No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2017 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Dave Lingle Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink 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 September 20, 2017 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS Landmark Preservation Commission • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 16, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVENUE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a 2-story addition to an existing residence and connect the existing garage to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Darryl Austin, Owner • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Harden House at 227 Wood Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1999. The proposed work includes demolition of an existing rear porch (undated, historic), addition on the northwest corner of the residence that spans the rear elevation, addition of a skylight, and addition of a deck. The applicants previously presented two design options for conceptual review at the August 16, 2017 LPC meeting. This a revised option based on feedback received from the Commission at that meeting. APPLICANT: Gordon Winner, property owner Heidi Shuff, architect • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 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 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission Date: 9/20/17 Roll Call Ernest Frick Gensmer Hogestad Lingle Simpson Wallace Zink Dunn Vote  Absent Absent  Absent  Absent   n/a CONSENT (Minutes & 1016 W. Mountain) Frick Gensmer Hogestad Lingle Simpson Wallace Zink Ernest Dunn Absent Absent  Absent  Absent    5:0 Log of Packet Additions Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Date: 9/20/17 Materials added or updated in the agenda packet between the 9/13/17 work session & the hearing: Item # Item Name Description of addition/change 3 227 Wood Street Design Review The Staff report has been updated with new information at the end, and the last three attachments are new: • Anderson Associates Report • 720 W Oak Invoice • 705 Maple 2017-09-10 Materials submitted at, or just prior to, the hearing: (These items will be added to the final post-hearing packet, and hard copy meeting record.) Item Exhibit/ Attachment # Item Name Description of addition/change 2 F 1016 W Mountain Avenue Demo/Alt Review Error corrected on the second page of the Staff Presentation. 3 1 227 Wood Street Design Review Applicant Presentation added to packet. DATE: q-:l()-J7 ------'---- LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sign In Sheet TIIIS IS AP ART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schlager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 20, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 16, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC August 16, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 3 City of Fort Collins Page 1 August 16, 2017 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Dave Lingle Mollie Simpson Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink Regular Meeting August 16, 2017 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson ABSENT: None STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • STAFF REPORTS None. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 19, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 19, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: LPC August 16, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5937 : MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 2 August 16, 2017 2. ADOPTION OF THE LPC 2018 WORK PLAN The purpose of this item is to adopt the LPC 2018 work plan. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the August 16, 2017 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Frick seconded. The motion passed 9-0. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP Chair Dunn said she was excited about the work plan, which was substantial, yet doable. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF MCCARTY/SHEELY/DREHER PROPERTY 1300 W MOUNTAIN AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider the application for landmark designation for the McCarty/Sheely/Dreher Property, located at 1300 West Mountain Avenue APPLICANT: Anthony and Heather McNeill, Owners Mr. Ernest disclosed that he had researched this home as part of the Historic Homes Tour in 2015, and met with the owners, but he did not feel that presented any conflict. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. She reviewed the significance and integrity of the property, displayed historic and current photos of the property, and outlined the staff findings. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Ernest commented on the significance under Standard B, stating that this property was unusual for having so many connections to our local history. Mr. Lingle said the property had excellent exterior integrity, and he appreciated that all of the previous owners had maintained the architectural details. He asked whether the interior had been modified. The owner, Mr. McNeill, stated that the interior had been significantly modified, but noted that the wood floors and two-panel doors and trim were still intact. Mr. Hogestad also complimented the architecture, masonry work and other details that had remained intact. He commented on the outdoor grill, and asked whether the stones on top of the two end pieces were original, and Mr. McNeil stated they were. Mr. McNeil added that they were moving and wanted to protect this home before it sold. Ms. Gensmer stated that the configuration of the outbuildings were representative of the way properties were used spatially at that time. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a resolution recommending to City Council the designation of the McCarty/Sheely/Dreher Property, located at 1300 West Mountain Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark based upon the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 14, and the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 9-0. 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: LPC August 16, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5937 : MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 3 August 16, 2017 4. 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Harden House at 227 Wood Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1999. The proposed work includes removal of a double hung window on the north elevation, demolition of an existing rear porch (undated, historic), addition on the northwest corner of the residence that spans the rear elevation, addition of a skylight, and addition of a deck. The applicants have presented two design options for conceptual review. APPLICANT: Gordon Winner, Owner Heidi Shuff, Architect Mr. Lingle disclosed that the architect on this project is married to one of his business partners, but he doesn’t feel that creates a conflict for him. Staff Report Ms. Bumgarner presented the staff report. She reviewed the process and role of the Commission, the relevant code sections, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the background and history of the home. She displayed historic and current photos of the property. She addressed the questions the Commission raised at the work session. Applicant Presentation Mr. Winner began the presentation by explaining that their growing family needs more space. He stated that the back porch needed work, and they would like to make better use of the space for family. He added that they plan to grow in phases, first creating more connectivity between the kitchen and the backyard, and in a few years, adding a bedroom in the basement and a loft upstairs. Ms. Shuff discussed the details of the plan. She said the existing basement is primarily crawl space, with only about 1/3 as a full basement that is currently in use as a mechanical room. She reviewed the drawings for the proposal and pointed out key features. She noted that the biggest design constraints are preservation of the tree, providing better connections between the indoor and outdoor space, providing a stairway for basement access and working around a neighbor’s garage near the property line, and she detailed how the design addresses these constraints. She also explained how the design meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick noted that the window heights on the north elevation appear to match the existing window head height. Ms. Shuff confirmed that the intent is to match the height on both the north and south elevations. Mr. Frick commented that the horizontal sliding windows on the east and west elevations were out of keeping with a house of that era. He asked if they could be replaced with two square windows. The Applicants said they could do that. Mr. Lingle commented that the head height of the window on east elevation seemed contradictory to the plan for cabinetry on that wall. Ms. Shuff said the intent is to have the windows up high with coat hooks and a shelf underneath. Mr. Frick asked whether there would be stairs at the new door on the north elevation. Mr. Winner said there would probably be a small stoop on the north side. He added that the back deck would not come around and connect with that. Mr. Frick asked about the style of the windows in the loft area on the west elevation, and suggested it would be more in keeping with the era if taller, narrower, double-hung windows were used. Ms. Shuff explained the functional need for an egress window. She said the intent was not to replicate the existing home but to tie in with the proportions, massing and scale. Ms. Shuff asked Mr. Frick how his comments relate to the standards, to which he replied that it was about the cohesive look of the house. Ms. Shuff pointed out that was a subjective argument. She said they would be happy to make modifications that would make the design more in keeping with 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LPC August 16, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5937 : MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 4 August 16, 2017 existing historic home, and they want to address any issues that do not meet the standards. Mr. Frick agreed that his comments were subjective, and his comments on the windows were about the overall look of the addition and the existing house. Mr. Frick asked if the Applicant had spoken to an arborist about the tree. Mr. Winner said he had. Ms. Shuff noted that they have tried to minimize the footprint of the addition to try to facilitate the life of the tree. Ms. Simpson also expressed concern about allowing the tree to grow. Mr. Winner said they envisioned the deck encircling the tree with enough room to allow for growth. He was uncertain of the species of the tree, but said it was the only mature tree they have and they enjoy the shade it provides. Ms. Simpson and Mr. Lingle discussed the critical root zone of the tree. Chair Dunn said she was struggling with decision not to use the basement space under the house. She pointed out that the rehabilitation guidelines emphasize that new exterior additions should only be considered if the new use cannot be accommodated by utilizing non-character defining interior spaces, such as the basement, in this case. She said she would like to better understand why they would not dig out a full basement under the existing house. Mr. Winner said the existing foundation is not 7’ deep except in the back of the house. He also said that finding a location within the existing house to add a stairway seemed extremely challenging. He also expressed concern about altering the foundation. Ms. Shuff said the square footage gained would likely not offset the loss of a bedroom on the first floor to accommodate the footprint of a stair. She also expressed concern about undermining the foundation, and questioned whether an egress window would be feasible. She said it had been discussed at initial meetings, but it would be a lot of effort for little return and minimal natural light. Chair Dunn said she knew others in Old Town who had done it, and asked to hear from the architects on the Commission. Mr. Hogestad mentioned a house on Whedbee with the same situation, where they excavated the entire basement, reinforced the foundation and created a walkout with a sunken garden that provided a lot of natural light without injuring the historic house. He said Staff knows about it, there is a concept design for it, and he suggested they talk to those owners. Chair Dunn said at 800 W. Mountain a full basement had been dug out, and the larger egress windows brought in a lot of light. She also mentioned there was another one in the 100 block of North Grant where they had added a full basement, plus a small addition in the back. She suggested in this case, the stairs could be in a small addition in the back. Mr. Hogestad added they would be doubling the floor space with a basement, so there should be room for a stair without an addition. Ms. Shuff said the usable space and the quality of the space would be compromised more than it would be worth. Mr. Hogestad emphasized that this is a designated house, and even though the design is very good and sensitive, it would be important to look for solutions other than adding an addition. He said there are other ways to realize the space. Chair Dunn pointed out that an addition on a designated home should be the last resort, only after it can be determined that the new needs cannot be met without altering the exterior. Mr. Lingle said his home had the same configuration, but was wider, and before doing his addition, he had explored excavating the basement. He determined that it was cost prohibitive and would not have provided quality space. He said it poses a significant hardship to force someone into a solution that is clearly inferior. He added that the design is more important than whether or not to add an addition. He pointed out how the Option 2 addition does meet the standards. He doesn’t see a practical way for the Applicant to meet their programmatic needs in a dug out basement. Mr. Lingle and Mr. Hogestad discussed the size difference between the Whedbee house with the dug out basement and this one. Mr. Hogestad wants the Applicant to prove the basement isn’t feasible. Ms. Shuff said they considered the basement, but it would not be big enough to provide usable space and would not give the desired outcome. Chair Dunn said the Commission needs to see that other alternatives had been explored, and understand why they were not feasible, before they can be comfortable with an addition. Chair Dunn, Mr. Hogestad and Ms. Shuff discussed the impact of utilizing the attic space for storage and whether that added to the profile of the addition. Mr. Hogestad said pushing straight out to the 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LPC August 16, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5937 : MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 5 August 16, 2017 back is preferable. He added that he doesn’t feel they’ve exhausted the basement option, and suggested they talk to people who have done it. Mr. Lingle disagreed with Chair Dunn and Mr. Hogestad. He asked whether proceeding with this design would cause the house to lose its designation. Chair Dunn said that was a possibility. Mr. Ernest said he was pleased to hear the Applicant’s preferred option was the revised option. He thinks the revised option meets the standards better than the original version. He said the standards do allow for an addition on the rear of a historic structure. He thought the standards, taken as a whole, provide leeway for the addition to occur. He thought perhaps a few additional data points from the Applicant that would help rule out the basement option would be helpful. Mr. Frick commented that the Commission has approved a lot of additions to historic homes. He thought this addition was fine and minimal, though it could use some tweaking in regards to the double-hung windows. He also thought a basement may be possible, and would like to see evidence to rule it out. But generally, he believes the addition meets the criteria. Ms. Gensmer agreed with Mr. Ernest, Mr. Lingle and Mr. Frick. Ms. Zink commented that the obstacles involved in digging deeper than the existing foundation are substantial. She expressed concerns that in order to accommodate window wells that would let in enjoyable light and allow for egress, the foundation would have to be substantially altered, which would have a serious impact on the original historic fabric. She said the altered foundation wouldn’t have much of a footing which would be destabilizing, and on a masonry building, opens up the risk of vertical cracks that could impact entire structure. Ms. Wallace said there have been a lot of valid points. She felt the proposed addition met the standards, but would like to see more information about the possibility of a basement. She would also like to see additional renderings for the second option. She also questioned whether the Commission would designate the home if it came to them with the current plan. Ms. Shuff asked what additional renderings she would like, and Ms. Wallace said she would like to see different angles and obliques with the other option removed. Ms. Simpson said she would have to think about Ms. Wallace’s question about designation. She then asked whether the mudroom and restroom could be moved to the back of house where it would be less visible. Mr. Winner said the stairs and the tree are driving that decision. Ms. Shuff said if they place the mudroom and restroom south of the tree, it cuts off the visual connection between the kitchen and the backyard, and went on to explain other considerations involved in that placement. Chair Dunn said the possibility of the basement must be exhausted before looking at the addition. Mr. Lingle pointed out that there are ten standards and the rest are guidelines. He said he wants to clarify what is required and what is desired, and make sure the standards are being applied in a consistent and fair way. Mr. Lingle agreed with Mr. Frick that the Commission has approved many additions on designated buildings in the past, and he doesn’t recall ever mandating that others first fully explore putting all of a new program in the basement. Chair Dunn agreed that it was important to be consistent and fair, but said it was also important to revisit the guidelines on occasion. Mr. Ernest pointed out that the guidelines talk about negatively impacting the home, and that can be a subjective interpretation. Chair Dunn mentioned that the recent Loomis Addition Survey showed that the State doesn’t agree with some of the additions that have been approved. Ms. McWilliams said the guidelines, which are intended to help interpret the standards, were also used by History Colorado in their review of the Loomis Addition Survey results, and they hadn’t agreed that certain designated properties contributed to the proposed district. She also said she couldn’t ever recall anything more than a one-story addition on a one-story designated house, but she could research that to be sure. However, the State has said the Loomis area may not qualify as a district, because past Commissions have allowed large additions. Chair Dunn said she would like the Applicant to explore moving the proposed north addition to the west, where there would still be a connection with the outdoors, or provide details on why that couldn’t work. Ms. Shuff asked for clarification on how that related to the standards, and Chair Dunn referred to page 157 of the standards. Mr. Frick suggested that the addition could stay on the north, 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: LPC August 16, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5937 : MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 6 August 16, 2017 but could be moved back to be in line with the house, so that the full length of the north elevation of the existing house would be visible, and keep the roof form the same. Chair Dunn said that would avoid covering that part of the existing historic house, which more closely conforms to the guidelines. Mr. Hogestad added that it is a simple house, and that the north elevation is a key elevation that helps to define the house. He suggested that the tree may be the biggest obstacle, and they may want to consider removing the tree and replacing it in a more desirable spot. Ms. Shuff requested clear direction with regard to the various ideas discussed. Mr. Hogestad would like them to have conversations with others who have excavated a basement to establish what is feasible. Mr. Frick suggested talking to an engineer. Mr. Winner is interested in seeing the other basement examples that have been mentioned. Ms. Shuff brought up the issue of egress windows. Mr. Hogestad again suggested they look at the Whedbee home. Ms. Wallace asked for additional photos of the foundation and north elevation. Ms. Shuff asked for more feedback about the addition option, assuming they are able to make a case that the basement option was not feasible. Specifically, she asked whether the portion of the north elevation that would be covered by the addition was critical. Mr. Frick said maintaining that side is more critical than the back elevation. He said in addition to looking at the foundation issue with regard to using the basement space, they should also look at removing the tree. Ms. Zink said it would be helpful to have more definitive information about the tree, which is driving the design. Mr. Hogestad commented that they should take another look at the two-story loft space, which is a big addition and changes the roofline considerably. He also believes the north view is easy to see from the street, and would like to see more photos from the street. He said that is a significant elevation, where the rear probably isn’t. He added that the program might be too big for a designated house. Chair Dunn agreed with Ms. Zink that the tree is driving the design, and could possibly be removed. Ms. Shuff said she will look at the tree and the basement to determine their constraints, and go from there. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn asked if Staff could provide more information about the Loomis addition at the next work session. Ms. McWilliams agreed. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________. __________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: LPC August 16, 2017 Minutes - DRAFT (5937 : MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2017) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 20, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVENUE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a 2-story addition to an existing residence and connect the existing garage to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Darryl Austin, Owner OWNER: Darryl Austin and Brenda Bluestone, 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 1016 W Mountain Avenue, Darryl Austin and Brenda Bluestone, are proposing to add a rear, two-story addition to their current residence and incorporate the existing garage to the main residence. In accordance with Fort Collins City Code Chapter 14, Landmark Preservation, the property was reviewed on September 14, 2014, and has officially been determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation under criterion C, Design/Construction. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: This one-story single family dwelling was constructed sometime between 1903-1908. The house is an example of a Classic Cottage or Hipped Box in the historic Westside Neighborhood. There have been no apparent additions to the residence according to Jason Marmor’s Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form. This residence was serviced by the trolley line and has served as a residence for many working class citizens throughout history. 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 build a two-story addition on the rear of the residence and integrate the existing garage into main floor living space in accordance with the approved plans. PROCESS: Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code provides the process and requirements for the review of alterations or demolition of structures 50 years of age or older. Commonly referred to as demolition/alteration review, the process begins when the owner submits an application for City approval of the demolition or exterior alteration of the structure. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such application, the Director and the Chair of the Commission (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair), determine if the proposed work constitutes a demolition or a minor or major alteration of the exterior. 2 Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 If the work is determined to be a demolition or major alteration, the Director and the Chair refer the matter to either a subcommittee, or to the Commission for a hearing. Prior to the Commission meeting, public notice occurs, and there are submittal requirements that must be fulfilled: a. A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an approved expert in historic preservation; b. Detailed plans and specifications describing and depicting the appearance of the site, structure or object that is the subject of the application, in context, after the proposed alteration or demolition; c. Evidence that all administrative and quasi-judicial approvals necessary to accommodate the proposed demolition or alteration have been obtained; d. A plan of protection acceptable to the Commission showing how the applicant will ensure that no damage will occur to other historic resources on or adjacent to the site. e. Applicable fees FINDINGS: Staff has made the following findings of fact as it relates to this application:  The residence at 1016 W Mountain Avenue is more than 50 years of age, dating to 1903-1908;  The proposed work proposed was determined to be “major,” affecting all aspects of integrity;  The residence at 1016 W Mountain Avenue 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 in Section 14-72. 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 individually eligible properties 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 1016 W Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the applicant has complied with all code requirements and purpose of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. The Commission may alter this motion to include conditions or delay the application for a period not to exceed forty-five days as put forth in Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. 2 Packet Pg. 11 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. Plan of Protection (PDF) 3. Architectural Inventory Form (PDF) 4. Approved Plans (PDF) 5. Demo Alt Review Form (PDF) 6. Staff Presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 12 1016 W Mountain Avenue Vicinity Map ± 1 in = 290 ft 2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Location Map (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) PLAN of PROTECTION Darryl Austin and Brenda Bluestone Project 2nd Story Addition 1016 W Mountain Ave Fort Collins, CO 80521 Form prepared by: Darryl Austin, Property Owner Jeff Schneider, Builder – Armstead Construction, Inc. 1.0 Introduction:  This project is located at 1016 W Mountain Ave in ‘Old Town’ Fort Collins, a single story 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom residence of approximately 1,200 sq ft. The major intersection closest to the home is South Shields St. and West Mountain Ave.  The work will be completed and supervised by Armstead Construction.  The proposed project includes; demolition of the kitchen, 1 of the bedrooms, and bathroom, which will be replaced on the 1st floor with an enlarged kitchen, Family room, ½ bath, and 2 bedrooms with private bathrooms. Additionally, a 2nd story addition will include a master suite with a study and bathroom.  The design retains the original front half of the home; which includes the living room, dining room, and a bedroom which will be converted to a library. All original windows for these room are to be retained to maintain the true character and historical representation of the home.  The design also calls for a redesign of the existing porch with a more appropriately scaled front porch and a roofline that matches the original roof and new 2nd story. 2.b Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Plan of Protection (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW)  Additionally, the existing detached garage located approximately 15 feet to the rear of the house that will be incorporated into the new addition as living space. The date of construction of the garage is unknown by us. 2.0 Scope of Work:  The addition to allow the second floor to be constructed is to include deconstruction of the existing roof in order to install new structural beams, floor joists, walls and roof to comply with the construction plans. The original footprint of the home will be expanded in the rear of the home to appropriately maintain the original character of the residence and appropriately maintain the sq ft distribution on the lot and compliance to Fort Collins Land Use Code. The west side of the home will require backfill to be added to the yard in order to get adequate drainage away from the home’s foundation without compromising the adjoining properties existing drainage. There is a driveway along the east side of the home that will remain in its pre-existing state, construction access will be come from the rear ally side of the property. 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities:  Jeff Schneider will be the on-site project manager who will be responsible for overseeing daily construction operations. He may be reached at 970-566- 9971. Dustin Tomlinson will be the Site Supervisor and can be reached at 970-213-8611. 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials:  The deconstruction will be completed by authorized professionals that are allowed to mitigate lead based paint. All non- contaminated materials will be removed and disposed of in trash containers and removed from the site. If any existing, architecturally significant materials can be salvaged, then they will be donated to a reuse store.  Untreated wood and metal will be recycled to Hageman Earth Cycle and/or CO Iron and Metal. The remaining deconstruction will need to be mitigated and transferred to the landfill in order to meet state and federal guidelines. 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property:  5.1 Site Conservation: The existing fence along the east side of the yard and the trees in the same location will be protected as needed from the construction activity.  5.2 Demolition of Building: All deconstruction will be done by hand with limited use of heavy equipment.  5.3 Foundation Stability: The new addition will require expansion of the existing foundation and reinforcement of the garage area being converted to living space in order to comply with the construction plans. 2.b Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Plan of Protection (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW)  5.4 Structural: All of the new structural materials will comply with the construction plan and will be installed in a manner that will not affect the existing lath and plaster construction on the main floor for the portion of the original home being retained.  5.5 New Construction: All new materials will be installed to preserve the existing home not to be damaged during the construction process. All efforts will be made to protect the existing home from any and all damage to the existing finishes except where noted for deconstruction.  5.6 Historic Opening & Materials: There is 1 window openings that will get filled in on the existing east wall of the home as part of the bedroom -2- library conversion and the basement window wells and windows on the east side (1 window) and rear of the house (2 windows) to provide drainage and flood protection as part of the grading plan. All the other window openings are to remain as is.  5.7 New Openings: All of the new opening and or windows on the 2nd Floor will be energy efficient units to comply with the construction plans.  5.8 Floor Framing: Where identified by the construction plans new floor joists for the 2nd floor will be installed over the existing first floor walls and structure of the existing structure, areas of expansion in the floor plan will require all new construction to support the 1st and 2nd floor expansion. All construction will comply with the construction plans provided by local professionals.  5.9 Roof Structural & Roof Framing: All existing roof structure will be deconstructed by hand and the new roof will be built by hand with engineered trusses and comply with the construction plans.  5.10 Structural Loads: All structural loads have been evaluated by a local structural engineer and complies with local building codes through the permitting process. All work and new construction will comply with construction plans.  5.11 Supporting & Shoring Existing Structure: All construction shall comply with the construction plans and need to support or protect the existing structure.  5.12 Excavation & Shoring Existing Structure: The existing foundation is field stone reinforced with 18” concrete walls performed when a basement was dug out after the completion of the house, date performed unknown. Only a portion of the existing wall will be exposed. The excavation immediately next to the existing foundation will be done by hand. Reinforcement of the garage area being converted to living space will be performed as directed in the construction plans.  5.13 Site Cleanup: Upon completion of the project, the site will be cleaned of all construction materials. The site will be readied for restoration of the landscape that currently surrounds the existing home. 2.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Plan of Protection (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 6.0 Documentation for Record:  All documents, pictures and relevant information will be kept on site in our Permit box during the construction process.  Please see the Cultural Survey Architectural Inventory Form 5LR.13827 created by Jason Marmor of Retrospect, Historic Preservation Research and Documentation Services, in the submittal packet. 7.0 Archeology:  If something is found during the foundation or porch excavation or the removal of the back half of the house or roof then we will contact the City to determine the proper authorities that need to be contacted to determine relevance and next steps. 2.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Plan of Protection (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR.8113 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Keeley House 6. Current building name: Austin/Bluestone Residence 7. Building address: 1016 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 8. Owner name and address: Darryl Austin and Brenda M. Bluestone 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W SW ¼ of NW ¼ of NW ¼ of SW ¼ of section 11 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 491947 mE ; 4492953 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins, CO Year: 1960; Photorevised 1984 Map scale: X 7.5' 15' 12. Lot(s): N/A – metes and bounds Block: N/A - not numbered Plat: N/A Year Platted: N/A Parcel Number: 97113-02-016 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description/parcel limits of Larimer County Parcel No. 97113-02-016, which is defined by metes and bounds. All the parcels on the north side of the 1000 block of West Mountain Avenue are delineated by metes and bounds; this row of residential properties is surrounded by subdivisions, including the Morger-Smith Addition to the east and north; and the Washington Place addition, which covers an area extending south from Mountain Avenue’s southern edge and encompasses the odd-numbered homes in the 1000 block of West Mountain Avenue. According to the Larimer County Assessor’s property record, the rectangular parcel measures 50 feet wide by 190 feet deep (9,600 ft²/0.22 acre), and encompasses the single-family dwelling at 1016 West Mountain Avenue as well as a detached garage, chicken coop and surrounding yards and landscaping. The site boundary includes all of the area associated with its historic residential use. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length: 45 ft. x Width: 29.5 ft. Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date ____________ Initials ________________ ______ Determined Eligible- NR ______ Determined Not Eligible- NR ______ Determined Eligible- SR ______ Determined Not Eligible- SR ______ Need Data ______ Contributes to eligible NR District ______ Noncontributing to eligible NR District OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form 2.c Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 2 16. Number of stories: 1.0 17. Primary external wall material(s): Horizontal wood (clapboard) siding 18. Roof configuration: Hipped with gabled dormer 19. Primary external roof material: Composition shingles 20. Special features: Porch, chimney, garage 21. General architectural description: Located on the north side of West Mountain Avenue between Mack Street and Shields Street, in an unplatted portion of Fort Collins’ Westside Neighborhood Area, this small, wood frame, single-family dwelling is composed of two major sections – a pyramidal hipped box/Classic Cottage-style building with a hip-roofed rear extension. Attached to the east elevation, on the rear wing of the house, is a narrow, shed-roofed enclosed porch or vestibule, with a front/south facing door. The house rests on a concrete foundation, and includes a partial basement beneath the rear portion of the house. The basement encompasses 357 square feet of subterranean space; the above-ground living space encompasses 1,221 square feet. The front portion of the house features Classical stylistic elements commonly found on Classic Cottages. The front part of the residence is nearly square in plan, measuring 26.5 feet wide by 28 feet long. Clad with horizontal wood (clapboard) siding, the house is covered by a steeply- pitched pyramidal hipped roof with overhanging boxed eaves. The façade, which faces south, features a centered gabled dormer clad with fish-scale shingles and containing a fifteen-light attic window. The dormer also features returning eaves. Below this dormer is a small projecting open front porch covered by a front-gabled canopy supported by four square-sided wooden posts. A wooden deck and the home’s front door are accessed by a small set of wooden steps. The underside of the front porch canopy is curved, barrel-vaulted, and is clad with stained beadboard. The façade is symmetrically arranged, with a centered entry and porch flanked by identical, large 1/1 sash and transom windows. The entire house is fenestrated with windows set in plain, painted wood surrounds. The original historic front door was replaced recently by a modern, unglazed, stained wooden door. The side elevations of the original front portion of home are equipped with tall, 1-over-1 light double-hung windows. The east elevation has three of these windows, including a single unit near the front of the house, and a tandem set installed further back on the elevation. On the west elevation are two individual windows of this type. The small shed-roofed enclosed vestibule on the east elevation, offset towards the rear, has an entrance on its south side. The original door to this vestibule was replaced recently by a modern, unglazed, stained wooden door. The rear portion of the house, which may represent an old addition rather than an original portion of the dwelling, is fenestrated differently than the front, pyramidal-roofed portion of the building. 22. Architectural style/building type (duplex): Classic Cottage/Hipped Box 23. Landscaping or special setting features: This house is situated on a rectangular lot, containing 9,500 square feet (0.22 acre). A driveway extends north from West Mountain Avenue and along the east side of the house, providing access to a detached garage on the lot. The driveway is shared with the adjacent residence (1014 West Mountain Avenue). 2.c Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 3 The property is situated within the historic Westside Neighborhood Area of Fort Collins, comprised largely of modest late nineteenth and early twentieth century single-family residences. It is located at the eastern end of the 1000 block of West Mountain near its junction with Shields Street, a major north-south thoroughfare. Most of the modest “working class” dwellings on this block of West Mountain Avenue are vernacular wood frame and brick buildings typical in design to many other small homes built in Fort Collins during the first three decades of the twentieth century. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Two outbuildings are located on the lot: 1) Detached one-car garage located behind and northeast of dwelling. The garage is a plain utilitarian structure which does not exhibit any stylistic elements. It is accessed by a very old concrete driveway also utilized by residents of the adjacent property (1014 West Mountain Ave.). The garage is a typical early twentieth century automotive outbuilding, with a rectangular plan (18.5 feet long X 12 feet wide), wood frame, is clad with horizontal wood (drop or tongue-in-groove) siding, is covered by a moderately-pitched, front gable roof, and is equipped with a modern garage door. The garage’s exposed west side elevation is fenestrated with two large 1/1 light, double-hung windows which may or may not be original. Between these windows is the outline of a former side door, which is now sealed and covered similarly with drop or tongue-in-groove siding. The detached garage appears to be structurally sound and in good condition. 2) Chicken coop located at the rear/north end of the lot, offset toward the east end of the lot (in the lot’s northeast rear corner). In terms of design and construction, the chicken coop is a typical and well-preserved example of a small-scale, early twentieth century residential chicken coop, one of many that were built in residential neighborhoods in Fort Collins in the early twentieth century. The chicken coop’s façade faces south, toward the house and garage. The outbuilding is a small, rectangular plan, wood frame structure clad with horizontal wood clapboard siding, and shed roofs clad with galvanized corrugated sheet steel panels. The building’s approximate dimensions are estimated to be: 3-4 feet wide and 10 feet long, the structure is composed of two attached sections; the western 1/3 of the building is slightly taller than the eastern portion of the building, and is covered by a steeply- pitched shed roof with a substantial front overhang, that shelters an elevated glazed door or hatch on the facade. The eastern 2/3 of the coop is lower in height that the western portion, and its shed roof is of much lower pitch and does not overhang the wall. At the right/east end of the coop’s façade is a low personnel entry door, perhaps 5 feet tall), that is clad with the same clapboard applied to entire building’s exterior. Attached to the west side of the coop is an old and probably original feed or roosting box. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1903-1908 (probably 1907-1908) Actual: Source(s) of information: x Larimer County Assessor’s Property Record for Parcel 97113-02-016 indicates an erroneous construction date of 1900; x Note: In Fort Collins City Directories, 1016 West Mountain Avenue first appears in the 1908 city directory and was not listed in the 1902 edition. However, data was not available for 1903-1907, and therefore the house was undoubtedly built sometime between 1902 and 1908; 2.c Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 4 x Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: the first coverage of the north side of the 1000 block of West Mountain Avenue was in 1925. The house at 1016 West Mountain Avenue appears on page 13 of the December 1925 Sanborn map, and unchanged on the same page (13) in the updated October 1948 map edition. 26. Architect: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source(s) of information: No information found 28. Original owner: William M. Keeley? Source(s) of information: City directory data 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Although the Larimer County Assessor’s property record for 1016 West Mountain indicates a construction date of 1900, city directory research suggests instead that the house was built sometime between 1903 and 1908, and possibly around 1907. No exterior additions are evident based upon field inspection, Sanborn maps, Assessor’s property records, building permit entries (1920-early 1950s). Nevertheless, the dwelling’s exterior has experienced changes in wall covering material over time. It was very likely originally covered with horizontal wood siding (clapboard or drop/tongue-in-groove). At an unknown date the original siding was covered or replaced by asbestos shingle siding, a fireproof material that gained popularity around the 1930s - 1950s. Photos of the house clad with asbestos shingles dated 1968 and 1977 are included in the retired Assessor’s property record cards. More recently, at an unknown post- 1977 date, the asbestos shingle siding was removed, and the house now exhibits clapboard siding, which may or may not be original. The only other noteworthy exterior alteration noted is the projecting open front porch, which was not extant in 1977; at that time the main entry was covered only by the currently extant substantial front-gabled wooden canopy with a barrel-vaulted ceiling, supported by robust knee braces. In 1977 the porch floor beneath the canopy appears to have been a simple, low concrete slab. Sometime afterward (after 1977) the front porch was remodeled into a stylized, simplified Classically inspired portico-like open porch, the design of which retained the attractive previously extant porch canopy. Square-sided wooden posts were added at the front corners, and similar pilasters were attached to the façade. These porch posts are painted white, and applied moldings are used to create flaring capitals and bases, suggestive of the ordered Classical columns. The porch base has also been reconstructed, and has a simple, stained wooden floor and a full-width front step, also of stained wood. The porch lacks railings. City of Fort Collins building permit log entries indicate that only two building permits were issued to owners between 1920 and the early 1950s, in 1940 and 1945. The 1940 building permit (No. 6,168) was issued to owner Fred Gideon for reroofing repairs, at an estimated cost of $175. The 1945 permit (No. 8,399) was granted to owner Dan Rein to “re-floor three rooms”), for an estimated cost of $100. 30. Original location ___X____ Moved _______ Date of move(s): N/A 2.c Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 5 V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): None 33. Current use(s): Residential – Single Family Dwelling 34. Site type(s): House 35. Historical background: Since approximately 1907-08, this modest wood frame residence served as a home for a series of “working class” citizens, who inhabited Fort Collins during the dynamic twentieth century. The simple vernacular house was reportedly constructed in 1900; however, this date is likely erroneous since city directory data suggest that the home was built sometime between 1902 and 1908. This time span (c.1903-1908) was a noteworthy period in Fort Collins’ history. The 1903 construction of a large new beet sugar processing factory on the northeastern periphery of the city sparked an unprecedented influx of new residents, along with a major building boom. During the first decade of the twentieth century (1900-1910), the city’s population exploded, with a 169% increase in residents, rising from 3,053 in 1900 to 8,210 in 1910. The building boom of the 1900s was accompanied by the platting and opening of a series of additions for new residential development, which would exploit the lucrative opportunity resulting from the mass population influx. At least nine (9) new residential additions were platted in the first decade of the twentieth century, such as the Washington Place Addition, platted in May of 1903. The Washington Place Addition covered 17 acres just to the south of 1016 West Mountain Avenue, including the south side of the 1000 block of West Mountain Avenue, and extends south as well as east of Shields Street. Another new addition, the Morger- Smith Addition, was platted in early October of 1905; Morger-Smith’s plat surrounded the row of houses on the north side of the 1000 block of West Mountain Avenue (including #1016) to the north and east. During the same decade, the City of Fort Collins initiated construction of a network of streetcar/trolley lines along some of the wider major roadways. The new system followed the precedent set by some larger American cities. Fort Collins’ new electric-powered streetcar system was designed to shuttle passengers around town and to major destinations. The first two trolley lines, both constructed in 1907, included one running north-south along the centerline of College Avenue, from the north end of the “Old Town” commercial district, to the entrance to Colorado Agriculture and Mechanical Arts College (A&M; now Colorado State University, or CSU) and on to its terminus at Pitkin Street. A second major line built in 1907 was established along the centerline of Mountain Avenue, running west from Old Town all the way to City Park, and beyond to Grandview Cemetery. A small spur line was also built in 1907, taking off of Mountain Avenue at Howes Street, leading north to a large brick “car barn” to house and maintain the street cars. The Mountain Avenue Line, which runs along a wide, grass and tree- landscaped median and remains sporadically in use today (operated by the Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society), passes directly in front of 1016 West Mountain Avenue. This trolley line provided convenient and direct transportation for residents of West Mountain Avenue to the downtown commercial area as well as to City Park and the cemetery. It also provided access to the streetcar system’s other rail lines, providing transportation destinations including the college; the Great Western sugar factory on the northeastern periphery of Fort Collins; to churches in residential areas; and even to Lindenmeier Lake northeast of the sugar factory. In the very early twentieth century, Lindenmeier Lake was developed as an outdoor recreation destination offering boating, swimming, and picnicking. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 6 According to city directory data, the property at 1016 West Mountain Avenue appears to have first been occupied by William M. Keeley and his wife Mamie (or Mayme). The Keeley family evidently moved from a previous Fort Collins residence to 1016 West Mountain Avenue around 1907 or 1908, presumably soon following its construction, and they remained at this address until the early 1920s. Mr. Keeley was a blacksmith who in 1908 was co-owner of a blacksmith shop known as Keeley & Simmons, located on the edge of downtown at 360 Jefferson Street. Around 1910-11, Keeley & Simmons’ blacksmith shop had moved across the street to 401 Jefferson Street, but by 1913-14, the Fort Collins city directory does not list Keeley & Simmons in business. By that time, there were ten (10) blacksmith shops operating in Fort Collins, and by 1913-14 the building occupied previously by Keeley & Simmons was occupied by another similar business called the “City Shoeing Shop” (a reference to horseshoeing). However, William Keeley continued to work in his chosen trade as a blacksmith; in 1917 he reportedly worked at the shop of McNeese & Orleans, located at 217 North College Avenue. It appears that by 1922 Mr. Keeley was retired. His wife, Mamie, evidently was not employed outside the home during the time she lived at 1016 West Mountain Avenue. By 1922, city directory data suggests that William Keeley was retired; in that year he and Mamie were sharing the Mountain Avenue home with another woman named Mrs. M.K.O. Lowe (possibly a widow). It appears that by 1925 the Keeleys had left Fort Collins, but evidently retained ownership of the house as a rental property. In 1925 the home was occupied by G. Henry Waibel and his wife Senanda). Mr. Waibel was a “floorman” at the car dealership of H.C. Bradley, located at 205 East Mountain Avenue. However, their tenure was relatively short-lived, since by 1927 the Waibels had left Fort Collins, and in their place was rancher Frank Potter and his wife Ethel. Two years later, in 1929 the Potters had either moved or passed away, and the house at 1016 West Mountain Avenue was subsequently occupied by fruit salesman Charles R. Spencer and his wife, Annabelle. The Spencers had relocated from an earlier residence they occupied at 315 Plum Street. The turnover continued in the 1930s. As of 1931, Charles and Annabelle Spencer had evidently left Fort Collins; perhaps their departure can be attributed to the adverse and widespread economic impact of the onset of the Great Depression. In any event, the Keeleys had re- occupied their former home by 1931. However, William Keeley passed away on May 19, 1932 at age 58, and by 1933 his wife Mamie was listed living in the home with another couple, Walter R. Halley, an auto mechanic for the Northern Garage (100 Pine Street) and his wife Carol. At that time (1933), Mrs. Keeley was also running a business from the home called the “Mountain Avenue Tea Room.” The situation was the same in 1934. The situation changed in 1936, and it appears that Mrs. Keeley may have herself passed away. In that year, the Halleys – Walter and Carol – remained occupants of 1016 West Mountain Avenue. By 1938 the Halleys had moved to another residence at 142 North College Avenue, and the Mountain Avenue property was home to Lyle W. Burns, his wife Clora, and two children, Francis M. and John W. Burns, both listed in the city directory as students. Mr. Burns’ occupation was listed cryptically as “rep.” In 1940, Harold P. Warden, a conservationist with the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a “New Deal” relief program who also was a teacher, occupied 1016 West Mountain Avenue with his wife Leona and three young children: Nita, Lee, and David. Exactly how far into the 1940s the Wardens lived at this address is unknown due to the paucity of city directories from this decade. 2.c Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 7 However, by 1944, the house had been acquired by the Rein family, including Dan Rein and his wife Lydia. Dan Rein was said to be retired in the 1950 city directory entry; however by 1952 he went back to work for Colorado A&M/CSU as a maintenance man/laborer. By 1960 he was again retired, this time for good. The Reins continued to live at 1016 West Mountain Avenue until c. 1983. By 1984 there were no listings for Dan or Lydia Rein, suggesting that had either passed or moved away from Fort Collins. By the summer of 1950, when the house was owned by Dan and Lydian Rein, the Public Service Company, a power utility, had obtained a permanent easement to allow for construction of a small substation building on a strip of land comprising the rear 20 feet of the residential lot. A building permit (Permit No. 11948) was then obtained on August 29, 1950, to build a 12’6” x 9’6” brick regulator station on rear 20 x 20 of lot. The one-room, one story substation was to be equipped with a fireproof asbestos shingle roof. Following the departure of the Rein family, the house experienced frequent turnover of occupants from the 1980s through the first few years of the twenty-first century. From c. 1984 through 1986 the house was occupied by Harley and Sharon Ingmire (no occupations listed). Then, from c. 1987 through 1992 the home was occupied by CSU student Tama Serfoss along with a number of short term co-tenants, including Lynnette Wittwer (1987), Heidi Hinkle and Glen Vecquerary (1988), and Tim Julseth and Bob Kouris (1990). These short term occupants were likely also CSU students. Occupancy of the West Mountain Avenue house is unknown for the period 1993-1997. From 1997-1999, Jamie Barlow (CSU student?) lived in the dwelling, followed in 1999-2000 by Kevin Gurney; in 2001-02 by Benson M. Farndrich; in 2002 by Gilbert Morgan; and in 2003 by Camilla E. Boyd. Camilla Boyd evidently married soon after, and from c. 2006 through 2008, Christopher and Camilla Barrett lived at 1016 West Mountain Avenue. Occupancy, and probably ownership, of the house evidently changed around 2009, when Kurt Richard Strobel and Marianne Hope Strobel had moved in. They remained at this address from 2009 through approximately 2014. It appears that the house was rented in 2015 and 2016, to Elizabeth Broome and Barbara Linn Frare, respectively. Throughout most of its history, the occupants of 1016 West Mountain Avenue had access to many services, including, in addition to the trolley line, a gas station constructed west of the house, on the northeast corner of Mountain Avenue and Shields Street in 1925, two churches, including one erected directly west of the house and east of the gas station, Washington (elementary) School, a couple of blocks away on the corner of S. Shields and Olive streets; and a small grocery store on the northwest corner of the Shields and Mountain intersection, now known as Beaver’s Market. In late March of 2016 the house was sold to the current owners – Darryl Austin and Brenda M. Bluestone. Intending to improve the usefulness of the house, Austin and Blusetone applied for a City of Fort Collins building permit in order to substantially enlarge and improve their home. The permit application triggered the need for this documentation and evaluation of this historic home. Because it is more than 50 years old, the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department required this documentation to be completed in order to assess the property’s historical and architectural significance. In February of 2017, owner Darryl Austin hired the historic preservation consulting company Retrospect to research and document the property onto this Colorado Architectural Inventory Form. 2.c Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 8 36. Sources of information: Beier, Harold 1958 Fort Collins, History and General Character. Research and Survey Report, Part 1. Prepared by Harold Beier, Community Development Consultant, Fort Collins, Colorado, for the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, April 1958. City of Fort Collins Log of Building Permits, 1920 – 1950, on file at the Fort Collins Local History Archive. City of Fort Collins 1925 Permit No. 901 (March 2, 1925) issued to Theo. Stanford for a “filling station” at 1032 West Mountain Avenue; estimated cost of $3,000. Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1917, 1919, 1922, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1933- 1934, 1936, 1938, 1940, 1948, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956-1957, 1960, 1962-1964, 1966, 1968-1973, 1975-1976, 1979, 1981, and 1983-2016. From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. Larimer County Assessor 1968 Property Card for 1016 West Mountain Avenue (Parcel No. 97113-02-016). From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 1977 Property Card for 1016 West Mountain Avenue (Parcel No. 97113-02-016). From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 2016 Property information record for 1016 West Mountain Avenue (Parcel No. 97113-02- 016). Accessed online, January 7, 2017. Larimer County Genealogical Society n.d. Cemeteries of Larimer County, Volume 1: Mountain View, Post, Grandview, p. 177. Marmor, Jason 1998 Fort Collins Architectural Inventory Form for 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113). Prepared in association with the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood area historic reconnaissance survey, completed for the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, July 14, 1998. McWilliams, Karen 2001 Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods, A Cultural Resources Survey, Larimer County, Colorado (SHF-96-02-115). City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department, December 1, 2001. On file at the Colorado Historical Society, Denver. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company 1925 Fire insurance maps of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1016 West Mountain Avenue is shown on page 13. Available on Library of Congress microfilm of collection of Sanborn maps. 1948 Fire insurance maps of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1016 West Mountain Avenue is shown on page 13. Available on Library of Congress microfilm of collection of Sanborn maps. 2.c Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 9 Simmons, Thomas, and Laurie Simmons. 1992 City of Fort Collins Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture Historic Contexts. Report prepared by Front Range Research Associates for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ____ No __ __ Date of designation: Not Applicable Designating authority: Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: ___ __ A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; ______ B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ______ C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ______ D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. ________ Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) ___X ___ Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Community Development 40. Period of significance: c. 1907 41. Level of significance: National _____ State _____ Local __X___ 42(a). Statement of significance National Register of Historic Places-eligibility: The house at 1016 West Mountain Avenue does not embody sufficient historical or architectural significance to qualify as individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Built c.1907, this modest single family dwelling is associated with a historically significant trend in Fort Collins history: the unprecedented population growth and associated building boom that occurred in the first decade of the twentieth century in the wake of construction, in 1903, of a new beet sugar refining plant on the town’s northeastern periphery. Because of this important association, the dwelling at 1016 West Mountain Avenue is eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criterion A. Archival research did not disclose that this property was owned, occupied, or otherwise associated with any persons who would be considered significant in terms of Fort Collins, Colorado, or national history. It was occupied initially by a blacksmith, followed by a number of other “working class” residents, and towards the end of the century, by short term college student renters. The property would therefore not qualify for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion B. This house is a Vernacular Wood Frame building typical for domestic architecture in Fort Collins during the first decade of the twentieth century. Its distinguishing characteristics include relatively steeply pitched roof with overhanging boxed eaves; cladding with clapboard siding; a gabled front dormer clad with fish-scale shingles, and double-hung windows. The front porch visible today, while appearing historic, was evidently built sometime between 1977 and 1998, and has been further modified since 1998. It is impossible to tell if the exterior clapboard siding and fish-scale shingles are original design features, and the existing front porch is a visually 2.c Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 10 dominant element that is <50 years old. For these reasons, the house would not qualify for the NRHP under Criterion C. 42(b). Statement of significance Fort Collins Local Landmark-eligibility: This well-preserved example of very early twentieth century vernacular residential architecture in Fort Collins qualifies for designation as a Local Landmark under Criteria A and C. The house is associated with a historically significant trend in Fort Collins history: the unprecedented population growth and associated building boom that occurred in the first decade of the twentieth century which followed the construction, in 1903, of a new beet sugar refining plant on the town’s northeastern periphery. During the first decade of the twentieth century (1900- 1910), the city’s population rapidly grew, from 3,053 residents in 1900 to 8,210 in 1910, a 169% increase. Because of this important association, the dwelling at 1016 West Mountain Avenue is eligible for Local Landmark designation under Criterion A. Archival research did not disclose that this property was owned, occupied, or otherwise associated with any persons who would be considered significant in terms of Fort Collins, Colorado, or national history. It was occupied initially by a blacksmith, followed by a number of other “working class” residents, and towards the end of the century, by short term college student renters. The property would therefore not qualify for Local Landmark designation under Criterion B. Archival research indicated that the home at 1016 West Mountain Avenue has undergone exterior changes over time; for example at an unknown date it was entirely re-sided with asbestos shingles, and later (between 1977 and 1998) the distinctive attached gabled front porch canopy was altered by removing the existing knee braces and adding corner posts and pilasters as well as a new wooden deck. Sometime after 1998 the asbestos shingle siding was removed, but is not clear if the clapboard siding and fish-scale shingles on the face of the gabled front dormer visible today are original or were added after the removal of the asbestos shingles. There are no early photos available to show the home’s original siding. However, it is reasonable to expect that clapboard siding and fish-scale shingles were originally utilized on the house’s exterior. Additionally, in spite of the front porch improvements (which incorporates the historic gabled canopy), the home appears to retain good overall architectural integrity (including original windows), which enable the property to convey architectural significance. The home exhibits characteristics typical of widespread very early twentieth century Vernacular Wood Frame working class domestic architecture in Fort Collins. For these reasons, the property is evaluated as eligible for Local Landmark designation under Criterion C. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This historic residential property retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, but its setting has been compromised to some degree by the construction of a new, two story, multi- unit residential building, just west of, and adjoining, 1016 West Mountain Avenue. The original or same type of original exterior wall cladding of the house – clapboard and fish-scale shingles on the face of the gabled front dormer – were hidden for many years by a covering of asbestos shingle siding. Removal of the asbestos shingles effectively restored an aspect of the building’s historic architectural integrity. As discussed earlier, the current front porch represents an alteration in terms of converting a pre-existing projecting gabled wooden canopy with barrel- vaulted ceiling into a more formal porch by adding corner support posts and similar looking pilasters on the façade. While this alteration has changed the appearance of the dwelling to a small degree, the design is visually compatible with the architectural character of the property; 2.c Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 11 and, furthermore, this alteration is ultimately reversible. In any case, the house retains sufficient integrity to convey its historical and architectural significance in accordance with the Fort Collins Local Landmark eligibility criteria. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register (individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not (Individually) Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X _ No Discuss: If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing X _ Noncontributing _ 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing _ Not Applicable X _ VIII. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 48. Local Landmark (individual) eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not (Individually) Eligible Need Data 49. Is there Fort Collins Local Landmark district potential? Yes X _ No Discuss: If there is Fort Collins Local Landmark district potential, is this building: Contributing X _ Noncontributing _ 50. If the building is in existing Fort Collins Local Landmark district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing _ Not Applicable X _ IX. RECORDING INFORMATION 51. Photograph numbers: 5LR.8113- #1-65 Negatives or digital photo files filed at: City of Fort Collins, Development Review Center (Current Planning) - Historic Preservation Department, 281 N. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 52. Report/Project title: Historic and Architectural Assessment for 1016 West Mountain Avenue 53. Date(s): April 6, 2017 54. Recorder(s): Jason Marmor 55. Organization: RETROSPECT 56. Address: 936 Wild Cherry Lane, Fort Collins, CO 80521 57. Phone number(s): (970) 219-9155 History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 2.c Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 12 Location of 1016 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.8113), shown on a portion of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5’ Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle map (1960; Photorevised 1984). ▪ 1016 West Mountain Avenue 5LR.8113 2.c Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 13 Sketch map of 1016 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins (5LR.8113). driveway N sidewalk WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE alley Chicken coop 50 feet Brick substation building Shed-roofed vestibule Detached garage for 1014 West Mountain Avenue Detached garage Modern wood picket privacy fence 190 feet Modern vinyl picket fence 2.c Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 14 C. 1963 View of 1016 West Mountain Avenue, from old Larimer County Assessor property card. On file at the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 1977 View of 1016 West Mountain Avenue, from old Larimer County Assessor property card. On file at the Fort Collins Local History Archive. 2.c Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 15 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map showing 1016 West Mountain Avenue. 2.c Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 16 1948 Sanborn Map showing 1016 West Mountain Avenue. 2.c Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 17 Map of former streetcar/trolley routes in Fort Collins. From Kenneth Jessen et al., Trolley cars of Fort Collins: including "Last of the Birneys," by E. S. Peyton and R. A. Moorman (edited by Kenneth Jessen); Loveland, Colorado: JV Publications, c. 1986. ▪ ▪ 1016 West Mountain Avenue 2.c Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 18 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking northwest. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 19 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), façade, looking north. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), façade, looking north. 2.c Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 20 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking northeast. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking north. 2.c Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 21 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), façade, looking northeast. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), façade and east elevation, looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 22 Portico on the façade of 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 23 Portico on the façade of 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking north. 2.c Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 24 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), sash-and-transom window on façade. 2.c Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 25 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), gable on façade, clad with fish-scale shingles, 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), close-up of multi-light attic window on front gable. 2.c Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 26 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), close-up of boxed eaves at front right, SE corner of house. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), close-up of boxed eaves at front right, SE corner of house. 2.c Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 27 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), east elevation of house, looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 28 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), close-up of double-hung window on house’s east elevation. 2.c Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 29 1 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), close-up of double-hung windows on east elevation of house. 2.c Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 30 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), Enclosed shed-roofed porch/vestibule on east side of house; Provides access to basement stairwell; view looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 31 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), entry on narrow enclosed porch on east side of house, looking north . 2.c Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 32 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), east elevation, looking SW. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), rear/north elevation, looking SSE. 2.c Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 33 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), rear/north elevation, looking southeast. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), rear/north elevation, looking WSW. 2.c Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 34 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), double-hung window on rear/north elevation. 2.c Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 35 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), fixed window on rear elevation. 2.c Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 36 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), door on rear/north elevation, looking south. 2.c Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 37 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), west elevation, looking SSE. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), window on west elevation. 2.c Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 38 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), double-hung window on west elevation. 2.c Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 39 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), brick chimney rising from roof. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), back yard, looking north. Garage visible at far right. 2.c Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 40 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), driveway along east side of house to access detached garage, looking south. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), detached garage, looking northeast. 2.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 41 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), detached garage, looking northeast. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), front (south side) of detached garage, looking north. 2.c Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 42 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), west elevation of garage, looking east. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), west elevation of garage, looking east. 2.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 43 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), window on west elevation of detached garage. 2.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 44 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), detached garage, west and rear/north elevations, looking SE. ` 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), detached garage, north/rear elevation, looking south. 2.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 45 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), chicken coop, looking northeast. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), chicken coop, looking northeast. 2.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 46 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), chicken coop, looking north. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), chicken coop, looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 47 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), chicken coop door, looking NNE. 2.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 48 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), chicken coop window, looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 49 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), chicken coop, west side view, looking east. 2.c Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 50 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking south from backyard. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), backyard, looking southwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 51 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), deciduous trees along west fence line in backyard, looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 52 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), backyard, looking northwest. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), fire ring, looking south-southwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 53 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), Excel substation behind house, looking west-northwest. Substation, 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking west-southwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 54 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), looking . 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), fence at rear of lot, looking south. 2.c Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 55 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), modern vinyl picket front yard fence, looking northeast. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), modern vinyl picket front yard fence, looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 56 VIEWS OF STREETSCAPE ON NORTH SIDE OF 1000 BLOCK OF WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE 2.c Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 57 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), streetscape view, trolley tracks in median of Mountain Avenue, looking east. Distant view of 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), and flanking properties, looking north. 2.c Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 58 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), streetscape view, looking north-northeast. 1016 West Mountain Avenue (5LR.8113), streetscape view, looking northwest. 2.c Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Colorado Architectural Inventory Form (Form #1403) Keeley House – 1016 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Larimer County Page 59 1000 block of West Mountain Avenue, north side streetscape view, looking northeast. North side of West Mountain Avenue, looking northeast. 2.c Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Architectural Inventory Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 3/4" SUBFLOOR 10 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 & FOOTING FOUNDATION WALL 14 15 1 2 2 X 8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C. 30" min. 10 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 CHIMNEY SUPORT & REMODELED GARAGE SLAB NEW BEDROOM ELEV. FIN. FLOOR 100'-6 1/2" 1 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR 2 X 8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C. 2 X 4 KNEE WALL OVER EXISTING SLAB 2" RIGID INSULATION 12" BLOCK 8" FOOTING PAD X 3'-4" WIDE- 3 #4"s EAST/WEST, 13 #4's SPACED EVENLY, LENGTH OF PAD 18 13 GAS LOG APPLIANCE- BEYOND 18 13 12"Ø PIER FOR STAIR SUPPORT 12" 12" 3/4" WOLMANIZED TREATED 'SKIRT' PROTECTING EXISTING WOOD FRAMED WALL 2'-1" EXISTING GARAGE SLAB 4" PVC DRAINAGE PIPE FOUNDATION NOTES: 1. All foundation concrete to be 3000 psi minimum compressive strength at 28 days (type I or type II cement). 2. All reinforcing to be No. 4 deformed type, deformed type, grade 40 steel. Minimum splice length 1' - 9". 3. Provide positive drainage from all backfill areas. 12" of fall in first 10' from foundation wall is SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" NORTH 1 1 SITE PLAN    29.4' 6.4'     4.0' 20.0' RIGHT OF WAY ALLEY 9.0' PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING RESIDENCE 28.0'  11.0' 26.0' 28.0'  23.5' 2.5' 13.3' 10.0' 13.0' 8.0' 18.0' 18.0' 3.3' 40.0' 8.8' 5.0' 34.0' 18.0' 40.0' 18.52' 5.0' 2.1' 5.36' 3.2' 5.0' 22.0' 40.0' 18.52' PROPOSED OPEN CARPORT PROPOSED ENCLOSED HOBBY SHOP 18' X 12' (216 Sq. Ft.) w/ 193 Sq. Ft. 'GUEST QUARTERS' ABOVE (409 Sq. Ft. TOTAL) UPPER LEVEL PLAN A1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH 8'-7 1/2" 11'-0" 12'-3" 4'-0" 26'-0" 29'-4" 17'-1 1/2" 6'-2" 8'-10" 13'-9 1/2" 8'-0" 8'-10" 5'-6" 2'-6" 10'-0" 2 T. @ 10" 4'-8 1/2" 5'-8" 4'-3" = 1'-8" 2'-6" 4'-0" 3'-8 1/2" 3'-6" 14'-4" 3'-4" 17'-1 1/2" 11'-10 1/2" 2'-8" 12'-8" 29'-4" 7'-4" 28'-2 1/2" 14'-4" 15'-0" 4'-10" 4'-0" 9 TREADS @ 10" = 7'-6" 4'-5" 12'-6" 3'-10 1/2" 2'-0" 4'-0" 11'-11 1/2" 17'-10" 7'-4" PILASTER A 4 C 6 B 5 ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL 110'-7 5/8" NEW MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATHROOM CLOSET NEW SOUTH ROOF DECK C 6 4'0" X 2'0" 2'6" LINE OF LEVEL BELOW A 4 B 5 3'0" X 2'0" ABOVE ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 12 9 ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 12 9 27 27 27 ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL 110'-7 5/8" ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL 110'-7 5/8" ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL 110'-7 5/8" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION A3 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION A3 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION A3 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION A3 3 ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL ELEV. 110'-7 5/8" (MASTER BEDROOM) 110'-7 5/8" ELEV. NEW BEARING 117'-7 5/8" ELEV. NEW BEARING 117'-7 5/8" 12 9 12 9 ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL ELEV. ORIG. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 6 1/2" 9'-1 1/8" 1'-0" 7'-0" NEW KITCHEN 29'-4" 29'-4" 4 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" A SECTION A 1 EXISTING HOUSE STRUCTURE NEW 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR EXISTING 2 X 8 FLOOR JOISTS @ 16" O.C. EXISTING 2 X 6 @ 16" O.C. (BUILT UP FLOOR OVER ORIGINAL) 1 (2 X 6) 10 7 10 3 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR NEW MASTER BEDROOM 12 9 29'-4" ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER DOUBLE UNDERLAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R905.2.7 OF THE CODE 2 12 9 1 13 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) SHOWER PAN 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 12 2 13 27 3'0" X 2'0" TRANSVERSE @ KITCHEN EXISTING FOUNDATION 12 9 R 38 INSULATION 5 1/2" X 11 1/4" PARALLAM BEAM ELEV. NEW BEDROOM #2 BRG. 108'-8 1/2" ELEV. MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL 110'-7 5/8" ELEV. ORIG. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 6" 8'-2" 1'-3 1/8" NEW SUN ROOM ELEV. MATCH (EX.) BRG. 108'-7 5/8" 5 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" B SECTION B 22 6 15 1 2 13 16 3 21 7 R 38 INSULATION 5 R 30 BATT INSULATION 2" CLOSED CELL INSULATION 10 8 6 8 17 GAS LOG APPLIANCE (SIDE VENT) 2 X 8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C. 17 17 22 2 13 1 15 16 18 36" min. NEW BEDROOM 18 TRANSVERSE @ SUN ROOM PILASTER- BEYOND. SEE EXISTING DINING ROOM ELEV. NEW BEARING 109'-7 5/8" ELEV. NEW BEARING 108'-7 5/8" ELEV. EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" 6 1/2" 9'-1 1/8" 1'-0" 7'-0" 17'-5" 17'-1 1/2" NEW KITCHEN NEW SUN ROOM NEW BEDROOM 6 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" C SECTION C ELEV. FIN. FLOOR 100'-6 1/2" 8'-1 1/8" 1 1 8'-6" HIGH CEILING 8'-1 1/2" LOW CEILING 5 8 1 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR 2 X 8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C. KNEE WALL OVER EXISTING SLAB 2" RIGID INSULATION 18 R 30 BATT INSULATION 2" CLOSED CELL INSULATION 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR 2 X 8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C. R 30 BATT 5 INSULATION 2" CLOSED CELL INSULATION 6 19'-4" 15'-4" 13'-4" 36" min. ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL 110'-7 5/8" ROOF FRAMING PLAN 7a 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS GIRDER TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS GABLE END TRUSS GABLE END TRUSS 2 X 6 CRICKET OVER FRAMING@ SHADED AREA SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS GIRDER TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS TRUSS SCISSORS MONO TRUSSES 2- 2 X 4 HEADER IN MONO TRUSS HEEL, D.F. #1 GIRDER TRUSS SCISSORS MONO TRUSSES 2- 2 X 4 HEADER D.F. #1 (3 TRUSSES MODIFIED TO ACCEPT HEADER) 2- 2 X 10's 2- 2 X 10's 2- 2 X 8's 28'-2 1/2" 14'-5 1/2" 14'-10 1/2" 12'-5 1/2" 17'-1 1/2" 6'-4 1/2" 2- 2 X 10's SCISSORS TRUSS 12 6 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR 12 6 R 38 INSULATION 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" ELEV. EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" EX. HDR. EX. HDR. EX. HDR. EX. HDR. EX. HDR. EX. HDR. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH 1- 9 1/4" LVL 2- 9 1/4" LVL's 2- 9 1/4" LVL's ROOF FRAMING PLAN UPPER LEVEL/ DECK/ LOWER 7 2 6 X 6 COL. 1- 11 1/4" LVL 2- 11 1/4" LVL's 5 1/4" X 11 1/4" PARALLAM 2 X 6 WALL SIMPSON HANGAR FOR 4K POINT LOAD 2- 11 1/4" LVL's 11 1/4" TJI"s @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 11 1/4" TJI"s @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) STAIR OPENING 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) RIP 2 X 10's FROM 2 1/4" TO 9 1/4" (SPACE @ 16" O.C.) RIP 2 X 10's FROM 2 1/4" TO 9 1/4" (SPACE @ 16" O.C.) 2- 11 1/4" LVL's 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) SLOPE 1/2" per foot SLOPE 1/2" per foot 6 X 6 COL. 6 X 6 COL. 6 X 6 COL. 6 X 6 COL. 6 X 6 COL. 2- 2 X 6 2- 2 X 6 2- 2 X 6 2- 2 X 6 2- 2 X 6 2- 2 X 6 MONO TRUSS (TYP.) @ 24" O.C. MONO TRUSS MONO TRUSS (TYP.) @ 24" O.C. 2 X 8's @ 16" O.C. HEADER 2- 2 X 8 HEADER VERIFY HEADER @ EXISTING OPENING PILASTERS SET 3 1/2" FROM FACE OF WALL- SEE DETAILS SHEET 5 7'-0" 3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-4" 7 TREADS @ 10.5" = 6'-1 1/2" 2'-5 1/2" 2" TOP LANDING w/ COMPOSITE 5/4" PLANKS SET IN STEEL FABRICATED FRAME- INCLUDED w/ PERIMETER FRAME, PROVIDE 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" ANGLES FOR MAXIMUM COMPOSITE PLANK SPANS OF 12" O.C. MID LEVEL LANDING w/ COMPOSITE 5/4" PLANKS SET IN 1 1/2" ANGLED STEEL FABRICATED FRAME- INTERMEDIATE ANGLE SUPPORTS FOR MAXIMUM COMPOSITE PLANK SPANS OF 12" O.C. EACH TREAD SUPPORTED w/ 2 INTERMEDIATE 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" STEEL ANGLE PLANK SUPPORTS 4" X 4" X 1/4" TUBULAR STEEL COLUMN 4" X 4" X 1/4" TUBULAR STEEL COLUMN 2 19/32" 3'-3 13/32" 3'-3 13/32" 2 19/32" 1 8 2 8 2 8 8 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 PLAN @ NORTH STAIRS K ELEV. FIN. FLOOR 100'-6 1/2" 3'-0" 4" 8 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION @ NORTH STAIRS 8 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION @ NORTH STAIRS 8 RISERS @ 7 1/8" = 4'-9 1/4" T RISERS @ 7 1/8" = 4'-2 1/8" 7 1/8" 3'-0" 4" 3'-2 1/4" 7 TREADS @ 10.5" = 6'-1 1/2" 2'-5 1/2" 3'-3 1/4" 6 TREADS @ 10.5" = 5'-3" 3'-0 1/2" TOP LANDING w/ COMPOSITE 5/4" PLANKS SET IN STEEL FABRICATED FRAME (SEE PLAN FOR ANGLE SUPPORT LOCATIONS) COMPOSITE STAIR TREAD SET IN 1/2" ANGLE 'FORM' 9 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 1 PARTIAL STAIR DETAIL 5/4" COMPOSITE PLANKS C 8 X 11.5 C 8 X 11.5 C 10 X 15.3 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" PLATE CONNECTION 1/4" WELD 1/4" PLATE CONNECTION 1/4" WELD 4" X 4" X 1/4" TUBULAR COLUMN 4" CLEAN GRAVEL 12" WIDE THICKENED SLAB @ BASE OF STAIR STRINGERS STRINGER WELDED TO 1/4" PLATE CONNECTION- TWO (2) 1/2" EXPANSION BOLTS (2 1/2" LENGTH) INTO THICKENED SLAB 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1/4" WELD 1" X 1" X 1/4" INTERMEDIATE ANGLE SUPPORT FOR COMPOSITE TREADS (ANGLE CUT NOSE SIDE) TYPICAL C 10 X 15.3 STRINGER 3 1/2" X 3 1/2" X 1/4" STEEL ANGLE BRACE w/ 1/4" PLATE CONNECTION WELDED TO CHANNEL & TUBULAR COLUMN. 1" X 1" X 1/4" INTERMEDIATE ANGLE SUPPORTS FOR MAXIMUM PLANK SUPPORT SPACING OF 12" O.C. ANGLE CLIP SUPPORTING RAILING 1" X 1" X 1/4" TREAD FRAME (WELD TO SIDE STRINGERS w/ 1/4" WELD) 5/4" COMPOSITE TREADS w/ #12 X 1 1/2" SCREWS INTO ANGLE SUPPORTS 4" CONCRETE SLAB w/ FIBERMESH 9 OF 11 DA KGL NORTH STAIR SHEET SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN 11 1 MOVE EXISTING SWITCH NORTH EXISTING ELECTRICAL REMAINING PROVIDE NEW ELECTRICAL AS SHOWN GFI FAN LIGHT ACTIVATE @ DOOR GFI 3 GFI +48" GFI +48" WP 3 FAN LIGHT GFI P 3 NEW CLOSET NEW BEDROOM NEW BATHROOM NEW KITCHEN NEW SUN ROOM NEW BEDROOM NEW BATHROOM EXISTING PORCH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH GFI 3 FAN LIGHT WP WP WP ELECTRICAL PLAN 11 2 UPPER LEVEL FAN LIGHT GFI 3 3 NEW MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATHROOM CLOSET 2.e Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Demo Alt Review Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 2.e Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Demo Alt Review Form (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9/8/2017 1 1 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 09.20.2017 1016 W Mountain Ave, Two-Story Addition— Final Demolition/Alteration Review Background and History 2 • Construction Date: 1903-1908 • 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 - excellent example of a Classic Cottage. 2.f Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9/8/2017 2 Location and Context 3 1016 W Mountain Ave 2.f Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9/8/2017 3 1016 W Mountain Ave 1016 W Mountain Ave 2.f Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9/8/2017 4 1016 W Mountain Ave Project Summary 8 • Two-Story Rear Addition 2.f Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9/8/2017 5 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 2.f Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9/8/2017 6 • 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 2.f Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) 9/8/2017 7 13 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 09.20.2017 1016 W Mountain Ave, Two-Story Addition— Final Demolition/Alteration Review 2.f Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 20, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Harden House at 227 Wood Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1999. The proposed work includes demolition of an existing rear porch (undated, historic), addition on the northwest corner of the residence that spans the rear elevation, addition of a skylight, and addition of a deck. The applicants previously presented two design options for conceptual review at the August 16, 2017 LPC meeting. This a revised option based on feedback received from the Commission at that meeting. APPLICANT: Gordon Winner, property owner Heidi Shuff, architect OWNER: Gordon and Jody Winner RECOMMENDATION: N/A. The applicant is still in the conceptual design review phase and has not yet finalized plans and applied for a building permit. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The house located at 227 Wood Street, known as the Harden House, was constructed in 1904 and designated as an individual Fort Collins Landmark in 1999. In 2000, the previous owners received a landmark rehabilitation grant for $2,500 to restore the front porch back to the historic 1904 photo, replace non-original panes of glass in the lower sashes of windows with historic glass, stabilize windows with epoxy patching where needed, and repoint brick façade. This work was approved under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically under standards 2, 5, and 6. This is a continuation of the conceptual design review that began with the discussion at the August 16, 2017 LPC meeting. The applicant seeks feedback on the newly revised option based on Commission comments provided at that meeting. They have not yet fulfilled the requirements for final review, which include finalized sketches and plans, a plan of protection, and a building permit application. The applicants will return at a later date for final design review to request a report of acceptability from the Commission. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The Harden House at 227 Wood Street is a Fort Collins example of early twentieth century vernacular residential architecture. This hipped box residence with a front gable, open porch is one of a row of three pressed brick houses, likely constructed by Dixon and Murphin Builders in 1903- 1904. The home includes character defining features such as the restored wooden front porch, sandstone foundation and sills, and decorative shingles in the front gable end. 3 Packet Pg. 98 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 Known alterations of the property to date include:  Possible addition of rear, covered porch/mudroom, undated, historic  Restoration of porch, windows, and repoint of brick façade in 2000 More detailed architectural and historical information can be found in the attached landmark nomination form. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking design review feedback for the following items:  Demolition of rear enclosed mudroom/porch  Addition on north and rear elevations, approximately 350 square feet  Addition of skylight  Addition of rear deck The applicants have provided a newly revised conceptual design for the LPC to review. The following summary of design changes that address the LPC’s comments at the August 16, 2017 meeting was provided by the architect, Heidi Shuff:  Shifted the addition west so that it does not cover the existing house. This required changes to the interior layout in order to accommodate this shift & still maintain appropriate functions & access to the new spaces, which results in an addition that extends 8'-6" to the north. This also resulted in shifting the patio doors & deck to the north. The tree will remain, and efforts will be made in the construction process to increase the odds of its survival (including minimizing over-excavation as much as possible). The deck will be built around the tree.  Removed the stairs going to the attic & the possibility of use of the attic space in the future, therefore eliminating the new gable end roof form to the north. Additionally, the larger casement window at the west gable end was replaced with an attic vent (similar to that of the existing east gable vent).  Stepped the new primary east-west running walls and gable roof of the addition in 6" from both the north & south walls of the original house.  Replaced the previous horizontal windows with square windows.  Showed the stoop & steps from the laundry/mud room entry at the north.  All window head heights are matching the existing.  Provided additional 3-D views The LPC also requested that the homeowner contact an arborist and provide additional information about the tree in the backyard. Homeowner Gordon Winner provided the following information based on that consultation: “It is a male Green Ash with a 13" trunk diameter at chest height. This tree may or may not have a bright future with the looming Emerald Ash Bore, but no one can accurately predict how soon nor how devastating to Fort Collins the spread of the Bore will be. These trees are known to be hearty trees with a tolerant rating for less than optimal growing conditions (poor soils, inconsistent watering, road sides, etc.) The addition will encroach upon the critical root zone, but only towards the east side of the tree. In speaking with Ralph Zentz with the City's Forestry Department, he believes it quite reasonable to think that the tree would survive the impact of the project if protected properly. Of course it is a gamble, but we intend to give it our best.” Additionally, the LPC requested that the homeowner explore excavating a full basement to meet programmatic desires. Homeowner Gordon Winner reached out to Jason Baker with Advanced Engineering for a professional opinion about excavating the basement. Mr. Baker’s letter to the Winners is attached to this staff report. REVIEW CRITERIA: Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Section 14-48, “Report of Acceptability” states, “In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, 3 Packet Pg. 99 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 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 National Park Service defines rehabilitation as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values." As stated in the definition, the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Exterior Integrity Exterior integrity is the composite of seven (7) aspects or qualities, which convey a property’s identity for which it is significant. These seven aspects are: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, or site. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. 3 Packet Pg. 100 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 EVALUATION: The Harden House is a designated Fort Collins landmark, and thus careful scrutiny is required for any proposed exterior changes that would affect the property’s ability to continue to convey its character and significance through its physical integrity. Additionally, recent feedback from the staff of History Colorado, our State Historic Preservation Office, indicates that our recent trends regarding treatment of additions to historic properties in Fort Collins is not in full compliance with their interpretation of the federal guidelines. Staff is currently consulting with them to provide more information to the Commission and the public that clarifies their expectations and that will ensure our protection and stewardship of designated properties is consistent with other communities in Colorado. In this regard, staff will provide recent feedback from History Colorado for discussion at the September 13, 2017 LPC work session. Staff recommends that the Commission consider this feedback when providing comments to the applicant for the proposed work on The Harden House. As with all design reviews for designated landmarks, evaluation of the proposed work should be based on the revised “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” published in 2017 by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services for guidance on interpreting the Standards for Rehabilitation. As the guidelines indicate, additions and alterations to historic properties should only be done when needed to retain functional use of a property to ensure continued use. The guiding document explains that “the Rehabilitation guidelines emphasize that new additions should be considered only after it is determined that meeting specific new needs cannot be achieved by altering non-character-defining interior spaces. If the use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an attached exterior addition may be considered.” Based on this guidance, applicants who wish to construct an addition to a designated landmark should provide the Landmark Preservation Commission with a detailed explanation of how the project is essential to the continued preservation and use of the property as well as information on why the program needs cannot be met through interior changes within the existing footprint. After this is established, the guidelines assert that “New additions should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building, its site, and setting are not negatively impacted. Generally, a new addition should be subordinate to the historic building. A new addition should be compatible, but differentiated enough so that it is not confused as historic or original to the building. The same guidance applies to new construction so that it does not negatively impact the historic character of the building or its site.” The chapter on Rehabilitation has been attached to this staff report for reference. COMMISSION REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEPTEMBER 13 WORK SESSION): FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. What are the plate and ridge heights of the existing, historic building and the addition? “The existing ceiling height is 9'-8". There's a thick cover of blown-in insulation at the attic so I wasn't able to really see the bearing condition, but I've assumed the existing 2x4 ceiling joists are sitting on the top plate, which would equate to about 9'-7" plate height. We're proposing to match the facia height, but will likely need to lower the plate height a bit to allow for energy heels with the trusses at the addition, so likely would propose a 9'-4" plate height for the addition. Based on my calculations, the existing ridge is about 19'-6" above finish floor, and the new ridge is proposed at 19'-1" above finished floor (5" below the existing ridge, as illustrated on the proposed West Elevations).” FOR STAFF: 1. Please share information about basement excavations. Staff contacted Anderson Associates for a report on the basement excavations that they have worked on in Fort Collins. Anderson Associates provided information in the form of a report and two sets of plans, which are now attached. There is also an invoice from the excavation project at 720 West Oak Street included that Anderson Associates did not have at the time of their report. Additionally, Staff has included two photographs of a basement walkout at 705 Maple Street. Staff has no further information on this basement walkout. 2. Please provide State Historic Preservation Office feedback on the current plans for the property. Staff contacted the State Historic Preservation Office for feedback on the plans. Amy Unger, Survey and CLG Grants Coordinator provided the following response to Karen McWilliams on September 11, 2017: “Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts on the proposed alterations to the property at 227 Wood Street. We appreciate the Fort Collins HP staff and commission's efforts to protect the integrity of this landmarked 3 Packet Pg. 101 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 5 property. The key factor in assessing the impact of the alterations was the fact that the home is significant for architecture, more specifically as a good example of a hipped roof box type residence built in the early 1900s. The building's significance is therefore closely tied to its characteristics that exemplify the type -- its hipped roof, square or rectangular floorplan, simple massing, porch details and other decorative features and materials consistent with early 1900 architectural trends. The first set of proposed plans had a big impact on the roof design and everyone felt the added gable on the north elevation and the complexity of the rear wall were problematic. It is good to see that these details were altered in the revised drawings. What follows are a few other observations from staff here: We are assuming that the owners have made a convincing argument for allowing demolition of the historic rear porch. Will the materials be salvaged for reuse? As we mentioned during review of the Loomis survey forms, additions that are larger than 1/3 of the current square footage are concerning and will likely affect NR eligibility (both individual and contributing). This is a general rule of thumb and other considerations certainly apply, but additions that expand the existing square footage by more than 30% generally have enough of an impact on the building's building plan and massing to significantly affect integrity of design. The size of bathroom/laundry room projecting addition appears to have increased in the revised drawings and is of some concern. As presented, the projecting addition will be visible from the street, adds to the increased square footage and alters the building's rectangular plan. Is the location of the bathroom and laundry a deal breaker? Is a shower necessary? Move laundry downstairs and incorporate bathroom within the new living room area to eliminate the projecting addition and better preserve the rectangular floorplan/reduce visibility and amount of new square footage added? Other concerns regarding the projecting addition: the new door should not match the historic front door and the window on the north side of the new addition would be more compatible with the historic windows if the height of the window was consistent with either of the two historic window types found on the north side. What is planned for the second floor of the new addition? Is living space planned for this area as well and is this why stairs are needed? (No drawings for this level were included.) It is good that that the ridgeline of the new roof does not align with the ridgeline of the front dormer, but ideally the historic hipped roof design and original mass of the house would remain more clearly evident. As drawn, the new roof obscures the current roof shape (P.S. there looks to be a drafting error in the north elevation drawing). It looks like the intent was to maximize the height and width of the addition -- the addition is only slightly set off from the historic building -- but reducing the overall height and width of the addition would help differentiate the addition from the historic building and allow the original roof shape and historic mass of the house to register more clearly. The simplified west elevation is a very positive revision. Only one concern: the fish scale shingles in the rear gable appear to match those on the front -- the details in the new gable should be differentiated from the historic details. And finally, in our opinion, installing a skylight in the historic roof is not considered consistent with the standards. I hope you will find these general impressions helpful. As I mentioned before these comments are provided as a courtesy and do not constitute formal recommendations or official findings.” 3 Packet Pg. 102 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. 1999-06-18 Landmark Designation (PDF) 2. ca 2000 photos (PDF) 3. Additional Photographs (PDF) 4. Existing Plans (PDF) 5. Standards for Rehabilitation (PDF) 6. Previous Options 2017-08-16 (PDF) 7. New Option 2017-09-20 (PDF) 8. Basement Excavation Option 2017-09-20 (PDF) 9. Opinion from Structural Engineer (PDF) 10. Staff Presentation (PDF) 11. Anderson Associates Report (PDF) 12. 720 W Oak Invoice (PDF) 13. 705 Maple 2017-09-10 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 103 3.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 1999-06-18 Landmark Designation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 1999-06-18 Landmark Designation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 1999-06-18 Landmark Designation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 1999-06-18 Landmark Designation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 1999-06-18 Landmark Designation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 1999-06-18 Landmark Designation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 3.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: ca 2000 photos (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: ca 2000 photos (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Additional Photographs (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 3.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Additional Photographs (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Additional Photographs (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 3.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Additional Photographs (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Additional Photographs (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 3.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Additional Photographs (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL UP 15' - 0" 15' - 0" SIDE YARD SETBACK REAR YARD SETBACK FRONT YARD SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK 150' - 0" 5' - 0" 40' - 0" 5' - 0" 180' - 0" EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING SHED WOOD STREET 50' - 0" 10' - 0" 24' - 1" 15' - 11" 90' - 0" 90' - 0" EXISTING COOP 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado EXISTING CONDITIONS WINNER RESIDENCE 4.10.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)5+6'2.#0 3.d Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Existing Plans (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REF. DW D W UP LIVING ROOM FRONT PORCH BEDROOM 1 FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 LAUNDRY BATH CLO. CLO. BACK PORCH 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado EXISTING CONDITIONS WINNER RESIDENCE 4.10.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)(+456(.1142.#0 3.d Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Existing Plans (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN WH UP CRAWL SPACE MECH./ STORAGE 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado EXISTING CONDITIONS WINNER RESIDENCE 4.10.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)$#5'/'062.#0 3.d Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Existing Plans (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado EXISTING CONDITIONS WINNER RESIDENCE 4.10.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)5176*'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)'#56'.'8#6+10 3.d Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Existing Plans (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado EXISTING CONDITIONS WINNER RESIDENCE 4.10.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)0146*'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':+56+0)9'56'.'8#6+10 3.d Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Existing Plans (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITH GUIDELINES FOR PRESERVING, REHABILITATING, RESTORING & RECONSTRUCTING HISTORIC BUILDINGS U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services 3.e Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION REHABILITATION STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION & GUIDELINES Rehabilitation FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS 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. 75 3.e Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 76 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 dis- tinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that character- ize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, fea- tures, 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. 3.e Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS INTRODUCTION In Rehabilitation, historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the treatment Preservation. However, greater latitude is given in the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or miss- ing features using either the same material or compatible substi- tute materials. Of the four treatments, only Rehabilitation allows alterations and the construction of a new addition, if necessary for a continuing or new use for the historic building. Identify, Retain, and Preserve Historic Materials and Features The guidance for the treatment Rehabilitation begins with recom- mendations to identify the form and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are important in defining the building’s historic character and which must be retained to preserve that char- acter. Therefore, guidance on identifying, retaining, and preserving character-defining features is always given first. Protect and Maintain Historic Materials and Features After identifying those materials and features that are important and must be retained in the process of Rehabilitation work, then protecting and maintaining them are addressed. Protection generally involves the least degree of intervention and is preparatory to other work. Protection includes the maintenance of historic materials and features as well as ensuring that the property is protected before and during rehabilitation work. A historic building undergoing rehabilita- tion will often require more extensive work. Thus, an overall evalua- tion of its physical condition should always begin at this level. Repair Historic Materials and Features Next, when the physical condition of character-defining materials and features warrants additional work, repairing is recommended. Rehabilitation guidance for the repair of historic materials, such as masonry, again begins with the least degree of intervention possible. In rehabilitation, repairing also includes the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of extensively dete- riorated or missing components of features when there are surviv- ing prototypes features that can be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Although using the same kind of material is always the preferred option, a substitute material may be an accept- able alternative if the form, design, and scale, as well as the substi- tute material itself, can effectively replicate the appearance of the remaining features. Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials and Features Following repair in the hierarchy, Rehabilitation guidance is pro- vided for replacing an entire character-defining feature with new material because the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair. If the missing feature is character defining or if it is critical to the survival of the building (e.g., a roof), it should be replaced to match the historic feature based on physical or his- INTRODUCTION 77 3.e Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 78 toric documentation of its form and detailing. As with repair, the preferred option is always replacement of the entire feature in kind (i.e., with the same material, such as wood for wood). However, when this is not feasible, a compatible substitute material that can reproduce the overall appearance of the historic material may be considered. It should be noted that, while the National Park Service guidelines recommend the replacement of an entire character-defining feature that is extensively deteriorated, the guidelines never recommend removal and replacement with new material of a feature that could reasonably be repaired and, thus, preserved. Design for the Replacement of Missing Historic Features When an entire interior or exterior feature is missing, such as a porch, it no longer plays a role in physically defining the historic character of the building unless it can be accurately recovered in form and detailing through the process of carefully documenting the historic appearance. If the feature is not critical to the survival of the building, allowing the building to remain without the feature is one option. But if the missing feature is important to the historic character of the building, its replacement is always recommended in the Rehabilitation guidelines as the first, or preferred, course of action. If adequate documentary and physical evidence exists, the feature may be accurately reproduced. A second option in a rehabilitation treatment for replacing a missing feature, particularly when the available information about the feature is inadequate to permit an accurate reconstruction, is to design a new feature that is compatible with the overall historic character of the building. The new design should always take into account the size, scale, and material of the building itself and should be clearly differentiated from the authentic historic features. For properties that have changed over time, and where those changes have acquired significance, reestablishing missing historic features generally should not be undertaken if the missing features did not coexist with the features currently on the building. Juxtaposing historic features that did not exist concurrently will result in a false sense of the building’s history. Alterations Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building are generally needed as part of a Rehabilitation project to ensure its continued use, but it is most important that such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes. Alterations may include changes to the site or setting, such as the selective removal of buildings or other features of the building site or setting that are intrusive, not character defining, or outside the building’s period of significance. Code-Required Work: Accessibility and Life Safety Sensitive solutions to meeting code requirements in a Rehabilitation project are an important part of protecting the historic character of the building. Work that must be done to meet accessibility and life-safety requirements must also be assessed for its potential impact on the historic building, its site, and setting. Resilience to Natural Hazards Resilience to natural hazards should be addressed as part of a Rehabilitation project. A historic building may have existing characteristics or features that help to address or minimize the impacts of natural hazards. These should always be used to best REHABILITATION Sustainability Sustainability should be addressed as part of a Rehabilitation proj- ect. Good preservation practice is often synonymous with sustain- ability. Existing energy-efficient features should be retained and repaired. Only sustainability treatments should be considered that will have the least impact on the historic character of the building. The topic of sustainability is addressed in detail in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. New Exterior Additions and Related New Construction Rehabilitation is the only treatment that allows expanding a historic building by enlarging it with an addition. However, the Rehabilita- tion guidelines emphasize that new additions should be considered only after it is determined that meeting specific new needs cannot be achieved by altering non-character-defining interior spaces. If the use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an attached exterior addition may be considered. New additions should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building, its site, and setting are not negatively impacted. Generally, a new addition should be subordinate to the historic building. A new addition should be compatible, but differentiated enough so that it is not confused as historic or original to the building. The same guidance applies to new construction so that it does not negatively impact the historic character of the building or its site. Rehabilitation as a Treatment. When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a documentation plan for Rehabilitation should be developed. INTRODUCTION 79 3.e Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining and preserving masonry features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the build- ing (such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window and door surrounds, steps, and columns) and decorative ornament and other details, such as tooling and bonding patterns, coatings, and color. Removing or substantially changing masonry features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Replacing or rebuilding a major portion of exterior masonry walls that could be repaired, thereby destroying the historic integrity of the building. Applying paint or other coatings (such as stucco) to masonry that has been historically unpainted or uncoated to create a new appear- ance. Removing paint from historically-painted masonry. Protecting and maintaining masonry by ensuring that historic drainage features and systems that divert rainwater from masonry surfaces (such as roof overhangs, gutters, and downspouts) are intact and functioning properly. Failing to identify and treat the causes of masonry deterioration, such as leaking roofs and gutters or rising damp. Cleaning masonry only when necessary to halt deterioration or remove heavy soiling. Cleaning masonry surfaces when they are not heavily soiled to create a “like-new” appearance, thereby needlessly introducing chemicals or moisture into historic materials. Carrying out masonry cleaning tests when it has been determined Cleaning masonry surfaces without testing or without sufficient time that cleaning is appropriate. Test areas should be examined for the testing results to be evaluated. to ensure that no damage has resulted and, ideally, monitored over a sufficient period of time to allow long-range effects to be predicted. [1] An alkaline-based product is appropriate to use to clean historic marble because it will not damage the marble, which is acid sensitive. 80 MASONRY 3.e Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION [2] Mid-century modern building technology made possible the form of this parabola- shaped structure and its thin concrete shell construction. Built in 1961 as the lobby of the La Concha Motel in Las Vegas, it was designed by Paul Revere Williams, one of the first prominent African-American architects. It was moved to a new location and rehabilitated to serve as the Neon Museum, and is often cited as an example of Googie architecture. Credit: Photographed with permission at The Neon Museum, Las Vegas, Nevada. MASONRY 81 3.e Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Cleaning soiled masonry surfaces with the gentlest method pos- sible, such as using low-pressure water and detergent and natural bristle or other soft-bristle brushes. Cleaning or removing paint from masonry surfaces using most abrasive methods (including sandblasting, other media blasting, or high-pressure water) which can damage the surface of the masonry and mortar joints. Using a cleaning or paint-removal method that involves water or liquid chemical solutions when there is any possibility of freezing temperatures. Cleaning with chemical products that will damage some types of masonry (such as using acid on limestone or marble), or failing to neutralize or rinse off chemical cleaners from masonry surfaces. [3] Not Recommended: The white film on the upper corner of this historic brick row house is the result of using a scrub or slurry coating, rather than traditional repointing by hand, which is the recommended method. [4] Not Recommended: The quoins on the left side of the photo show that high-pressure abrasive blasting used to remove paint can damage even early 20th- century, hard-baked, textured brick and erode the mortar, whereas the same brick on the right, which was not abrasively cleaned, is undamaged. 82 MASONRY 3.e Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Using biodegradable or environmentally-safe cleaning or paint- removal products. Using paint-removal methods that employ a poultice to which paint adheres, when possible, to neatly and safely remove old lead paint. Using coatings that encapsulate lead paint, when possible, where the paint is not required to be removed to meet environmental regulations. Allowing only trained conservators to use abrasive or laser-clean- ing methods, when necessary, to clean hard-to-reach, highly- carved, or detailed decorative stone features. Removing damaged or deteriorated paint only to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible (e.g., hand scraping) prior to repainting. Removing paint that is firmly adhered to masonry surfaces, unless the building was unpainted historically and the paint can be removed without damaging the surface. Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted masonry following proper surface preparation. Failing to follow manufacturers’ product and application instruc- tions when repainting masonry features. Repainting historically-painted masonry features with colors that are appropriate to the historic character of the building and district. Using paint colors on historically-painted masonry features that are not appropriate to the historic character of the building and district. Protecting adjacent materials when cleaning or removing paint from masonry features. Failing to protect adjacent materials when cleaning or removing paint from masonry features. Evaluating the overall condition of the masonry to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to masonry features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of masonry features. Repairing masonry by patching, splicing, consolidating, or other- wise reinforcing the masonry using recognized preservation meth- ods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry features when there are surviving prototypes, such as terra-cotta brackets or stone balusters. Removing masonry that could be stabilized, repaired, and con- served, or using untested consolidants and unskilled personnel, potentially causing further damage to historic materials. Replacing an entire masonry feature, such as a cornice or bal- ustrade, when repair of the masonry and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible. MASONRY 83 3.e Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Repairing masonry walls and other masonry features by repoint- Removing non-deteriorated mortar from sound joints and then ing the mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration, repointing the entire building to achieve a more uniform appear- such as disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose ance. bricks, or damaged plaster on the interior. Removing deteriorated lime mortar carefully by hand raking the joints to avoid damaging the masonry. Using power tools only on horizontal joints on brick masonry in conjunction with hand chiseling to remove hard mortar that is deteriorated or that is a non-historic material which is causing damage to the masonry units. Mechanical tools should be used only by skilled masons in limited circumstances and generally not on short, vertical joints in brick masonry. Allowing unskilled workers to use masonry saws or mechanical tools to remove deteriorated mortar from joints prior to repointing. Duplicating historic mortar joints in strength, composition, color, and texture when repointing is necessary. In some cases, a lime- based mortar may also be considered when repointing Portland cement mortar because it is more flexible. Repointing masonry units with mortar of high Portland cement content (unless it is the content of the historic mortar). Using “surface grouting” or a “scrub” coating technique, such as a “sack rub” or “mortar washing,” to repoint exterior masonry units instead of traditional repointing methods. Repointing masonry units (other than concrete) with a synthetic caulking compound instead of mortar. Duplicating historic mortar joints in width and joint profile when repointing is necessary. Changing the width or joint profile when repointing. Repairing stucco by removing the damaged material and patching with new stucco that duplicates the old in strength, composition, color, and texture. Removing sound stucco or repairing with new stucco that is differ- ent in composition from the historic stucco. Patching stucco or concrete without removing the source of deterio- ration. Replacing deteriorated stucco with synthetic stucco, an exterior finish and insulation system (EFIS), or other non-traditional materi- als. 84 MASONRY 3.e Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Using mud plaster or a compatible lime-plaster adobe render, when appropriate, to repair adobe. Applying cement stucco, unless it already exists, to adobe. Sealing joints in concrete with appropriate flexible sealants and backer rods, when necessary. Cutting damaged concrete back to remove the source of deterio- ration, such as corrosion on metal reinforcement bars. The new patch must be applied carefully so that it will bond satisfactorily with and match the historic concrete. Patching damaged concrete without removing the source of deterio- ration. [5] Rebars in the reinforced concrete ceiling have rusted, causing the concrete to spall. The rebars must be cleaned of rust before the concrete can be patched. [6] Some areas of the concrete brise soleil screen on this building constructed in 1967 are badly deteriorated. If the screen cannot be repaired, it may be replaced in kind or with a composite substitute material with the same appearance as the concrete. MASONRY 85 3.e Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 86 [7] (a) J.W. Knapp’s Department Store, built 1937-38, in Lansing, MI, was constructed with a proprietary material named “Maul Macotta” made of enameled steel and cast-in-place concrete panels. Prior to its rehabilitation, a building inspection revealed that, due to a flaw in the original design and construction, the material was deteriorated beyond repair. The architects for the rehabilitation project devised a replacement system (b) consisting of enameled aluminum panels that matched the original colors (c). Photos and drawing (a-b): Quinn Evans Architects; Photo (c): James Haefner Photography. MASONRY 3.e Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MASONRY: STONE, BRICK, TERRA COTTA, CONCRETE, ADOBE, STUCCO, AND MORTAR RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Using a non-corrosive, stainless-steel anchoring system when replacing damaged stone, concrete, or terra-cotta units that have failed. Applying non-historic surface treatments, such as water-repellent coatings, to masonry only after repointing and only if masonry repairs have failed to arrest water penetration problems. Applying waterproof, water-repellent, or non-original historic coat- ings (such as stucco) to masonry as a substitute for repointing and masonry repairs. Applying permeable, anti-graffiti coatings to masonry when appropriate. Applying water-repellent or anti-graffiti coatings that change the historic appearance of the masonry or that may trap moisture if the coating is not sufficiently permeable. Replacing in kind an entire masonry feature that is too deterio- rated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documenta- tion. Examples can include large sections of a wall, a cornice, pier, or parapet. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Removing a masonry feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new feature that does not match. Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving components of the masonry feature. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a replacement masonry feature, such as Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for a step or door pediment, when the historic feature is completely the missing masonry feature is based upon insufficient physical or missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentary historic documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the and physical evidence, but only when the historic feature to be feature to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, the building. it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Introducing a new masonry feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material, or color. MASONRY 87 3.e Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining and preserving wood features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building (such as siding, cornices, brackets, window and door surrounds, and steps) and their paints, finishes, and colors. Removing or substantially changing wood features which are impor- tant in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Removing a major portion of the historic wood from a façade instead of repairing or replacing only the deteriorated wood, then reconstructing the façade with new material to achieve a uniform or “improved” appearance. Changing the type of finish, coating, or historic color of wood fea- tures, thereby diminishing the historic character of the exterior. Failing to renew failing paint or other coatings that are historic finishes. Stripping historically-painted surfaces to bare wood and applying a clear finish rather than repainting. Stripping paint or other coatings to reveal bare wood, thereby exposing historically-coated surfaces to the effects of accelerated weathering. Removing wood siding (clapboards) or other covering (such as stucco) from log structures that were covered historically, which changes their historic character and exposes the logs to accelerated deterioration. Protecting and maintaining wood features by ensuring that his- toric drainage features that divert rainwater from wood surfaces (such as roof overhangs, gutters, and downspouts) are intact and functioning properly. Failing to identify and treat the causes of wood deterioration, such as faulty flashing, leaking gutters, cracks and holes in siding, dete- riorated caulking in joints and seams, plant material growing too close to wood surfaces, or insect or fungal infestation. 88 WOOD 3.e Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Applying chemical preservatives or paint to wood features that are subject to weathering, such as exposed beam ends, outrig- gers, or rafter tails. Using chemical preservatives (such as creosote) which, unless they were used historically, can change the appearance of wood features. Implementing an integrated pest management plan to identify appropriate preventive measures to guard against insect damage, such as installing termite guards, fumigating, and treating with chemicals. Retaining coatings (such as paint) that protect the wood from moisture and ultraviolet light. Paint removal should be consid- ered only when there is paint surface deterioration and as part of an overall maintenance program which involves repainting or applying other appropriate coatings. Stripping paint or other coatings from wood features without recoat- ing. [8] Rotted clapboards have been replaced selectively with new wood siding to match the originals. WOOD 89 3.e Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Removing damaged or deteriorated paint to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible (e.g., hand scraping and hand sanding) prior to repainting. Using potentially-damaging paint-removal methods on wood sur- faces, such as open-flame torches, orbital sanders, abrasive meth- ods (including sandblasting, other media blasting, or high-pressure water), or caustic paint-removers. Removing paint that is firmly adhered to wood surfaces. Using chemical strippers primarily to supplement other methods such as hand scraping, hand sanding, and thermal devices. Failing to neutralize the wood thoroughly after using chemical paint removers so that new paint may not adhere. Removing paint from detachable wood features by soaking them in a caustic solution, which may roughen the surface, split the wood, or result in staining from residual acids leaching out of the wood. Using biodegradable or environmentally-safe cleaning or paint- removal products. Using paint-removal methods that employ a poultice to which paint adheres, when possible, to neatly and safely remove old lead paint. Using thermal devices (such as infrared heaters) carefully to remove paint when it is so deteriorated that total removal is nec- essary prior to repainting. Using a thermal device to remove paint from wood features without first checking for and removing any flammable debris behind them. Using thermal devices without limiting the amount of time the wood feature is exposed to heat. Using coatings that encapsulate lead paint, when possible, where the paint is not required to be removed to meet environmental regulations. Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted wood following proper surface preparation. Failing to follow manufacturers’ product and application instruc- tions when repainting wood features. Repainting historically-painted wood features with colors that are appropriate to the building and district. Using paint colors on historically-painted wood features that are not appropriate to the building or district. 90 WOOD 3.e Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Protecting adjacent materials when working on other wood features. Failing to protect adjacent materials when working on wood fea- tures. Evaluating the overall condition of the wood to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to wood features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of wood features. [9] Smooth-surfaced cementitious siding (left) may be used to replace deteriorated wood siding only on secondary elevations that have minimal visibility. [10] Not Recommended: Cementitious siding with a raised wood-grain texture is not an appropriate material to replace historic wood siding, which has a smooth surface when painted. WOOD 91 3.e Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WOOD: CLAPBOARD, WEATHERBOARD, SHINGLES, AND OTHER FUNCTIONAL AND DECORATIVE ELEMENTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Repairing wood by patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise Removing wood that could be stabilized, repaired, and conserved, reinforcing the wood using recognized conservation methods. or using untested consolidants and unskilled personnel, potentially Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a causing further damage to historic materials. compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing components of wood features when there are surviving Replacing an entire wood feature, such as a cornice or balustrade, prototypes, such as brackets, molding, or sections of siding. when repair of the wood and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components is feasible. Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deterio- Removing a wood feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it, rated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) or replacing it with a new feature that does not match. using physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey Examples of such wood features include a cornice, entablature, the same appearance of the surviving components of the wood or a balustrade. If using wood is not feasible, then a compatible feature. substitute material may be considered. Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood siding on a pri- mary or other highly-visible elevation with a new matching wood feature. Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood siding on a primary or other highly-visible elevation with a composite substitute mate- rial. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a replacement masonry feature, such as Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for a step or door pediment, when the historic feature is completely the missing masonry feature is based upon insufficient physical or missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentary historic documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the and physical evidence, but only when the historic feature to be feature to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, the building. it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Introducing a new wood feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material, or color. 92 WOOD 3.e Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE, COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving metal features that are Removing or substantially changing metal features which are impor- important in defining the overall historic character of the building tant in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, (such as columns, capitals, pilasters, spandrel panels, or stair- as a result, the character is diminished. ways) and their paints, finishes, and colors. The type of metal should be identified prior to work because each metal has its own Removing a major portion of the historic metal from a façade properties and may require a different treatment. instead of repairing or replacing only the deteriorated metal, then reconstructing the façade with new material to achieve a uniform or “improved” appearance. Protecting and maintaining metals from corrosion by providing proper drainage so that water does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate in curved decorative features. Failing to identify and treat the causes of corrosion, such as mois- ture from leaking roofs or gutters. Placing incompatible metals together without providing an appropri- ate separation material. Such incompatibility can result in galvanic corrosion of the less noble metal (e.g., copper will corrode cast iron, steel, tin, and aluminum). Cleaning metals when necessary to remove corrosion prior to repainting or applying appropriate protective coatings. Leaving metals that must be protected from corrosion uncoated after cleaning. [11] The stainless steel doors at the entrance to this Art Deco apartment building are important in defining its historic character and should be retained in place. METALS 93 3.e Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE, COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying the particular type of metal prior to any cleaning procedure and then testing to ensure that the gentlest cleaning method possible is selected; or, alternatively, determining that cleaning is inappropriate for the particular metal. Using cleaning methods which alter or damage the color, texture, or finish of the metal, or cleaning when it is inappropriate for the particular metal. Removing the patina from historic metals. The patina may be a protective layer on some metals (such as bronze or copper) as well as a distinctive finish. Using non-corrosive chemical methods to clean soft metals (such Cleaning soft metals (such as lead, tinplate, terneplate, copper, and as lead, tinplate, terneplate, copper, and zinc) whose finishes can zinc) with abrasive methods (including sandblasting, other abrasive be easily damaged by abrasive methods. media, or high-pressure water) which will damage the surface of the metal. Using the least abrasive cleaning method for hard metals (such Using high-pressure abrasive techniques (including sandblasting, as cast iron, wrought iron, and steel) to remove paint buildup and other media blasting, or high-pressure water) without first trying corrosion. If hand scraping and wire brushing have proven inef- gentler cleaning methods prior to cleaning cast iron, wrought iron, fective, low-pressure abrasive methods may be used as long as or steel. they do not abrade or damage the surface. Applying appropriate paint or other coatings to historically-coated metals after cleaning to protect them from corrosion. Applying paint or other coatings to metals (such as copper, bronze or stainless steel) if they were not coated historically, unless a coat- ing is necessary for maintenance. Repainting historically-painted metal features with colors that are appropriate to the building and district. Using paint colors on historically-painted metal features that are not appropriate to the building or district. Applying an appropriate protective coating (such as lacquer or wax) to a metal feature that was historically unpainted, such as a bronze door, which is subject to heavy use. 94 METALS 3.e Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE, COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Protecting adjacent materials when cleaning or removing paint from metal features. Failing to protect adjacent materials when working on metal fea- tures. Evaluating the overall condition of metals to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to metal features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of metal features. [12] This historic steel window has been cleaned, repaired, and primed in preparation for painting and reglazing. [13] The gold-colored, anodized aluminum geodesic dome of the former Citizen’s State Bank in Oklahoma City, OK, built in 1958 and designed by Robert Roloff, makes this a distinctive mid- 20th century building. METALS 95 3.e Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 96 [14] Interior cast-iron columns have been cleaned and repainted as part of the rehabilitation of this historic market building for continuing use. [15] New enameled-metal panels were replicated to replace the original panels, which were too deteriorated to repair, when the storefront of this early 1950s building was recreated. METALS 3.e Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION METALS: WROUGHT AND CAST IRON, STEEL, PRESSED METAL, TERNEPLATE, COPPER, ALUMINUM, AND ZINC RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Repairing metal by reinforcing the metal using recognized pres- ervation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as column capitals or bases, store- fronts, railings and steps, or window hoods. Removing metals that could be stabilized, repaired, and conserved, or using improper repair techniques, or unskilled personnel, poten- tially causing further damage to historic materials. Replacing in kind an entire metal feature that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Examples of such a feature could include cast-iron porch steps or steel-sash windows. If using the same kind of material is not fea- sible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Replacing an entire metal feature, such as a column or balustrade, when repair of the metal and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible. Removing a metal feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new metal feature that does not match. Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving components of the metal feature or that is physically or chemically incompatible. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a replacement metal feature, such as a Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the metal cornice or cast-iron column, when the historic feature is missing metal feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature documentary and physical evidence, but only when the historic to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on building. the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Introducing a new metal feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material, or color. METALS 97 3.e Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION ROOFS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs and their functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The form of the roof (gable, hipped, gambrel, flat, or mansard) is significant, as are its deco- rative and functional features (such as cupolas, cresting, para- pets, monitors, chimneys, weather vanes, dormers, ridge tiles, and snow guards), roofing material (such as slate, wood, clay tile, metal, roll roofing, or asphalt shingles), and size, color, and patterning. Removing or substantially changing roofs which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Removing a major portion of the historic roof or roofing material that is repairable, then rebuilding it with new material to achieve a more uniform or “improved” appearance. Changing the configuration or shape of a roof by adding highly vis- ible new features (such as dormer windows, vents, skylights, or a penthouse). Stripping the roof of sound historic material, such as slate, clay tile, wood, or metal. Protecting and maintaining a roof by cleaning gutters and Failing to clean and maintain gutters and downspouts properly so downspouts and replacing deteriorated flashing. Roof sheathing that water and debris collect and cause damage to roof features, should also be checked for indications of moisture due to leaks or sheathing, and the underlying roof structure. condensation. Providing adequate anchorage for roofing material to guard against wind damage and moisture penetration. Allowing flashing, caps, and exposed fasteners to corrode, which accelerates deterioration of the roof. Protecting a leaking roof with a temporary waterproof membrane with a synthetic underlayment, roll roofing, plywood, or a tarpau- lin until it can be repaired. Leaving a leaking roof unprotected so that accelerated deteriora- tion of historic building materials (such as masonry, wood, plaster, paint, and structural members) occurs. Repainting a roofing material that requires a protective coating and was painted historically (such as a terneplate metal roof or gutters) as part of regularly-scheduled maintenance. Failing to repaint a roofing material that requires a protective coating and was painted historically as part of regularly-scheduled maintenance. Applying compatible paint coating systems to historically-painted roofing materials following proper surface preparation. Applying paint or other coatings to roofing material if they were not coated historically. Protecting a roof covering when working on other roof features. Failing to protect roof coverings when working on other roof features. Evaluating the overall condition of the roof and roof features to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to roof features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of roof features. 98 ROOFS 3.e Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION ROOFS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Repairing a roof by ensuring that the existing historic or compat- Replacing an entire roof feature when repair of the historic roof- ible non-historic roof covering is sound and waterproof. Repair ing materials and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible components are feasible. substitute material of missing materials (such as wood shingles, slates, or tiles) on a main roof, as well as those extensively deteriorated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as ridge tiles, dormer roofing, or roof monitors. Using corrosion-resistant roof fasteners (e.g., nails and clips) to repair a roof to help extend its longevity. [16] The deteriorated asphalt shingles of this porch roof are being replaced in kind with matching shingles. ROOFS 99 3.e Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION ROOFS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Replacing in kind an entire roof covering or feature that is too Removing a feature of the roof that is unrepairable and not replac- deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still ing it, or replacing it with a new roof feature that does not match. evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not documentation. Examples of such a feature could include a large convey the same appearance of the roof covering or the surviving section of roofing, a dormer, or a chimney. If using the same kind components of the roof feature or that is physically or chemically of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material incompatible. may be considered. Replacing only missing or damaged roofing tiles or slates rather than replacing the entire roof covering. Failing to reuse intact slate or tile in good condition when only the roofing substrate or fasteners need replacement. Replacing an incompatible roof covering or any deteriorated non- historic roof covering with historically-accurate roofing material, if known, or another material that is compatible with the historic character of the building. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new roof covering for a missing roof or Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the a new feature, such as a dormer or a monitor, when the historic missing roof feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the the historic feature to be replaced coexisted with the features building. currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic Introducing a new roof feature that is incompatible in size, scale, building. material, or color. 100 ROOFS 3.e Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION ROOFS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Alterations and Additions for a New Use Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof (such as heating and air-conditioning units, elevator housing, or solar panels) when required for a new use so that they are inconspicu- ous on the site and from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features. Installing roof-top mechanical or service equipment so that it dam- ages or obscures character-defining roof features or is conspicuous on the site or from the public right-of-way. Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or ter- races, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continu- ing use so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-defining historic features. Changing a character-defining roof form, or damaging or destroying character-defining roofing material as a result of an incompatible rooftop addition or improperly-installed or highly-visible mechanical equipment. Installing a green roof or other roof landscaping, railings, or furnishings that are not visible on the site or from the public right-of-way and do not damage the roof structure. Installing a green roof or other roof landscaping, railings, or furnish- ings that are visible on the site and from the public right-of-way. [17] New wood elements have been used selectively to replace rotted wood on the underside of the roof in this historic warehouse. ROOFS 101 3.e Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WINDOWS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their func- Removing or substantially changing windows or window features tional and decorative features that are important to the overall which are important in defining the overall historic character of the character of the building. The window material and how the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. window operates (e.g., double hung, casement, awning, or hopper) are significant, as are its components (including sash, Changing the appearance of windows that contribute to the historic muntins, ogee lugs, glazing, pane configuration, sills, mullions, character of the building by replacing materials, finishes, or colors casings, or brick molds) and related features, such as shutters. which noticeably change the sash, depth of the reveal, and muntin configurations; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or the appearance of the frame. Obscuring historic wood window trim with metal or other material. Replacing windows solely because of peeling paint, broken glass, stuck sash, or high air infiltration. These conditions, in themselves, do not indicate that windows are beyond repair. Protecting and maintaining the wood or metal which comprises Failing to protect and maintain window materials on a cyclical basis the window jamb, sash, and trim through appropriate treatments, so that deterioration of the window results. such as cleaning, paint removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems. Protecting windows against vandalism before work begins by covering them and by installing alarm systems that are keyed into local protection agencies. Leaving windows unprotected and subject to vandalism before work begins, thereby also allowing the interior to be damaged if it can be accessed through unprotected windows. Making windows weathertight by recaulking gaps in fixed joints and replacing or installing weatherstripping. Protecting windows from chemical cleaners, paint, or abrasion during work on the exterior of the building. Failing to protect historic windows from chemical cleaners, paint, or abrasion when work is being done on the exterior of the building. Protecting and retaining historic glass when replacing putty or repairing other components of the window. Failing to protect the historic glass when making window repairs. 102 WINDOWS 3.e Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WINDOWS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Sustaining the historic operability of windows by lubricating friction points and replacing broken components of the operat- ing system (such as hinges, latches, sash chains or cords) and replacing deteriorated gaskets or insulating units. Failing to maintain windows and window components so that win- dows are inoperable, or sealing operable sash permanently. Failing to repair and reuse window hardware such as sash lifts, latches, and locks. Adding storm windows with a matching or a one-over-one pane configuration that will not obscure the characteristics of the his- toric windows. Storm windows improve energy efficiency and are especially beneficial when installed over wood windows because they also protect them from accelerated deterioration. Adding interior storm windows as an alternative to exterior storm windows when appropriate. [18] The historic metal storm windows in this 1920s office building were retained and repaired during the rehabilitation project. [19] Installing a mockup of a proposed replacement window can be helpful to evaluate how well the new windows will match the historic windows that are missing or too deteriorated to repair. WINDOWS 103 3.e Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 104 [20 a-d] The original steel windows in this industrial building were successfully repaired as part of the rehabilitation project (left). WINDOWS 3.e Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WINDOWS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Installing sash locks, window guards, removable storm windows, and other reversible treatments to meet safety, security, or energy conservation requirements. Evaluating the overall condition of the windows to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to windows and window features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of window features. Repairing window frames and sash by patching, splicing, consoli- Removing window features that could be stabilized, repaired, or dating, or otherwise reinforcing them using recognized preserva- conserved using untested consolidants, improper repair techniques, tion methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in or unskilled personnel, potentially causing further damage to the kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively historic materials. deteriorated, broken, or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as sash, sills, hardware, or Replacing an entire window when repair of the window and limited shutters. replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible. Removing glazing putty that has failed and applying new putty; or, if glass is broken, carefully removing all putty, replacing the glass, and reputtying. Installing new glass to replace broken glass which has the same visual characteristics as the historic glass. Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to Removing a character-defining window that is unrepairable or is not repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using needed for the new use and blocking up the opening, or replacing it the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or with a new window that does not match. when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compat- Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey ible substitute material may be considered. the same appearance of the surviving components of the window or that is physically incompatible. WINDOWS 105 3.e Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WINDOWS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED [21] The windows on the lower floor, which were too deteriorated to repair, were replaced with new steel windows matching the upper-floor historic windows that were retained. Modifying a historic single-glazed sash to accommodate insulated glass when it will not jeopardize the soundness of the sash or significantly alter its appearance. Modifying a historic single-glazed sash to accommodate insulated glass when it will jeopardize the soundness of the sash or signifi- cantly alter its appearance. Using low-e glass with the least visible tint in new or replacement windows. Using low-e glass with a dark tint in new or replacement windows, thereby negatively impacting the historic character of the building. Using window grids rather than true divided lights on windows on Using window grids rather than true divided lights on windows in the upper floors of high-rise buildings if they will not be notice- low-rise buildings or on lower floors of high-rise buildings where able. they will be noticeable, resulting in a change to the historic charac- ter of the building. Ensuring that spacer bars in between double panes of glass are the same color as the window sash. Using spacer bars in between double panes of glass that are not the same color as the window sash. Replacing all of the components in a glazing system if they have failed because of faulty design or materials that have deteriorated with new material that will improve the window performance without noticeably changing the historic appearance. Replacing all of the components in a glazing system with new mate- rial that will noticeably change the historic appearance. Replacing incompatible, non-historic windows with new windows that are compatible with the historic character of the building; or reinstating windows in openings that have been filled in. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new window or its components, such Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the as frames, sash, and glazing, when the historic feature is com- missing window is based upon insufficient physical or historic docu- pletely missing. It may be an accurate restoration based on mentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature to be documentary and physical evidence, but only when the historic replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the building. feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with Installing replacement windows made from other materials that are the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. not the same as the material of the original windows if they would have a noticeably different appearance from the remaining historic windows. 106 WINDOWS 3.e Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION (a) (b) (c) [22] Not Recommended: (a-b) The original wood windows in this late-19th-century building, which were highly decorative, could likely have been repaired and retained. (c) Instead, they were replaced with new windows that do not match the detailing of the historic windows and, therefore, do not meet the Standards (above). (b) WINDOWS 107 3.e Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 108 [23] (a)This deteriorated historic wood window was repaired and retained (b) in this rehabilitation project. WINDOWS 3.e Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION WINDOWS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Alterations and Additions for a New Use Adding new window openings on rear or other secondary, less- visible elevations, if required by a new use. The new openings and the windows in them should be compatible with the overall design of the building but, in most cases, not duplicate the historic fenestration. Changing the number, location, size, or glazing pattern of windows on primary or highly-visible elevations which will alter the historic character of the building. Cutting new openings on character-defining elevations or cutting new openings that damage or destroy significant features. Adding balconies at existing window openings or new window open- ings on primary or other highly-visible elevations where balconies never existed and, therefore, would be incompatible with the his- toric character of the building. Replacing windows that are too deteriorated to repair using the Replacing a window that contributes to the historic character of same sash and pane configuration, but with new windows that the building with a new window that is different in design (such as operate differently, if necessary, to accommodate a new use. glass divisions or muntin profiles), dimensions, materials (wood, Any change must have minimal visual impact. Examples could metal, or glass), finish or color, or location that will have a notice- include replacing hopper or awning windows with casement ably different appearance from the historic windows, which may windows, or adding a realigned and enlarged operable portion of negatively impact the character of the building. industrial steel windows to meet life-safety codes. Installing impact-resistant glazing, when necessary for security, so that it is compatible with the historic windows and does not damage them or negatively impact their character. Installing impact-resistant glazing, when necessary for security, that is incompatible with the historic windows and that damages them or negatively impacts their character. Using compatible window treatments (such as frosted glass, Removing a character-defining window to conceal mechanical appropriate shades or blinds, or shutters) to retain the historic equipment or to provide privacy for a new use of the building by character of the building when it is necessary to conceal mechan- blocking up the opening. ical equipment, for example, that the new use requires be placed in a location behind a window or windows on a primary or highly- visible elevation. WINDOWS 109 3.e Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION ENTRANCES AND PORCHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED [24] Rotted boards in the beaded-board porch ceiling are being replaced with new matching beaded board. Identifying, retaining, and preserving entrances and porches and their functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The materi- als themselves (including masonry, wood, and metal) are signifi- cant, as are their features, such as doors, transoms, pilasters, columns, balustrades, stairs, roofs, and projecting canopies. Removing or substantially changing entrances and porches which are important in defining the overall historic character of the build- ing so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Cutting new entrances on a primary façade. Altering utilitarian or service entrances so they compete visually with the historic primary entrance; increasing their size so that they appear significantly more important; or adding decorative details that cannot be documented to the building or are incompatible with the building’s historic character. Retaining a historic entrance or porch even though it will no longer be used because of a change in the building’s function. Removing a historic entrance or porch that will no longer be required for the building’s new use. Protecting and maintaining the masonry, wood, and metals which comprise entrances and porches through appropriate surface treatments, such as cleaning, paint removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems. Failing to protect and maintain entrance and porch materials on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of entrances and porches results. Protecting entrances and porches against arson and vandalism before work begins by covering them and by installing alarm systems keyed into local protection agencies. Leaving entrances and porches unprotected and subject to vandal- ism before work begins, thereby also allowing the interior to be damaged if it can be accessed through unprotected entrances. Protecting entrance and porch features when working on other features of the building. Failing to protect materials and features when working on other features of the building. Evaluating the overall condition of entrances and porches to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to entrance and porch features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of entrance and porch features. Repairing entrances and porches by patching, splicing, consoli- Removing entrances and porches that could be stabilized, repaired, dating, and otherwise reinforcing them using recognized preser- and conserved, or using untested consolidants, improper repair vation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in techniques, or unskilled personnel, potentially causing further kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively damage to historic materials. deteriorated features or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes, such as balustrades, columns, and Replacing an entire entrance or porch feature when repair of the stairs. feature and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing compo- nents are feasible. 110 ENTRANCES AND PORCHES 3.e Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION ENTRANCES AND PORCHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Replacing in kind an entire entrance or porch that is too deterio- Removing an entrance or porch that is unrepairable and not replac- rated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) ing it, or replacing it with a new entrance or porch that does not using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature match. or when the replacement can be based on historic documenta- tion. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not compatible substitute material may be considered. convey the same appearance of the surviving components of entrance or porch features or that is physically incompatible. [25] The new infill designs for the garage door openings in this commercial building (a) converted for restaurant use and in this mill building (b) rehabilitated for residential use are compatible with the historic character of the buildings. ENTRANCES AND PORCHES 111 3.e Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION ENTRANCES AND PORCHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new entrance or porch when the Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for historic feature is completely missing or has previously been the missing entrance or porch is based upon insufficient physical or replaced by one that is incompatible. It may be an accurate res- historic documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the toration based on documentary and physical evidence, but only feature to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on when the historic entrance or porch to be replaced coexisted with the building. the features currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Alterations and Additions for a New Use Enclosing historic porches on secondary elevations only, when Enclosing porches in a manner that results in a diminution or loss required by a new use, in a manner that preserves the historic of historic character by using solid materials rather than clear glaz- character of the building (e.g., using large sheets of glass and ing, or by placing the enclosure in front of, rather than behind, the recessing the enclosure wall behind existing posts and balus- historic features. trades). Designing and constructing additional entrances or porches on secondary elevations when required for the new use in a manner that preserves the historic character of the building (i.e., ensuring that the new entrance or porch is clearly subordinate to historic primary entrances or porches). Constructing secondary or service entrances and porches that are incompatible in size and scale or detailing with the historic building or that obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining features. [26] Not Recommended: Installing a screened enclosure is never recommended on a front or otherwise prominent historic porch. In limited instances, it may be possible to add screening on a porch at the rear or on a secondary façade; however, the enclosure should match the color of the porch and be placed behind columns and railings so that it does not obscure these features. 112 ENTRANCES AND PORCHES 3.e Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STOREFRONTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving storefronts and their func- Removing or substantially changing storefronts and their features tional and decorative features that are important in defining the which are important in defining the overall historic character of the overall historic character of the building. The storefront materials building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. (including wood, masonry, metals, ceramic tile, clear glass, and pigmented structural glass) and the configuration of the store- Changing the storefront so that it has a residential rather than com- front are significant, as are features, such as display windows, mercial appearance. base panels, bulkheads, signs, doors, transoms, kick plates, corner posts, piers, and entablatures. The removal of inappropri- Introducing features from an earlier period that are not compatible ate, non-historic cladding, false mansard roofs, and other later, with the historic character of the storefront. non-significant alterations can help reveal the historic character of the storefront. Changing the location of the storefront’s historic main entrance. Replacing or covering a glass transom with solid material or inap- propriate signage, or installing an incompatible awning over it. Retaining later, non-original features that have acquired signifi- cance over time. Removing later features that may have acquired significance. [28] This new storefront, which replaced one that was missing, is compatible with the historic character of the building. STOREFRONTS 113 3.e Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STOREFRONTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Protecting and maintaining masonry, wood, glass, ceramic tile, and metals which comprise storefronts through appropriate treatments, such as cleaning, paint removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems. Failing to protect and maintain storefront materials on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of storefront features results. Protecting storefronts against arson and vandalism before work begins by covering windows and doors and by installing alarm systems keyed into local protection agencies. Leaving the storefront unprotected and subject to vandalism before work begins, thereby also allowing the interior to be damaged if it can be accessed through unprotected entrances. Protecting the storefront when working on other features of the building. Failing to protect the storefront when working on other features of the building. Evaluating the overall condition of the storefront to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to storefront features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of storefront features. [27] This original c. 1940s storefront, with its character- defining angled and curved glass display window and recessed entrance with a decorative terrazzo paving, is in good condition and should be retained in a rehabilitation project. 114 STOREFRONTS 3.e Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STOREFRONTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Repairing storefronts by patching, splicing, consolidating, or Removing storefronts that could be stabilized, repaired, and con- otherwise reinforcing them using recognized preservation meth- served, or using untested consolidants, improper repair techniques, ods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with or unskilled personnel, potentially causing further damage to a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated historic materials. or missing components of storefronts when there are surviving prototypes, such as transoms, base panels, kick plates, piers, or signs. Replacing in kind an entire storefront that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compat- ible substitute material may be considered. Replacing a storefront feature when repair of the feature and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components are feasible. Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving components of the storefront or that is physically incompatible. Removing a storefront that is unrepairable and not replacing it or replacing it with a new storefront that does not match. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new storefront when the historic Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for storefront is completely missing or has previously been replaced the missing storefront is based upon insufficient physical or historic by one that is incompatible. It may be an accurate restoration documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when to be replaced did not coexist with the features currently on the the historic storefront to be replaced coexisted with the features building. currently on the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic Using new, over-scaled, or internally-lit signs unless there is a his- building. toric precedent for them or using other types of signs that obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining features of the storefront and the building. STOREFRONTS 115 3.e Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STOREFRONTS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Replacing missing awnings or canopies that can be historically Adding vinyl awnings, or other awnings that are inappropriately documented to the building, or adding new signage, awnings, or sized or shaped, which are incompatible with the historic character canopies that are compatible with the historic character of the of the building; awnings that do not extend over the entire length of building. the storefront; or large canopies supported by posts that project out over the sidewalk, unless their existence can be historically docu- mented. Alterations and Additions for a New Use Retaining the glazing and the transparency (i.e., which allows the Replacing storefront glazing with solid material for occupants’ pri- openness of the interior to be experienced from the exterior) that vacy when the building is being converted for residential use. is so important in defining the character of a historic storefront when the building is being converted for residential use. Window Installing window treatments in storefront windows that have a resi- treatments (necessary for occupants’ privacy) should be installed dential appearance, which are incompatible with the commercial that are uniform and compatible with the commercial appearance character of the building. of the building, such as screens or wood blinds. When display cases still exist behind the storefront, the screening should be set Installing window treatments that are not uniform in a series of at the back of the display case. repetitive storefront windows. [29] The rehabilitation of the 1910 M-a’alaea General Store (a), which served the workers’ camp at the Wailuku Sugar Company on the Hawaiian island of Maui, included the reconstruction of the original parapet (b). 116 STOREFRONTS 3.e Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CURTAIN WALLS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving curtain wall systems and Removing or substantially changing curtain wall components which their components (metal framing members and glass or opaque are important in defining the overall historic character of the build- panels) that are important in defining the overall historic charac- ing so that, as a result, the character is diminished. ter of the building. The design of the curtain wall is significant, as are its component materials (metal stick framing and panel Replacing historic curtain wall features instead of repairing or materials, such as clear or spandrel glass, stone, terra cotta, replacing only the deteriorated components. metal, and fiber-reinforced plastic), appearance (e.g., glazing color or tint, transparency, and reflectivity), and whether the glaz- ing is fixed, operable or louvered glass panels. How a curtain wall is engineered and fabricated, and the fact that it expands and contracts at a different rate from the building’s structural system, are important to understand when undertaking the rehabilitation of a curtain wall system. Protecting and maintaining curtain walls and their components Failing to protect and maintain curtain wall components on a cycli- through appropriate surface treatments, such as cleaning, paint cal basis so that deterioration of curtain walls results. removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems; and by making them watertight and ensuring that sealants and gaskets Failing to identify, evaluate, and treat various causes of curtain wall are in good condition. failure, such as open gaps between components where sealants have deteriorated or are missing. Protecting ground-level curtain walls from vandalism before work begins by covering them, while ensuring adequate ventilation, and by installing alarm systems keyed into local protection agencies. Leaving ground-level curtain walls unprotected and subject to van- dalism before work begins, thereby also allowing the interior to be damaged if it can be accessed through unprotected glazing. Protecting curtain walls when working on other features of the building. Failing to protect curtain walls when working on other features of the building. Cleaning curtain wall systems only when necessary to halt dete- rioration or to remove heavy soiling. Cleaning curtain wall systems when they are not heavily soiled, thereby needlessly introducing chemicals or moisture into historic materials. CURTAIN WALLS 117 3.e Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CURTAIN WALLS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Carrying out cleaning tests, when it has been determined that cleaning is appropriate, using only cleaning materials that will not damage components of the system, including factory-applied finishes. Test areas should be examined to ensure that no damage has resulted. Cleaning curtain wall systems without testing or using cleaning materials that may damage components of the system. Evaluating the overall condition of curtain walls to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repair of curtain wall components, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to protect curtain wall components. Repairing curtain walls by ensuring that they are watertight by Removing curtain wall components that could be repaired or using augmenting existing components or replacing deteriorated or improper repair techniques. missing sealants or gaskets, where necessary, to seal any gaps between system components. Repair may include the limited Replacing an entire curtain wall system when repair of materials replacement of those extensively deteriorated or missing compo- and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components are nents of curtain walls when there are surviving prototypes. feasible. Applying sealants carefully so that they are not readily visible. Replacing in kind a component or components of a curtain wall Removing a curtain wall component or the entire system, if neces- system that are too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and sary, that is unrepairable and not replacing it or replacing it with a detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model new component or system that does not convey the same appear- to reproduce the feature. If using the same kind of material is not ance. feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be consid- ered as long as it has the same finish and appearance. Replacing masonry, metal, glass, or other components of a Using substitute material for the replacement that does not convey curtain wall system (or the entire system, if necessary) which the same appearance of the surviving components of the curtain have failed because of faulty design with substitutes that match wall or that is physically incompatible. the original as closely as possible and which will reestablish the viability and performance of the system. 118 CURTAIN WALLS 3.e Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION [30] Rather than replace the original curtain wall system of the 1954 Simms Building in Albuquerque, NM, with a different color tinted glass or coat it with a non- historic reflective film, the HVAC system was updated to improve energy efficiency. Photo: Harvey M. Kaplan. [31 a-c:] (a) The rehabilitation of the First Federal Savings and Loan Association building in Birmingham, AL, constructed in 1961, required replacing the deteriorated historic curtain wall system because the framing and the fasteners holding the spandrel glass and the windows had failed. (b) Comparative drawings show that the differences between the replacement system, which incorporated new insulated glass to meet wind-load requirements, and the original system are minimal. (c) The replacement system, shown after completion of the project, has not altered the historic character of the building. CURTAIN WALLS 119 3.e Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CURTAIN WALLS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new curtain wall or its components Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for when the historic feature is completely missing. It may be an the missing curtain wall component is based upon insufficient accurate restoration based on documentary and physical evi- physical or historic documentation, is not a compatible design, or dence, but only when the historic feature to be replaced coex- because the feature did not coexist with the features currently on isted with the features currently on the building. Or, it may be a the building. new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Introducing a new curtain wall component that is incompatible in size, scale, material, color, and finish. Alterations and Additions for a New Use Installing new glazing or an entire new curtain wall system, when necessary to meet safety-code requirements, with dimensions, detailing, materials, colors, and finish as close as possible to the historic curtain wall components. Installing new glazing or an entire new curtain wall system, when necessary to meet safety-code requirements, with dimensions and detailing that is significantly different from the historic curtain wall components. Installing impact-resistant glazing, when necessary for security, so that it is compatible with the historic windows and does not damage them or negatively impact their character. Installing impact-resistant glazing in a curtain wall system, when necessary for security, that is incompatible with the historic curtain walls and damages them or negatively impacts their character. 120 CURTAIN WALLS 3.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving structural systems and vis- ible features of systems that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the materials that comprise the structural system (i.e., wood, metal and masonry), the type of system, and its features, such as posts and beams, trusses, summer beams, vigas, cast-iron or masonry columns, above-grade stone foundation walls, or load-bearing masonry walls. Removing or substantially changing visible features of historic structural systems which are important in defining the overall his- toric character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Overloading the existing structural system, or installing equipment or mechanical systems which could damage the structure. Replacing a load-bearing masonry wall that could be augmented and retained. Leaving known structural problems untreated, such as deflected beams, cracked and bowed walls, or racked structural members. Protecting and maintaining the structural system by keeping Failing to protect and maintain the structural system on a cyclical gutters and downspouts clear and roofing in good repair; and basis so that deterioration of the structural system results. by ensuring that wood structural members are free from insect infestation. Using treatments or products that may retain moisture, which accelerates deterioration of structural members. [33] Retaining as much as possible of the historic wood sill plate and replacing only the termite-damaged wood is always the preferred and recommended treatment. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 121 3.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Evaluating the overall condition of the structural system to deter- mine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to structural features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of structural systems. Repairing the structural system by augmenting individual com- ponents, using recognized preservation methods. For example, weakened structural members (such as floor framing) can be paired or sistered with a new member, braced, or otherwise supplemented and reinforced. Upgrading the building structurally in a manner that diminishes the historic character of the exterior or that damages interior features or spaces. Replacing a historic structural feature in its entirety or in part when it could be repaired or augmented and retained. [32] (a-b) The rehabilitation of the 1892 Carson Block Building in Eureka, CA, for its owner, the Northern California Indian Development Council, included recreating the missing corner turret and sensitively introducing seismic reinforcement (c) shown here (opposite page) in a secondary upper floor office space. Photos: Page & Turnbull. 122 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 3.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Installing seismic or structural reinforcement, when necessary, in a manner that minimizes its impact on the historic fabric and character of the building. Replacing in kind or with a compatible substitute material large portions or entire features of the structural system that are either extensively damaged or deteriorated or that are missing when there are surviving prototypes, such as cast-iron columns, trusses, or masonry walls. Substitute material must be structurally suf- ficient, physically compatible with the rest of the system, and, where visible, must have the same form, design, and appearance as the historic feature. Using substitute material that does not equal the load-bearing capabilities of the historic material; does not convey the same appearance of the historic material, if it is visible; or is physically incompatible. Installing a visible or exposed structural replacement feature that does not match. Replacing to match any interior features or finishes that may have to be removed to gain access to make structural repairs, and reusing salvageable material. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 123 3.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Alterations and Additions for a New Use Limiting any new excavations next to historic foundations to avoid undermining the structural stability of the building or adjacent historic buildings. The area next to the building foundation should be investigated first to ascertain potential damage to site features or archeological resources. Carrying out excavations or regrading land adjacent to a historic building which could cause the historic foundation to settle, shift, or fail, or which could destroy significant archeological resources. Correcting structural deficiencies needed to accommodate a new use in a manner that preserves the structural system and indi- vidual character-defining features. Making substantial changes to significant interior spaces or damag- ing or destroying features or finishes that are character defining to correct structural deficiencies. Designing and installing new mechanical or electrical equipment, when necessary, in a manner that minimizes the number and size of cuts or holes in structural members. Installing new mechanical or electrical equipment in a manner which reduces the load-bearing capacity of historic structural mem- bers. Inserting a new floor when required for the new use if it does not Inserting a new floor that damages or destroys the structural system negatively impact the historic character of the interior space; and or abuts window glazing and is visible from the exterior of the build- if it does not damage the structural system, does not abut window ing and, thus, negatively impacts its historic character. glazing, and is not visible from the exterior of the building. Creating an atrium, light court, or lightwell to provide natural Removing structural features to create an atrium, light court, or light when required for a new use only when it can be done in lightwell if it negatively impacts the historic character of the build- a manner that preserves the structural system and the historic ing. character of the building. 124 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 3.e Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MECHANICAL SYSTEMS: HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving visible features of early mechanical systems that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building, such as radiators, vents, fans, grilles, and plumbing and lighting fixtures. Removing or substantially changing visible features of mechanical systems that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Protecting and maintaining mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems and their features through cyclical maintenance. Failing to protect and maintain a functioning mechanical system, plumbing, and electrical systems and their visible features on a cyclical basis so that their deterioration results. Improving the energy efficiency of existing mechanical systems to help reduce the need for a new system by installing storm windows, insulating attics and crawl spaces, or adding awnings, if appropriate. Evaluating the overall condition of mechanical systems to deter- mine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to mechanical system components, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of mechanical system components. Repairing mechanical systems by augmenting or upgrading system components (such as installing new pipes and ducts), rewiring, or adding new compressors or boilers. Replacing a mechanical system when its components could be upgraded and retained. Replacing in kind or with a compatible substitute material those Installing a visible replacement feature of a mechanical system, if it extensively deteriorated or missing visible features of mechanical is important in defining the historic character of the building, that systems when there are surviving prototypes, such as ceiling fans, does not convey the same appearance. radiators, grilles, or plumbing fixtures. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 125 3.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MECHANICAL SYSTEMS: HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Alterations and Additions for a New Use Installing a new mechanical system, if required, so that it results in the least alteration possible to the historic building and its character-defining features. Installing a new mechanical system so that character-defining structural or interior features are radically changed, damaged, or destroyed. Providing adequate structural support for the new mechanical equipment. Failing to consider the weight and design of new mechanical equip- ment so that, as a result, historic structural members or finished surfaces are weakened or cracked. Installing new mechanical and electrical systems and ducts, pipes, and cables in closets, service areas, and wall cavities to preserve the historic character of the interior space. Installing systems and ducts, pipes, and cables in walls or ceilings in a manner that results in extensive loss or damage or otherwise obscures historic building materials and character-defining features. Concealing HVAC ductwork in finished interior spaces, when pos- sible, by installing it in secondary spaces (such as closets, attics, basements, or crawl spaces) or in appropriately-located, furred- down soffits. Leaving HVAC ductwork exposed in most finished spaces or install- ing soffits in a location that will negatively impact the historic character of the interior or exterior of the building. Installing exposed ductwork in a finished space when necessary Installing exposed ductwork in a finished space when necessary to to protect and preserve decorative or other features (such as protect and preserve decorative or other features that is not painted, column capitals, pressed-metal or ornamental plaster ceilings, or is located where it will negatively impact the historic character of coffers, or beams) that is painted, and appropriately located so the space. that it will have minimal impact on the historic character of the space. Lowering ceilings, installing a dropped ceiling, or constructing Lowering ceilings, installing a dropped ceiling, or constructing sof- soffits to conceal ductwork in a finished space when this will not fits to conceal ductwork in a finished space in a manner that results result in extensive loss or damage to historic materials or decora- in extensive loss or damage to historic materials or decorative and tive and other features, and will not change the overall character other features, and will change the overall character of the space or of the space or the exterior appearance of the building (i.e., the exterior appearance of the building. lowered ceilings or soffits visible through window glazing). 126 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 3.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION MECHANICAL SYSTEMS: HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Installing appropriately located, exposed ductwork in historically- unfinished interior spaces in industrial or utilitarian buildings. Installing a split system mechanical unit in a manner that will have minimal impact on the historic character of the interior and result in minimal loss of historic building material. Installing a split system mechanical unit without considering its impact on the historic character of the interior or the potential loss of historic building material. Installing heating or air conditioning window units only when the installation of any other system would result in significant damage or loss of historic materials or features. Installing mechanical equipment on the roof, when necessary, so that it is minimally visible to preserve the building’s historic character and setting. Installing mechanical equipment on the roof that is overly large or highly visible and negatively impacts the historic character of the building or setting. Placing air conditioning compressors in a location on a secondary elevation of the historic building that is not highly visible. Placing air conditioning compressors where they are highly visible and negatively impact the historic character of the building or setting. [34] The new ceiling ducts installed during the conversion of this historic office building into apartments are minimal in design and discretely placed above the windows. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 127 3.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving a floor plan or interior Altering a floor plan, or interior spaces (including individual rooms), spaces, features, and finishes that are important in defining features, and finishes, which are important in defining the overall the overall historic character of the building. Significant spatial historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character characteristics include the size, configuration, proportion, and is diminished. relationship of rooms and corridors; the relationship of features to spaces; and the spaces themselves, such as lobbies, lodge halls, Altering the floor plan by demolishing principal walls and partitions entrance halls, parlors, theaters, auditoriums, gymnasiums, and for a new use. industrial and commercial interiors. Color, texture, and pattern are important characteristics of features and finishes, which can Altering or destroying significant interior spaces by inserting addi- include such elements as columns, plaster walls and ceilings, tional floors or lofts; cutting through floors to create lightwells, light flooring, trim, fireplaces and mantels, paneling, light fixtures, courts, or atriums; lowering ceilings; or adding new walls or remov- hardware, decorative radiators, ornamental grilles and registers, ing historic walls. windows, doors, and transoms; plaster, paint, wallpaper and wall coverings, and special finishes, such as marbleizing and graining; Relocating an interior feature, such as a staircase, so that the cir- and utilitarian (painted or unpainted) features, including wood, culation pattern and the historic relationship between features and metal, or concrete exposed columns, beams, and trusses and spaces are altered. exposed load-bearing brick, concrete, and wood walls. Installing new material that obscures or damages character-defining interior features or finishes. Removing paint, plaster, or other finishes from historically-finished interior surfaces to create a new appearance (e.g., removing plaster to expose brick walls or a brick chimney breast, stripping paint from wood to stain or varnish it, or removing a plaster ceiling to expose unfinished beams). Applying paint, plaster, or other coatings to surfaces that have been unfinished historically, thereby changing their character. Changing the type of finish or its color, such as painting a histori- cally-varnished wood feature, or removing paint from a historically- painted feature. 128 INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 3.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Retaining decorative or other character-defining features or finishes that typify the showroom or interior of a historic store, such as a pressed-metal ceiling, a beaded-board ceiling, or wainscoting. Removing decorative or other character-defining features or finishes that typify the showroom or interior of a historic store, such as a pressed-metal ceiling, a beaded-board ceiling, or wainscoting. Protecting and maintaining historic materials (including plas- ter, masonry, wood, and metals) which comprise interior spaces through appropriate surface treatments, such as cleaning, paint removal, and reapplication of protective coating systems. Failing to protect and maintain interior materials and finishes on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of interior features results. Protecting interior features and finishes against arson and vandal- Leaving the building unprotected and subject to vandalism before ism before project work begins by erecting temporary fencing or work begins, thereby allowing the interior to be damaged if it can be by covering broken windows and open doorways, while ensuring accessed through unprotected entrances. adequate ventilation, and by installing alarm systems keyed into local protection agencies. Protecting interior features (such as a staircase, mantel, flooring, or decorative finishes) from damage during project work by cover- ing them with plywood, heavy canvas, or plastic sheeting. Failing to protect interior features and finishes when working on the interior. [35] (a) Although deteriorated, the historic school corridor, shown on the left, with its character-defining features, including doors and transoms, was retained and repaired as part of the rehabilitation project (b). INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 129 3.e Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 130 [36] The elaborate features and finishes of this historic banking hall in the Union Trust Company Building, in Cleveland, OH, were retained and repaired as part of its conversion into a food market. INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 3.e Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Removing damaged or deteriorated paint and finishes only to the next sound layer using the gentlest method possible prior to repainting or refinishing using compatible paint or other coating systems. Using potentially damaging methods, such as open-flame torches or abrasive techniques, to remove paint or other coatings. Removing paint that is firmly adhered to interior surfaces. Using abrasive cleaning methods only on the interior of industrial Using abrasive methods anywhere but utilitarian and industrial or warehouse buildings with utilitarian, unplastered masonry interior spaces or when there are other methods that are less likely walls and where wood features are not finished, molded, beaded, to damage the surface of the material. or worked by hand. Low-pressure abrasive cleaning (e.g., sand- blasting or other media blasting) should only be considered if test patches show no surface damage and after gentler methods have proven ineffective. Evaluating the overall condition of the interior materials, features, Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of and finishes to determine whether more than protection and interior materials, features, and finishes. maintenance, such as repairs to features and finishes, will be necessary. Repairing interior features and finishes by patching, splicing, Removing materials that could be repaired or using improper repair consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the materials using rec- techniques. ognized preservation methods. Repairs may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of Replacing an entire interior feature (such as a staircase, mantel, or those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of interior features door surround) or a finish (such as a plaster) when repair of materi- when there are surviving prototypes, such as stairs, balustrades, als and limited replacement of deteriorated or missing components wood paneling, columns, decorative wall finishes, and ornamental are feasible. pressed-metal or plaster ceilings. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible. INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 131 3.e Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 132 [38] The rehabilitation project retained the industrial character of this historic factory building, which included installation of a fire-rated, clear glass enclosure that allows the stairway, an important interior feature, to remain visible. [37] Exposed and painted ducts were appropriately installed here in a retail space in Denver’s historic Union Station after considering other options that would have impacted the ceiling height, or damaged or obscured the ornamental plaster crown molding. Photo: Heritage Consulting Group. [39] Leaving the ceiling structure exposed and installing exposed ductwork where it does not impact the windows, are appropriate treatments when rehabilitating an industrial building for another use. INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 3.e Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Replacing in kind an entire interior feature that is too deterio- rated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples could include wainscoting, window and door surrounds, or stairs. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Removing a character-defining interior feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new feature or finish that does not match the historic feature. Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the interior feature or that is physi- cally incompatible. Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey the same appearance of the interior feature or that is physi- cally incompatible. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new interior feature or finish when Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the historic feature or finish is completely missing. This could the missing feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic include missing walls, stairs, mantels, wood trim, and plaster, or documentation; is not a compatible design; or because the feature even entire rooms if the historic spaces, features, and finishes did not coexist with the feature currently on the building. are missing or have been destroyed by inappropriate alterations. The design may be an accurate restoration based on documentary Introducing a new interior feature or finish that is incompatible in and physical evidence, but only when the feature or finish to be size, scale, material, color, and finish. replaced coexisted with the features currently in the building. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building. Alterations and Additions for a New Use Installing new or additional systems required for a new use for the building, such as bathrooms and mechanical equipment, in secondary spaces to preserve the historic character of the most significant interior spaces. Subdividing primary spaces, lowering ceilings, or damaging or obscuring character-defining features (such as fireplaces, windows, or stairways) to accommodate a new use for the building. INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 133 3.e Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Installing new mechanical and electrical systems and ducts, Installing ducts, pipes, and cables where they will obscure charac- pipes, and cables in closets, service areas, and wall cavities to ter-defining features or negatively impact the historic character of preserve the historic character of interior spaces, features, and the interior. finishes. Creating open work areas, when required by the new use, by selectively removing walls only in secondary spaces, less sig- nificant upper floors, or other less-visible locations to preserve primary public spaces and circulation systems. Retaining the configuration of corridors, particularly in build- Making extensive changes to the character of significant historic ings with multiple floors with repetitive plans (such as office corridors by narrowing or radically shortening them, or removing and apartment buildings or hotels), where not only the floor plan their character-defining features. is character defining, but also the width and the length of the corridor, doorways, transoms, trim, and other features, such as wainscoting and glazing. Reusing decorative material or features that had to be removed as Discarding historic material when it can be reused to replace miss- part of the rehabilitation work (including baseboards, door casing, ing or damaged features elsewhere in the building, or reusing mate- paneled doors, and wainscoting) and reusing them in areas where rial in a manner that may convey a false sense of history. these features are missing or are too deteriorated to repair. Installing permanent partitions in secondary, rather than pri- mary, spaces whenever feasible. Removable partitions or partial- height walls that do not destroy the sense of space often may be installed in large character-defining spaces when required by a new use. Installing partitions that abut windows and glazing or that damage or obscure character-defining spaces, features, or finishes. Enclosing a character-defining interior stairway, when required by code, with fire-rated glass walls or large, hold-open doors so that the stairway remains visible and its historic character is retained. Enclosing a character-defining interior stairway for safety or func- tional reasons in a manner that conceals it or destroys its character. Locating new, code-required stairways or elevators in secondary and service areas of the historic building. Making incompatible changes or damaging or destroying character- defining spaces, features, or finishes when adding new code- required stairways and elevators. 134 INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 3.e Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION [40] Not Recommended: Removing a finished ceiling and leaving the structure exposed in a historic retail space does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. [41] Not Recommended: Leaving fragments of deteriorated or “sculpted” plaster is not a compatible treatment for either finished or unfinished interior spaces. INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 135 3.e Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Creating an atrium, light court, or lightwell to provide natural Destroying or damaging character-defining interior spaces, features, light when required for a new use only when it can be done in a or finishes, or damaging the structural system to create an atrium, manner that preserves significant interior spaces, features, and light court, or lightwell. finishes or important exterior elevations. Inserting a new floor, mezzanine, or loft when required for a new Inserting a new floor, mezzanine, or loft that damages or destroys use if it does not damage or destroy significant interior features significant interior features or abuts window glazing and is visible and finishes and is not visible from the exterior of the building. from the exterior of the building, and, thus, negatively impacts its historic character. Inserting a new floor, when necessary for a new use, only in large Inserting a new floor in significant, large assembly spaces with assembly spaces that are secondary to another assembly space distinctive features and finishes, which negatively impacts their in the building; in a space that has been greatly altered; or where historic character. character-defining features have been lost or are too deteriorated to repair. Installing exposed ductwork in a finished space when necessary Installing exposed ductwork in a finished space when necessary to to protect and preserve decorative or other features (such as protect and preserve decorative or other features that is not painted, column capitals, ornamental plaster or pressed-metal ceilings, or is located where it will negatively impact the historic character of coffers, or beams) that is designed, painted, and appropriately the space. located so that it will have minimal impact on the historic char- acter of the space. Lowering ceilings, installing a dropped ceiling, or constructing Lowering ceilings, installing a dropped ceiling, or constructing sof- soffits to conceal ductwork in a finished space when they will not fits to conceal ductwork in a finished space in a manner that results result in extensive loss or damage to historic materials or decora- in extensive loss or damage to historic materials or decorative and tive and other features, and will not change the overall character other features, and will change the overall character of the space or of the space or the exterior appearance of the building (i.e., the exterior appearance of the building. lowered ceilings or soffits visible through window glazing). Installing a split system mechanical unit in a manner that will have minimal impact on the historic character of the interior and will result in minimal loss of historic building material. Installing a split system mechanical unit without considering its impact on the historic character of the interior or the potential loss of historic building material. 136 INTERIOR SPACES, FEATURES, AND FINISHES 3.e Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION BUILDING SITE RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving features of the building site Removing or substantially changing buildings and their features that are important in defining its overall historic character. Site or site features which are important in defining the overall historic features may include walls, fences, or steps; circulation systems, character of the property so that, as a result, the character is dimin- such as walks, paths or roads; vegetation, such as trees, shrubs, ished. grass, orchards, hedges, windbreaks, or gardens; landforms, such as hills, terracing, or berms; furnishings and fixtures, such as light posts or benches; decorative elements, such as sculpture, statuary, or monuments; water features, including fountains, streams, pools, lakes, or irrigation ditches; and subsurface arche- ological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds which are also important to the site. [42] This garden is an important character- defining landscape feature on this college campus. BUILDING SITE 137 3.e Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION BUILDING SITE RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape. Removing or relocating buildings or landscape features, thereby destroying the historic relationship between buildings and the land- scape. Removing or relocating buildings on a site or in a complex of related historic structures (such as a mill complex or farm), thereby dimin- ishing the historic character of the site or complex. Moving buildings onto the site, thereby creating an inaccurate his- toric appearance. Changing the grade level of the site if it diminishes its historic character. For example, lowering the grade adjacent to a building to maximize use of a basement, which would change the historic appearance of the building and its relation to the site. Protecting and maintaining buildings and site features by provid- ing proper drainage to ensure that water does not erode founda- tion walls, drain toward the building, or damage or erode the landscape. Failing to ensure that site drainage is adequate so that buildings and site features are damaged or destroyed; or, alternatively, chang- ing the site grading so that water does not drain properly. Correcting any existing irrigation that may be wetting the build- ing excessively. Neglecting to correct any existing irrigation that may be wetting the building excessively. Minimizing disturbance of the terrain around buildings or else- Using heavy machinery or equipment in areas where it may disturb where on the site, thereby reducing the possibility of destroy- or damage important landscape features, archeological resources, ing or damaging important landscape features, archeological other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. Surveying and documenting areas where the terrain will be Failing to survey the building site prior to beginning work, which altered to determine the potential impact to important landscape may result in damage or loss of important landscape features, features, archeological resources, other cultural or religious fea- archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial tures, or burial grounds. grounds. 138 BUILDING SITE 3.e Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION BUILDING SITE RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Protecting (e.g., preserving in place) important site features, archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. Leaving known site features or archeological material unprotected so that it is damaged during rehabilitation work. Planning and carrying out any necessary investigation before rehabilitation begins, using professional archeologists and meth- ods, when preservation in place is not feasible. Allowing unqualified personnel to perform data recovery on archeo- logical resources, which can result in damage or loss of important archeological material Preserving important landscape features through regularly-sched- uled maintenance of historic plant material. Allowing important landscape features or archeological resources to be lost, damaged, or to deteriorate due to inadequate protection or lack of maintenance Protecting the building site and landscape features against arson Leaving the property unprotected and subject to vandalism before and vandalism before rehabilitation work begins by erecting tem- work begins so that the building site and landscape features, porary fencing and by installing alarm systems keyed into local archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial protection agencies. grounds can be damaged or destroyed. Removing or destroying features from the site, such as fencing, paths or walkways, masonry balustrades, or plant material. Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions on a build- Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions on a building ing site, when necessary for security, that are as unobtrusive as site, when necessary for security, without taking into consideration possible. their location and visibility so that they negatively impact the his- toric character of the site. Providing continued protection and maintenance of buildings and landscape features on the site through appropriate grounds and landscape management. Failing to protect and maintain materials and features from the restoration period on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of the site results. Protecting buildings and landscape features when working on the site. Failing to protect building and landscape features during work on the site or failing to repair damaged or deteriorated site features. BUILDING SITE 139 3.e Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION BUILDING SITE RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Evaluating the overall condition of materials and features to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to site features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of the site. Repairing historic site features which have been damaged, are deteriorated, or have missing components order reestablish the whole feature and to ensure retention of the integrity of the historic materials. Repairs may include limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of site features when there are surviving prototypes, such as paving, railings, or individual plants within a group (e.g., a hedge). Repairs should be physically and visually compatible. Removing materials and features that could be repaired or using improper repair techniques. Replacing an entire feature of the site (such as a fence, walkway, or drive) when repair of materials and limited replacement of deterio- rated or missing components are feasible. [43] The industrial character of the site was retained when this brewery complex was rehabilitated for residential use. [44] Not Recommended: (a-b) The historic character of this plantation house (marked in blue on plan on opposite page) and its site was diminished and adversely impacted when multiple new buildings like this (#3 on plan) were constructed on the property (c). 140 BUILDING SITE 3.e Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION BUILDING SITE RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Replacing in kind an entire feature of the site that is too deterio- Removing a character-defining feature of the site that is unrepair- rated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) able and not replacing it, or replacing it with a new feature that does using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. not match. Examples could include a walkway or a fountain, a land form, or plant material. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey then a compatible substitute material may be considered. the same appearance of the surviving site feature or that is physi- cally or ecologically incompatible. Adding conjectural landscape features to the site (such as period reproduction light fixtures, fences, fountains, or vegetation) that are historically inappropriate, thereby creating an inaccurate appearance of the site. BUILDING SITE 141 3.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION BUILDING SITE RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED [45] Undertaking a survey to document archeological resources may be considered in some rehabilitation projects when a new exterior addition is planned. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new feature on a site when the his- Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for toric feature is completely missing. This could include missing the missing feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic outbuildings, terraces, drives, foundation plantings, specimen documentation, is not a compatible design, or because the feature trees, and gardens. The design may be an accurate restoration did not coexist with the features currently on the site. based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when the feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently on Introducing a new feature, including plant material, that is visually the site. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the incompatible with the site or that alters or destroys the historic site historic character of the building and site. patterns or use. Alterations and Additions for a New Use Designing new onsite features (such as parking areas, access Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where ramps, or lighting), when required by a new use, so that they vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or are as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic relationship when they negatively impact the historic character of the building between the building or buildings and the landscape, and are site if landscape features and plant materials are removed. compatible with the historic character of the property. Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent Introducing new construction on the building site which is visu- new construction that are compatible with the historic character ally incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, material, or color, of the site and preserves the historic relationship between the which destroys historic relationships on the site, or which dam- building or buildings and the landscape. ages or destroys important landscape features, such as replacing a lawn with paved parking areas or removing mature trees to widen a driveway. Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or site features which detract from the historic character of the site. Removing a historic building in a complex of buildings or removing a building feature or a landscape feature which is important in defin- ing the historic character of the site. Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will not cause damage to historic buildings. Locating an irrigation system needed for a new or continuing use of the site where it will damage historic buildings. 142 BUILDING SITE 3.e Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving building and landscape Removing or substantially changing those building and landscape features that are important in defining the overall historic features in the setting which are important in defining the historic character of the setting. Such features can include circulation character so that, as a result, the character is diminished. systems, such as roads and streets; furnishings and fixtures, such as light posts or benches; vegetation, gardens and yards; adjacent open space, such as fields, parks, commons, or wood- lands; and important views or visual relationships. [46] The varied size, shapes, and architectural styles of these historic buildings are unique to this street in Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI, and should be retained in a rehabilitation project. [47] Original paving stones contribute to the character of the historic setting and distinguish this block from other streets in the district. SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) 143 3.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) [48] Old police and fire call boxes, which are distinctive features in this historic district, have been retained, and now showcase work by local artists. [49] Low stone walls are character- defining features in this hilly, early-20th-century residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Retaining the historic relationship between buildings and Altering the relationship between the buildings and landscape fea- landscape features in the setting. For example, preserving the tures in the setting by widening existing streets, changing landscape relationship between a town common or urban plaza and the materials, or locating new streets or parking areas where they may adjacent houses, municipal buildings, roads, and landscape and negatively impact the historic character of the setting. streetscape features. Removing or relocating buildings or landscape features, thereby destroying the historic relationship between buildings and the land- scape in the setting. 144 SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) 3.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Protecting and maintaining historic features in the setting Failing to protect and maintain materials in the setting on a cycli- through regularly-scheduled maintenance and grounds and land- cal basis so that deterioration of buildings and landscape features scape management. results. Stripping or removing historic features from buildings or the setting, such as a porch, fencing, walkways, or plant material. Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions in the Installing protective fencing, bollards, and stanchions in the setting, setting, when necessary for security, that are as unobtrusive as when necessary for security, without taking into consideration their possible. location and visibility so that they negatively impact the historic character of the setting. Protecting buildings and landscape features when undertaking work in the setting. Failing to protect buildings and landscape features during work in the setting. Evaluating the overall condition of materials and features to Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of determine whether more than protection and maintenance, materials and features in the setting. such as repairs to materials and features in the setting, will be necessary. Repairing features in the setting by reinforcing the historic materials. Repairs may include the replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of setting features when there are surviving pro- totypes, such as fencing, paving materials, trees, and hedgerows. Repairs should be physically and visually compatible. Failing to repair and reinforce damaged or deteriorated historic materials and features in the setting. Removing material that could be repaired or using improper repair techniques. Replacing an entire feature of the building or landscape in the setting when repair of materials and limited replacement of deterio- rated or missing components are feasible. SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) 145 3.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Replacing in kind an entire building or landscape feature in Removing a character-defining feature of the building or landscape the setting that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form from the setting that is unrepairable and not replacing it or replac- and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a ing it with a new feature that does not match. model to reproduce the feature. If using the same kind of mate- rial is not feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be Using a substitute material for the replacement that does not convey considered. the same appearance of the surviving building or landscape feature in the setting or that is physically or ecologically incompatible. The following work is highlighted to indicate that it is specific to Rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns have been addressed. Designing the Replacement for Missing Historic Features Designing and installing a new feature of the building or land- scape in the setting when the historic feature is completely missing. This could include missing steps, streetlights, terraces, trees, and fences. The design may be an accurate restoration based on documentary and physical evidence, but only when the feature to be replaced coexisted with the features currently in the setting. Or, it may be a new design that is compatible with the historic character of the setting. Creating an inaccurate appearance because the replacement for the missing feature is based upon insufficient physical or historic documentation; is not a compatible design, or because the feature did not coexist with the features currently in the setting. Introducing a new building or landscape feature that is visually or otherwise incompatible with the setting’s historic character (e.g., replacing low metal fencing with a high wood fence). Alterations and Additions for a New Use Designing new features (such as parking areas, access ramps, or lighting), when required by a new use, so that they are as unobtrusive as possible, retain the historic relationships between buildings and the landscape in the setting, and are compatible with the historic character of the setting. Locating parking areas directly adjacent to historic buildings where vehicles may cause damage to buildings or landscape features or when they negatively impact the historic character of the setting if landscape features and plant materials are removed. Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction that are compatible with the historic character of the setting that preserve the historic relationship between the buildings and the landscape. Introducing new construction into historic districts which is visually incompatible or that destroys historic relationships within the set- ting, or which damages or destroys important landscape features. Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or landscape fea- tures which detract from the historic character of the setting. Removing a historic building, a building feature, or landscape feature which is important in defining the historic character of the setting. 146 SETTING (DISTRICT / NEIGHBORHOOD) 3.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CODE-REQUIRED WORK RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Sensitive solutions to meeting accessibility and life-safety code requirements are an important part of protecting the historic character of the building and site. Thus, work that must be done to meet use-specific code requirements should be considered early in planning a Rehabilitation of a historic building for a new use. Because code mandates are directly related to occupancy, some uses require less change than others and, thus, may be more appropriate for a historic building. Early coordination with code enforcement authorities can reduce the impact of alterations necessary to comply with current codes. ACCESSIBILITY Identifying the historic building’s character-defining exterior features, interior spaces, features, and finishes, and features of the site and setting which may be affected by accessibility code- required work. Undertaking accessibility code-required alterations before identify- ing those exterior features, interior spaces, features, and finishes, and features of the site and setting which are character defining and, therefore, must be preserved. Complying with barrier-free access requirements in such a manner that the historic building’s character-defining exterior fea- tures, interior spaces, features, and finishes, and features of the site and setting are preserved or impacted as little as possible. Altering, damaging, or destroying character-defining exterior fea- tures, interior spaces, features, and finishes, or features of the site and setting while making modifications to a building, its site, or setting to comply with accessibility requirements. [50] This kitchen in a historic apartment complex was rehabilitated to meet accessibility requirements. [51] A new interior access ramp with a simple metal railing is compatible with the character of this mid- century-modern building. CODE-REQUIRED WORK | ACCESSIBILITY 147 3.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CODE-REQUIRED WORK RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Working with specialists in accessibility and historic preservation to determine the most sensitive solutions to comply with access requirements in a historic building, its site, or setting. Making changes to historic buildings, their sites, or setting without first consulting with specialists in accessibility and historic preser- vation to determine the most appropriate solutions to comply with accessibility requirements. Providing barrier-free access that promotes independence for the user while preserving significant historic features. Making modifications for accessibility that do not provide indepen- dent, safe access while preserving historic features. Finding solutions to meet accessibility requirements that mini- mize the impact of any necessary alteration on the historic build- ing, its site, and setting, such as compatible ramps, paths, and lifts. Making modifications for accessibility without considering the impact on the historic building, its site, and setting. [52] The access ramp blends in with the stone façade of the First National Bank in Stephenville, TX, and is appropriately located on the side where it is does not impact the historic character of the building. Photo: Nancy McCoy, QuimbyMcCoy Preservation Architecture, LLP. [54] The gently-sloped path in a historic park in Kansas City, MO, which accesses the memorial below, includes a rest area part way up the hill. Photo: STRATA Architecture + Preservation. [53] This entrance ramp (right) is compatible with the historic character of this commercial building. 148 CODE-REQUIRED WORK | ACCESSIBILITY 3.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CODE-REQUIRED WORK RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Using relevant sections of existing codes regarding accessibil- ity for historic buildings that provide alternative means of code compliance when code-required work would otherwise negatively impact the historic character of the property. Minimizing the impact of accessibility ramps by installing them on secondary elevations when it does not compromise accessibil- ity or by screening them with plantings. Installing elevators, lifts, or incompatible ramps at a primary entrance, or relocating primary entrances to secondary locations to provide access without investigating other options or locations. Adding a gradual slope or grade to the sidewalk, if appropriate, to access the entrance rather than installing a ramp that would be more intrusive to the historic character of the building and the district. Adding an exterior stair or elevator tower that is compatible with the historic character of the building in a minimally-visible location only when it is not possible to accommodate it on the interior without resulting in the loss of significant historic spaces, features, or finishes. Installing a lift as inconspicuously as possible when it is neces- sary to locate it on a primary elevation of the historic building. Installing lifts or elevators on the interior in secondary or less significant spaces where feasible. Installing lifts or elevators on the interior in primary spaces which will negatively impact the historic character of the space. [55] The lift is compatible with the industrial character of this former warehouse. CODE-REQUIRED WORK | ACCESSIBILITY 149 3.e Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CODE-REQUIRED WORK RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED LIFE SAFETY Identifying the historic building’s character-defining exterior Undertaking life-safety code-required alterations before identifying features, interior spaces, features, and finishes, and features of those exterior features, interior spaces, features, and finishes, and the site and setting which may be affected by life-safety code- features of the site and setting which are character defining and, required work. therefore, must be preserved. Complying with life-safety codes (including requirements for Altering, damaging, or destroying character-defining exterior fea- impact-resistant glazing, security, and seismic retrofit) in such a tures, interior spaces, features, and finishes, or features of the site manner that the historic building’s character-defining exterior fea- and setting while making modifications to a building, its site, or tures, interior spaces, features, and finishes, and features of the setting to comply with life-safety code requirements. site and setting are preserved or impacted as little as possible. Removing building materials only after testing has been con- ducted to identify hazardous materials, and using only the least damaging abatement methods. Removing building materials without testing first to identify the hazardous materials, or using potentially damaging methods of abatement. Providing workers with appropriate personal equipment for pro- tection from hazards on the worksite. Removing hazardous or toxic materials without regard for work- ers’ health and safety or environmentally-sensitive disposal of the materials. Working with code officials and historic preservation specialists Making life-safety code-required changes to the building without to investigate systems, methods, or devices to make the build- consulting code officials and historic preservation specialists, with ing compliant with life-safety codes to ensure that necessary the result that alterations negatively impact the historic character of alterations will be compatible with the historic character of the the building. building. Using relevant sections of existing codes regarding life safety for historic buildings that provide alternative means of code compli- ance when code-required work would otherwise negatively impact the historic character of the building. [56 a-b] In order to continue in its historic use, the door openings of this 1916 Colonial Revival-style fire station had to be widened to accommodate the larger size of modern fire trucks. Although this resulted in some change to the arched door surrounds, it is minimal and does not negatively impact the historic character of the building. (a) Above, before; Photo: Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FEMS), Washington, D.C.; below, after. 150 CODE-REQUIRED WORK | LIFE SAFETY 3.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION [57] Workers wear protective clothing while removing lead paint from metal features. [59] (a-b) The decorative concrete balcony railings on this 1960s building did not meet life-safety code requirements. They were replaced with new glass railings with a fritted glass pattern matching the original design—a creative solution that satisfies codes, while preserving the historic appearance of the building when viewed from the street (c-d). Photos: (a, b, d) ERA Architects, Inc.; (c) Nathan Cyprys, photographer. CODE-REQUIRED WORK | LIFE SAFETY 151 3.e Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION CODE-REQUIRED WORK RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Upgrading historic stairways and elevators to meet life-safety codes so that they are not damaged or otherwise negatively impacted. Damaging or making inappropriate alterations to historic stairways and elevators or to adjacent features, spaces, or finishes in the process of doing work to meet code requirements. Installing sensitively-designed fire-suppression systems, such as sprinklers, so that historic features and finishes are preserved. Covering character-defining wood features with fire-retardant sheathing, which results in altering their appearance. Applying fire-retardant coatings when appropriate, such as intu- mescent paint, to protect steel structural systems. Using fire-retardant coatings if they will damage or obscure charac- ter-defining features. Adding a new stairway or elevator to meet life-safety code requirements in a manner that preserves adjacent character- defining features and spaces. Altering, damaging, or destroying character-defining spaces, features, or finishes when adding a new code-required stairway or elevator. Using existing openings on secondary or less-visible elevations or, if necessary, creating new openings on secondary or less-visible elevations to accommodate second egress requirements. Using a primary or other highly-visible elevation to accommodate second egress requirements without investigating other options or locations. Placing a code-required stairway or elevator that cannot be accommodated within the historic building in a new exterior addi- tion located on a secondary or minimally-visible elevation. Constructing a new addition to accommodate code-required stairs or an elevator on character-defining elevations or where it will obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining features of the building, its site, or setting. Designing a new exterior stairway or elevator tower addition that is compatible with the historic character of the building. [58] Fire doors that retract into the walls have been installed here (not visible in photo) preserve the historic character of this corridor. 152 CODE-REQUIRED WORK | LIFE SAFETY 3.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Resilience to natural hazards should be addressed as part of the treatment Rehabilitation. A historic building may have existing characteristics or features that help address or minimize the impacts of natural hazards. These should be used to best advantage and should be taken into consideration early in the planning stages of a rehabilitation project before proposing any new treatments. When new adaptive treatments are needed they should be carried out in a manner that will have the least impact on the historic character of the building, its site, and setting. . Identifying the vulnerabilities of the historic property to the Failing to identify and periodically reevaluate the potential vulner- impacts of natural hazards (such as wildfires, hurricanes, or ability of the building, its site, and setting to the impacts of natural tornadoes) using the most current climate information and data hazards. available. Assessing the potential impacts of known vulnerabilities on character-defining features of the building, its site, and setting; and reevaluating and reassessing potential impacts on a regular basis. Documenting the property and character-defining features as a record and guide for future repair work, should it be necessary, and storing the documentation in a weatherproof location. Failing to document the historic property and its character-defining features with the result that such information is not available in the future to guide repair or reconstruction work, should it be necessary. Ensuring that historic resources inventories and maps are accu- rate, up to date, and accessible in times of emergency. Maintaining the building, its site, and setting in good repair, and regularly monitoring character-defining features. Failing to regularly monitor and maintain the property and the building systems in good repair. Using and maintaining existing characteristics and features of the Allowing loss, damage, or destruction to occur to the historic build- historic building, its site, setting, and larger environment (such ing, its site, or setting by failing to evaluate potential future impacts as shutters for storm protection or a site wall that keeps out flood of natural hazards or to plan and implement adaptive measures, if waters) that may help to avoid or minimize the impacts of natural necessary to address possible threats. hazards Undertaking work to prevent or minimize the loss, damage, or Carrying out adaptive measures intended to address the impacts destruction of the historic property while retaining and preserving of natural hazards that are unnecessarily invasive or will otherwise significant features and the overall historic character of the build- adversely impact the historic character of the building, its site, or ing, its site, and setting. setting. RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS 153 3.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION 154 [60] In some instances, it may be necessary to elevate a historic building located in a floodplain to protect it. But this treatment is appropriate only if elevating the building will retain its historic character, including its relationship to the site, and its new height will be compatible with surrounding buildings if in a historic district. The house on the right, which has been raised only slightly, has retained its historic character. The house on the left has been raised several feet higher, resulting in a greater impact on the historic character of the house and the district. RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS 3.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Ensuring that, when planning work to adapt for natural hazards, all feasible alternatives are considered, and that the options requiring the least alteration are considered first. Implementing local and regional traditions (such as elevating residential buildings at risk of flooding or reducing flammable vegetation around structures in fire-prone areas) for adapting buildings and sites in response to specific natural hazards, when appropriate. Such traditional methods may be appropriate if they are compatible with the historic character of the building, its site, and setting. Implementing a treatment traditionally used in another region or one typically used for a different property type or architectural style which is not compatible with the historic character of the property. Using special exemptions and variances when adaptive treat- ments to protect buildings from known hazards would otherwise negatively impact the historic character of the building, its site, and setting. Considering adaptive options, whenever possible, that would protect multiple historic resources, if the treatment can be imple- mented without negatively impacting the historic character of the district, or archeological resources, other cultural or religious features, or burial grounds. Sustainability Sustainability is usually a very important and integral part of the treatment Rehabilitation. Existing energy-efficient features should be taken into consideration early in the planning stages of a rehabili- tation project before proposing any energy improvements. There are numerous treatments that may be used to upgrade a historic build- ing to help it operate more efficiently while retaining its character. The topic of sustainability is addressed in detail in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guide- lines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS 155 3.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED New Additions Placing functions and services required for a new use (including elevators and stairways) in secondary or non-character-defining interior spaces of the historic building rather than constructing a new addition. Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a new addition when requirements for the new use could be met by alter- ing non-character-defining interior spaces. Constructing a new addition on a secondary or non-character- defining elevation and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building. Constructing a new addition on or adjacent to a primary elevation of the building which negatively impacts the building’s historic character. Constructing a new addition that results in the least possible loss of historic materials so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Attaching a new addition in a manner that obscures, damages, or destroys character-defining features of the historic building. Designing a new addition that is compatible with the historic building. Designing a new addition that is significantly different and, thus, incompatible with the historic building. Ensuring that the addition is subordinate and secondary to the historic building and is compatible in massing, scale, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. Constructing a new addition that is as large as or larger than the historic building, which visually overwhelms it (i.e., results in the diminution or loss of its historic character). 156 NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 3.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Using the same forms, materials, and color range of the historic building in a manner that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes the addition from the original building. Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and detailing of the historic building in a new addition so that the new work appears to be historic. Basing the alignment, rhythm, and size of the window and door openings of the new addition on those of the historic building. Incorporating a simple, recessed, small-scale hyphen, or con- nection, to physically and visually separate the addition from the historic building. Distinguishing the addition from the original building by setting it back from the wall plane of the historic building. [61 a-b] The materials, design, and location at the back of the historic house are important factors in making this a compatible new addition. Photos: © Maxwell MacKenzie. NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 157 3.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Ensuring that the addition is stylistically appropriate for the his- toric building type (e.g., whether it is residential or institutional). Considering the design for a new addition in terms of its rela- tionship to the historic building as well as the historic district, neighborhood, and setting. [62] The stair tower at the rear of this commercial building is a compatible new addition. 158 NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 3.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Rooftop Additions Designing a compatible rooftop addition for a multi-story build- ing, when required for a new use, that is set back at least one full bay from the primary and other highly-visible elevations and that is inconspicuous when viewed from surrounding streets. Constructing a rooftop addition that is highly visible, which nega- tively impacts the character of the historic building, its site, setting, or district. [ 63] (a) A mockup should be erected to demonstrate the visibility of a proposed rooftop addition and its potential impact on the historic building. Based on review of this mockup (orange marker), it was determined that the rooftop addition would meet the Standards (b). The addition is unobtrusive and blends in with the building behind it. New addition NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 159 3.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Limiting a rooftop addition to one story in height to minimize its visibility and its impact on the historic character of the building. Constructing a highly-visible, multi-story rooftop addition that alters the building’s historic character. Constructing a rooftop addition on low-rise, one- to three-story his- toric buildings that is highly visible, overwhelms the building, and negatively impacts the historic district. Constructing a rooftop addition with amenities (such as a raised pool deck with plantings, HVAC equipment, or screening) that is highly visible and negatively impacts the historic character of the building. [64] Not Recommended: It is generally not appropriate to construct a rooftop addition on a low-rise, two- to three-story building such as this, because it negatively affects its historic character. 160 NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 3.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED [65] (a) This (far left) Related New Construction Adding a new building to a historic site or property only if the requirements for a new or continuing use cannot be accommo- dated within the existing structure or structures. Adding a new building to a historic site or property when the project requirements could be accommodated within the existing structure or structures. Locating new construction far enough away from the historic building, when possible, where it will be minimally visible and will not negatively affect the building’s character, the site, or setting. Placing new construction too close to the historic building so that it negatively impacts the building’s character, the site, or setting. is a compatible new outbuilding constructed on the site of a historic plantation house (b). Although traditional in design, it is built of wood to differentiate it from the historic house (which is scored stucco) located at the back of the site so as not to impact the historic house, and minimally visible from the public right-of-way (c). new addition NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 161 3.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Designing new construction on a historic site or in a historic setting that it is compatible but differentiated from the historic building or buildings. Replicating the features of the historic building when designing a new building, with the result that it may be confused as historic or original to the site or setting. Considering the design for related new construction in terms of its relationship to the historic building as well as the historic district and setting. Ensuring that new construction is secondary to the historic build- ing and does not detract from its significance. Adding new construction that results in the diminution or loss of the historic character of the building, including its design, materi- als, location, or setting. Constructing a new building on a historic property or on an adjacent site that is much larger than the historic building. Designing new buildings or groups of buildings to meet a new use that are not compatible in scale or design with the character of the historic building and the site, such as apartments on a historic school property that are too residential in appearance. Using site features or land formations, such as trees or sloping terrain, to help minimize the new construction and its impact on the historic building and property. Designing an addition to a historic building in a densely-built location (such as a downtown commercial district) to appear as a separate building or infill, rather than as an addition. In such a setting, the addition or the infill structure must be compatible with the size and scale of the historic building and surrounding buildings—usually the front elevation of the new building should be in the same plane (i.e., not set back from the historic build- ing). This approach may also provide the opportunity for a larger addition or infill when the façade can be broken up into smaller elements that are consistent with the scale of the historic build- ing and surrounding buildings. 162 NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 3.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REF. DW W UP D 1 A13 LIVING ROOM FRONT PORCH BEDROOM 1 FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 BATH CLO. CLO. DINING ROOM 1' - 0" 23' - 0" 8' - 0" 2' - 1" 4' - 0" 4' - 6" 4' - 11 1/2" 9' - 6" 15' - 0" 40' - 3 1/2" 14' - 4 1/2" 3' - 6" 11' - 8" 1' - 0" 1' - 8" 22' - 0" 24' - 1" PANTRY 4' - 0" 14' - 6" LAUNDRY/ MUD ROOM BATH 31' - 0" 2 A13 10" 4' - 0 1/2" 8' - 3" 1' - 0" 12' - 0" 1' - 0" 13' - 9" 1' - 0" DECK 7' - 5 1/2" PROPOSED SKYLIGHT LOCATION (VERIFY W/ EXST. ROOF JOISTS) ROOF RIDGE ABOVE TV/MEDIA ROOF VALLEY ABOVE 2' - 1" 3' - 10 1/2" 1' - 6" 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&(+456(.1142.#0 1,496 SF (530 SF ADDITION) 3.f Packet Pg. 212 REF. DW UP W/D 1 A14 LIVING ROOM FRONT PORCH BEDROOM 1 FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 BATH CLO. CLO. DINING ROOM 1' - 0" 23' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 1" 4' - 0" 4' - 6" 4' - 11 1/2" 9' - 6" 15' - 0" 40' - 3 1/2" 14' - 4 1/2" 3' - 6" 11' - 8" 1' - 0" 2' - 0" 20' - 0" 24' - 1" PANTRY 4' - 0" 14' - 6" 2 A14 10" 4' - 9 1/2" 8' - 3" 1' - 0" 12' - 0" 1' - 0" 13' - 9" 1' - 0" DECK PROPOSED SKYLIGHT LOCATION (VERIFY W/ EXST. ROOF JOISTS) ROOF RIDGE ABOVE TV/MEDIA ROOF VALLEY ABOVE 33' - 3 1/2" BATH MUD ROOM 1' - 9" LAUNDRY EXISTING 22" X 44" DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW TO BE REMOVED 7' - 2" WESTERN 7'-2" OF EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL TO BE COVERED BY NEW ADDITION TO NORTH 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 8.01.17 # 5%#.' žÁ 1 A13 FUTURE LOFT ATTIC/ STORAGE EXISTING ATTIC 14' - 4" 2 A13 HATCH INDICATES AREA WITH CEILING HEIGHT OF 6'-8" OR GREATER NEW DOOR TO EXST. ATTIC POSSIBLE LOCATION OF BUILT-IN SHELVES (ABOVE EXST. CEILING JOISTS) POSSIBLE LOCATION OF BUILT-IN DRAWERS (ABOVE EXST. CEILING JOISTS) HIDDEN LINES INDICATE LOCATION OF FUTURE WALLS & DOORS FOR UPSTAIRS LOFT & CLOSET OPEN RAILING 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5'%10&(.1142.#0 270 SF 3.f Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 1 A14 FUTURE LOFT ATTIC/ STORAGE EXISTING ATTIC 14' - 4" 2 A14 HATCH INDICATES AREA WITH CEILING HEIGHT OF 6'-8" OR GREATER NEW DOOR TO EXST. ATTIC POSSIBLE LOCATION OF BUILT-IN SHELVES (ABOVE EXST. CEILING JOISTS) POSSIBLE LOCATION OF BUILT-IN DRAWERS (ABOVE EXST. CEILING JOISTS) HIDDEN LINES INDICATE LOCATION OF FUTURE WALLS & DOORS FOR UPSTAIRS LOFT & CLOSET OPEN RAILING 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 8.01.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5'%10&(.1142.#0 275 SF 3.f Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - WH CRAWL MECH./ SPACE STORAGE 1 A13 STORAGE FRONT PORCH CRAWL SPACE NEW ACCESS TO EXST. BASEMENT CRAWL SPACE 3' - 2" 5' - 10" 15' - 0" 1' - 0" 23' - 0" 8' - 0" 1' - 8" 22' - 0" 2 A13 CRAWL SPACE ACCESS DOOR NEW SUMP PIT, EXACT LOCATION TBD IN FIELD HIDDEN LINES INDICATE LOCATION OF FUTURE WALLS & DOORS FOR BASEMENT BEDROOM & CLOSET CONC. FOUNDATION WALL TO 3'-0" AFF (FIELD VERIFY) W/ 4" CONC. SLAB ABOVE TO EXST. FOUNDATION WALL CONC. FOUNDATION WALL TO 5'-0" AFF (FIELD VERIFY) W/ 4" CONC. SLAB ABOVE TO EXST. FOUNDATION WALL 3' - 3 1/2" 1' - 8" 3' - 2" 4 1/2" 14' - 2 1/2" 3' - 2" 12' - 3 1/2" 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&$#5'/'062.#0 3.f Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - WH CRAWL MECH./ SPACE STORAGE 1 A14 STORAGE FRONT PORCH CRAWL SPACE NEW ACCESS TO EXST. BASEMENT 3' - 2" 5' - 10" 15' - 0" 1' - 0" 23' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 0" 20' - 0" 2 A14 CRAWL SPACE ACCESS DOOR NEW SUMP PIT, EXACT LOCATION TBD IN FIELD HIDDEN LINES INDICATE LOCATION OF FUTURE WALLS & DOORS FOR BASEMENT BEDROOM & CLOSET CONC. FOUNDATION WALL TO 3'-0" AFF (FIELD VERIFY) W/ 4" CONC. SLAB ABOVE TO EXST. FOUNDATION WALL CONC. FOUNDATION WALL TO 5'-0" AFF (FIELD VERIFY) W/ 4" CONC. SLAB ABOVE TO EXST. FOUNDATION WALL 3' - 3 1/2" 1' - 8" 3' - 2" 4 1/2" 14' - 2 1/2" 3' - 2" 12' - 3 1/2" CRAWL SPACE 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 8.01.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&$#5'/'062.#0 345 SF 3.f Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 14' - 0" 1' - 0" 1'-0" ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE 5' - 0" 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&'#56'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5176*'.'8#6+10 3.f Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 14' - 0" 1' - 0" 1'-0" ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE 5' - 0" NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW WOOD WINDOW- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW WOOD WINDOWS- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW STRUCTURAL WOOD BRACKETS & BEAM- PNT. NEW WOOD DECK- STN. & FIN. EXST. ASPHALT ROOFING REMAIN NEW 2X OVERFRAMING W/ ASPHALT ROOFING ON EXST. ROOF NEW KITCHEN SKYLIGHT IN EXST. ROOF 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 8.01.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&'#56'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5176*'.'8#6+10 3.f Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&0146*'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&9'56'.'8#6+10 3.f Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - HATCH INDICATES AREA OF EXISTING NORTH WALL TO BE COVERED BY PROPOSED ADDITION NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW WOOD WINDOWS- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW ROUNDED FISH SCALE SIDING TO MATCH EXST.- PNT. NEW WOOD EXTERIOR DOOR WITH HALF LITE- PNT. NEW 2X OVERFRAMING W/ ASPHALT ROOFING ON EXST. ROOF NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW WOOD WINDOWS- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW ROUNDED FISH SCALE SIDING TO MATCH EXST.- PNT. NEW WOOD FULL LITE FRENCH DOORS- PNT. NEW STRUCTURAL WOOD BRACKETS- PNT. NEW WOOD DECK- STN. & FIN. EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL BEYOND EXISTING ROOF BEYOND NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. 5 1/2" 9 1/2" HATCH INDICATES EXTENTS OF EXISTING MUD ROOM AT WEST ELEVATION TO BE DEMOLISHED 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE # 5%#.' žÁ 8.01.17  241215'&0146*'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&9'56'.'8#6+10 3.f Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á0146*'#56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á5176*'#56 3.f Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 8.01.17 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á0146*'#56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á5176*'#56 3.f Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á0146*9'56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á5176*9'56 3.f Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 8.01.17 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á0146*9'56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á5176*9'56 3.f Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - EL. FINISH FLOOR ELEV. 100' - 0" EL. EXIST. ROOF BRG. 110' - 0" EL. BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. 92' - 7" EL. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109' - 4 1/4" 5' - 3 3/32" EL. NEW BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. 90' - 4 1/4" 8' - 5 1/2" 6' - 8" 3' - 6" 8' - 0" 8' - 9" 9' - 0" 11 3/4" 23' - 0" 2 A13 EL. FINISH FLOOR ELEV. 100' - 0" EL. EXIST. BASEMENT 92' - 9" EL. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109' - 4 1/4" 1 A13 6' - 8" 6' - 8" 4' - 0" 4' - 11 3/8" 3' - 0" 2' - 9" 3' - 3" 4' - 5 1/2" 1' - 0" FIELD VERIFY 5' - 0" 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado OPTION D WINNER RESIDENCE 6.09.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  #&&+6+100146*Á5176*$7+.&+0)5'%6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  #&&+6+10'#56Á9'565'%6+10 3.f Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - EL. FINISH FLOOR ELEV. 100' - 0" EL. EXIST. ROOF BRG. 110' - 0" EL. BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. 92' - 7" EL. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109' - 4 1/4" 4' - 11 11/32" EL. NEW BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. 90' - 4 1/4" 8' - 5 1/2" 6' - 8" 3' - 6" 8' - 0" 8' - 9" 9' - 0" 11 3/4" 2 A14 EL. FINISH FLOOR ELEV. 100' - 0" EL. EXIST. BASEMENT 92' - 9" EL. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109' - 4 1/4" 1 A14 6' - 8" 4' - 0" 4' - 11 3/8" 3' - 0" 2' - 9" 3' - 3" 4' - 2 1/2" 1' - 0" FIELD VERIFY 5' - 0" 8' - 0" 3' - 2" 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 8.01.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  #&&+6+100146*Á5176*$7+.&+0)5'%6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  #&&+6+10'#56Á9'565'%6+10 3.f Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 15' - 0" 15' - 0" SIDE YARD SETBACK REAR YARD SETBACK FRONT YARD SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK 150' - 0" 5' - 0" 40' - 0" 5' - 0" 180' - 0" EXISTING HOUSE WOOD STREET 50' - 0" 90' - 0" 90' - 0" PROPOSED ADDITION 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5+6'2.#0 3.g Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL REF. DW D W UP LIVING ROOM FRONT PORCH BEDROOM 1 FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 LAUNDRY BATH CLO. CLO. BACK PORCH EXISTING BACK PORCH FLOOR, WALLS, ROOF & STEPS TO BE DEMOLISHED 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  (+456(.114&'/1.+6+102.#0 3.g Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL REF. DW W/D LIVING ROOM FRONT PORCH BEDROOM 1 FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN BEDROOM 2 BATH CLO. CLO. DINING ROOM 6" 22' - 0" 10' - 0" 2' - 1" 4' - 0" 4' - 6" 4' - 11 1/2" 9' - 6" 15' - 0" 40' - 3 1/2" 3' - 6" 11' - 4" 24' - 1" PANTRY 3' - 8" 14' - 6" 1' - 0" 12' - 0" 1' - 0" 18' - 0" 1' - 0" DECK PROPOSED SKYLIGHT LOCATION (VERIFY W/ EXST. ROOF JOISTS) ROOF RIDGE ABOVE TV/MEDIA ROOF VALLEY ABOVE 39' - 9 1/2" LAUNDRY/ BATH MUD ROOM 8 ' - 6" 2' - 6" 18' - 0" 5' - 6 1/2" 3' - 5" 3' - 10" 3' - 6" 2' - 0" PROPOSED SKYLIGHT LOCATION 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&(+456(.1142.#0 1,476 SF (510 SF ADDITION) 3.g Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL WH CRAWL MECH./ SPACE STORAGE STORAGE FRONT PORCH CRAWL SPACE NEW ACCESS TO EXST. BASEMENT 15' - 0" 6" 22' - 0" 10' - 0" 2' - 6" 15' - 6" CRAWL SPACE ACCESS DOOR NEW SUMP PIT, EXACT LOCATION TBD IN FIELD HIDDEN LINES INDICATE LOCATION OF FUTURE WALLS & DOORS FOR BASEMENT BEDROOM & CLOSET CONC. FOUNDATION WALL TO 3'-0" AFF (FIELD VERIFY) W/ 4" CONC. SLAB ABOVE TO EXST. FOUNDATION WALL CRAWL SPACE 8' - 6" 12' - 1 1/2" 18' - 0" 10' - 0 1/2" 3' - 10" 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&$#5'/'062.#0 330 375 SF 3.g Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 14' - 0" 1' - 0" 1'-0" ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE 5' - 0" NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW WOOD EXTERIOR DOOR WITH HALF LITE- PNT. NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW WOOD WINDOWS- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW STRUCTURAL WOOD BRACKETS & BEAM- PNT. NEW WOOD DECK- STN. & FIN. EXST. ASPHALT ROOFING REMAIN NEW 2X OVERFRAMING W/ ASPHALT ROOFING ON EXST. ROOF NEW KITCHEN SKYLIGHT IN EXST. ROOF 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&'#56'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&5176*'.'8#6+10 3.g Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW WOOD WINDOWS- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW 2X OVERFRAMING W/ ASPHALT ROOFING ON EXST. ROOF SKYLIGHT IN NEW ROOF OVER STAIRS TO BASEMENT NEW HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING- PNT. NEW WOOD WINDOWS- PNT. NEW ASPHALT ROOFING TO MATCH EXST. NEW C.I.P. CONC. FOUNDATION WALL- PNT. NEW ROUNDED FISH SCALE SIDING TO MATCH EXST.- PNT. NEW WOOD FULL LITE FRENCH DOORS- PNT. NEW STRUCTURAL WOOD BRACKETS- PNT. NEW WOOD DECK- STN. & FIN. EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL BEYOND EXISTING ROOF BEYOND 5" HATCH INDICATES EXTENTS OF EXISTING MUD ROOM AT WEST ELEVATION TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ATTIC VENT 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE # 5%#.' žÁ 8.31.17  241215'&0146*'.'8#6+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  241215'&9'56'.'8#6+10 3.g Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á0146*'#56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á5176*'#56 3.g Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á0146*9'56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á5176*9'56 3.g Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado REVISED OPTION 2 WINNER RESIDENCE 8.31.17 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á'#56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á0146*'#56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á5176*'#56 # 5%#.'  &8+'9Á9'56 3.g Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: New Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL WH UP CRAWL SPACE MECH./ STORAGE 8' - 1" 7' - 11" 5' - 1" 27' - 1 1/2" 8' - 1" 5' - 1" 10' - 11" 8' - 0" HATCH INDICATES POSSIBLE AREA OF BASEMENT WITH CEILING HEIGHT OF 8' TALL IF EXISTING BASEMENT & CRAWL SPACE WERE EXCAVATED- 227 SF TOTAL EL. FINISH FLOOR ELEV. 100' - 0" EL. EXIST. ROOF BRG. 110' - 0" EL. BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. 92' - 7" EL. NEW BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. 90' - 4 1/4" 45.00° 45.00° 7' - 8 1/4" 4 1/2" 10' - 11" 4 1/2" 4' - 8 3/4" 7' - 11 3/4" 1' - 0" new + existing ductwork & piping MIN. 3' - 8" NEW EGRESS WINDOW IN EXST. STONE FOUNDATION WALL 8' - 1" 5' - 1 1/4" DIAGONAL HATCH INDICATES ALLOWABLE BASEMENT WIDTH BEYOND (7'-11" WIDE) EXISTING STONE FOUNDATION WALLS, TYP. EXISTING BRICK EXTERIOR WALLS, TYP. NEW CIP CONC. FOOTING & FOUNDATION WALL ANGLE OF REPOSE- AREA UNDER EXST. STONE FOUNDATION WALL REQ'D TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED TO ENSURE STABILITY OF STRUCTURE 715 west moutain avenue fort collins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com 227 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado BASEMENT EXCAVATION OPTION WINNER RESIDENCE 3.i Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Opinion from Structural Engineer (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.i Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Opinion from Structural Engineer (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9/8/2017 1 1 Design Review – 227 Wood Street The Harden House Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, September 20, 2017 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 2 3.j Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9/8/2017 2 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. 3 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. 4 3.j Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9/8/2017 3 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. 5 227 Wood Street – The Harden House • Owners: Gordon and Jody Winner • Hipped box vernacular with Victorian details– constructed 1904; Designated in 1999 Proposed Work: • demolition of rear enclosed mudroom/porch • addition on north and rear elevations, approximately 350 square feet • addition of skylight • addition of rear deck 6 3.j Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9/8/2017 4 227 Wood Street – The Harden House 7 227 Wood Street – The Harden House 8 3.j Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 9/8/2017 5 9 Design Review – 227 Wood Street The Harden House Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission September 20, 2017 3.j Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Staff Presentation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) ANDERSON ASSOCIATES ______________________________________________________ ARCHITECTS / ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC September 11, 2017 pg 1 of 2 Karen McWilliams Historic Preservation Manager City of Fort Collins In response to your inquiry concerning excavation for basement finish area. We have two case studies which have utilized this approach for adding square footage to the residence: Dunn Residence – 720 W Oak Street and Mulroney Residence – 608 Whedbee Street. We will respond to your inquiry questions using these two case studies. First we will discuss the difficulty of excavating for basement space. Dunn Residence: The east area well became a terraced window location for the excavation equipment access. This basement excavation had a ten foot width and we maintained the support of the existing floor joists by excavating 4 foot sections at a time thus maintained structural integrity for the main level floor joists. Four foot wall sections were poured, then after 7 days of curing the remaining sections were excavated and poured. The engineering was accomplished by tying the top of the newly poured wall to the existing crawl space footing with re-bar dowels drilled into the existing crawl space footing and the bottom of the new wall is held at its base by the new 4 inch basement slab. Unfortunately we do not have cost information for the Dunn Residence built in 2008. Mulroney Residence: A new access for excavation equipment was provided at the south east corner. This location became a walk out patio level with the basement. walk-out patio. This basement dig-out has a 32 foot by 28 foot area requiring excavation. To accomplish excavating this large of an area we developed a temporary structural support system using a product call Strong Ties rented from White Cap Supply (a concrete product supply company on Summit View) Attached is a plan illustrating the Strong Tie locations and the column loads supporting the Strong Ties. With the Strong Ties in place we excavated the areas necessary for the basement. To be able to pour the exterior perimeter foundation walls we placed the foundation wall forms 4 inches beyond the house perimeter to provide access for the pouring of the wall. Concrete pump trucks were used and the walls were formed in their entirety and poured at two stages. (See Sheet 7 of Mulroney Residence drawings.) 3.k Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) September 11, 2017 pg2of 2 For costs comparisons, unfortunately we do not have costs for the 2008 constructed Dunn project. The excavation and concrete costs for Mulroney Residence which is newly complete was $49000 for the 1000 sq. ft . basement. $50 / s.f. We would estimate this to be compatible to contracting the ‘unfinished shell’ for a second story ‘Pop-up” area. I don’t have any costs for the Dunn Residence approach therefore I can only speculate that providing the Strong-tie temporary supports verses excavating four foot sections, the excavation for the entire area is more cost effective. Largely due to the availability of concrete pump trucks to pour the walls at one to three stages. Would constructing the basement jeopardize the brick house structural integrity? If we have a historic home with a stone foundation and double brick exterior walls, this is a situation that would require maintaining the support of the stone support walls. To accomplish this we have recommended stepping in a distance to maintain the necessary structural support for the existing stone foundation. As discussed above, the engineering requirements are basically and same for the dig-out of a basement verses a conventionally poured basement wall. No special permits are required, the foundation design is required to be engineered by a licensed professional just as a conventionally engineered new basement project. Reference egress design for the newly constructed basement, the attached drawings illustrates the area well designs that meet the egress requirements for the new basement. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these case studies to you for your understanding of the complexities of digging out an existing crawl space area. Repectfully submitted, Anderson Associates, Architectural Engineers, LLC Dick Anderson, Architectural Engineer Attachments: Dunn Residence _ Sheets 1 thru 4 / Mulroney :Buttke Residence _ Sheets 1 thru 8 / Concrete Alternate – Mulroney : Buttke Residence / Bracing Plan 422 EAST OAK STREET FT. COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 • (970) 484-0306 3.k Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.k Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 3.k Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 3.k Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 3.k Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 3.k Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 13'-0" 31'-0" 44'-0" WINDOW MODIFICATION ALTERNATE PORTION OF WALL REMAINS WINDOW MODIFICATION ALTERNATE WINDOW MODIFICATION ALTERNATE WINDOW MODIFICATION ALTERNATE WINDOW MODIFICATION ALTERNATE WINDOW MODIFICATION ALTERNATE WINDOW MODIFICATION ALTERNATE REMOVE WALL & PROVIDE RECESSED BEAM INTO CEILING REMOVE WALL MODIFY WALL FOR PANTRY & FOR DOOR REMOVE STAIRS FOR EXCAVATION ACCESS- REPLACE IN PERMANENT POSITION REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW MODIFY EXISTING WINDOW REMOVE CEILING JOISTS FOR NEW VAULT WATER HEATER & FURNACE REMOVED 32'-0" WALL REMOVED FOR WALKOUT & INSTALLATION OF W 6X20 STEEL BEAM 31'-0" WALL MODIFIED FOR EGRESS WINDOW COAL SHUTE BRICK WALL- MODIFIED AS 13'-0" 31'-0" 44'-0" NORTH MAIN LEVEL PLAN 2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 32'-0" 6'-1" 44'-0" BASEMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 2 NORTH 12'-0 3/4" 4 1/2" 15'-6" 4 1/2" 3 1/2" 12'-4 1/2" 4 1/2" 12'-9 3/4" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 4 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-1" 3 1/2" 6'-8 1/4" 13'-1 1/4" 4'-1" 2'-0" 4'-1" 2'-10" 4 1/2" 4'-1" 3 1/2" 4'-11" 3'-9 1/4" 5'-1" 4 1/2" 5'-8" 4 1/2" 4'-1" 3 1/2" 8'-1 1/4" 3'-9" 9'-4 1/4" 4 1/2" 2'-2" 3 1/2" 12'-2" 1'-0" 14'-10" 8" 4'-1 1/2" 5'-8 1/2" 12'-3 1/2" 4" 4" 12'-5" 8'-6" 7'-8" 3 1/2" 4'-7" 3 1/2" 19'-2" 7'-6" 2'-8" 4'-3 1/2". 5'-3 3/4" 2'-8 3/4" 2'-8" 1'-0" 3'-4" 1'-6" 3'-2" 3'-0" 4'-10" 11'-10" 4'-4" 2'-6" 5'-10" 10" 4" 7 * * ** 1 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 7 4 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" * SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" * * * * * ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" 5 4 7 INFILL AT REMOVED WINDOW SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" * 4 7 * ** *** * 6" CONCRETE AREA WELL A A A B C O P O E E E E J K J G G H H I L N D D E F E M M L ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" TRANSVERSE SECTION A ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" ELEV. T. O. EXISTING WALL 97'-9 3/4" DRAWERS EXISTING SLAB EXISTING 2 X 10's @ 16" O.C. 4" 3'-7 1/2" 13 TREADS @ 10" = 10'-10" 3'-10 1/2" 6'-5" 5'-9" 8" ELEV. T. O. WALL 99'-0" 10 14 RISERS @ 7.4"± = 8'-7 1/2" 9 4 PANTRY CABINET DOORS REFRIG. w/ END PANEL 30" X 48" ATTIC ACCESS GUARD RAIL 3'-0" 6'-8" min. HANDRAIL- BEYOND 13 9 7 SOLID BLOCKING PROVING MIN. 6'-8" CLEARANCE 6 11 14 DOUBLE HEADER 10 2 3 8 13 14 6 11 9 7 4 EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY ORIGINAL 8" WALL ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLOOR 91'-4 1/2" SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" LONGITUDINAL SECTION B R 13 DRAPED INSULATION EXISTING CRAWL SPACE 4 13 5 7 14 2 8 BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLOOR 91'-4 1/2" PERIMETER DRAIN- SLOPE 1/8" per FOOT TO SUMP PUMP PIT FRONT FROST WALL ( 2 #4's TOP & BOTTOM) 30" BELOW GRADE PATIO DRAIN SET @ 91'-1 1/2" 6" 30" w/ 8" X 16" FOOTING w/ #4 HOOKS @ 18" O.C. 14'-1" 14'-10" 11'-0" 1'-6" 3'-4" 12'-8" 13'-8" FIELD VERIFY STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF 4" BRICK WALL- SEE DETAIL 8, SHEET 7 FOR REINFORCEMENT WALL REPLACEMENT PORCH GAS LINE SERVICE WATER LINE SHUT-OFF EXISTING EXISTING LIVING ROOM 5 1 EXISTING 2 X 6 RAFTERS SUPPORT BEAM EXISTING 2 X 4 SET IN ATTIC CEILING JOISTS 4' X 4' VELUX SKYLIGHT SUPPORT BEAM PER ROOF 13'-0" 31'-0" 44'-0" NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN 6 1 32'-0" Floor: Live Load = 40 psf, 3. All dimensional lumber shall be Hem Fir #2 All laminated veneer lumber shall have an 1. Structural Design based on the 2015 prior to construction. Any discrepancies Wind: 110 mph, Exposure B. Dead Load = 15 psf. 4. All dimensions shall be verified by the STRUCTURAL FRAMING NOTES: bracing for imposed wind loading. diagram sheathing provides required AISC Allowable Stress Design ninth edition, or better. (Unless Noted Otherwise) Architectural Engineer. 44'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH 2 6 International Residential Code with local Dead Load = 10 psf 2. Design Loads. This plan is based on the following load parameters. amendments and portions of the ACI 318, Seismic: Zone 1. and NDS for wood construction. Deck Load = 55 psf BRACED WALL NOTES or better. allowable flexural stress Fb = 2600 psi Condition of existing wall sheathing and roof general contractor and framing subcontractor must be brought to the attention of Roof: Live Load = 30 psf, 4" ELEV. (EX.) BASEMENT 91'4 1/2" A 8 EXISTING 2 X 10's @ 16" O.C. EXISTING 2 X 10's @ 16" O.C. 2- 2 X 12 HEADER REINFORCED CONCRETE HEADER 2- 2 X 10's 2- 2 X 8's 2- 2 X 8's 2- 2 X 8's 1- 2 X 10 1- 2 X 10 2 X 6's FLUSH w/ HEADER 32'-0" 44'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH FOUNDATION PLAN FOUNDATION NOTES: 27'-9". 14'-6" 8" 4" 16'-0". 12'-5" 6" 1'-6" 5'-0" 8'-6" 13'-2" 2'-6" 12'-8" 1'-6" 9'-8" 1'-6" 3'-6" 2'-6" 1'-0" 5'-0" 1'-6" 8'-6" 5'-0" 5'-0" 1'-6" 4'-0" 8'-7" 16'-4" 19'-2" 8" FIELD VERIFY THICKENED SLAB @ EXISTING BEARING WALL ( 6" REQUIRED) ROOF LOAD TRANSFERS 2600# ROOF LOAD TRANSFERS 2600# CONCRETE @ WINDOW 94'-0 1/4" SUMP PUMP PIT EXISTING WALL REMAINS NEW FROST WALL 10 3/4" 1'-8 3/4" 11'-4 1/2" 8" TOP OF WALL 97'-10" 93'-2" 92'-6" 91'-10" 93'-10" 94'-6" 95'-2" 95'-10" 96'-6" 8" 11'-10" 2'-10" 97'-10" 97'-2" 97'-10" 2'-8" 2'-10" 2'-10" 2'-10" 2'-10" 15'-4" 7'-8" 8" 2'-8" 2'-8" 3'-5" 6'-0 1/2" 3'-6 1/2" 4" AND CONNECTIONS FOR ALL APPLIANCES. 2. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PROPER SERVICE GOVERNING CODE AND/OR THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE. 1. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT GENERAL ELECTRICAL NOTES WATERPROOF 110V. OUTLET SMOKE DETECTOR WALL MOUNTED INCANDESCENT 2'0" UNDER CABINET FLUORESCENT 2-WAY SWITCH WALL SWITCH @ 4'-0" SHOWER LIGHT FIXTURE S ELECTRICAL LEGEND 110V. CONVENIENCE OUTLET TELEVISION/ CABLE BOX J-BOX (IN CEILING) 3 A.F.F.- TYP. @ 12" A.F.F., UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 12" ABOVE GRADE CIRCUIT GROUND FAULT INTERUPTOR CIRCUITED LIGHT FIXTURE (MD= MOTION DETECTOR) CEILING FAN EXHAUST FAN/ LIGHT COMBO TV J LIGHT FIXTURE (P= PENDANT) SURFACE MOUNTED INCANDESCENT ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURES & SWITCHES. 3. COORDINATE WITH OWNER FOR FINAL LOCATION OF 4 3-WAY SWITCH WP GFI RECESSED WATERPROOF NORTH 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN LOWER LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH 8 2 4" ELEV. (EX.) BASEMENT 91'4 1/2" WP WP 3 +12" GFI GFI GFI P P 4 DISP RANGE REF. 3.k Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.l Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: 720 W Oak Invoice (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3.m Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: 705 Maple 2017-09-10 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 3.m Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: 705 Maple 2017-09-10 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL 227 Wood Street Existing East Elevation Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 264 227 Wood Street Existing Site Plan EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING AREA Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 265 227 Wood Street Existing Floor Plans Existing Basement Images 207 SF 660 SF 970 SF CRAWL SPACE 104 SF CRAWL SPACE 109 SF Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 266 227 Wood Street Basement Excavation Investigation 207 SF 660 SF CRAWL SPACE 104 SF CRAWL SPACE 109 SF Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 267 227 Wood Street Basement Excavation Investigation Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 268 227 Wood Street Basement Excavation Investigation Per letter from Jason Baker, Structural Engineer with advanced Engineer, LLC: Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 269 227 Wood Street Basement Excavation Investigation Key differences between 227 Wood Street and the Basement Excavation Case Studies presented  The Wood Street home is 24’ wide (21’ from inside the foundation walls), considerably narrower than the two case studies, making it more difficult to utilize as finished space.  The Wood Street home is constructed of double wyeth masonry (brick) exterior walls, which bear directly on the approximately 18” thick stone foundation walls. • More difficult to shore up for excavation of a new foundation adjacent to the existing, as the weight of the brick bears directly on the stone foundation (double wyeth brick weighs approx. 80 psf as opposed to 2x4 studs with stucco, which is approximately 20 psf. • Need to step back the new foundation at a 45 degree angle from the existing, making basement space narrow & unusable & egress windows difficult to construct & access • Any potential shifting of the original foundation risks damage to the existing home’s brick exterior walls (wood walls are much more forgiving)  The existing basement is 207 SF and has a ceiling height of 6’-9”, which doesn’t account for the headroom lost due to piping & ductwork in the space (since it currently functions as a mechanical room). The remaining area is crawl space, totaling 876 SF. The Oak Street House had a substantial finished basement that was added on to, and the Whedbee basement was already finished, they simply opened up the exterior walls for additional daylighting into the space Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 270 227 Wood Street Basement Excavation Investigation Conclusion: Excavating the existing Crawl Space at the Winner Residence at 227 Wood Street to accommodate the programmatic requirements (additional bedroom, bathroom, family room & mud/laundry room) is not feasible. According to the Guidelines: A new exterior addition to a historic building should be considered in a rehabilitation project only after determining that requirements for a new or continuing use cannot be successfully met by altering non-significant interior spaces. If the existing building cannot accommodate such requirements in this way, then an exterior addition or, in some instances, separate new construction on a site may be acceptable alternatives. Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 271 227 Wood Street Proposed Site Plan EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING AREA Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 272 227 Wood Street Proposed Floor Plans EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING AREA Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 273 227 Wood Street Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 274 227 Wood Street Proposed Elevations Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 275 227 Wood Street Proposed Elevations Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 276 227 Wood Street Exterior Perspectives Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 277 227 Wood Street Exterior Perspective Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 278 227 Wood Street Exterior Perspective Exhibit 1: 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 227 Wood Street Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 279 P 4 S FAN LIGHT 3 4 WP GFI GFI 3 3 3 J J 3 3 S S GFI +48" GFI GFI 3 3 +48" GFI WP 3 3 GFI GFI S S S R PC FLOOR OUTLET (PC= PULL CHAIN) (R= DOOR ACTIVATED) 4. DOOR ACTIVATED LIGHT SWITCH IN SWING DOOR CLOSET. LIVING ROOM NEW BEDROOM DINING NEW MUD ROOM KITCHEN DECK COURTYARD- BELOW EXISTING PORCH GREAT ROOM BATH EXISTING BASEMENT EXISTING CRAWL SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM EXISTING CRAWL SPACE WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BATH BATH 8 OF 8 DA KGL ELECTRICAL PLANS SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District 3 APRIL 2017 & LEGEND 3.k Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 6'-9" 6'-3" 4" PVC TO DRAIN PIPE 4" PVC TO DRAIN PIPE 8 #4 DOWELS INTO EXISTING- 6" EMBEDMENT w/ HIGH STRENGTH EPOXY BRICK COMMON WALL (CRAWL SPACE TO BASEMENT) FIELD VERIFY REQUIRED REPLACEMENT PER DETAIL 8. 8'-4" CONCRETE @ WINDOW 93'-8 1/4" 10" FOUNDATION WALL AREA WELL CENTERED ON WINDOW ESCAPE WINDOW NEW 8" X 18" FOOTING SIMILAR (MAS. LINTEL EQ. TO MASTER BEDROOM WINDOW 4 7 TOP OF WALL 95'-0" TOP OF WALL 98'-6" TOP OF WALL 95'-0" TOP OF WALL 98'-6" 3- #4 DOWELS (6"MINIMUM INTO EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL w/ HIGH STRENGTH EPOXY) TYPICAL 8'-4" AREA WELL CENTERED ON WINDOW ESCAPE WINDOW 6'-3" 4" PVC TRENCHED TO PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE IN GRAVEL (SLOPE TO SUMP) WINDOW ABOVE M 12"Ø PIER 12"Ø PIER 12"Ø PIER 12"Ø PIER 12"Ø PIER 12"Ø PIER 12"Ø PIER 12"Ø PIER 3- #4 DOWELS INTO WALL w/ HIGH STRENGTH EPOXY- TYPICAL 3- #4 DOWELS (6"MINIMUM INTO EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL w/ HIGH STRENGTH EPOXY) TYPICAL 3- #4 DOWELS (6"MINIMUM INTO EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL w/ HIGH STRENGTH EPOXY) TYPICAL TOP OF FLOOR 91'-4 1/2" CONCRETE @ WINDOW 97'-9" WALK-OUT FOUNDATION 8' X 16" FOOTING 4" PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE IN GRAVEL (SLOPE TO SUMP) 4" PVC TO DRAIN PIPE SET 4" DRAIN ON 91'-1 1/2" TOP OF PAVERS RETAINING WALL FOOTINGS- SEE 6/7 4 7 8" 15'-0" 14'-1" B 5 EXISTING BASEMENT EXISTING CRAWL SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM EXISTING CRAWL SPACE A 8 A 8 B 5 WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BATH BATH 1. All foundation concrete to be 3000 psi minimum compressive strength at 28 days (type I or 2. Reinforcing to be No. 4 and No.5 deformed type, grade 40 steel. Minimum splice 3. Provide positive drainage from all backfill areas. 12" of fall in first 10' from foundation wall is recommended where possible. 4. All dimensions shall be verified by the general contractor and concrete subcontractor prior to type II cement). length 1' - 9". 5. Exterior foundations shall be a minimum of 30" below finish grade. Concrete and construction. Any discrepancies must be brought to the attention of Architectural Engineer. 6. Anderson Associates shall be contacted at least 24 hours prior to excavation in order to schedule reinforcing steel shall be placed in accordance with all applicable building codes. appropriate soil condition observations (phone: 484-0306). Over-excavation will be directed for those with a bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (dead load plus full live load.) portions of the excavation which do not allow footings to bear on undisturbed soils. proposed residential house remodel at 608 Whedbee Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. 7. Footings and foundations have been designed by Anderson Associates based on non-expansive soils 8. This foundation plan is not to be reproduces, modified or used for any other project except for the ELEV. T. O. EXISTING WALL 97'-9 3/4" 4" 8" ELEV. T. O. WALL 99'-0" 9 9 10" WALL FOUNDATION WALL w/ # 4's @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY 10" 5 11 10 3" CLOSED CELL FOAM @ RIM 26 ga. FLASHING 2 X 6 JOISTS @ 16" O.C. DECK FRAMING @ NORTH WALL 5 DOUBLE 2 X 6 w/ JOIST HANGERS ONTO SINGLE 4 X 4 w/ DIAGONAL BRACES (SEE HOUSE ELEVATION) PIER BEYOND (SEE DETAIL 8) 2 X 6 LEDGER PATCH CONCRETE FOR ACCESS TO PLUMBING AND PERFORATED DRAIN PERIMETER DRAIN IN GRAVEL- SLOPE TO SUMP 7 NORTH WALL DETAIL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 7 6" 30" w/ 8" X 16" FOOTING w/ #4 HOOKS @ 18" O.C. 5 PERIMETER DRAIN IN GRAVEL- SLOPE TO SUMP 7 SOUTH WALL DETAIL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 3" CLOSED CELL FOAM @ RIM 11 10 PLATE ANCHORED TO NEW FOUNDATION (4'-0" O.C.) ELEV. T. O. WALL 99'-0" 9 10" WALL FOUNDATION WALL w/ # 4's @ 12" O.C. EACH WAY 10" 30" w/ 8" X 16" FOOTING w/ #4 HOOKS 6" @ 18" O.C. PERIMETER DRAIN IN GRAVEL- SLOPE TO SUMP SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH MASTER BEDROOM WALL 7 3" CLOSED CELL FOAM @ RIM FOUNDATION WALL @ ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" 11 10 5 ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 6'-4 1/2" 1 1/2" 1'-1 1/2" 1 1/2" 9 1/2" 1" SUBFLOOR 2 X 8 PLATE 5 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PERIMETER DRAIN IN GRAVEL- SLOPE TO SUMP NORTH WALL 7 4 ESCAPE WINDOW DETAIL- ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" 10 11 ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 2'-7 3/4" 1 1/2" 4'-0 3/4" 9 1/2" 1" SUBFLOOR ELEV. T. O. WALL 98'-6" ELEV. T. O. WALL 95'-0" ELEV. T.O. WALL 94'-0 1/4" 1 1/2" 6'-0" 6" 3'-6" 6" 2'-8" 4'-3" 1'-6" EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL - CUT DOWN TO RECEIVE NEW EGRESS WINDOW) 5 11" 3" CLOSED CELL FOAM @ RIM ESCAPE WINDOW N ESCAPE HEIGHT LESS THAN 44" (NO LADDER RUNS REQUIRED). 6" WALLS w/ #4's @ 12" O.C., EACH WALL (SEE PLAN FOR DOWELS) ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLOOR 91'-4 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT 8" FOUNDATION WALL w/ #4 RE-BAR @ 12" O.C. EACH WALL 2 X 4 KNEE WALL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" (FIELD VERIFY REQUIRED REPLACEMENT) 7 8 CRAWL SPACE COMMON WALL EXISTING SLAB EXISTING FOOTING (FIELD VERIFY) SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" SOUTH ESCAPE WINDOW DETAIL 7 5 L 2'-7 3/4" 1 1/2" 4'-0 3/4" 9 1/2" 1" SUBFLOOR ELEV. T.O. WALL 94'-0 1/4" 11" ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" 1 1/2" PIER DETAIL 7 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 9 2- 2 X 10's (D.F. #1) 2 X 8's @ 16" O.C. SIMPSON PC44 COMPOSITE DECK SIMPSON PB44 12" DIAMETER PIER- 30" BELOW GRADE w/ 3 #4's VERTICAL & 3 #4 TIES 4 X 4 POST 7 OF 8 DA KGL FOUNDATION PLAN, SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District DETAILS, FOUNDATION NOTES, MATERIAL LEGEND 3 APRIL 2017 3.k Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - LU 26 HANGER 2- 2X 6 HEADER EXISTING 2 X 10's @ 16" O.C. 2- 2 X 10's STAIR OPENING 2- 2 X 10 HEADER W 6 X 20 STEEL BM. 2 X 10 LEDGER w/ LEDGER-LOK @ 16" O.C. 2- 2 X 10's 4 X 4 COL. 4 X 4 COL. 4 X 4 COL. 4 X 4 COL. 4 X 4 COL. 4 X 4 COL. 4 X 4 COL. 2- 2 X 10's D.F. #1 4 X 4 COL. 4 X 4 COL. 2 X 8's @ 16" O.C. 2 X 8's @ 16" O.C. 2- 2 X 10's D.F. #1 2- 2 X 10's D.F. #1 2- 2 X 10's D.F. #1 2- 2 X 10's D.F. #1 MAIN LEVEL/ DECK FRAMING PLAN EXISTING HEADERS EXISTING HEADERS EXISTING PORCH FRAMING REMAINS EXISTING HEADER EXISTING HEADER EXISTING HEADER EXISTING HEADER EXISTING HEADER EXISTING 2 X 4 CEILING JOISTS @ 12" O.C. EXISTING 2 X 6 ROOF RAFTERS @ 24" O.C.- TO REMAIN NEW 3 1/2" X 14" PARALLAM (UNDER EXISTING 2 X 6 JACK RAFTERS) NEW 3 1/2" X 14" PARALLAM (UNDER EXISTING 2 X 6 JACK RAFTERS) EXISTING 2 X 6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. EXISTING 2 X 6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. EXISTING HEADER 2- 2 X 12 HEADER 2- 2 X 10 HEADER EXISTING 2 X 6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. NEW 3 1/2" X 14" PARALLAM or 3- 11 7/8" LVL's PLACE ABOVE CEILING 4 X 4 COL. 2- 14" LVL 4 X 4 COL. CUT JOISTS, PROVIDE HANGERS @ BEAM- TYPICAL EXISTING 2 X 6 ROOF RAFTERS @ 24" O.C.- TO REMAIN LIVING ROOM NEW BEDROOM DINING NEW MUD ROOM KITCHEN DECK COURTYARD- BELOW A 8 B 5 B 5 EXISTING PORCH GREAT ROOM BATH B 5 EXISTING BASEMENT EXISTING CRAWL SPACE BEDROOM BEDROOM WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM EXISTING CRAWL SPACE A 8 A 8 B 5 WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BATH BATH 4 X 4 COL. HEADER NOTE: EXISTING 20' BEAM ON SITE- MODIFY FOR REQUIRED LENGTH. FIELD WELD GUSSETS WITHIN 12" OF END SUPPORTS AND 2 GUSSETS PLACED EACH SIDE OF LVL CORNER COLUMN (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) 6 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" PLAN DETAIL BEAM SUPPORT 3 3 1/4" X 14" PARALLAM BEAM RECONSTRUCT CORNER w/ 2- 1 3/4" X 7 1/4" LVL's VERTICALLY EXISTING ABOVE 2 X JACK RAFTER 2'-2" HCP4Z SIMPSON CORNER ANCHOR PLACED @ INSIDE CORNER 10 1/4" WINDOW R.O. 3'-1 7/8" EXTENSION OF EXISTING SOUTH WALL 6 OF 8 DA KGL ROOF FRAMING PLAN, SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District MAIN LEVEL/ DECK FRAMING PLAN, FRAMING NOTES 3 APRIL 2017 3.k Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - FRAMING PLAN- 3 1/2" X 14" PARALLAM RIGID AIR BARRIER w/ R 38 INSULATION & THERMAL ENCLOSURE EXISTING DINING ROOM 5 RANGE REF. KITCHEN ISLAND W 6 X20 STEEL HEADER IN 2 X 6 FRAMED WALL EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY 2 3 15'-6" 11'-10" 3'-0 1/2" 12'-11 1/2" 3 1/2" 4 1/2" 14 RISERS @ 7.4"± = 8'-7 1/2" 3'-0" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 5 OF 8 DA KGL SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 3 APRIL 2017 LONGITUDINAL Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District MATERIAL LEGEND 11 12 13 14 15 Attic - R – 38 Blown in fiberglass insulation. Enclosed Rafters – closed cell foam- R 7 per inch. Stick framed rafter and ceiling joists. Asphalt Shingles. 2 X 4’s at 16 inches on-center with 2 inch closed cell foam (R 14) plus 2 inch batt (R 6) Vapor Barrier. 2 X 4 partitions with 1/2" Sheetrock (each side). Clap board siding – 3 inch exposure. Existing Spaced Sheathing with 7/16 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing overlay. Foundation Wall (See Foundation Plan and Details). 9 ¼ inch existing floor joists at 16 inch centers. Existing Sub Floor nailed to floor joists. Micro-laminated beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans. Existing fascia and trim boards. Existing Soffit Board. New wood windows equal to Semco. Minimum "U" value = .35. All new windows to be Low-e. See window schedule, Sheet 2, for window descriptions. 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 SECTION B 3.k Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - NEW 10" WALL 10" 4" 8" 4 2 3 4 OF 8 DA KGL TRANSVERSE SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 3 APRIL 2017 Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District MATERIAL LEGEND 11 12 13 14 15 Attic - R – 38 Blown in fiberglass insulation. Enclosed Rafters – closed cell foam- R 7 per inch. Stick framed rafter and ceiling joists. Asphalt Shingles. 2 X 4’s at 16 inches on-center with 2 inch closed cell foam (R 14) plus 2 inch batt (R 6) Vapor Barrier. 2 X 4 partitions with 1/2" Sheetrock (each side). Clap board siding – 3 inch exposure. Existing Spaced Sheathing with 7/16 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing overlay. Foundation Wall (See Foundation Plan and Details). 9 ¼ inch existing floor joists at 16 inch centers. Existing Sub Floor nailed to floor joists. Micro-laminated beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans. Existing fascia and trim boards. Existing Soffit Board. New wood windows equal to Semco. Minimum "U" value = .35. All new windows to be Low-e. See window schedule, Sheet 2, for window descriptions. 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 SECTION A 3.k Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - ELEV. TOP OF EX. FLR. 91'-4 1/2" 3 OF 8 DA KGL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 3 APRIL 2017 Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District MATERIAL LEGEND 11 12 13 14 15 Attic - R – 38 Blown in fiberglass insulation. Enclosed Rafters – closed cell foam- R 7 per inch. Stick framed rafter and ceiling joists. Asphalt Shingles. 2 X 4’s at 16 inches on-center with 2 inch closed cell foam (R 14) plus 2 inch batt (R 6) Vapor Barrier. 2 X 4 partitions with 1/2" Sheetrock (each side). Clap board siding – 3 inch exposure. Existing Spaced Sheathing with 7/16 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing overlay. Foundation Wall (See Foundation Plan and Details). 9 ¼ inch existing floor joists at 16 inch centers. Existing Sub Floor nailed to floor joists. Micro-laminated beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans. Existing fascia and trim boards. Existing Soffit Board. New wood windows equal to Semco. Minimum "U" value = .35. All new windows to be Low-e. See window schedule, Sheet 2, for window descriptions. 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 3.k Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 4" 6'-5" 5'-9" 8" 13 TREADS @ 10" = 10'-10" 3'-10 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" 3'-2 1/2" 5'-5" 3 1/2" 11'-10 1/2" 1'-0" 1'-8 3/4" 11'-4 1/2" 10 3/4" 8" 8" 12'-8" 10 3/4" 1'-6" 2'-2" 4" 15'-4" 19'-2" 44'-0" 16'-4" 2'-8" 7'-6 1/2" 3'-1 1/2" 6'-2" 13'-4" ELEV. (EX.) BASEMENT 91'4 1/2" 10" 4" 44'-0" 13'-0" 31'-0" 4'-1 1/2" 13 TREADS @ 10" = 10'-10" 2'-1 1/2" 3'-9 1/2" 4 1/2" 5'-4" 3 1/2" 4'-1" 1'-7" 3 1/2" 3 1/2" 5'-7" GENERAL NOTES: DOOR SCHEDULE ROUGH OPENING 1 No. DOOR NOMINAL SIZE 2 2'-8" X 6'-8" R.H. Exterior Door- Front Entry SWING REMARKS 2'-10" X 6'-10" 2'-6" X 6'-8" 2'-8" X 6'-10" L.H. R.H. L.H. 2'-8" X 6'-8" L.H. Exterior Door 2'-10" X 6'-10" 10 2'-6" X 6'-10" 2'-0" X 6'-8" Pocket Door Sliding 2'-4" X 6'-8" L.H. 3'-0" X 6'-8" R.H. 3'-2" X 6'-10" R.H. 5'-0" X 6'-8" Verify Slider 2'-6" X 6'-8" 2'-8" X 6'-10" 2'-6" X 6'-8" 2'-8" X 6'-10" 2'-4" X 6'-8" 2'-6" X 6'-10" GENERAL NOTES: WINDOW SCHEDULE TYPE No. DOOR 3'-1 7/8" X 5'-1 11/16" 6'-11" 3 HEADER QUANTITY D.H. ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT REMARKS 1 2 3 2'-9 7/8" X 4'-5 11/16" 9 8 7 6 5 4 5'-11 1/2"" X 6'-11" PATIO SLIDER 6'-11" 1 3'-5 7/8" X 3'-1 11/16" D.H. 6'-8" (EXISTING) 1 3'-1 7/8" X 4'-5 11/16" D.H. 2 D.H. 6 3'-5 7/8" X 4'-5 11/16" D.H. D.H. 2 2'-5 7/8" X 4'-5 11/16" D.H. 2 2'-0 1/2" X 2'-0 1/2" CASEMENT 1 4'-0 1/2" X 3'-0 3/4" GLIDER 2 1 6'-0 1/2" X 4'-0 3/4" SOUTH WALL 6'-6" 2 3'-0 1/2" X 1'-1 1/2" FIXED TRANSOM 7'-7 1/2"" * * * * * * * * * 6'-8" (EXISTING) 6'-8" (EXISTING) 6'-8" (EXISTING) 6'-8" (EXISTING) 6'-8" (EXISTING) 6'-8" (EXISTING) 6'-8" (EXISTING) 6'-8" (EXISTING) 2'-5 7/8" X 4'-5 11/16" GLIDER GLIDER 3'-0 1/2" X 3'-0 3/4" NORTH WALL 6'-10" 6'-0 1/2" X 1'-1 1/2" (SET OF 3) 2'-8 15/16" X 6'-11" PANEL SIDELIGHT 6'-11" 2 5'-4 7/16" X 6'-11" 6'-11" TEMPERED GLASS MATER BEDROOM 1 12'-11 1/2" 3'-0 1/2" A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P A 8 NEW BEDROOM EXISTING BEAM TO REMAIN LIVING ROOM REMOVE EX. DOOR- PROVIDE CASED OPENING 5 SHELVES 5 SHELVES DINING STACK WASHER/ DRYER NEW MUD ROOM PANTRY CABINET REF. RANGE DN. KITCHEN DN. DN. ROD & SHELF DECK COURTYARD- BELOW * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2 8 10 3 4 5 DN. A 8 B 5 B 5 A A A B C J K J I H H D D E F E E E E E G G 6 EXISTING PORCH GREAT ROOM BATH B 5 EXISTING BASEMENT CRAWL SPACE ACCESS EXISTING CRAWL SPACE BEDROOM UP NEW CRAWL SPACE ACCESS FURNACE BEDROOM WALK-IN CLOSET GAS & WATER SERVICE CENTER WINDOW ON NEW DOOR ABOVE MASTER BEDROOM ROD & SHELF ROD & SHELF EXISTING CRAWL SPACE 42" H. WALL ROD & SHELF DRAWER 8 9 2 3 2 10 7 8 A 8 A 8 B 5 M M L L N O P O 6 WALK-IN CLOSET MASTER BATH BATH FIXED TRANSOM 7'-7 1/2"" 9" 6'-0 1/2" 9" 1'-2" 4" 4" 10" 4" 2 OF 8 DA KGL BASEMENT & MAIN SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA LEVEL FLOOR PLANS, MATERIAL LEGEND 11 12 13 14 15 Attic - R – 38 Blown in fiberglass insulation. Enclosed Rafters – closed cell foam- R 7 per inch. Stick framed rafter and ceiling joists. Asphalt Shingles. 2 X 4’s at 16 inches on-center with 2 inch closed cell foam (R 14) plus 2 inch batt (R 6) Vapor Barrier. 2 X 4 partitions with 1/2" Sheetrock (each side). Clap board siding – 3 inch exposure. Existing Spaced Sheathing with 7/16 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing overlay. Foundation Wall (See Foundation Plan and Details). 9 ¼ inch existing floor joists at 16 inch centers. Existing Sub Floor nailed to floor joists. Micro-laminated beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans. Existing fascia and trim boards. Existing Soffit Board. New wood windows equal to Semco. Minimum "U" value = .35. All new windows to be Low-e. See window schedule, Sheet 2, for window descriptions. 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District 3 APRIL 2017 WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULES 3.k Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - REQUIRED EXCAVATE FOR NEW FOUNDATION FRAMING MODIFIED FOR NEW WINDOW FRAMING MODIFIED FOR NEW WINDOW REMOVE SLAB FOR DRAIN LINE & PLUMBING ACCESS REMOVE PORTION OF WALL FOR NEW FRAMED DOOR REMOVE SLAB FOR DRAIN LINE & PLUMBING ACCESS EXCAVATE FOR NEW FOUNDATION 13'-0" UP 13 RISERS 4" ELEV. (EX.) BASEMENT 91'4 1/2" EXISTING BEAM TO REMAIN LIVING ROOM DINING EXISTING PORCH EXISTING BASEMENT CRAWL SPACE ACCESS EXISTING CRAWL SPACE EXISTING CRAWL SPACE REMOVE EXISTING WALLS & DOORS AS SHOWN BY DASHED LINES. REMOVE EXISTING WALLS & DOORS AS SHOWN BY DASHED LINES- TYPICAL 1 OF 8 DA KGL DEMOLITION PLAN SITE PLAN SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA Residential Remodel for Patrick Mulroney/ Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 608 Whedbee Street Danielle Buttke Located in the Laurel Historic District 3 APRIL 2017 3.k Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Anderson Associates Report (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - 8.25.17 # 5%#.' žÁ  $#5'/'062.#0Á':%#8#6+10126+10 # 5%#.' žÁ  ':56Á9'565'%6+10Á':%#8#6+10126+10 3.h Attachment: Basement Excavation Option 2017-09-20 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW)  241215'&(+456(.1142.#0 1,439 SF (473 SF ADDITION) 3.f Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - Attachment: Previous Options 2017-08-16 (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - advantage when considering new adaptive treatments so as to have the least impact on the historic character of the building, its site, and setting. INTRODUCTION 3.e Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Standards for Rehabilitation (5931 : 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - NEW SOUTH ROOF DECK NEW NORTH ROOF DECK BEDROOM #2 NEW WALK-IN 11 OF 11 DA KGL ELECTRICAL PLANS SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE 14 JULY 2017 DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE ENLARGED DETAIL 14 JULY 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION (1/4" WELD TYP.) METAL GUARD (& HAND) RAILING C 10 X 15.3 CHANNEL STRINGERS w/ 1/4" WELDS (TYP.) 4" X 4" X 1/4" TUBULAR STEEL COLUMN BASE PLATE, WELD TO 4" X 4" TUBULAR STEEL COLUMN, PROVIDE 2- 1/2"Ø EXPANSION ANCHORS INTO PIER BASE 12"Ø (DIAMETER) PIER- SEE FOUNDATION PLAN ELEV. FIN. FLOOR 100'-6 1/2" SLOPING PORCH DECK & ROOF BEYOND TO SOUTH SIDE OF STAIRS BEDROOM WALL LINE- BEYOND 3 1/2" X 3 1/2" X 1/4" STEEL ANGLE BRACE WELDED TO 4" X 4" X 1/4" TUBULAR STEEL COLUMN & C 8 X 11.5 CHANNEL CHANNEL 10 X 15.3 6 1/2" COMPOSITE STAIR TREADS SET IN 1/2" ANGLE 'FORM' (1/4" WELD TYP.) METAL GUARD (& HAND) RAILING EXISTING GARAGE REMODELED INTO NEW BEDROOM 11 1/4" TJI's w/ 2" CLOSED CELL FOAM & R 30 INSULATION 4" X 4" X 1/4" TUBULAR STEEL COLUMN 2'-1" EXISTING GARAGE SLAB T RISERS @ 7 1/8" = 4'-2 1/8" 3'-0" 8 RISERS @ 7 1/8" = 4'-9 1/4" 7 1/8" FIELD VERIFY 12" DEPTH OF THICKENED EDGE AT EXISTING SLAB 8 OF 11 DA KGL NORTH STAIR PLAN SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE MATERIAL LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Typical exterior wall – 2 X 4’s (Unless Noted Otherwise) at 16 inch centers with two inch (2") closed cell insulation/ plus R 24 blown cellulose insulation. 7/16 inch OSB wall sheathing – braced wall panel nailing per Braced Wall Notes, Sheet 7. Pre- engineered roof trusses @ 24 inch centers. 2 X 8 roof rafters 24 inch centers. Engineered roof and floor joists (sized per framing plans.) 2 X 10’s ripped for ½ in 12 sloping deck. 19/32 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing. ¾ inch wolminized treated plywood with rubberized weatherproof decking onto ½” per foot sloping roof. 7/16 inch Oriented Stand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing protecting insulation at second floor deck. Asphalt shingles on 15 pound felt. South and East Porch Ceiling – Certain Teed Bead Board (or equal). 2 X 4 partitions with ½” Sheetrock (each side). Lap Siding w/ 4" exposure (matching existing). Manufacturer James Hardie, Miratec, LP Smart Side or equal. Style: Hlf Round Panels, Plank Lap, or 2” MiraTEC batten applied to board material. Eight inch (8”) , unless noted otherwise) concrete masonry units (CMU) with Dur-a-wall ladder reinforcing every second course; corner cells and cells at48 inch centers grouted with #4 rebar vertically. Crawl Space Foundation Wall -Two - #4 Re-bar top & bottom, (See Foundation Plan – Sheet 9 and Foundation Sections at Sheets 5. 6. and 7. Footing 16” X 8” with #4 re-bar hook at 18” centers (30” with 6” hook) LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans – Sheet 6. Guard Rails, Hand Rails and Railing enclosures, metal with 4 inch max openings per owners specification. Face Brick 6 inch square columns. (New Post or equal) Fascia and soffits matching existing. R 13 Insulation draped at crawl space foundation walls, from sill plate to bottom of footing. 2 inch closed cell foam insulation at crawl space rim joists. 4” concrete exterior slab with Fiber Mesh. 4 inches clean gravel. Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist 14 inch (Series 210) at 16 inch centers (or equal). Top Flange Hangers typ. ¾ inch T & G OSB Flooring glued and nailed to floor joists. Dual Pane Wood Windows and Doors– Style per elevations- with vinyl or metal clad –Semco or Andersen 400 series or equal. (dimensions shown on plans are nominal, see manufacturer for rough opening dimensions. Minimum “U” value = .35. All windows to be Low-e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AND SECTIONS 14 JULY 2017 DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 2- 2 X 8 HEADER 2- 2 X 8's STAIR LOCATION- ABOVE 11 1/4" TJI"s @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 2- 2 X 8 HEADER @ NEW OPENING FIELD VERIFY EXISTING 2 X 4's @ 16" O.C. 1- 11 1/4" LVL w/ HANGERS FOR TJI's 28'-2" 18'-0" 2'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 8'-6" 18'-0" 13'-4" 7'-10 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 8'-2 1/2" EQUAL EQUAL 13'-0" 3'-2" 9'-0" 15'-0" 4'-8 1/2" 4 X 4 COL. C 6 A 4 B 5 A 4 NEW CLOSET NEW BEDROOM NEW BATHROOM NEW KITCHEN NEW SUN ROOM NEW BEDROOM NEW BATHROOM C 6 B 5 EXISTING PORCH 1 4 D 7a D 7a 2- 3 1/2" X 3 1/2" ANGLE LINTEL STRUCTURAL FRAMING NOTES: 1. Structural Design based on the 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments and portions of the AISC 9th Edition, ACI 318, and the NDS for wood construction. 2. Design Loads. This plan is based on the following load parameters. Dead Load = 15 psf. Wind: 110 mph with 3 second gusts wind speed, Exposure B. 3. All dimensional lumber shall be Hem Fir #2 or better (UNO). Laminated veneer lumber shall have an allowable flexural stress Fb = 2600 psi or better. Nominal Dimensional lumber to be Hem Fir #2 or better. Engineered floor joists to be Weyerhauser Trus-joist TJI Series 210, 11 7/8”. Roof trusses are Pre-Engineered. Wall Sheathing is 7/16” OSB and Roof Sheathing is 19/32” OSB. 4. All dimensions shall be verified by the general contractor and framing subcontractor prior to construction. Any discrepancies must be brought to the attention of Architectural Engineer. BRACED WALL NOTES: 1. All braced wall panels are full height of wall. 2. Braced panels are 4’ wide where possible, less any wall opening cutouts. Braced panel locations are identified on the Foundation Plan. 3. Standard exterior panels are 7/16” OSB as per Section R602.10.3 of the International Residential Code (I R C). 4. All panels are applied as per I R C – Table R602.3 (3). 45'-2" 26'-0" 28'-0" 17'-2" 51'-6" FINISHED 6'-4" 4'-0" 8'-0" 8'-10" 29'-4" 5'-6" 2'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0" 13'-0" 18'-0" 3'-2" 9'-0" 3'-4" 2'-8" 3'-10" 13'-4" 3'-4" 4" 8" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH MAIN LEVEL FRAMING PLAN 7 1 13'-0" 3'-4" 3 1/2" 3'-6" 3'-7 1/2" 2 X 6's ON EXISTING SUB-FLOOR @ 16" O.C. EXISTING FLOOR EXISTING FLOOR 2 X 6's ON EXISTING SUB-FLOOR @ 16" O.C. EXISTING CELLAR STAIR ACCESS TO REMAIN 28'-5" 16'-9" 2 X 8"s @ 16" O.C. 4 X 4- PIN TO EXISTING WALL 4 X 4- PIN TO EXISTING WALL 2 X 8"s @ 16" O.C. 4 X 4- PIN TO EXISTING WALL BM. POCKET BM. POCKET BM. POCKET BM. POCKET 1- 9 1/4" LVL LVL CONTINUE TO BM. POCKET 12" BLOCK CHIMNEY SUPPORT 1- LVL ON EXISTING SLAB 2 X 8"s @ 16" O.C. NEW JOISTS AS REQUIREDOFF OF EXISTING SLAB @ 16" O.C. Roof: Live Load = 30 psf, Exterior Deck Load = 55 psf. Seismic: Zone 1. 17'-5" 1- 9 1/4" LVL 2- 9 1/4" LVL 2 X 8"s @ 16" O.C. 2- 9 1/4" LVL's 2 X 8"s @ 16" O.C. C 6 2'-8" 12'-8" 2- 9 1/4" LVL's C 6 B 5 A 4 A 4 B 5 D 7a D 7a 2- 2 X 8"s @ STAIR COLUMN 4 X 4 COL. 13'-4" 7 OF 11 DA KGL FRAMING PLANS SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 14 JULY 2017 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 6" 9'-1 1/8" 1'-0" 7'-0" 13'-11 1/2" NEW BATHROOM NEW BEDROOM CLG. 9'-1 1/8" 2 RISERS @ 7.6" = 1'-3 1/8" ELEV. (NEW MASTER) 110'-7 5/8" SECTION ELEV. NEW BEARING 117'-7 5/8" 3 1 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 1- 11 1/4" LVL 7a D NEW MASTER BATHROOM 10" 8'-2" 8" 9'-4 1/2" B 5 B 5 A 4 A 4 ELEV. NEW BEDROOM #2 BRG. 108'-8 1/2" ELEV. NEW BEDROOM @ 2 LEVEL 109'-4 1/2" NEW BEDROOM #2 NEW UPPER LEVEL SHOWER PAN- BEYOND SHOWER SEAT WALL- BEYOND 2'-0" 11'-11 1/2" 2 X 8's @ 16" O.C. 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) EXISTING 9'-1" CEILING FIELD VERIFY BEARING WALL LOCATIONS @ EXISTING STRUCTURE 2 1/2"± SHIM EXISTING 2 X 4 CEILING JOISTS @ 16" O.C. (VERIFY) DOUBLE 2 X 8 @ STAIR SCISSORS MONO TRUSSES SCISSORS MONO TRUSSES 22 15 16 2 13 1 2 13 7 10 12 7 9 10 12 9 2 13 SHOWER (TEMPERED) FIXED 3'0" X 3'0" 4'0" X 2'0"- BEYOND 7a OF 11 DA KGL FRAMING PLANS SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE 14 JULY 2017 MATERIAL LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Typical exterior wall – 2 X 4’s (Unless Noted Otherwise) at 16 inch centers with two inch (2") closed cell insulation/ plus R 24 blown cellulose insulation. 7/16 inch OSB wall sheathing – braced wall panel nailing per Braced Wall Notes, Sheet 7. Pre- engineered roof trusses @ 24 inch centers. 2 X 8 roof rafters 24 inch centers. Engineered roof and floor joists (sized per framing plans.) 2 X 10’s ripped for ½ in 12 sloping deck. 19/32 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing. ¾ inch wolminized treated plywood with rubberized weatherproof decking onto ½” per foot sloping roof. 7/16 inch Oriented Stand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing protecting insulation at second floor deck. Asphalt shingles on 15 pound felt. South and East Porch Ceiling – Certain Teed Bead Board (or equal). 2 X 4 partitions with ½” Sheetrock (each side). Lap Siding w/ 4" exposure (matching existing). Manufacturer James Hardie, Miratec, LP Smart Side or equal. Style: Hlf Round Panels, Plank Lap, or 2” MiraTEC batten applied to board material. Eight inch (8”) , unless noted otherwise) concrete masonry units (CMU) with Dur-a-wall ladder reinforcing every second course; corner cells and cells at48 inch centers grouted with #4 rebar vertically. Crawl Space Foundation Wall -Two - #4 Re-bar top & bottom, (See Foundation Plan – Sheet 9 and Foundation Sections at Sheets 5. 6. and 7. Footing 16” X 8” with #4 re-bar hook at 18” centers (30” with 6” hook) LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans – Sheet 6. Guard Rails, Hand Rails and Railing enclosures, metal with 4 inch max openings per owners specification. Face Brick 6 inch square columns. (New Post or equal) Fascia and soffits matching existing. R 13 Insulation draped at crawl space foundation walls, from sill plate to bottom of footing. 2 inch closed cell foam insulation at crawl space rim joists. 4” concrete exterior slab with Fiber Mesh. 4 inches clean gravel. Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist 14 inch (Series 210) at 16 inch centers (or equal). Top Flange Hangers typ. ¾ inch T & G OSB Flooring glued and nailed to floor joists. Dual Pane Wood Windows and Doors– Style per elevations- with vinyl or metal clad –Semco or Andersen 400 series or equal. (dimensions shown on plans are nominal, see manufacturer for rough opening dimensions. Minimum “U” value = .35. All windows to be Low-e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION ELEV. NEW BEARING 117'-7 5/8" 7 10 3 EXISTING HOUSE STRUCTURE EXISTING 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR NEW MASTER BEDROOM SEE SHEET A8 FOR STAIR INFORMATION EXISTING 2 X 6 @ 16" O.C. (BUILT UP FLOOR OVER ORIGINAL) LONGITUDINAL 14 19 FINISH GRADE 1'-6" 2'-1" EXISTING GARAGE SLAB 15 TREADS @ 7.5" = 9'-4" 16 TREADS @ 7" = 9'-4" 1 36" min. STAIRS- BEYOND B 5 B 5 A 4 A 4 ACCESS TO UNDER STAIR STORAGE 2- 2 X 8's @ COLUMN ABOVE 6 X 6 COLUMN 4 X 4 COLUMN AT WALL CORNER- TO FOUNDATION BELOW & TO UPPER LEVEL FLOOR STRUCTURE 6 OF 11 DA KGL SECTION C SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 14 JULY 2017 LONGITUDINAL 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE MATERIAL LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Typical exterior wall – 2 X 4’s (Unless Noted Otherwise) at 16 inch centers with two inch (2") closed cell insulation/ plus R 24 blown cellulose insulation. 7/16 inch OSB wall sheathing – braced wall panel nailing per Braced Wall Notes, Sheet 7. Pre- engineered roof trusses @ 24 inch centers. 2 X 8 roof rafters 24 inch centers. Engineered roof and floor joists (sized per framing plans.) 2 X 10’s ripped for ½ in 12 sloping deck. 19/32 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing. ¾ inch wolminized treated plywood with rubberized weatherproof decking onto ½” per foot sloping roof. 7/16 inch Oriented Stand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing protecting insulation at second floor deck. Asphalt shingles on 15 pound felt. South and East Porch Ceiling – Certain Teed Bead Board (or equal). 2 X 4 partitions with ½” Sheetrock (each side). Lap Siding w/ 4" exposure (matching existing). Manufacturer James Hardie, Miratec, LP Smart Side or equal. Style: Hlf Round Panels, Plank Lap, or 2” MiraTEC batten applied to board material. Eight inch (8”) , unless noted otherwise) concrete masonry units (CMU) with Dur-a-wall ladder reinforcing every second course; corner cells and cells at48 inch centers grouted with #4 rebar vertically. Crawl Space Foundation Wall -Two - #4 Re-bar top & bottom, (See Foundation Plan – Sheet 9 and Foundation Sections at Sheets 5. 6. and 7. Footing 16” X 8” with #4 re-bar hook at 18” centers (30” with 6” hook) LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans – Sheet 6. Guard Rails, Hand Rails and Railing enclosures, metal with 4 inch max openings per owners specification. Face Brick 6 inch square columns. (New Post or equal) Fascia and soffits matching existing. R 13 Insulation draped at crawl space foundation walls, from sill plate to bottom of footing. 2 inch closed cell foam insulation at crawl space rim joists. 4” concrete exterior slab with Fiber Mesh. 4 inches clean gravel. Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist 14 inch (Series 210) at 16 inch centers (or equal). Top Flange Hangers typ. ¾ inch T & G OSB Flooring glued and nailed to floor joists. Dual Pane Wood Windows and Doors– Style per elevations- with vinyl or metal clad –Semco or Andersen 400 series or equal. (dimensions shown on plans are nominal, see manufacturer for rough opening dimensions. Minimum “U” value = .35. All windows to be Low-e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION E/5 FOR SECTION SEE C/5 FOR ROOF/ GUARDRAIL DETAIL BOARD MATERIAL w/ 2" BATTENS @ PILASTERS ELEV. NEW BEDROOM @ 2 LEVEL 109'-4 1/2" 8" NEW BEDROOM #2 ELEV. NEW BEARING 117'-7 5/8" (MASTER BEDROOM) 5 1 4 7'-0" 1 7 10 NEW MASTER BEDROOM 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 2 13 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" GABLE END TRUSS 5 D GABLE SECTION 36" min. SOUTH SUN ROOM MASTER BEDROOM FLOOR FRAMING SUN ROOM ROOF FRAMING CRICKET FRAMING 5 C 10 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" SLOPING FASCIA EAST WALL PILASTER w/ LID- BEYOND 13 @ PILASTER- BEYOND 7 26 ga. FLASHING @ PILASTER- BEYOND 2 13 NEW BEDROOM CEILING 2 X 4's @ 16" O.C. w/ 2 1/2" STAND-OFF SHIM- 48" O.C. PILASTER STANDS OFF 3 1/2" FROM HOUSE WALL 12 8 12 8 21 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PILASTER SECTION @ 5 E 8 FABRICATE 1 IN 12 SLOPING 'LID' AT TOP OF PILASTER 13 2 w/ SHEET SIDING & 2" MIRATEC BATTENS @ 12" SPACING EXTEND 'LID' 3" BEYOND PILASTER (FINISH w/ MIRATEC) 13 2 NEW BEDROOM CEILING 2 PILASTER STANDS OFF 3 1/2" FROM HOUSE WALL @ BUILDING 1 BOARD MATERIAL w/ 2" BATTENS @ PILASTERS 5/8" CLEARANCE FOR DRAINAGE SIMPSON STCT ROOF TRUSS CLIP PROVIDING 5/8" GAP FOR DRAINAGE 2" RIGID INSULATION SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" PILASTER BASE SECTION @ 5 2 PILASTER SET 3 1/2" FROM FACE OF WALL 7/16" OSB SHEATHING FRAME OFF OF SLAB FOR REQUIRED FLOOR ELEVATION OF 100'-6 1/2" PRIOR TO SETTING PILASTER, RIP 1/2" WOLMANIZED PLYWOOD AND APPLY TO UNDERSIDE OF PILASTER. EXTENDING 1 1/2" FROM FACE OF SHEATHING AND SIDING PROTECTION 3/4" WOLMANIZED TREATED 'SKIRT' PROTECTING EXISTING WOOD FRAMED WALL EXISTING SLAB TREATED PLATE 1/2" EXPANSION ANCHOR @ 48" O.C. 2" MIRATEC BATTEN BOARD MATERIAL SIDING 2'-4" 2'-4" PILASTER SET 3 1/2" FROM FACE OF WALL PLACE 2 X FOR BATTEN SUPPORT 2" MIRATEC BATTEN @ 12" O.C. BOARD MATERIAL SIDING SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" PILASTER PLAN VIEW @ 5 1 5 OF 11 DA KGL SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 14 JULY 2017 TRANSVERSE 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE MATERIAL LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Typical exterior wall – 2 X 4’s (Unless Noted Otherwise) at 16 inch centers with two inch (2") closed cell insulation/ plus R 24 blown cellulose insulation. 7/16 inch OSB wall sheathing – braced wall panel nailing per Braced Wall Notes, Sheet 7. Pre- engineered roof trusses @ 24 inch centers. 2 X 8 roof rafters 24 inch centers. Engineered roof and floor joists (sized per framing plans.) 2 X 10’s ripped for ½ in 12 sloping deck. 19/32 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing. ¾ inch wolminized treated plywood with rubberized weatherproof decking onto ½” per foot sloping roof. 7/16 inch Oriented Stand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing protecting insulation at second floor deck. Asphalt shingles on 15 pound felt. South and East Porch Ceiling – Certain Teed Bead Board (or equal). 2 X 4 partitions with ½” Sheetrock (each side). Lap Siding w/ 4" exposure (matching existing). Manufacturer James Hardie, Miratec, LP Smart Side or equal. Style: Hlf Round Panels, Plank Lap, or 2” MiraTEC batten applied to board material. Eight inch (8”) , unless noted otherwise) concrete masonry units (CMU) with Dur-a-wall ladder reinforcing every second course; corner cells and cells at48 inch centers grouted with #4 rebar vertically. Crawl Space Foundation Wall -Two - #4 Re-bar top & bottom, (See Foundation Plan – Sheet 9 and Foundation Sections at Sheets 5. 6. and 7. Footing 16” X 8” with #4 re-bar hook at 18” centers (30” with 6” hook) LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans – Sheet 6. Guard Rails, Hand Rails and Railing enclosures, metal with 4 inch max openings per owners specification. Face Brick 6 inch square columns. (New Post or equal) Fascia and soffits matching existing. R 13 Insulation draped at crawl space foundation walls, from sill plate to bottom of footing. 2 inch closed cell foam insulation at crawl space rim joists. 4” concrete exterior slab with Fiber Mesh. 4 inches clean gravel. Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist 14 inch (Series 210) at 16 inch centers (or equal). Top Flange Hangers typ. ¾ inch T & G OSB Flooring glued and nailed to floor joists. Dual Pane Wood Windows and Doors– Style per elevations- with vinyl or metal clad –Semco or Andersen 400 series or equal. (dimensions shown on plans are nominal, see manufacturer for rough opening dimensions. Minimum “U” value = .35. All windows to be Low-e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SECTION B @ SUN ROOM DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION CRICKET (2 X 6 OVER FRAMING) 1 4 NEW MASTER BATHROOM D 7a D 7a 2 13 10 ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL B 109'-7 5/8" ELEV. EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" 17'-10" NEW KITCHEN NEW SUN ROOM 3 RISERS @ 7.6" = 1'-10 3/4" 80" min. 9 TREADS @ 10" = 7'-6" 4'-0" SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" STAIR SECTION ELEV. NEW UPPER LEVEL 110'-7 5/8" ELEV. NEW BEARING 117'-7 5/8" 1 3 11 1/4" TJI's @ 16" O.C. (210 SERIES) 3/4" OSB SUB FLOOR 2- 11 1/4" LVL'S 36" min. 4 1 4'-0" 4'-5" 2 T. @ 10" =1'-8" 4'-0" 10 RISERS @ 7.6" = 6'-3 3/4" 3 RISERS @ 7.6" = 1'-10 3/4" 8'-2 3/8" 7 5/8" B 5 B 5 A 4 A 4 9'-1 1/8" 6 X 6 COLUMN STORAGE UNDER STAIRS w/ SHEET ROCK FINISH 4 X 4 COLUMN AT WALL CORNER- TO FOUNDATION BELOW & UP TO UPPER LEVEL FLOOR STRUCTURE 4 OF 11 DA KGL TRANSVERSE SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 14 JULY 2017 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE MATERIAL LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Typical exterior wall – 2 X 4’s (Unless Noted Otherwise) at 16 inch centers with two inch (2") closed cell insulation/ plus R 24 blown cellulose insulation. 7/16 inch OSB wall sheathing – braced wall panel nailing per Braced Wall Notes, Sheet 7. Pre- engineered roof trusses @ 24 inch centers. 2 X 8 roof rafters 24 inch centers. Engineered roof and floor joists (sized per framing plans.) 2 X 10’s ripped for ½ in 12 sloping deck. 19/32 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing. ¾ inch wolminized treated plywood with rubberized weatherproof decking onto ½” per foot sloping roof. 7/16 inch Oriented Stand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing protecting insulation at second floor deck. Asphalt shingles on 15 pound felt. South and East Porch Ceiling – Certain Teed Bead Board (or equal). 2 X 4 partitions with ½” Sheetrock (each side). Lap Siding w/ 4" exposure (matching existing). Manufacturer James Hardie, Miratec, LP Smart Side or equal. Style: Hlf Round Panels, Plank Lap, or 2” MiraTEC batten applied to board material. Eight inch (8”) , unless noted otherwise) concrete masonry units (CMU) with Dur-a-wall ladder reinforcing every second course; corner cells and cells at48 inch centers grouted with #4 rebar vertically. Crawl Space Foundation Wall -Two - #4 Re-bar top & bottom, (See Foundation Plan – Sheet 9 and Foundation Sections at Sheets 5. 6. and 7. Footing 16” X 8” with #4 re-bar hook at 18” centers (30” with 6” hook) LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans – Sheet 6. Guard Rails, Hand Rails and Railing enclosures, metal with 4 inch max openings per owners specification. Face Brick 6 inch square columns. (New Post or equal) Fascia and soffits matching existing. R 13 Insulation draped at crawl space foundation walls, from sill plate to bottom of footing. 2 inch closed cell foam insulation at crawl space rim joists. 4” concrete exterior slab with Fiber Mesh. 4 inches clean gravel. Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist 14 inch (Series 210) at 16 inch centers (or equal). Top Flange Hangers typ. ¾ inch T & G OSB Flooring glued and nailed to floor joists. Dual Pane Wood Windows and Doors– Style per elevations- with vinyl or metal clad –Semco or Andersen 400 series or equal. (dimensions shown on plans are nominal, see manufacturer for rough opening dimensions. Minimum “U” value = .35. All windows to be Low-e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 @ KITCHEN SECTION A 2.d Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 100'-6 1/2" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" 1 13 1 13 ELEV. MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" 4'0" X 2'0" 4'0" X 2'0" 4'0" X 2'0" 10 13 13 13 MATCH ELEVATION OF EXISTING SIDE ENTRY EXTENSION OF EXISTING FRONT ENTRY DECK 19 STAIN GLASS BEYOND CHIMNEY 19 18 27 3'0" X 2'0" ELEV. EX. MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" 13 13 13 27 TEMPERED FIXED 27 2'6" X 4'0" STAIN GLASS BEYOND CHIMNEY 19 ELEV. NEW BEARING 117'-7 5/8" ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER DOUBLE UNDERLAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R905.2.7 OF THE CODE 10 21 21 27 2'0" X 2'0" EGRESS 27 3'6" X 5'6" SEE SHEET A8 FOR STAIR INFORMATION ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER DOUBLE UNDERLAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R905.2.7 OF THE CODE 10 27 1'6" X 5'6" 21 13 19 27 2'8" FULL GLASS 27 8'0" X 6'8" 27 5'0" X 6'8" 13 21 10 ASPHALT SHINGLES OVER DOUBLE UNDERLAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R905.2.7 OF THE CODE 13 13 27 3'0" X 2'0" 21 2'6" X 4'0" 2'6" X 4'0" 27 2'6" X 27 1'6" 2'6" X 1'6" 12 2 19 27 27 EXTENSION OF EXISTING FRONT ENTRY DECK 13 12 8 ROOF GUARDRAIL EGRESS 27 3'6" X 5'6" 12 9 12 9 12 9 OVER FRAME @ MASTER BEDROOM TRUSSES & CRICKET OVER FRAME @ MASTER BEDROOM TRUSSES & CRICKET BOARD MATERIAL w/ 2" BATTENS @ PILASTERS BOARD MATERIAL w/ 2" BATTENS @ PILASTERS BOARD MATERIAL w/ 2" BATTENS @ PILASTERS NEW UPPER LEVEL NEW UPPER LEVEL ELEV. NEW BEDROOM @ 2 LEVEL 109'-4 1/2" 27 3'0" X 3'0" 4'0" X 2'0" ? 3 OF 11 DA KGL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 14 JULY 2017 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE MATERIAL LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Typical exterior wall – 2 X 4’s (Unless Noted Otherwise) at 16 inch centers with two inch (2") closed cell insulation/ plus R 24 blown cellulose insulation. 7/16 inch OSB wall sheathing – braced wall panel nailing per Braced Wall Notes, Sheet 7. Pre- engineered roof trusses @ 24 inch centers. 2 X 8 roof rafters 24 inch centers. Engineered roof and floor joists (sized per framing plans.) 2 X 10’s ripped for ½ in 12 sloping deck. 19/32 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing. ¾ inch wolminized treated plywood with rubberized weatherproof decking onto ½” per foot sloping roof. 7/16 inch Oriented Stand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing protecting insulation at second floor deck. Asphalt shingles on 15 pound felt. South and East Porch Ceiling – Certain Teed Bead Board (or equal). 2 X 4 partitions with ½” Sheetrock (each side). Lap Siding w/ 4" exposure (matching existing). Manufacturer James Hardie, Miratec, LP Smart Side or equal. Style: Hlf Round Panels, Plank Lap, or 2” MiraTEC batten applied to board material. Eight inch (8”) , unless noted otherwise) concrete masonry units (CMU) with Dur-a-wall ladder reinforcing every second course; corner cells and cells at48 inch centers grouted with #4 rebar vertically. Crawl Space Foundation Wall -Two - #4 Re-bar top & bottom, (See Foundation Plan – Sheet 9 and Foundation Sections at Sheets 5. 6. and 7. Footing 16” X 8” with #4 re-bar hook at 18” centers (30” with 6” hook) LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans – Sheet 6. Guard Rails, Hand Rails and Railing enclosures, metal with 4 inch max openings per owners specification. Face Brick 6 inch square columns. (New Post or equal) Fascia and soffits matching existing. R 13 Insulation draped at crawl space foundation walls, from sill plate to bottom of footing. 2 inch closed cell foam insulation at crawl space rim joists. 4” concrete exterior slab with Fiber Mesh. 4 inches clean gravel. Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist 14 inch (Series 210) at 16 inch centers (or equal). Top Flange Hangers typ. ¾ inch T & G OSB Flooring glued and nailed to floor joists. Dual Pane Wood Windows and Doors– Style per elevations- with vinyl or metal clad –Semco or Andersen 400 series or equal. (dimensions shown on plans are nominal, see manufacturer for rough opening dimensions. Minimum “U” value = .35. All windows to be Low-e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16-105 DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION 3'0" X 3'0" 5'0" X 6'8" 1 1 SHOWER SHOWER SEAT DN. DN. 28" DIAMETER STAIN GLASS FEATURE SOUTH DECK FIREPLACE- CAROLINA OUTDOOR GAS FIREPLACE (EPA APPROVED) (BY HEARTH & HOME TECHNOLOGIES) NEW NORTH ROOF DECK 8 DN. DN. 8 1 4 2'6" 2'6" 2'4" POCKET DN. BEDROOM #2 2'4" 2 R. 2'6" DN. 1 R. DN. 3 T. 9 T. ATTIC ACCESS 3'6" X 5'6" EGRESS 36" HIGH GUARDRAIL 36" HIGH GUARDRAIL 36" HIGH GUARDRAIL PILASTER ROOF GUARDRAIL ROOF GUARDRAIL ELEV. HIGH POINT 110'-1"± ELEV. HIGH POINT 110'-5 3/4"± ELEV. LOW POINT 109'-8 1/2"± ELEV. LOW POINT 109'-11 3/4"± ELEV. LOW POINT 109'-7 1/4"± ELEV. LOW POINT 109'-11 1/4"± ELEV. NEW BEDROOM LEVEL 109'-4 1/2"± D 7a D 7a SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE CRICKET NEW WALK-IN SOUTH DECK FIREPLACE- CAROLINA OUTDOOR GAS FIREPLACE (EPA APPROVED) (BY HEARTH & HOME TECHNOLOGIES) 28'-5" 26'-0" 28'-0" 3'-4" 12'-7" 3'-4" 10'-10" 1'-0" 13'-7" 5" 5" 3'-4" 8'-7" 3'-4" 9'-11" 5" 13'-7" 13'-7" 2'-10" MAIN LEVEL PLAN A1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH 51'-6" FINISHED 45'-2" 6'-4" 4'-0" 8'-0" 8'-10" 10'-0" 11'-0" 5'-6" 2'-6" 13'-0" 18'-0" 13'-4" FACE OF STUDS 3'-2" 9'-0" 10'-4" 12'-9 1/2" 4'-11" 2'-1" 3'-9 1/2" 7'-1 1/2" 8'-4 1/2"± 7'-5"± 2'-2 1/2" 18'-0" 11'-4" 2'-6 1/2" 4'-0" 3'-6" 4" 14'-4" 3'-4" 17'-1 1/2" 11'-10 1/2" 2'-8" 12'-8" 29'-4" 12'-6" 7'-10 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 8'-2 1/2" EQUAL EQUAL 2'-0 1/2" 2'-4" 9'-3" 2'-4" 3 1/2" 9 TREADS @ 10" = 7'-6" 4'-5" 4'-0" C 6 A 4 B 5 1 A 4 (EX.) CLG. VARIES 8'-6" TO 8'-1 1/2" 6" DOWN 6" UP ELEV. (EX.) FLR. 100'-0" ELEV. (EX.) FLR. 100'-0" ELEV. (EX.) FLR. 100'-6 1/2" (EX.) CLG. 8'-0" (EX.) CLG. 9'-1 1/8" GAS LOG APPLIANCE CLG. 8'-1 1/8" (SIDE VENT) ELEV. NEW MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" ELEV. NEW MAIN LEVEL 100'-6 1/2" NEW CLOSET NEW BEDROOM NEW BATHROOM NEW KITCHEN NEW SUN ROOM NEW BEDROOM NEW BATHROOM C 6 LINE OF LEVEL ABOVE B 5 COLUMN TO FLOOR FRAMING BELOW 1 1 1 1 REF. RANGE DW 2 X 6 WALL 19 19 1 20 20 20 20 20 11 CEILING DN. 11 CEILING NEW PORCH ADDITION EXISTING PORCH UP DN. DN. DN. 1 4 2'4" 2'4" 2'6" 2'6" 8'0" X 6'8" 2'4" 2'6" X 1'6" OVER 2'6" X 4'6" 2'6" X 1'6" OVER 2'6" X 4'6" 4'0" X 2'0" 4'0" X 2'0" 4'0" X 2'0" 2'6" X 4'0" 2'8" FULL GLASS 2'0" X 2'0" 1'6" X 5'6" 3'6" X 5'6" EGRESS 2'6" UP DN. 6 1/2" 100'-0" 101'-0" 98'-6" 98'-6" 100'-6" 99'-6" 99'-0" CLG. 7'-9 3/8" CLG. 9'-1 1/8" D 7a D 7a COLUMN TO FOUNDATION WALL BELOW PROVIDE RECESS IN STUD CAVITY FOR REFRIGERATOR CUSTOM 2'-0" W. DOOR 18'-0" 12'-6" 2 OF 11 DA KGL MAIN & UPPER SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE LEVEL PLANS MATERIAL LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Typical exterior wall – 2 X 4’s (Unless Noted Otherwise) at 16 inch centers with two inch (2") closed cell insulation/ plus R 24 blown cellulose insulation. 7/16 inch OSB wall sheathing – braced wall panel nailing per Braced Wall Notes, Sheet 7. Pre- engineered roof trusses @ 24 inch centers. 2 X 8 roof rafters 24 inch centers. Engineered roof and floor joists (sized per framing plans.) 2 X 10’s ripped for ½ in 12 sloping deck. 19/32 inch Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing. ¾ inch wolminized treated plywood with rubberized weatherproof decking onto ½” per foot sloping roof. 7/16 inch Oriented Stand Board (OSB) Roof Sheathing protecting insulation at second floor deck. Asphalt shingles on 15 pound felt. South and East Porch Ceiling – Certain Teed Bead Board (or equal). 2 X 4 partitions with ½” Sheetrock (each side). Lap Siding w/ 4" exposure (matching existing). Manufacturer James Hardie, Miratec, LP Smart Side or equal. Style: Hlf Round Panels, Plank Lap, or 2” MiraTEC batten applied to board material. Eight inch (8”) , unless noted otherwise) concrete masonry units (CMU) with Dur-a-wall ladder reinforcing every second course; corner cells and cells at48 inch centers grouted with #4 rebar vertically. Crawl Space Foundation Wall -Two - #4 Re-bar top & bottom, (See Foundation Plan – Sheet 9 and Foundation Sections at Sheets 5. 6. and 7. Footing 16” X 8” with #4 re-bar hook at 18” centers (30” with 6” hook) LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beam (Fb = 2600 psi) per framing plans – Sheet 6. Guard Rails, Hand Rails and Railing enclosures, metal with 4 inch max openings per owners specification. Face Brick 6 inch square columns. (New Post or equal) Fascia and soffits matching existing. R 13 Insulation draped at crawl space foundation walls, from sill plate to bottom of footing. 2 inch closed cell foam insulation at crawl space rim joists. 4” concrete exterior slab with Fiber Mesh. 4 inches clean gravel. Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist 14 inch (Series 210) at 16 inch centers (or equal). Top Flange Hangers typ. ¾ inch T & G OSB Flooring glued and nailed to floor joists. Dual Pane Wood Windows and Doors– Style per elevations- with vinyl or metal clad –Semco or Andersen 400 series or equal. (dimensions shown on plans are nominal, see manufacturer for rough opening dimensions. Minimum “U” value = .35. All windows to be Low-e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 14 JULY 2017 DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REAR HALF OF LOT (95.0') EXISTING BATH EXIST. ELEC. PANEL- RELOCATED PER ELECTRICAL DRAWING 28'-5" 26'-0" 28'-0" 17'-1 1/2" 3'-4" 5" 12'-7" 5" 3'-4" 5" 10'-10" 5" 5'-11" 5" 10'-0" 5" 1'-0" 5" 13'-7" 5" 10'-4" 5" 9'-10" 5" 5" 7'-6" 5" 3'-4" 8'-7" 3'-4" 9'-11" 5" 5" 13'-7" 5" 13'-7" 5" 2'-10" 5" 13'-2" 5" DEMO PATIO PAVERS DEMO CONCRETE SLAB SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH DEMOLITION PLAN 1 2 PARTIAL EXISTING GARAGE SLAB REMAINS- (DEMO WALLS SHOWN)- REMAINING WALLS AS SHOWN ON TRANSVERSE SECTION B- SHEET 5. EXISTING KITCHEN EXISTING BEDROOM 16'-9" (EX.) MASONRY FLUE 29'-4" 12'-6" EXISTING FAN EXISTING FAN EXISTING FAN EXISTING DINING ROOM EXISTING LIVING ROOM EXISTING STUDY REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW & PORTION OF EXISTING WALL AS REQUIRED PROVIDE RECESS IN STUD CAVITY FOR REFRIGERATOR ELEV. (EX.) FLR. 100'-0" ELEV. (EX.) FLR. 100'-0" ELEV. (EX.) FLR. 100'-6 1/2" EXISTING PORCH 1 OF 11 DA KGL DEMOLITION PLAN SITE PLAN SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE 16-105 14 JULY 2017 Statistical Data: Project: 1016 W. Mountain Avenue Zoning District: NCL Square footage Allowed allowed based on detached hobby shop / guest quarters beyond 10 feet of principal residence: 3, 170 Sq. Ft. Existing House: 28 X 26 = 728 Sq. Ft. Rear Addition: 1,183 Sq. Ft. Second Floor: 670 Sq. Ft. Total house area = 2,581 Sq Ft. Detached Guest Quarters = 193 Sq. Ft. Grand Total Sq. Ftge. = 3,170 Sq. Ft. Rear Lot Area Calculation: Rear Half - Longest Property Line: 190 feet divided by 2 = 95 feet. 50 feet X 95 feet = 4750 Sq. Ft. X 25% = 1,188 Sq. Ft. allowed. Therefore: O.K. Carport under Guest Quarters = 180 Sq. Ft. Hobby Room = 216 Sq. Ft. Proposed Hobby Shop = 216 Sq. Ft. Guest Quarters = 193 Sq. Ft. Area under Guest Quarters = 180 Sq. Ft. House Addition in rear half of lot: 127 Sq. Ft. Total 716 Sq. Ft. less than 1,188 Sq. Ft. allowed Total Rear Building area = 589 Sq Ft. DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION recommended where possible. 4. All dimensions shall be verified by the general contractor and concrete subcontractor prior to construction. Any discrepancies must be brought to the attention of Architectural Engineer. 5. Exterior foundations shall be a minimum of 30" below finish grade. Concrete and reinforcing steel shall be placed in accordance with all applicable building codes. 6. Over-excavation will be directed for those portions of the excavation that do not allow footings to bear on undisturbed soils. All loose materials to be removed from forms. 7. Backfill: Damproofing not required at crawl space walls. First floor joists to be installed prior to backfilling. In the event the first floor joists are not in place, adequate bracing for the walls is required. Backfill shall be compacted to 90% standard proctor density (ASTM D 698) and graded to prove adequate drainage away from the foundation. 8. Footings and foundations have been designed by Anderson Associates based on a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (dead load plus live load) with no minimum dead load requirements. 9. This foundation plan is not to be reproduces, modified or used for any other project except for the House Addition Project located at 1016 West Mountain Avenue, Ft Collins, Colorado 80521. 45'-2" 26'-0" 28'-0" 17'-2" 51'-6" FINISHED 6'-4" 4'-0" 8'-0" 8'-10" 29'-4" 5'-6" 2'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0" 13'-0" 18'-0" 3'-2" 9'-0" 3'-4" 2'-8" 3'-10" 13'-4" 3'-4" 4" 8" FOUNDATION PLAN 10 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ORIGINAL FOUNDATION EXISTING 1970's FOUNDATION 13'-0" EXISTING MONO-LITH GARAGE SLAB 14'-8" X 3'-4" X 8" CHIMNEY SUPPORT PAD w/ 3- #4's EAST/ WEST AND 13- #4's NORTH/ SOUTH 12" DIA. PIER- 30" BELOW GRADE (SEE DETAIL 9) VERIFY BWP (BRACED WALL PANEL) BWP 8" X 16" FOOTING 8" X 16" FOOTING 8" X 16" FOOTING BWP BWP BWP BWP BWP 8" X 16" FOOTING 3'-4" X 2'-8" CRAWL SPACE ACCESS CUT INTO ORIGINAL FOUNDATION (SITE VERIFY LOCATION) 3'-4" 3 1/2" 3'-6" 3'-7 1/2" 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 3 10 3 10 28'-5" 16'-9" 17'-5" BWP 2'-8" 12'-8" 2" RIGID INSULATION- SEE SECTION C/6 TYP. FIELD VERIFY 12" DEPTH OF THICKENED EDGE AT EXISTING SLAB 2- FS-1608 VENTS 2- FS-1608 VENTS 2- FS-1616 VENTS 4" PVC DRAINAGE PIPE 13'-4" 10 OF 11 DA KGL FOUNDATION PLAN, SHEET JOB DRAWN DATE CHECKED REVISIONS DRAWING 422 EAST OAK FT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 (970) 484-0306 ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC ANDERSON ASSOCIATES AA 16-105 HOUSE REMODEL and ADDITION for: FORT COLLINS, CO. 80521 1016 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE AUSTIN/ BLUESTONE RESIDENCE DETAILS, FOUNDATION NOTES, MATERIAL LEGEND 14 JULY 2017 DECREASE SIZE TO MEET SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS JULY 17, 2017 2.d Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Approved Plans (5929 : 1016 W MOUNTAIN AVE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION