Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/18/2018 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular Meeting
Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson 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 April 18, 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 • STAFF REPORTS • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018 REGULAR MEETING The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018 REGULAR MEETING The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 21, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 3. 524 WHEDBEE STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, 1 ½ story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Alison Johnson, ABD. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 NORTH GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the McMillen-Patterson Property, an excellent example of an Eastlake-style home from the late 1880s. APPLICANT: Susan Hoskinson, Owner The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ● Approval of Minutes ● Items of no perceived controversy ● Routine administrative actions 5. 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for repair of damaged material on the front porch of the residence, a drainage mitigation solution to prevent future damage, and preparation and painting of the repaired porch and the entire residence. APPLICANT/OWNER: Karen and Timothy Bren 6. 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for new storm and screen units in the first and second stories. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sally and Robert Linton 7. 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed 5-story, multi-family apartment project at 223 Willow in the River District. The current use of this 2.04-acre lot is industrial, storage, and truck parking. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the south. APPLICANT: Katy Candau, Oz Architecture • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Date: Roll Call Bello Dorn (Vacant) Gensmer Hogestad Murray Simpson Wallace Dunn Vote - 1-3 - CONSENT – February & March Minutes, 524 Whedbee Hogestad Bello Simpson Wallace Dorn Gensmer (Vacant) Murray Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes 8:0 4 - Mcmillen-Patterson Designation Bello Simpson Wallace Dorn Gensmer (Vacant) Murray Hogestad Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes RECUSED 7:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 4/18/2018 DATE: _l-_f -_/-8 -=- _1-_._ =~-- - LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sign In Sheet THIS IS AP ART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD A Please contact Gretchen Schlager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! / ~ Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 4/18/18 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC February 21, 2018 Hearing 2. Draft Minutes for the LPC March 21, 2018 Hearing 3. 524 Whedbee Street - Final Demolition/Alteration Review DISCUSSION AGENDA: 4. McMillen-Patterson Property 121 North Grant - Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation o Updated Staff Presentation (replaced original in online packet after the hearing) 5. 903 Stover – Conceptual/Final Design Review • Updated Staff Report in online packet • Updated Applicant Presentation in online packet 6. 1501 Peterson – Conceptual/Final Design Review • Updated Staff Report in online packet • Updated Staff Presentation (replaced original in online packet after the hearing). Includes: o Drawing of Mull Cover at Entry o Picture of National Storm and Screen Hanger 7. 223 Willow - Conceptual Development Review • Citizen emails/letters (included in online packet): o Stuart MacMillan & Randy Shortridge email string objecting to the design. o Eric Nichols email response defending the design. • Updated Staff Report in online packet o Updated Applicant Presentation (Rec’d Day of Hearing; replaced original in online packet after the hearing) • New Documents (added to online packet after the hearing): o Attachment 7e: LPC Minutes from 12/12/12 o Attachment 7f: LPC Minutes from 6/26/13 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Meg Dunn Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Chair Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): 121 North Grant Landmark Designation Date: \\ Signature: REMOVAL OF CONFLI I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Kevin Murray Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Member Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): 903 Stover - Conceptual/Final Design Review Brief statement of interest: '}? y "P-1 LS. J !> .E, +1~ 'v C 'PF'~, <.NA/ oF t=°"IA.l\~~ I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 18, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT 1 Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 February 21, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Bud Frick Kristin Gensmer Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting February 21, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Simpson, Dorn, Murray, Bello ABSENT: Frick STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager Chair Dunn asked the three new members (Katie Dorn, Kevin Murray & Mike Bello) to introduce themselves. • AGENDA REVIEW Staff had no changes to the posted agenda. Chair Dunn mentioned adding two items to Other Business. Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 February 21, 2018 • STAFF REPORTS None. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 20, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 20, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the December 20, 2017. Ms. Simpson seconded. The motion passed 8-0 Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn and Vice Chair Hogestad recused themselves from agenda Items 2 and 3 due to conflicts of interest. Ms. Wallace chaired these two items. 2. 602 EAST ELIZABETH STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a wood pergola over the front entrance of the residence, new windows and doors throughout, new transom windows above historic windows on the front of the residence, rear addition, reconstruction of a historical porch on the west elevation, and new limestone planters in front of the home. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Anne Nelson, architect Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the application for final demolition/alteration review for 602 East Elizabeth Street as presented, finding that the applicant has complied with all code requirements and purpose of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6-0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 2601 SOUTH COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins local landmark designation of 2601 South College Avenue, which was considered eligible for its association with the growth of the automobile industry and the Ghent family and for its distinctive mid-century automobile dealership characteristics. APPLICANT: Bill Wells, Brinkman Partners, applicant Ms. Bumgarner noted the emails that had been received with regard to this item and mentioned that they had been distributed to the Commission and the Appellant and added to the online meeting materials. Ms. Gensmer and Ms. Simpson disclosed that they were not present at the work session when this item was discussed, but they reviewed the audio recording and are prepared to participate. Staff Report Ms. Bumgarner presented the staff report, provided background information, and reviewed the relevant codes and processes. She reviewed the four elements of significance and the seven aspects of integrity, the importance of context, and the role of the Commission. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 February 21, 2018 Commission Questions of Staff None. Appellant Presentation Todd Parker with Brinkman gave the Appellant presentation. He noted that the W.A. Drake carriage steps would be incorporated into the design. He also addressed Mr. Bello’s question about energy inefficiency of the building, adding that the utility costs were a hardship for the owners. He argued that the architectural style was not unique to the time period, speaking to the photos that Mr. Frick had shared with the Commission previously. He introduced Kristen Autobee with Autobee and Autobee. She said that the auto dealership architecture is not a recognized form of architecture, but falls under specialty architecture and that other types of showrooms are similar. She also addressed the changes to the building over the years, emphasizing the loss of the original garage doors, and discussed changes to the historic integrity of the structure. Commission Questions of the Appellant Mr. Bello asked the Applicant whether other buildings could be severed from the showroom. Mr. Brinkman stated they looked into that possibility; however, the energy inefficiency of the main building led the owners to not pursue that option. Mr. Murray asked about the elements deemed character-defining by Ms. Autobee: the front overhang, the roofing type, and the garage doors. Ms. Autobee replied the structure would be very different without those elements. Mr. Parker presented some photos of auto dealerships in other communities that had been scraped or redeveloped in response to those provided by Mr. Frick. Mr. Bello requested clarification on whether the photos of dealerships that were scraped support their argument that this design was unique. Mr. Parker and Ms. Autobee responded noting there are buildings of similar architecture, materials, and design in Fort Collins; this building is not especially unique. Ms. Simpson asked Ms. Autobee if her report looked at Ghent family members other than Frank. Ms. Autobee replied she just looked at Frank and stated she was under the impression one of his sons’ homes had been designated. Ms. McWilliams stated she was unaware of such a designation. Ms. Autobee discussed Frank Ghent’s contributions to the community in ways other than his auto dealerships. Mr. Murray asked if the dealership is representative of mid-automobile era. Ms. Autobee replied it would be if automobiles are no longer around in 50 years. She noted ‘mid-century’ is not part of the historic lexicon and stated the structure is a commercial specialty store that was built in the mid-century, which is a time period, not a style. Ms. Wallace asked if they had considered the connection to College Avenue and the Lincoln corridor. Ms. Autobee replied, when built, the dealership was at the south edge of town and most customers would have been approaching from the north and east, which is likely why the building is oriented on a slight angle toward the northeast. Ms. Simpson requested clarification about the context. Ms. Autobee replied the façades are most decorative on the north and east, though the moss rock used only covers about 30% of the building. Ms. Wallace asked about the timeline for the overhang addition to the front of the building. Mr. Murray noted the overhang was added within the first year after construction; therefore, it is also more than 50 years old. Ms. Dorn asked Ms. Autobee if she knew of any other buildings associated with Frank Ghent. Ms. Autobee replied she did not look into that. Commission members discussed Frank Ghent’s various positions and contributions to the community. Ms. Autobee questioned whether his story is well-told by this building. Ms. Simpson asked if the scraped auto dealerships shown in the images by Mr. Brinkman were demolished before or after the 50-year time period. Mr. Brinkman replied he was unsure. 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 February 21, 2018 Staff Response Ms. Bumgarner stated the two other auto dealerships started by Frank Ghent no longer exist; one is the Mitchell Block and the other is Beau Jo’s. Public Input None Commission Discussion Mr. Murray stated the building might be the best example of a commercial building of this style for its age. Ms. Simpson said the building is indicative of Fort Collins’ growth and is a good example of an era when the automobile was more important. Mr. Bello stated the front portion of the building seems to be more significant than the garage areas. Mr. Murray commented on the original roof being hot tar and gravel but stated the new roof does not impact the significance. He added the garage doors could be changed back to a more original style. Ms. Wallace stated the stone and higher pitched gable are the most character-defining features, and the canopy is also historic. She stated those elements fulfill integrity as she reads the code. Ms. Dorn agreed that the design aspect of integrity was intact but questioned whether the material aspect of integrity had been lost. Mr. Murray discussed the association of the building with the expansion of Fort Collins and the use of automobiles as the primary source of transportation. Ms. Gensmer stated setting is preserved given the interface of the building with the roadways and the fact that College and Drake still exist. Mr. Bello commented that the workmanship is typical for the era; however, there is nothing outstanding about the craftsmanship. Mr. Murray commented on the building’s materials, including the moss rock and large windows. Ms. Gensmer noted that the large windows were more about design than materials. She expressed concern regarding whether the historic fabric was still intact given many of the windows have been replaced. Ms. Wallace stated the Commission seems to agree that six of the seven qualities of integrity are intact, with the exception of materials. Ms. Dorn questioned whether the building meets the design/construction standard because the building type is not included in the state lexicon. Mr. Murray stated the lexicon is not always what the City uses, and even though this style doesn’t have a name, it is obvious given that the parts are there. Mr. Bello questioned whether this building made a recognizable contribution to the development of the city. Ms. Simpson associated the building with the car-centric development of the city and stated this building speaks to that trend. Ms. Wallace noted the movement away from downtown and southward trending development. Ms. Simpson discussed the Ghent annexation happening at the same time the dealership was built. Ms. Wallace asked about the building’s association with the Ghent name. Ms. Simpson noted this was a dealership Frank started with his son. Ms. Dorn stated the association is very important and would like to see more research on the son and his business, as well as whether other buildings would have a better association with Frank Ghent. Mr. Bello noted Frank Ghent’s contributions to the community and stated his civic involvement may have been more important than his dealerships. Ms. Gensmer stated, given the information at hand, the association criteria for persons is not met. Mr. Murray stated he does not feel strongly that the person association exists. Mr. Murray discussed the distinctive nature of the building’s design. Mr. Bellow commented the building represents a distinguishable style, though the craftsmanship is not outstanding. Mr. Murray discussed the unique landscape architecture of the building. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 February 21, 2018 Ms. Simpson discussed this property being significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it illustrates changing tastes and attitudes over a period of time. Ms. Dorn agreed that the building represented a certain period of time and the style of auto dealerships in Fort Collins. Ms. Wallace noted the design hints at mid-century and illustrates a change in Fort Collins design. She stated she would consider it mid-century modern. Ms. Simpson agreed citing the floor to ceiling windows, roof style, connection to the outdoors, exposed beams, and rock. The members agreed that the building meets the design standard. Ms. Dorn expressed some concern about the change in the roof and loss of integrity. Ms. Wallace asked Ms. Dorn if she would support design if materials was excluded from integrity. Ms. Dorn talked about materials relative to the aspects of integrity. Mr. Murray stated most of the materials are still there and the roof and garage doors can always be changed. Ms. Simpson stated she is split on the integrity of materials. Ms. Wallace requested Commission input on context. Ms. Simpson stated the building, when built, was on the edge of town, but was oriented toward town. She noted all other corners are commercial, and College and Drake are still intact. Commission Deliberation Ms. Gensmer moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission uphold the prior determination and find that 2601 South College Avenue is individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. This motion is based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, as well as the commission discussion on this item, with the following findings: • The property has significance under Standard A, Events, for associations with a pattern of events, specifically the movement of Fort Collins south towards midtown from downtown, the change in the City towards a community that relies on automobile transportation, the expansion of the automobile industry, as well as the larger expansion of the City, including the Ghent annexation. • The property is also significant under Standard C, Design and Construction, because it embodies the identifiable characteristics of a specific period, in this case mid-century commercial architecture. Some of the specific characteristics are the very prominent windows facing out onto the major transportation arteries, the use of moss rock and concrete block, the way that it is sited on the property and landscape in relation to the major transportation corridors of Drake and College, as well as the way it is situated in relation to the parking lot surrounding it. • The property exhibits exterior integrity, and it satisfies integrity of: o Location, in that it remains in the same place and has not been moved; o Design, for many of elements including the large windows and the way it was designed to face toward the streets; o Setting, because of the way it is situated at that intersection; o Workmanship, because, although not high style, it still embodies the type of construction that was done in that period. o Feeling and Association, because it retains those larger characteristics tying it to both the vehicular arteries, commercial properties and the automobile industry. • Finally, the Landmark Preservation Commission has considered the context of the area surrounding the property, as is required under City Code Chapter 14, finding that the context relates directly to the major transportation arteries of Drake and College, as well as the surrounding commercial properties on those intersections, and the way they are oriented towards vehicular traffic and set back from the roads. Mr. Murray seconded. 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 6 February 21, 2018 Ms. Wallace proposed a friendly amendment that the Commission cannot determine at this time that Standard B is fulfilled because they do not have enough information and are basing the decision on the information at hand on the Ghents. Ms. Gensmer and Mr. Murray accepted the amendment. The motion passed 6:0 Ms. Wallace confirmed that the Commission has decided to uphold the decision that the property at 2601 South College Avenue is eligible for landmark designation, according to Standards A for Events, Standard C for Design and Construction, as well as upholding six of the seven Aspects of Exterior Integrity and for maintaining Context. Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break from 7:23 to 7:34, after which Chair Dunn and Vice Chair Hogestad returned to the meeting. 4. OLD FIREHOUSE AND SECKNER ALLEYS CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for alterations and improvements to two alleys in the locally designated Old Town Historic District: Old Firehouse Alley and Seckner Alley. APPLICANT: Downtown Development Authority Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She reviewed the questions the Commission raised during the work session, noting the Applicants are prepared to answer them during their presentation. She reviewed the background, the role of the Commission, the review history, and staff’s findings of fact. Applicant Presentation Todd Dangerfield of the Downtown Development Authority addressed the Commission to introduce the project. Craig Russell gave the Applicant presentation. He discussed the project goals and primary features of the alley off Mountain, and detailed the plans and significant elements for the Old Firehouse and Seckner Alleys. He discussed 3D projection mapping which would create an art interactive component on the alley surface. Additionally, Mr. Russell discussed the elevated vines, noting the Parks Department will be maintaining them and they will be replanted as needed. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray asked about the plate mounting that will allow flexion and expansion. Mr. Russell explained the plate system. Mr. Murray asked about the light system for the Mountain Avenue alley. Mr. Russell replied the Mountain Avenue lighting system is different from Seckner Alley. Mr. Murray asked if the 3D projection system will affect the Linden Street parking lot. Mr. Dangerfield replied he has talked to the owners of Elliot’s and Blue Ocean, and they do not have concerns. Ms. Gensmer asked if the City will remove renegade vines during monthly maintenance. Mr. Dangerfield replied the intent is not to cover the walls, and Mr. Russell noted the vines will be trained onto the structure. Mr. Bello expressed concern about the loss of 18 parking spaces. Mr. Dangerfield discussed the monitoring of car activity, and noted the nearby Civic Center parking is underutilized. Ms. Simpson asked where the bollard between a pedestrian and vehicular zone is located. Mr. Russell replied that is at the entry of Old Firehouse Alley at Linden. Mr. Hogestad asked about the arch form, and expressed concern it may be misleading in terms of differentiating new from old. Mr. Russell replied the goal is to make the form as simple as possible, without having a straight line span across the alley. He stated much of the LPC direction given in 2011 was more about harmony rather than contrast. 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 7 February 21, 2018 Mr. Hogestad stated the Commission has changed some of its views to get away from false historicism. Mr. Russell noted the arch is a modern tube steel; however, alternative forms can be examined. Mr. Dangerfield suggested a change in color could help and discussed the sconces and windows. Ms. Simpson suggested looking at the hanging baskets for a possible redesign. Mr. Russell replied using something similar to the alley across the street is important for consistency; however, it can be examined. Ms. Dorn asked if the planters are removable noting the Old Town Historic District standards direct primary façades, as well as visible rear and side walls, should be highly visible to the public spaces. Mr. Russell replied the planters are not very high and are narrower than what has been used in the past. He stated the height is not necessarily impacting visibility of the structure. Ms. Simpson asked how the trash cans will be addressed. Mr. Dangerfield replied there is a consolidated trash enclosure behind Blue Ocean. Ms. Simpson asked what techniques are being used to prevent vehicle traffic at Walnut Street. Mr. Dangerfield replied removable barrel style bollards will be installed at each end. Mr. Murray expressed concern about vibrations damaging the buildings during the replacement of the sewer line. Mr. Dangerfield replied City Utilities will be doing that work and they have a plan of protection in place. Chair Dunn asked if the sewer is related to the water that runs behind Walrus. Mr. Dangerfield replied an artesian spring runs from the southwest portion of that block and through the alley and parking lot. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the LPC has all necessary information to move from conceptual to final design on the Old Firehouse and Seckner Alleys. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Bello asked if this motion, if approved, would allow the project to move to final design. Chair Dunn replied in the affirmative, and stated the final design consideration will occur now if this motion is approved. Ms. Wallace commended the effort at addressing all sides with this project. The motion passed 8:0. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn asked Mr. Hogestad if he was considering conditions. Mr. Hogestad replied he is confident an appropriate design and interpretive signage will be developed. Ms. McWilliams noted staff could always approve a design change, or bring it back before the Commission if the changes were significant. Mr. Bello questioned why the issue was such a concern during the earlier discussion if the applicant is now being given carte blanche to develop their own design. Mr. Hogestad replied he is confident the applicant can come up with a good alternate design. Mr. Dangerfield and Mr. Russell confirmed they understand the direction and are happy to go through staff with an alternate design. Chair Dunn explained that staff often handles review of minor things, and the Commission can assign that role to staff. Ms. McWilliams explained staff uses the same standards the LPC uses, or that they could opt to use the Design Review Committee. The Commission had a brief discussion about how the project meets the code requirements, having already touched on many of the points in the previous discussion. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work on Old Firehouse and Seckner Alleys as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, with a stipulation that the design work of the arch and interpretive signage be reviewed either by staff or by the Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. Murray seconded. 1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 8 February 21, 2018 Ms. Simpson proposed a friendly amendment to include the hanging baskets, the Tivoli light attachments and any other ornamentation that might be confused for historical material. Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Murray accepted the amendment. There was a discussion about whether the stipulations constituted a condition. Ultimately, there was general agreement that the Applicant is capable of looking at the design elements mentioned and implementing acceptable alternatives without a formal condition. Mr. Russell noted much of the ornamentation has been established on the other side of the alley; however, he stated the arch issue is significant enough to make sense to re-examine. Mr. Hogestad clarified the degree of review could range from minimal to intense, with the arches being the big element to re-examine. Mr. Dangerfield offered to come to design review committee with alternatives to design elements of concern. Mr. Yatabe suggested clarification in the motion as to whether the current design is acceptable to the Commission, should the design remain unchanged subsequent to the evaluation of alternative designs by staff or the Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Murray accepted a change to the motion to approve the design as is should no alterations me made. The motion passed 7-1, with Bello dissenting. 5. NIX FARM – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for alterations to the designated Nix Farm property, which will consist of a proposed 1,200 square-foot expansion of the existing maintenance shop, the construction of a new 5,000 square-foot vehicle/storage garage and outdoor fleet parking area, and a modular building. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, described the proposed project, and reviewed staff’s findings. Applicant Presentation Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West, provided context for the project and presented the plans for the design. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad asked how long the master plan will last. Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager, replied it should last 50 years and the hope is for the modular building to serve the needs for the next 10 years. Mr. Hogestad discussed the importance of considering articulation and the impact of the utility buildings on the historic structures. Mr. Murray asked about the new landscaping. Mr. Steinbicker replied landscaping on the north side is not being modified; however, the landscaping by the new detention pond and around the east and west sides of the storage yard is being revised. Following a question from Mr. Bello, Mr. Steinbicker clarified which structures were historic. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review, having adequate information, and move to final review. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 8:0. 1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 9 February 21, 2018 Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Wallace stated the proposal is sensitive to the historic structures on site. Ms. Gensmer agreed and stated she appreciates that new buildings are being situated further away from the historic buildings. Chair Dunn appreciated the line of sight from the river and trail are kept open. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at the Nix Farm, finding that it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Hogestad suggested there be more consideration to some articulation and building placement to enhance historic structures in the future. The motion passed 8:0. • OTHER BUSINESS o Election of Officers for 2018 (Chair and Vice Chair) Chair Dunn opened the floor to nominations. Mr. Murray asked if anyone wanted to volunteer. Mr. Hogestad nominated Ms. Simpson for Vice Chair. Ms. Simpson declined. Chair Dunn said she is willing to continue as Chair. Mr. Murray nominated Ms. Wallace for Vice Chair. Ms. Wallace accepted the nomination. Mr. Bello made a motion to appoint Ms. Dunn as Chair and Ms. Wallace as Vice Chair. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 8:0. o Chair Dunn requested and received the Commission’s approval to send a Letter of Support for Historic Denver’s Grant Application for a documentary film on the sense of place. o Chair Dunn asked the Members to share their experience at the Saving Places Conference. Ms. Dorn reported on the sessions she attended and her key takeaways. She discussed Historic Corp, a non-profit organization, and a session on windows. Mr. Murray discussed a session on state tax credits. Ms. Bzdek discussed sensitive infill in historic districts. Mr. Hogestad reported on a session on photogrammetry and lidar mapping and a session on the Old Spanish Trail. Ms. Wallace reported on a session on late 1960’s and 1970’s architecture. Chair Dunn discussed the Discover Denver survey project session and Governor Hickenlooper’s talk. o Mr. Bello asked some questions about the 2601 South College item and whether the property should be considered in the context of other City objectives such as energy efficiency. Ms. McWilliams replied there are many opportunities for the LPC to work with other Boards and Commissions and noted there are many ways to retrofit historic buildings to be more energy efficient. She stated the LPC is tasked with the preservation of historic structures. o Ms. Simpson asked there was an overall survey completed before the mid-town plan was adopted. Ms. McWilliams said there had not. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tara Lehman, Tripoint Data. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on ________________________. _____________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: LPC February 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6670 : MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 18, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 21, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT 2 Packet Pg. 14 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 21, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Bud Frick Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting March 21, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Frick, Dorn, Bello, Murray ABSENT: Simpson STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager, Wray • AGENDA REVIEW Staff stated there were no changes to the posted agenda. Chair Dunn and Ms. Gensmer noted that they were absent for the work session but have reviewed the recording. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission 2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 21, 2018 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA [Timestamp: 5:32 p.m.] 1. 225 MAPLE STREET - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Continental Oil Company at 225 Maple Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2017. The proposed work includes a retractable or fixed patio system. The applicants are seeking feedback on the proposed patio system, including the design’s shape, system, and material options. APPLICANT: Mallory Andrews, Owner of FoCo Cafe Staff Report Cassandra Bumgarner presented the staff report. She noted the location map and property description have been updated since the work session. She reviewed the proposed plans and the role of the Commission. She also reviewed the questions and requests from the Commission at the work session, including the definition of “fixed,” the level of permanence of the awning system, how the system will be attached, and what type of materials will be used. Applicant Presentation Ms. Andrews and her intern gave the Applicant presentation. She shared a new rough draft sketch and material samples explaining that one is used in boat covers and one is canvas, both of which are waterproof. Ms. Andrews stated the plan was for two sides of the awning to be fixed and the middle part zippered and retractable. If two poles were added, all sides could be made retractable. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn noted this project involves an already designated building; therefore Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code applies. In the case of development review, Chapter 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code is utilized. The applicant passed a handwritten drawing and material samples to the Commission. Chair Dunn asked if the fabric would be opaque. Ms. Andrews replied it would likely be a green canvas and the walls would have clear vinyl windows. Chair Dunn asked where the poles would attach. Ms. Andrews replied they would attach to the existing railing and to the top; however, details have yet to be determined. Mr. Bello asked if it would be possible for the entire addition to be clear in order to maintain the integrity of the building. Ms. Andrews replied that has not yet been explored. Chair Dunn asked if the fabric would be right against the building or against the edge of the porch. Ms. Andrews replied it will be against the edge of the porch and will not hide the stairs. Mr. Frick stated the attachment and fabric details will be important and the addition should be removable without ruining any of the structure. He suggested the use of as much clear material as possible. Ms. Andrews agreed. Mr. Frick asked if heaters would be included. Ms. Andrews replied they have not yet decided. Ms. Wallace asked if the addition would attach to the overhand. Ms. Andrews replied it would be attached to the front side and new pole would be added to accommodate the front and left side. 2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 21, 2018 Mr. Murphy discussed the importance of being able to remove the addition without affecting the existing structure and stated he would like the addition to be as clear as possible. Ms. Andrews stated she will be meeting with her architect and he is familiar with the historic preservation aspects of the structure. Mr. Hogestad stated the Commission would like to know how large the roll-up will be at the eave line. He asked if the walls would be rolled down most of the winter. Ms. Andrews replied that is likely; however, it would only be down during inclement or exceptionally cold weather. Ms. Wallace suggested the applicant return with images of this type of structure on other buildings. Chair Dunn stated the Commission would like more details on the attachment, reversibility, size when the walls are rolled up, photo examples, and information on transparent fabric. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like additional plan of operation information as to when the addition will be in use. He expressed concern this will change the overall mass of the building and use of the porch. Mr. Frick suggested the possibility of using heated air curtains. Mr. Hogestad stated the University has considered air curtains and they are somewhat difficult. He suggested a solution may involve heating outside rather than including curtains. Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn recused herself from the following item because she participated in the original review. Vice Chair Wallace took over as chair. 2. 225 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins local landmark designation of 225 South Loomis Avenue, which was considered eligible for its architecture. OWNER/APPLICANT: Karin Boes Vice Chair Wallace read a statement about the process for this item. Staff Report Cassandra Bumgarner presented the staff report, including the background and history. She showed photos of other homes on the block, and others with similar columns in the Westside neighborhood. She then showed photos of the current property and garage. She provided detailed photos of the columns and reviewed the relevant codes and processes. Questions of Staff None Applicant Presentation Ms. Boes stated she and her family have outgrown the home and noted the placement of basement bedrooms and rear expansion are impossible; therefore, building upward is the only way for them to remain in the house. She stated she is committed to maintaining the home’s architectural integrity and noted the front third of the house would remain the same with the 2nd story portion set back. Ms. Boes stated her home should be found ineligible because: 1) It was found to be ineligible in 2005; 2) The pillars are not original and are much wider than pillars on similar homes; 3) Historical photos of her home show a covered porch which no longer exists; 4) The house at 204 South Grant was recently deemed ineligible due to a porch change; and 5) The home does not meet any of the seven standards of integrity. Questions of the Applicant None Staff Response None Public Input None 2.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 21, 2018 Commission Questions and Discussion Vice Chair Wallace asked about the integrity of the structure. Mr. Bello stated integrity does not seem to exist given the columns are not accurate and a front porch used to exist. Mr. Murray stated the columns appear to be original. Mr. Hogestad asked who previously surveyed the property and found the columns were not original. Mr. Murray discussed aspects of the columns, including their irregularity, which indicate they may be original. Commission members discussed other properties with similar columns. Ms. Bumgarner stated the Westside survey, completed in 2000, by Carl McWilliams, indicates the columns are incompatible with the house’s bungalow character and are probably not original. Mr. Hogestad noted there are similar homes with similar columns. Mr. Bello noted these columns are larger in diameter than some of the others on Oak. Mr. Frick stated the photos of columns on Loomis show them to be proportional. Mr. Murray discussed a photo showing round columns inside a screened porch. Vice Chair Wallace asked if the Commission believes the home has any significance for events or persons, or design and construction. Mr. Bello asked why the home was determined to be ineligible in 2005. Ms. Bumgarner replied they have an email sent to the appellant; however, it does not include additional information. Mr. Hogestad stated the house is a cottage or bungalow type and the columns, if original, are a major contributing factor to the character of the house. He stated the columns are an important part of the architectural expression of the building. Mr. Frick stated other examples of similar houses with similar columns do exist and it is difficult to tell if the columns are round or square. He stated the columns seem to be fitting with the style of the house and there is no documentation as to when the columns were changed, if at all, and if they were changed more than 50 years ago, they would become part of the history of the house. Mr. Bello asked if the historic character of the building includes the screened in porch, which no longer exists. Mr. Hogestad stated the screened in porch was an addition, based on pattern books. Mr. Bello stated the historic structure, 50 years ago, had a screened in porch. Mr. Murray stated the home has a lot of original materials and workmanship. He stated he views the house as significant, but is unsure why the owner was told it was ineligible. Vice Chair Wallace asked if the house retains integrity. Mr. Frick replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hogestad stated he is struggling with whether the columns are historic to the building or are within the period of significance. He stated the columns are a character-defining feature; however, he needs additional information. He asked if the applicant would be willing to do additional research. Ms. Boes replied she could do more research; however, she stated she is unsure how to prove whether they are original. Mr. Bello pointed out material which now appears to be concrete appeared to be brick in photos. Vice Chair Wallace stated the location and design remain intact and the columns are a character- defining feature. She stated the feeling and association are also intact, as well as the workmanship even if the columns are not original. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Vice Chair Wallace. Mr. Hogestad agreed with some of the standards of exterior integrity; however, it may not rise to the design standard. Ms. Dorn also agreed with Vice Chair Wallace. Mr. Bello stated the integrity does not exist if the columns are not original. Mr. Murray stated materials, design, and workmanship all exist, and the context of the structure in the neighborhood exists. 2.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 21, 2018 Vice Chair Wallace stated there may not be complete agreement on whether the structure supports design and workmanship standards. Mr. Murray stated the materials fit what was there originally, except the roof. The design is the same as it was in 1968, except without the screened porch. The workmanship was well done, or at least well maintained. Ms. Boes stated the garage doors do not work well and will likely be replaced by a future owner. Vice Chair Wallace requested the Commission consider context. Vice Chair Wallace stated the context shows a lot of single-story cottages, return eaves, and similar window patterns. Mr. Hogestad stated they are all vernacular houses from a simple design palate; the house in question is very similar to others on the block and in the neighborhood. Ms. Dorn agreed the context is a vernacular style, mostly single-story structures, but somewhat eclectic in nature. Mr. Hogestad stated the columns, whether or not original, are consistent with the vernacular of the neighborhood. Vice Chair Wallace asked if the decision to declare the home eligible would be impacted if the Commission knew the columns were a newer addition. Mr. Hogestad noted even the older photos show some type of column structures in the same location. Mr. Frick stated the columns, whether new or old, are a good representation of the house’s style and are in keeping with its design. Mr. Murray, Ms. Gensmer, and Ms. Dorn agreed. Mr. Bello stated this is not the only or last building of this character in Fort Collins and cited integrity issues with the columns and screened in porch. Vice Chair Wallace noted the goal of this item is to determine whether the home is eligible for designation, not to actually designate it. Commission Deliberation Mr. Frick moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find 225 South Loomis Avenue individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact: • The seven aspects of integrity are met. Mr. Murray seconded. Mr. Yatabe suggested findings as to significance, exterior integrity, and context should be included. Mr. Frick added to his motion: for significance, under 2c, design and construction, characteristics of type, period, method of construction, represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style or quality, possesses high artistic values, design concept, part of a recognized and distinguishable group of properties. The standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, significant as it was originally constructed, and illustrates the tastes and attitudes of the period of time. For determining exterior integrity: location is unchanged; the design of the property is intact from when it was originally built; it is still in its same setting; it reflects the pattern of construction at the time; the materials are original to the property; the workmanship is original particular to the property type; the feeling of the neighborhood is still intact; the association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character, which it does. The context has been considered, and the home is in its original block surrounded by similar buildings of a similar time period. Mr. Murray seconded the amendments. The motion passed 6-1 with Bello dissenting. Vice Chair Wallace summarized the decision of the Commission. Ms. Boes asked how she should proceed. Vice Chair Wallace referred her to staff. 2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 21, 2018 [Timestamp: 6:57 p.m.] Secretary’s Note: Chair Dunn returned for consideration of the remaining agenda items. 3. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449-acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection, and also fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction Staff Report Maren Bzdek presented the staff report and provided an updated map for potential considerations for the area of adjacency. She reviewed nearby eligible and designated structures and noted the Commission will not be providing a formal recommendation for the project at this time. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hosanna, representing the owner and developer, gave the Applicant presentation and discussed the proposed project. Regarding compatibility, Mr. Hosanna discussed the taller first floor height, similar window sizes, uniformity in massing and brick patterning, and signage. He discussed the aspects of the frozen food building next door and the efforts his team has made toward compatibility with that structure and the alley and parking garage on the other side. Mr. Hosanna discussed the proposed materials which include brick, metal, Cementous panels, sandstone, and stucco. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn stated the Commissions comments should be focused on the historic and eligible properties in the area, after determining an area of adjacency. Mr. Murray stated this is the corner of Old Town and it is important for it to present itself as an entrance to the Old Town Historic District. Ms. Dorn asked for input regarding 137-143 Mathews, the McIntire house, and how it plays into the adjacency discussion. Chair Dunn replied materials and massing are considered in determining adjacency. Mr. Hogestad stated materials and material scale are important to consider. Mr. Yatabe noted the Code in place at the time of application submittal would be the Code applicable to the project. Mr. Frick stated the design seems to miss the context of the frozen food building in terms of window patterns and building height. He made some suggestions for design changes. Mr. Hosanna discussed the patio step backs and stated the façades on Mathews and Mountain were deemed the primary frontages. Mr. Frick stated he would prefer a setback and balcony step back between the two buildings to accentuate the visual relationship between the frozen food building and the corner of the new building. Mr. Bello suggested the applicant consider a material change at the level of the frozen food building. Chair Dunn summarized the comments stating the Commission would like to see more of a relationship between the two buildings where the new building is in deference, perhaps in the form of a setback or step back or change in materials or height. Ms. Gensmer agreed that the corner is giving her pause due to the comparative massing. She suggested a material change may alleviate that. 2.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 7 March 21, 2018 Mr. Hogestad asked how much differential exists between the face of the pilasters and the face of the building. Mr. Hosanna replied it is about two feet. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern the building feels a bit fragmented and stated the balconies on the corner at Mathews and Mountain are not in keeping with historic buildings. He asked if the windows are flush mounted. Mr. Hosanna replied there is a 2.5 to 3-inch return and stated they are looking at opportunities for more articulation. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like to see more shadow lines if possible. Mr. Hosanna stated they are still working to define the cornice at the top of the wall. Mr. Bello commented on the heaviness of the materials and building. Mr. Hosanna stated the brick is planned to be in the light red clay family. Ms. Dorn asked if it would be possible to keep the warm color family with some of the materials. Mr. Hosanna replied that the grays are actually warm. Mr. Hogestad asked if the rain screen is typical. Mr. Hosanna replied it will include closed joints. Chair Dunn summarized the Commission members’ comments stating they would like the frozen food building and corner to be better addressed, include additional historic patterning and shadow lines, and ensure materials are compatible. Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a break at 8:09 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21p.m. 4. OASIS ON OLIVE - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for the development of a 3 story multi-family condominium building and ground level parking located at 312 W Olive Street, between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The 7-unit building includes an enclosed at-grade parking garage with 7 parking spaces. Access to the controlled garage will be from Olive Street on the south side of the complex. Exiting will be out to Canyon Avenue to the west along a one-way private drive. This proposal will be subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen Slezak, Owner/Developer Staff Report Karen McWilliams presented the staff report. She mentioned that the property is located behind 227 and 231 South Howes and that a new lot was created behind them. She reviewed the role of the Commission and the area of adjacency, noting no motion will occur on the area of adjacency. She reviewed the information that was requested at the work session. Applicant Presentation Mr. Slezak gave the Applicant presentation. He reviewed the new slides that had been submitted the day before the meeting and provided some background information. Public Input None. Commission Questions and Discussion Regarding Area of Adjacency Chair Dunn opened a discussion about the area of adjacency. She stated the parking lot to the east will not be included and asked if the post office should be included. Members replied in the negative. Members opted to leave the old bank building at Oak and Canyon within the area of adjacency, leaving the area with 5 properties. Mr. Slezak clarified the project has been submitted. Mr. Yatabe stated the Commission could vote on an area of adjacency if desired. Commission members discussed buildings within the area of the proposed project. Ms. McWilliams identified the properties to be included within the area of adjacency: 316 West Olive, the landmark designated property at 231 South Howes, the property that is individually eligible, another property that is a Fort Collins Landmark, and 315 West Oak. 2.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 8 March 21, 2018 Mr. Frick moved to accept the five properties as the area of adjacency, as noted in the discussion, and as included in the staff report. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 8:0. Commission Questions and Discussion Regarding the Development Mr. Frick stated he liked the tower feature with the vertical ribbon of corner windows. Mr. Slezak stated some of the windows have been changed and have yet to be corrected on the renderings. He stated last year, the Commission expressed that it was more desirable to reflect the window sizes of the adjacent historic properties. Mr. Frick asked about the two different sized windows on the bump out. Mr. Slezak replied they are the same size. Mr. Slezak stated the predominant window size on the properties at 231, 227, 223, and 312 are 2.5 feet by 5 feet and clarified there are no mullions. The windows are double-hung. Chair Dunn stated the garage looks more grounded than it did previously, which was appreciated by the Commission. Chair Dunn asked if any members wanted to address materials or massing. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like to have an idea of where eave and window heights are relative to the historic buildings. Mr. Slezak replied he will need to get that information later. Mr. Hogestad asked the tower is tall for a particular reason. Mr. Slezak replied it needs to match the roof truss and could possibly be lowered a few inches. It is currently 40 feet to its peak. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern the tower feels out of proportion. Chair Dunn noted the tower is not needed for stairs. Ms. Dorn asked if this type of tower was submitted with the PDP. Mr. Slezak replied the new submittal includes a vertical window ribbon. Mr. Slezak stated he likes the roofline articulation and it helps to soften the impact of the Cortina building. Chair Dunn noted the Commission is looking for roof line articulation that is compatible with historic buildings, which do not involve much articulation or a tower feature rising above the main roof line. Mr. Hogestad stated the building needs something to help give it human scale. Chair Dunn summarized the Commission comments stating they would like a better sense of the tower proportion to the historic buildings, a comparison of eave heights and other alignments with historic structures, information on the windows, detail regarding materials, and information regarding the historic sense of scale. Mr. Hogestad stated he would like more specific information on the type of stone. Mr. Slezak replied the stone is the same blond sandstone as is on the Cortina building. Chair Dunn stated there is generally support for the project; however, the Commission just needs more details regarding materials and heights in comparison to historic buildings. [Timestamp: 9:24 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Hogestad commented on the work session downtown plan presentation. He asked if there had been any survey done on Buckingham. Ms. McWilliams replied a survey of all three of the sugar factory neighborhoods was done in 2000. Mr. Hogestad commented on the transition in stories near the neighborhood and suggested staff utilize the surveys when looking at new projects. He stated it is important to talk about compatibility with the buildings in those neighborhoods. 2.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 9 March 21, 2018 • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tara Lehman, Tripoint Data. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on ________________________. ____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 2.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: LPC March 21, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT (6671 : MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2018) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 18, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 524 WHEDBEE STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, 1 ½ story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Alison Johnson, ABD. OWNER: Stacy Lynn and Erik Martinson, owners RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the applicants have complied with all code requirements in Municipal Code Section 14-72. Because they have submitted all required materials, staff recommends approval without conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The owners of the property located at 524 Whedbee Street, Stacy Lynn and Eric Martinson, are proposing to make major alterations to their property. In accordance with Fort Collins City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, the property was reviewed on October 26, 2017, and has officially been determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under criterion C, Design/Construction. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: This 1-story single family dwelling was constructed in 1938, according to the Larimer County Tax Assessor. The house is an example of a Minimal Traditional residence with Tudor Revival elements. The initial review, done by the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission and Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, noted that the “current exterior integrity of this house seems to be completely intact.” The home’s original owner was H. A. Deines, who sold to the Scrivner family in 1942. The Scrivner family owner the Scrivner Grocery at 152 West Mountain Avenue. More detailed architectural and historical information can be found in the attached Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is proposing to add a 1 1/2 story, rear addition to the residence. The proposed plans, approved by all other departments, are attached. PROCESS: Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code provides the process and requirements for the review of alterations or demolition of structures 50 years of age or older. Commonly referred to as demolition/alteration review, the process begins when the owner submits an application for City approval of the demolition or exterior alteration of the structure. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such application, the Director and the Chair of the Commission (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair), determine if the proposed work constitutes a demolition or a minor or major alteration of the exterior. 3 Packet Pg. 24 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 If the work is determined to be a demolition or major alteration, the Director and the Chair refer the matter to either a subcommittee, or to the Commission for a hearing. Prior to the Commission meeting, public notice occurs, and there are submittal requirements that must be fulfilled: a. A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an approved expert in historic preservation; b. Detailed plans and specifications describing and depicting the appearance of the site, structure or object that is the subject of the application, in context, after the proposed alteration or demolition; c. Evidence that all administrative and quasi-judicial approvals necessary to accommodate the proposed demolition or alteration have been obtained; d. A plan of protection acceptable to the Commission showing how the applicant will ensure that no damage will occur to other historic resources on or adjacent to the site. e. Applicable fees FINDINGS: Staff has made the following findings of fact as it relates to this application: • The residence at 524 Whedbee is more than 50 years of age, dating to 1938; • The work proposed was determined to be “major,” affecting 2 or more aspects of integrity; • The residence at 524 Whedbee was determined to qualify for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, for its architecture; • The applicant has complied with all of the applicable requirements. COMMISSION ACTION: At this demolition/alteration review hearing, the Commission shall approve the application for demolition (with or without conditions) unless such approval is postponed as described below. The LPC may impose conditions of approval requiring the property owner to provide the City with additional information to mitigate the loss caused by the demolition or alteration. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to: • Comprehensive photographic documentation; • Comprehensive historical, developmental, social and/or architectural documentation of the property and the neighborhood containing the property; and/or • Any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties. Alternatively, the Commission may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days for additional information needed for its consideration, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark designation of the property. In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within the forty-five-day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed work. SAMPLE MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, proposed major work to an individually eligible property is reviewed by the Commission at a final hearing. The Commission may approve the application (with or without conditions), or, in the alternative, may postpone consideration of the application for a period not to exceed forty-five days, in order to facilitate the gathering of additional information needed for the full and complete consideration of the request by the Commission, which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding the benefits to the City of landmark or landmark district designation of the property in accordance with Article II of this Chapter. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the application for final demolition/alteration review for 524 Whedbee Street as presented, finding that the applicant has complied with all code requirements and purpose of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. The Commission may alter this motion to include conditions or delay the application for a period not to exceed forty-five days as put forth in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. 3 Packet Pg. 25 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Approved Plans 3. Contextual Elevations 4. Plan of Protection 5. Architectural Inventory Form 6. 2017-10-05 Historic Review Results 7. Staff Presentation 3 Packet Pg. 26 Centennial Sr High Smith St Peterson St Whedbee St E Myrtle St E Plum St E Magnolia St Lilac Ln Eastdale Dr Eastdale Dr Stover St E Laurel St E Mulberry St © 524 Whedbee St SITE 0500 250 Feet 3.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Location Map (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.b Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Approved Plans (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Approved Plans (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Approved Plans (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Richard Hoffman Associates in Building and Design 4803 Innovation Drive Ft Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CASSANDRA BUMGARNER Historic Preservation Planner 970-416-4250 City of Fort Collins Cassandra, The work at the Lynn Martinson residence will not be visible from the street. Per your instruction I submit the attached photo of the residence at 524 Whedbee showing the adjacent properties as the contextual elevations for the packet for the final demolition/alteration review for the Landmark Preservation Commission. Sincerely R Hoffman 3.c Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Contextual Elevations (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Plan of Protection for Historic Properties Project Title: Proposed addition and alteration to the Lynn / Martinson Residence Full Property Address: 524 Whedbee Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Form Prepared by: Richard Hoffman of ABD-LTD Fort Collins, CO Please complete the following as applicable. Please answer each question thoroughly, and add additional pages if needed: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project is located in the 500 block of Whedbee in Old Town 1.2 The project is to include an addition to the rear of the existing structure set in from the north and south corners. This will place the new work completely behind the existing structure. The addition will have a full unfinished basement for mechanical areas and storage. The ground floor will be lowered approximately 2’-6” to accommodate easier indoor outdoor access. The ground floor of the addition will house a new mud room, master bedroom with bath and a new full bath. These baths will replace the existing structures two bathrooms. Above the mud room and baths will be a half story dormered loft to house Mr. Martinson’s and Mrs. Lynn’s office. Mr. Martinson is a financial professional who works from home. Mrs. Lynn is a University professor. The existing structure is to remain largely untouched. The rear roof below the ridge shall be opened to accommodate access for the stairs. The rear wall is double wythe structural brick and will be preserved as far as practical. All work is to be completed and supervised by Associates in Building and Design (ABD) ltd. Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 3.d Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1.3 There is an existing detached garage to the northeast which will remain undisturbed. The distance to the new work will be approximately 15 feet north. The age of the garage is however unknown to us. 1.4 The existing structure has an existing structure to the south approximately 1 feet away. This structure does not extend past the existing to the east. The addition will be adjacent to the rear yard. There is an adjacent structure to the north with an existing addition on its east side. This structure is approximately 26 feet away and separated by fencing. 1.5 The age of the neighboring structures is unknown to us. 2.0 Scope of Work 2.1 Sections of the rear roof and wall will be removed to accommodate the design. Only the required to be removed to connect the existing to the new will be touched. This shall be done by hand to salvage brick for patch backs as required 2.2 All appropriate construction fencing to protect landscaping and areas to remain undisturbed along with all required silt fencing will be installed prior to start. 2.3 Area below addition will be excavated for a basement with all unusable spoils being removed from the site. There will be no effect on adjacent properties. 2.4 Existing utilities will be relocated and upgraded per the design as required. There will be no effect on adjacent properties. 2.5 Foundation to be solid concrete formed and installed per the structural engineer. There will be no effect on adjacent properties. 2.6 The new construction will be per the approved architectural and structural plans. The roof finish will match existing as will soffit, fascia and gutters. The siding will be a combination of clapboard and shake to complement the existing brick. All new windows and doors shall complement the existing to remain. There will be no effect on adjacent properties. 2.7 There is no parking lot. 2.8 The existing driveway is to remain undisturbed 2.9 The owner will landscape the rear yard around the protected vegetation to remain. There will be no effect on adjacent properties. 2.10 Drainage: The final grading shall direct all drainage away from the structure and downspouts toward the alley to the east. There will be no effect on adjacent properties. 3.d Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities 3.1 Ron White will be the project manager overseeing daily activities. 3.2 Ron White will be on site daily 3.3 Ron White can be reached on his company issued cell phone at 970.420.0325 or at the corporate offices at 970.225.2323 or by Email at ron@abd-ltd.com 3.4 Bob Peterson, Owner of ABD NAHBR 2007 National Remodeler of the Year CAHB 2008 Colorado Builder of the Year 2009 Northern Colorado Remodeler of the Year 2011 Chairman of National Association of Home Builders Remodelers Council 2013/2014 Colorado State Representative on NAHB Executive Committee 2014 HBA Northern Colorado Chairman of the Board 2015-16 NAHB National Area Chairman Uses the latest industry standards for project coordination and management. Residential Construction Performance Guidelines for Professional Builders and Remodelers is the specific standard used as a minimum 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials 4.1 If any existing, architecturally significant materials can reasonably be salvaged they will be donated to a reuse store such as ReSource Centre for Conservation. 4.2 Historic materials which cannot be reasonably salvaged such as partly damaged/ rotted trim, broken brick etc. will be mitigated and transferred to a landfill in keeping with state and federal mandates 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property 5.1 Existing fences, driveway, sidewalks, stoops etc. will be protected from all construction activity. 5.2 All required building demolition will be performed by hand labor employing no heavy equipment utilizing care to preserve the existing elements. 5.3 The new foundation work parallel and adjacent to the existing rear wall will be held three feet clear with a concrete shelf. The resulting earth held within the new wall will stabilize the existing footings and foundation. 5.4 All structural elements required by the design will be installed using care to minimally impact existing. Any damage will be repaired to match existing adjacent construction. 3.d Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 5.5 All new construction materials shall be installed using care to protect the existing structure from damage. All reasonable efforts shall be made to protect the existing home from any and all damage except where require by demolition. 5.6 There are two openings on the east side of the structure which will be covered by the addition. These will be infilled using salvaged brick from the opening. A third window opening falls in the area designated to be removed for the new stairs connecting existing and new. 5.7 All new window and door openings will be new energy efficient units designed to comply with existing local, state and federal codes for safety and energy efficiency. These units are specified to complement the existing windows to remain. 5.8 Existing floor framing to be modified for the stair openings shall be in compliance with the structural engineering drawings. All new floor framing shall be in strict compliance with the structural engineering drawings as per local and state building codes. 5.9 All existing roof structure will be deconstructed by hand. The new roof shall be hand built at the connection valleys and gable using stick built construction techniques. The remainder of the addition’s roof shall be constructed using trusses in strict accordance with fabricator’s engineering drawings. 5.10 All structural loading will be as analyzed and specified by a Colorado structural engineer 5.11 All support and bracing of the existing structure shall be in compliance with industry standards and OSHA regulations. The existing structural design by a Colorado licensed structural engineer calls for the new footings and foundation to be held three feet clear of the existing eliminating the need for underpinning. 5.12 Excavation for the new basement will be held 2’-4” from the existing. Excavation for the new stair area connecting existing and new shall be done by hand. 5.13 The site shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition. The site shall receive daily clean up with all trash removed from site in accordance with all state and local regulations. A final cleanup of the site will be performed at project completion. The owners then plan to hardscape and landscape. 6.0 Documentation for Record 6.1 All measured drawings, permit forms and other pertinent documentation will be on site in the building department issued document package. 6.2 These will be kept within the existing residence for safety. 3.d Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 7.0 Archeology If something is found during excavation and or demolition then ABD will contact the city to determine the proper authorities to determine relevance and further action. 3.d Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form I. IDENTIFICATION Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. Resource number: 5LR.3582 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Scrivner House 6. Current building name: None 7. Building address: 524 Whedbee Street, Fort Collins, CO 8. Owner name and address: Lynn-Martinson Family Trust, 524 Whedbee Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524. II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W NW ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 4 9 4 0 8 9 mE 4 4 9 2 1 8 3 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins 1960 (p.r.1984) Year: 1984 Map scale: 7.5' x 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): N ½ of Lot 8 Block: 165 FTC Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: From the Larimer County Assessor’s Office is the following legal land description for Larimer County Parcel No. 9713205016. The residence’s northern boundary is shared with a residence addressed to 522 Whedbee; an alley is the eastern boundary; the southern boundary is shared with a residence at 528 Whedbee and the western boundary is Whedbee Street. The boundary description dates to the early twentieth century. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 32’ x Width 32’ 16. Number of stories: Single 17. Primary external wall material(s): Brick 18. Roof configuration: Gable 19. Primary external roof material: Composite Shingles 3.e Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A 20. Special features: Detached garage. Chimney. Cross gabled roof. 21. General architectural description: 5LR. 3582 was recorded with a City of Fort Collins Architectural Property Reconnaissance Survey form for the East Side Neighborhood Survey Project in 1998. The property was included as a Modern Compatible element of the Laurel School Historic District (5LR.463). The surveyor at that time noted that the house had excellent integrity and condition. West Façade: The principal gable roof runs north-south and has no eaves. A west facing cross-gabled roof is a foot lower than the ridge of the principal roof and extends beyond the principal roof’s edge about four feet. Under this gable is the main entry and a window. Six steps lead to the main entry door is set just north of center. Photos from the Larimer County Tax Assessor show that between 1948 and 1968, the main door was solid except for four square window panes set in a square pattern near the top of the door. A photo taken in 1969 shows the present style door (if not the same one) with three rectangular window panes set in a diagonal stepped pattern in the top third of the door. Five feet north of the door is a one-by-one, wood, sliding window each sash with four rectangular panes laid horizontally. (The 1998 survey misidentified the storm windows hanging over these windows as two-over-two double hung windows.) An identical one-by-one, wood, sliding window is six feet to the south of the main entry. Both the windows and the door have a soldier course above them. The window sills are formed by a rowlock course. A rowlock belt course delineates the main floor and the basement. On the wall below the northern most window is a water spigot. Beneath each of the windows on the main level there is a rectangular window in the basement level. The basement windows each have one sash with three rectangular panes running vertically. The western facing gable is trimmed with wood, and covered with stucco. Attic ventilation is achieved in the by a narrow, round-arch louvered vent near the top of the gable. North Façade: The main floor of the house has an entry way set east of the center of the principal roof’s ridge. Steps from the east and the west lead up to the door. The windows on the main floor are all one-by-one, wood, sliding windows- one window with four horizontal panes identical in style to the windows on the West Façade, and the other two windows have three square panes in each sash. They do not appear to be the same size. They all have a soldier course above them and their sills are formed by a rowlock course. The first window is two feet east of the door, the second five feet west of the door and the third about eleven feet west of the door. The third window’s west side is where the principal roof meets the extension. Like the west façade, basement windows are set under the main floor windows. They are rectangular with three vertical panes in a single sash. All are set off center from the window above them. Attic ventilation is achieved by a narrow, round-arch louvered vent near the top of the gable. East Façade: There is no eave. Three one-by-one, wood, sliding windows are centered in the main floor wall. They are identical in style to the other windows and are of two sizes. A window located south of the center of the wall is narrow enough to give the appearance that the four panes in each sash are square instead of rectangular. Four feet to the south of this is a second window. A third one-by-one, wood, sliding window is six feet north of the square pane window. There is a brick exterior chimney at the roof’s edge about two feet north of the last window. It is topped with a metal vent. The basement level has three windows. Eight feet from the south east corner of the house is the first window that appears to be larger than the other basement windows, presumably these are the 2007 egress windows. The next window is set directly under the center window of the main floor. The window features three vertical panes in a single sash. The third window is set two feet south of 3.e Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A the north west corner of the house. It is also a three vertical pane set in a single sash. South Façade: Three one-by-one, wood, sliding windows are on set on the main level. To the west of center is a pair of narrow windows each with four square panes in two sashes. This pair of window flanks an exterior chimney that extends several feet above the roof’s edge. A third window, has three rectangular panes in each sash. Basement windows on this façade do not correspond to the windows on the main level. They are instead symmetrically spaced, although the pattern appears to the eye slightly off center. They are spaced two feet, eight feet, and fifteen feet from the southwest corner. The last window is very difficult to see; however, the architect’s elevations place it two feet west of the southeast corner. Attic ventilation is achieved by a narrow, round-arch louvered vent near the top of the gable. 22. Architectural style/building type: Post World War II/Minimal Traditional. 23. Landscaping or special setting features: Large Lot. Mature deciduous trees at various locations on the property’s lot. Wooden picket fence around three sides of the property. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Detached garage measuring 20’ x 12’ is located to the east of the main house. The appraisal card from the early 1970s indicates there was a 12’ x 8’ shed attached to the garage’s eastern façade. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1938 Source of information: Larimer County Assessor’s Office Website. Parcel No. 9713205016. https://www.larimer.org/assessor/search#/property/?fromAddrNum=2601&address=College&city=FORT%20CO LLINS&sales= . any Accessed December 10, 2017. 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: H. A. Deines Source of information: Fort Collins History Connection. Building Permits Website http://database.history.fcgov.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/bp/id/7340/rec/. Accessed December 10, 2017. 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The Larimer County Assessor’s Office lists the date of construction for 524 Whedbee as 1938. A review of Fort Collins building permits indicates that original owner H.A. Deines sold the house in 1942. New owner Milton Nelson remodeled the basement the same year. An appraisal card from 1948 indicates there were a set of concrete steps along the northern façade. In 1952, owner L.A. Scrivner applied with the City to build a fence along the rear property line. A photograph on Larimer County Appraisal card indicates there were awnings affixed over the western façade’s main entry and windows. The main entry door was replaced between 1948 and 1968. There is no date of when the awnings were removed. Owners replaced the roof in 1987 and 2011. In 2007, the owner installed two basement egress windows along the eastern façade. 3.e Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Residential/Single Family 32. Intermediate use(s): Residential/Single Family 33. Current use(s): Residential/Single Family 34. Site type(s): Residential 35. Historical background: According to Larimer County Assessor's Office, the residence at 524 Whedbee Street was first constructed in 1938. Larimer County building permits indicate the house’s original owner was H.A. Deines. Deines sold to Lairie and Josie Scrivner in 1942. The Scrivner family owned the Scrivner Grocery and Market at 152 West Mountain during the middle of the last century. Mr. Scrivner died in 1959 and Josie Scrivner continued to live in the house until the early 1980s. The property passed to Howard and Faye Scrivner. The next generation of Scrivner’s lived at this address until Fay Scrivner died in 2002. Since 2009, Erik James Martinson has owned the residence. As of December 2017, Stacy Joy Lynn & Eric James Martinson are listed as owners. 36. Sources of information: Fort Collins City Directories, 1938-2017. Located at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, History Archives; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1925-1943. Located on Denver Public Library-Western History Collection website; Larimer County Assessor’s Office Appraisal Card, Parcel No. 9713205016. Located at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, and A Field Guide to American Houses, Virginia and Lee McAlester, Alfred A Knopf, 1984. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria Applicable City of Fort Collins Local Landmark Criteria: ___ 1. The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or 3.e Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A 2. The property is associated with the lives of persons that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or, X 3. The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Does not meet any of the above Local Landmark criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Commerce 40. Period of significance: 1938-2002 41. Level of significance: National State Local X 42. Statement of significance: According to the Larimer County Assessor’s Office, the residence at 524 Whedbee Street was constructed in 1938. Research indicates that the residence was one of the last constructed in the 500 block of Whedbee, as most of the surrounding houses date to earlier in the century. The residence is a typical example of a minimal traditional house from the 1938-1950. The Scrivner family ran a grocery in Fort Collins for a number of years. However, the family’s ownership of the store is not at a level of national or state historic significance. Based on the field survey and research, 5LR.3582 is not individually eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A. A review of ownership and title confirmed that there was no one significant in the historic development of Larimer County and Fort Collins. Because of this lack of historic association, 5LR.3582 is not individually eligible to the NRHP under Criterion B. The house is a standard minimal tradition that has kept most of its original physical integrity. It is likely that it was included as MODERN COMPATIBLE element of the Laurel School Historic District (5LR.463) because of its high level of historic physical integrity and because it was built after the periods of significance, 1875-1899 and 1900-1925. Due to the lack of architectural uniqueness, 5LR.3582 is not individually eligible to the NRHP under Criterion C. This survey finds that 5LR.3582 would not be individually eligible for listing to the State Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, B, and C. 5LR.3582 does deserve consideration for a local landmark listing under Criterion 3 for its good historic physical integrity and confirmation to the Minimal Traditional form. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: There have been minimal alterations to the residence’s exterior since original construction. The residence’s high degree of physical integrity does contribute at a level for consideration as a Local Landmark under Criteria 3. The current owner intends to build an addition on to the eastern façade. The proposed new construction meets of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation and renovations. Preservation Briefs 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns (Grimmer and Weeks, 2010) gives guidance on new additions and is quite clear that a new addition should: “Preserve significant historic materials, features and form; Be compatible; and Be differentiated from the historic building.” It is also clear that “every historic building is different and each rehabilitation project is unique.” Additions to historic structures presume a certain degree of material loss to an external wall of a historic building. Exterior 3.e Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A features that distinguish one historic house from another, and can be seen from the public right-of-way, are generally the most significant. The most significant elements of 5LR.3582 are the one-by-one, wood, sliding windows. The proposed addition on the rear of the house requires the removal of two original windows which cannot been seen from the public right-of-way (sidewalk or Whedbee street) west of 5LR.3582. These windows also cannot be seen from the alley east of 5LR.3582 due to mature trees. Loss of historic materials can be minimized by keeping the addition smaller in proportion to the size of the historic building. A review of the proposed plans shows the addition is slightly narrower than the historic house. The architect confirmed that the only brick that will be removed will be in the location of the breakthrough between the structures. So 80% of the historic brick will remain undisturbed so 5LR.3582 will retain a high degree of historic physical integrity. Surveyers also confirmed with the architect that the proposed addition’s roof ridge will be lower than the principal historic roof’s ridge, again minimizing the visual impact from the public right-of-way west of the house and helping to preserving 5LR.3582’s historic character. The windows in the new addition will be reminiscent of the historic ones by the use of rectangular panes. As the Minimal Traditional form often has cross-gabling, and often an irregular footprint this cross-gabled addition is not incompatible in form. The guidelines state that there must be balance between differentiation and compatibility. The surveyors encourage the homeowners to reconsider the use of LP Smart Trim on the historic gables, in favor of retaining as much historic material as possible. A color change may help unify the historic and new. The surveyors encourage the homeowners to consider reusing the historic windows in light of their uniqueness. Preservation Brief 14 can be accessed at https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm . VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: (Modern) Contributing x Noncontributing VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION 47. Photograph numbers: 5LR.3582a through 5LR.3582e. Negatives filed at: Electronic images held by Autobee & Autobee, LLC, Lakewood, CO 48. Report title: Letter Report for 524 Whedbee Street, Fort Collins, CO 49. Date(s): December 19, 2017 50. Recorder(s): Robert Autobee, Kristen Autobee 51. Organization: Autobee & Autobee, LLC 52. Address: 6900 W 26th Avenue, Lakewoo, CO 80214 53. Phone number(s): 303-906-7829 NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 3.e Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A 5LR.3582 – 524 Whedbee Street. Western and northern facades. Looking southeast. December 2017. Image 14285a. 5LR.3582 – 524 Whedbee Street. Western and southern facades. Looking northeast. December 2017. Image 14285b. 3.e Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A 5LR.3582 – 524 Whedbee Street. Western and southern facades. Looking northeast. December 2017. Image 14285c. 5LR.3582 – 524 Whedbee Street. Eastern facade. Looking west. December 2017. Image 14285d. 3.e Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A 5LR.3582 – 524 Whedbee Street. Garage and shed. Southern façade. Looking northern. December 2017. Image 14285e. 5LR.3582 – 524 Whedbee Street. Photo c. 1970 from Larimer County Assessor Appraisal Card. Parcel No. 9713205016. Located at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 3.e Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A 524 Whedbee Street (5LR.3582) 6th P.M., Township 7N, Range 69W NW ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of NE ¼ of section 13 UTM reference Zone 13 4 9 4 0 8 9 mE 4 4 9 2 1 8 3 mN Fort Collins 1960 (p.r., 1984), 7.5’ USGS topo map Larimer County 3.e Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Resource Number: 5LR.3582 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Sketch Map (5LR.3582) 524 Whedbee Street N Whedbee Street 522 Whedbee 524 Whedbee Fence Driveway Garage and shed East Myrtle Street 3.e Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 2017-10-05 Historic Review Results (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 2017-10-05 Historic Review Results (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 2017-10-05 Historic Review Results (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 2017-10-05 Historic Review Results (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 2017-10-05 Historic Review Results (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3.f Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 2017-10-05 Historic Review Results (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 1 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 04-18-2018 524 Whedbee Street Addition— Final Demolition/Alteration Review Background and History 2 • Construction Date: 1938 (Larimer County Tax Assessor) • Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair Review: • Proposed work is major • Property is individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard C: Design/Construction - intact example of Minimal Traditional with Tudor Revival elements 3.g Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Location and Context 3 524 Whedbee October 2017 West Elevation Southwest Elevation 3.g Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 524 Whedbee October 2017 Southwest Elevation East Elevation 524 Whedbee October 2017 Note: this is the greenhouse that is talked about in the Architectural Inventory Form and Demolition/Alteration Review form. It was demolished East sometime Elevation between May 30 and November Northwest 16, Elevation 2017. 3.g Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 524 Whedbee October 2017 Northwest Elevation West Elevation Project Summary 8 • 1 ½ story rear addition 3.g Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Approve the application, finding that the applicant has met each of the steps and submittals required by the code; • Fees, posting and notice requirements have been met; • Documentation of the existing structure • Plan of Protection • Fully approved plans - plans comply with relevant city codes 9 • Approve with conditions; conditions may include, but not limited to: • comprehensive photographic documentation; • comprehensive historical, developmental, social and/or architectural documentation of the property and neighborhood and/or • any other mitigating solution agreed upon by the Commission, the applicant, and any other applicable parties 10 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission 3.g Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) • Postpone the decision for more information • Information may include the benefits to the City of Landmark designation • Postpone for up to 45 days 11 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Staff Evaluation and Recommendation • Finding: Staff finds that the applicants have complied with all code requirements in Municipal Code Section 14-72 • Recommendation: Approval without conditions 12 3.g Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 13 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 04-18-2018 524 Whedbee Street Addition— Final Demolition/Alteration Review 3.g Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6644 : 524 WHEDBEE ST - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 18, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 NORTH GRANT - 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 McMillen-Patterson Property, an excellent example of an Eastlake-style home from the late 1880s. APPLICANT: Susan Hoskinson, Owner RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The McMillen-Patterson Property is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard A, for its association with the creation of the Loomis Addition as a show home to be given away in a drawing, and Standard C, for its distinctive Eastlake style, a popular Victorian-era variation of the Queen Anne style. The home is one of the oldest remaining homes in the Loomis Addition, which was developed by and named for Abner Loomis. The home was built between June 1887 and May 1888 as a show home to entice people to buy lots in the Loomis Addition. Those that purchased lots were entered into the drawing for a chance to win the home. This is also the earliest documented pattern-book home in Fort Collins. The current owner of this property, Susan Hoskinson, has submitted an application requesting consideration for Fort Collins local landmark designation. COMMISSION ACTION Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures,” provides the process and standards for designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Commission shall adopt a motion providing a recommendation on eligibility to City Council. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The McMillen-Patterson Property is significant under Standard A and Standard C. This residence was built as a show home to entice people to buy lots in the Loomis Addition, and is one of the oldest remaining houses in one of the earliest subdivisions (1887) in Fort Collins. The Loomis Addition was developed by and named after Abner Loomis, one of Fort Collins’ early and prominent developers and businessmen. The first occupants of the house were Arthur H. (Billy) and Alice Patterson. Arthur was closely identified with the early history and growth of Fort 4 Packet Pg. 61 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 Collins. He owned and operated a livery and freighting business on Jefferson Street and donated 80 acres of land for the Agricultural College (CSU). He served as alderman for the city, helped build the town ditch that ran through the Loomis Addition, and planted trees along College Avenue, the main street of the community. The house went through multiple owners before being purchased in 1967 by Donald L. and Susan L. McMillen. Susan (now Hoskinson) has owned and lived in the house ever since. In spite of multiple owners and the changes in living standards and conveniences in the 130 years since the house was built, the property still retains its historic character and architectural features and represents the full history of the Loomis Addition. Under Standard C, this property embodies the identifiable characteristics of the Eastlake style, a popular Victorian- era variation of the Queen Anne style, in which the decorative elements are flattened out so as to appear more angular and machine made. Features of the Eastlake style include repetitive, machine-made decorations in bead and belt-like patterns, as well incised decorative elements especially in the gable ends. Eastlake houses also have delicate spindlework detailing on porch balustrades and/or valances, and cut-away corner windows, in which the window itself sits at a 45-degree angle to the walls, and the wall area above is decorated with scroll-sawn wood. The McMillen-Patterson Property is one of the few remaining Eastlake-style houses in Fort Collins, and the only Eastlake-style house in the Loomis Addition. The house exhibits typical Eastlake details in its boxy and cut-away bays, and repetitive decorative wood patterns, especially in the gable ends. The house was designed by the architectural firm of Gould and Angell of Providence, Rhode Island, and is the earliest documented pattern-book house in Fort Collins. Although several Gould and Angell-designed houses exist in Providence, Rhode Island, this is the only known Gould and Angell building in Fort Collins. 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 two additions on the residence, 1948 and 1978, are located at the rear of the home. 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. The brick on the home has been painted at least since 1967 and the current owners discussed removing the paint, but concluded it would damage the brick too much. Standard E: Workmanship. This building retains good evidence of the workmanship from the original pattern-book design of Gould and Angell and builder Herman Schroeder. 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 late 1880s in Fort Collins. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The house at 121 North Grant Avenue was the first house built after the Loomis Addition was platted in 1887. It was constructed between June 1887 and May 1888. The house was built and advertised as a show home to be given away in a drawing, in order to entice people to buy lots in the Loomis Addition. Those purchasing lots (offered for $75 and up) were eligible for a chance to win the home. Denver real estate broker George G. Darrow, agent for owner and developer Abner Loomis, received a building permit in 1887. The builder was Herman W. 4 Packet Pg. 62 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 Schroeder, who is listed in the abstract as having a mechanic’s lien on the home for a few months. His name was scrawled in black paint on a rough board tacked above the kitchen door. This was found by the owner during interior renovation work in 2016. H.W. Schroeder is listed as builder of this house in a Fort Collins Courier article, June 23, 1887, page 1. The house as it was advertised and later built was featured in the 1881 edition of William Comstock’s Victorian Domestic Architectural Plans and Details,” Plate 73. The design was credited to Gould and Angell, architects from Providence, Rhode Island. The house and lot were valued at $3000. When 200 lots had been sold, Darrow held a drawing in the old Fort Collins Opera House. The house was won by J.M. Fillebrown of Geneva, Nebraska, on Friday, May 11, 1888. Fillebrown sold the house to Alice Patterson (wife of Arthur H. “Billy”) on August 10, 1888, for $1200. Arthur died in 1892, but the Patterson family continued to own the house until 1900. Arthur had been a close friend of William H. “Buffalo Bill” Cody. The two of them traveled to New Mexico together at the ages of 18 (Billy) and 16 (Buffalo Bill) in January 1862 to deliver supplies from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Colonel John Chivington’s command, which fought the decisive battle at Apache Canyon resulting in the defeat of the Confederate army under General Sibley. Patterson headed north from there to Colorado where he established a livery and freighting business in Fort Collins by 1866. Cody returned to Leavenworth where he and Patterson had met. The two remained in contact afterward and Cody occasionally visited Patterson in Fort Collins during the late 19th century. The Fort Collins Express of December 10, 1892 notes that, “Hon W.F. Cody, otherwise known as ‘Buffalo Bill’ is in our city on a brief visit with Wm. Patterson.” Patterson died the following month, and his obituary also mentions the final visit from Cody. Patterson married Alice Watrous in December 1873. They lived at 211 Myrtle Street and then built a home in November 1879 on Remington Street south of the Remington school building on the corner of Remington and Olive. Patterson donated 80 of the 240 acres that were given to the State of Colorado to form the nucleus of the Colorado State University campus. 121 N. Grant has had many owners. Robert M. Ferguson, the secretary at Collins Cash Clothing, purchased the house from the Patterson family in 1900. From 1914 to 1924 there were 5 owners: Clyde and Addie Brown owned both lots 16 and 17 from 1914 to 1919. The lots were then sold separately, lot 16 where the house is located was sold to Nellie A. Matteson in 1919. Kathryn Marshall was the owner from 1920 to1921, G.F. Wiard in 1921 and Mary Alice Aanes from 1921 to1924. J.F. and Myrtle Kinney owned the home from 1924 to 1945 and sold it to C. G. Snelling in 1945. Myrtle also conveyed the south two feet of lot 16 by warranty deed to Emma Clammer of 119 N. Grant on November 9, 1945. Edward M. Holst, Jr. and his wife Vivian purchased the home in 1946 and sold it to Emma P. Clammer in 1954. An addition was made to the house sometime before 1948. There is no building permit for this addition, but it is shown on the 1948 Tax Assessor record. Martha Mae Trupp purchased the home in 1956 and sold it to Edith Trupp the following year. The next owners, Harold and Sarah Hicks, purchased it in 1965, but went bankrupt in 1966. Donald L. “Don” and Susan L. McMillen purchased the home from Fort Collins Federal Savings and Loan Association in 1967. They started a local weekly newspaper, the Triangle Review, in May 1973. They became very active in documenting the history of Fort Collins through their newspaper and Susan (now Hoskinson) has been a leader in preserving Fort Collins’ history. Susan sold the newspaper in 1983 and it continued to be published until 1995. Susan still resides in the home today. When the McMillens purchased the property in 1967, they undertook major interior remodeling, as the house was uninhabitable. They added another 500 sq. ft. to the existing 1000 sq. ft. in 1978. The two-story addition was faced with bricks that the McMillens salvaged from a demolished gas station at North College Avenue and Jefferson Street in Fort Collins. The house’s brick exterior was painted white when the McMillens bought it. The original brick is very soft, and it had deteriorated in a number of places. They discussed removing the paint but concluded that the process would do a great deal of damage. Susan selected the current paint colors based on a color palette from the era when the house was built: brick color on the brick itself, sage green on the decorative shingles, and brown trim. 4 Packet Pg. 63 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1887; c. 1948; 1978 Architect/Builder: Gould and Angell (pattern book), architects; Herman Schroeder, Builder Building Materials: Brick, wood, sandstone Architectural Style: Eastlake Description: Original House: (18’ x 37’)This one-and-a-half-story, Eastlake-style brick dwelling has an asymmetrical east-facing façade with two bays. The brick is laid in stretcher bond. The original brick had been painted white prior to 1967; it is now painted to match the color of the original brick. The foundation is cut stone coursed with one row of rock- faced sandstone and one row of sandstone with bush-hammered detailing. There is an unfinished basement below grade. The steeply pitched, cross-gabled roof is sheathed with wood shingles and has metal ridge caps that terminate with ball finials at each of the gable ends. Windows are 1-over-1 double-hung or small stationary sash and have brick flat-arch tops with radiating voussoirs and sandstone lugsills with bush-hammered detailing unless otherwise noted. The house has a complex roofline consisting of a total of six gable ends, two east-west and four north-south. The three main gables of the original part of the house are all similar in design, and terminate in a fish- scale shingled “skirt” which forms a slight overhang above the first story. The main portion of the facade under the front-facing gable has a central, squared off bay window on the first story with two separate 1-over-1 double-hung windows. A single stone lug sill extends the length of the bay. The front gable has vergeboards which terminate in wood returns carved in a shell pattern. A set of three 1-over-1 double- hung windows with decorative wood surrounds and a center ogee over each window is centered in the gable end. Below the windows is a wood balconet with a finial at each end. Above the windows is Eastlake detailing consisting of fish-scale shingles surrounding a central rectangular frame with eight square medallions, and a row of wood dentils at the base. Staggered rectangular shingles sheath the lower half of the gable end with a round wood molding marking the transition from the wall to the “skirt.” In the southeast corner of the façade is a semi-enclosed, one-story porch slightly set back from the projecting front bay of the house and sheltered by an extension of the main gable roof. The east-facing porch entry is arched and supported by square brick columns with corbelled capitals. A similar arched opening, about three-quarter length with a stone lug sill, is on the south side of the porch. Below the sill is a staggered brick decorative design. The arches are elliptical with radiating voussoirs, and have decorative wrought-iron semi-elliptical inserts. Above the front arch the roof forms a pediment, which contains a decorative wood panel topped by a sunburst motif. The porch deck is redwood and the steps are sandstone. The original front door is oak with one rectangular wood panel above a large glass pane and four square wood panels below. There is also a wood storm door. The south elevation of the original house has a three-sided cutaway bay topped by an overhanging front-gable roof. There is a small stationary-sash window in the center bay, a matching opening in-filled with staggered brickwork in the west bay, and a double-hung window in the east bay. To each side of the bay is a small stationary window. The south-facing gable end has most of the same features as the front gable. The vergeboards have a decorative bulls eye design at each end. The surface of the gable end is sheathed with seven rows of hexagonal shingles with a wood entablature and a row of wood dentils below. Below the dentils are two small, double-hung windows with decorative wood surrounds, separated by a set of 15 wood medallions. Under the windows is a rounded sill molding topping staggered rectangular shingles which wrap around the sides of the gable. The terminating skirt projects over the cutaway bay below and is supported by two decorative corner brackets. Continuing west on the south elevation there is a five-panel wood door with one glass light. The original plan (as shown in Comstock’s pattern book) shows a small window where the door is, and a brick voussoir several inches above the door indicates that there might have originally been a window in this location. A short row of slightly protruding bricks extends from near the top of the door frame west to what would have been the back corner of the original house. A similar protruding brick course extends lower down from the east side of the door to the lug sill under the stationary window, and on to the western edge of the bay. A wood deck, completed in 2017, runs from the south-elevation door to the rear of the house. Steps access the deck at the location of the door. A wooden privacy fence located west of the canted bay screens the deck from public view. 4 Packet Pg. 64 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 5 The north elevation has a slightly projecting squared-off bay on the first story with two double-hung windows. A single double-hung window is located to the west on the bay on the first story. The north-facing gable above the bay has most of the same features as the south gable. The vergeboards have a decorative bulls eye design on each end, with a decorative wood shell design at the apex. The top of the gable end is sheathed with five rows of hexagonal shingles. Below is a wood entablature which tops a pair of double-hung windows with wood surrounds. The remainder of the wall is sheathed with staggered rectangular shingles. A brick chimney with a corbelled top rises from the east slope of the gable. Additions: The first addition to the house (18’ x 11’) was added before 1948, according to the tax assessor record; there is no building permit record. The one-story, brick addition was added to the rear (west) wall of the house. It has a rock-faced stone foundation and originally had a slightly sloping flat roof. There were no windows on the south or north elevations. There were two large windows on the west elevation that opened onto a 7’ x 16’ wood- frame back porch. In 1978, the current owner remodeled the first addition, removed the back porch, and added a second 10.5’-long addition to the west. The remodeling/addition project was designed by Dave Dobkins, son-in-law of architect William Robb. The first addition was expanded with the construction of another cross-gabled, skirted roof which extended to the west end of the original main (east-west) gable. Each of the south and north elevation gable ends in the addition has two double-hung windows with eight rows of hexagonal shingles above the window and rows of staggered rectangular shingles below, terminating in a wood molding and skirt, matching those of the original gables. The windows have plain wood surrounds. On the first story, two windows with plain wood surrounds were added on both the south and north elevations. On the north elevation, a small double-hung basement window (1978-79) is inside a stone-lined window well. Basement windows on the south elevation are not visible due to the deck. This second addition, which replaced the 7’ x 16’ back porch, is frame construction faced with brick, a concrete foundation, and a gable roof. The bricks were salvaged by the owners from a gas station that was being demolished at the corner of Jefferson Street and College Avenue in Fort Collins. On the main story of the west elevation are four double-hung windows with brick sills and a five-panel wood door (1978) with one light and a wood storm door (2014). A pair of double-hung windows with plain wood surrounds is centered in the gable end. There are seven rows of hexagonal shingles above the windows and staggered rectangular shingles on the lower part of the gable end terminating in a wood molding and skirt. The south elevation of the addition has a brick and wood-shingled exterior chimney. A wide wood deck with a wood railing on its north and south sides extends from the west wall of the house and wraps around the rear portion of the south elevation. The house is set back on the lot behind a wide front lawn. A concrete walkway leads from the street to the front porch, and around the south side of the house back to the garage and alley. A tall cedar fence encircles the backyard, from just west of the bay windows of the original house. A flagstone walk leads from the gate on the north side of the house to the back deck. Garage (1990; non-contributing): A 26’ x 20’, one-and-a-half-story, one-car garage was built to the west of the house in 1990 to replace an older garage built in 1924 and demolished in the early 1980s. The rectangular garage has wood lap siding and an asphalt shingled roof with metal ridge cap with ball finials matching those of the house. The roof has an intersecting central gable on the east elevation. The east elevation is symmetrical, with a central 4-panel wood door with a single upper light flanked by pairs of double-hung windows. A small double-hung window is centered in the gable end. The north elevation has one double-hung window on the upper story and the south elevation has a double-hung window on both stories. The west elevation has a single garage door offset to the south. STAFF EVALUATION Staff finds that the McMillen-Patterson Property qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standards A and C as an excellent example of an Eastlake style residence associated with the development of the Loomis Addition with a preponderance of exterior integrity. The dwelling continues to uphold all seven aspects of integrity. 4 Packet Pg. 65 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 6 SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission finds that the McMillen-Patterson 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 McMillen-Patterson Property as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards A and C for its history as a in the development of the Loomis Addition and design as an Eastlake style residence, and its preponderance of exterior integrity. If the Commission finds that the McMillen-Patterson 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 (PDF) 2. Location Map (PDF) 3. Staff Presentation (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 66 Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 121 N. Grant Ave., Fort Collins. CO Legal Description: N 48 ft of Lot 16, Block 291, Loomis Addition. Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): McMillen-Patterson House OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Susan Hoskinson Company/Organization (if applicable): Phone: 970 484-7137 Email: susanhoskinson1@gmail.com Mailing Address: 121 N. Grant Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 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: Mary Humstone, Principal, Humstone Consulting Address: 4420 Bingham Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Phone: 970 420-5275 Email: humstone@gmail.com Relationship to Owner: contractor Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 DATE: March 20, 2018 4.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 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 is .21 acres in size and consists of a single- family residence and a detached garage. SIGNIFICANCE and INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess both significance and exterior integrity. Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Exterior Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Standard A: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. Standard B: Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. Standard C: Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. Standard F: Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Standard G: Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. 4.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 3 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The McMillen-Patterson House is significant under Standard A and Standard C. This residence was built as a show home to entice people to buy lots in the Loomis Addition, and is one of the oldest remaining houses in one of the earliest subdivisions (1887) in Fort Collins. The Loomis Addition was developed by and named after Abner Loomis, one of Fort Collins’ early and prominent developers and businessmen. The first occupants of the house were Arthur H. (Billy) and Alice Patterson. Arthur was closely identified with the early history and growth of Fort Collins. He owned and operated a livery and freighting business on Jefferson Street and donated 80 acres of land for the Agricultural College (CSU). He served as alderman for the city, helped build the town ditch that ran through the Loomis Addition, and planted trees along College Avenue, the main street of the community. The house went through multiple owners before being purchased in 1967 by Donald L. and Susan L. McMillen. Susan (now Hoskinson) has owned and lived in the house ever since. In spite of multiple owners and the changes in living standards and conveniences in the 130 years since the house was built, the property still retains its historic character and architectural features and represents the full history of the Loomis Addition. Under Standard C, this property embodies the identifiable characteristics of the Eastlake style, a popular Victorian-era variation of the Queen Anne style, in which the decorative elements are flattened out so as to appear more angular and machine made. Features of the Eastlake style include repetitive, machine-made decorations in bead and belt-like patterns, as well incised decorative elements especially in the gable ends. Eastlake houses also have delicate spindlework detailing on porch balustrades and/or valances, and cut-away corner windows, in which the window itself sits at a 45-degree angle to the walls, and the wall area above is decorated with scroll-sawn wood. The McMillen-Patterson House is one of the few remaining Eastlake-style houses in Fort Collins, and the only Eastlake-style house in the Loomis Addition. The house exhibits typical Eastlake details in its boxy and cut-away bays, and repetitive decorative wood patterns, especially in the gable ends. The house was designed by the architectural firm of Gould and Angell of Providence, Rhode Island, and is the earliest documented pattern-book house in Fort Collins. Although several Gould and Angell-designed houses exist in Providence, Rhode Island, this is the only known Gould and Angell building in Fort Collins. This property retains all seven aspects of integrity. The house retains its original location and setting on a block that has not been impacted by new construction. The house retains original materials and workmanship. The two additions (1948 and 1978) are located at the rear of the building and match the original house in terms of roof height and form, as well as materials and details, and therefore do not diminish integrity of architectural design. The house retains the feeling and association of the late 1880s when the Loomis Addition was platted. 4.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 4 HISTORICAL INFORMATION The house at 121 North Grant Avenue was the first house built after the Loomis Addition was platted in 1887. It was constructed between June 1887 and May 1888. The house was built and advertised as a show home to be given away in a raffle, in order to entice people to buy lots in the Loomis Addition. Those purchasing lots (offered for $75 and up) were eligible for a chance to win the home. Denver real estate broker George G. Darrow, agent for owner and developer Abner Loomis, received a building permit in 1887. The builder was Herman W. Schroeder, who is listed in the abstract as having a mechanic’s lien on the home for a few months. His name was scrawled in black paint on a rough board tacked above the kitchen door.1 The house as it was advertised and later built was featured in the 1881 edition of William Comstock’s Victorian Domestic Architectural Plans and Details,” Plate 73. The design was credited to Gould and Angell, architects from Providence, Rhode Island. The house and lot were valued at $3000. When 200 lots had been sold, Darrow held a drawing in the old Fort Collins Opera House. The house was won by J.M. Fillebrown of Geneva, Nebraska, on Friday, May 11, 1888. Fillebrown sold the house to Alice Patterson (wife of Arthur H. “Billy”) on August 10, 1888, for $1200. Arthur died in 1892, but the Patterson family continued to own the house until 1900. Arthur had been a close friend of William H. “Buffalo Bill” Cody. The two of them traveled to New Mexico together at the ages of 18 (Billy) and 16 (Buffalo Bill) in January 1862 to deliver supplies from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Colonel John Chivington’s command, which fought the decisive battle at Apache Canyon resulting in the defeat of the Confederate army under General Sibley. Patterson headed north from there to Colorado where he established a livery and freighting business in Fort Collins by 1866. Cody returned to Leavenworth where he and Patterson had met. The two remained in contact afterward and Cody occasionally visited Patterson in Fort Collins during the late 19th century. The Fort Collins Express of December 10, 1892 notes that, “Hon W.F. Cody, otherwise known as ‘Buffalo Bill’ is in our city on a brief visit with Wm. Patterson.” Patterson died the following month, and his obituary also mentions the final visit from Cody. Patterson married Alice Watrous in December, 1873. They lived at 211 Myrtle Street and then built a home in November 1879 on Remington Street south of the Remington school building on the corner of Remington and Olive. Patterson donated 80 of the 240 acres that were given to the State of Colorado to form the nucleus of the Colorado State University campus. 121 N. Grant has had many owners. Robert M. Ferguson, the secretary at Collins Cash Clothing, purchased the house from the Patterson family in 1900. From 1914 to 1924 there were 5 owners: Clyde and Addie Brown owned both lots 16 and 17 from 1914 to 1919. The lots were then sold separately, lot 16 where the house is located was sold to Nellie A. Matteson in 1919. Kathryn Marshall was the owner from 1920 to1921, G.F. Wiard in 1921 and Mary Alice Aanes from 1921 to1924. J.F. and Myrtle Kinney owned the home from 1924 to 1945 and sold it to C. G. Snelling in 1945. Myrtle also conveyed 1 This was found by the owner during interior renovation work in 2016. H.W. Schroeder is listed as builder of this house in a Fort Collins Courier article, June 23, 1887, page 1. 4.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 5 the south two feet of lot 16 by warranty deed to Emma Clammer of 119 N. Grant on November 9, 1945. Edward M. Holst, Jr. and his wife Vivian purchased the home in 1946 and sold it to Emma P. Clammer in 1954. An addition was made to the house sometime before 1948. There is no building permit for this addition, but it is shown on the 1948 Tax Assessor record. Martha Mae Trupp purchased the home in 1956 and sold it to Edith Trupp the following year. The next owners, Harold and Sarah Hicks, purchased it in 1965, but went bankrupt in 1966. Donald L. “Don” and Susan L. McMillen purchased the home from Fort Collins Federal Savings and Loan Association in 1967. They started a local weekly newspaper, the Triangle Review, in May 1973. They became very active in documenting the history of Fort Collins through their newspaper and Susan (now Hoskinson) has been a leader in preserving Fort Collins’ history. Susan sold the newspaper in 1983 and it continued to be published until 1995. Susan still resides in the home today. When the McMillens purchased the property in 1967, they undertook major interior remodeling, as the house was uninhabitable. They added another 500 sq. ft. to the existing 1000 sq. ft. in 1978. The two-story addition was faced with bricks that the McMillens salvaged from a demolished gas station at North College Avenue and Jefferson Street in Fort Collins. The house’s brick exterior was painted white when the McMillens bought it. The original brick is very soft, and it had deteriorated in a number of places. They discussed removing the paint but concluded that the process would do a great deal of damage. Susan selected the current paint colors based on a color palette from the era when the house was built: brick color on the brick itself, sage green on the decorative shingles, and brown trim. 4.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 6 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1887; c. 1948; 1978 Architect/Builder: Gould and Angell (pattern book), architects; Herman Schroeder, Builder Building Materials: Brick, wood, sandstone Architectural Style: Eastlake Description: Original House: (18’ x 37’)This one-and-a-half-story, Eastlake-style brick dwelling has an asymmetrical east-facing façade with two bays. The brick is laid in stretcher bond. The original brick had been painted white prior to 1967; it is now painted to match the color of the original brick. The foundation is cut stone coursed with one row of rock-faced sandstone and one row of sandstone with bush-hammered detailing. There is an unfinished basement below grade. The steeply pitched, cross-gabled roof is sheathed with wood shingles and has metal ridge caps that terminate with ball finials at each of the gable ends. Windows are 1-over-1 double-hung or small stationary sash and have brick flat-arch tops with radiating voussoirs and sandstone lugsills with bush-hammered detailing unless otherwise noted. The house has a complex roofline consisting of a total of six gable ends, two east-west and four north-south. The three main gables of the original part of the house are all similar in design, and terminate in a fish-scale shingled “skirt” which forms a slight overhang above the first story. The main portion of the facade under the front-facing gable has a central, squared off bay window on the first story with two separate 1-over-1 double-hung windows. A single stone lug sill extends the length of the bay. The front gable has vergeboards which terminate in wood returns carved in a shell pattern. A set of three 1-over-1 double-hung windows with decorative wood surrounds and a center ogee over each window is centered in the gable end. Below the windows is a wood balconet with a finial at each end. Above the windows is Eastlake detailing consisting of fish-scale shingles surrounding a central rectangular frame with eight square medallions, and a row of wood dentils at the base. Staggered rectangular shingles sheath the lower half of the gable end with a round wood molding marking the transition from the wall to the “skirt.” In the southeast corner of the façade is a semi-enclosed, one-story porch slightly set back from the projecting front bay of the house and sheltered by an extension of the main gable roof. The east-facing porch entry is arched and supported by square brick columns with corbelled capitals. A similar arched opening, about three-quarter length with a stone lug sill, is on the south side of the porch. Below the sill is a staggered brick decorative design. The arches are elliptical with radiating voussoirs, and have decorative wrought- iron semi-elliptical inserts. Above the front arch the roof forms a pediment, which contains a decorative wood panel topped by a sunburst motif. The porch deck is redwood and the steps are sandstone. The original front door is oak with one rectangular wood panel above a large glass pane and four square wood panels below. There is also a wood storm door. The south elevation of the original house has a three-sided cutaway bay topped by an overhanging front-gable roof. There is a small stationary-sash window in the center bay, a matching opening in-filled with staggered brickwork in the west bay, and a double-hung window in the east bay. To each side of the bay is a small stationary window. The south- facing gable end has most of the same features as the front gable. The vergeboards have a decorative bulls eye design at each end. The surface of the gable end is sheathed with 4.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 7 seven rows of hexagonal shingles with a wood entablature and a row of wood dentils below. Below the dentils are two small, double-hung windows with decorative wood surrounds, separated by a set of 15 wood medallions. Under the windows is a rounded sill molding topping staggered rectangular shingles which wrap around the sides of the gable. The terminating skirt projects over the cutaway bay below and is supported by two decorative corner brackets. Continuing west on the south elevation there is a five-panel wood door with one glass light. The original plan (as shown in Comstock’s pattern book) shows a small window where the door is, and a brick voussoir several inches above the door indicates that there might have originally been a window in this location. A short row of slightly protruding bricks extends from near the top of the door frame west to what would have been the back corner of the original house. A similar protruding brick course extends lower down from the east side of the door to the lug sill under the stationary window, and on to the western edge of the bay. A wood deck, completed in 2017, runs from the south-elevation door to the rear of the house. Steps access the deck at the location of the door. A wooden privacy fence located west of the canted bay screens the deck from public view. The north elevation has a slightly projecting squared-off bay on the first story with two double-hung windows. A single double-hung window is located to the west on the bay on the first story. The north-facing gable above the bay has most of the same features as the south gable. The vergeboards have a decorative bulls eye design on each end, with a decorative wood shell design at the apex. The top of the gable end is sheathed with five rows of hexagonal shingles. Below is a wood entablature which tops a pair of double- hung windows with wood surrounds. The remainder of the wall is sheathed with staggered rectangular shingles. A brick chimney with a corbelled top rises from the east slope of the gable. Additions: The first addition to the house (18’ x 11’) was added before 1948, according to the tax assessor record; there is no building permit record. The one-story, brick addition was added to the rear (west) wall of the house. It has a rock-faced stone foundation and originally had a slightly sloping flat roof. There were no windows on the south or north elevations. There were two large windows on the west elevation that opened onto a 7’ x 16’ wood-frame back porch. In 1978, the current owner remodeled the first addition, removed the back porch, and added a second 10.5’-long addition to the west. The remodeling/addition project was designed by Dave Dobkins, son-in-law of architect William Robb. The first addition was expanded with the construction of another cross-gabled, skirted roof which extended to the west end of the original main (east-west) gable. Each of the south and north elevation gable ends in the addition has two double-hung windows with eight rows of hexagonal shingles above the window and rows of staggered rectangular shingles below, terminating in a wood molding and skirt, matching those of the original gables. The windows have plain wood surrounds. On the first story, two windows with plain wood surrounds were added on both the south and north elevations. On the north elevation, a small double-hung basement window (1978-79) is inside a stone-lined window well. Basement windows on the south elevation are not visible due to the deck. This second addition, which replaced the 7’ x 16’ back porch, is frame construction faced with brick, a concrete foundation, and a gable roof. The bricks were salvaged by the owners from a gas station that was being demolished at the corner of Jefferson Street and College Avenue in Fort Collins. On the main story of the west elevation are four double-hung windows with brick sills and a five-panel wood door (1978) with one light and 4.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 8 a wood storm door (2014). A pair of double-hung windows with plain wood surrounds is centered in the gable end. There are seven rows of hexagonal shingles above the windows and staggered rectangular shingles on the lower part of the gable end terminating in a wood molding and skirt. The south elevation of the addition has a brick and wood-shingled exterior chimney. A wide wood deck with a wood railing on its north and south sides extends from the west wall of the house and wraps around the rear portion of the south elevation. The house is set back on the lot behind a wide front lawn. A concrete walkway leads from the street to the front porch, and around the south side of the house back to the garage and alley. A tall cedar fence encircles the backyard, from just west of the bay windows of the original house. A flagstone walk leads from the gate on the north side of the house to the back deck. Garage (1990; non-contributing): A 26’ x 20’, one-and-a-half-story, one-car garage was built to the west of the house in 1990 to replace an older garage built in 1924 and demolished in the early 1980s. The rectangular garage has wood lap siding and an asphalt shingled roof with metal ridge cap with ball finials matching those of the house. The roof has an intersecting central gable on the east elevation. The east elevation is symmetrical, with a central 4-panel wood door with a single upper light flanked by pairs of double-hung windows. A small double-hung window is centered in the gable end. The north elevation has one double-hung window on the upper story and the south elevation has a double-hung window on both stories. The west elevation has a single garage door offset to the south. 4.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 9 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Abstract of Title, 121 N. Grant. Comstock, Wm. T. Victorian Domestic Architectural Plans and Detail. Reprint of Modern Architectural Designs and Details, William T. Comstock, Architectural Publisher, New York, 1881. Dover Publications, 2005. Plate 73. Fort Collins Courier, June 23, 1887, page 1. Fort Collins Express, January 7,1888, page 1; December 10, 1892, page 6. Hoskinson, Susan. Interviews. November, 2016 and March, 2018. Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, prepared for the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program, 2015. Humstone Consulting. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Architectural Inventory Form for 121 N. Grant Avenue, 2017. Swanson, Evadene. Fort Collins Yesterdays. 1975. Page 216; Watrous, Ansel. History of Larimer County. 1911. Page 411. 4.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT Revised 08-2014 Page 12 SKETCH MAP 4.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT AGREEMENT The undersigned own·er(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 \C\4-'�\ day of_-'-µ_0-_X'_l_....... t \ ______ , 201 <i. . �r r--fu Name s � (please o<f print) es le I t'hs o f\J ;i:Gthner 1� Signature ?lf2ilnd81 / State of Cc k.,-w.0c )ss. County of -�-L_Y'_l_i_l\t.Q__I' _____ ) Subscribed and sworn before me this \°1 yl-\ day of_��\_�, Ci�c_l _L__i l __ , 201_.b_, Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires __ 4--'-·--'-[-'-r -'--i__,_\-=2--c-",�Z-D·"--=---- J Notary Revised 08-2014 JILL M SCHAAKE NOTARY PUBLIC S1ATE OF COLORADO NOTARY D 2DOll4020548 MV COMMISSION EXPIRESAPRIL 18, 2020 4.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Landmark Designation Application (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT N Grant Ave N Washington Ave Bungalow Ct S Grant Ave S Washington Ave W Mountain Ave © 121 N Grant SITE 1 inch = 85 feet 4.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Location Map (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 1 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – McMillen-Patterson Property Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 04.18.2018 121 N Grant – McMillen-Patterson Property 2 Façade, East Elevation Attachment: Staff Presentation (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 4c. Packet Pg. 79 121 N Grant – McMillen-Patterson Property Façade, East Elevation details 3 121 N Grant – McMillen-Patterson Property South Elevation 4 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 4c. Packet Pg. 80 121 N Grant – McMillen-Patterson Property South Elevation 5 121 N Grant – McMillen-Patterson Property West Elevation North Elevation 6 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 4c. Packet Pg. 81 121 N Grant – McMillen-Patterson Property North Elevation 7 121 N Grant – McMillen-Patterson Property 8 Garage, non-contributing Attachment: Staff Presentation (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 4c. Packet Pg. 82 McMillen-Patterson Property • Constructed in 1887 • Standard A: Events – one of earliest in Loomis Addition, built and advertised as shown home to be given away in a drawing • Standard C: Design/Construction – Eastlake Style, pattern home • Exterior Integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association 9 Location and Context 10 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 4c. Packet Pg. 83 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 – McMillen-Patterson Property Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 04.18.2018 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6662 : MCMILLEN-PATTERSON PROPERTY 121 N GRANT - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 4c. Packet Pg. 84 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 18, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for repair of damaged material on the front porch of the residence, a drainage mitigation solution to prevent future damage, and preparation and painting of the repaired porch and the entire residence. APPLICANT/OWNER: Karen and Timothy Bren RECOMMENDATION: Approval (conditional) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Charles A. Lory House and Outbuildings property at 903 Stover was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 039, 1996, under Criterion B for its association with Charles A. Lory, fifth president of Colorado Agricultural College (CSU) and under Criterion C as an excellent example of Craftsman- influenced bungalow style. The outbuildings date from the period of significance, contribute to the historic character of the property, and are included in the designation ordinance. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-46, “Work requiring building permit,” requires that the applicant obtain a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The Charles A. Lory House is a one-and-a-half story wooden bungalow with a gabled roof. Built in 1905 on what was then the most eastern edge of Fort Collins, the house was constructed by Charles Lory’s father, Chris Lory, a farmer and carpenter. The house displays many characteristics of the bungalow style. The wood frame house is sided in 6-inch-wide horizontal clapboard with wood shingles in the upper half story. The low-pitched roof features a centrally located shed roof dormer with two front-facing gables at either end. An enclosed front porch, with gabled roof, covers the central bay of the home. The porch has narrow, vertical wood half walls with one over one and one over two window patterns. It is possible that this porch was open at one time. A second enclosed porch, similarly constructed, is located on the rear of the house. Glazing patterns on the body of the house are predominantly multi-pane over single pane. The original foundation was estimated to be only six inches deep, but a basement with a cement floor was added in the 1930s. There are two outbuildings located on the alley on the south end of the property. The original garage was built in the same style as the house, with the same clapboard siding and a gabled roof. In 1935, the garage was extended by about a foot, probably to accommodate a longer car. The second outbuilding was added to the property in 1938. It too matches the style of the house, exhibiting the same siding and roof line. In 2015, the Landmark Preservation Commission approved a two-story rear addition project. The current property owners received a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan for a new wood shingle roof in 2017. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is presenting for conceptual/final design review a proposal to restore Packet Pg. 85 6 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 rotting and damaged planks, trim, and beadboard on the front porch and to provide drainage and ventilation vents to prevent future rot. The proposal also includes preparation and painting of the porch and the entire exterior to address peeling paint and match the current colors following the porch work. REVIEW CRITERIA: Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, “Work requiring building permit,” describes a two- phase review process for the Commission to consider applications for a report of acceptability. The conceptual review allows the Commission to identify problems and propose solutions prior to final review. If upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines there is no significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may waive conceptual review and proceed to consideration of the proposed work for final review at the same meeting. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Report of acceptability” for compliance with the following Standards: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Packet Pg. 86 6 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 STAFF EVALUATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff finds that the proposed methodology for the repair of the porch is generally in keeping with the City code requirements and federal guidelines for rehabilitation. More specifically, staff finds that the project complies with the standards as follows: (1) The proposed work enhances the general historical and architectural character of the landmark; (2) The style and materials of proposed improvements is appropriate for the property; (3) The proposed work preserves the exterior characteristics of the structure; (4) Proposed work meets federal rehabilitation standards 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 Staff has already asked the contractor to provide more detail on the following questions: A. Provide simple hand drawn sketch on of location and design of the drain/vent cutouts proposed for the side walls of porch. (attached) B. An explanation of why the vents would be preferable to weep holes or other solutions, and where the water will drain to. • The proposed cuts will be more like air vents that would allow the porch to breathe and have air circulation that is more like an open-slatted porch, which will increase the speed of evaporation. C. The slope condition of the existing porch floorboards and whether the proposed work will be corrective in that regard, if necessary, so that the water is directed away from the house. • The porch is sloping away from the house. The proposed work will address the damage to the porch walls due to accumulating water rather than to water that is collecting at the house walls. D. Confirm if the Douglas Fir replacement wood vertical grain, Grade “C” or better. • The replacement wood will be used for only 2 or 3 planks in the deck. The removed planks will be taken to Mawson Lumber and used to select high quality “in kind” replacement boards. Regarding the note of “pressure washing” on the estimate, address the following: E. Details about the equipment and the methodology (PSI, angle of application, etc.) • Response: “We spray at about 10-15 foot distance from the house and work at an angle from the top down.” When the water hits the wall, it is at about 1000 psi (rough estimate). F. Brief explanation of understanding of protecting the historic materials and how you will manage the job to monitor as you go for damage during treatment. • The contract has used this methodology many times on historic homes in Fort Collins and has never seen damage to walls because it is at such low pressure. The pressure is low enough that it functions more like “steaming” and is gentle enough to be applied to a human body. G. Why you think this is the appropriate methodology, versus other options such as hand scraping. • “As far as the pressure washing goes it is a process we use to help remove the dust/dirt and road grime from the house so the paint can stick. Scraping does not remove all the paint from the house, it is used only to remove the peeling. By using a pressure washer as opposed to a garden hose we are able to apply significantly less water to the house in order to remove the dirt. This keeps the wood drier so it does not absorb the water into its grain prior to painting the house. The way we utilize pressure washing for all of our jobs is specifically just to rinse the house to allow the products to adhere, it is not for a replacement of even assistance to scraping and does not remove Packet Pg. 87 6 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 the paint from the house any more than wind and rain. Ultimately pressure washing cleans the house using the least amount of water possible.” H. Information about contractor’s lead paint certification and how proposed methodology minimizes dispersal of hazardous substances. • Contractor is EPA-certified to work on pre-1978 houses that may contain lead and operates according to EPA guidelines. The LPC had the following additional questions at the work session on April 11, 2018: I. Explain the alternatives to pressure washing and why you are not suggesting one of those? • The contractor uses a low-powered wash “as if it were a heavy rainstorm” to get off any loose material like dirt and dust because that is the gentlest means possible. Areas that need scraping will be dealt with following the washing. This is the gentlest way of removing the paint. J. Second, it appears that there is a cleat at the floor, so how will the drains be cut in? • The contractor notes that the proposed solution is air vents placed low on the walls rather than drains. The half walls of the porch extend to the floor of the porch and the proposed gaps cut into the north and south sides of the porch would allow airflow to quicken evaporation of trapped moisture and water without changing the appearance of the porch from the front elevation. If the above answers are considered satisfactory, these additional standards would be satisfied: (5) The proposed work protects, enhances, and perpetuates the use of the landmark. (6) The proposal is consistent with federal Rehabilitation Standards 3, 7, and 9. RECOMMENDATION: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. Staff recommends that the Commission move to final design review and approve the proposed work at 903 Stover. SAMPLE MOTION FOR MOVE TO FINAL REVIEW: Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property and with all necessary information in place, I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 903 Stover Street. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 903 Stover Street, finding that the it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (PDF) 2. 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (PDF) 3. Porch Work Sketch (PDF) Packet Pg. 88 6 1 903 Stover Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 18, 2018 Charles A Lory House, 903 Stover Street • 1905 Bungalow • 1935 Garage • 1938 Outbuilding • 1996: Property designated as Fort Collins Landmark (B and C) 1 5.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 903 Stover Street 3 903 Stover Street 4 1 5.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 903 Stover Street 5 Proposed Alterations • In-kind front porch restoration to address rotted/damaged flooring planks, trim, and beadboard and peeling paint • Add small vents in tongue-and-groove to prevent future rot • Post-restoration exterior painting to match throughout: • lead/dust containment • pressure washing, sanding, caulking, patching • primer + 2 coats paint (match existing) 6 1 5.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 7 8 1 5.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9 10 1 5.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 11 Questions/Conditions 1) Address proposed pressure washing technique and its relationship to Rehabilitation Standard 7: “Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.” 2) Appropriate location, design of new drainage solution 12 1 5.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 13 Findings of Fact Meets criteria in Municipal Code Section14-48 for alterations to a designated landmark: • Restoration work retains historic character of property • Proposed work protects, enhances, and perpetuates use of the landmark property • Proposed work generally meets federal rehab standards Rehabilitation Standard 6: deteriorated features will be repaired rather than replaced and replacement materials will be in-kind 14 1 5.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) LPC Role Conceptual/Final Review Conceptual review: opportunity to identify any concerns regarding requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to designated landmarks. If there is no significant impact on the landmark, the LPC may waive it and proceed to consider the proposed work on final review. Final review: Determine if proposed work meets Section 14-48 15 16 903 Stover Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 18, 2018 1 5.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 2018_903 Stover_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 1 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 2 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 3 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 4 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 5 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 6 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 7 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Estimate 1/24/2018 1820 Karen Bren 903 Stover Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Estimated time on Job: 1 1/2 Weeks Total Job Price: Many Colors Painting Inc. Acceptance of Proposal: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. I (we) understand that there are no oral agreements or understandings between the parties of this agreement. The written terms, provisions, and specifications in this document is the entire agreement between the parties. You, Many Colors Painting, are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _______________________ I PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor—Complete in accordance with and priced as specified above. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. Estimated price is void after 60 days. Authorized Signature: _____________________________ Phone: 970-988-1571 Web: http://manycolorspainting.com E-mail: nmoahu@hotmail.com License Number: 44917 Insured: Country Insurance (David Wiegand (970) 416-5889) Nathan Fronczak 117 Vandy Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 I PROPOSE to paint your building in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner according to the above specifications and following terms and provisions. 25% Down Payment due at the signing of the Contract. Final payment due upon completion of job or within 7 days. Proposal RateQty Total Job Price: Painting of the Exterior of the building. 6,700.00 6,700.00 Minor Carpentry to replace rotted/damaged flooring planks for the front porch and cutting out small breather vents in the tongue and groove to allow air movement. Wood to be used will be 3 1/4 w x 3/4"t Douglas fir tongue and groove. 1,500.00 1,500.00 Containment of all Lead surfaces and dust created from those surfaces. To be treated as required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Preparation: pressure washing of the building. And sanding, caulking, patching, and puttying as needed. Application of 1 coat of primer to all paintable surfaces, sprayed and/or rolled and brushed 2 coats of finish, applied in desired color(s) Clean-up at the end of each work day and upon completion of the job. Final walk-through with the owner after completion of the job. $8,200.00 1/28/18 8 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 9 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 10 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 11 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 12 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 13 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 14 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 15 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 16 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 17 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 18 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 19 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 20 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 21 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1/28/18 22 of 22 5.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 903 Stover Porch Rehab Loan Application Landmark (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 5.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Porch Work Sketch (6652 : 903 STOVER – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 18, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for new storm and screen units in the first and second stories. APPLICANT/OWNER: Sally and Robert Linton RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Crane Property at 1501 Peterson Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 137, 2013, under Criterion C as an excellent example of Prairie style architecture. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-46, “Work requiring building permit,” requires that the applicant obtain a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The property at 1501 Peterson Street was designated under Standard C as an excellent example of Prairie style architecture with a high level of historic integrity. Originally developed and championed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the Prairie style was used almost exclusively for residential buildings. Most commonly found in the Midwest, the short-lived style originated in Chicago around 1900 and was in decline by 1920; most Prairie style houses were built between 1905 and 1915. Adding to the local significance of 1501 Peterson is the fact that it is one of only a very few Prairie-style houses built in Fort Collins during this period; the estimated construction date of the house is 1918. Emphasis on horizontal lines created by low-pitched hipped roofs; wide, boxed, overhanging eaves; and contrasting wall and trim materials that create a high-waisted appearance mark some of the major character defining features of the style found on this house. Adding to the uniqueness of this house is the use of natural red sandstone instead of the more typical manufactured brick for the exterior cladding. Natural materials were more common to Craftsman style buildings which were popular during the same period. Separated from the red sandstone by a concrete lugsill, the upper portion of the house is clad with stucco, which was a more common material than stone for Prairie-style houses. Other classic Prairie-style features include two-story construction with one-story wings or porches, the porches often having massive, square roof supports, and panels of windows to connect with the exterior landscape. 1501 Peterson has all of these features and fits within the subtype known as the Prairie Box due to the simple, symmetrical square plan of the main mass of the house. As originally built, only the one-story wing projecting from the east façade interrupted the square footprint of the building. Other notable features of the house are the off-center porch housing the main entry, double-hung sash windows with geometric patterns of glass in the upper sashes created by wooden muntins, and the use of copings to further accentuate the horizontal lines of the building. 1501 Peterson offers a striking contrast to the vertical emphasis of the many Victorian houses found throughout the eastside Fort Collins neighborhoods. PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is presenting for conceptual/final design review a proposal to install new storms and screens on the first and second floor windows. The new units will be operable for ventilation, with center rails matching the existing windows. A complete window survey is attached to this report. Due to the extent of work needed on the many windows at this residence, the contractor has provided a phased plan for addressing the primary needs with this 2018 application, and then the applicant will return in subsequent years for additional window work on the basement windows, weatherstripping and operability for all windows, interior painting, and repair of the frame at the front entry. That full scope of work is summarized on the last two pages of the attached window survey. Packet Pg. 120 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 QUESTIONS FROM APRIL 11, 2018 WORK SESSION: 1. Include a section that shows the window stops that will be installed. • Staff note: This applies to the “Phase 2” work and not to the “Phase 1” work covered for this design review. Please address this when Phase 2 is presented for design review. These wood stops will be replications of the existing and assumption that they will not remain intact when removed due to the amount of paint and caulking in place. 2. Include section that shows mull cap/cover and where it will be? • The missing mull cap/cover is at the pair of windows at the entry. Parts will be made to match the balance of the windows. In the “normal” location of the storm window, it fits between the brickmould and sits on top of the blind stop that creates the pocket for the weights. At the front entry, to the right when you come up the stairs, the storm window is between the blind stops against the upper sash and is attached to the sash. The mull cover for the center post is also completely missing. (See Supplemental Documents for this meeting for drawing.) 3. Will windows be cleaned with anything other than soap and water? • Cleaning will be with soap and water and may be applied with a power washer to help remove the vines that have small suckers that attach to the surface. Using the washer adds moisture that then allows the vines to be scraped off. The washer uses one-quarter to one-third the water of a standard garden hose and you can control where it will be applied and also greatly reduce the amount of water that is applied to the building overall. Contractor uses an electric washer with a psi under 2000. 4. Do all windows have historic hardware? Is any new hardware required? If so, please provide a cut sheet. • All hardware installed will be in the same style as historic hardware. For phase 1, hardware will consist of storm hangers. (See Supplemental Documents for this meeting for cut sheet.) REVIEW CRITERIA: Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, “Work requiring building permit,” describes a two-phase review process for the Commission to consider applications for a report of acceptability. The conceptual review allows the Commission to identify problems and propose solutions prior to final review. If upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines there is no significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may waive conceptual review and proceed to consideration of the proposed work for final review at the same meeting. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Report of acceptability” for compliance with the following Standards: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Packet Pg. 121 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 3 • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. STAFF EVALUATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff finds that the proposed methodology for the repair of the porch is generally in keeping with the City code requirements and federal guidelines for rehabilitation. More specifically, staff finds that the project complies with the standards as follows: (1) The proposed work enhances the general historical and architectural character of the landmark; (2) The style and materials of proposed improvements is appropriate for the property; (3) The proposed work preserves the exterior characteristics of the structure; (4) The proposed work protects, enhances, and perpetuates the use of the landmark. (5) The proposed work meets all applicable federal rehabilitation standards. RECOMMENDATION: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. Staff recommends that the Commission move to final design review and approve the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street. SAMPLE MOTION FOR MOVE TO FINAL REVIEW: Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property and with all necessary information in place, I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 1501 Peterson Street, finding that the it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2018_1501 Peterson_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (PDF) 2. Window Survey and Scope of Work (PDF) 3. Opening Schedule (PDF) 4. 2018 bid_1501 Peterson (PDF) 5. 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (PDF) 6. Additional Photos (PDF) Packet Pg. 122 1 1501 Peterson Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 18, 2018 The Crane Property, 1501 Peterson • Constructed c.1918 • 2013: Property designated as Fort Collins Landmark • Standard C: excellent example of Prairie Style architecture • Subtype: Prairie Box—symmetrical square plan of main portion • Low-pitched hipped roofs • Wide boxed overhanging eaves • Contrasting wall and trim materials • Stucco and natural red sandstone • 2-story with 1-story wings Attachment: 2018_1501 Peterson_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 6a. Updated Staff Presentation Packet Page 123 3 Proposed Alterations Install new storms and screens on first and second floor windows Full set of photos in attached window survey 4 Attachment: 2018_1501 Peterson_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 6a. Updated Staff Presentation Packet Page 124 April 11 Work Session 1. Include a section that shows the window stops that will be installed. • does not apply to Phase 1 scope of work 2. Include section that shows mull cap/cover and where it will be? • Next slide 3. Will windows be cleaned with anything other than soap and water? • Soap and water; low-pressure wash to remove vines before scraping 4. Do all windows have historic hardware? Is any new hardware required? • Historic style for all hardware. Cut sheet for storm hangers on next slide. 5 6 Attachment: 2018_1501 Peterson_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 6a. Updated Staff Presentation Packet Page 125 Storm Hangers 7 Findings of Fact Staff finds that the project complies with the standards as follows: (1) The proposed work enhances the general historical and architectural character of the landmark; (2) The style and materials of proposed improvements is appropriate for the property; (3) The proposed work preserves the exterior characteristics of the structure; (4) The proposed work protects, enhances, and perpetuates the use of the landmark. (5) The proposed work meets all applicable federal rehabilitation standards. 8 Attachment: 2018_1501 Peterson_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 6a. Updated Staff Presentation Packet Page 126 LPC Role Conceptual/Final Review: Conceptual review: opportunity to identify any concerns regarding requirements, standards, design issues and policies that apply to designated landmarks. If there is no significant impact on the landmark, the LPC may waive it and proceed to consider the proposed work on final review. Final review: Determine if proposed work meets Section 14-48 9 10 1501 Peterson Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 18, 2018 Attachment: 2018_1501 Peterson_conceptual_final design review_staff presentation (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN 6a. Updated Staff Presentation Packet Page 126-1 1501 Peterson For: Robert & Sally Linton Window Assessment and Costs 6.b Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Basement windows are typical. The unit on the right has a dryer vent that needs to remain. Painting of the sills and frames needs to be done. Adding storms or screens is done based on operation. Several south facing windows have etched glass with a bevel edge. Also note the hinged screen that was added to these. Not affective with large gap at the check rail. These windows have the storm set in where the blind stop should be. Mull needs to be rebuilt to the correct sized & storms added. They would then match the rest of the house. 6.b Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) The front and side windows are typical and match the south at the entry. Decision needs to be made on the vine covering the windows. New fixed or push out storm units will be installed. Typical Condition of existing storms on the East and North side. Many have met- al repair plates used to keep them togeth- er. Upper floor north win- dows also covered with vines. These windows would have push out storms installed so that they can open for ventila- tion or closed for thermal protection. 6.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Interior Elevations of different windows. Main, upper and basement level Notice the amount of light coming thru the windows to the right and the window to the right of the chair above. Compare these with the exteri- or view of the same windows. 6.b Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Interior windows are all painted interior and in very good condition. 6.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) The following pictures are of the 2nd floor porch units. Currently these windows do no fit will and most do not operate. We are proposing to fix the north and south and then operate the center 4 of the west units. These will have storms and screens that can be changed out each season reached by the roof. I would also make the storms and screens as a one light. See how the sash fits to the frame in the picture to the right. The frame member appears to be out of plumb. Our intent would be to leave in place but add a tapered shim so a square sash would now fit and operate if as noted. North and South would have fixed storms. 6.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) All sash in the porch have similar fit issues. Units in the corners are not able to operate based on how they are installed. 6.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Scope of Work to Be Done The windows in the entire home are in very good shape. The lower level sills could use some paint, but the balance of the windows are in very good shape. The biggest issue is that there is no weather stripping on any of the operating windows. So the windows rely on the existing storms, where they exist, to stop the air flow. The storm that exists in one window opening are installed where the blind stop should be, which needs to be corrected. The balance are in poor shape and have been falling apart if taken down. So they remain up which does not al- low fresh air when wanted. There are a few screens, but most are in worse shape than the storms. The screens on the south side were installed as hinged over the lower sash at some point. These do not operate or seal well at all. We are proposing that all the double hung windows will be pulled, with new weather stripping added at the lower sash on the sides and a bulb weather strip at the check rail and bottom rail. Upper sash will be fixed in place to cut down on air infiltration and give us a solid locking point for the lower sash. The basement windows will have three units opened up and made operable with screens built. Units will be weather stripped to help seal them. The hardware used will be cor- rect vintage hardware and will hinge in at either the top or the bottom. All the main and second floor windows will have new storm installed. Part of the units will be made operable for ventilation. The appearance from the outside will be the same as the operable and if at a later point more windows are to be operat- ed, the hinges and handle can be installed. The porch windows all need to be re- placed. The units have been trim out of square to try and work with the frames. These were built to be set in place and are a thickness that is two thin to survive our weather. The north and south sides will be installed fixed with a storm win- dow on the outside (having similar look as the balance of the hours). The frame between will be fixed with tapered shims and then a mull cover to be installed. Units will look level and plumb. The west units will be made to operable on the center 4 sash, operation is to be determined but could hinge on the side or top. The outer sash will be installed fixed. All windows will get a storm window, but the operable units will get a screen as well. On all storms and screens, the center rail will be located to match the window be- hind. For those with out one the sash will be a one lite. All storms and screens will be painted to match the existing storms. The exterior of the window sash and frames can be painted before the storms go into place. The storms will go on first so that we have some protection and security while the sash are prepared for the new weather stripping. This work may be done off site at our shop. The 6.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Windows can be painted at our shop before them come back, as well as the part- ing stop and interior stop. This would give you a completed product inside the window frames. I am not sure if any of the interior sills, jamb extensions or trim will need to be painted. We will be cutting the parts loose to keep this at a mini- mum and will touch up as needed. This process will probably take 3 to 4 weeks to complete after we have measured and built the storm windows. So I would plan on 6 to 8 weeks for the total pro- cess which will allow for time of any putty glazing to dry prior to priming and primer and paint to dry prior to installation. The storms will be field sized in a primed condition and then taken back to the shop to have the glass added and then painted. Once in place, the window behind can be pulled and worked on. Based on funding, we are breaking this into three packages. Package #1 for 2018 year would include all the storm windows on the first and second floor with out the front entry porch and the upper porch. This would include painting all the ex- terior of the frames, brick mould and storm windows. The second phase in 2019 would include doing the last of the storm windows, repair the frame at the front entry and make all windows operate add weather stripping and paint the interior. The last phase is for the basement windows done in 2020. Respectfully Mark Wernimont President Colorado Sash & Door, Inc. 6.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Window Survey and Scope of Work (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Current Exist New Width Height Width Height Width Height Operation Basement 38 21.75 35.5 19 34 17 Note - 1 Fixed 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Storm 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Storm 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Screen 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Screen 40 41 37.5 38 36 36 Fixed Storm 38 22 35.5 19 34 17 Fixed Screen Main Floor 36 43 33.5 40 32 38 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 40 48 37.5 45 36 43 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 70 58.75 30.5 55.75 29 53.75 Note - 2 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 30.5 55.75 29 53.75 Note - 2 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 141 60.5 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 70 60.5 31.5 57.5 30 55.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 31.5 55.5 30 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 34 35 31.5 32 30 30 Dbl Hung Storm 34 35 31.5 32 30 30 Dbl Hung Storm 105 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Storm Upper Floor 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 36.5 58.5 34 55.5 32.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 44.5 58.5 42 55.5 40.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Screen Storm 34.5 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 34.5 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 34.5 58.5 32 55.5 30.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm 36.5 58.5 34 55.5 32.5 53.5 Dbl Hung Storm Masonry Opening Frame Size Sash Opening 1501 Peterson - Linton Residence 6.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Opening Schedule (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Porch 36 29.5 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.5 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.5 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 30 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 31 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.5 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.25 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.5 29.75 Note - 4 Hinged Storm Screen 30.75 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.5 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm 35.75 29.75 Note - 3 Hinged Storm Note 1 Current sash has a dryer vent in place that needs to stay - No Work Note 2 The current frame is missing the center mull covers and the storm windows have been set in to the space where the blind stop should be. Needs to be corrected. Note 3 Porch units that do not fit will and will be made fixed with exterior storms Note 4 Porch units that do not fit will and will be made to operate with both storm and screens Window Openings to Operate 6.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Opening Schedule (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1501 Peterson Street - Linton BID DATE: YES NO FOB Job Site: XX Installed: XX Tax Included: 7.3% XX Bond Included: XX Addenda: Section BID AMOUNT Remove Basement Windows from work S/T Basement Windows S/T Terms: Section: YES NO Section: YES NO Other Information: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE TITLE: Mark J. Wernimont President Weather Stripping of Window Sash $6,210.00 Paint Window Sash and Frame $5,850.00 $2,090.00 $14,150.00 50% Start up Costs, Balance due when completed. Paint Storm and Screens Total Combined Bid: $18,920.00 $33,070.00 February 22, 2018 $14,440.00 $3,750.00 $2,820.00 -$2,090.00 New Exterior Blind Stop and Frame at Porch Storm and Screen Sash Installed Mark J. Wernimont President Description COLORADO SASH & DOOR, INC. PO Box 270682 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 Phone (970)226-1460, Cell (970)402-2623 E-Mail mwernimont@colosash.com 6.d Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 2018 bid_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6.e Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6.e Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6.e Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6.e Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6.e Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6.e Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 6.e Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 2018 LRL App_finalized_1501 Peterson (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1501 Peterson Street, Fort Collins Landmark Designation East elevation; facing west from Peterson Street. Northeastern elevation, from corner of Peterson and Lake Streets. 6.f Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Additional Photos (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) North elevation looking south from Lake Street. South elevation from the southwest. Greenhouse is in the foreground; enclosed sleeping porch with ribbon windows projects from the second story. 6.f Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Additional Photos (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) West elevation of garage and greenhouse with sleeping porch beyond. Looking southeast from Lake Street at northwest elevation. 6.f Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Additional Photos (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) North elevation of the garage with the sleeping porch above the new entry alcove. Principle 9/1 double-hung sash with wood surround and concrete sill. 6.f Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Additional Photos (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Entry alcove/patio area on the north side of the house. 6.f Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Additional Photos (6663 : 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 18, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed 5-story, multi-family apartment project at 223 Willow in the River District. The current use of this 2.04-acre lot is industrial, storage, and truck parking. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the south. APPLICANT: Katy Candau, Oz Architecture EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments regarding the proposed project’s compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. The applicant will be submitting a development application in April 2018 and will return to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for final review and a recommendation at a later date. LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will conduct conceptual review of the project’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7 based on the attached plans. Because the applicant has not yet made formal application to the City, the LPC may not offer a recommendation to the decision maker at this time. POTENTIAL AREA OF ADJACENCY: The potential area of adjacency consists of historic properties within a 200-foot radius of the project parcel. 1. Adjacent Designated Landmark: Giddings Machine Shop at 401 Pine Street (designated 2003) 2. Other Historic Properties within 200-foot radius • Union Pacific Passenger Depot - 200 Jefferson Street - contributing building to National Register Historic District REVIEW CRITERIA: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. LUC Section 3.4.7(A), Purpose, states in pertinent part: “This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: … new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site.” Packet Pg. 151 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard states: “If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State Register of Historic Properties or National Register of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated national, state or City historic district or area, then, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” The applicant has provided the following information regarding compliance with this code section: • This project site does not contain designated or eligible historic resources. • It is within the boundary of the National Register Old Town District and there are several historic resources within the proposed area of adjacency, noted above. LUC 3.4.7(F) New Construction: “(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located…. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site.” The applicant has provided the following information regarding compliance with this code section: References to 401 Pine Street (Giddings Machine Shop) • Setback is similar • Height of first 3 stories facing Willow Street references historic building height • Width of building B references historic building “(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.” The applicant has provided the following information regarding compliance with this code section: • Predominantly horizontal facades • Punch windows • Brick façade windows include sloped rowlock course sills and soldier course headers • At the floor lines 3 brick course are recessed ½-inch to create horizontal band and shadow line (continued with 8-inch cement board on upper floors) • Masonry façade has ground floor window detailing that includes factory-style divided lights, concrete sills, steel channel headers • Detailing simple to reflect industrial character “(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.” Packet Pg. 152 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 The applicant has provided the following information regarding compliance with this code section: • Along Willow Street: concrete masonry, brick, metal, and cement panel • On levels 2 and 3: stretcher bond brick (dominant material of both historic buildings) • Corner focal points are metal panels • Lap siding as secondary material - nod to historic single-family homes in District “(4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.” The applicant has provided the following information regarding compliance with this code section: • Splitting the project into two buildings allows for the creation of a new visual corridor along Pine Street towards the Union Pacific Depot and continues the historic grid system. • The applicant notes that the project will improve existing pedestrian conditions on Willow Street with trees, light fixtures, a pocket park, and building transparency. “(5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. • The applicant does not address this and staff is not currently aware of any existing landscaping on site. At the April 11, 2018 work session, the Commission asked for the following questions to be addressed: For the applicant: • Provide a section looking down Willow that shows the height comparison between the proposed development and the historic buildings at 401 Pine Street and 200 Jefferson Street. • Provide a pedestrian view from the southwest side of Jefferson Street, looking towards 200 Jefferson, so that the Commission can understand how the proposed development will appear behind the historic building? • Provide the distance between the proposed new buildings and 200 Jefferson Street. • Provide more information on the building materials, how they will be fastened to the building and what system they are using, and whether the masonry is CMU. • Address the plans for noise mitigation: what would this look like, and if a structure, please provide a description of design, materials, and height. For staff: • Did the Millhouse Apartments come before the LPC? If so, provide those minutes. (See Supplemental Documents for this meeting) ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Stuart MacMillan & Randy Shortridge Emails 4. Eric Nichols Email Response 5. LPC Minutes - December 12, 2012 6. LPC Minutes - June 26, 2013 Packet Pg. 153 4/17/2018 1 1 223 Willow – Conceptual Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 18, 2018 Project Summary • River District • 2-acre lot at 223 Willow Street • Bounded by Union Pacific to the southwest • 5-story, multifamily apartments (2 buildings) • Tuck under and surface parking • Gross square footage = 176,000 SF 2 4/5/2018 1 2 7.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 223 Willow Conceptual Review_Staff Presentation_ (6665 : 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2 3 200 Jefferson – National Register 4 2 6 4 7.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 223 Willow Conceptual Review_Staff Presentation_ (6665 : 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4/17/2018 3 401 Pine – Local Landmark 5 Questions from work session For the applicant: • Section looking down Willow with height comparison to historic buildings • Pedestrian view from the southwest side of Jefferson Street, showing new development behind 200 Jefferson St. • Provide distance between the proposed new buildings and 200 Jefferson St. • More information on building materials and system, and whether the masonry is CMU. • Plans for noise mitigation at rear? If a structure, please provide a description of design, materials, and height. For staff: • Did the Millhouse Apartments come before the LPC? Complimentary Reviews: • December 12, 2012 • June 26, 2013 (minutes provided) 6 3 5 6 7.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 223 Willow Conceptual Review_Staff Presentation_ (6665 : 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission • Conceptual review comments re: compliance with Land Use Code • Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources” • New construction shall respect historic character of historic properties on or adjacent to development site • No formal recommendation at this time 7 8 223 Willow – Conceptual Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 18, 2018 4 7.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 223 Willow Conceptual Review_Staff Presentation_ (6665 : 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 198-1 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 198-2 Attachment: Applicant Presentation - Updated 4/17/18 (223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL) 7b. Updated Applicant Presentation Packet Pg. 198-3 1 Gretchen Schiager From: Karen McWilliams Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:33 PM To: Gretchen Schiager Cc: Cassandra Bumgarner; Maren Bzdek Subject: FW: Willow and Pine neighborhood meeting presentation Hi, Gretchen – For the packet update, here is email correspondence I just received from Jason, regarding the Willow and Pine project. Karen McWilliams Historic Preservation Manager City of Fort Collins 970.224.6078 kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Click here to tell us about our service, We want to know! From: Jason Holland Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 11:51 AM To: Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com> Cc: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com> Subject: FW: Willow and Pine neighborhood meeting presentation Karen, here is communication that Stu has requested be forwarded to the LPC. Thanks, Jason Jason Holland, PLA | City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6126 jholland@fcgov.com From: Stuart MacMillan [mailto:stu@macmillandevelopment.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 12:09 PM To: Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> Cc: Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com>; Jason Kersley <jkersley@auworkshop.co>; Trae Rigby <T.Rigby@saundersci.com>; Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>; Spencer Branson <sbranson@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com> Subject: Re: Willow and Pine neighborhood meeting presentation Good afternoon Randy, thanks for your thoughts. 7.c Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Stuart MacMillan Email (6665 : 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 2 I'm disappointed with this design, and think what is shown it is detrimental to the River District and downtown Fort Collins. I realize that every new project will not be design forward, but good design is critical to the long term benefit of our downtown. Without some rather significant modifications, I think this project will be a detriment. Stu http://www.macmillandevelopment.com On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> wrote: Jason‐‐ Thank you for soliciting our comments. We have seen the documents of the proposed rental residential project located at Willow and Pine in the RDR District as will be presented to the LPC. This project conforms, in our opinion to the intent of the RDR Division 4.17 in most regards with one glaring exception: 4.17(D)(3)(b)1 states: "Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings of up to five (5) stories are permitted, provided that massing is terraced back from the River and from streets so that multiple story buildings are stepped down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage and are stepped down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage. Such terraced massing shall be a significant and integral aspect of the building design." (emphasis added),. The approximately 3.5 feet of step back at level 3 from the levels below is hardly significant as currently shown. Other developments in the district have stepped back between five and 15 feet adjacent to streets at the third level--although we believe that a five foot step back as built in two recent projects in the district cannot be considered "significant" particularly on such large buildings. We trust that you will direct the applicant to modify the design to provide a meaningful step back above the third floor. Please let us know if we need to take further action. Best regards, RANDY SHORTRIDGE AIA LEED AP [au]workshop | architects+urbanists 405 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 c: 970.818.1589 auworkshop.co Randy H. Shortridge AIA LEED AP [au]workshop c: 970.818.1589 Fort Collins, CO 80524 auworkshop.co 7.c Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Stuart MacMillan & Randy Shortridge Emails (6665 : 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 1 From: Eric Nichols [mailto:Eric@NicholsRealty.Com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 9:02 AM To: stu@macmillandevelopment.com; Randy Shortridge <rshortridge@auworkshop.co> Cc: Ryan Sadowy <RSadowy@ca‐ventures.com>; Karen McWilliams <KMCWILLIAMS@fcgov.com>; Cameron Gloss <cgloss@fcgov.com>; T.Rigby@saundersci.com; Bill Warren <bill@nationalinspection.net>; Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>; Terry Drahota (tdrahota@bryanconstruction.com) <tdrahota@bryanconstruction.com>; Jason Holland <JHolland@fcgov.com>; Matt Katsaros <MKatsaros@ca‐ventures.com>; Doug Dohn (ddohn@dohnconstruction.com) <ddohn@dohnconstruction.com> Subject: RE: Willow and Pine neighborhood meeting presentation Morning Stu and Randy, I’ve read your comments below … and am not only surprised … but, must say … I totally disagree with your … “opinions and interpretations.” I represent CA Ventures in this transaction, as I did on the The Uncommon Project … a FANTASTIC ADDITION to Downtown … it’s design raised the bar for all … the public welcomed it … fully occupied at C.O. That rarely happens in the multi‐family development business … You’ve both missed a rather large and costly concession already made by the developer. They’ve split the design into two buildings allowing for the Pine Street view corridor to remain open … “significantly” reducing and altering the scale and mass along Willow Street. “Significant” can be defined in numerous ways … in this case, the third floor set back … closer to 4’6” … in addition to the two‐building design change … is unquestionably a “significant” change to the elevation. Unlike other language for “setbacks” in the Land Use Code, this one is not specific … It’s open to interpretation … design variation … and creativity. What a novel concept! Like Uncommon, this project will be a benefit … not a “detriment” … to the River District and Downtown area. Respectfully, Eric P. Nichols Points West, Inc. Eric@NicholsRealty.com Cell: 970‐227‐9777 www.PointsWestRealEstate.com 7.d Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Eric Nichols Email Response (6665 : 223 WILLOW - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 12, 2012 Minutes – Excerpt for Millhouse Apartments (359 Linden) Council Liaison: Wade Troxell (970-219-8940) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:30 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Present were John Albright, Doug Ernest, W.J. (Bud) Frick, Belinda Zink, Ron Sladek, Sondra Carson, and Pat Tvede. Absent was Dave Lingle. Also present were Historic Preservation Planners Josh Weinberg and Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Intern Erin Nuckols, CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich, City Attorney Paul Eckman, City Planner Courtney Levingston, and Nina Lopez, Staff Support. ***Begin Excerpt*** COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW: FEEDERS SUPPLY BUILDING, 359 LINDEN STREERT, AND ASSOCIATED APARTMENT BUILDING Mr. Frick noted that he had a conflict of interest, and recused himself. STAFF REPORT: Ms. McWilliams stated this application involves the Feeders Supply building on Linden Street and the possibility of the construction of an apartment building behind the Feeders Supply building on Willow Street. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Jon Prouty, applicant, discussed the proposed project and noted the research and information he has gathered from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the status of the property. As previously recommended, the wall of the addition has been moved back, and the loading dock and scales will become part of a patio. The first window past the loading dock would be converted into a door. The wall of the 2nd level addition has been moved all the way back to the north end of the mill building, to expose the entire 2nd and 3rd levels from the west. Mr. Prouty feels it is necessary to add three windows on the 2nd story level on the south elevation for light. The addition previously proposed over the warehouse has been removed. The elevator and stairs will be entirely located in the new addition at the rear of the mill. PUBLIC COMMENT: None SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission approved the relocation plan for the Old Power Plant Art Deco Fountain, 450 North College; initiated the procedure for landmark designation for the Ted and Margaret Blevins Home, 620 West Prospect Road; recommended landmark designation for 1509 Westview Avenue, the Olyn and Ann Price Property; postponed a recommendation on landmark designation for 712 Dartmouth Trail, the Robert and Margaret Zimmerman Property; passed a motion directing staff to investigate the benefits of landmark designation for 217 South Sherwood; and provided a complimentary review of the Feeders Supply building, 359 Linden Street, and associated apartment building project. 7e. LPC Minutes December 12, 2012 - Excerpt Packet Pg. 202 COMMISSIONERS’ DELIBERATION: Mr. Sladek commended the new direction of the project and noted the iconic nature of the Feeders Supply building is being more appropriately preserved with the new project proposal. Ms. Tvede stated she would like to see the historically significant mill building untouched. Mr. Albright concurred, stating that these windows would be on a very visible elevation facing downtown. In his opinion, if windows are absolutely necessary, they should go on the rear, Willow Street side. Mr. Sladek pointed out that the rear did not face Willow Street, but agreed that the windows, if necessary, should be on the rear. Ms. Zink stated the façade still needs work, though the current design is an improvement. The new addition shows corner blocks and a fan light, which reference different historical eras. These are historical references to what? The addition should be of equally good design as the original mill building, without overshadowing or competing with the historic building. Ms. Tvede objected to the covered patio area on the Willow Street side, and the proposed second floor windows. Mr. Sladek recommended that Mr. Prouty have a conversation regarding a possible redesign of the Willow Street side enclosed patio. Ms. Carson appreciated the revised design of the apartment building. Mr. Ernest noted that the industrial character of the area tells us as much about our history as do the houses and commercial buildings, and should be reflected. Ms. Zink noted that it would be best if the material of the apartments is different than the mill. Mr. Sladek noted that the increased horizontality and industrial character shown on these initial plans are important, and encouraged this direction. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:46 p.m. 7e. LPC Minutes December 12, 2012 - Excerpt Packet Pg. 203 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Work Session June 26, 2013 Minutes - Excerpt for Millhouse Apartments (259 Linden) Council Liaison: Gino Campana (970-460-6329) Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich (970-221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek SUMMARY OF MEETING: Discussion of the Old Town Historic District/River District Design Standards and Guidelines, Final Design Review of 201 South College Avenue, The Old Post Office replacement of lower-level windows and Consideration / Interpretation of LUC Section 3.4.7. SUMMARY OF WORK SESSION: Complimentary Design Review of 1400 Remington Street, Old Fort Collins High School rear addition for museum and Complimentary Design Review of 359 Linden Street, Feeder Supply Building additions and new construction. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: The Commission was called to order by Chair Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:31 p.m. at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Present were Ron Sladek, Doug Ernest, Dave Lingle, Pat Tvede, Belinda Zink, Maren Bzdek and Alexandra Wallace. Also present were Historic Preservation Planner Josh Weinberg and Amy Simmons, Staff Support. Not present, Commission Member Sondra Carson, whose absence was excused. ***Begin Excerpt*** COMPLIMENTARY DESIGN REVIEW: 259 LINDEN STREET, FEEDER SUPPLY BUILDING – ADDITIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION; JOHN PROUTY, PROJECT DEVELOPER: Mr. Lingle recused himself due to conflict of interest due to his work through design assistance with the project 8:21pm STAFF REPORT: Staff report presented by Mr. Josh Weinberg. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: John Prouty, project developer, presented updates on the project for the Commission. He showed pictures and packets with updates that have been made through suggestions from Dave Lingle, Dick Beardsmore, the State, the City and staff. Mr. Prouty spoke about the changes made to the windows based upon those suggestions. Another suggestion was to install a section of glass in to separate the feeder mill building and to have a brick face. Mr. Prouty explained the building setback areas, and said that as people come down Linden, he wanted them to have excellent view of not only the street front but the west side of the building. His focus was on connectivity for the lower level restaurants and businesses. Adding light in the second level was a question answered by adding windows to overlook internally into the project. Those windows are simplified and do not mimic historic windows. They consist of plain glass and are not ornamental. The Linden elevation has as indoor / outdoor patio that is now setback 10 feet, and has a combo gate feature. Mr. Prouty said, by pulling this back, they were able to create an opportunity for landscape which would also screen the indoor / outdoor patio. 7f. LPC Minutes June 26, 2013 - Excerpt Packet Pg. 204 There was a suggestion to increase the number of bays from 2 to 3 to enable lightening the whole structure by using less steel, which was used. Mr. Prouty wanted to use a grey concrete base, which would complement the history of the industrial setting and would also be an appropriate place for a loading dock. They were able to reduce mass by reducing the structural components. The landscape area has a dual purpose; it will hide fire sprinkler access and hide bio swales. He spoke about mill buildings in the City, in other cities and showed pictures of several examples. Mr. Prouty talked about the glass and steel tower and how that element would be used to get light through the tower. He stated that towers were a part of mills historically, and were both aesthetically useful and functional. This tower would be functional and useful as well. The plans are for an elevator, a stairway and bike / sports storage areas. Mr. Prouty said they have made huge efforts to work with the State, the City and wants to make this building elegant and fantastic. He asked for feedback and questions from the Commission. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Mr. Tvede does not like the red brick, factory look. She said she liked the eclectic look from before, but also commented that she liked the tower. Ms. Bzdek really liked the red brick. She asked for clarification as to why the recessed tower would not work. Mr. Prouty explained that it’s because the tower would be pushed into the courtyard. He also said the decks and windows would then be removed from the units facing the courtyard. Ms. Zink doesn’t think the tower should be recessed. She thinks the tower should be prominent. Mr. Sladek said the tower materials of glass and steel make the building more modern and he also liked the red brick. He said it was a “nod” to the other historic buildings like Harmony Mill, the Giddings Building and the little house across the street with open porch on the front. Those are all red brick. Are the balconies recessed too? Mr. Prouty answered yes, and Mr. Sladek liked the setback too. He asked Mr. Prouty about looking at other alternatives for the gable roof on the tower and suggested a flat or hip roof. Mr. Prouty said the challenge is to gain access to the elevator without using ugly roof access holes. If the ceiling is vaulted you can access the elevator without messing up the top of the roof, which Mr. Sladek said made sense. Mr. Ernest said three concerns have all been addressed from the previous meeting. He asked about the historic assessment is being done and wondered if it was for the whole structure. Mr. Weinberg said yes the assessment was for the whole structure, and was underway. Mr. Ernest commented on directional information in paperwork needing clarification (notations on each page northeast elevation, etc) and that he would like to see a site plan. Mr. Sladek said he is not hearing any push back or comments regarding the patios of divided bays and said there was good rationale behind it. He liked Mr. Prouty leaving one window on the northeast elevation and stated that he appreciated that Mr. Prouty listened to Commission. Mr. Sladek said the glass connector on the Linden side was a great idea and was very attractive. It is a clear connection and break between old and new. Ms. Zink said the windows on the Linden street addition need work. She said a segmented arch in a wall that isn’t masonry was “jarring.” She would put segmental arches in the masonry portion of the building. Mr. Sladek agreed with Ms. Zink, the arch is more typical of masonry openings. Ms. Zink also said the group of 4 casements is kind of “suburban” looking to her and doesn’t feel commercial. The storefront of the Feeder Supply is such a strong statement, very elegant in a commercial way and she said the link was good, but she felt it could be more commercial looking. Mr. Prouty explained the offset door function is for accessibility; however, it could be centered which might solve some issues for Ms. Zink. Mr. Weinberg suggested flanking it with windows to make it similar to a storefront. Mr. Sladek asked if that is something Mr. Prouty would like to try. Curb appeal is important Ms. Zink. Mr. Sladek said what he is hearing from the Commission is that the rest of the project looks good. ***End Excerpt*** 7f. LPC Minutes June 26, 2013 - Excerpt Packet Pg. 205