 3.) All necessary caulking and paint touch up will be preformed after installation to provide a clean and seamless finished product. 4.) After the owner and architect have reviewed the finished product, all necessary punch-list items will be corrected. Off-site Method of Procedure Receiving Sash: 1.) When the sashes and interior stop arrive at the “Shop” the window designation numbers are “stamped” into the sash at the same location. This is to ensure that the number is not inadvertently removed during the restoration process. Glazing Putty, Glass Removal, and Glass Cleaning: 1.) Steam ovens are utilized to soften the historic glazing putty and all existing putty is removed. This ensures a wet method technique that is non-invasive and is the best method to avoid breakage of the glass during this process. 2.) When the glass has been removed, the corresponding sash number is written on a piece of tape and applied to the surface of the glass. 3.) This number will be removed temporarily when the glass is cleaned, but will be reattached after the cleaning is complete. Typical glass cleaners such as Windex are utilized. All glass that can be reused will be reused. Existing scratches on the glass that were not created during the removal or cleaning process will not dictate replacement of the glass unless directed by the architect and/or owner. 4.) When the sash has completed the restoration process in the shop, the original piece of glass will be installed in the same location from which it came. Sash Restoration: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 157 27 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 1.) All sashes, after they have been stripped, are re-squared prior to applying epoxy consolidates. This is achieved by clamping the sash and when 90 degree internal angles are achieved, dowels are utilized to maintain the shape. 2.) Before the glass is set and bedded, and after the sanding of the epoxy is completed, the glazing rabbit is primed. 3.) After sanding the epoxy consolidates, kerfs are cut for future installation of the bulb seal and, when specified, t-rail weather stripping. Sash Replication: 1.) Where window sash are missing the jambs are carefully measured, including the diagonals to allow for adjustments for out-of-square openings and with careful notation of hinge and hardware location. 2.) Lumber is selected to match the existing wood, with care being taken regarding grain direction to prevent warping or twisting. 3.) Using the existing sash as a template, new sash are constructed mimicking the stile and rail dimensions, joinery details, and profiles 4.) Once constructed, the replica sash join the restored sash at the sanding phase and continue through the same steps in the Glazing and Painting and Staining processes. Interior Stop Restoration: 1.) This process is similar to the Existing Frame Restoration section but may include some new fabrication to replace pieces which were damaged beyond repair during the sash removal process. Parting Stop Fabrication: 1.) All parting stop will be fabricated to match existing and will be prefinished in the shop prior to installation on-site. Glazing Process: 1.) Dap Glazing compound is applied to the glazing rabbit and the glass is installed using push points when traditional glazing putty is utilized. Push points are not used when glass stops (wood or other) are utilized. 2.) The residual Dap compound that “oozes” out is cleaned from the glass and wood sash surfaces. 3.) When the Dap has “set-up” Glazing putty or wood glass stop is applied. 4.) The sash is then placed vertically in a drying rack. 5.) Depending on the type of glazing compound utilized, dry time can range from a little as a few days to as long as 6 weeks. Painting and Staining Process: 1.) The sashes are masked to protect the glass but still allow the finish paint to extend very slightly beyond the glazing bed to create a seal. 2.) They are transferred to painting racks, and the primer and two finish coats are applied with an airless or a HVLP paint sprayer. 3.) When the finish coat is dry, the masking is removed, the bulb seal installed, glass cleaned, and the sash delivered to the site for installation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 158 28 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 159 29 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 160 30 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 161 31 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 162 32 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 163 33 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 164 34 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 165 35 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Photo Documentation Image 23: Linden Street Elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 166 36 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 24: Walnut Street Elevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 167 37 BCRC LLC - 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 - barlowpl@gmail.com - (303) 746-1602 Image 25: Corner of Linden and Walnut ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 168 002-1-Exterior 002-1-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 169 002-1-Interior Detail 1 002-2-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 170 002-2-Interior 002-2-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 171 002-2-Interior Detail 2 002-3-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 172 002-3-Interior 002-3-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 173 002-3-Interior Detail 2 002-3-Interior Detail 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 174 002-4-Exterior 002-4-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 175 002-4-Interior Detail 1 002-4-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 176 002-4-Interior Detail 3 002-5-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 177 002-5-Interior 002-5-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 178 002-6-Exterior 002-6-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 179 002-6-Interior Detail 1 002-7-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 180 002-7-Interior 002-7-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 181 002-7-Interior Detail 2 002-7-Interior Detail 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 182 002-8-Exterior 002-8-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 183 002-8-Interior Detail 1 002-8-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 184 002-9-Exterior 002-9-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 185 002-9-Interior Detail 1 002-9-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 186 002-10-Exterior 002-10-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 187 002-10-Interior Detail 1 002-10-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 188 002-10-Interior Detail 3 002-11-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 189 002-11-Interior 002-11-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 190 002-11-Interior Detail 2 002-12-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 191 002-12-Interior 002-12-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 192 002-12-Interior Detail 2 002-12-Interior Detail 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 193 002-13-Exterior 002-13-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 194 002-13-Interior Detail 1 002-13-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 195 002-14-Exterior 002-14-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 196 002-14-Interior Detail 1 002-14-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 197 002-15-Exterior 002-15-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 198 002-15-Interior Detail 1 002-15-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 199 002-16-Exterior 002-16-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 200 002-16-Interior Detail 1 002-17-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 201 002-17-Interior 002-17-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 202 002-17-Interior Detail 2 002-18-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 203 002-18-Interior 002-19-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 204 002-19-Interior 002-19-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 205 002-19-Interior Detail 2 002-20-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 206 002-20-Interior 002-20-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 207 002-20-Interior Detail 2 002-21-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 208 002-21-Exterior Detail 1 002-21-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 209 002-21-Interior Detail 1 002-21-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 210 002-21-Interior Detail 3 002-22-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 211 002-22-Interior 002-22-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 212 002-22-Interior Detail 2 002-22-Interior Detail 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 213 002-22-Interior Detail 4 02-23-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 214 002-23-Interior 002-23-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 215 002-23-Interior Detail 2 002-24-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 216 002-24-Interior 002-24-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 217 002-24-Interior Detail 2 002-25-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 218 002-25-Interior 002-25-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 219 002-25-Interior Detail 2 003-1-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 220 003-1-Interior 003-1-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 221 003-2-Exterior 003-2-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 222 003-2-Interior Detail 1 003-2-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 223 003-3-Exterior 003-3-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 224 003-3-Interior Detail 1 003-4-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 225 003-4-Interior 003-5-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 226 003-5-Interior 003-5-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 227 003-5-Interior Detail 2 003-6-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 228 003-6-Interior 003-6-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 229 003-6-Interior Detail 2 003-7-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 230 003-7-Interior 003-7-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 231 003-7-Interior Detail 2 003-8-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 232 003-8-Interior 003-8-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 233 003-9-Exterior 003-9-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 234 003-9-Interior Detail 1 003-9-Interior Detail 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 235 003-9-Interior Detail 3 003-10-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 236 003-10-Interior 003-10-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 237 003-10-Interior Detail 2 003-11-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 238 003-11-Interior 003-11-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 239 003-12-Exterior 003-12-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 240 003-12-Interior Detail 1 003-13-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 241 003-13-Interior 003-13-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 242 003-13-Interior Detail 2 003-14-Exterior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 243 003-14-Interior 003-14-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 244 003-14-Interior Detail 2 003-14-Interior Detail 3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 245 003-14-Interior Detail 4 003-14-Interior Detail 5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 246 003-14-Interior Detail 6 003-14-Interior Detail 7 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 247 003-15-Exterior 003-15-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 248 003-16-Exterior 003-16-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 249 003-17-Exterior 003-17-Interior ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 250 003-18-Interior 003-18-Interior Detail 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 251 Corner of Linden and Walnut Linden Street Elevation_Faces Southeast ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 252 Walnut Street Elevation, Faces Southwest Replacement windows_Northwest elevation_Alley 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 253 Replacement windows_Northwest elevation_Alley ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 254 1 Linden Hotel (201 Linden) Conceptual/Final Design Review Karen McWilliams and Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Landmark Preservation Commission, December 19, 2018 Executive Summary Background: • Conversion of 2nd and 3rd stories to condominiums • Applicant conveyed that contractor would conduct normal maintenance and repair on existing historic windows. • Staff did not receive the window study or detailed description of proposed work. • Design Review Subcommittee provided on-site review of work after completion; referred to LPC. 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 255 Executive Summary Current design review question: • Applicant seeks to remove all historic windows and replace with new units. • Staff finds proposed work does not comply with any of 5 requirements for alterations to landmarks found in Municipal Code Ch. 14, Sect. 14- 48(1-5). • No basis in the code for a recommendation of approval. 3 201 Linden Street (1900) 4 • 1882 (Abner Loomis and C.B. Andrews) • Architect: William Quayle • Poudre Valley Bank (1st) • Post Office • Masonic Lodge • Tavern • Linden Hotel ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 256 201 Linden Street (1934) 5 • 3 stories • Brick and native sandstone • Corner entry • Double oriel windows with ornate decorative wood details • Half-arch and flat stone lintels and stone sills • Double-hung wood windows (2nd and 3rd) 201 Linden Street (1951) 6 1974: Designated FC Landmark (#3) 1978: National Register – Old Town Historic District 1979: FC Landmark – Old Town District ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 257 201 Linden (1994 Rehabilitation) 7 8 201 Linden (2018 Rehabilitation) Administrative Design Review (LPC Subcommittee) • Rooftop patio, doors, deck • Stabilization of sandstone pilasters through east wall • Replacement of 4 windows installed in 1994 (west wall) Referral to LPC • Request: to replace historic windows • Basis: lack of approval for treatment plan; suitability of work; damage to historic fabric of windows; subsequent operability issues • Resources: Barlow Cultural Resource Consulting; Anne McCleave (SHPO) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 258 LPC Work Session Requests: Staff Expected lifespan of historic windows: With restoration and maintenance, old growth heartwood windows can last indefinitely. (Source: Window Preservation Standards Collaborative, a consortium of 150+ window professionals) 9 LPC Work Session Requests: Staff Chronology of rehab and recent landmark design reviews (see staff report) Design review process and applicant’s awareness (see staff report) DDA easement (attached) 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 259 LPC Work Session Requests: Applicant Location of removed pulleys and weights Steps taken to explore alternatives to replacement Are proposed replacements the same as new west wall windows? 11 Staff Findings of Fact Staff recommends denial of the current application to replace the historic windows at 201 Linden based on the following findings of fact: • Not consistent with or supportive of the previous public and private investments in the historic rehabilitation of the structure. • Does not comply with Ch. 14, Sect. 14-48(1): creates adverse effect on general historical character of landmark. • Does not comply with Ch. 14, Sect. 14-48(2): does not preserve the historic window materials. 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260 Staff Findings of Fact • Does not comply with Ch. 14, Sect. 14-48(3): changes key exterior characteristic of landmark. • Does not comply with Ch. 14, Sect. 14-48(4): fails to demonstrate necessity for protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of landmark. • Does not comply with Ch. 14, Sect.14-48(5): fails to satisfy applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9); also does not comply with section 3.8 of Old Town Design Standards. • In sum, proposal meets none of the requirements of Municipal Code. No basis for approval. 13 LPC Role Design Review: Does the applicant’s request to replace existing historic windows comply with Chapter 14 Standards? Conceptual Review: opportunity to identify any concerns regarding requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to designated landmarks. Final Review: if Commission determines it has the necessary information to make a decision, it may proceed to final review. 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-1 15 Linden Hotel (201 Linden) Conceptual/Final Design Review Karen McWilliams and Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Division Landmark Preservation Commission, December 19, 2018 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 14 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-2 ,. , ··"· .. � ··.,_,, PTN # 94036314 04/27/94 13:17:00 # PAGES - 25 FEE - -.$150 Ou ROD_E��_ERG �� .. R��ORDER, LARIMER COUNTY CO STATE DOC FEE - _________ 1)0 AGREEHD'? This Agreement is made and entered into this ..1£/:_ day of �ri I · , 1994, by and among The Fort Collins Downtown De lopment Authority, a body corporate and politic ("DOA"), . Historic Linden LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Linden LLC"), and Mitchell Morgan and David Veldman ("Morgan and Veldman"), individuals, collectively referred to herein as "owners". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Linden LLC is the contract purchaser of the following-described property located within the boundaries of the ODA (Linden LLC and its successors and assigns hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the Linden Hotel owners"): A portion of Lots 2 and 4, Block -13, in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, to wit: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 2 (being· · the most Southerly corner) in said Block 13; thence Northeasterly on line of Linden Street, 75 feet; thence Northwesterly parallel to Walnut Street, 100 feet; thence Southwesterly· parallel to Linden street 75 feet; thence Southeasterly on line of Walnut Street, 100 feet, to Point of Beginning, COUNTY.OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (hereinafter ref erred to as the "Linden Hotel n) • The street address of the Linden Hotel is 201 Linden Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524; and WHEREAS, Morgan and Veldman, as tenants in common, are the owners of the following-described property located within the boundaries of the ODA (Morgan and Veldman and their successors and assigns together referred to hereinafter as "the Salvation Army Building owners"): A portion of Lots 2 and 4, Block 13, in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on Linden Street, 75 feet Northeast from the most Southerly corner of said Lot 2; thence Northeasterly along line of Linden Street, 115 feet; thence Northwesterly parallel with Walnut Street, 100 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with Linden Street, 115 feet; thence Southeasterly parallel with Walnut Street, 100 feet to the Point of Beginning, except that portion 1986 at conveyed Reception by Deed No. recorded 86010395, February COUNTY 28, OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-3 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-5 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-7 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-9 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-11 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-13 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-15 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-16 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-17 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-18 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-19 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-20 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-21 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 15 DDA Easement - added 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 260-22 From: joan day <jed1108@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:10 PM To: Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> Subject: Linden Hotel I feel like the heritage of my city is slowly being eroded - one small piece at a time. Problem is - just like a puzzle, each piece, when placed side by side, makes a total picture. Sometimes that is not the picture you were expecting. We loose a silo here, a house there, and now something as simple as a window. But that window matters. I strongly encourage the City to take a stand now. There is a reason why we have standards, why we designate and why we value specific aspects of our past. Please keep the big picture in mind and preserve the integrity of the Linden Hotel - Old Town - and Fort Collins. Thank you Joan Day 970619 0720 ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, J.DAY Packet Pg. 260-23 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-24 The written DDA's approval easement of the also DDA, prohibits and when the owner(considering s) from the altering owner(the s) request facade for improvements alterations to without the facade the express alteration improvements, is consistent the DDA with must character take into of account the approved reasons designs for the for request the facade that include improvements, whether or the otherwise requested the compatible property with is located. the character of redeveloped properties in the downtown as well as the specific area where The condominium 201 Linden association. property ownership For purposes consists of requesting of several alterations condominium of the ownership facade improvements, interests, and a the DDA the easeme.DDA nt would expects consider that consent the request. is provided by all owners of the property, including the association, before To facade Historic date, improvements, Window the DDA Alterations has not which received would and Request a include formal for request the Removal windows from the of the owner(Linden s) of Street 201 Linden and Walnut requesting Street alteration facades. to altered On November to receive 7, 2018 a retrofit DDA staff interior was storm invited pane by ownership and new spiral representatives balances on to both observe the second the windows and third recently floors of performed the building. on the The historic DDA staff windows, was asked which to presented observe the as difficulty challenges in encountered the windows with on the modifications third floor remaining in an open position due to the additional weight created by the interior storm pane retrofit. The modifications, DDA staff did so a not comparison get an opportunity of the modified to test condition the functionality of the historic of the windows windows prior versus to previous recent condition of windows functionality on both cannot floors be with established the new spiral by us. balances, However, the after windows visiting seemed the site to and function operating similarly the modified to what we, with it is an our unrealistic limited experience, expectation have given experienced the age of these when historic operating windows other historic that they windows. would or It could is our operate opinion, at that an identical level of function as any newly installed modern windows. the Regarding 3rd party the window spiral balances specialist installed hired by by the the City owner's to evaluate contractor the need versus for the window recommended replacement, spring we balance feel both by seem customer to be the an amenity acceptable of a practice new storm to insure pane for that thermal the historic efficiency windows and remain added benefit in place of while sound still attenuation. offering the We for the feel user/any technology owner should that be allows comprehensively the historic windows explored and to remain considered in place prior while to a also decision offering to fully functionality remove the consideration original historic of a formal windows. request Furthermore, to replace we the would existing expect windows. this evaluation be provided prior to the DDA's Sincerely, "�Director �, Cc: Dawn Oglesby, Oglesby Design, LLC ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-25 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-26 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-27 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-28 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-29 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-30 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-31 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-32 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-33 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-34 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-35 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-36 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-37 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-38 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-39 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-40 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-41 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-42 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Rec'd 12/19/18 DDA LETTER AND FACADE AGREEMENT Packet Pg. 260-43 Packet Pg. 260-44 ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT EXHIBITS B & C Exhibit B – Magnet used as a visual aid by Myrne Watrous during public comment. Exhibit C – Photos of a piece of wood used by Robert Anthony during public comment to demonstrate how wood ages. Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 19, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND USE CODE CHANGES STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, as they relate to standards governing the review of developments affecting historic resources. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request for a recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission to City Council on changes to Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources that address standards for the review of proposed development for potential effect on historic resources and for compatibility with adjacent or abutting historic resources. Purpose and Objectives A series of amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 14 and LUC Section 3.4.7 will implement staff and consultant recommendations for improvements to standards to address the review of development having the potential to impact historic resources. Resulting from a comprehensive review of historic preservation codes and processes, the amendments provide greater clarity and predictability to regulations governing older and designated historic properties, and better ensure the compatibility of new construction with existing context. These changes augment the proposed Downtown and Transition Areas code changes. During the nearly two-year review, the city’s consultant, Clarion Associates, examined best practices in historic preservation statewide and nationally, and conducted a comparative analysis of the Fort Collins codes and processes with those in more than a dozen peer communities. Clarion prepared a series of reports which were reviewed by a sixteen-member Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC), and city staff. The CAC, which convened for twenty meetings, was comprised of stakeholders representing historic preservationists, architects, real estate developers and realtors, local land attorneys, commercial and residential property owners, contractors and others. Packet Pg. 261 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 Key Changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources 1. Establish a consistent and predictable 200-foot limit for the review of development near historic properties. A 200-foot area of adjacency closely approximates one half of a block in downtown Fort Collins, where lots typically measure 400’ by 400’. The 200 feet is measured from the perimeter of the development parcel. Historic resources within the area of adjacency are identified and form the basis for applying the compatibility standards. Older properties on the development site are identified and evaluated as to whether they are designated or eligible for designation, or merely old. If alterations are proposed to eligible or designated resources, these go through the LPC design review process in order to receive a recommendation to the decision maker. 2. Determinations of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark status based on survey. As warranted, properties that have not been evaluated for historic eligibility within the previous five years may be professionally surveyed to establish potential eligibility. Properties located on the development site will receive a more intensive level of scrutiny, as they are more likely to be impacted by the development. Properties not on the development site but within the area of adjacency, if surveyed, would be documented through an architectural survey to note key architectural features that may be used to influence compatible design. 3. Design standards for the review of new development which differentiate between development that abuts a historic property and development that is adjacent to a historic property. These design standards have been crafted to provide predictability yet allow for creative building forms and site design options. Developments that abut (touch) a historic property are expected to pay more attention to design compatibility, meeting six standards, while those developments at least one parcel or more away from the historic resource comply with two standards. Several of the standards provide a menu of choices for compliance, further offering the ability to be creative. 4. Meet federal Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements for the review of proposed alterations to National and State Register properties on the development site. The review of alterations or demolition of buildings that are 50 years old and older is a requirement of the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. Analysis of the historic preservation review process identified that, while the requirement for review is already in the codes, the review process was not in compliance. The codes and processes now ensure that all alterations to National and/or State Register properties are properly reviewed. Work found to comply with the standards will receive a certificate of appropriateness, enabling the work to be approved and qualifying the work for potential financial incentives; work not complying with the standards will still be approved, but will result in a report to the State Historic Preservation Office and potential loss of National or State Register designation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation 2. DRAFT Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources Packet Pg. 262 Landmark Preservation Commission 12.19.18 Land Use Code 3.4.7 – Historic & Cultural Resources Historic Resources & Development Review Code Improvement Goals: #1: Protect historic resource’s integrity & viability #2: Compatible infill development that respects established character #3: Predictable, transparent and effective codes and processes 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 263 Improved Process 3 1. Map area of adjacency (200 feet from development site) 2. Identify historic resources (on site and within 200-foot boundary) 3. Confirm eligibility of historic resources with survey, if necessary 4. Draw 200-ft historic comparison boundary for each historic resource. Overlapping area is “historic influence area.” 5. Apply Design Requirements (Table 1) to new construction. 6. Review proposed work to on-site resources STEP 1 4 Development Site Example, for Illustration Only Map Area of Adjacency ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 264 STEP 2 5 Column A Development Site Example, for Illustration Only Identify Historic Resources STEP 3 6 Confirm Eligibility ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 265 STEP 4 Example, for Illustration Only 7 Development Site Column A Historic Influence Area Historic Influence Area STEP 4 Example, for Illustration Only 8 Development Site Column A Historic Influence Area Historic Influence Area ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 266 STEP 1 Example, for Illustration Only 9 Development Site Map Area of Adjacency Example, for Illustration Only 10 Development Site Column A Column B Column B Identify Historic Resources STEP 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 267 STEP 4 Example, for Illustration Only 11 Site Column B Historic Influence Area Historic Influence Area STEP 4 Example, for Illustration Only 12 Site Column B Historic Influence Area Historic Influence Area ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 268 5. Apply Design Requirements 13 Step 6. Design Review: Historic Resources On‐Site Designated Resources • Secretary of Interior’s Standards and other adopted design standards (e.g. Old Town Standards) • Certificate of Appropriateness (Landmarks); Report to SHPO (National Register/State Register) On‐Site Eligible Resources • Preservation and adaptive use based on Secretary of Interior’s Standards to maximum extent feasible 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 268-1 15 LAND USE CODE: 3.4.7 Historic Resources EXISTING CODE: CHALLENGES REVISED CODE: IMPROVEMENTS Limiting good design: Replication, imitation Inviting design excellence: Unique, harmonious new buildings Rigidity: Prescriptive standards Flexibility: Multiple options Unclear priorities: Historic context buildings undifferentiated Logical hierarchy: Emphasizes abutting historic buildings Unpredictable process - area of adjacency: Decided by LPC at final hearing (late in application review) Timeliness and certainty - area of adjacency: Decided by staff at pre-application stage (following 3rd party survey) Landmark Preservation Commission 12.19.18 Land Use Code 3.4.7 – Historic & Cultural Resources ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 12-17-18 Packet Pg. 268-2 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources Proposed Repeal and Reenact (A) Purpose. (1) The purpose of this Section is to ensure that proposed development is compatible with and protects historic resources by ensuring that: (a) Historic resources on a development site are preserved, adaptively reused, and incorporated into the proposed development; (b) Development does not adversely affect the integrity of historic resources on nearby property within the area of adjacency surrounding a development site; and (c) The design of new structures and site plans are compatible with and protect the integrity of historic resources located within a development site and within the area of adjacency surrounding a development site. (2) To accomplish its purpose, this Section provides: (a) The requirements for the treatment of historic resources located on a development site; and (b) The standards for design compatibility between proposed development and historic resources on a development site and within the delineated area of adjacency surrounding a development site. (c) This Section is intended to work in conjunction with the standards for the treatment of historic resources set forth in Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and any relevant adopted standards for historic resources. (B) Historic Resources on the Development Site and within the Area of Adjacency. (1) As used in this Section, the area of adjacency shall mean an area, the outer boundary of which is 200 feet in all directions from the perimeter of the development site. Any lot or parcel of property shall be considered within the area of adjacency if any portion of such lot or parcel is within the 200-foot outer boundary. (2) Historic preservation staff shall identify as expeditiously as possible the historic resources on the development site and within the area of adjacency to be used for application of the design standards contained in below Subsection (E), Design Requirements for a Proposed Development and provide a list of such resources to the applicant. The procedure for identifying the relevant historic resources shall be as follows: ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 269 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW (a) The location of the following shall be identified within the area of adjacency: i. Any historic resource; and ii. Any building, site, structure, and object that requires evaluation as to whether it is eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation and, therefore, qualifies as a historic resource. (b) All historic resources on the development site shall be identified and the procedure in below Subsection (C)(1) shall be completed if necessary. (c) Any building, site, structure, or object requiring evaluation shall be reviewed for eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation pursuant to below Subsection (C)(2). (d) Any historic resource identified in above steps (a), (b), or (c) shall be the historic resources utilized as the basis for applying Subsection (E). Identified historic resources on the development site and within the area of adjacency shall be classified as follows for purposes of applying the design standards set forth in the below Subsection (E): i. Historic resources on the development site, or abutting or on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site; and ii. All other historic resources. (e) The historic comparison boundary shall be established at 200 feet in all directions from the perimeter of each identified historic resource except those located on the development site. The historic influence area formed by the overlapping area between the outer boundary of the development site and the historic comparison boundary is the area within which the standards in below Subsection (E) apply to any new construction proposed within such area. (f) The historic influence area for any historic resource located on the development site shall be the entire development site. [INSERT EXAMPLE GRAPHIC OF HISTORIC COMPARISON BOUNDARY HERE] (3) The historic preservation staff determination pursuant to this Section of the historic resources relevant to the application of the design standards set forth in ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 270 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW below Subsection (E) is not subject to appeal. Notwithstanding, eligibility determinations pursuant to below Subsection (C)(1) is subject to appeal pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-6. (C) Determination of Eligibility for Designation as Fort Collins Landmark. The review of proposed development pursuant to this Section may require the determination of the eligibility of buildings, sites, structures, and objects located both on the development site and in the area of adjacency for designation as Fort Collins landmarks. The determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins landmark shall be made pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in §§ 14-5 and 14-6 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code except as varied in below Subsection (C)(2). (1) Buildings, Sites, Structure, and Objects On a Development Site. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects on a development site are 50 years of age or older and lack an official determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation made within the last five years, the applicant must request an official eligibility determination for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to §§ 14-5 and 14-6 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. An intensive-level property survey performed within five years of the date of application for an eligibility determination is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. (2) Buildings, Sites, Structures, and Objects Within the Area of Adjacency. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects outside of a development site but within the area of adjacency are 50 years of age or older and lack an official determination of eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation established within the last five years, the applicant must request a non-binding determination of eligibility for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to §§ 14-5 and 14-6 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notwithstanding §§ 14-5 and 14-6, any such eligibility determination shall be made by historic preservation staff shall not be appealable pursuant to § 14-6, and shall not be valid for any purpose other than the evaluation of the proposed development pursuant to this Section. An architectural-level property survey performed within five years of the date of application for a non-binding eligibility determination is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the applicant is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. The Director, in consultation with historic preservation staff, may waive the required eligibility determination for any building, site, structure, or object if the Director determines that such eligibility determination would be unnecessarily duplicative of information provided by existing historic resources or would not provide relevant information. (D) Treatment of Historic Resources on Development Sites – Design Review. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 271 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW (1) Proposed alterations, as such alterations are described in Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III, to any Fort Collins landmark on a development site or to any portion of the development site located within a Fort Collins historic district must comply with the design review requirements in Chapter 14, Article III, of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness for all proposed alterations pursuant to Chapter 14 before receiving a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation pursuant to below Subsection (F). (2) Proposed alterations to any building, site, structure, or object located on the development site that is not a Fort Collins landmark but is designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, either individually or contributing to a district, or the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or contributing to a district, must comply with the design review requirements in Chapter 14, Article III, of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The applicant must obtain a report pursuant to Chapter 14 regarding all proposed alterations before receiving a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation pursuant to below Subsection (F). Additionally, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of any such building, site, structure, or object. (3) To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of any building, site, structure, or object located on the development site and determined to be eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation either through a binding or non-binding determination pursuant to Land Use Code § 3.4.7(C). (E) Design Requirements for a Proposed Development. (1) Design Compatibility. Proposed development may represent the architecture and construction standards of its own time but must also convey a standard of quality and durability appropriate for infill in a historic context and protect and complement the historic character of historic resources both on the development site and within the area of adjacency. The design of development on development sites containing historic resources or with historic resources located within the area of adjacency shall meet the requirements in below Table 1 in addition to applicable Land Use Code requirements. The Table 1 requirements shall apply to the development of buildings or structures, other than those addressed in above Subsection (D), on the development site located within a historic influence area, as such term is defined in above Subsection (B)(4), as ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 272 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW follows: (a) If one or more historic influence areas are associated with historic resources on the development site, or abut or are on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site, then all historic influence areas shall be considered to be associated with such historic resources and the standards set forth in Table 1, Column A, shall apply. If more than one historic influence area associated with a historic resource on the development site, or abut or are on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site, exists, the applicant may satisfy the standards set forth in Table 1, Column A, by choosing characteristics from one or more of the historic resources. (b) If no historic influence areas associated with historic resources on the development site, or abut or are on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site, exist, the standards set forth in Table 1, Column B, shall apply to all historic influence areas. TABLE 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION NEAR HISTORIC RESOURCES Column A Column B Purpose Standards for Compatibility with Historic Resources on the Development Site, Abutting, Or Across a Side Alley Standards for Compatibility with Historic Properties Within the Area of Adjacency but Not on or Abutting the Development Site or Across A Side Alley Massing and Building Articulation Integrate new construction into existing context and use massing options that respect historic resources. 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. 2. In all zone districts, Review the identified historic properties within the area of adjacency and identify any predominate typologies and primary character-defining design and architectural features. DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. Compatibility with Historic Resources on the Development Site, Abutting, Or Across a Side Alley (those numbered 1 to 6). Building Materials Create visual connection between modern building materials and historic building materials. 3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 274 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) Type 2) Scale 3) Color 4) Three- dimensionality 5) Pattern Facade Details Create visual connection between modern building design and historic building design. 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) Similar window pattern 2) Similar window proportion of height to width 3) Similar solid-to- void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and belt courses) to relate the ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 275 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Visibility of Historic Features Protect visibility of historic architecture and details. New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features, of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. None (2) Old Town Historic District. Proposed development within the Old Town Historic District shall comply with the Old Town Historic District Standards adopted by Ordinance 094, 2014, Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in lieu of the requirements set forth in this Section except Subsections (D) and (F). (3) Plan of Protection. A plan of protection shall be submitted prior to the Landmark Preservation Commission providing a recommendation pursuant to below Subsection (F) that details the particular considerations and protective measures that will be employed to prevent short-term and long-term material damage and avoidable impact to identified historic resources on the development site and within the area of adjacency from demolition, new construction, and operational activities. (F) Landmark Preservation Commission Recommendation. Recommendation to Decision Maker for Development Proposal. The Landmark Preservation Commission shall provide a written recommendation to the decision maker for development sites containing or adjacent to historic resources, or both. The written recommendation shall address compliance of the proposed development with this Section and applicable Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III requirements and the decision maker shall consider such recommendation in making its final decision. Notwithstanding, the Director may waive the requirement for a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation if the Director, after considering the recommendation of historic preservation staff, has issued a written determination that the development plan ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 276 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW would not have an adverse effect on any historic resource on the development site or within the proposed development’s area of adjacency and that the development plan is compatible with the existing character of such historic resources. A recommendation made under this Subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 277 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW LUC 5.1.2 – Definitions Adverse effect, for purposes of § 3.4.7 only, shall mean that a project or undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualify a property for designation in a manner that would diminish the property's exterior integrity. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be removed in distance, or be cumulative. Development site shall mean the real property, whether consisting of one or more lots or areas of land, that is the subject of any application allowed under the Land Use Code. Historic comparison boundary shall mean the 200 foot boundary measured in all directions from the perimeter of each historic resource identified in 3.4.7 (B)(2)(a), (b), or (c). Historic influence area shall mean the overlapping area formed when the outer boundary of a development site and a historic comparison boundary overlap. Historic preservation staff shall mean City Historic Preservation Division staff who meet the professional qualification standards provided in Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. Historic resource shall mean a building, site, structure, or object that is located on a lot, lots, or area of property and is (1) designated as a Fort Collins landmark or is contributing to a Fort Collins landmark district; (2) designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, either individually or contributing to a district, or the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or contributing to a district; or (3) determined to be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins landmark either through a binding or non-binding determination pursuant to Land Use Code § 3.4.7(C). Massing shall refer to the perception of the overall shape, form, and size of a building. Object, for purposes of § 3.4.7 only, shall mean a material thing of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical or scientific value that may be, by nature or design, movable. Site, for purposes of § 3.4.7 only, shall mean the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a structure or object whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 278 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Solid-to-void pattern shall mean the area of the façade covered by openings divided by the area of the solid wall, as a measure of the proportion of the area of fenestrations to that of the wall. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 279 With those key buildings, features, or patterns in mind, apply at least two of the Standards for ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 273 Storm Window Combination No Jambliner Black Window Opening Control Device No Class 5 Balance Yes *** Species-Finish-Color *** Change Species Leave All Pine Exterior Frame Finish K-Kron2 Exterior Sash Finish K-Kron2 Match All Exterior Colors Yes Exterior Color 1st Custom Color Interior Frame Finish Colored Prefinish Interior Sash Finish Colored Prefinish Match All Interior Colors Yes InteriorBlack Color Coal 1stExterior Custom Exterior Color Custom Match JamblinerWrapped Cover Wood Vertical Weatherstrip Color Black Fingerjoints Standard Fingerjoints Printed By: Mark Wernimont This report does not include Non-Kolbe Items Created: 8/28/2018 Window and Door Details Page 13 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 94 Storm Window Combination No Jambliner Black Window Opening Control Device No Class 5 Balance Yes *** Species-Finish-Color *** Change Species Leave All Pine Exterior Frame Finish K-Kron2 Exterior Sash Finish K-Kron2 Match All Exterior Colors Yes Exterior Color 1st Custom Color Interior Frame Finish Colored Prefinish Interior Sash Finish Colored Prefinish Match All Interior Colors Yes InteriorBlack Color Coal 1stExterior Custom Exterior Color Custom Match JamblinerWrapped Cover Wood Vertical Weatherstrip Color Black Fingerjoints Standard Fingerjoints Printed By: Mark Wernimont This report does not include Non-Kolbe Items Created: 8/28/2018 Window and Door Details Page 12 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 93 Storm Window Combination No Jambliner Black Window Opening Control Device No Class 5 Balance Yes *** Species-Finish-Color *** Change Species Leave All Pine Exterior Frame Finish K-Kron2 Exterior Sash Finish K-Kron2 Match All Exterior Colors Yes Exterior Color 1st Custom Color Interior Frame Finish Colored Prefinish Interior Sash Finish Colored Prefinish Match All Interior Colors Yes InteriorBlack Color Coal 1stExterior Custom Exterior Color Custom Match JamblinerWrapped Cover Wood Vertical Weatherstrip Color Black Fingerjoints Standard Fingerjoints Printed By: Mark Wernimont This report does not include Non-Kolbe Items Created: 8/28/2018 Window and Door Details Page 11 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 92 Storm Window Combination No Jambliner Black Window Opening Control Device No Class 5 Balance Yes *** Species-Finish-Color *** Change Species Leave All Pine Exterior Frame Finish K-Kron2 Exterior Sash Finish K-Kron2 Match All Exterior Colors Yes Exterior Color 1st Custom Color Interior Frame Finish Colored Prefinish Interior Sash Finish Colored Prefinish Match All Interior Colors Yes InteriorBlack Color Coal 1stExterior Custom Exterior Color Custom Match JamblinerWrapped Cover Wood Vertical Weatherstrip Color Black Fingerjoints Standard Fingerjoints Printed By: Mark Wernimont This report does not include Non-Kolbe Items Created: 8/28/2018 Window and Door Details Page 10 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 91 Storm Window Combination No Jambliner Black Window Opening Control Device No Class 5 Balance Yes *** Species-Finish-Color *** Change Species Leave All Pine Exterior Frame Finish K-Kron2 Exterior Sash Finish K-Kron2 Match All Exterior Colors Yes Exterior Color 1st Custom Color Interior Frame Finish Colored Prefinish Interior Sash Finish Colored Prefinish Match All Interior Colors Yes InteriorBlack Color Coal 1stExterior Custom Exterior Color Custom Match JamblinerWrapped Cover Wood Vertical Weatherstrip Color Black Fingerjoints Standard Fingerjoints Printed By: Mark Wernimont This report does not include Non-Kolbe Items Created: 8/28/2018 Window and Door Details Page 9 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 90 Window Opening Control Device No Class 5 Balance Yes *** Species-Finish-Color *** Change Species Leave All Pine Exterior Frame Finish K-Kron2 Exterior Sash Finish K-Kron2 Match All Exterior Colors Yes Exterior Color 1st Custom Color Interior Frame Finish Colored Prefinish Interior Sash Finish Colored Prefinish Match All Interior Colors Yes InteriorBlack Color Coal 1stExterior Custom Exterior Color Custom Match JamblinerWrapped Cover Wood Vertical Weatherstrip Color Black Fingerjoints Standard Fingerjoints Window and Door Details Quote 764427D: 201 Linden - New Windows Colorado Sash & Door Inc 9/25/2018 3:14:57 PM Printed By: Mark Wernimont This report does not include Non-Kolbe Items Created: 8/28/2018 Window and Door Details Page 8 of 14 2018 Pricing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 89 present in insulating glass or a specific level of unit thermal efficiency at any time after manufacture. Visit the energy data section of our website at kolbe-kolbe.com to select and view your specific window and its listed energy performance values. Thermal Efficiency Kolbe Heritage Series 185 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 71 184 Kolbe Heritage Series ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 70 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 66 January 1, 1900; Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume X, Number 7, April 1, 1901. 14 1902 Fort Collins City Directory, 75. 15 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, March 25, 1903. 16 1904 Fort Collins City Directory, 139. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21