HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2018 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingLandmark Preservation Commission Hearing
Date: 3/21/18
Document Log
(Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.
These are posted online in the Supplemental Documents section for this meeting.)
DISCUSSION AGENDA:
1. 225 MAPLE STREET - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
• Updated Staff Presentation
• Updated Staff Report (updated directly in packet)
• Location Map
• Legal Description
2. 225 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL
• 2005-10-06 Determination of Eligibility
• 2018-02-21 Appeal Letter from Applicant
• Updated Staff Report (updated directly in packet)
3. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
• Updated Staff Report
• Updated Staff Presentation
• Updated Applicant Submittal
• Minutes Excerpt from the 5-14-2008 LPC Meeting
• Plans and Elevations from the 2016 LPC Review
4. OASIS ON OLIVE - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
• 2016 September 14 LPC Minutes - Olive Street Apts. Excerpt
• Updated Staff Report (updated directly in packet)
• Updated Staff Presentation
• Applicant Response to Work Session Requests (Drawings and
Elevations)
EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING:
Item # Exhibit # Description:
1 1 Updated Staff Presentation
1 2 New Sketch from Applicant
2 1 Updated Staff Presentation
2 2 Applicant Slides
DESCRIPTION OF TWO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENVELOPES
FOR 225 MAPLE STREET
TWO PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING LOCATED WITHIN LOTS 22, 23, 24
AND 25 BLOCK 32, TOWN OF FORT COLLINS AND WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHTS OF WAY
OF MAPLE STREET AND OF THE ADJACENT ALLEY; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 1, CIVIC CENTER OFFICE
BUILDING SUBDIVISION AND CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1 TO BEAR
S00°15'40"W AS SHOWN ON THE LAND SURVEY PLAT OF BLOCK 32 RECORDED MARCH
1, 2013 AT RECEPTION NO. 20130016329 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDER, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON BOTH ENDS BY A NAIL
AND ONE-INCH DIAMETER BRASS TAG STAMPED LS 14823, WITH ALL BEARINGS
CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE N88°24'45"W, A DISTANCE OF 19. 75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S00°20'21"W, A DISTANCE OF 75.97 FEET;
THENCE N89°39'20"W, A DISTANCE OF 40.20 FEET;
THENCE N00°24'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 75.95 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS
POINT"A";
THENCE S89°41'21"E, A DISTANCE OF 40.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2:
COMMENCING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A";
THENCE N88°42'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 25.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 27.45 FEET;
THENCE N89°26'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 24.42 FEET;
THENCE N00°43'36"E, A DISTANCE OF 27.32 FEET;
THENCE S89°45'35"E, A DISTANCE OF 24.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCELS CONTAIN A TOTAL 3,719 SQUARE FEET (0.070 ACRES), MORE OR LESS,
AND ARE SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT
NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND.
IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS DESCRIPTION THAT ALL HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE
BUILDINGS BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCELS.
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE
AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND
OPINION.
JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522
S:\Englneerlng\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\Historic Pres Blocks 32&42\
Legals\Foco Cafe Bldg lgl.doc
ITEM 1, LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Page 1 of 2
l
j
g ~
ID
U)
~
0..
C)
ir
~
~
8,
~
~
C) g ~
ID
U) w
ll'.
0..
C)
ir
~
~
I 'lil 0 ".. '
j
ID
~
0..
g, I :<I: )
c
:a
ii:
in
i
i i e' ~
~
'C i
i "i
! &~ j
EXHIBIT OF
TWO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENVELOPES FOR 225 MAPLE STREET, LOCATED IN
BLOCK 32, TOWN OF FORT COLLINS AND IN THE EXISTING RIGHTS OF WAY
OF MAPLE STREET AND OF THE ADJACENT ALLEY
N
APRIL 14, 2017
1"=30'
THIS EXHIBIT'S SOLE INTENT IS TO
GRAPHICAl.l.Y REPRESENT AND
AUGMENT THE ATTACHED PROPERlY
DESCRIPTION. IT DOES NOT
REPRESENT A MONUMENTED LAND
SURVEY AS DEFINED IN C.R.S.
38-51-102. IN THE EVENT OF
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS
EXHIBIT AND THE ATTACHED
PROPERlY DESCRIPTION, THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE
ATTACHED PROPERlY DESCRIPTION
SHOULD BE RELIED UPON.
MAPLE STREET
Maple Street
Howes Street
0 40 80 160 240
Feet ±
Mason Street
ITEM 1, LOCATION MAP
1
Conceptual Design Review – 225 Maple Street
The Continental Oil Company Property
Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018
Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner
225 Maple St. – Continental Oil Company
• Applicant: Mallory Andrews, FoCo Cafe
• Designation includes footprint of historic
warehouse/office building, oldest part of
shop/garage building, and pumphouse
Proposed Work:
• Awning system for east elevation/facade
2
ITEM 1, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
225 Maple Street
3
225 Maple Street
4
ITEM 1, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
225 Maple Street – Proposed Plans
5
225 Maple Street – Proposed Plans
6
ITEM 1, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
225 Maple Street – Proposed Plans
7
Role of the LPC
• Evaluate the revised option presented for Conceptual Review in
accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Chapter 14 of Municipal Code
• Not ready for Final Design Review
8
ITEM 1, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
9
Conceptual Design Review – 225 Maple Street
The Continental Oil Company Property
Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018
Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner
Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work”
(1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural
character of the landmark or landmark district;
(2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and
proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the
district;
(3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior
characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done;
(4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation
and use of the landmark or landmark district; and
(5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the
United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation,
reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work
would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation.
10
ITEM 1, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Sect of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
11
Sect of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design,
color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated
from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would
be unimpaired.
12
ITEM 1, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
ITEM 1, EXHIBIT 2
New Sketch Presented by
Applicant at Hearing
ITEM 2, 2005 DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
ITEM 2, 2018 APPEAL LETTER FROM APPLICANT
1
Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission 03.21.2018
225 South Loomis Avenue, Appeal—
Landmark Designation Eligibility
Background and History
2
• Construction Date: 1924
• Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS)
Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair
Review:
• Property was determined individually eligible as a Fort Collins
Landmark under Standard C:
• Design/Construction - Interesting example of a vernacular
cottage with Colonial Revival features, all 7 aspects of integrity
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Location and Context
3
Context - 200 Block of South Loomis
4
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Context - 200 Block of South Loomis
5
Context - Columns
6
331 S Loomis
331 S Loomis
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Context - Columns
7
816 W Oak 822 W Oak
Context - Columns
8
813 W Oak 629 W Mountain
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
225 S Loomis Ave
East Elevation, 2018
225 S Loomis Ave
North Elevation, 2018
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
225 S Loomis Ave
West Elevation, 2018
225 S Loomis Ave
South Elevation, 2018
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
225 S Loomis Ave
Garage, 2018
225 S Loomis Ave
Garage, 2018
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Column Detail Photographs
15
Column Detail Photographs
16
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Column Detail Photographs
17
Relevant Codes and Processes
Section 14-5, ““Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and
districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” provides
framework for making the determination of eligibility.
Eligibility is
• Significance
• Exterior Integrity
• Context
18
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Relevant Codes and Processes
Significance is…
• Events
• Groups/People
• Design/Construction
• Information Potential
19
Relevant Codes and Processes
20
Exterior Integrity is…
• Location
• Design
• Setting
• Materials
• Workmanship
• Feeling
• Association
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
National Register Criteria for Evaluation
The framework for processing applications is established in the National Park Service
Bulletin 15, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.”
Standard A/B:
• Location
• Setting
• Materials
•Design
Standard C:
• Materials
•Design
• Workmanship
21
Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission
• Based on the appeal process outlined in Section 14-6(b), the Commission must
determine whether 225 S Loomis Avenue is individually eligible.
• This is a new determination of eligibility based on provided evidence from the initial
review and the new evidence in form of the letter from the appellant.
• The Commission should use the above criteria from Section 14-5 to make that
determination.
22
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Appeal of Decisions
Sec. 14-9. - Appeal of decisions.
Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the City
Council as set forth in §2-46et seq., unless otherwise provided. Any action taken in
reliance upon any decision of the Commission that is subject to appeal under the
provisions of this Chapter shall be at the sole risk of the person(s) taking such action, and
the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said
period of time.
23
24
Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission 03.21.2018
225 South Loomis Avenue, Appeal—
Landmark Designation Eligibility
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Relevant Codes and Processes
Section 14-5, “Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and
districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” includes the
following information regarding determinations of eligibility.
“Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In
making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall
be considered.
(1) 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.
Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized
by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how
properties are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or
construction, or for their information potential.”
25
Relevant Codes and Processes
“(2) Standards for determining significance:
a. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with
events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of
the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of 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.
b. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are 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.”
26
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Relevant Codes and Processes
“c. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody
the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the
work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its
characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part
of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such
disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and
artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the
way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later
period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of
time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within
a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic
values.
d. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have
yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.”
27
Relevant Codes and Processes
“(3) 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 established by the U.S. Department of
Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling
and association. All seven (7) 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.
(4) Standards for determining exterior integrity:
a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the
historic event occurred.
b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and
style of a property.”
28
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Relevant Codes and Processes
“c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to
the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the
character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its
relationship to the surrounding features and open space.
d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property.
e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill
in constructing or altering a building, structure or site.
f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period
or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the
property's historic character.”
29
Relevant Codes and Processes
“g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity
occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling,
association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic
character.”
30
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Relevant Codes and Processes
(5) Context. The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the
type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block
could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house
located on a corner may require a different contextual area...”
31
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 1
UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 2
Appellant Slides Presented at Hearing
Page 1 of 4
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 2
Appellant Slides Presented at Hearing
Page 2 of 4
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 2
Appellant Slides Presented at Hearing
Page 3 of 4
ITEM 2, EXHIBIT 2
Appellant Slides Presented at Hearing
Page 4 of 4
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
May 14, 2008 Minutes
Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393)
Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376)
Commission Chairperson: Earen Russell
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order by Vice-Chairperson Ian
Shuff with a quorum present at 5:37 p.m. at 281 N. College Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. John
Albright, Terence Hoaglund, and Bud Frick were present. Earen Russell and Alan Ballou were
excused. Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director, and Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner,
represented City Staff.
***BEGIN EXCERPT FOR 252 E. MOUNTAIN COMPLEMENTARY REVIEW***
COMPLIMENTARY REVIEW:
• 252 E. Mountain Avenue, Proposed New Multi-Use Building Requiring Variances
for Height and Setback; Bruce Hendee, BHA Design, Inc., and Bob Hosanna, The
Neenan Company, Presenters
Mr. Shuff had a conflict of interest, and turned the Chair over to Mr. Frick. He remained in the
room to provide a quorum. The Commission held a brief recess from 6:31 - 6:43.
Ms. McWilliams introduces the project. This is a complimentary review of a proposed multi-use
building, planned for 252 E. Mountain Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Old Town Historic
District. The Landmark Preservation Commission does not have preview over projects not
touching designated buildings. However, due to this project’s proximity to, and potential to
affect the character of, the Historic Old Town National Register District and Fort Collins
Landmark District, the applicant has requested Commission input. The proposed project would be
located in the Downtown District/Old City Center Subdistrict Zone. Subject to Basis
Development Review, the project would need to meet all applicable Land Use Code standards,
including Section 3.4.7, “Historic and Cultural Resources.” The maximum allowable height in
this district is four stories of no more than 56 feet in height, with the fourth story setback at a 35˚
angle. The applicants are proposing a 4-5story building of 70± feet in height, and a variance of
the setback requirement. Both the increased height and the reduction of setback will require
variances. Situated at the triangular corner formed by Mountain Avenue and Walnut Street, the
proposed new building will be located adjacent to the 2-story Food Coop/EDAW building on
Mountain Avenue, and the 2-story Forrester/Seckner Block along Walnut Street. The project will
involve the demolition of two existing buildings, a two story white painted building at 252 E.
Mountain, next to the Food Coop. building, and a Tudor style insurance building at 262 E.
Mountain. Both of these buildings were constructed in the early 1970s, and do not have historical
or architectural significance. Ms. McWilliams stated that the LPC wouldn’t be taking any formal
action, but providing comments.
Mr. Hosanna provided more specifications about the project, stating that it’s a 5-story,
40,000 sq. ft. mixed-use building, with retail on the first floor and office space above, no
residential. It will contain a private parking garage under the building, with possibly 10-12
spaces, reserved for a potential tenant. Mr. Hendee thanked the Commission and stated that
they’re looking forward to their input. He said that although the building is a little out of the
ordinary, the intent is to create a first class building that becomes a statement for the gateway into
downtown. Mr. Hendee has a very well-known and respected corporate client currently in the
downtown area, that is expanding their business and wants to continue to grow here. They want
to make a statement that is really for the long term benefit to the city and to create the history of
ITEM 3, 2008 5-14 LPC MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 1 of 4
Landmark Preservation Commission
May 14, 2008 Meeting
Page 2 of 4
tomorrow. Mr. Hendee then presented a Power Point presentation of the project and renderings
not in the packet prepared for this meeting. He also discussed that they are requesting variances
on height and set back standards. Mr. Hendee explained the challenge of the existing site which
is only10,000 sq. ft. Losing 15 feet on each side due to the setbacks on Mountain and Walnut
makes developing floor plans very difficult. Mr. Hosanna said that one of the challenges is that,
in a typical rectangular site, the setback is only on one side, but this is a two-sided setback,
making it very difficult to find enough space in the triangle shape for an office setting. He
mentioned that they typically work with ratios of about 15-85 unusable-usable space, and with the
current zoning restrictions, it reduces the floor plate to ratios closer to 35-65, making it difficult to
justify the shape and size. Mr. Hendee noted they would align lentils and cornices so they reflect
the same street scale. He pointed out the pedestrian passageway to Walnut street, which would
also allow people to see the ghost sign that is on the side of the Food Co-op building. They are
proposing to use sandstone and brick for the building, as well as high quality materials for the
awnings. The building will be in the Flatiron style, with setbacks on the third floor, and the
rounded corner will glow at night to be an icon of the downtown area. It will be pedestrian
friendly. Although it will be a large structure in a historical area, it still can be effective.
Mr. Hoaglund commented that he loves the different massings and the rounded corner,
but is concerned about the overall height and said that by itself it will really stand out. He thinks
we will be seeing similar heights proposed for additional buildings in the future. Mr. Albright
stated that he is very concerned that we are going to variance ourselves into a forest of tall
buildings. It’s the sheer scale and mass that bothers him and would overshadow Old Town. He
mentioned the 9-story hotel/convention center, and thinks that variance after variance is going to
result in Old Town being held hostage by big buildings. He doesn’t understand why this building
has to be as tall as projected, but otherwise thinks it is very friendly and interesting. Mr. Hosanna
explained that the size of the project is driven by the need of the tenant, and it comes down to the
business model for the project. It is about economic vitality, their interest in downtown, and their
plans for what Fort Collins can become. The eastern side of College Avenue, and the
development there, was not necessarily the most desirable to people living here when that
happened, but their property values went up in spite of their opposition. Mr. Hendee reiterated
that it’s a triangular site, the only corner lot like that outside of the Northern Hotel, and thought it
wouldn’t be necessary to ask for variances if this was a rectangular site. He isn’t sure that they
are setting a precedent with this variances for this building. Mr. Albright stated his concerns for
the impact on aesthetics and the history/heritage of Old Town, and that Old Town should be the
driver for new development, not new development overshadowing Old Town. Mr. Hendee said
they are trying to modulate and reduce that sense of mass. Mr. Albright is concerned that the
Armadillo site will also request a variance for a building that is bigger yet, resulting in Old Town
huddling behind a fortresses of large buildings around it. Old Town is the heart of Fort Collins,
as frequently cited in recognitions, studies and awards the city has received.
Public Input: Nick Michell, a citizen and an engineer, stated that the rendering seems
like it has an overhang and thought if they could get rid of that it would make the side look less
enormous. Mr. Hosanna described the setback from the street, and they have it broken up as best
we can, with stair step/wedding cake style to get masses to play off a smaller scale. Mr. Hendee,
Mr. Hosanna and Mr. Albright all agreed that removing the overhang might help de-emphasize
the height to the eye. Mr. Hosanna thinks that the code-compliant building that would be allowed
is problematic, because, if designed to meet their space needs, there would be no windows
allowed on the west side. Mr. Hosanna believes that they could lose their client based on the
western view or lack thereof.
Mr. Murray said he is concerned about the designated buildings. In the examples of
Flatiron buildings the applicants provided, the triangle part is the outstanding part of the building
ITEM 3, 2008 5-14 LPC MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 2 of 4
Landmark Preservation Commission
May 14, 2008 Meeting
Page 3 of 4
examples, whereas on this building, the big overhang, which reminds him of the fortresses of
Home Depot/Wal-Mart, overwhelms what could be a really pretty building. Mr. Albright was
curious as to why those towers on top are visually so strong/powerful? Mr. Hosanna explained
that those are part of the roof screen that hide the mechanical units which are 8 ft. tall, 40 ft. long,
for the elevators. They have to be near stair towers, due to the sound transfer and duct work.
These pieces can be pushed back off the façade and the size taken back. Mr. Albright mentioned
the parking need and was concerned due to the demand it could create. Mr. Hendee said that the
DDA is evolving a master strategy for downtown parking, and that the Remington parking
structure across the street usually has parking available.
Susan Hoskinson owned a building in historic downtown when the historic district was
put into place in 1977. Although she no longer owns the building, she has a strong feeling about
this particular area. At that time, the people who struggled to get that designation were also
business owners who had a strong feeling about how it would grow and develop. As one of the
first LPC members, she approved the final plan for Old Town Square in October 1983. She left
town, and it was built when she came back. Historic structures and buildings, even outside of the
historic districts, have a very strong impact on the heart of what we were trying to preserve, in
1977 and again in 1983, when we worked with a developer to enhance the Old Town area, and it
has been enhanced. Driving east on Maple, she passed a four-story building, and she thought that
it was huge! And she thought it hits you in the face, and now we’re talking even more massing for
a much smaller triangular area. She compared it to the county courthouse and asked that
everyone look at those buildings and translate that into the mass they’ll see in this part of town.
The courthouse is six stories; whereas this at five stories is not quite as tall, it still really adversely
impacts the Old Town district as a historic district. She thought it could be scaled down, more in
keeping with the size of the Linden Hotel and the new building with the dress shop and offices on
what used to be Linden Street in the Old Town square. She asked that the developers compromise
so as not, in the long run, to create something that is not really Fort Collins.
Myrne Watrous, a citizen who spends more money north of Prospect than south of it,
mentioned that if she was driving in off I-25, she would think the proposed building looks like the
Great Wall of China, and she would have no idea that Old Town and Old Town square lie beyond
it. She would think “Is that all there is?” and go back where she came from. She also thought the
slide that showed the proposed development east of Mountain was scary. She thinks requesting
variances for height and setbacks is a terrible precedent to make, and at 70+ feet, the building is
actually higher than the courthouse. Although she thinks the architecture is great, this is the
wrong place for this building. She mentioned that we need to think of the economic importance
of downtown, which is one of the rare bright spots in the city’s economic picture. Old Town is a
big draw for residents and tourists alike, and zoning ordinances are put there for a purpose.
Mr. Frick summarized the comments: that the proposed building is too big, and too tall,
in height and in stories. He clarified that the mechanical screens are 5-6 ft taller than the 70 foot
estimate. He said that it has great street architecture, wonderful massing, use of materials,
windows, setbacks, various facades opposite of each other, and it’s on a very prominent corner.
The city fathers who set up the height and setback restrictions did it right, as they were intending
to protect what’s already in Old Town rather than allowing monoliths to surround it. It is a
gorgeous building but the height needs to drop to where it’s supposed to be, then it’ll fit well in
the context of Old Town as a new building and anchor, but not something that takes over the
jewel of Old Town.
Mr. Hosanna asked if there is any flexibility in the 35 degree setback, if the stair
tower/elevator shafts can be extended beyond that without a variance. Mr. Frank said that he will
find the answer for him. Mr. Frick suggested taking the top two levels of the building and
cropping them out.
ITEM 3, 2008 5-14 LPC MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 3 of 4
Landmark Preservation Commission
May 14, 2008 Meeting
Page 4 of 4
Mr. Shuff took over the duties as chairperson.
***END EXCERPT***
Respectfully submitted by
Rebecca LaPole, Temp
ITEM 3, 2008 5-14 LPC MINUTES EXCERPT
Page 4 of 4
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Elevations
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
View Looking Southwest
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 1 of 9
View Looking Southeast
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Elevations
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 2 of 9
North Elevation Keynote Materials List
01-Stone Veneer
02-Brick veneer, color-1
03-Brick veneer, color-2
04-Storefront glazing system
05-Composite metal panel #1
06-Metal panel RTU screen
07-Pre-finished steel canopy
08-Signage
09-Pre-finished metal parapet cap
10-Pre-finished horizontal aluminum fins
11-CMU Block
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Elevations
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 3 of 9
East Elevation Keynote Materials List
01-Stone Veneer
02-Brick veneer, color-1
03-Brick veneer, color-2
04-Storefront glazing system
05-Composite metal panel #1
06-Metal panel RTU screen
07-Pre-finished steel canopy
08-Signage
09-Pre-finished metal parapet cap
10-Pre-finished horizontal aluminum fins
11-CMU Block
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Elevations
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 4 of 9
South Elevation Keynote Materials List
01-Stone Veneer
02-Brick veneer, color-1
03-Brick veneer, color-2
04-Storefront glazing system
05-Composite metal panel #1
06-Metal panel RTU screen
07-Pre-finished steel canopy
08-Signage
09-Pre-finished metal parapet cap
10-Pre-finished horizontal aluminum fins
11-CMU Block
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Elevations
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 5 of 9
West Elevation Keynote Materials List
01-Stone Veneer
02-Brick veneer, color-1
03-Brick veneer, color-2
04-Storefront glazing system
05-Composite metal panel #1
06-Metal panel RTU screen
07-Pre-finished steel canopy
08-Signage
09-Pre-finished metal parapet cap
10-Pre-finished horizontal aluminum fins
11-CMU Block
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Elevations
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 6 of 9
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Elevations
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
East Elevation with Mathews Context
143 Mathews 137 Mathews 133 Mathews Alley 221 Mountain
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 7 of 9
Concept 1:October 2013 Concept 2:January
2014
Concept 3: June 2014 Concept 4:August 2014
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Design Evolution
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 8 of 9
Site Aerial
11 Old Town Square
3 & 5 Old Town Square
145 East Mountain
Old Town Parking Deck
137 Mathews Street 133 Mathews Street
303 East Mountain
262 East Mountain
221
East Mountain Ave.
Walnut St.
Mathews St.
Remington St.
221 East Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Context
Landmark Preservation 06.27.16
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 9 of 9
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
3$5$3(7
+,*+522)
/2:522)
&25(522)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( ( ( (
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
( (
(
(
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
3$5$3(7
+,*+522)
/2:522)
&25(522)
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
3$5$3(7
6+((7180%(5
%$6,&'(9(/230(17
5(9,(:
'$7(
352-(&712
'$7( 5(9 5(0$5.6 '5:1 &+.' $359'
%$6,&'(9(/230(175(9,(:
/276%/2&.72:12))257&2///,16/2&$7(',17+(6287+:(6748$57(52)6(&7,2172:16+,31257+5$1*( :(672)7+(7+35,1&,3$/0(5,',$1
&,7<2))257&2//,16&2817<25/$5,0(567$7(2)&2/25$'2
$33/,&$172:1(5
0$9'HYHORSPHQW
6RXWK6WDWH&RPPRQV
6RXWK6WDWH6WUHHW6XLWH
$QQ$UERU0,
S
$5&+,7(&7
'$9,63$571(56+,3$5&+,7(&76
%ODNH6WUHHW6XLWH
'HQYHU&2
S
&,9,/(1*,1((5
$63(1(1*,1((5,1*
2OG7RZQ6TXDUH
6XLWH
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
S
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
%+$'(6,*1,1&25325$7('
2DNULGJH'ULYH
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
3
(/(&75,&$/(1*,1((5
0$;621(1*,1((5,1*
6KDIIHU3DUNZD\6XLWH
/LWWOHWRQ&2
S
6859(<25
1257+(51(1*,1((5,1*
6RXWK&ROOHJH$YHQXH6XLWH
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
S
%8,/',1*5(1'(5,1*6
($6702817$,1$9(18(
RI
($6702817$,1
$9(18(
($6702817$,1$9(18(%$6,&'(9(/230(175(9,(:
$XWKRU &KHFNHU $SSURYHU
($6702817,$1$9(18(
)257&2//,16&2
$XWKRU &KHFNHU $SSURYHU
%'568%0,77$/
%'5&200(1765(68%0,77$/
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 3 of 3
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
0$7+(:6675((7
($6702817$,1$9(
:$/187675((7
5(0,1*721675((7
($672$.675((7
6,7(
1
KůĚdŽǁŶĞŶƚĞƌ
&ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞ͕ŝǀ͘ϰ͘ϭϲ
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 1 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
&2//(*($9(
:$/187675((7
0$7+(:6675((7
(02817$,1$9(
9,&,1,7<6,7(3/$1
1
6,7(
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 2 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
&2//(*($9(
:$/187675((7
0$7+(:6675((7
(02817$,1$9(
1(,*+%25+22'&217(;7
1
6,7(
+,6725,&2/'72:1',675,&7
7+(0,7&+(//%/2&.
&,7<RI)257&2//,16
3$5.,1**$5$*(
7+(0F,17<5(+286(
)52=(1)22'&(17(5%8,/',1*
7+($5025<
7+(+20(67$7(%$1.%8,/',1*
7+((/,=$%(7++27(/
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 3 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
&KZdK>>/E^>Eh^ K ͕^ ͘ϯ͘ϰ͘ϳͲ,/^dKZ/Eh>dhZ>Z ^KhZ ^
9,(:210$7+(:6675((7
&ZK E&KK Ed Z >> z ϮϮϭ ͘DKhEd/E
+25,=217$/5()(5(1&(/,1(6
7+(
:,'7+2)7+()52=(1)22'&(17(5
%8,/',1*,6(48$/727+($5&+,7(&785$/
0$66,1*(/(0(1721(02817$,1
:,1'2:3523257,216
$5(6,08/$5#5'
7+)/2256
7+(0F,17<5(+286( )52=(1)22'&(17(5%8,/',1*
5'$1'7+)/225
0$66,1*,65('8&('
725()(5(1&(60$//(56&$/(
6758&785(6727+(
6287+
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 4 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
9,(:)5201257+($67
9,(:)5206287+($67
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 5 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
9,(:)5201257+($67
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 6 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
1257+(/(9$7,21
($67(/(9$7,21
(/(9
6(&21')/225
(/(9
*5281'/(9(/),567)/225
(/(9
7+,5')/225
(/(9
)2857+)/225
(/(9
522)'(&.
(/(9
6(&21')/225
(/(9
*5281'/(9(/),567)/225
(/(9
7+,5')/225
(/(9
)2857+)/225
(/(9
522)'(&.
$5&+,7(&785$/0(7$/
3$1(/635(),1,6+('
0(7$/+($'(563$,17(' 6721(9(1((5 6721(9(1((5
3/$17(5%2;
352326('6,*1$*(
/2&$7,21
%5,&.9(1((5
&2/25
%5,&.9(1((5
&2/25
&(0(17,7,2863$1(/
60227+35(),1,6+('
;3$1(/667$&.
%21'
*/$665$,/7<3
$7%$/&21,(6
$5&+,7(&785$/0(7$/
3$1(/635(),1,6+('
6721(9(1((5
352326('6,*1$*(
/2&$7,21
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
:(67(/(9$7,21
6287+(/(9$7,21
(/(9
6(&21')/225
(/(9
*5281'/(9(/),567)/225
(/(9
7+,5')/225
(/(9
)2857+)/225
(/(9
522)'(&.
678&&2),1,6+
&2/25720$7&+&(0(17,7,286
3$1(/6$%29(
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 8 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
D Ed/d/hK^t>>WE >͕ƉƌĞĨŝŶŝƐŚĞĚ Z,/d dhZ>D d>WE >^͕ƉƌĞĨŝŶŝƐŚĞĚ
ŽůŽƌĂĚŽƵĨĨ^ĂŶĚƐƚŽŶĞ ƌŝĐŬ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ ƌŝĐŬ^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 9 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
6,7(3/$1
5(6,'(17$/(175$1&(
($6702817$,1$9(
($6702817$,1$9(
(;,67,1*$//(<:$<
(;,67,1*
3$5.,1*
6758&785(
:($60(17
*$5$*((175<
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 10 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
$ % & ' ( ) *
$
72%(9(5,),('
3523(57</,1(
:$7(5(175<
),5(3803
%2267(53803
612:0(/7&21752/6
5220
1
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
)8785(.,7&+(1
/2&$7,21
)8785(5(675220/2&$7,216
0$,/%2;(6
5(48,5('(;,7
)520*$5$*(/(9(/
(;,67,1*75$16)250(5
72%(5(/2&$7('
52:
52:
'2:1
:&21&5(7(
$3521#7232)5$03
Z52//836(&85,7<*$7(
83
5,6(
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
83
5,6(
'1
5,6(
'2:1
5,6(
83
5,6(
/(1*7+2)',$*21$/
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
23(1$%29(
83
5,6(
'1
5,6(
'2:1
5,6(
83
5,6(
%('5220
%('5220
%('5220
%('5220 %('5220
%('5220
%('5220
%('5220Z'(1
%('5220
%('5220 %('5220
64)7*5266 $3352;
0(&+&+$6(
(/(&75,&$/&+$6(
(/(9
(/(&7&/26(7
0(&+&+$6(
(;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(
7+,5')/2253/$1
%('5220
%('5220Z'(1
75$6+50
'277('/,1(,1',&$7(6
+55$7(':$//6
$ % & ' ( ) *
$
1
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 14 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
83
5,6(
'1
5,6(
'2:1
5,6(
83
5,6(
%('5220
%('5220
%('5220
%('5220Z'(1 %('5220
%('5220
%('5220
%('5220Z'(1
%('5220 %('5220
64)7*5266 $3352;
23(1
72
%(/2:
(/(9
(;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(
0(&+&+$6( (/(&75,&$/&/26(7
(/(&75,&$/&+$6(
5$,/,1*#23(1,1* &+$6(
%('5220
%('5220
%('5220
75$6+50
)2857+)/2253/$1
'277('/,1(,1',&$7(6
+55$7(':$//6
$ % & ' ( ) *
$
1
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 15 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
62/$5$55$</2&$7,21
522)3/$1
'1
5,6(
'1
5,6(
+0(&+$1,&$/
6&5((1
0(&+$1,&$/81,767+,6$5($
5(6,'
(/(9
'2*581
522)7233/$=$
;
6.</,*+76
7<3RI
'2*:$6+67$77,21
7+,6$5($+26(%,%
5(48,5('
287'225.,7&+(1
7+,6$5($
:$7(56285&(5(48,5('
48$5'5$,/7<3,&$/#
('*(2)3/$=$
+)(1&(7<3,&$/
$73(5,0(7(5
2)'2*581
(;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(
$ % & ' ( ) *
$
522)7233/$=$
1
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 16 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
$(5,$/9,(:)5201257+($67
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 17 of 18
($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21
9,(:)5206287+($67
9,(:)5201257+($67
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 18 of 18
1
221 East Mountain – Conceptual Development Review
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018
Project Summary
• Historic Core Subdistrict of the Downtown (D) District
• Half-acre lot at 221 East Mountain Avenue (former location of
Goodyear Tire)
• Fronts East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest
corner (alleys to west and south)
• 4-story mixed-use: office, retail and residential uses
• Single-level parking structure below grade
• Approximate square footage, including garage = 90,172 square feet
2
ITEM 3, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 1 of 6
3
4
ITEM 3, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 2 of 6
Area of Adjacency
5
137/143 Mathews
6
300 E. Oak 210 E. Oak
ITEM 3, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 3 of 6
Area of Adjacency
7
238/240 E Mountain
250 E Mountain
Area of Adjacency
8
ITEM 3, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 4 of 6
Requested at Work Session
From Applicant:
• Explanation of compliance with 3.4.7(f)(2) – visual ties, window patterns,
alignment of horizontal elements between buildings
• Details on dimensions and application of building materials
• Show alternate design with stepback abutting 133 Mathews
From Staff:
• Updated area of adjacency map/list
• Elevations and site plan from former plans, approved by LPC on 7-13-16
• Minutes from 2008 complimentary review of Mitchell Block plans (252 E
Mountain)
9
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
10
ITEM 3, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 5 of 6
11
221 East Mountain – Conceptual Development Review
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner
Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018
ITEM 3, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 6 of 6
City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 14, 2016
Ron Sladek, Chair
Doug Ernest, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Meg Dunn City Hall West
Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue
Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado
Per Hogestad
Dave Lingle Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 and
Alexandra Wallace 881 (HD) on the Comcast cable system
Belinda Zink
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Meeting
September 14, 2016
Minutes – Excerpt for Olive Street Apartments
• CALL TO ORDER
Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.
• ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Sladek
ABSENT: Zink, Wallace, Gensmer
STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager
***BEGIN EXCERPT HERE***
5. OLIVE STREET APARTMENTS - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual comments on his proposal to construct a
three-story multi-family building of approximately 7400 sq. ft. on the rear
portions of the lots at 227 and 231 South Howes. The property at 231 South
Howes is a Fort Collins Landmark, designated by Ordinance No. 191, 1998.
The landmark property, historically known as the Humphrey/Davis House,
contains an Italianate house, designated for both its architectural and
historical significance, and a two bay shingle-clad garage, which is not part of
the landmark designation. This garage is proposed to be demolished.
APPLICANT: Stephen Slezak, This Old Howes, LLC, 561 S. York Street, Denver, CO
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
ITEM 4, 2016 SEPTEMBER 14 LPC MINUTES
(OLIVE STREET APTARTMENTS EXCERPT)
City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 14, 2016
Staff Report
Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, including a description of the proposed project,
background information, a description of the property and its history, and an overview of the review
criteria.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Slezak gave a presentation discussing the plans for the property. He stated he owns several
historic structures in the area and that this project is designed to provide a transition between the 6-
story Cortina project and other structures on the block. He discussed the proposed parking situation
and noted underground parking was not financially feasible for only 7 units. Proposed materials are
stucco, brick and sandstone.
Public Input
None.
Commission Questions and Discussion
Ms. Dunn asked if the house next door on Olive is brick. Mr. Slezak replied in the affirmative. Ms.
Dunn commended the inclusion of brick in the project design. She stated she is comfortable with the
massing and scale of the project as well.
Mr. Frick agreed the building is nice; however, he asked about the vertical light tower at the corner of
the stairway seeming a bit post-modern in the midst of historic structures. He also questioned the
eyebrow over the parking entrance. He suggested the garage height could be brought down to match
the garage to the left. Mr. Slezak replied that could be examined; however, at Conceptual Review,
the fire department expressed concern about a path of access. If that is not needed for access, the
height could drop slightly.
Chair Sladek stated he likes this design more than the previous proposal and disagreed with Mr. Frick
about the window tower and garage entrance. He referred back to the Code, noting the possibility
that the integrity of the two historic buildings could be damaged by changing their backyard settings.
Mr. Slezak discussed the history of the subdivision of the lots.
Mr. Lingle asked about the previous conceptual design during which many of the comments seemed
to address the impacts on 316 West Olive. Ms. McWilliams replied this hearing only addresses a
conceptual design review for an historic building; therefore, 231 South Howes is the only building
under consideration at this point.
Mr. Lingle stated the design is quite compact and has a minimal impact as viewed from Olive.
Mr. Hogestad questioned several elements of the design, including floating panels, the eyebrow over
the garage entrance, long slot windows, corner windows, and other elements., including the large
monument piece with the 312 on it. He stated the design needs to be reined in without losing the nice
articulation of the entire space. He suggested the post-modern elements be eliminated but stated the
building does seem to fit comfortably in the space.
Mr. Frick stated he would like to see renditions of the project from Olive looking back at it and
expressed concern it would be a flat wall looming above two one-story buildings.
Ms. Dunn stated she likes the large 312 piece which gives a sense of a front door. Mr. Hogestad
argued the element does not help the building from an historic standpoint.
Ms. Dunn asked if there is lawn between the 312 entrance piece and the garage. Mr. Slezak replied
it is a patio area.
Ms. Dunn asked if the building is on stilts on the west side. Mr. Slezak replied in the affirmative and
stated there is a unit on the main floor.
Ms. Dunn asked about the drive-through section next to the house on Olive. Mr. Hogestad agreed
the stilts do not make the building feel grounded, as most historic buildings do. He suggested
exploring some type of screening.
Mr. Lingle stated he does not have a problem with the design as proposed but noted screening will be
required per the Land Use Code. Additionally, Mr. Lingle supported the 312 entrance element.
ITEM 4, 2016 SEPTEMBER 14 LPC MINUTES
(OLIVE STREET APTARTMENTS EXCERPT)
City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 14, 2016
Chair Sladek noted the Commission needs to consider the essential question of review criteria and
what the effect of the building might be on the landmark status of the adjacent building, and not try to
redesign the building.
Mr. Hogestad argued details are always important and stated many of the building’s windows have no
bearing on historic context. He stated the mass and bulk of the building does fit the context; however,
the pattern and stylistic elements of the building will make or break the project.
Ms. Dunn stated the mass and scale are compatible with the situation and do not detract from the
landmarked property.
Mr. Frick stated this project will introduce housing in areas where many historic buildings are now
businesses. He agreed the mass and bulk are compatible but questioned the eyebrow.
Chair Sladek agreed the mass and overall bulk of the building is not inappropriate for the area.
Mr. Slezak argued the west elevation with multiple balconies is attractive and suggested Ms.
McWilliams could provide those images to the Commission. He stated he would like some indication
from the Commission as to whether or not the project will be supported. Chair Sladek stated there is
a general level of comfort with the project. He added that while the question regarding whether or not
building in this location is appropriate still exists, he has not heard any opposition to the project in
general expressed by the Commission.
***END EXCERPT HERE***
ITEM 4, 2016 SEPTEMBER 14 LPC MINUTES
(OLIVE STREET APTARTMENTS EXCERPT)
Item 2; Overhead view of tower from east
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 1 of 11
Item 2; view of tower from
Northeast
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 2 of 11
Item 2; View of tower from Southeast overhead
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 3 of 11
Item 2; View of tower from East
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 4 of 11
Item 3; Overhead view of building footprint with surrounding historic buildings
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 5 of 11
Item 5; Perspective from SW elevation
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 6 of 11
Item 5; Overhead view of West elevation
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 7 of 11
Representation of Shingle siding that
would be used on building elevations
where the renderings indicate a ‘dark’
product, specifically the ‘bump out’
elements on the front & rear elevations.
These shingles would NOT be intended
for use on the Tower as shown on
original renderings, to be modified &
updated prior to final hearing.
This image depicts the shingle siding
element on a ‘bump out’ . While this
is much more elaborate, the intension
of the Oasis on Olive would be to use
this type of feature sparingly on the
front & rear elevations.
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 8 of 11
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 9 of 11
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 10 of 11
ITEM 4, APPLICANT RESPONSE
Page 11 of 11
1
Oasis on Olive – Conceptual Development Review
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager
Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018
Project Summary
• 3-story multi family residential project with 7 units
• Addressed as 312 W. Olive
• Located behind 227 S. Howes and 231 S. Howes Street
• New lot created from rear portions of these lots
2
ITEM 4, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 1 of 4
Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission
• Establish an Area of Adjacency for Review
• Provide conceptual review comments related to the
proposed project’s compliance with Land Use Code
Section 3.4.7, which requires new construction to respect
the historic character of surrounding historic properties on
or adjacent to the development site.
3
4
ITEM 4, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 2 of 4
Abutting Historic Properties
223 S Howes – Landmark
• Bungalow; 1 ½ story; blonde brick; raised foundation
227 S Howes – Individually Eligible
• Queen Anne; 1 story; red brick; raised foundation
231 S Howes – Landmark
• 2 ½ Stories; 4-Square; stucco; raised foundation
316 W Olive – Individually Eligible (Non-Binding)
• hip box; 1 story; red brick; raised foundation
5
Adjacent Properties
• 315 W Oak/ 211 Canyon – Old Town Professional Center
• Individually Eligible (Non-Binding)
• 7 stories; 32,000 sq. ft.; concrete panels/stone
• Downtown Post Office - Constructed 1972
• 4 stories; concrete
• Cortina - Constructed 2005
• 6 stories, stucco
• First National Bank Parking Lot – No structures
6
ITEM 4, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 3 of 4
Information Requested at Work Session
• Have renderings and plans match
• Provide overhead view of stairwell/corner
• Provide overhead view of project footprint as it relates to
223 and 227 S. Howes, and 316 W Olive
• Show reference lines between project details and details
on abutting properties
• Provide view of southwest / west elevation
• Provide person for scale
• Plan elevations from 2016 LPC Conceptual Review
7
8
Oasis on Olive – Conceptual Development Review
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager
Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018
ITEM 4, UPDATED STAFF PRESENTATION
Page 4 of 4
5(48,5('6(3(5$7,212)(;,76
6(3(5$7,21#(;,76
5(48,5('
5(6,'
(/(9
(/(9
/($6(63$&(
64)7
&200(5&,$/
/2%%<
0(16
5(6750
:20(16
5(6750
-$1
&+$6(
'277('/,1(,1',&$7(6
+55$7(':$//6
'277('/,1(,1',&$7(6
+55$7(':$//6
64)7*5266 $3352;
(;7(5,25
'(&.
(/(&
50
0(&+$1,&$/&+$6(
)520)8785(.,7&+(1
%(/2:
(;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(
/($6(63$&(
64)7
(
)
/($6(63$&(
64)7
*
6(&21')/2253/$1
$ % & ' ( ) *
$
1
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 13 of 18
'1
5,6(
83
5,6(
127( (/(&75,&$/75$16)250(5
72%(/2&$7(',168%0(56('9$8/7
/2&$7,21$1'6,=(72%('(7(50,1('
($6702817$,1$9(18(
0$7+(:6675((7
0$,/
50
*5($6(75$3/2&$7,21
6(7#(/(9$7,21
(/(9
(/(9
<''80367(5V
[
75$6+
(1&/2685(
*$60(7(56
%2//$5'6
(;,67,1*$//(<
3523(57</,1(
3523(57</,1(
3523(57<
/,1(
5(6,'(17,$/
/2%%<
/($6(63$&(
64)7
/($6(63$&(
64)7
5(6,'
(/(9
[
(/(&7,&$/
&+$6(72&21'26
[
(/(&75,&$/
&+$6(72)/2256
(/(9
'277('/,1(,1',&$7(6
+55$7(':$//6
'277('/,1(,1',&$7(6
+55$7(':$//6
/($6(63$&(
64)7
64)7*5266 $3352;
&200(5&,$/
/2%%<
5(6,'(17,$/(175$1&(
&200(5&,$/(175$1&(
0(16
5(6750
:20(16
5(6750
0*5
-$1
2)),&(
0')
(/(&7
5220
5$03'2:1
5(48,5('(;,7
/($6(63$&(
64)7
,1&/8'(6.,7&+(1$5($
[*$5$*(
(;+$8679(17(;7(1'
72),567)/225&(,/,1*
3/(180
[*$5$*(
(;+$8679(17(;7(1'
72),567)/225&(,/,1*
3/(180
,17$.(
9(17/2&$7,21)25
*$5$*(
'5,1.,1*)2817$,16
127( 2876,'()$&(2)
)281'$7,21:$//6(7
)5203523(57</,1(
7<3,&$/$71257+:(67
$1'($676,'(6
2))6(7216287+6,'(72
%(
[*$5$*(
(;+$8679(17(;7(1'
72),567)/225&(,/,1*
3/(180
(;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(
/($6(63$&(
64)7
$ %
&
'
),567)/2253/$1
$ % & ' ( ) *
$
(
1
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 12 of 18
:
6
(
1RR
(
6
:
52:
52:
(/(&7
50
(/(9
(/(9
5$0383
9(67
9(67
9(67
($6702817$,1$9(18(
0$7+(:6675((7
(;,67,1*$//(<
3$5.,1*63$&(6
67$,583
7<3
:[
'
3$5.,1*67$//6
&08RU7+.
&21&:$//6
',$&21&5(7(
&2/80167<3,&$/#
3$5.,1*67$//6
7+.&08
3285(',13/$&(
&21&:$//7+.
&21&75(7()/2256/23(72'5$,16#
&21&5$0383
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
67$,5683
5,6(
*5($6(75$3/2&$7,216(7$7(/(9$7,21
81'(5$352172*$5$*(5$03
[
(/(9$7256+$)7
7<3,&$/2)
127( 2876,'()$&(2)
)281'$7,21:$//6(7
)5203523(57</,1(
7<3,&$/$71257+:(67
$1'($676,'(6
2))6(7216287+6,'(72
%(
64)7*5266
%,.(6725$*(
7+,6$5($
%,.(6725$*(
7+,6$5($
6725$*(81,76Z52//83
'22567<3,&$/2)
#
[
#
[
(;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(
$&&(66$%/(
3$5.,1*67$//
6758&785$/
&5266%5$&(
7+,6%$<
*$5$*(/(9(/)/2253/$1
1
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 11 of 18
35(&$67%$6(
7<3$7&2/%$6(6
&+$,1/,1.)(1&+
$7'2*581%(<21'
7232)3$5$3(7
7232)3$5$3(7#67$,572:(5(/(9$72572:(5
9'(&.3$1(/6
$70(&+6&5((1:$//
ITEM 3, UPDATED APPLICANT SUBMITTAL
Page 7 of 18
+,*+522)
/2:522)
&25(522)
(
( (
(
(
(
(
6+((7180%(5
%$6,&'(9(/230(17
5(9,(:
'$7(
352-(&712
'$7( 5(9 5(0$5.6 '5:1 &+.' $359'
%$6,&'(9(/230(175(9,(:
/276%/2&.72:12))257&2///,16/2&$7(',17+(6287+:(6748$57(52)6(&7,2172:16+,31257+5$1*( :(672)7+(7+35,1&,3$/0(5,',$1
&,7<2))257&2//,16&2817<25/$5,0(567$7(2)&2/25$'2
$33/,&$172:1(5
0$9'HYHORSPHQW
6RXWK6WDWH&RPPRQV
6RXWK6WDWH6WUHHW6XLWH
$QQ$UERU0,
S
$5&+,7(&7
'$9,63$571(56+,3$5&+,7(&76
%ODNH6WUHHW6XLWH
'HQYHU&2
S
&,9,/(1*,1((5
$63(1(1*,1((5,1*
2OG7RZQ6TXDUH
6XLWH
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
S
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
%+$'(6,*1,1&25325$7('
2DNULGJH'ULYH
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
3
(/(&75,&$/(1*,1((5
0$;621(1*,1((5,1*
6KDIIHU3DUNZD\6XLWH
/LWWOHWRQ&2
S
6859(<25
1257+(51(1*,1((5,1*
6RXWK&ROOHJH$YHQXH6XLWH
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
S
%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216
($6702817$,1$9(18(
RI
($6702817$,1
$9(18(
($6702817$,1$9(18(%$6,&'(9(/230(175(9,(:
$XWKRU
($6702817,$1$9(18(
)257&2//,16&2
$XWKRU
6287+
(/(9$7,21
:(67(
/(9$7,21
.(<127(/(*(1'(/(9$7,21
.H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W
( &$676721(&8/785('6721(9(1((5
( %5,&.9(1((5&2/25
( &08%/2&.
( 35(&$67&21&5(7(%$1',1*
( &20326,7(0(7$/3$1(/
( 0(7$/3$1(/5786&5((1
( 35()$%5,&$7('$/80,1806816+$'(
( 35(),1,6+('67((/&$123<72%($33529('7+528*+(1&52$&+0(173(50,77,1*
352&(66
( 6725()5217*/$=,1*6<67(0
( *$6(/(&0(7(56
%'568%0,77$/
%'5&200(1765(68%0,77$/
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 2 of 3
(
(
( (
(
7+,57<),9('(*5(($1*/(0($685('$77+(
,17(56(&7,212)7+()/2253/$1(2)7+(
)2857+6725<$1'7+(3523(57</,1($/21*
7+(38%/,&675((7)5217$*(
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
3$5$3(7
+,*+522)
/2:522)
&25(522)
(
(
(
( ( (
(
(
(
( ((( (
(
(
(
&/
(
(
(
(
(
( ((
7+,57<),9('(*5(($1*/(0($685('$77+(
,17(56(&7,212)7+()/2253/$1(2)7+(
)2857+6725<$1'7+(3523(57</,1($/21*
7+(38%/,&675((7)5217$*(
6+((7180%(5
%$6,&'(9(/230(17
5(9,(:
'$7(
352-(&712
'$7( 5(9 5(0$5.6 '5:1 &+.' $359'
%$6,&'(9(/230(175(9,(:
/276%/2&.72:12))257&2///,16/2&$7(',17+(6287+:(6748$57(52)6(&7,2172:16+,31257+5$1*( :(672)7+(7+35,1&,3$/0(5,',$1
&,7<2))257&2//,16&2817<25/$5,0(567$7(2)&2/25$'2
$33/,&$172:1(5
0$9'HYHORSPHQW
6RXWK6WDWH&RPPRQV
6RXWK6WDWH6WUHHW6XLWH
$QQ$UERU0,
S
$5&+,7(&7
'$9,63$571(56+,3$5&+,7(&76
%ODNH6WUHHW6XLWH
'HQYHU&2
S
&,9,/(1*,1((5
$63(1(1*,1((5,1*
2OG7RZQ6TXDUH
6XLWH
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
S
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
%+$'(6,*1,1&25325$7('
2DNULGJH'ULYH
)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR
3
(/(&75,&$/(1*,1((5
0$;621(1*,1((5,1*
6KDIIHU3DUNZD\6XLWH
/LWWOHWRQ&2
S
6859(<25
1257+(51(1*,1((5,1*
6RXWK&ROOHJH$YHQXH6XLWH
)RUW&ROOLQV&2
S
%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216
($6702817$,1$9(18(
RI
($6702817$,1
$9(18(
($6702817$,1$9(18(%$6,&'(9(/230(175(9,(:
-.RFNV
($6702817,$1$9(18(
)257&2//,16&2
-.RFNV
1257+
(/(9$7,21
($67(
/(9$7,21
.(<127(/(*(1'(/(9$7,21
.H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W
( &$676721(&8/785('6721(9(1((5
( %5,&.9(1((5&2/25
( %5,&.9(1((5&2/25
( &$676721(&8/785('6721(%$6(
( 35(&$67&21&5(7(%$1',1*
( &20326,7(0(7$/3$1(/
( 0(7$/*/$=,1*,1),//3$1(/
( 0(7$/3$1(/5786&5((1
( 35(),1,6+('0(7$/3$5$3(7&$3
( 35(),1,6+('6&833(5$1''2:163287
( 29(5)/2:/$0%6721*8(
( 35(),1,6+('+25,=217$/$/80,180),16
( 35()$%5,&$7('$/80,1806816+$'(
( 35(),1,6+('67((/&$123<72%($33529('7+528*+(1&52$&+0(173(50,77,1*352&(66
( 6725()5217*/$=,1*6<67(0
( &857$,1:$//*/$=,1*6<67(0
( 6,*1$*( 3(5&,7<$33529$/
%'568%0,77$/
%'5&200(1765(68%0,77$/
%8,/',1*+(,*+7
3(5)257&2//,16/$1'86(&2'(',9,6,21 '
),*85( %8,/',1*+(,*+7
$
0HDVXULQJ%XLOGLQJ+HLJKW
%XLOGLQJ+HLJKW0HDVXUHGLQ)HHW:KHQPHDVXUHGLQIHHWEXLOGLQJKHLJKWVKDOOEHPHDVXUHGIURPWKHDYHUDJHRIWKHILQLVKHGJURXQG
OHYHODWWKHFHQWHURIDOOZDOOVRIDEXLOGLQJRUVWUXFWXUHWRWKHKLJKHVWSRLQWRIWKHURRIVXUIDFHRUVWUXFWXUH
*5$'(3/$1(
+,*+(6732,172)522)685)$&( (/(9
)520/(9(/21()/225
%8,/',1*+(,*+7
)520$9**5$'(3/$1(
ITEM 3, 2016 PLANS
Page 1 of 3
" "
"
"
$"
*/0
$" "
*/0
"
$
$
" )
"
$ $
"
'
"
$
$ $
$
$
$
+
ITEM 2, 2018 APPEAL LETTER FROM APPLICANT
"
$
"
./,
*/0
"
"
ITEM 2, 2018 APPEAL LETTER FROM APPLICANT
!
"
"
#
" "
$
"
"
"
%
$
%
&
$
'
(
"
"
)
"
"
"
" $ "
"
**$
$ )
"
" '
"
"
"
"
"
+
"
*
,$
'
$"
"
**-* *$
$
"
$
) $ '
+%
ITEM 2, 2018 APPEAL LETTER FROM APPLICANT
POINT OF
BEGINNING
PARCEL 1
N88'24' 45•w
N88"42'oo·w /19.74'
25.82
S89'4S'35"E 24.42' ..... 7 S89'41'21"E ....... .
N0°43136•E 27.32'
CITY OF FORT COWNS
REC. NO. 20080079824
LOTS 22-28, BLOCK 32,
TOWN OF FORT COWNS
NOTE:
:I:
'Jo· ..,~
~,..:
i • N
Nss·39'2o·w 40.20•
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE LAND
SURVEY PLAT OF BLOCK 32 BY
NORTHERN ENGINEERING RECORDED
MARCH 1, 2013 AT RECEPTION NO.
20130016329. (RECORD BEARING OF
SAID LINE PER PLAT OF CMC
CENTER OFFlCE BUILDING IS
S00"53 '48 "W)
.a, ...
, ~
F 0
r,i
~
>-
w
_J
_J
<(
ci m
::,
(I)
C, 'iii'
9~ ~ C,
5~ mw
~! z E~ 0 Wm .(..I) ...
w
o.
0 ~ E'
o 5 go z
• .., w
~ w
::.:: 3: (I)
0 .......
g~
u.m .. '° r
00
w f;l
z
::I
t-
(I)
~
SW'L Y CORNER OF
BLOCK 1, CIVIC CENTER
omCE BUILDING SUBD.
FOUND NAIL AND
BRASS TAG, LS 14823
ITEM 1, LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Page 2 of 2