Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2017 - 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 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting April 19, 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 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Landmark Preservation Commission • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 8, 2017 SPECIAL MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 8, 2017 special meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 15, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 15, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 3. 225 MAPLE STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Continental Oil Company Property, a collection of twentieth-century industrial buildings that are significant for their connection to the oil industry in Fort Collins and architecture. APPLICANT: Kenneth Mannon, Operations Services Director 4. 212 LAPORTE AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory, a midcentury commercial building that is significant for its connection to the dairy industry in Fort Collins and Googie-style architecture. APPLICANT: Kenneth Mannon, Operations Services Director 5. 300 LAPORTE AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building, an International-style municipal building that is significant for its connection to the growth in Fort Collins post-World War II, notable local architect William Robb, and architecture. APPLICANT: Kenneth Mannon, Operations Services Director • 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. 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 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 6. ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC SURVEY - PROJECT RESULTS The purpose of this item is to provide the Commission and citizens with information regarding the Alta Vista Neighborhood Historic Survey Project. The survey has been conducted by Colorado State University historic preservation graduate students, working under the direction of Dr. Sarah Payne. 7. LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a three-story residential project that would be a Net Zero Energy building on a 4,600-square-foot site at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The development site is within the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT/OWNER: Laurie and Bob Davis, DavisDavis Architects 8. 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a design review request for work on the storm windows and front steps of the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Garage at 618 W. Mountain Avenue, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2013. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT/OWNER: William and Kathleen Whitley • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 8, 2017 SPECIAL MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 8, 2017 special meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC March 8, 2017 Special Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 4 Roll Call and Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission Date: 4/19/17 ROLL CALL Ernest X Frick X Gensmer Absent Hogestad X Lingle X Simpson X Wallace X Zink X Dunn X VOTING RECORD Item: Consent Agenda Item: Living Oaks Area of Adjacency Item: Living Oaks Recommendation Ernest Yes Ernest Yes Ernest Yes Frick Yes Frick Yes Frick No Hogestad Yes Hogestad Yes Hogestad No Lingle Yes Lingle Yes Lingle Yes Simpson Yes Simpson Yes Simpson Yes Wallace Yes Wallace Yes Wallace No Zink Yes Zink Yes Zink Yes Dunn Yes Dunn Yes Dunn Yes RESULTS: 8:0 RESULTS: 8:0 RESULTS: 5:3 Item: 618 Mountain Move to Final Item: 618 Mountain Approval Ernest Yes Ernest Yes Frick Yes Frick Yes Hogestad Yes Hogestad Yes Lingle Yes Lingle Yes Simpson Yes Simpson Yes Wallace Yes Wallace Yes Zink Yes Zink Yes Dunn Yes Dunn Yes RESULTS: 8:0 RESULTS: 8:0 Log of Packet Additions Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Date: 4/19/14 Updates prior to meeting: Item # Item Title Description 3 225 Maple Edited body text of staff report. Added aerial view photo. New Legal Description attachment. 4 212 Laporte Edited body text of staff report. New Legal Description attachment. Updated Staff Presentation to reflect accurate architectural language. 5 300 Laporte Edited body text of staff report. New Legal Description attachment. 6 Alta Vista Survey Replaced 1404 form with updated draft. 7 Living Oaks Edited body text of staff report. Added “Addendum” submitted by Applicant. 8 618 W. Mountain Added four new attachments (staff presentation, rating criteria sheet, window cut sheets, and garage history). Edited body text of staff report. All materials submitted at the hearing: (These items will be added to the final post-hearing packet, and hard copy meeting record.) Item # Exhibit # Rec’d Description 6 A 4/19 Alta Vista Survey Student Presentation 7 A 4/19 Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 8, 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 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 available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Special Meeting March 8, 2017 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA No members of the public were present. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report, including the background of the Design Review Subcommittee. She explained the approach Staff is recommending, and discussed some of the Landmark Preservation Commission 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: LPC March 8, 2017 Special Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5468 : MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 8, 2017 benefits of utilizing such a subcommittee, both to the Commission and to the public. She requested the Commission’s direction on whether they would like to reinstate a formal subcommittee, and if so, how they would like it to be structured. Public Input No members of the public were present. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked why a member of the subcommittee who reviewed a particular project should have to recuse themselves from further action on that project. Mr. Yatabe explained the code regarding the subcommittee, adding that accommodating a subcommittee was part of the reason for expanding the LPC to nine members. Chair Dunn asked whether the Commission members could listen to the recordings of the subcommittees. Mr. Yatabe explained that hearing the input of the subcommittee members via the recording would like having them provide testimony, which would not be a full recusal from the process. Mr. Ernest asked how the Commission would understand the decision making process of the subcommittee. Mr. Yatabe explained that the Commission would not get a recommendation from the subcommittee, and the Applicant is not obligated to take the advice it received from the subcommittee. The Commission and Ms. McWilliams discussed the criteria to determine whether a project would go to the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) or the full Commission. Single family residential projects, which are primarily additions and alterations, were identified as appropriate for DRS. Smaller individual properties, non-controversial projects and minor amendments were also discussed as being suitable for the DRS. Development Reviews would continue to go to the full Landmark Preservation Commission, as well as the majority of commercial and multi-family projects. It was also pointed out that the DRS would always have the option of referring a project that came to them to the full LPC, if they felt it were appropriate. The Commission requested that Staff provide a flow-chart or other documentation that would clearly identify the criteria for each of the two paths through the system (DRS vs. LPC). They also inquired as to the volume of projects that were likely to follow each path. Members discussed the options for forming the subcommittee. Ms. McWilliams proposed that those who were interested and willing to serve would volunteer for the subcommittee for a set period of time, possibly a year. From that pool of subcommittee members, Staff would gather appropriate participants for each meeting, depending on the particular project and type of expertise needed for the review. Members asked how the DRS would work. Ms. McWilliams stated that the DRS used to meet in the afternoon before regular LPC meetings, and Staff would schedule up to three projects per meeting. If there were no projects to be reviewed in a particular meeting, they would not meet. Ms. McWilliams said the DRS had been well-received and appreciated by those who used it. A few members were curious about who would be willing to volunteer, expressing some concern that if there weren’t a big enough pool, including a sufficient number of design professionals, it would not make sense to reinstate the DRS. Mr. Ernest and Mr. Hogestad said they were willing, as did Mr. Frick, although he expressed lingering reservations about the recusal aspect. Members asked whether the staff report could include some kind of summary of how DRS decisions about a project were made. There was a suggestion that seeing the original design and its evolution after going to the DRS could be helpful. Mr. Yatabe stated that while he would have to do more research, a summary or before and after designs might be a possibility. Chair Dunn asked for an example of a commercial project next to a historic property that wouldn’t come to the LPC. Ms. McWilliams said the Feeder Supply had a previously approved design that came back with a minor amendment and went through the DRS. Timeliness was a factor in the decision to go to the DRS, as construction was already underway. Ms. McWilliams also gave the example of the Linden Hotel putting a small addition on the third floor away from a main façade. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: LPC March 8, 2017 Special Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5468 : MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 8, 2017 Mr. Ernest asked about the change to the DRS process the in 2014, and wondered whether this is a formal decision requiring a motion, or more informal direction. Mr. Yatabe said because the DRS is already in the Code, and Staff was just asking for direction from the Commission, a motion may not be necessary. He suggested Staff could provide more information and come back for more discussion. There was some discussion about comments made by the CDNS Director at the LPC retreat that suggested Development Reviews would only come to the LCP once, like they do with P&Z. Ms. McWilliams said that recent changes to the work session structure made it possible for a Development Review to come to the LPC only once in some cases, but there was no restriction on the number of times they may need to come for preliminary reviews. She explained that the City’s goal is to make process as smooth as possible for Applicants by making it predictable, timely and effective. Ms. Dunn said she was generally supportive of reinstating the DRS, but reiterated that they would like a chart or similar documentation to show how these two streams would work. Ms. Wallace liked the idea of a pool so as not to place too much of a burden on a few individuals. She stated she is willing to participate. Ms. Zink and Ms. Simpson expressed interest, but would like more information about the frequency and how much notice there might be. Mr. Ernest said he could volunteer, and would appreciate as much notice as possible. Mr. Lingle expressed concern about whether there would be a sufficient presence of design professionals for an LPC decision, if those who had participated in the DRS for an item had to be recused. Chair Dunn asked that Staff provide more information about how the stream works, how the pool would work, and how much notice or lead time they might have for the meetings, and then bring this back for another discussion. Ms. McWilliams said they could provide the additional information and continue the discussion in May. Chair Dunn suggested continuing to utilize the DRS as they have been in the interim. There was a general consensus that this was acceptable, focusing specifically on single family residential and minor commercial alterations and proposals. • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________. __________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: LPC March 8, 2017 Special Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5468 : MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 15, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the March 15, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Fort Collins Page 1 March 15, 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 The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting March 15, 2017 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Lingle, Ernest, Frick, Simpson ABSENT: Gensmer STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek explained that two of the originally scheduled Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Design Reviews had been postponed to the April 19th meeting. • STAFF REPORTS Landmark Preservation Commission 2.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 2 March 15, 2017 Ms. Bzdek updated the staff on the recent meeting of the Historic Preservation Code Advisory Committee. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Maggie Dennis, a local grant-writer working for the Poudre Heritage Alliance, informed the Commission about the Heritage Culturalist Program. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2017 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2017 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the February 15, 2017 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Frick seconded. The motion passed 8:0. 2. LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a three-story residential project that would be a Net Zero Energy building on a 4,600-square-foot site at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The development site is within the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Laurie and Bob Davis, Davis Davis Architects Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report, including the LPC’s role, the proposed area of adjacency, and the Applicant’s responses to the Commission’s work session questions. Applicant Presentation Ms. Davis gave the Applicant presentation. She pointed out the buildings in the immediate area, described the site plan, parking plans and floor plans. A small 3D model was passed to the Commission members. She talked about the materials to be used, and passed some samples to the Commission. Ms. Davis addressed the compatibility of the project to its area of adjacency. She talked about the dimensional compatibility, pointing out the similarity in size and lot line between this project and other buildings within the area of adjacency. She spoke about this project’s character and pattern compatibility. She talked about the compatibility of the building materials, comparing terracotta to brick in terms of its composition, although more modern. She talked about the visual and pedestrian connections between the site and the neighborhood. She said the landscaping would be simple, saving the existing tree in the lot. Public Input Brian Dunbar, citizen and design construction professor at CSU, spoke in support of the project and the “Living Building Challenge” and talked about the sensitivity required when adding a new structure to a historic neighborhood. Staff Response to Public Comment None Applicant Response to Public Comment 2.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 3 March 15, 2017 Ms. Davis submitted a letter of support from a neighbor to be entered into the record. Commission Questions and Discussion The Commission discussed the proposed area of adjacency for the project. Mr. Hogestad pointed out that the houses on Oak Street to the north and east that were included in the neighborhood connections diagrams should be added to the area of adjacency. He also mentioned Library Park as a connector to the houses to the north and east. Chair Dunn agreed, noting that since the Applicant addressed compatibility with some buildings that were as much as two blocks away, the Commission should also consider historic properties within that area. Chair Dunn asked whether the house immediately to the right of the apartments was on the National Register. Ms. Bzdek said she would have to look into that, but stated that it is not locally landmarked and there is no recent determination of eligibility for it. Chair Dunn would like to have determinations on all the older houses on the map. Mr. Ernest noted that 324 E. Oak is the Mosman House, so the one labeled 1982 on the map should be 322 E. Oak, which was actually constructed in 1892, not 1982. Chair Dunn asked about the two apartment buildings. Ms. Bzdek mentioned that the one at 207 Mathews dated 1966 has been determined to be ineligible, but there is no recent determination on the other apartment building. Chair Dunn asked about the brick house on Mathews between Mountain and Oak where the blind lawyer lived, just south of the frozen foods building. Ms. Bzdek said it is eligible and may be on the National Register. Ms. Bzdek will confirm the details. Mr. Lingle appreciated the inclusion of seven of the nine buildings that were part of the area of adjacency for the 215 Mathews building. He stated that satisfies his concern about consistency. There was some discussion about whether to include the Historic Landmark Cabins just south of the Carnegie Library. Members commented that the typology of the cabins is significantly different than the rest of the properties under consideration, and noted that they that have lost their context and are relics. The consensus was that that they did not need to be included. Chair Dunn concluded the discussion about the area of adjacency and directed the discussion toward compatibility. Mr. Lingle expressed concern about the ambiguity of the flex space on the ground floor, and asked for details such as type of glass, color and how it would look to the public should it be used as garage space. Ms. Davis responded that the cars would not be visible to the public. She said they might consider frosted glass, or a vision line keeping the clear stories clear, emphasizing that they want to be flexible while having an activated street. Mr. Lingle suggested they probably wouldn’t want to use obscured glass to accomplish that. Ms. Davis said that it wouldn’t be completely frosted glass, but they might use shutters. Since they don’t have buyers yet, these elements will be evolving. Mr. Lingle said he would want to hear more rationale for the typology of pulling a storefront ground floor unit into a residential neighborhood. Ms. Davis explained that the design is flexible enough that down the road, if garages are no longer needed, perhaps a coffee shop would be on the ground floor. Mr. Frick asked if there is a basement. Ms. Davis said there is a small 10 x 20 basement in the front, which may not be needed, but is currently the mechanical area. She said the garage portion would be slab on grade. Mr. Frick pointed out that if there was no requirement that the garage would follow the line of the demising wall, there would be nothing to prevent having car parts, old engines and grease in the front window. Ms. Davis said they may handle that as a condition of sale. Mr. Hogestad asked whether there is a 6” step down to the garage. Ms. Davis said there isn’t, but it qualifies as an accessible garage. 2.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 4 March 15, 2017 Mr. Hogestad questioned how the flat room commercial form fits into the area of adjacency, when most of those buildings have gable or hip roofs and the majority are stone and brick. Ms. Davis argued that it is a shed roof, not a flat roof. Mr. Hogestad said the rainscreen gives it the appearance of a flat roof. She said the flat roof is more in alignment with the commercial properties in the area, such as Poudre Garage, Zoric Cleaners, and likely future developments. Mr. Frick said as standalone project, it’s great, but expressed concerns about its scale, as it is almost twice as high as the small building next door. Ms. Davis said they are looking ahead to what that area will become as it is redeveloped. Mr. Lingle asked if they are seeking for approval for both the terracotta and fiber cement material options for the rainscreen. Ms. Davis answered in the affirmative, adding that the terracotta is their preference if they can make it work. Chair Dunn inquired about the selection of ebony in the palette. Ms. Davis said it was similar to the color of the brick at Park View Apartments. Ms. Dunn asked about the terracotta piece with the ridging. Ms. Davis said that was an option they were considering to add some detail. Ms. Zink asked if they use fiber cement, whether the proportions of the panels would be the same. Ms. Davis said the module might increase with the fiber cement, but they are pushing for the terracotta. Ms. Simpson expressed concern about size, particularly based on the street views. She stated the window pattern was out of character with the adjacent buildings. Ms. Davis said the window pattern is a function of the townhomes, and was designed to be less utilitarian and to provide needed light. Ms. Simpson asked if they explored any banding on the exterior to match adjacent buildings. Ms. Davis said they had not, commenting that people don’t see the world in elevation. Ms. Simpson pointed out that the windows of other buildings in the area hit the top of the window sill and suggested they look at how to make the windows fit better into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hogestad commented that the rainscreen was void of any detail. He said the textured material would be an improvement, and suggested they look at some way to add detail. He also expressed concern about windows with no sills or heads. Ms. Davis said the wall is 13” thick and the windows are recessed 7”. Mr. Hogestad said it lacks the detail, dimension and shadow lines one would expect with a masonry front. Regarding the storefront typology, Mr. Hogestad said that it was traditional to have retail below and residential above, and that the upper and lower window patterns and proportions are reflective of that. Mr. Lingle referenced Land Use Code section 3.4.7(F)(2) with regard to character compatibility, and noted that the Applicant’s statement in the submittal that “this is unattainable” will be a problem for the Commission if it is there in the final submittal. Ms. Davis referred to the general standard in 3.4.7, asserting that the eligibility of the adjacent historic buildings is not being negatively impacted. Mr. Lingle said the general standard is supported by the more specific standards, which must be met. Mr. Yatabe explained that the general standard in subsection A is the aspirational statement of purpose for 3.4.7. Mr. Lingle asked for confirmation that all of the standards that fall under subsection F must be met, unless they determine that the basic project design doesn’t impact the area of adjacency in a negative way. Mr. Yatabe replied that in 3.4.7(F), the Landmark Preservation Commission would not consider that if the Director finds that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential eligibility of a site, structure, object or district, but it is up to the Commission to determine what the effect is and to apply the specific standards under subsection F as they might be applicable. For example, in paragraph 3, it states that dominant materials shall be used, but the Commission has some latitude as to which adjacent structures are the basis for comparison and how they play into that. 2.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 5 March 15, 2017 Ms. Wallace agreed that it’s a great standalone project, but noted that it will set the tone for other redevelopment in the area. She liked the terracotta and how it shows sensitivity to some of the surrounding buildings. She expressed concern that because there are so many themes in the area, it will be difficult to speak to all the surroundings. Mr. Frick said all the adjacent buildings are residential or residential related, and it would be a stretch to fit the commercial typology on this site. Zoric Cleaners is the closest commercial use, and it’s across the street. Mr. Frick suggested if the first floor looked more residential, and the building were lowered, it might be have a better chance of morphing into an office building in the future, as others have. Mr. Lingle is more concerned with the size than the typology choice. In looking at the streetscape, he identified the little apartment building next door as the one that is out of character, and will likely be redeveloped. He stated this building is far more compatible with the others in terms of height and scale. He also commented that he likes the terracotta rainscreen as a modern take on brick. The modern design might be a struggle in terms of compatibility with the historic structures, so detail will be important. He pointed out that the NCB is meant to be a buffer transitional zone. Ms. Zink commented that she was uncomfortable with the idea that the little apartment building next door would be demolished, pointing out that it has potential and could be redeveloped without being demolished. Mr. Hogestad said the 4x8 fiber cement panel is going in the wrong direction if they are looking for more detail. Ms. Davis said the fewer cuts, the more economical it is, but that doesn’t mean it would be 4x8. It would likely be two food cuts. She pointed out that Poudre Garage uses the same material. Mr. Hogestad suggested some variance in the mortar pattern. Mr. Ernest said while this is somewhat similar in mass, scale and height to some of the other buildings in the area of adjacency, the choice of typology in the residential Library Park area will be more important as they move forward. Chair Dunn said it’s an exciting project, particularly with the net zero and transit-oriented aspects. She commented that she didn’t see anything in the design that speaks to the stone buildings in the area. Ms. Davis suggested that the shadow lines would look very similar to the horizontal dark mortar lines in the McHugh-Andrews House. Chair Dunn said it would be helpful to see a comparison. Mr. Lingle suggested that if the storefront typology only faced Oak, and didn’t turn the corner to Mathews, that may help. Mr. Hogestad talked about having residential and commercial in one building, or having a commercial building in a residential neighborhood. He likes the idea that in the future it could be retail to support that neighborhood. 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE LANDMARK REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program process, review criteria, and scoring. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the program, the loan process, and the role of the LPC. She also reviewed code section 14-48 and the criteria by which the applications should be evaluated. Public Input None 4. 231 SOUTH HOWES (THE HUMPHREY/DAVIS HOUSE) – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for design review of The Humphrey/Davis House 2.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 6 March 15, 2017 at 231 South Howes Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1998. The proposed work includes gutter replacement and repair and rehabilitation of fascia and soffits. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT: Stephen Slezak Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She summarized the Commission’s questions from the work session, and said the Applicant would be addressing those. She pointed out that this is a conceptual review, which will require a motion to move to final if appropriate. Applicant Presentation Mr. Slezak provided some additional information about the project. He stated that there are a lot of street trees, so even if the gutters are cleared two or three times a year, the debris causes deterioration, and explained his plan to protect it. He stated there are numerous water issues to be addressed depending on funding. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Lingle asked about some items not included in this application, and asked for assurance that they would not be changing the look of the porch. Mr. Slezak confirmed that it would look the same. Mr. Frick asked if the concerns about structural repairs were addressed. Mr. Slezak said if they were to discover that the rafter tails were damaged upon removal of the fascia, they would have to do some research on the standards for replacing them. He said the soffit isn’t bad except on the flat portion where the roof needs to be replaced. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street. Mr. Ernest seconded. The motion passed 8-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Ernest asked about the process. Ms. Bzdek responded that the scores are used in the event there is insufficient funding to fully fund all applications. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for gutter replacement and fascia and soffit work on the Humphrey/Davis House at 231 South Howes Street as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. Mr. Frick seconded. The motion passed 8:0. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break to complete the application scoring.] 5. JAMES ROSS PROVING-UP HOUSE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the James Ross Proving-Up House, a 1890 residence that served as a residence to satisfy the requirements of the 1862 Homestead Act. APPLICANT: Bob Adams, Recreation Director 2.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 7 March 15, 2017 Staff Report Ms. Bumgarner presented the staff report, including a review of the responses to the Commission’s work session questions and the role of the LPC. Applicant Presentation None Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Frick asked about the proposed site of the structure. Ms. Bumgarner replied that it has not been determined exactly where the structure will sit within The Farm at Lee Martinez Park. Mr. Frick would like to see it in a better location where it will be associated with the agricultural use, rather than in the storage yard. Chair Dunn asked if there was a long term plan for the property. Carol Tunner provided some history about the various sites where the structure has resided. She credited Bob Adams in the Recreation Department for the suggestion to move it to Martinez Farm along with the farm equipment and to create an architecture and agriculture park. She described her vision for the site and explained that she had applied for a grant for restoration. Mr. Lingle asked if the designation was site specific. Ms. Bumgarner said just the building is being designated, not a specific location. Ms. Tunner emphasized the need to designate the building, highlighting some of its history. Mr. Ernest mentioned that the library is now the James Ross Hall. Ms. Zink asked if it could be designated as an object, like a train car. Mr. Ernest said the sample motion doesn’t include an address, but the designation application has an address. Mr. Frick felt it was important to specify an address or location with the designation. Chair Dunn asked about designating an artifact as opposed to a building, and Ms. Bzdek said the same standards apply. She went on to point out other special objects that have addresses associated with them, even if not in their original location. Mr. Lingle suggested specifying in the motion that it meets the standards for exterior integrity of design, materials, workmanship and feeling. Chair Dunn thought association should be added to that list. Mr. Lingle wasn’t convinced, and Mr. Hogestad disagreed as well, noting that there is plenty of support for designation without including association. Mr. Yatabe provided examples of objects designated without a specific site. He cautioned against tying the structure to a specific location, and recommended that unless the Commission is making a finding as to how the farm relates to the context, they should make a designation of just the building itself. Mr. Lingle said that obtaining grant funds for work that falls outside the walls of the structure, such as an accessible path, could be problematic without a site associated with it. He also expressed concern that designating it without a site associated with it would not protect it from being moved to an inappropriate site in the future. Mr. Yatabe explained that several factors might come into their decision as to whether the location should part of the designation, but did not make a specific recommendation. Ms. Bzdek mentioned the Frank Miller Stagecoach that had been designated and had been moved several times. Mr. Frick said he preferred it be designated with a location attached to it. Mr. Yatabe was not sure whether designating an object located somewhere would offer any protection from it being moved. He suggested they could recommend to Council that it be retained at Martinez Farm. 2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) City of Fort Collins Page 8 March 15, 2017 Ms. Zink pointed out that designating land around it which isn’t part of the original context still wouldn’t be likely to be eligible for grant funding outside the structure itself. Mr. Hogestad said they don’t really know anything about the site, so it would be unwise to tie the building to the site. Commission Deliberation Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the James Ross Proving-Up House as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards A, B, and C for its history and design as a filing house, association with the Ross family, and its preponderance of exterior integrity including standards B for design, D for materials, E for workmanship and F for feeling. The Commission further recommends that City Council maintain its location within the Lee Martinez Farm property. Mr. Ernest seconded. The motion passed 8-0. • OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Dunn shared a story about the Akin House (formerly Washington’s) that is currently being renovated by the Bohemian Foundation, noting that it was the only non-consensual “de- designation” in history. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________. __________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair 2.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: LPC March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (5467 : MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2017) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 225 MAPLE STREET - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Continental Oil Company Property, a collection of twentieth-century industrial buildings that are significant for their connection to the oil industry in Fort Collins and architecture. APPLICANT: Kenneth Mannon, Operations Services Director OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Continental Oil Company Property is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard A, for its association with industrial growth of the early twentieth-century, and Standard C, for its identifiable early twentieth- century design characteristics. Both the warehouse/office building and shop/garage were built in approximately 1913. The pump house was built in the fall of 1949. Together, these buildings were essential to the oil dealer depot. The current owner of this property, the City of Fort Collins Operation Services Department, has submitted an application requesting consideration for Fort Collins local landmark designation. COMMISSION ACTION Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures,” provides the process and standards for designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Commission shall adopt a motion providing a recommendation on eligibility to City Council. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The Continental Oil Company Building is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Significance Standard A, for its association with the early industrial growth of the early twentieth-century near the railroads and river; and Standard C for its early twentieth-century design characteristics. The building retains a strong preponderance of exterior integrity under all seven aspects of integrity, A through G. 3 Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 Tatanka Historical Associates completed a 2009 report, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Continental Oil Company 225 Maple Street” that accurately describes the buildings on the property. The following analysis is based primarily on this document. Warehouse/Office Building: Constructed in the early twentieth century (approximately 1913), this commercial building has remained largely intact. Two non-historic entries on the west elevation replaced earlier doors at these locations. The large wood sliding door at the central entry on the west elevation is still present inside the building, in what appears to have been its original location. In addition, an early if not original dock door on the east elevation is still visible. The shed addition on the south may not be originals to the building, but was constructed by 1925. Other than these alterations, the exterior of the building retains its original size, appearance, brickwork, windows, roof, and other features of architectural significance. Shop/Garage Building: This early twentieth-century building was constructed around 1913. While it retains its basic appearance and historic brickwork and windows, it has been altered by the construction of a large modern addition to the west. This addition appears to have been completed in 1974. The overhead garage doors are old, but do not appear to be original to the building. Pump House: This small building immediately south of the warehouse/office building was constructed in the fall of 1949. The building permit is specifically for a ten foot by fourteen foot masonry pump house with a corrugated iron roof. Non-Extant Buildings and Structures: In addition to these three structures, the bulk plant site also contained standpipes and aboveground oil tanks throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is defined as "the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred." The building is in the location, on this property, where it was originally constructed. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The structure’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. The design still reflects industrial architecture. Standard C: Setting. The setting remains substantially intact. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The original construction materials remain intact and highly visible. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. The structure retains a high level of workmanship. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." This building still evokes the feeling of an industrial site. Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The property sustains a strong association with its past as a commercial, industrial site. HISTORICAL INFORMATION Isaac Eder Blake formed the Continental Oil and Transportation Company in Ogden, Utah in 1875. The company imported kerosene in railroad tank cars to sell to pioneers who previously relied on candles and whale oil to light 3 Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 their homes. In the early years of the company, Blake also constructed the first oil pipeline in California. By 1885, Standard Oil took over Continental Oil and Transportation. At the time of purchase, Continental had become the largest marketer of petroleum products in the Rocky Mountain region. Despite the merger, Continental continued to use their logo, the Continental soldier, and name. While Standard Oil controlled Continental, E. W. Marland struck oil in Ponca City, Oklahoma. This sparked a surge of profitable oil exploration and production in the mid-continental region. The Supreme Court pre-emptively struck down what could have been a monopoly in 1913 when it ordered Standard Oil to surrender Continental Oil and Transportation Company. Around this same time, Continental Oil and Transportation Company developed their property in Fort Collins. This particular oil dealer depot on Block 32 served as a wholesale distributor of refined oil products. The company owned these lots next to the Colorado & Southern railroad tracks as well as some property east of the alleyway, where they had a small warehouse and several tanks. The first mention of Continental Oil Company at the corner of Howes and Maple was in the 1917 city directory; however, the original section of the garage was likely built in 1913. By 1925, Continental Oil found itself in the central business district, which extended from Willow Street to Howes Street, down to Mountain Avenue, and along both sides of College Avenue to Olive Street. Most of the businesses along Mason Street and north of Jefferson Street were either industrial or transportation related. Oil dealer depots, such as Continental Oil Company’s site in Fort Collins, were found along major rail lines because they relied on the trains to bring bulk oil to their operations. For this reason, bulk oil dealers built close to railroads. In Fort Collins, there were nine oil dealer depots, one of which was Continental Oil. The siding, a low- speed track section, serviced Continental Oil on the east side of the property. The siding that serviced Continental Oil also served RISCO, an ice manufacturing plant. The frequency of tank car shipments varied depending on demand, but when the tank car arrived, they would use the small loading dock by the warehouse door to unload. Employees lowered the drums into the basement with the freight elevator. When Robert Fugate owned the plant, he stored packaged produces on the main floor. His shipments of box cars and tank cars of petroleum products came from refineries in Casper, Wyoming. The Continental Oil Company headquarters moved to Ponca City, Oklahoma in 1929 after a merger with Marland Oil Company and became known as Conoco. The company constructed the sheet iron pump house in 1936 for approximately $100. This is most likely the sheet iron addition to the main office/warehouse. The site also contains the brick pump house constructed in the fall of 1949. In 1974, Conoco constructed a bulk station warehouse next to the existing garage. This warehouse, used for storage, was similar in size to the existing garage and measured 24 feet by 30 feet with a height of 12 feet. This was an addition to the existing garage. During the company’s era of ownership of the lots at the corner of Howes Street and Maple Street, circa 1913- 1979, industrial commerce in the immediate area expanded. Despite ownership change in 1980, the site continued to operate as a bulk oil supplier from the early-twentieth century through the early-twenty first century. In 1980, Fugate Oil Company operated on 225 Maple, which also operated as a bulk oil depot. In November of 1981, owner Robert Fugate had another garage constructed in line with the other two that faced Maple Street. This last garage was larger than the other two at 30 feet by 35 feet with a height of 16 feet. Fugate Oil Company continued to operate at this location until 1993. Haiston Oil Company began operating at 225 Maple in 1994, although evidence suggests that Fugate continued to run the operations. Haiston Oil continued operations at this location through 2005. The end of railroad service to these bulk oil dealers led to the demise of these sites close to the railroads. The construction of superhighways, such as I-25, increased demand, larger design of trucks, and increasing use of gasoline pipelines all contributed to the end of railroad service. When Haiston Oil closed, the site remained vacant until the City of Fort Collins purchased it in 2008. In 2014, the City began leasing the former office building to a nonprofit restaurant, The FoCo Café, where patrons set the price for their locally and sustainably sourced meals prepared and served by volunteers in a pay-what-you- can setting. 3 Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Est. 1913, 1936 Architect/Builder: Continental Oil Company Building Materials: Brick, metal, and sandstone Architectural Style: Early twentieth-century industrial storage facility The Tatanka Historical Associates’ completed architectural description in 2009 from the “Historic Preservation Analysis: Continental Oil Company 225 Maple Street” accurately describes the buildings on the property. The following description is based primarily on this document. Location and Grounds: The Continental Oil Company Property at 225 Maple Street is located in the northwest area of Fort Collins’ downtown commercial district. Specifically, it is on the southeast corner of the intersection of Maple Street and North Howes Street (Block 32, Lots 22-28). The property is bordered on the east by an alleyway, on the west by Howes Street, on the north by Maple Street, and on the south by an adjacent industrial shed building, now owned and used by the City of Fort Collins, that was formerly associated with the bulk oil plant operations. Warehouse/Office Building: The primary building on the property is the warehouse/office building, which is located in the northeast corner of the site. The entrance façade of this small, one-story, rectangular, masonry building is on the west elevation. It has a raised basement with poured concrete foundation walls. The exterior walls above the basement level are constructed of cream-painted brickwork laid in common bond coursing, with every sixth course consisting of alternating stretchers and headers. The side-gabled roof is finished with green corrugated metal panels. Short parapet walls along the north and south gable ends are capped with sandstone blocks. The parapet ends project slightly from the roofline at the building’s four corners, where they are supported by brick corbel tables. A brick exterior wall chimney rises up the north elevation, terminating a short distance above the parapet wall. Internal bracing for the brick end walls, apparently with tie rods, is found within the attic. These terminate in decorative star irons that are mounted on the gable end walls just below the parapet. A small louvered attic vent is found at the peak of each end wall. An extension of the roof’s western slope covers an open dock that runs along most of the west elevation. Metal brackets that are bolted to the building’s brick wall support the roof extension. The dock has a raised concrete floor that is reached by way of concrete steps on its north and south ends; however, these have been blocked off. The building is now accessible by a wooden ramp or wooden stairs, both of which are on the west elevation and led to the dock. Heavy metal angle irons protect the leading edge of the dock floor. Projecting southward from the south end of the dock is a ramp with inset metal plates that appear to have been designed for barrels to be rolled up and down on their sides. Three entries are found along the west elevation of the building. The northern entry provides access to the original office area and holds a commercial door with metal frames. The southern entry is centered on the façade and includes a set of two metal-framed sidelights. Inside of this entry is the original wood sliding door with two sets of four lights. Projecting from the south end of the building is a small wood frame shed addition that rests upon a raised concrete foundation. This storage room is finished with a shed roof and it is clad in corrugated metal panels. Its west elevation holds an entry that contains an old wood panel door with six lights. The east elevation of the building holds the loading dock opening. There is a large double door with a pair of four light, one panel single doors. Fenestration on the building is all original. The raised basement holds several pairs of two-light hoppers with wood frames; there are two pairs on the east elevation and two pairs on the north elevation. The main floor holds a combination of four-over-four and six-over-six double hung sash windows, along with a pair of six-light casements. All of these are set in painted wood frames and have sandstone sills. The interior of the building consists of a main floor and full basement. The basement has a concrete floor and exposed concrete foundation walls. It is reached by way of a set of wooden stairs with metal pipe handrails. Heavy timbers that support the center of the building are exposed in the basement. An old freight elevator manufactured 3 Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 5 by the Denver firm of Nock & Garside is present within the building. This elevator is in excellent condition, appears to be intact and operable, and is likely to be one of the oldest and best preserved in the city. The elevator was used to move oil drums back and forth from the main level to the basement storage area. The main floor exhibits original wood floors, exposed brick walls, wood trimwork, and brick segmental arches above the windows. Shop/Garage Building: This building is located to the west of the office building. Its original portion now forms the eastern segment of the building, which has been expanded toward the west. The square original shop or garage faces toward the south. It rests upon a concrete foundation and its exterior walls are constructed of painted brickwork laid in common bond coursing. The roof slopes downward toward the north and is surrounded on the south, east and west by a low brick parapet wall. The parapet is capped by a single course of overlapping tiles that form a visual pattern of standing ridges. The south elevation holds the building’s two identical side-by-side entries, each of which has a single-width overhead metal garage door that is mounted on an angle from top to bottom. This angle appears to provide greater interior overhead clearance for the doors when they are open. The doors have wood surrounds and the remainder of the façade is ornamented with brick banding. The east elevation of the original building holds two sets of large sixteen-light windows with stone sills. Each consists of a central eight-light pivoting window, with four-light fixed windows above and below, all of them set into metal frames. The north elevation of the building consists of a blank brick wall with wood planking horizontally mounted on the lower exterior. West of the original shop/garage are two concrete block additions that may have been constructed in two phases. The first addition occurred in 1974 and the second in 1981. These additions hold two modern man-door entries and three overhead garage doors, all on the south elevation. No windows are present, and the additions have two levels of flat roofs. The interior of the shop/garage building consists of concrete floors and no historic features of note. Pump House: This small rectangular building is located directly south of the office building built in 1949. It faces west and rests upon a concrete foundation. The exterior walls are constructed of brickwork laid in common bond coursing, with every seventh or eighth course constructed of headers. The roof is front-gabled and finished with corrugated metal panels. A metal ventilator is centered on the ridgeline. The façade holds the building’s only entry, which consists of an old wood panel door. The south elevation has a screened vent opening along the floor level, along with a four-light window with painted lights and a concrete sill. The east elevation has the same vent and window as on the south. The interior of the storage shed consists solely of a concrete floor, finished walls, shelving, and covered windows. 3 Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 6 3 Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 7 STAFF EVALUATION Staff finds that the Continental Oil Company Property qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standards A and C for its history relating to the oil industry in Fort Collins and twentieth-century industrial architecture. The structure continues to uphold a preponderance of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission finds that the Continental Oil Company Property meets one or more of the criteria for Fort Collins landmark designation, the Commission shall adopt the following motion: That the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the Continental Oil Company Property as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards A and C for its history relating to the oil industry, twentieth-century industrial architecture, and preponderance of exterior integrity. If the Commission finds that the Continental Oil Company Property does not meet the criteria for landmark designation, it shall adopt a motion to this effect, and state its reasoning. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map - Updated (PDF) 2. 225 Maple Designation (DOC) 3. Staff Presentation - 225 Maple Landmark Designation (PDF) 4. 1976 aerial_225 Mathews_from Railmodel Journal March 1997_p.9 (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 23 Maple Street Howes Street 0 40 80 160 240 Feet ± Mason Street 3.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Location Map - Updated (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 225 Maple Street Legal Description: The legal description has not been finalized at this time. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Continental Oil Company Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: City of Fort Collins, Colorado Address: P. O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Contact: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager, bhergott@fcgov.com, 970-221-6804. CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other Nonprofit FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Contact: cbumgarner@fcgov.com; 970-416-4250 Relationship to Owner: None. DATE: 04/05/2017 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.41 0 970.22 4- fax fcgov.c 3.b Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The property contains a historic warehouse/office building, shop/garage building, and pump house. The legal description has not been finalized at this time. SIGNIFICANCE: Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, state or nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: Describe why the property is significant and how it possesses exterior integrity. The Continental Oil Company Building is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Significance Standard A, for its association with the early industrial growth of the early twentieth-century near the railroads and river; and Standard C for its early twentieth-century design characteristics. The building retains a strong preponderance of exterior integrity under all seven aspects of integrity, A through G. Tatanka Historical Associates completed a 2009 report, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Continental Oil Company 225 Maple Street” that accurately describes the buildings on the property. The following analysis is based primarily on this document. Warehouse/Office Building: Constructed in the early twentieth century (approximately 1913), this commercial building has remained largely intact. Two non-historic entries on the west elevation replaced earlier doors at these locations. 3.b Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 3 The large wood sliding door at the central entry on the west elevation is still present inside the building, in what appears to have been its original location. In addition, an early if not original dock door on the east elevation is still visible. The shed addition on the south may not be originals to the building, but was constructed by 1925. Other than these alterations, the exterior of the building retains its original size, appearance, brickwork, windows, roof, and other features of architectural significance. Shop/Garage Building: This early twentieth-century building was constructed around 1913. While it retains its basic appearance and historic brickwork and windows, it has been altered by the construction of a large modern addition to the west. This addition appears to have been completed in 1974. The overhead garage doors are old, but do not appear to be original to the building. Pump House: This small building immediately south of the warehouse/office building was constructed in the fall of 1949. The building permit is specifically for a ten foot by fourteen foot masonry pump house with a corrugated iron roof. Non-Extant Buildings and Structures: In addition to these three structures, the bulk plant site also contained standpipes and aboveground oil tanks throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is defined as "the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred." The building is in the location, on this property, where it was originally constructed. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The structure’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. The design still reflects industrial architecture. Standard C: Setting. The setting remains substantially intact. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The original construction materials remain intact and highly visible. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. The structure retains a high level of workmanship. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." This building still evokes the feeling of an industrial site. Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The property sustains a strong association with its past as a commercial, industrial site. HISTORICAL INFORMATION Isaac Eder Blake formed the Continental Oil and Transportation Company in Ogden, Utah in 1875. The company imported kerosene in railroad tank cars to sell to pioneers who previously relied on candles and whale oil to light their homes. In the early years of the company, Blake also constructed the first oil pipeline in California.1 1 “Our History,” ConocoPhillips, accessed at http://www.conocophillips.com/who-we-are/our-legacy/history/Pages/1909-1875.aspx. 3.b Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 4 By 1885, Standard Oil took over Continental Oil and Transportation. At the time of purchase, Continental had become the largest marketer of petroleum products in the Rocky Mountain region. Despite the merger, Continental continued to use their logo, the Continental soldier, and name. While Standard Oil controlled Continental, E. W. Marland struck oil in Ponca City, Oklahoma. This sparked a surge of profitable oil exploration and production in the mid-continental region.2 The Supreme Court pre-emptively struck down what could have been a monopoly in 1913 when it ordered Standard Oil to surrender Continental Oil and Transportation Company. Around this same time, Continental Oil and Transportation Company developed their property in Fort Collins. This particular oil dealer depot on Block 32 served as a wholesale distributor of refined oil products. The company owned these lots next to the Colorado & Southern railroad tracks as well as some property east of the alleyway, where they had a small warehouse and several tanks. The first mention of Continental Oil Company at the corner of Howes and Maple was in the 1917 city directory; however, the original section of the garage was likely built in 1913.3 By 1925, Continental Oil found itself in the central business district, which extended from Willow Street to Howes Street, down to Mountain Avenue, and along both sides of College Avenue to Olive Street.4 Most of the businesses along Mason Street and north of Jefferson Street were either industrial or transportation related.5 Oil dealer depots, such as Continental Oil Company’s site in Fort Collins, were found along major rail lines because they relied on the trains to bring bulk oil to their operations. For this reason, bulk oil dealers built close to railroads. In Fort Collins, there were nine oil dealer depots, one of which was Continental Oil. The siding, a low-speed track section, serviced Continental Oil on the east side of the property. The siding that serviced Continental Oil also served RISCO, an ice manufacturing plant. The frequency of tank car shipments varied depending on demand, but when the tank car arrived, they would use the small loading dock by the warehouse door to unload. Employees lowered the drums into the basement with the freight elevator. When Robert Fugate owned the plant, he stored packaged produces on the main floor. His shipments of box cars and tank cars of petroleum products came from refineries in Casper, Wyoming.6 The Continental Oil Company headquarters moved to Ponca City, Oklahoma in 1929 after a merger with Marland Oil Company and became known as Conoco. The company constructed the sheet iron pump house in 1936 for approximately $100.7 This is most likely the sheet iron addition to the main office/warehouse. The site also contains the brick pump house constructed in the fall of 1949.8 In 1974, Conoco constructed a bulk station warehouse next to the existing garage. This warehouse, used for storage, was similar in size to the existing garage and measured 24 feet by 30 feet with a height of 12 feet.9 This was an addition to the existing garage. During the company’s era of ownership of the lots at the corner of Howes Street and Maple Street, circa 1913-1979, industrial commerce in the immediate area expanded.10 Despite ownership change in 1980, the site continued to operate as a bulk oil supplier from the early-twentieth century through the early- twenty first century. 2 Ibid. 3 Courier’s Larimer County Directory 1917 (Colorado Springs, Colorado: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1917), 72; Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Continental Oil Company 225 Maple Street,” July 15, 2009, 4. 4 “Post World War I Urban Growth, 1919-1941,” History Connection, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/archive/contexts/post.php 5 Ibid. 6 Arthur R. Mitchell “Oil Dealer Depots,” Railmodel Journal (March 1997), 10-15. 7 Building Permit 4162, January 30, 1936, http://history.poudrelibraries.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/bp&CISOPTR=16002&CISOBOX=1&REC=4. 8 Building Permit 11500, November 14, 1949, Building Permit Book 155, available at the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 9 Building Permit 21172, January 25, 1974, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=2&docid=101302&dt=PERMITS; Plot Plan, January 25, 1974, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=2&docid=101314&dt=SITE+PLANS. 10 These dates come from research through the city directories, available only at history.poudrelibraries.org or at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives. 3.b Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 5 In 1980, Fugate Oil Company operated on 225 Maple, which also operated as a bulk oil depot. In November of 1981, owner Robert Fugate had another garage constructed in line with the other two that faced Maple Street. This last garage was larger than the other two at 30 feet by 35 feet with a height of 16 feet.11 Fugate Oil Company continued to operate at this location until 1993. Haiston Oil Company began operating at 225 Maple in 1994, although evidence suggests that Fugate continued to run the operations.12 Haiston Oil continued operations at this location through 2005.13 The end of railroad service to these bulk oil dealers led to the demise of these sites close to the railroads. The construction of superhighways, such as I-25, increased demand, larger design of trucks, and increasing use of gasoline pipelines all contributed to the end of railroad service. When Haiston Oil closed, the site remained vacant until the City of Fort Collins purchased it in 2008.14 In 2014, the City began leasing the former office building to a nonprofit restaurant, The FoCo Café, where patrons set the price for their locally and sustainably sourced meals prepared and served by volunteers in a pay-what-you-can setting. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Est. 1913, 1936 Architect/Builder: Continental Oil Company Building Materials: Brick, metal, and sandstone Architectural Style: Early twentieth-century industrial storage facility The Tatanka Historical Associates’ completed architectural description in 2009 from the “Historic Preservation Analysis: Continental Oil Company 225 Maple Street” accurately describes the buildings on the property. The following description is based primarily on this document. Location and Grounds: The Continental Oil Company Property at 225 Maple Street is located in the northwest area of Fort Collins’ downtown commercial district. Specifically, it is on the southeast corner of the intersection of Maple Street and North Howes Street (Block 32, Lots 22-28). The property is bordered on the east by an alleyway, on the west by Howes Street, on the north by Maple Street, and on the south by an adjacent industrial shed building, now owned and used by the City of Fort Collins, that was formerly associated with the bulk oil plant operations. Warehouse/Office Building: The primary building on the property is the warehouse/office building, which is located in the northeast corner of the site.15 The entrance façade of this small, one-story, rectangular, masonry building is on the west elevation. It has a raised basement with poured concrete foundation walls. The exterior walls above the basement level are constructed of cream-painted brickwork laid in common bond coursing, with every sixth course consisting of alternating stretchers and headers. The side-gabled roof is finished with green corrugated metal panels. Short parapet walls along the north and south gable ends are capped with sandstone blocks. The parapet ends project slightly from the roofline at the building’s four corners, where they are supported by brick corbel tables. A brick exterior wall chimney rises up the north elevation, terminating a short distance above the parapet wall. Internal bracing for the brick end walls, apparently with tie rods, is found within the attic. These terminate in decorative star irons that are mounted on the gable end walls just below the parapet. A small louvered attic vent is found at the peak of each end wall. 11 Building Permit 7274, November 23, 1981, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=2&docid=101308&dt=PERMITS. 12 Arthur R. Mitchell “Oil Dealer Depots,” Railmodel Journal (March 1997), 9-17. 13 These dates come from research through the city directories, available only at history.poudrelibraries.org or at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives. Online city directories end with the 2005 Cole Directory. 14 Purchase Order Number: 8857218, December 2, 2008, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=10&docid=1362196&dt=PURCHASE+ORDER. 15 This building is now used as the restaurant FoCo Café. 3.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 6 An extension of the roof’s western slope covers an open dock that runs along most of the west elevation. Metal brackets that are bolted to the building’s brick wall support the roof extension. The dock has a raised concrete floor that is reached by way of concrete steps on its north and south ends; however, these have been blocked off. The building is now accessible by a wooden ramp or wooden stairs, both of which are on the west elevation and led to the dock. Heavy metal angle irons protect the leading edge of the dock floor. Projecting southward from the south end of the dock is a ramp with inset metal plates that appear to have been designed for barrels to be rolled up and down on their sides. Three entries are found along the west elevation of the building. The northern entry provides access to the original office area and holds a commercial door with metal frames. The southern entry is centered on the façade and includes a set of two metal-framed sidelights.16 Inside of this entry is the original wood sliding door with two sets of four lights. Projecting from the south end of the building is a small wood frame shed addition that rests upon a raised concrete foundation. This storage room is finished with a shed roof and it is clad in corrugated metal panels. Its west elevation holds an entry that contains an old wood panel door with six lights. The east elevation of the building holds the loading dock opening. There is a large double door with a pair of four light, one panel single doors. Fenestration on the building is all original. The raised basement holds several pairs of two-light hoppers with wood frames; there are two pairs on the east elevation and two pairs on the north elevation. The main floor holds a combination of four-over-four and six-over-six double hung sash windows, along with a pair of six-light casements. All of these are set in painted wood frames and have sandstone sills. The interior of the building consists of a main floor and full basement. The basement has a concrete floor and exposed concrete foundation walls. It is reached by way of a set of wooden stairs with metal pipe handrails. Heavy timbers that support the center of the building are exposed in the basement. An old freight elevator manufactured by the Denver firm of Nock & Garside is present within the building. This elevator is in excellent condition, appears to be intact and operable, and is likely to be one of the oldest and best preserved in the city. The elevator was used to move oil drums back and forth from the main level to the basement storage area. The main floor exhibits original wood floors, exposed brick walls, wood trimwork, and brick segmental arches above the windows. Shop/Garage Building: This building is located to the west of the office building. Its original portion now forms the eastern segment of the building, which has been expanded toward the west. The square original shop or garage faces toward the south. It rests upon a concrete foundation and its exterior walls are constructed of painted brickwork laid in common bond coursing. The roof slopes downward toward the north and is surrounded on the south, east and west by a low brick parapet wall. The parapet is capped by a single course of overlapping tiles that form a visual pattern of standing ridges. The south elevation holds the building’s two identical side-by-side entries, each of which has a single- width overhead metal garage door that is mounted on an angle from top to bottom. This angle appears to provide greater interior overhead clearance for the doors when they are open. The doors have wood surrounds and the remainder of the façade is ornamented with brick banding. The east elevation of the original building holds two sets of large sixteen-light windows with stone sills. Each consists of a central eight-light pivoting window, with four-light fixed windows above and below, all of them set into metal frames. The north elevation of the building consists of a blank brick wall with wood planking horizontally mounted on the lower exterior. West of the original shop/garage are two concrete block additions that may have been constructed in two phases. The first addition occurred in 1974 and the second in 1981. These additions hold two modern man-door entries and three overhead garage doors, all on the south elevation. No windows are present, and the additions have two levels of flat roofs. 16 A poured concrete ramp with metal railing was constructed in 2014. The details can be found in Fort Collins Building Permit No. B1402700. The ADA access ramp is unattached to the entry. 3.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 7 The interior of the shop/garage building consists of concrete floors and no historic features of note. Pump House: This small rectangular building is located directly south of the office building built in 1949. It faces west and rests upon a concrete foundation. The exterior walls are constructed of brickwork laid in common bond coursing, with every seventh or eighth course constructed of headers. The roof is front- gabled and finished with corrugated metal panels. A metal ventilator is centered on the ridgeline. The façade holds the building’s only entry, which consists of an old wood panel door. The south elevation has a screened vent opening along the floor level, along with a four-light window with painted lights and a concrete sill. The east elevation has the same vent and window as on the south. The interior of the storage shed consists solely of a concrete floor, finished walls, shelving, and covered windows. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) City of Fort Collins building permits, 2014, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 8 City of Fort Collins city directories, 1917, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. Conoco Phillips. “Our History.” Accessed March 27, 2015. http://www.conocophillips.com/who-we- are/our-legacy/history/Pages/default.aspx Fort Collins Public Library, Local History Archive (online). “Sugar Beets, Streetcar Suburbs, and the City Beautiful, 1900-1919.” History Connection. Accessed March 27, 2015. http://history.fcgov.com/archive/contexts/sugar.php. Larimer County Tax Assessor Records. Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Continental Oil Company 225 Maple Street.” July 15, 2009. City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. Tunner, Carol, “North College Avenue Historical Research for the North College Avenue Study.” December, 1993. City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. 3.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 9 3.b Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 10 3.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 11 3.b Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 12 3.b Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 13 225 Maple Street AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________ day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________ day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary 3.b Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 225 Maple Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 1 1 Continental Oil Company Property, 225 Maple Street— Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 4.19.2017 419 Mathews • Constructed circa 1913 • Standard A: Associated with oil industry in Fort Collins • Standard C: Embodies characteristics of a early-twentieth century industrial architecture • Exterior Integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association 2 3.c Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 225 Maple Landmark Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 2 Location and Context 3 225 Maple 2009 2017 3.c Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 225 Maple Landmark Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 3 225 Maple West elevation West elevation 225 Maple Southelevation elevation Northwest 3.c Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 225 Maple Landmark Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 4 225 Maple 7 Pump House Garage Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:” • Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark • Must possess both significance and exterior integrity • Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered Sec. 14-22(a): If all owners consent in writing, and a majority of Commission approves: • Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation 8 3.c Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 225 Maple Landmark Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 5 9 Continental Oil Company Property, 225 Maple Street— Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 4.19.2017 3.c Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 225 Maple Landmark Designation (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 1976 aerial, 225 Mathews 3.d Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 1976 aerial_225 Mathews_from Railmodel Journal March 1997_p.9 (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) DESCRIPTION OF TWO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENVELOPES FOR 225 MAPLE STREET TWO PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING LOCATED WITHIN LOTS 22, 23, 24 AND 25 BLOCK 32, TOWN OF FORT COLLINS AND WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHTS OF WAY OF MAPLE STREET AND OF THE ADJACENT ALLEY; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 1, CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING SUBDIVISION AND CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1 TO BEAR S00°15'40"W AS SHOWN ON THE LAND SURVEY PLAT OF BLOCK 32 RECORDED MARCH 1, 2013 AT RECEPTION NO. 20130016329 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON BOTH ENDS BY A NAIL AND ONE-INCH DIAMETER BRASS TAG STAMPED LS 14823, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N88°24'45"W, A DISTANCE OF 19. 75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S00°20'21"W, A DISTANCE OF 75.97 FEET; THENCE N89°39'20"W, A DISTANCE OF 40.20 FEET; THENCE N00°24'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 75.95 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS POINT"A"; THENCE S89°41'21"E, A DISTANCE OF 40.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: COMMENCING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT "A"; THENCE N88°42'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 25.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 27.45 FEET; THENCE N89°26'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 24.42 FEET; THENCE N00°43'36"E, A DISTANCE OF 27.32 FEET; THENCE S89°45'35"E, A DISTANCE OF 24.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCELS CONTAIN A TOTAL 3,719 SQUARE FEET (0.070 ACRES), MORE OR LESS, AND ARE SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS DESCRIPTION THAT ALL HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDINGS BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCELS. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 S:\Englneerlng\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\Historic Pres Blocks 32&42\ Legals\Foco Cafe Bldg lgl.doc Exhibit A Attachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Packet Pg. 43-1 l j � g ID � U) C) ir � 0.. � 8, � � � C)g ID U) C) ll'.w 0.. ir � � "' 'lil 0 .. I j ID 0.. � <) I g, :I: c :a ii: in i e' i � i 'C � i i "i � ! &j EXHIBIT OF TWO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENVELOPES FOR 225 MAPLE STREET, LOCATED IN BLOCK 32, TOWN OF FORT COLLINS AND IN THE EXISTING RIGHTS OF WAY OF MAPLE STREET AND OF THE ADJACENT ALLEY N APRIL 14, 2017 1"=30' AUGMENT THIS GRAPHICAl.l.EXHIBIT'S THE Y REPRESENT ATTACHED SOLE INTENT PROPERlY AND IS TO DESCRIPTION. REPRESENT SURVEY AS A DEFINED IT MONUMENTED DOES IN NOT C.R.S. LAND DISCREPANCIES EXHIBIT 38-51-102. AND THE IN BETWEEN THE ATTACHED EVENT THIS OF INFORMATION ATTACHED PROPERlY PROPERlY DESCRIPTION, CONTAINED DESCRIPTION THE WITHIN THE SHOULD BE RELIED UPON. MAPLE STREET POINT PARCEL BEGINNING OF 1 N88"42'oo·w N88'24' 45•w S89'4S'35"E 24.42' 25.82 /19.74' ..... 7 S89'41'21"E .... ... . N0°43136•E 27.32' LOTS CITY REC. 22-OF NO. 28, FORT 20080079824 BLOCK COWNS 32, TOWN OF FORT COWNS NOTE: :I: 'Jo· ..,� �,..: • N i Nss·39'2o·w 40.20• NORTHERN SURVEY BEARINGS PLAT ARE ENGINEERING OF BASED BLOCK ON RECORDED 32 THE BY LAND Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 212 LAPORTE AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory, a midcentury commercial building that is significant for its connection to the dairy industry in Fort Collins and its Modernist architecture with Googie-style influences. APPLICANT: Kenneth Mannon, Operations Services Director OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard A, for its association with the dairy industry, and Standard C, for the building’s Modernist architecture with Googie- influenced design elements. Built in the late 1950s, the dairy products laboratory served as a place for Dairy Gold to test their dairy products. The building retains its original architectural features. Prominent among these are its V- shaped (“upswept”) cantilevered roof, exposed beams, plate glass windows, rectangular stacked bond parapet, and the employment of concrete bricks. To top off its unusual style, the building was oriented on a diagonal rather in relation to standard north-south compass points. These features all distinguish this small building in relation to its surroundings. Because it has experienced few alterations, the building exhibits a high degree of integrity in relation to its historic architecture. The current owner of this property, the City of Fort Collins Operation Services Department, has submitted an application requesting consideration for Fort Collins local landmark designation. COMMISSION ACTION Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures,” provides the process and standards for designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Commission shall adopt a motion providing a recommendation on eligibility to City Council. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY 4 Packet Pg. 44 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 The Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Significance Standard A, for its association with the twentieth-century dairy industry in Fort Collins; and Standard C, for the building’s Modernist architecture with Googie-influenced design elements, which represents the trend as expressed in this community in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The building retains a strong preponderance of exterior integrity under five of the seven aspects of integrity, Standards B, D, E, F and G. While the building has lost some integrity because it is no longer in the same location on the site and because its original setting has changed from a dairy to a municipal government setting, the overall integrity of the building is intact. It has experienced no major alterations, continues to express its historic architectural style, and conveys association with the former use of the site as the last remaining physical dairy structure from that era. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is defined as "the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred." The structure has been shifted to the east, and is not in the location where it was originally constructed; however, it is still located on the original property it is historically associated with, is oriented in the same location, and retains a comparable historic setback to its original setback. A nearby marker denotes the original location. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The structure’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. The design still embodies the eccentric, eye-catching midcentury Googie style. Standard C: Setting. The setting does not remain substantially intact. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The original construction materials remain intact and highly visible. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. The structure retains a high level of workmanship, seen in the Googie style details of the building including, but not limited to, the cantilevered roof and large windows. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." This building still evokes the feeling of the automobile-oriented roadside culture of the mid-twentieth century. Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The property sustains a strong association with its past as a laboratory for the development and testing of dairy products in the mid-twentieth century. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The report “Historic Preservation Analysis: Riverside Ice and Storage Co. 222 Laporte Avenue” (2009) by Tatanka Historical Associates describes the historical context for this building. The following analysis is based primarily on this document. According to the report, local businessman James F. Vandewark launched a natural ice delivery business in Fort Collins in the early 1890s. This business would eventually expand into an artificial ice plant and move to 222 Laporte Avenue. Natural ice delivery was a seasonal operation based on harvesting ice during the winter from lakes and ponds. The ice was only available during the colder months and contained impurities. Although natural ice blocks could be packed and store for a long time, this was a product whose reliability and cleanliness was important to every home and some businesses as well. At that time, ice blocks were delivered throughout the city and surrounding region by horse-drawn wagon. 4 Packet Pg. 45 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 In 1902, Vandewark built an artificial ice plant on Riverside Avenue and began to offer year round service. The business thrived, supplying customers throughout the Fort Collins area with blocks for their iceboxes. In 1909, Vandewark incorporated the firm as the Riverside Ice & Storage Company (RISCO). In 1910, the Union Pacific Railroad became interested in the RISCO site along Riverside Avenue as it purchased right-of-way into the city. Vandewark sold the property to the railroad and then acquired several lots on Laporte Avenue west of Mason Street, where he planned to relocate his business. This property was already occupied by a two-story building that housed the Fort Collins Planing Mill Company. The mill was demolished to make room for Vandewark’s new RISCO ice and cold storage plant, the three-story core of which was completed in 1912. With a new industrial facility and state-of-the-art machinery, Vandewark proceeded to turn RISCO into a significant Fort Collins commercial enterprise offering a variety of products and services reliant upon refrigeration and cold storage. The three-story brick warehouse building included several refrigerated rooms, some of which were lined with 4”-thick cork insulation to keep the artificial ice blocks from melting. While the most heavily insulated rooms were designed to store ice, others were intended to hold fresh fruit, vegetables, poultry and eggs. These perishable farm products were offered to area customers, who could call the plant and place orders for delivery along with their ice blocks. RISCO provided Larimer County farmers with an outlet for their produce and poultry products, and Vandewark became a successful middleman between the farm and the customer. One cold room was set aside for the storage of ladies furs, where they were protected from moths. Many of the city’s women placed their furs with the company during the summer months. Another room on the top floor was designed for dry storage. Access to all of these levels, as well as a basement storage room, was by way of an interior freight elevator. The front dock area allowed several delivery trucks (gasoline-powered trucks replaced the earlier horse-drawn wagons) to be loaded or off-loaded at a time. Installed in 1914, the ice cream operation produced seven hundred gallons of product daily. This arm of the RISCO business rapidly became popular among the city’s residents. In 1914, RISCO employed ten men full-time at the plant, and another six were added during the summer months. Expansion of the original building continued with several early brick additions to the north. By 1917 the facility was at least three-quarters of its eventual maximum size. In addition to the cold storage warehouse, the expanded plant contained offices, an ice plant that used distilled water, an ice cream production room, a boiler room, brine tanks, and shop space. Housed in what was then the northwest room, the ice machine was capable of producing thirty tons of ice each day. It operated twenty-four hours a day throughout most of the year. The plant was powered by steam produced by two large boilers and it had electric lights from the beginning. The firm also offered its customers fine-grade heating coal, garden and field seeds, and a selection of home iceboxes. By 1925, the facility expanded again with a northwest vehicle garage along the rear alley. Sometime around 1920, a filling station was constructed on the south edge of the property along the north side of Laporte Avenue. Known as the RISCO Filling Station, this facility sold fuel to local drivers and also provided oils, tires, and automotive service. In the immediate area, there were several gasoline and oil companies, such as Continental Oil Company, Sinclair Oil Company, Starkey Oil and Gas Company, and Texas Company. Between 1925 and 1943, the company constructed the seven-vehicle garage in the southwest corner of the property to store its delivery vehicles. By the early 1940s, the RISCO ice and cold storage plant had been expanded again, this time with the construction of a front office along with a cream station room on its west side. Starting in the 1920s, electric refrigerators became available to American households and businesses. Over the following two decades, millions of the units were purchased and customers cancelled their ice block delivery service. With the ice market declining, RISCO became increasingly dependent upon its dairy products business. During the World War II era, the business either changed its name or was acquired by another dairy products company and it became known as Dairy Gold Foods. The 1948 City Directory is the first to list the company as Dairy Gold Foods Company. The facility produced not only ice cream, but expanded into the production, packaging and delivery of milk, butter and other dairy products. At some point in the late 1950s, the company razed the old gasoline station in front of the building on Laporte Avenue and constructed a small building on the same spot, to be used as a dairy products laboratory. The dairy products laboratory served as a place for Dairy Gold to test dairy products. Purifying dairy products and agricultural reform escalated beginning in the 1930s. Historian Kendra Smith-Howard noted, “The environment in which milk was produced remained relevant to health reformers’ 4 Packet Pg. 46 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 assessment of milk’s purity even as bacteriology and laboratory methods revolutionized public health.” The building was also used as Dairy Gold’s “drive-thru dairy bar,” as the caption on a 1957 vintage milk bottle attests. By the early 1960s, Dairy Gold Foods appears to have gone out of business and the plant on Laporte Avenue was temporarily closed. The facility sat vacant until 1964 when it was acquired by the Poudre Valley Creamery, whose main facility had been located a few blocks to the east along Jefferson Street since the 1950s. Poudre Valley Creamery occupied the site on Laporte Avenue and brought the plant back into production. The company used the laboratory building as a depot for the delivery route drivers and as a retail store and office space throughout the years. Poudre Valley Creamery continued to operate the facility until 2001, when Suiza Foods of Texas purchased the firm and then permanently closed all of its Fort Collins operations. The City of Fort Collins has owned the property since 2001. In 2011, the City completed the demolition of the main brick creamery building after assessing the structural integrity of the buildings on the site. Construction of the City’s new Utilities Administration Building at 222 Laporte Avenue was completed in fall 2016. The three-story structure incorporates salvaged bricks from the demolished creamery building. The historic laboratory building, known colloquially as the “butterfly” building due to the shape of the cantilevered roof, remains on the site in a new location 100 feet east of the original location, with the original diagonal orientation to the street preserved. The building’s new address is 212 Laporte Avenue. The original location of the building is marked permanently in the pavement in front of the new City administration building, and an interpretive brass sign detailing the history of the laboratory building and its relationship to the original site history and layout is installed at the site. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION The building retains its original Modernist architectural features, many of which are influenced by Googie design. Prominent architectural features are its V-shaped (“upswept”) cantilevered roof, exposed beams, plate glass windows, rectangular stacked bond parapet, and the employment of concrete bricks. To top off its unusual style, the building was oriented on a diagonal rather in relation to standard north-south compass points. These features all distinguish this small building in relation to its surroundings. Because it has experienced few alterations, the building exhibits a high degree of integrity in relation to its historic architecture. This small building was originally located across the parking lot to the south of the site of the main factory building, which the City of Fort Collins razed in 2011. The building was moved approximately 100 feet to the east, which made room for the new administration and customer service building for Fort Collins Utilities. The City of Fort Collins moved the building to raise the building out of the floodplain and place it in a prominent location for the redevelopment of Block 32 as a municipal administration site. The square, one-story building was placed at the same diagonal angle from the street front as the original location and faces toward the south-southeast. It rests upon a raised concrete plinth which forms its foundation. Its exterior walls are constructed of oversized concrete bricks that are primarily laid in stretcher bond coursing. The southwest corner is laid in stacked bond coursing, forming a three-sided wall that rises above the roofline. The cantilevered roof is V-shaped and supported by three beams that run on a north-south axis. Its wide boxed eaves are finished with wood fascia boards, single bands of circular ventilation holes, and circa 1960s double spotlight fixtures. A historical photograph indicates that the building previously had a Dairy Gold sign attached to the columnar parapet on the building’s facade. The prominence, form, and bright coloring of the sign were characteristic of the whimsical Space Age elements found on Googie style buildings in the mid-twentieth century. The photograph, which was taken in the late 1950s, shows the building painted white with red contrasting trim. A later photograph indicates the building was repainted at some point in a different color scheme of aqua and yellow trim against the white building. Most recently, the building has been painted with a light grey body and dark grey trim. The original form of the sign was reconstructed and attached to the parapet. . The main entry to the building is found on its south elevation. This holds a commercial door with three square lights. The entry includes a wood frame and a single-light angled transom that opens to the interior as a hopper window. In front of this entry is a small two-step concrete stoop. On the north rear elevation the building entry originally included a slab door positioned directly under the intersection of the upswept roof elements. To make the rear door more useful as a service entrance, the City of Fort Collins enlarged the opening by approximately one- 4 Packet Pg. 47 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 5 foot, moved it several feet to the east, and installed a new door with a single light window. Fenestration on the building is dominated by a tall band of five fixed windows that wrap around its southeast corner. The south elevation windows consist of two lights. On the east elevation they are single lights. A similar tall single-light window is found on the west elevation. These are all set into wood frames and have concrete sills. Also found on the west elevation is a small two-light sliding window. This is set in a wood frame and has a brick rowlock sill. On the north elevation, the only window is a small single-light window with a wood frame. The structure was designed to hold a creamery laboratory in the late 1950s. The interior of the building was separated into a main area, an office, and a restroom. The floors were finished with ceramic tiles, the walls exhibit the concrete brickwork, and the ceiling and interior walls were finished with plaster or drywall. The lower wood beam of the V-shaped roof is exposed and supported by a metal pipe post. A wood panel door with a single light was found on the office with the word “Office” painted on the door. In 2016, the City of Fort Collins altered the interior configuration and finishing materials to prepare the building for new tenant occupancy. The new layout has a restroom in the front as well as dining space. The kitchen and storage remain at the rear of the building. The exterior brick has been painted light gray. STAFF EVALUATION Staff finds that the Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standards A and C as a great example of a Modernist building with Googie-influenced design elements, with a preponderance of exterior integrity. The structure continues to uphold a preponderance of integrity of materials, association, design, feeling, and workmanship. SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission finds that the Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory meets one or more of the criteria for Fort Collins landmark designation, the Commission shall adopt the following motion: That the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards A and C for its history relating to the dairy industry and the building’s Modernist architecture with Googie-influenced design elements, and for the building’s preponderance of exterior integrity. If the Commission finds that the Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory does not meet the criteria for landmark designation, it shall adopt a motion to this effect, and state its reasoning. ATTACHMENTS 1. 212 Laporte Location Map (PDF) 2. 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (DOC) 3. Staff Presentation - 212 Laporte Landmark Designation - for packet (PDF) 4. Exhibit A - Legal Description (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 48 4.a nt: 212 Laporte Location Map (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 212 Laporte Avenue (formerly 222 Laporte Avenue Avenue) Legal Description: The legal description has not been finalized at this time. Property Name (historic and/or common): Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory Other Names (historic and/or common): Poudre Valley Creamery Laboratory; “Butterfly” Building OWNER INFORMATION: Name: City of Fort Collins, Colorado Address: P. O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Contact: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager, bhergott@fcgov.com, 970-221-6804. CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Contact: cbumgarner@fcgov.com; 970-416-4250 Relationship to Owner: None. DATE: 04/05/2017 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.41 0 970.22 4- fax fcgov.c 4.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: This designation is for the footprint of the Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory. The legal description has not been finalized at this time. SIGNIFICANCE: Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, state or nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: Describe why the property is significant and how it possesses exterior integrity. The Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Significance Standard A, for its association with the twentieth-century dairy industry in Fort Collins; and Standard C, for the building’s Googie-style design and construction, which well represents the trend as expressed in this community in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The building retains a strong preponderance of exterior integrity under five of the seven aspects of integrity, Standards B, D, E, F and G. While the building has lost some integrity because it is no longer in the same location on the site and because its original setting has changed from a dairy to a municipal government setting, the overall integrity of the building is intact. It has experienced no major alterations, continues to express its historic architectural style, and conveys association with the former use of the site as the last remaining physical dairy structure from that era. 4.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 3 The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is defined as "the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred." The structure is not in the location, on this property, where it was originally constructed; however, this is now a marker in the original location. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The structure’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. The design still embodies the eccentric, eye-catching midcentury Googie style. Standard C: Setting. The setting does not remain substantially intact. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The original construction materials remain intact and highly visible. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. The structure retains a high level of workmanship, seen in the Googie style details of the building including, but not limited to, the cantilevered roof and large windows. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." This building still evokes the feeling of the automobile- oriented roadside culture of the mid-twentieth century. Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The property sustains a strong association with its past as a laboratory for the development and testing of dairy products in the mid-twentieth century. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The report “Historic Preservation Analysis: Riverside Ice and Storage Co. 222 Laporte Avenue” (2009) by Tatanka Historical Associates describes the historical context for this building. The following analysis is based primarily on this document. According to the report, local businessman James F. Vandewark launched a natural ice delivery business in Fort Collins in the early 1890s. This business would eventually expand into an artificial ice plant and move to 222 Laporte Avenue. Natural ice delivery was a seasonal operation based on harvesting ice during the winter from lakes and ponds. The ice was only available during the colder months and contained impurities. Although natural ice blocks could be packed and store for a long time, this was a product whose reliability and cleanliness was important to every home and some businesses as well. At that time, ice blocks were delivered throughout the city and surrounding region by horse-drawn wagon. In 1902, Vandewark built an artificial ice plant on Riverside Avenue and began to offer year round service. The business thrived, supplying customers throughout the Fort Collins area with blocks for their iceboxes. In 1909, Vandewark incorporated the firm as the Riverside Ice & Storage Company (RISCO). In 1910, the Union Pacific Railroad became interested in the RISCO site along Riverside Avenue as it purchased right-of- way into the city. Vandewark sold the property to the railroad and then acquired several lots on Laporte Avenue west of Mason Street, where he planned to relocate his business. This property was already occupied by a two-story building that housed the Fort Collins Planing Mill Company. The mill was demolished to make room for Vandewark’s new RISCO ice and cold storage plant, the three-story core of which was completed in 1912. 4.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 4 With a new industrial facility and state-of-the-art machinery, Vandewark proceeded to turn RISCO into a significant Fort Collins commercial enterprise offering a variety of products and services reliant upon refrigeration and cold storage. The three-story brick warehouse building included several refrigerated rooms, some of which were lined with 4”-thick cork insulation to keep the artificial ice blocks from melting. While the most heavily insulated rooms were designed to store ice, others were intended to hold fresh fruit, vegetables, poultry and eggs. These perishable farm products were offered to area customers, who could call the plant and place orders for delivery along with their ice blocks. RISCO provided Larimer County farmers with an outlet for their produce and poultry products, and Vandewark became a successful middleman between the farm and the customer. One cold room was set aside for the storage of ladies furs, where they were protected from moths. Many of the city’s women placed their furs with the company during the summer months. Another room on the top floor was designed for dry storage. Access to all of these levels, as well as a basement storage room, was by way of an interior freight elevator. The front dock area allowed several delivery trucks (gasoline- powered trucks replaced the earlier horse-drawn wagons) to be loaded or off-loaded at a time. Installed in 1914, the ice cream operation produced seven hundred gallons of product daily. This arm of the RISCO business rapidly became popular among the city’s residents. In 1914, RISCO employed ten men full-time at the plant, and another six were added during the summer months. Expansion of the original building continued with several early brick additions to the north. By 1917 the facility was at least three-quarters of its eventual maximum size. In addition to the cold storage warehouse, the expanded plant contained offices, an ice plant that used distilled water, an ice cream production room, a boiler room, brine tanks, and shop space. Housed in what was then the northwest room, the ice machine was capable of producing thirty tons of ice each day. It operated twenty-four hours a day throughout most of the year. The plant was powered by steam produced by two large boilers and it had electric lights from the beginning. The firm also offered its customers fine-grade heating coal, garden and field seeds, and a selection of home iceboxes. By 1925, the facility expanded again with a northwest vehicle garage along the rear alley. Sometime around 1920, a filling station was constructed on the south edge of the property along the north side of Laporte Avenue. Known as the RISCO Filling Station, this facility sold fuel to local drivers and also provided oils, tires, and automotive service. In the immediate area, there were several gasoline and oil companies, such as Continental Oil Company, Sinclair Oil Company, Starkey Oil and Gas Company, and Texas Company.1 Between 1925 and 1943, the company constructed the seven-vehicle garage in the southwest corner of the property to store its delivery vehicles. By the early 1940s, the RISCO ice and cold storage plant had been expanded again, this time with the construction of a front office along with a cream station room on its west side. Starting in the 1920s, electric refrigerators became available to American households and businesses. Over the following two decades, millions of the units were purchased and customers cancelled their ice block delivery service. With the ice market declining, RISCO became increasingly dependent upon its dairy products business. During the World War II era, the business either changed its name or was acquired by another dairy products company and it became known as Dairy Gold Foods. The 1948 City Directory is the first to list the company as Dairy Gold Foods Company.2 The facility produced not only ice cream, but expanded into the production, packaging and delivery of milk, butter and other dairy products. At some point in the late 1950s, the company razed the old gasoline station in front of the building on Laporte Avenue and constructed a small building on the same spot to be used as a dairy products laboratory.3 The dairy products laboratory served as a place for Dairy Gold to test dairy products. Purifying dairy products 1 Fort Collins 1922 City Directory. 2 Fort Collins 1948 City Directory. 3 Building permit No. 652 offers new insight on the date of construction. On the CityDocs website, there is a building permit (No. 652) that shows that on April 23, 1957, a new building was planned. The valuation of this building was $4,000. This could have been the laboratory building; however, there is not enough detail on the building permit to confirm that. The Fort Collins Sanborn Map, originally created in 1925, but updated in June of 1959 (and pasted on in December of 1961) shows the laboratory building. The Sanborn Map was again updated in 1961 and 1963. So although a precise date cannot be determined, the building was erected before 1964. 4.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 5 and agricultural reform escalated beginning in the 1930s. Historian Kendra Smith-Howard noted, “The environment in which milk was produced remained relevant to health reformers’ assessment of milk’s purity even as bacteriology and laboratory methods revolutionized public health.”4 The building was also used as Dairy Gold’s “drive-thru dairy bar,” as the caption on a 1957 vintage milk bottle attests.5 By the early 1960s, Dairy Gold Foods appears to have gone out of business and the plant on Laporte Avenue was temporarily closed. The facility sat vacant until 1964 when it was acquired by the Poudre Valley Creamery, whose main facility had been located a few blocks to the east along Jefferson Street since the 1950s. Poudre Valley Creamery occupied the site on Laporte Avenue and brought the plant back into production. The company used the laboratory building as a depot for the delivery route drivers and as a retail store and office space throughout the years.6 Poudre Valley Creamery continued to operate the facility until 2001, when Suiza Foods of Texas purchased the firm and then permanently closed all of its Fort Collins operations. The City of Fort Collins has owned the property since 2001. In 2011, the City completed the demolition of the main brick creamery building after assessing the structural integrity of the buildings on the site.7 Construction of the City’s new Utilities Administration Building at 222 Laporte Avenue was completed in fall 2016. The three-story structure incorporates salvaged bricks from the demolished creamery building. The historic laboratory building, known colloquially as the “butterfly” building due to the shape of the cantilevered roof, remains on the site in a new location 100 feet east of the original location, with the original diagonal orientation to the street preserved. The building’s new address is 212 Laporte Avenue. The original location of the building is marked permanently in the pavement in front of the new City administration building, and an interpretive brass sign detailing the history of the laboratory building and its relationship to the original site history and layout is installed at the site. Beginning in the fall of 2016, the City will complete an interior and exterior rehabilitation project and lease the “butterfly” building to a concessionaire. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Late 1950s Architect/Builder: Miller Brothers Building Materials: Concrete, brick Architectural Style: Googie The building retains its original Googie Style architectural features. Prominent among these are its V- shaped (“upswept”) cantilevered roof, exposed beams, plate glass windows, rectangular stacked bond parapet, and the employment of concrete bricks. To top off its unusual style, the building was oriented on a diagonal rather in relation to standard north-south compass points. These features all distinguish this small building in relation to its surroundings. Because it has experienced few alterations, the building exhibits a high degree of integrity in relation to its historic architecture. It remains one of Fort Collins’ best examples of mid-twentieth century Googie Style architecture. This small building was originally located across the parking lot to the south of the site of the main factory building, which the City of Fort Collins razed in 2011. The building was moved approximately 100 feet to the east, which made room for the new administration and customer service building for Fort Collins Utilities.8 The City of Fort Collins moved the building to raise the building out of the floodplain and place it in a prominent location for the redevelopment of Block 32 as a municipal administration site. The square, 4 Kendra Smith-Howard, Pure and Modern Milk: An Environmental History since 1900 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 21. 5 Digital image of “Dairy Gold” square quart milk bottle, 1957, at http://www.weltonsmilkbottles.com/viewitem.php?record_id=1139&pic_id=1618, accessed September 28, 2016. 6 Kevin Duggan, “Historic ‘Butterfly’ Building to Take Flights,” Coloradoan, June 22, 2015; Comment on blog post at http://www.lostfortcollins.net/2011/04/23/poudre-valley-creamery-building/ from former delivery route driver “captainbevo,” May 7, 2011, accessed September 28, 2016; Erin Udell, “Butterfly Building Set to Emerge from Cocoon,” Coloradoan, April 5, 2017. 7 Building Permit #B1101665, April 21, 2011. 8 Kevin Duggan, “Historic ‘Butterfly’ Building to Take Flights,” Coloradoan, June 22, 2015. 4.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 6 one-story building was placed at the same diagonal angle from the street front as the original location and faces toward the south-southeast. It rests upon a concrete foundation and its exterior walls are constructed of oversized concrete bricks that are primarily laid in stretcher bond coursing. The southwest corner is laid in stacked bond coursing, forming a three-sided wall that rises above the roofline. The cantilevered roof is V-shaped and supported by three beams that run on a north-south axis. Its wide boxed eaves are finished with wood fascia boards, single bands of circular ventilation holes, and circa 1960s double spotlight fixtures. A historical photograph indicates that the building previously had a Dairy Gold sign attached to the columnar parapet on the building’s facade. The prominence, form, and bright coloring of the sign were characteristic of the whimsical Space Age elements found on Googie style buildings in the mid-twentieth century. The photograph, which was taken in the late 1950s, shows the building painted white with red contrasting trim. A later photograph indicates the building was repainted at some point in a different color scheme of aqua and yellow trim against the white building. Most recently, while the building was used as the bike library, the contrasting trim was painted blue, and that color scheme remains but is likely to change as the City of Fort Collins renovates the building for use as a concession facility.9 The basic original form of the sign will be reconstructed and attached to the parapet to serve as the signage for the concessionaire that will occupy the building. The main entry to the building is found on its south elevation. This holds a commercial door with three square lights. The entry includes a wood frame and a single-light angled transom that opens to the interior as a hopper window. In front of this entry is a small two-step concrete stoop. On the north rear elevation the building entry originally included a slab door positioned directly under the intersection of the upswept roof elements. To make the rear door more useful as a service entrance, the City of Fort Collins enlarged the opening by approximately one-foot, moved it several feet to the east, and installed a new door with a single light window. Fenestration on the building is dominated by a tall band of five fixed windows that wrap around its southeast corner. The south elevation windows consist of two lights. On the east elevation they are single lights. A similar tall single-light window is found on the west elevation. These are all set into wood frames and have concrete sills. Also found on the west elevation is a small two-light sliding window. This is set in a wood frame and has a brick rowlock sill. On the north elevation, the only window is a small single-light window with a wood frame. The structure was designed to hold a creamery laboratory in the late 1950s. The interior of the building was separated into a main area, an office, and a restroom. The floors were finished with ceramic tiles, the walls exhibit the concrete brickwork, and the ceiling and interior walls were finished with plaster or drywall. The lower wood beam of the V-shaped roof is exposed and supported by a metal pipe post. A wood panel door with a single light was found on the office with the word “Office” painted on the door. In 2016, the City of Fort Collins altered the interior configuration and finishing materials to prepare the building for new tenant occupancy. The new layout has a restroom in the front as well as dining space. The kitchen and storage remain at the rear of the building. The exterior brick has been painted light gray. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Building Permit #B1101665, April 21, 2011. City of Fort Collins building permits, 1957, City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, Fort Collins, Colorado. City of Fort Collins City Directories, 1922 and 1948. Accessed from Fort Collins History Connection. 9 See attached photos in this document. 4.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 7 Duggan, Kevin. “Historic ‘Butterfly’ Building to Take Flights,” Coloradoan, June 22, 2015 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1925-1961. Smith-Howard, Kendra. Pure and Modern Milk; An Environmental History since 1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Riverside Ice & Storage Co. 222 Laporte Avenue Ave.,” August 6, 2009. 4.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 8 The former Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory building in its original location with the Dairy Gold sign and the brick dairy building visible (c. late 1950s, looking northeast) The former Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory building in its original location on the site at 222 Laporte Avenue (looking west) 4.b Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 9 The former Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory building in its new location on the site at 212 Laporte Avenue (2016, looking southwest from 215 Mason Street, with the Utilities Administration building shown under construction) The former Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory building in its new location on the site at 212 Laporte Avenue (2016, looking north east) 4.b Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 10 4.b Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 11 4.b Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 12 4.b Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 13 212 Laporte Avenue AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________ day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________ day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary 4.b Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 2017-02-24_212 Laporte Designation (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/19/2017 1 1 Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory, 212 Laporte Avenue— Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 4.19.2017 212 Laporte • Constructed in late 1950s • Standard A: Associated with dairy industry in Fort Collins • Standard C: Embodies Modernist architecture with Googie- influenced design elements • Exterior Integrity: Design, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association 2 4.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 212 Laporte Landmark Designation - for packet (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/19/2017 2 Location and Context 3 212 Laporte Late 1950s 2015 4.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 212 Laporte Landmark Designation - for packet (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/19/2017 3 212 Laporte 2016,southwest looking northeast 2017, looking 212 Laporte Southwestelevation elevation Southeast 4.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 212 Laporte Landmark Designation - for packet (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/19/2017 4 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:” • Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark • Must possess both significance and exterior integrity • Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered Sec. 14-22(a): If all owners consent in writing, and a majority of Commission approves: • Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation 7 8 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 9.14.2016 Dairy Gold Creamery Laboratory, 212 Laporte Avenue— Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation 4.c Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 212 Laporte Landmark Designation - for packet (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) DESCRIPTION OF A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENVELOPE FOR 212 LAPORTE AVENUE A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING LOCATED WITHIN LOT 1, COFC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SUBDIVISION; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 1 OF THE CIVIC CENTER OFFICE BUILDING SUBDIVISION, SAID WITNESS CORNER LYING ON THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1, 5.00 FEET DISTANT FROM SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER, AND CO_NSIDERING THE LINE BETWEEN SAID WITNESS CORNER AND THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LAPORTE AVENUE AS DESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTION RECORDED IN BOOK 175, PAGE 40 WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HOWES STREET AS DESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTION RECORDED IN BOOK 69 PAGE 261 TO BEAR N89°38'52"W, AS DERIVED FROM BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ON THE LAND SURVEY PLAT OF BLOCK 32 RECORDED MARCH 1, 2013 AT RECEPTION NO. 20130016329 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER, SAID LINE MARKED ON ITS EAST END BY NAIL AND ONE-INCH BRASS TAG STAMPED LS 14823 AND ON ITS WEST END BY AW' SQUARE. IRON PIN IN CONCRETE, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N89°35'22"W, A DISTANCE OF 134.81 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE N89°45'17"W, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF THE COFC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SUBDIVISION; THENCE N28°56'12"W, A DISTANCE OF 47.57 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S10°30'06"E, A DISTANCE OF 31.08 FEET; THENCE S85°36'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 18.41 FEET; THENCE S67°49'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 10.83 FEET; THENCE N10°16'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 31.38 FEET; THENCE N79°38'18"E, A DISTANCE OF 28.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 870 SQUARE FEET (0.020 ACRES), MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS DESCRIPTION THAT ALL HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\Historic Pres Blocks 32&42\ Legals\Butterfly Bldg lgl.doc Exhibit A 4.d Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4.d Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (5463 : 212 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 300 LAPORTE AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building, an International style municipal building that is significant for its connection to the growth in Fort Collins post-World War II, notable local architect William Robb, and for its outstanding architecture. APPLICANT: Kenneth Mannon, Operations Services Director OWNER: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard A, for its association with post-World War II growth of Fort Collins, and Standard C, for its International-style design completed by local architect William Robb. The current owner of this property, the City of Fort Collins Operation Services Department, has submitted an application requesting consideration for Fort Collins local landmark designation. COMMISSION ACTION Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures,” provides the process and standards for designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Commission shall adopt a motion providing a recommendation on eligibility to City Council. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY The Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Significance Standard A, for its association with post-World War II growth; and Standard C, for its association with notable local architect William Robb and its International style design, which well represents its period of significance from 1958 to 1978. The building retains a strong preponderance of exterior integrity under all seven aspects of integrity, A through G. 5 Packet Pg. 69 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 The building represents the development of Fort Collins following World War II and the city’s desire to embrace modernity during a time of rapid growth. The building’s architect, William Robb, influenced modern architecture in Fort Collins. He designed many of the schools and religious buildings around the city in the post-war era. The Fort Collins Municipal Building reflects his design style and philosophy that “form follows function.” In addition to Robb’s design influence, the building remains an excellent example of mid-century modern architecture. Specifically, the Fort Collins Municipal Building stands as a prime example of the International Style with smooth, unornamented walls, modern materials, horizontality, cantilevered awning, and flat roof. Despite a few easily reversible alterations, the building still expresses a high level of exterior integrity. The 2009 Tatanka Historical Associates’ report “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue” accurately describes the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following analysis is based primarily on this document. The Municipal Building, constructed in 1957-58, has experienced some alterations though most of the facility’s defining exterior and interior features survive today. On the exterior, the building exhibits its original brick, stone and concrete work, horizontal massing, side stairways, drive-through clerk station, entries, and long bands of windows. It also clearly exhibits its three winged, boomerang-arc shape, which makes the building distinctive among Fort Collins architecture. Non-historic alterations to the exterior have included the following: Removed:  Original twin concrete sidewalks/stairways, provided access to front porch and original main entry  Original main entry-pair of glass doors with shared transom, replaced with a single door and two windows above a half wall  Three-dimensional steel letters that spelled out “FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL BUILDING” above curved cantilevered porch roof  Curved driveway that provided access from street to drive-through clerk station Altered:  Short wall that bordered porch was capped and raised Addition:  Northwest entry vestibule, early 1990s, sensitively sited off building’s primary façade, serves as new main entry and provides handicapped accessibility  Projecting glassed enclosure on rear, outside north wing Replaced:  Some of the original windows; fenestration pattern retained The building retains a number of historic interior features. These include terrazzo floors, travertine wall paneling and wainscoting, and birch doors with original posts in the main stairway. Primary alterations to the interior have involved removal of the original jail cells from the second floor of the north wing, changes to public counters and interior uses, along with other relatively minor remodeling. In general, alterations have been limited and the building retains a very good level of integrity relative to its historic International Style of architecture. The building retains its character-defining features and the non-historic alterations noted detract little from its overall historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Consequently, the 1957 Municipal Building is a very good example of mid-20th century architecture in Fort Collins. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is defined as "the place where the historic property was constructed or 5 Packet Pg. 70 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 3 the place where the historic event occurred." The building is in the location, on this property, where it was originally constructed. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The structure’s original form, massing, scale, and proportion are wholly discernible. The design still embodies the eye-catching midcentury modern architecture. Standard C: Setting. The setting remains substantially intact. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The original construction materials remain intact and highly visible. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. The structure retains a high level of workmanship, seen in the International style details of the building including, but not limited to, the cantilevered awning and smooth, unornamented walls. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." This building still evokes the feeling of the International Style and William Robb’s design style and philosophy of “form follows function.” Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The property sustains a strong association with its past as a municipal building in the mid-twentieth century. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The Fort Collins Municipal Building represents the new ideals of the growing population of Fort Collins following World War II. During the war, Fort Collins’s predominately agricultural economy remained stable. Veterans returning to or moving to the area led to inevitable growth that the city had to accommodate. To many Americans, moving west was akin to accomplishing the American Dream. Between 1940 and 1960, the Fort Collins population grew from 12,251 to 25,027. During that period, 1951-1957 showed the most rapid rate of growth. Fort Collins City Hall was filled to capacity during this time. City Hall, built on Walnut Street in 1882, housed several departments and administrative offices. The City started pursuing ideas for expanded office space in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The City seriously considered purchasing the Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. building at 317 S. College Avenue; however, City Manager Guy Palmes delayed the purchase. City Manager Palmes preferred an entire new establishment in downtown instead of remodeling. In November of 1955, City Council appointed a fifty-member citizen’s committee to “investigate the city’s needs and building requirements. Local realtor John Nicol, who also led the Planning & Zoning Commission, was appointed chairman of the advisory committee. The committee was divided into subcommittees that focused upon the issues of finance, spatial needs, building location, and public opinion.” The committee determined that the general consensus was a new building was needed but, citizens said they were unwilling to increase taxes to finance the project. Instead, the project would be funded through loans from the Light and Power Department, the Water Department, Cemetery Fund, and Equipment Fund. They considered eleven sites, but the committee recommended Block 42, also known as Washington Park. The committee urged that the location be secured and that the project should continue with planning and hiring an architect. In 1956, City Manager Palmes enlisted the help of an established Fort Collins architect to draw up a preliminary plan for the new structure that fit the needs of Fort Collins. The architect William B. Robb, also known as Bill Robb, influenced Fort Collins architecture from 1952, when he and his wife first arrived, until his death in 1999. He studied architecture for almost a decade before starting a firm in Fort Collins in 1953. He earned a bachelor’s degree in architectural engineering, and a master’s degree in structural engineering from the University of Colorado. Robb also obtained another degree in architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A year after Robb and his wife Eleanor moved to Fort Collins, he began his own architectural firm out of his home on South College Avenue in 1953, simply called William Robb Architect. Fort Collins did not immediately warm up to 5 Packet Pg. 71 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 4 the local architect, preferring to either use a firm based in Denver on smaller projects, or not use an architect at all. Robb designed the American Baptist Church in Fort Collins as his first job, which helped expand his business. He moved his operation downtown and by 1971, the business grew so he incorporated with another architect, Bill Brenner. Robb led the company as president and Brenner as vice president. This firm was officially called Robb and Brenner Inc. Architects and Planners. Robb worked on commercial, government, school, and religious buildings in Fort Collins, many of which survive to serve as a portfolio for Robb and his firm. The firm’s biggest undertaking, the 11-story bank building now owned by Key Bank, housed their firm the same year it was incorporated. Other examples of his work include the following: St. Joseph’s Church addition, Barton School, St. Luke’s Church, Armstrong Hotel addition, and Cache La Poudre Elementary; however, these are only a few of his contributions to Fort Collins. His daughter Christine Goold shared, “Growing up, I never did understand all the fuss about Frank Lloyd Wright. My father was William Robb.” Robb based his designs on functionality and modernity following the national trend. In an interview for the Triangle Review, Robb said “One of the biggest challenges is to solve all the problems and design a building that both meets your client’s needs and is an aesthetically pleasing addition to the community.” To add to this, his daughter remembered a key philosophy of Robb’s to be “form follows function.” Robb, a vital member of the Fort Collins community, designed the Y-shaped municipal building on 300 Laporte Avenue with function and the client’s needs in mind. City Manager Palms and Robb decided that ideally the structure needed functionality, convenience, and efficiency. A staff writer for The Coloradoan remarked that “A tour of the building’s three wings results in an impression of surprise that so many offices, sizable rooms and facilities can be packed into the building.” The same writer also reflected that “the new Municipal Building not only gives the city government modern, flexible and efficient space for its activities and constantly increasing public business, but it is a building to which Fort Collins citizens can point with satisfaction as an adequate representation of their pride in the city.” The Fort Collins Municipal Building embodied the ideals and needs of post-war Fort Collins. The Y-shaped design was part of the International style, which emerged from European architects’ desire for a new order after the trauma and devastation of World War I. The style rejected past ideals and designs; instead, the designs were placeless, had no ornamentation, and utilized the newest technologies and materials. The International Style also utilized irregular shapes, smooth walls, and ribbon windows. In the United States, the style thrived from the 1920s until the 1970s. Robb’s design for the municipal building incorporated those defining elements. Another aspect of the International style was emphasis on “how a building served its inhabitants.” Robb focused on the needs of the client. Palmes and Robb worked together on detailed design objectives, such as maximum usable space, accessibility, convenient access from all sides, and easy communication throughout the building. A central block allowed easy access to each wing and the interior was very open. Robb envisioned partitions so that as the use of the building changed, the interior could easily change as well. Furthermore, the new building design incorporated a drive-through for residents to pay utility bills from the comfort of their automobile. The drive-through reflected the prevalence of automobile ownership in the post war consumer economy. Between 1946 and 1955, new car sales quadrupled and by the 1950s, three-quarters of American households owned as least one car. The Committee endorsed Robb’s plans in 1956 during this consumer boom of automobiles. Robb’s full plans provided over 25,000 of usable space. The east wing’s plan included a utility shop, storage space, home economics demonstration room, food laboratory, vault, women’s lounge, and boiler room in the basement. The first floor housed Utility offices and the drive-through billing clerk. The second floor housed administrative offices and City Council chambers. The west wing’s basement held the water and electric shop, storage space, a dead vault, a men’s lounge, and restrooms. The first floor contained Finance offices and the second floor had Engineering and Building Inspection. The Police Department housed the north wing. They had space for offices, storage, a locker room, a vault, an interrogation room, courtroom, and jail spread between the first and second floor. At the center of the building where the three wings met, there were lobby spaces, public restrooms, a stairway and an elevator. The construction of the Fort Collins Municipal Building began in 1957, but the process was not without interruption and delay. City Manager Palmes wanted City Council to move forward with the new building using existing funds to excavate and create the foundation and basement level of the building in late 1956. The City could then move forward with construction of the rest of the building the following year. City Council approved staking out Washington Park in addition to securing full plans and specifications, and to advertise for bids on the excavation 5 Packet Pg. 72 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 5 work. The building would face south onto Laporte Avenue, which forced Washington Place to be narrowed to the width of an alley. Workers removed twenty one mature trees to allow for the construction of the municipal building. Citizens tried to derail the construction on Washington Park to save the trees, which delayed construction; however, K. S. Mitry Construction Company excavated before spring of 1957. Two ceremonies occurred at the building before crews completed construction in the winter of 1958. The first was the cornerstone ceremony held on August 20, 1957 on the front lawn. Hundreds were invited to the ceremony including “city officials and staff, area mayors, bank and corporate executives, members of the media, the project architect, city managers, area police and fire chiefs, railroad executives, and prominent members of the Fort Collins community.” Despite the ceremony, the building was far from completion. Closer to completion on June 8, 1958, another ceremony took place at the Fort Collins Municipal Building. Robb, the architect, gave the gold key to the building to Mayor Robert Sears. Again, this event attracted many community leaders who were allowed to tour the building. Within ten years of its construction the building became crowded due to the continued growth of the city. Experts had projected the building to hold the city offices comfortably for twenty years. The building’s design served the city well as it was easy to remodel the interior; however, talks of a new City Hall emerged at this time. Some departments had already moved out of the building due to a lack of space. In 1978, workers completed the new City Hall, also at 300 Laporte Avenue. Until the Fort Collins Police Department moved into the building in 1992, the municipal building housed various departments and the elevations remained unchanged. Soon after the Fort Collins Police Department moved into the building, they encouraged a renovation. The original plan ensured convenient access from all sides, but the Police Department’s needs were different. The police wanted to increase security and restrict access so they began using only the south door. Soon after their decision to lock two of the three original entrances, Jeffrey Thomas gunned Stephanie Sund down as she ran to the locked front entrance seeking police protection from her abuser. Although Sund survived the three gunshots, this incident solidified the need for renovations to the building. The City demolished the original front steps that faced Laporte Avenue and used signs to indicate the new, preferred entrance to the building. The Police Department had never intended on permanently residing in the historic structure though. Their new facility at 2221 South Timberline was completed in 2007. At that time, various city offices and departments inhabited the Fort Collins Municipal Building once more. Currently, Operation Services occupies the building. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Tatanka Historical Associates included an architectural description in “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue” that accurately describes the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following description is based primarily on this document. Location & Grounds: The Municipal Building property is located on the northwest edge of Fort Collins’ downtown commercial district. It is specifically found on the north side of Laporte Avenue between North Howes Street and North Meldrum Street (Block 42). The property is bordered on the north by the current City Hall, along with a parking lot and Washington Park; on the south by Laporte Avenue.; on the east by North Howes Street; and on the west by a parking lot. The building occupies the north-central area of the property, with the parking lot to the north and a large landscaped lawn to the south. The front lawn wraps around the east and west sides of the building, and contains a number of mature trees and shrubs. Exterior Architecture: Erected in 1957-58, the building served as Fort Collins’ Municipal Building, also known as City Hall, for years. The two-story, concrete and masonry building faces toward the south and rests upon a raised concrete foundation. It is a three-winged, boomerang-shaped building set lengthwise on an east-west axis. The east and west ends of the long curved horizontal axis are squared, with a squared wing projecting toward the north from the center of the building. The exterior walls are constructed of concrete and are primarily faced with blonde wire-cut brick laid in stretcher bond coursing. The east and west end walls are faced with Lyons sandstone laid in random ashlar coursing. Additional stonework ornaments small areas of the façade. The building has a flat roof with concrete coping along the brick parapet wall. 5 Packet Pg. 73 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 6 South Elevation: This front elevation of the building is the one most commonly seen by Fort Collins residents and consequently received the most refined treatment in relation to its architectural design. From Laporte Avenue, which runs along the front of the property, the building has a low, elongated appearance. The landscaped lawn in front of the building provides an ornamental setting for the architecture. The raised foundation was designed with a series of small rectangular windows that run in two long bands, one along each of the east and west wings. These are all single-light fixed and hopper windows. The first and second floors have long bands of tall rectangular windows. While some are single-light fixed windows, other have a larger upper fixed light with a small lower hopper. All of the windows have aluminum frames and share continuous white concrete sills and lintels. The operable windows all have metal screens. Centered on this elevation is the building’s original squared main entry porch. This projects from the main body of the building and is surrounded by a wall on all three sides. The lower part of the porch wall is faced with random ashlar Lyons sandstone capped by a concrete band that ties into the basement’s lintel level. Centered in the stonework and faced toward the south is a granite plaque that reads “Fort Collins Municipal Building 1957.” Above the stone portion of the wall is a closed rail constructed of blonde wire-cut brickwork laid in stretcher bond coursing to match the building’s walls. The brick rail is capped by concrete coping that lies into the first floor’s sill level and matches the coping on the parapet above. The porch has a concrete floor. Squared random ashlar Lyons sandstone pillars flank the main entry, which holds a door but is no longer used for this purpose. Projecting from the wall above the pillars and entry is a flat, thin, curved cantilevered concrete roof that was designed to shield the entrance and not the whole porch. Five recessed light fixtures with domed glass covers are set into the underside of this roof. The entrance is centered on the building and holds a commercial door with a metal frame and two lights. Above this is a narrow horizontal transom. Next to the door are two single-light fixed windows above a half wall. West Elevation: This elevation of the building contains side entrances into all three levels and is dominated by a tall random ashlar Lyons sandstone wall. No windows are found on this elevation. The basement entry is located at the northwest corner and recessed into a projecting one-story enclosure with sandstone walls and a flat concrete roof. The entry holds a metal commercial door with a single light. Above this is a narrow horizontal transom light and to the side is a tall narrow sidelight. The main floor entry is reached by way of a metal stairway that rises from near the southwest corner of the building. This has metal pipe handrails, a metal pipe and wire mesh rail, and the stairway is supported by pipe posts. The entry holds a metal commercial slab door that is surrounded by the sandstone wall. The second floor entry is reached by way of a tall metal stairway that rises from outside the west wall of the basement stairway enclosure. Its first flight reaches a landing on the roof of this enclosure and then rises one more flight to a landing outside of the entry. This stairway is supported by metal pipe posts, and has metal handrails and both pipe and wire mesh rails. The entry is centered on the wall and holds a metal commercial door with a single light. North Elevation: This rear elevation of the building faces the parking lot to the north. The primary entrance is located in a two-story vestibule addition that projects from the intersection of the north and west wings. Facing toward the southwest, the entrance holds a pair of glass commercial doors with metal frames. Behind the entry are sets of fixed windows and angled skylights that illuminate the vestibule’s interior, which holds the elevator and main stairway. A secondary entrance to the building is centered on the north elevation of the north wing. This entry has been surrounded by a projecting glass enclosure constructed with concrete partial walls that support a metal framework with multiple fixed lights. Glass commercial doors with metal frames are found on the east and west sides of this enclosure. The entrance holds a commercial glass door and is reached by way of a concrete stairway with metal pipe rails. A third entry is located at the intersection of the north and east wings. This is reached by way of a long concrete 5 Packet Pg. 74 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 7 ramp that runs along with east side of the north wing. Rectangular concrete posts support the ramp, which has a metal pipe handrail. The entry is recessed and holds a glass commercial door with a metal frame. Above this is a horizontal transom and to the side is a tall narrow sidelight. Below and to the side of the landing at the entry are large louvered vents from the building’s boiler room, along with two concrete and brick utility enclosures. Fenestration on the north elevation is in many respects similar to that found on the south elevation. The basement holds hands of small rectangular fixed and hopper windows that share continuous concrete sills and lintels. The first and second floors hold long bands of tall rectangular windows. While some are single-light fixed windows, others have a large upper fixed light with a small lower hopper. All of the windows have aluminum frames and share continuous concrete sills and lintels. The operable windows all have metal screens. East Elevation: A tall random ashlar Lyons sandstone wall dominates this side elevation of the building. It contains two entrances, but the only window is related to a drive-through, described below. At the northeast corner is a basement/main floor entry. This faces toward the northeast and is recessed into a projecting one-story enclosure with sandstone walls and a flat concrete roof. The enclosure runs the full depth of the wing. A metal commercial door with a single light is located in the entry, along with a transom light above. The second floor entry is reached by way of a metal stairway that rises from outside the east wall of the enclosure. Its first flight reaches a landing on the roof of the main floor entry enclosure, and then continues to a landing outside of the entry. This stairway is supported by metal pipe posts, and has metal handrails and both pipe and wire mesh rails. The entry is centered on the wall and holds a metal commercial door with a single light containing wired glass. At the southeast corner of the building is a single-car public drive-through that was formerly used for municipal bill payments. This drive-through projects from the one-story enclosure and has a concrete floor with concrete curbing. A low wall faced with sandstone and capped with concrete coping lines the outer edge of the drive-through. Metal pipe posts that rise from this wall support the flat concrete roof above. Seven lights with domed glass covers are recessed into the underside of the roof. Mounted in the wall of the enclosure is a large streamlined bank teller-type window that was manufactured by the Diehold Company of Canton, Ohio. The window holds a single light of angled bullet-resistant glass set in a metal frame. This unit includes a moveable teller drawer with speakers and a microphone below. Building Interior: The interior of the building consists of three levels of rooms, all of which were designed to accommodate a combination of office, storage, jail, meeting room, courtroom and other uses. The center of the building, where the three wings meet, was designed as a public space that holds lobby areas, restrooms, and a central stairway. All of these levels maintain historic features that date back to the building’s original construction. The basement currently holds a combination of storage rooms and vacant rooms, and also contains the building’s boiler room. The central part of the basement has a double-loaded hallway with linoleum tile flooring and a dropped ceiling. Original birch doors are found throughout the basement, and some of the rooms have been carpeted and hold dropped ceilings. High on the outside walls are the narrow bands of fixed and hopped windows that can be seen from outside the building. The restrooms are finished with their original glazed tile walls and older fixtures. The boiler room holds a 1957 Cyclotherm gas-fired boiler manufactured by the national U.S. Radiator Corporation of Oswego, New York. The boiler remains in use today and all levels of the building contain baseboard radiators connected to this heating system. The first and second floors retain their double-loaded hallways, off of which are a number of offices and meeting rooms. The entry vestibule on the northwest holds an elevator and stairway that provide access to all three levels of the building. Mounted on the wall inside the vestibule is a bronze dedication plaque that provides the following information: MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1958 ROBERT W. SEARS MAYOR WM. H. ALLEN COUNCILMAN 5 Packet Pg. 75 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 8 W. FRANK AYDELOTTE “ CLYDE E. HONSTEIN “ RONALD O. ROBERTS “ R. A. ELLIS COUNCILMAN 55-56 J. MORRIS HOWELL “ 55-56 G.H. PALMES MANAGER HOWARD E. EVEANS ENGINEER ARTHUR E. MARCH ATTORNEY MILES F. HOUSE CLERK WM. B. ROBB ARCHITECT Both floors retain a number of historic materials and features that include terrazzo and linoleum flooring, polished travertine wall panels and wainscoting, glazed wall tiles and brickwork, shaped stainless steel stairway handrails and newel posts, baseboard radiators, and birch doors with their original hardware. An original pair of metal doors with a combination lock secures the records vault. On the east end of the building, the drive-through bill payment room still holds its original clerk’s counter even though this has long been out of use. Other than these features, the interior is finished with some carpeting along with dropped ceilings that hold fluorescent lighting. STAFF EVALUATION Staff finds that the Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building qualifies for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standards A and C for its history relating to the expansion of Fort Collins following World War II and its William Robb International-style architecture. The structure continues to uphold a preponderance of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission finds that the Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building meets one or more of the criteria for Fort Collins landmark designation, the Commission shall adopt the following motion: That the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards A and C for its history relating to post- war growth of the city, International-style, and preponderance of exterior integrity. If the Commission finds that the Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building does not meet the criteria for landmark designation, it shall adopt a motion to this effect, and state its reasoning. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. 300 Laporte Designation (DOC) 3. Staff Presentation - 300 Laporte Landmark Designation (PDF) 4. Exhibit A - Legal Description (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 76 N Mason St N Howes St Laporte Ave Maple St N Meldrum St © Landmark Historic Preservation Fort Collins Commission Municipal Building April 19, 2017 300 Laporte Ave 1 inch = 171 feet 5.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Location Map (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 300 Laporte Avenue Legal Description: The legal description has not been finalized at this time. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building OWNER INFORMATION: Name: City of Fort Collins, Colorado Address: P. O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Contact: Brian Hergott, Facilities Project Manager, bhergott@fcgov.com, 970-221-6804. CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Contact: cbumgarner@fcgov.com; 970-416-4250 Relationship to Owner: None. DATE: 02/24/2017 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.41 0 970.22 4- fax fcgov.c 5.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: This designation is for the footprint of the Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building. The legal description has not been finalized at this time. SIGNIFICANCE: Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, state or nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY: Describe why the property is significant and how it possesses exterior integrity. The Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building is significant under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Significance Standard A, for its association with post-World War II growth; and Standard C, for its association with notable local architect William Robb and its International style design, which well represents its period of significance from 1958 to 1978. The building retains a strong preponderance of exterior integrity under all six aspects of integrity, A through G. The building represents the development of Fort Collins following World War II and the city’s desire to embrace modernity during a time of rapid growth. The building’s architect, William Robb, influenced modern architecture in Fort Collins. He designed many of the schools and religious buildings around the city in the post-war era. The Fort Collins Municipal Building reflects his design style and philosophy that “form follows function.” In addition to Robb’s design influence, the building remains an excellent example of mid-century modern architecture. Specifically, the Fort Collins Municipal Building stands as a prime 5.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 3 example of the International Style with smooth, unornamented walls, modern materials, horizontality, cantilevered awning, and flat roof. Despite a few easily reversible alterations, the building still expresses a high level of exterior integrity. The 2009 Tatanka Historical Associates’ report “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue” accurately describes the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following analysis is based primarily on this document. The Municipal Building, constructed in 1957-58, has experienced some alterations though many of the facility’s defining exterior and interior features survive today. On the exterior, the building still exhibits its original brick, stone and concrete work, horizontal massing, side stairways, drive-through clerk station, entries, and long bands of windows. It also clearly exhibits its three winged, boomerang-arc shape, which makes the building distinctive among Fort Collins architecture. Non-historic alterations to the exterior have included the following: Removed:  Original twin concrete sidewalks/stairways, provided access to front porch and original main entry  Original main entry—pair of glass doors with shared transom, replaced with a single door and two windows above a half wall  Three-dimensional steel letters that spelled out “FORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL BUILDING” above curved cantilevered porch roof  Curved driveway that provided access from street to drive-through clerk station Altered:  Short wall that bordered porch was capped and raised Addition:  Northwest entry vestibule, early 1990s, sensitively sited off building’s primary façade, serves as new main entry and provides handicapped accessibility  Projecting glassed enclosure on rear, outside north wing Replaced:  Some of the original windows; fenestration pattern retained The building retains a number of historic interior features. These include terrazzo floors, travertine wall paneling and wainscoting, and birch doors with original posts in the main stairway. Primary alterations to the interior have involved removal of the original jail cells from the second floor of the north wing, changes to public counters and interior uses, along with other relatively minor remodeling. In general, alterations have been limited and the building retains a very good level of integrity relative to its historic International Style of architecture. The building retains its character-defining features and the non-historic alterations noted detract little from its overall historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Consequently, the 1957 Municipal Building is a very good example of mid-20th century architecture in Fort Collins. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. Integrity of location is defined as "the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred." The building is in the location, on this property, where it was originally constructed. Standard B: Design. Integrity of design is defined as "the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property." The structure’s original form, massing, scale, and 5.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 4 proportion are wholly discernible. The design still embodies the eye-catching midcentury modern architecture. Standard C: Setting. The setting remains substantially intact. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The original construction materials remain intact and highly visible. Standard E: Workmanship. This property possesses evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. This consists of evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering the building, structure or site. The structure retains a high level of workmanship, seen in the International style details of the building including, but not limited to, the cantilevered awning and smooth, unornamented walls. Standard F: Feeling. Integrity of feeling is defined as "a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time." This building still evokes the feeling of the International Style and William Robb’s design style and philosophy of “form follows function.” Standard G: Association. Integrity of association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The property sustains a strong association with its past as a municipal building in the mid-twentieth century. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The Fort Collins Municipal Building represents the new ideals of the growing population of Fort Collins following World War II. During the war, Fort Collins’s predominately agricultural economy remained stable. Veterans returning to or moving to the area led to inevitable growth that the city had to accommodate. To many Americans, moving west was akin to accomplishing the American Dream. Between 1940 and 1960, the Fort Collins population grew from 12,251 to 25,027. During that period, 1951-1957 showed the most rapid rate of growth.1 Fort Collins City Hall was filled to capacity during this time. City Hall, built on Walnut Street in 1882, housed several departments and administrative offices. The City started pursuing ideas for expanded office space in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The City seriously considered purchasing the Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. building at 317 S. College Avenue; however, City Manager Guy Palmes delayed the purchase. City Manager Palmes preferred an entire new establishment in downtown instead of remodeling. In November of 1955, City Council appointed a fifty-member citizen’s committee to “investigate the city’s needs and building requirements. Local realtor John Nicol, who also led the Planning & Zoning Commission, was appointed chairman of the advisory committee. The committee was divided into subcommittees that focused upon the issues of finance, spatial needs, building location, and public opinion.”2 The committee determined that the general consensus was a new building was needed but, citizens said they were unwilling to increase taxes to finance the project. Instead, the project would be funded through loans from the Light and Power Department, the Water Department, Cemetery Fund, and Equipment Fund. They considered eleven sites, but the committee recommended Block 42, also known as Washington Park. The committee urged that the location be secured and that the project should continue with planning and hiring an architect.3 In 1956, City Manager Palmes enlisted the help of an established Fort Collins architect to draw up a preliminary plan for the new structure that fit the needs of Fort Collins. The architect William B. Robb, also known as Bill Robb, influenced Fort Collins architecture from 1952, when he and his wife first arrived, until 1 Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S”: The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969,” June 2011, 7. 2 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 7, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 3 Ibid. 5.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 5 his death in 1999. He studied architecture for almost a decade before starting a firm in Fort Collins in 1953. He earned a bachelor’s degree in architectural engineering, and a master’s degree in structural engineering from the University of Colorado. Robb also obtained another degree in architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A year after Robb and his wife Eleanor moved to Fort Collins, he began his own architectural firm out of his home on South College Avenue in 1953, simply called William Robb Architect. Fort Collins did not immediately warm up to the local architect, preferring to either use a firm based in Denver on smaller projects, or not use an architect at all.4 Robb designed the American Baptist Church in Fort Collins as his first job, which helped expand his business. He moved his operation downtown and by 1971, the business grew so he incorporated with another architect, Bill Brenner. Robb led the company as president and Brenner as vice president. This firm was officially called Robb and Brenner Inc. Architects and Planners.5 Robb worked on commercial, government, school, and religious buildings in Fort Collins, many of which survive to serve as a portfolio for Robb and his firm. The firm’s biggest undertaking, the 11-story bank building now owned by Key Bank, housed their firm the same year it was incorporated. Other examples of his work include the following: St. Joseph’s Church addition, Barton School, St. Luke’s Church, Armstrong Hotel addition, and Cache La Poudre Elementary; however, these are only a few of his contributions to Fort Collins.6 His daughter Christine Goold shared, “Growing up, I never did understand all the fuss about Frank Lloyd Wright. My father was William Robb.”7 Robb based his designs on functionality and modernity following the national trend. In an interview for the Triangle Review, Robb said “One of the biggest challenges is to solve all the problems and design a building that both meets your client’s needs and is an aesthetically pleasing addition to the community.”8 To add to this, his daughter remembered a key philosophy of Robb’s to be “form follows function.”9 Robb, a vital member of the Fort Collins community, designed the Y-shaped municipal building on 300 Laporte Avenue with function and the client’s needs in mind. City Manager Palms and Robb decided that ideally the structure needed functionality, convenience, and efficiency. A staff writer for The Coloradoan remarked that “A tour of the building’s three wings results in an impression of surprise that so many offices, sizable rooms and facilities can be packed into the building.”10 The same writer also reflected that “the new Municipal Building not only gives the city government modern, flexible and efficient space for its activities and constantly increasing public business, but it is a building to which Fort Collins citizens can point with satisfaction as an adequate representation of their pride in the city.”11 The Fort Collins Municipal Building embodied the ideals and needs of post-war Fort Collins.12 The Y-shaped design was part of the International style, which emerged from European architects’ desire for a new order after the trauma and devastation of World War I. The style rejected past ideals and designs; instead, the designs were placeless, had no ornamentation, and utilized the newest technologies and materials. The International Style also utilized irregular shapes, smooth walls, and ribbon windows. In the United States, the style thrived from the 1920s until the 1970s.13 Robb’s design for the municipal building incorporated those defining elements. Another aspect of the International style was emphasis on “how a building served its inhabitants.”14 Robb focused on the needs of the client. Palmes and Robb 4 Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S”: The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969,” June 2011, 18; Daniel Thomas, “Fort Collins Architect Changed the Face of the Whole City,” Triangle Review, January 21, 1978, 12. 5 Daniel Thomas, “Fort Collins Architect Changed the Face of the Whole City,” Triangle Review, January 21, 1978, 12. 6 Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S”: The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969,” June 2011, 77-85. 7 Christine Goold, “Memories of Loving Father Take Flight,” The Coloradoan, June 20, 2004. 8 Daniel Thomas, “Fort Collins Architect Changed the Face of the Whole City,” Triangle Review, January 21, 1978, 12. 9 Christine Goold, “Memories of Loving Father Take Flight,” The Coloradoan, June 20, 2004. 10 Staff writer, “Fort Collins Marks New Era: Formal Open House Scheduled Today,” The Coloradoan, June 8, 1958. 11 Staff writer, “Fort Collins Marks New Era: Formal Open House Scheduled Today,” The Coloradoan, June 8, 1958. 12 Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S”: The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969,” June 2011, 18. 13 F. Joseph Moravec, Growth, Efficiency, and Modernism: GSA Buildings of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, U.S. General Services Administration, Office of the Chief Architect, Center for Historic Buildings, 2003, 12. 14 Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 470. 5.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 6 worked together on detailed design objectives, such as maximum usable space, accessibility, convenient access from all sides, and easy communication throughout the building. A central block allowed easy access to each wing and the interior was very open. Robb envisioned partitions so that as the use of the building changed, the interior could easily change as well. Furthermore, the new building design incorporated a drive-through for residents to pay utility bills from the comfort of their automobile.15 The drive-through reflected the prevalence of automobile ownership in the post war consumer economy. Between 1946 and 1955, new car sales quadrupled and by the 1950s, three-quarters of American households owned as least one car.16 The Committee endorsed Robb’s plans in 1956 during this consumer boom of automobiles.17 Robb’s full plans provided over 25,000 of usable space. The east wing’s plan included a utility shop, storage space, home economics demonstration room, food laboratory, vault, women’s lounge, and boiler room in the basement. The first floor housed Utility offices and the drive-through billing clerk. The second floor housed administrative offices and City Council chambers. The west wing’s basement held the water and electric shop, storage space, a dead vault, a men’s lounge, and restrooms. The first floor contained Finance offices and the second floor had Engineering and Building Inspection. The Police Department housed the north wing. They had space for offices, storage, a locker room, a vault, an interrogation room, courtroom, and jail spread between the first and second floor. At the center of the building where the three wings met, there were lobby spaces, public restrooms, a stairway and an elevator.18 The construction of the Fort Collins Municipal Building began in 1957, but the process was not without interruption and delay. City Manager Palmes wanted City Council to move forward with the new building using existing funds to excavate and create the foundation and basement level of the building in late 1956. The City could then move forward with construction of the rest of the building the following year.19 City Council approved staking out Washington Park in addition to securing full plans and specifications, and to advertise for bids on the excavation work. The building would face south onto Laporte Avenue, which forced Washington Place to be narrowed to the width of an alley. Workers removed twenty one mature trees to allow for the construction of the municipal building. Citizens tried to derail the construction on Washington Park to save the trees, which delayed construction; however, K. S. Mitry Construction Company excavated before spring of 1957.20 Two ceremonies occurred at the building before crews completed construction in the winter of 1958. The first was the cornerstone ceremony held on August 20, 1957 on the front lawn. Hundreds were invited to the ceremony including “city officials and staff, area mayors, bank and corporate executives, members of the media, the project architect, city managers, area police and fire chiefs, railroad executives, and prominent members of the Fort Collins community.”21 Despite the ceremony, the building was far from completion. Closer to completion on June 8, 1958, another ceremony took place at the Fort Collins Municipal Building. Robb, the architect, gave the gold key to the building to Mayor Robert Sears. Again, this event attracted many community leaders who were allowed to tour the building.22 15 Cindy Harris and Adam Thomas, “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S”: The City’s Postwar Development, 1945-1969,” June 2011, 17-19. 16 Lizabeth Cohen, A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America (New York: Vintage Books, 2003), 123. 17 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 9, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 18 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 9-10, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 19 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 9, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 20 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 9-11, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 21 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 12, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 22 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 12, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 5.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 7 Within ten years of its construction the building became crowded due to the continued growth of the city. Experts had projected the building to hold the city offices comfortably for twenty years. The building’s design served the city well as it was easy to remodel the interior; however, talks of a new City Hall emerged at this time. Some departments had already moved out of the building due to a lack of space. In 1978, workers completed the new City Hall, also at 300 Laporte Avenue. Until the Fort Collins Police Department moved into the building in 1992, the municipal building housed various departments and the elevations remained unchanged.23 Soon after the Fort Collins Police Department moved into the building, they encouraged a renovation. The original plan ensured convenient access from all sides, but the Police Department’s needs were different. The police wanted to increase security and restrict access so they began using only the south door. Soon after their decision to lock two of the three original entrances, Jeffrey Thomas gunned Stephanie Sund down as she ran to the locked front entrance seeking police protection from her abuser. Although Sund survived the three gunshots, this incident solidified the need for renovations to the building. The City demolished the original front steps that faced Laporte Avenue and used signs to indicate the new, preferred entrance to the building. The Police Department had never intended on permanently residing in the historic structure though. Their new facility at 2221 South Timberline was completed in 2007. At that time, various city offices and departments inhabited the Fort Collins Municipal Building once more.24 Currently, Operation Services occupies the building. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1958 Architect/Builder: William B. Robb Building Materials: Concrete, brick, and sandstone. Architectural Style: International Tatanka Historical Associates included an architectural description in “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue” that accurately describes the Fort Collins Municipal Building. The following description is based primarily on this document. Location & Grounds: The Municipal Building property is located on the northwest edge of Fort Collins’ downtown commercial district. It is specifically found on the north side of Laporte Avenue between North Howes Street and North Meldrum Street (Block 42). The property is bordered on the north by the current City Hall, along with a parking lot and Washington Park; on the south by Laporte Avenue.; on the east by North Howes Street; and on the west by a parking lot. The building occupies the north-central area of the property, with the parking lot to the north and a large landscaped lawn to the south. The front lawn wraps around the east and west sides of the building, and contains a number of mature trees and shrubs. Exterior Architecture: Erected in 1957-58, the building served as Fort Collins’ Municipal Building, also known as City Hall, for years. The two-story, concrete and masonry building faces toward the south and rests upon a raised concrete foundation. It is a three-winged, boomerang-shaped building set lengthwise on an east-west axis. The east and west ends of the long curved horizontal axis are squared, with a squared wing projecting toward the north from the center of the building. The exterior walls are constructed of concrete and are primarily faced with blonde wire-cut brick laid in stretcher bond coursing. The east and west end walls are faced with Lyons sandstone laid in random ashlar coursing. Additional stonework ornaments small areas of the façade. The building has a flat roof with concrete coping along the brick parapet wall. 23 Ibid., 13. 24 Sandy Shore, “Stalking Victim Tells Story of Domestic Violence, Peril,” Times Daily (Florence, Alabama), May 10, 1993, accessed at http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19930510&id=G2QeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0scEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6068,1446596; Kevin Vaughan, “Police Department Remodeling Begins,” The Coloradoan, August 3, 1992, accessed at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives; Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, accessed at City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. 5.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 8 South Elevation: This front elevation of the building is the one most commonly seen by Fort Collins residents and consequently received the most refined treatment in relation to its architectural design. From Laporte Avenue, which runs along the front of the property, the building has a low, elongated appearance. The landscaped lawn in front of the building provides an ornamental setting for the architecture. The raised foundation was designed with a series of small rectangular windows that run in two long bands, one along each of the east and west wings. These are all single-light fixed and hopper windows. The first and second floors have long bands of tall rectangular windows. While some are single-light fixed windows, other have a larger upper fixed light with a small lower hopper. All of the windows have aluminum frames and share continuous white concrete sills and lintels. The operable windows all have metal screens. Centered on this elevation is the building’s original squared main entry porch. This projects from the main body of the building and is surrounded by a wall on all three sides. The lower part of the porch wall is faced with random ashlar Lyons sandstone capped by a concrete band that ties into the basement’s lintel level. Centered in the stonework and faced toward the south is a granite plaque that reads “Fort Collins Municipal Building 1957.” Above the stone portion of the wall is a closed rail constructed of blonde wire- cut brickwork laid in stretcher bond coursing to match the building’s walls. The brick rail is capped by concrete coping that lies into the first floor’s sill level and matches the coping on the parapet above. The porch has a concrete floor. Squared random ashlar Lyons sandstone pillars flank the main entry, which holds a door but is no longer used for this purpose. Projecting from the wall above the pillars and entry is a flat, thin, curved cantilevered concrete roof that was designed to shield the entrance and not the whole porch. Five recessed light fixtures with domed glass covers are set into the underside of this roof. The entrance is centered on the building and holds a commercial door with a metal frame and two lights. Above this is a narrow horizontal transom. Next to the door are two single-light fixed windows above a half wall. West Elevation: This elevation of the building contains side entrances into all three levels and is dominated by a tall random ashlar Lyons sandstone wall. No windows are found on this elevation. The basement entry is located at the northwest corner and recessed into a projecting one-story enclosure with sandstone walls and a flat concrete roof. The entry holds a metal commercial door with a single light. Above this is a narrow horizontal transom light and to the side is a tall narrow sidelight. The main floor entry is reached by way of a metal stairway that rises from near the southwest corner of the building. This has metal pipe handrails, a metal pipe and wire mesh rail, and the stairway is supported by pipe posts. The entry holds a metal commercial slab door that is surrounded by the sandstone wall. The second floor entry is reached by way of a tall metal stairway that rises from outside the west wall of the basement stairway enclosure. Its first flight reaches a landing on the roof of this enclosure and then rises one more flight to a landing outside of the entry. This stairway is supported by metal pipe posts, and has metal handrails and both pipe and wire mesh rails. The entry is centered on the wall and holds a metal commercial door with a single light. North Elevation: This rear elevation of the building faces the parking lot to the north. The primary entrance is located in a two-story vestibule addition that projects from the intersection of the north and west wings. Facing toward the southwest, the entrance holds a pair of glass commercial doors with metal frames. Behind the entry are sets of fixed windows and angled skylights that illuminate the vestibule’s interior, which holds the elevator and main stairway. A secondary entrance to the building is centered on the north elevation of the north wing. This entry has been surrounded by a projecting glass enclosure constructed with concrete partial walls that support a metal framework with multiple fixed lights. Glass commercial doors with metal frames are found on the east and west sides of this enclosure. The 5.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 9 entrance holds a commercial glass door and is reached by way of a concrete stairway with metal pipe rails. A third entry is located at the intersection of the north and east wings. This is reached by way of a long concrete ramp that runs along with east side of the north wing. Rectangular concrete posts support the ramp, which has a metal pipe handrail. The entry is recessed and holds a glass commercial door with a metal frame. Above this is a horizontal transom and to the side is a tall narrow sidelight. Below and to the side of the landing at the entry are large louvered vents from the building’s boiler room, along with two concrete and brick utility enclosures. Fenestration on the north elevation is in many respects similar to that found on the south elevation. The basement holds hands of small rectangular fixed and hopper windows that share continuous concrete sills and lintels. The first and second floors hold long bands of tall rectangular windows. While some are single- light fixed windows, others have a large upper fixed light with a small lower hopper. All of the windows have aluminum frames and share continuous concrete sills and lintels. The operable windows all have metal screens. East Elevation: A tall random ashlar Lyons sandstone wall dominates this side elevation of the building. It contains two entrances, but the only window is related to a drive-through, described below. At the northeast corner is a basement/main floor entry. This faces toward the northeast and is recessed into a projecting one-story enclosure with sandstone walls and a flat concrete roof. The enclosure runs the full depth of the wing. A metal commercial door with a single light is located in the entry, along with a transom light above. The second floor entry is reached by way of a metal stairway that rises from outside the east wall of the enclosure. Its first flight reaches a landing on the roof of the main floor entry enclosure, and then continues to a landing outside of the entry. This stairway is supported by metal pipe posts, and has metal handrails and both pipe and wire mesh rails. The entry is centered on the wall and holds a metal commercial door with a single light containing wired glass. At the southeast corner of the building is a single-car public drive-through that was formerly used for municipal bill payments. This drive-through projects from the one-story enclosure and has a concrete floor with concrete curbing. A low wall faced with sandstone and capped with concrete coping lines the outer edge of the drive-through. Metal pipe posts that rise from this wall support the flat concrete roof above. Seven lights with domed glass covers are recessed into the underside of the roof. Mounted in the wall of the enclosure is a large streamlined bank teller-type window that was manufactured by the Diehold Company of Canton, Ohio. The window holds a single light of angled bullet-resistant glass set in a metal frame. This unit includes a moveable teller drawer with speakers and a microphone below. Building Interior: The interior of the building consists of three levels of rooms, all of which were designed to accommodate a combination of office, storage, jail, meeting room, courtroom and other uses. The center of the building, where the three wings meet, was designed as a public space that holds lobby areas, restrooms, and a central stairway. All of these levels maintain historic features that date back to the building’s original construction. The basement currently holds a combination of storage rooms and vacant rooms, and also contains the building’s boiler room. The central part of the basement has a double-loaded hallway with linoleum tile flooring and a dropped ceiling. Original birch doors are found throughout the basement, and some of the rooms have been carpeted and hold dropped ceilings. High on the outside walls are the narrow bands of fixed and hopped windows that can be seen from outside the building. The restrooms are finished with their original glazed tile walls and older fixtures. The boiler room holds a 1957 Cyclotherm gas-fired boiler manufactured by the national U.S. Radiator Corporation of Oswego, New York. The boiler remains in use 5.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 10 today and all levels of the building contain baseboard radiators connected to this heating system. The first and second floors retain their double-loaded hallways, off of which are a number of offices and meeting rooms. The entry vestibule on the northwest holds an elevator and stairway that provide access to all three levels of the building. Mounted on the wall inside the vestibule is a bronze dedication plaque that provides the following information: MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1958 ROBERT W. SEARS MAYOR WM. H. ALLEN COUNCILMAN W. FRANK AYDELOTTE “ CLYDE E. HONSTEIN “ RONALD O. ROBERTS “ R. A. ELLIS COUNCILMAN 55-56 J. MORRIS HOWELL “ 55-56 G.H. PALMES MANAGER HOWARD E. EVEANS ENGINEER ARTHUR E. MARCH ATTORNEY MILES F. HOUSE CLERK WM. B. ROBB ARCHITECT Both floors retain a number of historic materials and features that include terrazzo and linoleum flooring, polished travertine wall panels and wainscoting, glazed wall tiles and brickwork, shaped stainless steel stairway handrails and newel posts, baseboard radiators, and birch doors with their original hardware. An original pair of metal doors with a combination lock secures the records vault. On the east end of the building, the drive-through bill payment room still holds its original clerk’s counter even though this has long been out of use. Other than these features, the interior is finished with some carpeting along with dropped ceilings that hold fluorescent lighting.25 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Cohen, Lizabeth. A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York: Vintage Books, 2003. Goold, Christine. “Memories of Loving Father Take Flight.” The Coloradoan, June 20, 2004. Harris, Cindy and Adam Thomas. “Fort Collins E-X-P-A-N-D-S” The City’s Postwar Development 1945-1969. Denver: HISTORITECTURE, L.L.C. 2011, available at the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Knopf, 2011. Moravec, F. Joseph. Growth, Efficiency, and Modernism: GSA Buildings of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, U.S. General Services Administration, Office of the Chief Architect, Center for Historic Buildings, 2003. Shore, Sandy. “Stalking Victim Tells Story of Domestic Violence, Peril.” Times Daily. Florence, Alabama, May 10, 1993, accessed at http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19930510&id=G2QeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0scEAAAAIBAJ& pg=6068,1446596. 25 Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, 3-7. 5.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 11 Staff writer, “Fort Collins Marks New Era: Formal Open House Scheduled Today.” The Coloradoan, June 8, 1958. Tatanka Historical Associates, “Historic Preservation Analysis: Municipal Building 300 Laporte Avenue,” September 1, 2009, available at the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office. Thomas, Daniel. “Fort Collins Architect Changed the Face of the Whole City.” Triangle Review, January 21, 1978. Vaughan, Kevin. “Police Department Remodeling Begins.” The Coloradoan, August 3, 1992, accessed at Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Archives. 5.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 12 300 Laporte, 1959 300 Laporte, 1958 300 Laporte, south elevation (original main entrance) 5.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 13 300 Laporte, south elevation (original main entrance) 300 Laporte, south elevation (original main entrance) (2016, looking north east) 5.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 14 300 Laporte, east end of south elevation (original drive-through window) 300 Laporte, north east elevation (drive-through canopy on left) 5.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 15 300 Laporte, northeast elevation 300 Laporte, north elevation 5.b Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 16 300 Laporte, northwest elevation (current entrance on right) 300 Laporte, northwest elevation (current entrance) 5.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 17 300 Laporte, west elevation 5.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Revised 08-2014 Page 18 300 Laporte Avenue AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________ day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________ day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary 5.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 300 Laporte Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 1 1 Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue— Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 04.19.2017 300 Laporte • Constructed in 1958 (Architect: William B. Robb) • Standard A: Associated with post-World War II growth • Standard C: Embodies characteristics of the International style • Exterior Integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association 2 5.c Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 300 Laporte Landmark Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 2 Location and Context 3 300 Laporte Left: 1958 Right: 1959 Current 5.c Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 300 Laporte Landmark Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 3 300 Laporte Southelevation elevation South 300 Laporte Northeast elevation North elevation 5.c Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 300 Laporte Landmark Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 4 300 Laporte Northwest elevation West elevation Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:” • Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark • Must possess both significance and exterior integrity • Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered Sec. 14-22(a): If all owners consent in writing, and a majority of Commission approves: • Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation 8 5.c Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 300 Laporte Landmark Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 4/5/2017 5 9 Historic Fort Collins Municipal Building, 300 Laporte Avenue— Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 04.19.2017 5.c Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 300 Laporte Landmark Designation (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) DESCRIPTION OF A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ENVELOPE FOR 300 LAPORTE AVENUE A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST. QUARTER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING LOCATED WITHIN BLOCK 42, TOWN OF FORT COLLINS AND WITHIN VACATED PORTIONS OF WASHINGTON PLACE (PER RESOLUTION RECORDED IN BOOK 1785 PAGE 224), HOWES STREET (PER RESOLUTION RECORDED IN BOOK 69 PAGE 261), AND LAPORTE AVENUE (PER RESOLUTION RECORDED IN BOOK 175 PAGE 40); AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LAPORTE AVENUE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID RESOLUTION RECORDED IN BOOK 175, PAGE 40 WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HOWES STREET AS DESCRIBED IN SAID RESOLUTION RECORDED IN BOOK 69 PAGE 261, AND CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF HOWES STREET TO BEAR N00°17'22"E, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS SOUTH END BY AW' SQUARE IRON PIN IN CONCRETE, AND ON ITS NORTH END BY A 1" BRASS DISK GLUED IN THE BRICK WALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MAPLE STREET, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE N40°27'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 38.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N59°31'15"W, A DISTANCE OF 65.86 FEET; THENCE S00°01'14"E, A DISTANCE OF 14.72 FEET; THENCE N89°38'28"W, A DISTANCE OF 39.04 FEET; THENCE N00°29'17"E, A DISTANCE OF 14.59 FEET; THENCE S60°12'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 48.65 FEET; THENCE N29°45'09"W, A DISTANCE OF 19.46 FEET; THENCE S60°18'06"W, A DISTANCE OF 6.40 FEET; THENCE N29°42'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 23.88 FEET; THENCE N60°19'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 45.61 FEET; THENCE N28°29'59"W, A DISTANCE OF 12.37 FEET; THENCE N20°02'21"E, A DISTANCE OF 10.75 FEET; THENCE N60°12'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 21.44 FEET; THENCE N00°29'38"E, A DISTANCE OF 43.04 FEET; THENCE S89°47'11"E, A DISTANCE OF 40.61 FEET; THENCE S00°13'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 13.57 FEET; THENCE S89°47'03"E, A DISTANCE OF 17.13 FEET; THENCE S00°02'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 41.95 FEET; THENCE S59°09'27"E, A DISTANCE OF 78.12 FEET; THENCE S30°19'53"W, A DISTANCE OF 23.23 FEET; THENCE S59°38'20"E, A DISTANCE OF 8.85 FEET; THENCE S30°13'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 23.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 12,454 SQUARE FEET (0.286 ACRES), MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD OR THAT NOW EXIST ON THE GROUND. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS DESCRIPTION THAT ALL HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, BELIEF, AND OPINION. JOHN STEVEN VON NIEDA, COLORADO P.L.S. 31169 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO 80522 S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\Historic Pres Blocks 32&42\ Legals\Op Services Bldg lgl.doc Exhibit A 5.d Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) 5.d Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (5464 : 300 LAPORTE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC SURVEY - PROJECT RESULTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide the Commission and citizens with information regarding the Alta Vista Neighborhood Historic Survey Project. The survey has been conducted by Colorado State University historic preservation graduate students, working under the direction of Dr. Sarah Payne. BACKGROUND This spring, Colorado State University graduate students enrolled in the course “Methods in Historic Preservation” (History 503) conducted a study of the history of the buildings and cultural landscapes in the Alta Vista Neighborhood. This work was done in collaboration with the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division and at the request of residents of the neighborhood. The goal of this project is to help document the history of its buildings and structures, and evaluate the historical significance of the neighborhood as a Cultural Landscape. Located north-east of downtown Fort Collins, the Alta Vista Neighborhood is important for its historical associations with Hispanic heritage in Fort Collins, and with the history of the Great Western Sugar Company. Additionally, the neighborhood is known for its collection of vernacular dwellings. (Because of the lack of an ordered, formal floor plan and ornamentation, vernacular architecture is best analyzed through form rather than style.) Of special note is Alta Vista’s concentration of adobe-brick structures - one of the northernmost groupings of domestic adobe-brick architecture in North America - many built by the Great Western Sugar Company and purchased under the company’s employee installment plan. Alta Vista also contains a significant collection of historic outbuildings. These include barns, garages, chicken coops, summer kitchens, and privies. Many of these structures cannot be found elsewhere in Fort Collins. In 1903, the Fort Collins Colorado Sugar Company constructed Colorado’s second refinery to manufacture sugar from sugar beets. The Fort Collins factory soon became part of the Great Western Sugar Company, an amalgamation of refineries in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. At first, the sugar company and beet farmers used Germans from Russia as laborers, many of whom settled in the Buckingham and Andersonville neighborhoods adjacent to the Fort Collins factory. However, changes in immigration policies following World War I forced the company to look elsewhere for labor. It began importing Hispanic single men and families from the American Southwest and Mexico. Great Western realized that it had to offer these migrant workers an incentive to settle in Fort Collins all year. One way to do this was to offer affordable, comfortable housing. In 1923, the Great Western Sugar Company hired Felipe and Pedro Arellano, of northern New Mexico, to build six, 2-room adobe homes, with many more to follow. Using these as models, Great Western offered workers the ability to construct and own their own homes. The Sugar Company furnished straw, lime, and gravel and, later, lumber for the roof. It offered laborers a 50-by-85- foot lot, which could be purchased through the company’s installment plan: a resident paid nothing the first year and $40 for the next three years, thereby reimbursing the company for the $120 worth of labor and materials expended in the house. And in the fifth year, the resident paid $25 to $50 for the lot. In return, the company could, if it wanted to, eject any family from these homes within 30 days. In a matter of weeks, small adobe houses appeared in the neighborhood, known as "la Colonia Española" or "la Colonia," for short. Re-named Alta Vista (meaning "high view") in the 1980s, the neighborhood is emblematic of Fort Collins’ Hispanic culture. 6 Packet Pg. 103 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. ALTA VISTA SURVEY REPORT - UPDATED DRAFT (DOCX) 6 Packet Pg. 104 ALTA VISTA SURVEY REPORT An updated, near-final draft of the 1404 Historic Cultural Landscape Form for the Alta Vista Survey can be downloaded here: http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=46&dt=SUPPLEMENTAL+DOCUMENTS&docid=2 920771&board=LANDMARK+PRESERVATION+COMMISSION 6.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: ALTA VISTA SURVEY REPORT - UPDATED DRAFT (5475 : ALTA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC SURVEY - PROJECT Alta Vista Cultural Landscape and Historic District Presented to the Fort Collins LPC Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Fort Collins, CO Presentation Overview Introduction (Ariel and Natalie) What is a Cultural Landscape (CL)? Why is it Useful? (Shannon, Liz, Kaitlyn) What are the Boundaries and the CDFs of the Alta Vista Historic Cultural Landscape? (Sam, Poppie, Maggie, Trey) Work Still to be Done? (Bennett, Dustin, Katie, Hannah) Questions and Comments Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-1 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation Who We Are CSU Public History Graduate Students Dr. Sarah Payne Bringing Theory and Fieldwork Together “Doing” History in the Fort Collins Community CSU graduate students performing an architectural survey in the Alta Vista neighborhood. The Alta Vista Neighborhood Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-2 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation The Project Historic Preservation in the Alta Vista Neighborhood Response to interest from the community Architectural Surveys Cultural Landscape Form National Register Nomination Project Summary 5 Teams each responsible for specific properties Surveying Process Research Process Important Questions to Consider Are the properties individually eligible for listing on the National Register? Is it a District? Is it a Cultural Landscape? Character Defining Features? Boundaries? Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-3 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation What is a Cultural Landscape? What is a cultural landscape? A Cultural Landscape is a geographic area that incorporates human-built and natural features, and highlights the interactions between the two. Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-4 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation Why a cultural landscape? Holistic approach that identifies patterns and historic trends that cannot be seen by looking at a structure alone. More likely to include underrepresented groups than traditional structural districts A house on its own cannot tell the agricultural history of Alta Vista, but the connection between the built environment and the land shows a fuller community story. View of Alta Vista looking southwest from Lemay Vernacular Architecture Organic form of building in a given time or place, often hybrid styles Dynamism and change over time Human response to environment growth, and changing needs Adobe homes in Alta Vista Built in a traditional Hispanic method Initially built with flat roofs but gabled roofs added in response to the environment of northern Colorado Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-5 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation Boundaries and Character Defining Features What are the boundaries of Alta Vista Historic Cultural Landscape? Boundary determined by history of neighborhood and relation to Great Western Sugar Company Exclusion of Vine and Lindenmeier properties Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-6 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation What are the “Character Defining Features” of Alta Vista? Spatial Organization Small grid street pattern Narrow walking alleys Similar lot size, shape, orientation Uniform size and position of houses on lots Gravel or paved driveways onnnnnn llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooootttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss What are the “Character Defining Features” of Alta Vista? Yard and Fences Shallow front yards Soil, rock, and natural vegetation, and not planted sod Fences are tall privacy, chain-link, picket, and wire oooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn,, nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk,, 741 Martinez Street Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-7 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation What are the “Character Defining Features” of Alta Vista? Vegetation Mature trees act as lot boundaries Trees distinguish Alta Vista from surrounding fields Trees also distinguish Alta Vista as residential area rather than industrial area Looking North into the Alta Vista Neighborhood What are the “Character Defining Features” of Alta Vista? Vernacular Architecture Adobe brick One story Rectangular Flat or gabled roof Modification over time Combines traditional Hispanic bildi f dd tti Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-8 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation What Still Needs to Be Done? Next Steps Ɣ 22 properties still need to be surveyed ż 13 surveyed Ɣ Finalize the cultural landscape form Ɣ Complete the national register nomination form Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-9 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation Questions and Comments Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-10 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation Head Shots Natalie Walker Katherine Oldberg Dustin Clark Hannah Ashley Sam Iven Poppie Gullett Trey Heitschmidt Ariel Schnee Kaitlyn Cherry Lizz Henke Shannon Kelly Maggie Moss Jones Bennett Lee Ray Sumner Item 6, Exhibit A Alta Vista Student Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 105-11 Exhibit A: ALTA VISTA Student Presentation Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed design for a three-story residential project that would be a Net Zero Energy building on a 4,600-square-foot site at the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The development site is within the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB). Final review will be a Type 1 hearing with a hearing officer. APPLICANT/OWNER: Laurie and Bob Davis, DavisDavis Architects RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a final review regarding compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for the proposed design of a net-zero energy, four-unit residential building at 221 E. Oak Street, the southwest corner of Oak and Mathews Streets. The PDP application is in its second round of review. In the first round of review, the proposed design was presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission for comment and has since been revised to reflect the feedback received at that March 15, 2017 meeting. LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will conduct additional review of the project’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7 based on the updated design. Staff has determined that the design of the proposed building is nearly finalized, that the applicant has successfully addressed the issues stated in previous meetings, and it is appropriate for the Commission to perform a final development review and provide a recommendation to the decision maker. If the Commission disagrees it may table the item for further review or may place agreed upon conditions on its recommendation for staff to verify in the approval process for the final development plan. POTENTIAL AREA OF ADJACENCY: At the March 15, 2017 meeting, the Commission discussed a potential area of adjacency as follows, pending confirmation of eligibility and designation status for each (indicated below): 1. Individually Designated Fort Collins Landmarks a. 200 Mathews (Carnegie Library, designated as a Fort Collins Landmark, 1985) b. 148 Remington (Poudre Garage, designated as a Fort Collins Landmark, 1997) c. 202 Remington Street (the McHugh-Andrews House, National Register of Historic Places, 1978; designated as a Fort Collins Landmark, 1983) d. 324 E. Oak (the Mosman House, National Register of Historic Places, 1978; designated as a Fort Collins Landmark, 1976) 7 Packet Pg. 106 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 2. Properties Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) a. 210 E. Oak (Zoric Cleaners) b. 215 E. Oak (carriage house for McHugh-Andrews House) c. 216 E. Oak (Parsonage) d. 221 Mathews (Park View Apartments) e. 133 Mathews (Frozen Food Center) f. 137-143 Mathews (McIntyre House) g. 300 E. Oak (Mennonite Church) - constructed 1954 h. 308 E. Oak (Parkland Arms apartments) - constructed in 1967 3. Contributing to the Laurel School District a. 322 E. Oak - The RJ Andrews House, constructed in 1892/remodeled 2010 b. 318 E. Oak - Blunk House, constructed in 1906 c. 334 E. Oak - constructed in 1900 d. 340 E. Oak (formerly 336 E Oak) - constructed in 1900 4. Not Eligible for Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) a. 217 E. Oak b. 220 E. Oak (Community of Christ Church) c. 207 Mathews (Library Park Apartments) - constructed in 1966 d. 330 E. Oak - New construction (2011) attached and in front of the Perry House, constructed in 1929 (formerly contributing to Laurel School National Register District) AREA OF ADJACENCY CHARACTERISTICS Based on the information summarized in the “Neighborhood Context” chart provided by the applicant in their submittal packet, staff has determined the following:  The average height is 25 feet and average width is 48 feet.  The tallest historic building is 38 feet (McHugh-Andrews House); the shortest are the residences at 334 and 340 East Oak at 15 feet.  The maximum width in the area of adjacency is the Poudre Garage at 93 feet, while the Mosman House at 324 East Oak is the smallest at 26 feet wide.  53 percent of the buildings are constructed primarily of brick; 18 percent are primarily stone; and another 18% percent are clad in stucco.  53 percent of roofs are pitched, 35 percent are flat, and 12 percent are hipped. SAMPLE MOTION FOR ESTABLISHING AREA OF ADJACENCY: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt as the area of adjacency for the proposed Living Oaks building at 221 East Oak Street the sixteen designated and eligible buildings on Oak, Mathews, and Remington Streets, as listed in the staff report. PROPOSED DESIGN SUMMARY AND UPDATE REQUESTS: The proposed 9,200-square-foot building consists of four 2,300 square-foot townhomes. The primary building materials are red terra cotta rainscreen cladding in a 12” by 48” panel format that will be applied in two different textures, as well as grey fiber cement panels. The updated design for the proposed building is illustrated in the applicant packet. The applicant has made the following changes to the building design since the March 15, 2017 meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission: 1. Third floor height has been reduced by 1 foot, as have the third story windows 2. Windows on upper floors are now shown in a three-light pattern 3. The width of each ground floor window on the east and west elevations has been reduced by half 4. Ground floor solid-to-void pattern on the façade has changed as follows: previous quantity of solid fiber cement panel (charcoal) increased from 36 percent to 60 percent; vision windows decreased from 46 7 Packet Pg. 107 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 percent to 22 percent. 5. Interior walls positioned parallel to the larger corner windows on the façade have been added to block visibility into the ground floor garage spaces (labeled as “flex space” on diagrams). 6. Headers in contrasting textured terra cotta panel on third floor façade (north) and rear (south) elevation windows have been added 7. Red, textured terra cotta panels have replaced the flat, ebony terra cotta panels on the east, west, and south elevations 8. The use of steel trim on all four facades has been replaced with red terra cotta panels 9. The grey metal panels on the ground floor and cladding the PV support structure have been replaced with grey fiber cement panels 10. Solid rear entry doors for each unit have been added in addition to the garage doors. For the applicant, the Commission requested the following additions to the packet for this meeting at its April 12, 2017 work session. See attached addendum for responses to the following.  On the east elevation rendering add a to-scale profile of the abutting Library Park apartments to the south to show height relationship.  Add section diagrams that would explain why the building (floor) height is required for the daylighting strategy. That diagram should be a section through the building that includes window heights.  Add detailed section diagram through the building showing floor thicknesses. (Total floor thickness is 1’-6” and first floor ceiling height is 13’-6”. See attached sketch.)  Provide new rendering of the view from Mennonite Church looking to the southwest if not from pedestrian height.  Add 2 pedestrian view renderings from Library Park: one looking due west from the park to the new building and another from Carnegie Library, looking northwest, that shows both the Parkview Apartments and new building.  Closeup renderings: Add one that shows the building looking south on Mathews, the other from the southernmost end of the property looking north (should show relationship of cantilevered elevation to pedestrian experience along Mathews).  Provide a statement confirming final decision on all materials.  Include the detailed information about the rainscreen construction provided in the March meeting. For staff, the Commission had the following request:  Provide more information from Planning staff regarding the front door placement on the façade and how it meets code. Response: “Land Use Code section 3.5.2(D)(2) requires buildings with 4 or more units to have at least 1 building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking. The intent of this standard was to ensure large apartment buildings didn’t turn their back onto adjacent streets. This code provision did not envision corner lots in a downtown setting. As such, the two building entries shown facing Oak St. satisfy this code standard.” REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources contains the applicable standards for new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. LUC Section 3.4.7(A), Purpose, states in pertinent part: “This Section is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible: … new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or individually eligible historic sites, structures or objects as well as sites, structures or objects in designated historic districts, whether on or adjacent to the development site.” LUC 3.4.7(B) General Standard states: “If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be or potentially be individually eligible for 7 Packet Pg. 108 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 4 local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State Register of Historic Properties or National Register of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated national, state or City historic district or area, then, to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above . New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” LUC 3.4.7(F) New Construction: “(1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located…. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site.” The following project elements address 3.4.7(F)(1):  The proposed setback pattern on the west side of Mathews Street between Oak Street and Olive Street fits the existing pattern for corner anchor buildings with zero lot lines that frame the streetscape of the block on Mathews and Oak. The McHugh-Andrews carriage house at 215 E. Oak and the Frozen Food Center in the historic area of adjacency are also at zero lot line.  The proposed three-story building would be 39’- 8” tall (35 feet to the top of third story) and 87 feet wide. This is within the range and generally compatible with historic buildings in the area of adjacency, which consist of one-story, two-story, and three-story buildings that are from 26 feet to 93 feet wide and 15 to 38 feet tall. The proposed height of Living Oaks reflects a daylighting strategy that fits with the net zero energy building program. The height has been reduced by 1 foot on the third story since the conceptual review. It is reasonable to conclude that the PV panels should be less visible from a pedestrian viewpoint while facing the building’s façade on Oak Street, although they will be visible from the east and west and will also present a pitched roof appearance on those elevations. Generally speaking, the height, setback, and width of the proposed new building will not negatively impact the exterior integrity and significance of individually designated and eligible buildings along Oak Street and Mathews Street, in part because those buildings are not immediately abutting the proposed new construction, because the building site is a corner lot, and because the proposed building’s scale is within the range of the existing buildings in the immediate surroundings. “(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.” The following project elements address 3.4.7(F)(2):  Ground floor solid-to-void pattern is now 60 percent solid fiber cement panel (charcoal) and 22 percent vision windows. This adjustment improves the residential character of the ground floor. Interior walls positioned parallel to the larger corner windows on the facade and channel glass at the entrances address the question of interior visibility from the street.  Vertical window orientation, which is found on the McHugh-Andrews House, Carnegie Library, McIntyre House, and McHugh-Andrews carriage house, the “Parsonage,” and Poudre Garage  A window pattern that reflects that of the designated McHugh-Andrews House-upper floor windows that are 1 foot shorter than lower story windows 7 Packet Pg. 109 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 5  Headers in contrasting textured terra cotta panel on third floor façade and rear elevation windows improve detailing that is more reflective of historic pattern  Shadow definition of fenestration is provided by sill extensions and window inset depth of 6 to 7 inches  The flat roof pattern shown on the façade is found in 35 percent of buildings in the area of adjacency (Poudre Garage, Zoric Cleaners, the Frozen Foods Building, Parkland Arms, the “Parsonage,” Parkview Apartments) Staff concludes that the revised renderings depict a building that has stronger visual ties to the area of adjacency and is more residential in character. There are two remaining design features that are still under review by City engineering and planning staff: the rear gate enclosure and rear entry doors that provide access from the driveway into the ground floor garage spaces (labeled as “flex space” on diagram). The applicant has provided images and an animated rendering to depict how the gate and rear doors will function. Renderings that depict the building without the gate enclosure have also been provided to give the Commission confidence about how the design will be affected by the potential removal of the gate. “(3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block.” The following project elements address 3.4.7(F)(3).  The breathable rainscreen cladding is a terracotta panel product with 12” x 48” dimensions that harmonizes with the use of reddish brick in the area of adjacency.  The revised design eliminates the use of steel and metal panels as cladding elements on all elevations Staff feels that the dominant building material choice of terracotta panels is a sensitive modern construction material that would visually harmonize with the existing area of adjacency. The area of adjacency includes three major cladding types: brick, stone, and stucco. Of those three materials, brick is found in the largest quantity at 53 percent. The panels will differ from the appearance of the traditional brick based on the modular installation, which relies upon suspension on a frame and includes no mortar. The terra cotta panels are larger than traditional brick and their texture is flat and grooved (on panels used in accent areas). The overall effect is thus indirectly referential to the historic brick and one of contrast and differentiation. The variety of material in the area of adjacency, which reflects an evolution of styles and types built over a 70-year span, seems to provide an opening for the introduction of a variation on a theme of earthen materials that continues that evolving, harmonious progression. “(4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.” The following project elements address 3.4.7(F)(4):  Placement of the structure at the lot edge enhances the open space of Library Park across Mathews Street because the building anchors and frames the currently vacant corner. The impact of the proposed building on the visual and pedestrian connections between the site and the neighborhood focal points, which include Library Park, the Carnegie Library building, and the cluster of historic cabins in the courtyard, are not a concern for staff. “(5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. The following project elements address 3.4.7(F)(5):  The proposal calls for preserving one existing ash tree along Oak Street, removing one <6-inch caliper tree on Mathews Street, and planting two new street trees (one on Oak, one on Mathews), as well as adding 7 Packet Pg. 110 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 6 landscaping along the sidewalk on both street facing sides of the building. Staff comments from Environmental Planning and Forestry indicate that the plans are in compliance with City Land Use Code. No significant negative impact on the existing historic landscaping is indicated. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings of fact, staff concludes that the development plan does not impact the eligibility of adjacent historic properties and its design is compatible with the existing historic character in the area of adjacency, and thus recommends approval of the Living Oaks Project Development Plan, PDP #170009. SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL: If the Commission agrees that the project is compatible with Land Use Code section 3.4.7 and is ready to complete its development review of the proposed Living Oaks building at 221 East Oak Street, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the Living Oaks Project Development Plan (PDP170009), finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the following reasons:  The project does not impact the individual eligibility for designation of the historic properties in the defined area of adjacency.  The project design uses massing and scale that is compatible with the historic context.  The project relies on building materials that are visually compatible with adjacent historic properties.  The project uses window patterning and proportions that provide visual ties to buildings within the adjacent historic context.  The proposed design does not impede existing visual and pedestrian connections to the adjacent neighborhood focal points. Note: The Commission may propose additional findings of fact or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Living Oaks Final Review Staff Presentation (PDF) 2. Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (PDF) 3. Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (PDF) 4. 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (PDF) 5. 308 E Oak_DOE_2017 (PDF) 6. DDA Letter - 221 E Oak St - 3/14/17 (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 111 4/7/2017 1 1 Living Oaks (PDP170009) – Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 19, 2017 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Provide a written recommendation to the decision maker (Type 1 - hearing officer) for the development proposal based on compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, which requires new construction to respect the historic character of surrounding historic properties on or adjacent to the development site. 2 7.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Living Oaks Final Review Staff Presentation (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4/7/2017 2 Project Summary • Living Oaks is a proposed 3-story residential project at 221 East Oak Street (SW corner, Oak and Mathews) • Vacant site, 4,600 s.f., in the Neighborhood Conservation – Buffer District (NCB) between the Downtown District and the NCM • 9,200 square feet (Four 2,300 square-foot townhomes) • Net Zero Energy building: 100% of energy supplied onsite • Rainscreen cladding system, rooftop PV array, geothermal heating wells 3 Area of Adjacency 4 7.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Living Oaks Final Review Staff Presentation (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4/7/2017 3 Area of Adjacency: Characteristics • Dimensions • Average height: 25 feet • Average width: 48 feet • Tallest: 38 feet (McHugh-Andrews House) • Shortest: 15 feet (Residences at 334 and 340 East Oak) • Widest: 93 feet (Poudre Garage) • Narrowest: 26 feet (Mosman House at 324 East Oak) 5 Area of Adjacency: Characteristics Materials: • 53 percent brick • 18 percent stone • 18% percent stucco Roofs: • 53 percent pitched • 35 percent flat • 12 percent hipped 6 7.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Living Oaks Final Review Staff Presentation (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4/7/2017 4 Summary of Design Updates Changed: •3rd story floor height reduced by 1 foot •3rd story windows reduced by 1 foot • Windows on upper floors now shown in a three-light pattern. • Width of ground floor windows on east and west reduced by half • Ground floor solid-to-void pattern on façade (solid fiber cement panel (charcoal) increased from 36 percent to 60 percent; vision windows decreased from 46 percent to 22 percent) 7 Summary of Design Updates Added: • Interior walls positioned parallel to the larger corner windows on façade • Headers in contrasting textured terra cotta panel on third floor façade (north) and rear (south) elevation windows • Solid rear entry doors for each unit Replaced: • Flat, ebony terra cotta panels on the east, west, and south elevations replaced with red, textured terra cotta panels • Steel trim on all four facades replaced with red terra cotta panels • Grey metal panels on ground floor and PV support structure replaced with grey fiber cement panels 8 7.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Living Oaks Final Review Staff Presentation (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4/7/2017 5 Staff Analysis • The building design uses massing and scale that is compatible with the historic context. • The project relies on building materials that are visually compatible with adjacent historic properties. • The building features window patterning and proportions that provide visual ties to buildings within the adjacent historic context. • The proposed design does not impede existing visual and pedestrian connections to the adjacent neighborhood focal points. 9 Staff Analysis • Based on those findings, its design is compatible with the existing historic character in the area of adjacency • The development plan does not impact the eligibility of adjacent historic properties Recommendation of approval of the Living Oaks Project Development Plan, PDP #170009 10 7.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Living Oaks Final Review Staff Presentation (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4/7/2017 6 11 Living Oaks (PDP170009) – Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 19, 2017 7.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Living Oaks Final Review Staff Presentation (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street A NET ZERO DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION SUBMITTAL ROUND TWO April 3, 2017 7.b Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) CONTENTS: PROJECT OVERVIEW Narrative 3 Contextual and Urban Design Goals 4 Building Design Goals 4 SITE AND CONTEXT 5-7 PROPOSED BUILDING Plans 8-9 Building Elevations 10 Street Elevations 11-12 Renderings in Context 13-17 Materials 18 Summary of comments from 3.15.17 Meeting 19 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVES Land Use Code 3.4.7 (1) Dimensional Compatibility 20-21 (2) Character and Pattern Compatibility 22-25 (3) Building Material Compatibility 26 (4) Visual Connections 27 (5) Preservation of Landscape 27 (6) Impact on Historic Context 27 APPENDIX 1 Streetviews 28-29 APPENDIX 2 Additional Setback Diagrams 30-31 APPENDIX 2 City of Fort Collins Strategic Plan 2016 32 7.b Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) SRS RB Parking Garage L1 | Physician Parking February 20, 2015 Rancho Bernardo LHP 8 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 3 PROJECT OVERVIEW: Narrative Project Narrative The proposal is for a three (3) story residential project designed to be a Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) registered with the Living Building Challenge (LBC). The LBC certifications are the most advanced measures of sustainability in the built environment. The metric is comprised of seven performance categories, or Petals: Place, Energy, Water, Materials, Health and Happiness, Equity and Beauty. The Petals are subdivided into a total of twenty Imperatives, each of which focuses on a specific sphere of influence. With the LBC NZE certification, we are not only required to prove that 100% of the building’s energy needs will be supplied by on-site renewable energy, with no combustion sources on site, we are also required to also meet three additional imperatives: 01 Limits to Growth, 19 Beauty + Spirit, and 20 Inspiration + Education. It is for this reason we are proud to see this project through as a demonstration case to what is possible to achieve in Fort Collins. The Living Building Challenge metric is important to our project because it is our compass, and all issues and determinants that follow, are guided by this goal. For more information on the Living Building Challenge see: http://living-future.org The site is a small, non-conforming 4,600 SF urban infill site at the corner of Oak Street and Mathews Streets in Old Town Fort Collins. It is currently vacant, having formerly been an auto garage some 40 years ago. Three orphan tanks will have to be removed. This lot is in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) zone. The program includes four 2,300 SF residential townhomes for a total of 9,200 SF. Also on site will be up to nine (9) geothermal heating wells and a 31.2 kW photovoltaic array to meet the energy goal of NZE. An electric vehicle charging station is planned on Oak Street, but will be addressed under a separate permit. As a condition of our alternative compliance for parking, each unit will have one spot reserved in the Old Town Garage and a transit pass for a year. The project has been accepted in the Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP) and therefore will be guided by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department to help achieve the elevated energy goals. This project’s goals are also in line with the City of Fort Collins 2016 Strategic Plan, especially in implementation of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) which aligns the city with carbon neutrality by 2050. Living Building Challenge Categories 7.b Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 4 Contextual and Urban Design Goals Our goal is to contribute to the history of Fort Collins with a building in the urban context of Old Town that strives for an authentic materiality and form that answers the call of our time. True to the tenants of sustainable architecture, our building will be embedded in place, have a long life through its loose fit, and will be low on energy use, but high in performance. We have explored design and implementation strategies to reach the NZEB goal including passive design such as building siting and massing, and active design, such as a super-efficient building envelope and HVAC system, as well as, geothermal wells and on site photovoltaics. These are the critical challenges of a living building in a living city today, especially in light of global warming. This is our context and our purpose. Building Design Goals The building will be a demonstration case for high performance, low impact living. The townhouses will have a tall floor to floor height to implement our daylighting strategy. Atypical of most townhouse, there is a fully conditioned space that could be used as a garage or more likely, a “flex space” that could house an office or studio space for the owner living above. The building is a particularly efficient and resilient building form that will change and adapt as this neighborhood does, for generations to come. The exterior materials are timeless and durable. We plan to use a rain screen construction method that fosters a healthy building, letting the building “breathe”. In this method, the outer building cladding is separated from the structure to manage moisture and energy transfer. The air gap allows for ventilation in the wall that also has open joints (no caulking or grout). The rain screen terra cotta material we are proposing is essentially “modern” brick as it is in a larger format of 12” x 48”. *An alternate rainscreen material proposed is Fiber Cement wall panels, which have a similar feeling of permanence and robustness. The upper fenestration is vertically composed with high performance windows, triple-glazed with aluminum-clad wood to contrast but complement the wall material. [The street facing ground floor, in response to comments made by LPC regarding the amount of vision glass, has been reduced as follows: 60% solid, concrete panel and 22% vision windows, the remainder translucent channel glass at the entry is 18%. (Previous design was 36% solid, concrete panel and 46% vision windows, 18% translucent channel glass.) We believe this gives the building a more residential feel while still keeping it on a flexible module.] PROJECT OVERVIEW: Design Goals 7.b Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) DOWNTOWN DISTRICT NO REQUIRED SETBACKS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - BUFFER DISTRICT (NCB) 15’ FRONT YARD SETBACK 5’ SIDEYARD SETBACK NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT (NCM) SITE OLIVE STREET REMINGTON STREET MATHEWS STREET PETERSON STREET OAK STREET MOUNTAIN AVENUE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT NCB NCM TOWNHOMES AT LIBRARY PARK MAV DEVELOPMENT POUDRE GARAGE 60’ 50’ 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 5 SITE & CONTEXT: Land Use Code & Zoning 7.b Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 VIEW FROM THE NORTH 6 SITE AND CONTEXT: Existing Site Conditions SITE E OAK ST. E OLIVE ST. REMINGTON ST. MATHEWS ST. SITE AND CONTEXT: Existing Site Conditions 7.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 7 SITE REMINGTON ST MATHEWS ST. MATHEWS ST. E OAK ST . SITE AND CONTEXT: Existing Site Conditions VIEW FROM THE EAST 7.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 8 PROPOSED BUILDING: Site & First Floor Plan EXISTING 2- STORY APARTMENT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING PARKING Line of Floor Above EXISTING 1.5 STORY HOUSE Planting Along Sidewalks Handicap Parking Space New Tree New Tree Remove Existing Curb Cut Existing Tree Removed Sliding Gate Electric Vehicle Charging Station New Curb Cut Permeable Area of Pavers 6’ Fence Existing Tree to be Preserved UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 Remove Existing Curb Cut Bike Rack In Each Unit 7 New Street Parking Spaces EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING ALLEY TOD OVERLAY ZONE 50' - 0" 40' - 0" 30' - 0" 21' - 10" 18' - 0" 92.16’ 87’- 0” E OAK ST. MATHEWS STREET FRONT DN UP UP UP DN DN UP DN hlidandle bar lhidandle bar hlidandle bar hlidandle bar hlidandle bar hlidandle bar lhidandle bar hlidandle bar A B C D E 0' - 10" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 0' - 10" 1 371 SF FLEX SPACE 4 141 29' - 2" 0' - 10" 408 SF FLEX SPACE 3 131 408 SF FLEX SPACE 2 371 SF 121 FLEX SPACE 1 111 ENTRY 120 20' - 9 1/4" 20' - 9 1/4" 20' - 8 1/2" 0' - 4" 20' - 8 1/2" 10' - 8" ENTRY 10' - 5 5/8" 130 0' - 1 1/4" G1 G2 G3 G4 H C H H H H 12 13 16 17 122 19 249 SF ENTRY 110 249 SF ENTRY 140 3' - 10" 17' - 0 3/8" 8' - 9 5/8" 0' - 4" AC R H DAVI S I DI A V S S TECT 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE Mathews Street 11'-0" 10'-0" 2'-0" 12'-0" 35'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 3'-8" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE Oa Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 8 2'-0" 35'-0" 3'-8" Oa Street PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 11'-0" 10'-0" 2'-0" 12'-0" 2'-6" 10'-0" 10'-0" 6" 0'-0" 8 35'-0" Mathews Street PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 11'-0" 10'-0" 2'-0" 12'-0" 5'-3" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6" 6" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 10 PROPOSED BUILDING: Building Elevations A. Terracotta Rainscreen B. Bronze Aluminum Clad Windows C. Fiber Cement Panels D. PV Structure E. Channel Glass F. Terracotta Rainscreen with Grooved Texture A B C E F PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE Oak Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 8° 2'-0" 35'-0" 39'-8" LPC ADDENDUM 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 EAST ELEVATION WITHOUT GATE 33 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 7.b Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 1. GATE CLOSED 2. GATE AND GARAGE DOOR OPEN 3. CAR PULLS INTO GARAGE 6. CAR STOPS 5. CAR BACKS OUT 4. CAR IS IN GARAGE 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 34 7.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7. GATE OPENS AND CAR PULLS FORWARD AS PEDESTRIAN APPROACHES 8. PEDESTRIAN CROSSES 9. CAR PULLS INTO STREET DIMENSIONS 10. CAR DRIVES AWAY 11’- 0” 4’-5” 5’-0” 10‘- 2” 1’ LPC ADDENDUM 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 35 7.b Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 11 PROPOSED BUILDING: Street Elevations Oak Street Mathews Street 50’ Remington Street Proposed Poudre Garage Addition (Beyond) 137-143 Mathews St. (McIntyre House) 133 Mathews (Frozen Food Center) MAV Development 221 Mountain Proposed Living Oaks Mathews Street Elevation Oak Street Elevation Carnegie Library 217 East Oak St. McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) McHugh- Andrews Carriage House Proposed Living Oaks 50’ 75’ Mountain Street 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) 7.b Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 12 50’ 50’ Oak Street Mathews Street Proposed Living Oaks Proposed Living Oaks 217 East Oak St. McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) McHugh-Andrews Carriage House 215 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) (In Construction Parkview Apartments Townhomes at Library Park Carnegie Library PROPOSED BUILDING: Enlarged Street Elevations Mathews Street Elevation Oak Street Elevation 7.b Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 13 PROPOSED BUILDING: Renderings in Context Overview of block from the northeast 7.b Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 14 7.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 15 PROPOSED BUILDING: Renderings in Context From Oak Street looking East From Zoric Cleaners 7.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 36 VIEW OF FRONT DOOR AND ENTRY AREA 7.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 16 7.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Oa Street 8 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 18 PROPOSED BUILDING: Materials PROPOSED MATERIALS B - ALUMINUM CLAD TRIPLE GLAZED HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS A - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR: RED C - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS A - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS (ALT) SIMILAR TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN SYSTEM 200 FILLMORE STREET, DENVER CO E - CHANNEL GLASS ENTRY FEATURE (SEE NORTH ELEVATION) A C F B C F - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR RED 7.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 19 1. Typology “More rationale needed for storefront typology in this transitional district” We have considered this and have redesigned the Oak and Mathews facing elevations to have more of a residential feel, but have kept the flexible module that we feel is important for future adaptation. 2. Scale and Height “Consider less floor height” We have further studied the floor heights and have reduced the third floor by a foot. This still keeps our daylighting strategy intact, but drops the scale. This also plays out as a window connection with McHugh-Andrews house. 3. Materials “Terra cotta rain screen is a modern brick; study textures, details and colors. If concrete panel is used, need to make a smaller (than 4x8) module size.” We have studied the terra cotta colors, textures and details. The main body color is in the reddish range of the McHugh-Andrews house and the Carnegie Library. Some accents which were primarily warm charcoal color, are now being supplemented with some grooved textured panels, which also have been added to second floor window heads for detail. We have replaced mostly glass façade on Oak with the charcoal fiber cement panels. The module is a complement to the horizontal pattern of the terracotta. 4. Character and Pattern “Need to address 3.4.7(2).” We have relooked at ways our building “strengthens visual ties” in the historic context. We have found several areas of alignment which are demonstrated. 5. Design Details “Details are going to be important with the terracotta rain screen construction, especially at the windows.” We have further studied the window pattern and detail and have added textured terracotta window head accents and sill extensions for shadow definition. In addition, after studying McHugh-Andrews house more thoroughly, we discovered the upper floor has smaller windows by, 1’ in height, than the first floor, which we have included in our pattern. 6. Areas of Adjacency “Add more buildings to the Area of Adjacency and show how Living Oaks is compatible.” “Summarize/describe Area of Adjacency buildings by material and roof forms.” We added nine (9) buildings to the list of seven (7) we were originally given, for a total of sixteen (16) buildings in the determined Area of Adjacency. We have found alignment with several of these buildings in terms of visual ties. We have included a table to identify roof and material forms of all buildings. Landmarks Preservation Commission Conceptual Review 3/15/2017 Summary Comments (Abstracted & Paraphrased from Live Recording of Presentation) 7.b Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 20 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Land Use Code 3.4.7 LAND USE CODE COMPLIANCE 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources (F) New Construction Dimensional Compatibility (1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new structures shall be similar to: (a) those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located and on any portion of a block face across a local or collector street from the block face on which the new structure is located; or (b) when a block does not exist, similar to those on any land adjacent to the property on which the new structure is to be located. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this requirement shall not apply if, in the judgment of the decision maker, such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width. Where building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site. Given the transitional nature of the N-C-B zone, the buildings are disparate in heights, setbacks, widths, and functions. There are four buildings of historic significance in this area of adjacency. (other potential historic buildings are demonstrated in a table on page 23) Here’s how they relate to our project height, setback and width. For reference, Living Oaks is 35’ high, 87’ wide, and sited at zero lot line at Oak and Mathews. 1. McHugh-Andrews House (MHA) which is a local landmark and on the National Historic Register. This building is on the west corner of our block opposite our site (we are on the east). Its’ orientation is to Remington Street, not Oak, so our relationship is not similar along the Oaks Street frontage. MHA is 38’ high, 60’ wide, and setback 10’ from Oak. Incidentally, the MHA carriage house is Oak facing and on zero lot line. 2. Poudre Garage which is a local landmark. Its’ orientation is also to Remington although the new addition that faces Oak Street is 46’ high, zero lot line, and 70’ wide on Oak Street. 3. The Carnegie Library is a local landmark situated in Library Park. It faces Mathews Street. It 32’ high, 83’ wide, and setback 60’. Rather than being an urban street edge building, it is a monumental object building in a park setting. 4. The Mosman House which is a local landmark and on the National Historic Register is a converted house into business use. It is 22’ high, 26’ wide, and setback 30’. Considering the varying heights and widths (and proximity to) these four buildings, we feel that “such historic structures would not be negatively impacted with respect to their historic exterior integrity and significance by reason of the new structure being constructed at a dissimilar height, setback and width.” In addition, several (6) buildings in our Area of Adjacency are at zero lot line, but other reasons for siting at zero lot line include Urban Corner position, Physical Adjacency to Library Park open space, and Overly Generous Right of Ways for both Oak and Mathews. 324 E Oak St. (Mosman House) 1.5-story Cladding: Brick, Wood shingles Roof: gable, ceder shingles Date: 1892 or 1893 202 Remington St. (McHugh-Andrews House) 3-story house turned into retail 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 21 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Land Use Code 3.4.7 216 E Oak St. (Parsonage) 1-story commercial Cladding: stucco Roof: flat Date: unknown, estimated 1940s 210 E Oak St. (Zorich Laundry) 1-story commercial Cladding: yellow brick Roof: flat Date: 1940 221 Mathews St. (Parkview Apartments) 3-story apartments Cladding: red brick, half-timber Roof: mansard, slate Date: 1936 215 E Oak St. 1.5-story triplex Cladding: stone, wood shingles Roof: gable, red asphalt shingles Date: 1895 with 1968 addition 300 E Oak St. (Mennonite Church) 1-story church Cladding: red brick Roof: gable & hip, gray asphalt shingles Date: 1954 308 E Oak St. (Parkland Arms) 4-story apartment building Cladding: Mixed Tone Brick Roof: Mansard, gray asphalt shingles/ flat Date: 1967 133 Mathews (Frozen Food Center) 2-Comercial building Cladding: white plaster Roof: Flat Date: 1948 137-143 Mathews St. (McIntyre House) 2-House Cladding: Red Brick Roof: gable, dark gray asphalt Date: 1872 HISTORICALLY ELIGIBLE 7.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 22 318 E Oak St. (Blunk House) 2 Story House Cladding: Tan Brick, Roof: Hip/pyramidal, red asphalt shingles Date: 1906 322 E Oak St. (RJ Andrews House) 2 story House Cladding: red brick Roof: pitched, gray asphalt shingles Date:1892 334 E Oak St. 1.5 Story House Cladding: Stucco Color: Cream Roof: Pitched Date: 1900 340 E Oak St. 1.5 Story House Cladding: Stucco Color: Gray Roof: Pitched Date: 1900 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Land Use Code 3.4.7 Character and Pattern Compatibility LAUREL SCHOOL DISTRICT (2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. The neighborhood context in the N-C-B zone, is composed of a hodgepodge of eras, styles, sizes, cladding and roof forms. However, we are attempting to “strengthen the visual ties among buildings” by finding areas of alignment with our building and those in our Area of Adjacency. Here’s how: 1. McHugh-Andrews House •Reddish Masonry •Predominantly horizontal masonry pattern with module similar to Living Oaks (12”h x 44”w for MHA, 12”h x 48”w for Living Oaks) • Vertical proportioned windows • Similar window ratios; Upper floor 1’ shorter than Lower floor • Height similar 38’ for MHA verses 35’ Living Oaks 2. Poudre Garage • Flat roof • Reddish brick accents • Height • Zero Setback 3. Zoric Cleaners • Flat roof • Reddish brick accents • Zero Setback 7.b Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 31 Appendix 2 Additional Setback Diagrams Note: Previous Scheme Showing B U ILD I NGS A T Z E RO LOT LI NE S Aerial view looking Southwest PROPOSED LIVING OAKS MCHUGH-ANDREWS HOUSE OLD TOWN LOFTS CARRIAGE HOUSE FOR MCHUGH- ANDREWS HOUSE) Oak St. Mathews St. Remington St. 7.b Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 24 PROPERTY YEAR BUILT STATUS HEIGHT NO. OF STORIES WIDTH SETBACK MATERIAL COLOR ROOF South Side of Oak Street 202 Remington Street (McHugh-Andrews House 1889 Local landmark and NRHP 38’ 3 38’ 24’ Rusticated stone masonry Reddish and buff Pitched 215 E Oak Street (Carriage House for McHugh-Andrews House) 1895 w addi- tion in 1968 Individually Eligible for Local Designa- tion 29’ 2 27’ 0’ Rusticated stone masonry Reddish and buff Pitched North Side of Oak Street 148 Remington Street /205 East Oak Street (Poudre Garage) 1936 (Addition currently in progress) Local Landmark 27’ (46’) 2 (4) 93 (72’) 0’ Brick DK. Blonde w/ reddish accents Flat 210 East Oak Street (Commercial; old Zoric Cleaners) 1940 Individually Eligible for Local Designation 17’ 1 59’ 0’/5’ Brick DK Blonde w/ reddish accents Flat 216 E. Oak Street c. 1940’s Individually Eligible for Local Designation 16’ 1 27’ 5’ Stucco Painted Sand/cream Flat 300 E. Oak St (Mennonite Church) 1954 Individually Eligible for Local Designation 26’ 1 47’ 15’ Brick Red Pitched 308 E. Oak Street 1967 Individually Eligible for Local Designation 35’ 4 45’ 5’ Brick Red, Black and Blonde Flat/Mansard 318 East Oak Street (Blunk House) 1906 Contributing to Laurel School District 35’ 2 43’ 29’ Brick LT Blonde Hip/Pyramidal 322 East Oak Street (RJ Andrews House) 1892/remod- eled 2010 Contributing to Laurel School District 25 2 40’ 30’ Brick Red Pitched 324 East Oak Street (Mosman House) 1892/1893 Local landmark and NRHP 22’ 1.5 26’ 30’ Brick and wood Red, White trim Pitched 334 East Oak Street 1900 Contributing to Laurel School District 15’/ varies 1.5 52’ 22’ Stucco Cream Pitched 340 East Oak Street 1900 Contributing to Laurel School District 15’ 1.5 28’ 22’ Stucco Gray Pitched West Side of Mathews 133 Mathews Street (Frozen Foods Center) 1948 SITE Proposed Building Footprint - 0’ lot setback facing Oak and Mathews Street Existing Corner Buildings with 0’ lot setback facing Oak and Mathews Streets MAVD Neighborhood Setback Diagram Townhomes @ Library Park Old Town Lofts 110 East Oak Home State Bank Great Western Bank Corner Buildings at Zero Lot Lines Corner Buildings at Zero Lot Lines 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 25 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Corner Lot Setbacks 7.b Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 26 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Land Use Code 3.4.7 Building Material Compatibility 3) The dominant building material of such existing historic structures adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. As noted earlier, buildings in the immediate vicinity lack any kind of coherence in terms of cladding and roofing materials. However, for material palette compatibility, we are drawing rust tones from the stone of the Carnegie Library in Library Park and the McHugh-Andrews and carriage house stone, as well as other buildings in red tone brick. In keeping with the classic materiality of Downtown, the dominant façade material of the proposed building is to be terracotta, which is brick in a modern form and application. Instead of load bearing as brick is traditionally installed, the terracotta is to be installed in a rain screen method which is superior as an exterior wall as it “breathes” and doesn’t trap moisture. The earthy colors, relate to the two historic structures in our area of adjacency. 44 Inches 12 Inches 12 Inches 12 Inches 12 Inches 7.b Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) SITE OAK STREET PLAZA LIBRARY PARK DOWNTOWN FORT COLLINS HOTEL 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 27 COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE: Visual & Pedestrian Connections Visual Connections (4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible. The siting of the structure at the lot edges of Oak and Mathews enhances the open space of Library Park by anchoring and framing the corner. This is a well-documented aspect of good city planning that in urban areas, buildings define the street and corner build- ings anchor the block to make the experience pedestrian friendly. By creating a strong corner, open space that is adjacent, as Library Park is, becomes more valued and defined. Preservation of Landscape (5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved, and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. We are saving the existing Ash tree on Oak, and propose to re- place one <6” caliper tree with two new street trees and plant additional landscaping. Impact on Historic Context (6) In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been determined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Code We do not believe the proposed project will have significant impact on the potential eligibility of any adjacent properties, nor will it negatively impact the historic exterior integrity and 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 28 5 - Looking East down Oak at Remington 6 - Looking East down Oak from Mid-block 1 - Looking West down Oak at Peterson 4 - Looking West down Oak at Mathews 2 - Looking West down Oak between Peterson and Mathews Appendix 1 Street Views 3 - Looking West down Oak between Peterson and Mathews 7.b Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 29 11 - Looking South down Mathews near Oak 8 - Looking North down Mathews from Mid-block 9 - Looking North down Mathews from Mid-block 7 - Looking North down Mathews near Oak 10 - Looking South down Mathews from Mountain Appendix 1 Street Views 7.b Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 30 Appendix 2 Additional Setback Diagrams Note: Previous Scheme Showing C O RN E R BU I LD I NGS AT ZERO LOT L I NE S Aerial view looking northwest Mathews St. Oak St. Remington St. TOWN HOMES AT LIBRARY PARK POUDRE GARAGE PROPOSED LIVING OAKS MAVD Note: Previous Scheme Showing 7.b Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 32 CITY OF FORT COLLINS 2016 STRATEGIC PLAN COMPLIANCE The proposed building at 221 Oak Street (Living Oaks) responds directly to many aspects of the Fort Collins 2016 Strategic Plan objectives. We have identified applicable items and shown how this development will bring the City of Fort Collins closer to achieving its goals. NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY & SOCIAL HEALTH 1.1 Improve access to a broad range of quality housing that is safe, accessible and affordable. Housing continues to be an issue for Fort Collins residents, and the only way to truly increase affordability is to increase the amount of housing available on the market. Located in downtown and close to the library and other public services, including transportation, the units at Living Oaks will provide a desirable alternative for residents who want to be downtown but who don’t want the responsibility of a stand- alone dwelling. Retirees or couples who are downsizing, or professionals who work in downtown and want to be close to their place of business are part of the target market. 1.4 Protect and preserve the City’s quality of life and neighborhoods. The lot located at 221 Oak Street is currently vacant, utilized by a carriage company to store wagons and carriages when not in use. The site has become an attractive nuisance, and incidents of vandalism and transient activity have and are occurring. By filling the corner, this development will eliminate an underutilized space which has been an area of concern to the community. 1.5 Guide development compatible with community expectations through appropriate planning, annexation, land use, historical preservation and development review processes. The proposed project is following the city review processes, helping the city to break new ground in supporting modern sustainable development within the existing urban fabric. The project is utilizing the Integrated Design Assist Program (IDAP) implemented by the City to maximize energy efficiency and increase transparency to City requirements. 1.6 Improve neighborhood parking and traffic issues. A key element of the Living Oaks project is to minimize parking requirements. Part of our proposal is geared to encourage residents to utilize one common electric vehicle provided at the building and utilize the long-term lease in the garage on the southeast corner of Remington and Mountain Streets, which is included in the sale. In addition to the four garage spots, we have added seven diagonal parking spaces on the street (including one handicap spot) which is now taken up by a curb cut on Oak Street. Secure bike storage for tenants is available inside the building. LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 Oak 38 Street 8° PROPOSED MATERIALS B - ALUMINUM CLAD TRIPLE GLAZED HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS A - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR: RED C - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS AT FIRST FLOOR SIMILAR TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN SYSTEM 200 FILLMORE STREET, DENVER CO E - CHANNEL GLASS ENTRY FEATURE (SEE NORTH ELEVATION) A C F B C F - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR RED 7.c Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 39 50’ Oak Street Proposed Living Oaks 215 207 Mathews St. (Library Park Apartments) (In Construction Mathews Street Elevation 38’-0” 35’-0” 18’-0” 7.c Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 40 7.c Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 41 7.c Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 42 7.c Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 43 7.c Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 44 From Corner of Oak and Mathews (Eye Level) 7.c Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 45 Looking South from Oak and Mathews 7.c Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 46 Front Doors 7.c Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 47 Looking South down Mathews 7.c Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 48 Looking West From Library Park Corner Entrance 7.c Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 49 Looking North 7.c Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 50 Looking Southwest 7.c Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LPC ADDENDUM 2 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/19/17 51 View from library Park. 7.c Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Addendum 2 from Applicant 4.19.17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.d Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 2016 Nonbinding Determination of Eligibility_220 E Oak (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 308 E Oak_DOE_2017 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.e Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 308 E Oak_DOE_2017 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.f Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: DDA Letter - 221 E Oak St - 3/14/17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 7.f Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: DDA Letter - 221 E Oak St - 3/14/17 (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street A NET ZERO DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSESSION ROUND 2 April 19, 2017 Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-1 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation SITE REMINGTON STREET MATHEWS STREET PETERSON STREET OAK STREET DOWNTOWN DISTRICT NCB NCM TOWNHOMES AT LIBRARY PARK OLIVE STREET MOUNTAIN AVENUE MAV DEVELOPMENT POUDRE GARAGE 50’ 60’ Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-2 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation SITE REMINGTON ST MATHEWS ST. VIEW FROM THE EAST Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-3 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation EXISTING 2- STORY APARTMENT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING PARKING Line of Floor Above EXISTING 1.5 STORY HOUSE Planting Along Sidewalks Handicap Parking Space New Tree New Tree Remove Existing CurbCut Existing Tree Removed SlidingGate New Curb Cut Permeable Area of Pavers 6’ Fence Existing Tree to be Preserved UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 Remove Existing CurbCut Bike Rack In Each Unit 7 New Street Parking Spaces EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING ALLEY TOD OVERLAY ZONE 50' - 0" 30' - 0" 21' - 10" 12' - 0" 92.16’ 87’- 0” E OAK ST. MATHEWS STREET FRONT UNIT 1 UNIT 2  # # #   #                       # # #   #                             !            !      !     !                RESPONSES TO LPC CONCERNS 1. Typology 2. Scale and Height 3. Materials 4. Character and Pattern 5. Design Details 6. Areas of Adjacency Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-6 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation TYPOLOGY Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-7 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation PROPERTYLINE Mathews Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 36'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 40'-8" PROPERTYLINE Oak Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 40'-8" 36'-0" 11'-0" Oak Street PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE 11'-0" 2'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 29'-8" 10'-0" 4" 40'-0" 11'-0" 36'-0" Mathews Street PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINE 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 5'-3" 6'-0" 6'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" Previous Building Elevations from round 1 A. Terracotta Rainscreen B. Bronze Aluminum Clad Windows C. Steel D. PV Structure E. Channel Glass A B C E BA C ABC PROPERTYLINE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” PROPERTYLINE EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” D DELETED METAL AND GLASS STOREFRONT Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-9 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation From Oak Street looking East Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-10 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Front Doors Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-11 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-12 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation SCALE AND HEIGHT Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-13 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation PROPERTYLINE Mathews Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 36'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 40'-8" 40'-8" 36'-0" 11'-0" Mathews Street PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINE 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 5'-3" 6'-0" 6'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" Previous Building Elevations from round 1 A B C E BA C PROPERTYLINE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” Deleted metal and glass storefront SHORTENED THIRD FLOOR AND WINDOW HEIGHT Added textured terracotta head detail Added textured terracotta head detail Deleted ebony terracotta and replaced with textured terracotta in same color tones Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-14 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Looking Southwest from Oak and Mathews Streets Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-15 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-16 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Looking Northwest From Library Park Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-17 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation MATERIALS Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-18 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation PROPERTYLINE Mathews Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 36'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 40'-8" PROPERTYLINE Oak Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 40'-8" 36'-0" 11'-0" Oak Street PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE 11'-0" 2'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 29'-8" 10'-0" 4" 40'-0" 11'-0" 36'-0" DELETED EBONY TERRACOTTA AND RELACED WITH TEXTURED TERRA COTTA IN SAME COLOR TONES Mathews Street PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINE 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 5'-3" 6'-0" 6'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" Previous Building Elevations from round 1 A. Terracotta Rainscreen B. Bronze Aluminum Clad Windows C. Steel D. PV Structure E. Channel Glass A B C E BA C ABC PROPERTYLINE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” PROPERTYLINE EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WEST ELEVATION Looking Northwest Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-20 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Proposed Materials TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN SYSTEM 200 FILLMORE STREET, DENVER CO CHANNEL GLASS ENTRY FEATURE (SEE NORTH ELEVATION) B - ALUMINUM CLAD TRIPLE GLAZED HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS A - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR: RED C - FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS AT FIRST FLOOR A C F B C F - TERRACOTTA RAINSCREEN COLOR RED Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-21 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation CHARACTER AND PATTERN Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-22 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation From Oak and Remington Looking East Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-23 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation From Oak Street looking East From Zoric Cleaners Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-24 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation From Across Oak and Mathews at Eye Level Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-25 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Looking West from Library Park Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-26 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Looking North Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-27 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Oak Street Proposed Poudre Garage Addition (Beyond) MAVDevelopment 221 Mountain Proposed Living Oaks 75’ 50’ 50’ Oak Street Proposed Living Oaks 207 Mathews Street (Library Apartments) 215 (In Construction Parkview Apartments Townhomes at Library Park Mathews Street Elevation South Block Mathews Street Elevation North Block Mathews Street Elevations Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-28 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation 50’ Mathews Street Proposed Living Oaks 217 Oak Street McHugh-Andrews House (St. Peter’s Fly Shop) McHugh-Andrews Carnegie Carriage House Library Oak Street Elevation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-29 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-30 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation DESIGN DETAILS Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-31 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation PROPERTYLINE Mathews Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 36'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" 40'-8" PROPERTYLINE Oak Street 12'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 40'-8" 36'-0" 11'-0" Oak Street PROPERTYLINE PROPERTYLINE 11'-0" 2'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 29'-8" 10'-0" 4" 40'-0" 11'-0" 36'-0" Mathews Street PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINE 12'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 5'-3" 6'-0" 6'-0" 22'-0" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-0" 87'-0" Previous Building Elevations from round 1 A. Terracotta Rainscreen B. Bronze Aluminum Clad Windows C. Steel D. PV Structure E. Channel Glass A B C E BA C ABC PROPERTYLINE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” PROPERTYLINE EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” D Deleted metal and glass storefront Shortened third floor and window height Details Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-33 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-34 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation AREAS OF ADJACENCY Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-35 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation SITE 221 SURROUNDING BUILDINGS 220 OldTown Lofts 110 148 210 215 217 202 216 220 221 207 215 200 Individually Designated Fort Collins Landmarks Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designations Contributing to the Laurel School District 334 300 318 322 324 330 340 133 137 143 308 Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-36 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-37 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation 202 Remington St. (McHugh-Andrews House) 3-story house turned into retail Cladding: stone Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date:1889 148 Remington St. (Poudre Garage) 4-story mixed use (addition/renovation currently under review) Cladding: yellow brick Roof: flat Date: 1936 200 Mathews St. (Carnegie Library) 2-story museum Cladding: stone Roof: hipped, red clay tile Date: 1903 Buildings with Landmark Status 324 East Oak Street (Mosman House) Cladding:    Roof:  Date:  Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-38 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-39 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-40 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation  Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 STAFF REPORT April 19, 2017 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a design review request for work on the storm windows and front steps of the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Garage at 618 W. Mountain Avenue, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2013. The applicant is seeking a Landmark Rehabilitation Loan to support the proposed project. APPLICANT/OWNER: William and Kathleen Whitley RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: Built in 1907, the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark on February 19, 2013. The property qualified for landmark status as an excellent example of a Craftsman-style bungalow as well as for its association with Newton Crose, a Deputy District Attorney, and his spouse, Louise (Avery) Crose, youngest daughter of Franklin Avery. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: This Craftsman style residence exhibits many character-defining features, including its integrated front porch, wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, use of natural materials and stained glass, and scroll-sawn brackets. Additionally, the residence was constructed for Newton and Louise (Avery) Crose. Newton was a Deputy District Attorney, in addition to working as a prominent private attorney, while Louise was Franklin Avery’s youngest daughter. In 1922, a shed-roofed addition was constructed on the rear elevation. In 1948, an outbuilding that had been on the property since at least 1917 was attached to the house. The current owners, who purchased the property in 2012, have conducted extensive interior restructuring and renovation and upgrade of wiring, plumbing, and heating systems; restored the casement windows on the east side of the porch; replaced four large brackets and two large gable screens on the façade; and restored or replaced 29 rafter tails on the south and west elevations. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability for the following items:  Remove aluminum storm windows on south (façade) elevation and replace with wooden storm/screens.  Remove 1980s-era brick front steps and replace with wooden steps similar to the original style, based on photographic evidence. Repair and restore the wooden “wings” to match their original appearance and fabricate and install an iron safety handrail. 8 Packet Pg. 181 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 On March 15, 2016, the applicant received administrative approval construction of a new garage on the property as well as for work on the older, designated garage, which will include the installation of sympathetic windows and an egress door to replace the non-historic garage door as well as an interior renovation. Several of the items associated with the designated garage project are eligible to serve as matching elements for a landmark rehabilitation loan application. These include interior structural framing, electrical work, installation of an HVAC system, and insulation. The attached application reflects the approved matching elements. On March 8, 2017, the LPC provided initial review of this proposal at its work session and asked the applicant to provide additional information to address the following. 1. Provide cut sheets for the Marvin storms and how they will fit into the recess in the window so they don't stand proud of the window frame itself. (see attached) 2. Provide details for the proposed metal railing on front steps and how the railing will be attached. (see attached) 3. Provide working drawings (details) of the proposed wooden stairs. (see attached) 4. Provide one more elevation of the garage and/or details of the windows and doors are fitting within the existing openings (see attached, but please note in the above paragraph that the garage work is included in this design review discussion for your information only as it will serve as the matching portion for the rehab loan-the garage project received administrative approval on March 15, 2016). 5. Provide details on how the double columns will be put back on the porch. (This is no longer part of the proposed rehabilitation project at this time) 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, 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: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated 8 Packet Pg. 182 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 3 by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 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. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed work as described complies with Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and would retain a preponderance of the property’s historic integrity. SAMPLE MOTIONS: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Garage at 618 W. Mountain Avenue. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for work on the storm windows and front steps of the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Garage at 618 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) will not erode the authenticity or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for the plans and specifications for work on the storm windows and front steps of the Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Garage at 618 W. Mountain Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work (a) would erode the authenticity and/or destroy any distinctive exterior feature or characteristic of the improvements or site; and (b) is not compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark and with the spirit and purpose of Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. 8 Packet Pg. 183 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation - 618 W Mountain (PDF) 2. 04-19-2017_LPC_Rehab Loan _618 W Mountain (PDF) 3. ratingcriteria (DOC) 4. 618WMountainDesignation (PDF) 5. 2017 Whitley ZIL appl_Redacted (PDF) 6. 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (PDF) 7. Window product cut sheets_618 W Mountain (PDF) 8. Garage history_618 W Mountain (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 184 618 W Mountain – Crose-Scott-Dickey House • Owners: William and Kathleen Whitley • Craftsman-style bungalow– constructed 1907; Designated in 2013 • Need: Improve performance and appearance of storm windows on façade; entry steps are from 1980s and represent a non-historic style and configuration • Proposed Work: Replace aluminum storm windows on façade (south elevation) with wood storm/screen units; remove non-historic brick entry steps and replace with wooden steps in original style; repair and restore “wings” on steps and install a safety handrail 618 W Mountain – Crose-Scott-Dickey House Staff findings: The proposed work complies with Section 14-48, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and will improve and protect the condition of the building. 8.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Staff Presentation - 618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) 4/18/2017 1 1 Design Review – 618 W Mountain 2017 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 19, 2017 Design Reviews for the Landmark Rehab Loan Program • Loan eligibility: Local landmarks with approved alterations • Exterior rehabilitation projects • 50% minimum match • Approved projects are ranked by need, proposed rehab methods, and matching funds percentage • 0% Interest • $7,500 per property per year [demand may exceed budget] • $25,000 annual budget • Loan payoffs recycle back into program • Projects also eligible for Design Assistance Program 2 8.b Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 04-19-2017_LPC_Rehab Loan _618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND 4/18/2017 2 Loan Process 1. Applicant Submittal Deadline: Third Tuesday in January 2. Application Screening 3. LPC Design Reviews and Ranking 4. Loan Award Decision 5. 6-Month Project Progress Deadline 6. 1 - Year Completion Deadline 7. Inspection, Closing, Deed 8. Disbursement of Funds 3 Role of the LPC 1. Conduct Landmark Design Review for each proposed project 2. Score each project using established program criteria • Preservation Necessity (evaluates degree of threat to property’s integrity) • Work Quality (evaluates proposed preservation practices to complete the work) 4 8.b Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 04-19-2017_LPC_Rehab Loan _618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND 4/18/2017 3 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. 5 618 W Mountain – Crose-Scott-Dickey House • Owners: William and Kathleen Whitley • Craftsman-style bungalow– constructed 1907; Designated in 2013 • Need: Improve performance and appearance of storm windows on façade; entry steps are from 1980s and represent a non-historic style and configuration • Proposed Work: Replace aluminum storm windows on façade (south elevation) with wood storm/screen units; remove non-historic brick entry steps and replace with wooden steps in original style; repair and restore “wings” on steps and install a safety handrail 6 8.b Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 04-19-2017_LPC_Rehab Loan _618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND 4/18/2017 4 618 W Mountain – Crose-Scott-Dickey House Staff findings: The proposed work complies with Section 14-48, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and will improve and protect the condition of the building. 7 8 Design Review – 618 W Mountain 2017 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, April 19, 2017 8.b Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 04-19-2017_LPC_Rehab Loan _618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND 1 2017 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Rating Criteria A. Match (points automatically awarded based upon applicant submittal) Points: 1 100% - 150% match 2 151% - 200% match 3 201% - 250% match 4 251% - 300% match 5 301%+ match B. Preservation Necessity Points: 0 – 1 Degree of threat is minimal due to all of the following reasons: 1) alterations have not significantly diminished the structure’s appearance; 2) the structure does not need any significant repair due to neglect, 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions do not adversely effect the structure or its setting; 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs would not significantly diminish the livability, economic viability, or integrity of the structure. 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to certain structures do not significantly affect the character of the structure or its setting. 2 – 3 Degree of threat is moderate due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) alterations have diminished the structure’s appearance but could be corrected; 2) the structure has one or more significant defects constituting a dangerous, unhealthy or unsightly habitat which could be corrected and made sound. 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions present that moderately affect the structure or setting. 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs could significantly diminish the livability, economic viability, or integrity of the structure. 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to certain structures could significantly affect the character of the structure or its setting, but can be reasonably mitigated. 4 – 5 Degree of threat is severe due to one or more of the following reasons: 1) structure has been significantly altered or the historical features have been covered up which have resulted in the loss of some or all of its significant historic characteristics; 2) the structure is no longer safe or adequate for use; 3) the existence of adverse physical, visual, audible or atmospheric conditions present that 8.c Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: ratingcriteria (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) 2 significantly affect the structure or setting and will eventually lead to its destruction or demolition; 4) adopted and approved plans, policies, regulations or programs will likely lead to the destruction or demolition of the historic structure; 5) other conditions or threats that are special or particular to the structure will significantly 10 affect the structure and will eventually lead to its destruction or demolition. C. Work Quality Points: 0 – 1 The historic appearance of the resource will not be restored or questionable preservation practices will be employed. 2 - 3 The historic appearance will be restored adequately and preservation practices proposed are adequate. 4 - 5 The effort to restore the resource to its historic appearance will be exceptional; preservation practices proposed are excellent. 8.c Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: ratingcriteria (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 618 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Legal Description: East 10 feet of Lot 21, and all of lot 22, Block 271, Loomis Addition, Fort Collins. Property Name (historic and/or common): The Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage OWNER INFORMATION: Name: William (Bill) and Kathleen Whitley Phone: 970-692-3730 Email: William.Whitley@me.com Address: 618 W. Mountain Avenue CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Erin L. Nuckols and Hayley Brazier, Historic Preservation Interns Address: City of Fort Collins Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: enuckols@fcgov.com Date: November 2012 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 9 7 0 . 4 1 6 . 2 7 4 0 9 7 0 . 2 2 4 . 6 1 3 4 - f Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Crose House at 618 W. Mountain Avenue is eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standards 2 and 3, for its association with prominent individuals in Fort Collins history and for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. An early Craftsman-style bungalow, the building is an excellent example of this housing type in Fort Collins. It also exhibits a high level of architectural integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. Constructed in 1907, this Craftsman style residence exhibits many character-defining features, including its integrated front porch, wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends, use of natural materials and stained glass, and scroll-sawn brackets. This housing type became popular in Colorado at the outset of the 20th Century. Additionally, the residence was constructed for Newton and Louise (Avery) Crose. Newton was a Deputy District Attorney, in addition to working as a prominent private attorney, while Louise was Franklin Avery’s youngest daughter. 8.d Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Page 3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION The home at 618 W. Mountain Avenue has been associated with prominent members of the Fort Collins community since its construction in 1907, including Newton and Louise (Avery) Crose. Interestingly, prior to construction of the residence, the property itself was associated with prominent individuals. In 1894, at the time of their marriage, Abner Loomis received ½ interests in several parcels of land from Malinda Maxwell, which included 618 W. Mountain. Then, in 1901, Helen E. Montgomery purchased the property from Loomis. After Mrs. Montgomery’s death, her heir, Thomas J. Montgomery, acted as administrator of her estate. Mr. Montgomery filed an order in probate with the county court in January 1905 under Judge and Acting Clerk, C.V. Benson. 1 Judge Clarence V. Benson then purchased several parcels of land from the Montgomery estate, including the 618 Mountain Avenue parcel. Shortly after Benson’s transaction, in October of 1905, Newton W. Crose purchased the lot from the judge for $850. 2 Born in Shenandoah, Iowa in April 1877 to Reuben Brooks Crose and Clara Mae Penn, Newton Crose lived and worked in Fort Collins as early as 1902, according to newspaper articles. He worked as a lawyer, notary, and partner in the Leftwich & Crose Law Firm, located in the Avery Building at the intersection of College and Mountain Avenues. Crose also served as a Deputy District Attorney until April of 1906, citing his increasing workload as a private attorney for resignation. In 1906, Crose attended a social event in the company of Mr. & Mrs. Franklin C. Avery and their daughter, Louise. Louise Avery, born in Fort Collins in January 1882, was the youngest daughter of Franklin and Sara Avery. For a woman of the time, she was likely well educated, having attended the Leland Stanford Institute in California. 3 Newton and Louise married shortly after their meeting – on October 10, 1906 – the same year in which construction on their home at 618 West Mountain Avenue began. 4 In 1909, a punitive legal entanglement arose between Crose and his partner, T.J. Leftwich, who had been accused of perjury in a case where he was suspected of shooting a man during an altercation on a train in 1905. Franklin Avery put up $3,000 in bail from his personal funds on Leftwich’s behalf, while Newton and Louise Crose were traveling during the year of the trial. The case faded from public interest, but Crose dissolved his partnership with Leftwich. In December 1909, for unknown reasons, Crose transferred ownership of all of his real estate to his wife Louisa for the sum of $2.00, including their home on West Mountain Avenue. William Ryan, a client, shot and killed Crose in his office at the Avery Building, widowing Louisa in 1914. Ryan pled “insane delusion” and upon his appeal to the original death sentence, a judge granted him life imprisonment. Following this unfortunate event, Mrs. Crose moved in with her parents and rented out her home at 618 W. Mountain. She also moved to California for a short time, but died in Fort Collins in 1975. In 1918, Mrs. Crose sold the home to Dr. Alvin R. and Mrs. Minnie M. Scott. The Scott family remodeled the home extensively in 1922 and lived there until 1937. Drs. Lawrence and Olive Dickey purchased the home from the Scott family. The Dickey family owned a medical practice 1 Fort Collins Weekly Courier, February 1, 1905. 2 The sum of $850.00 in 1905 is equivalent to roughly $22,386 in 2012. 3 Stanford University. 4 Weekly Courier August 22, 1906 8.d Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Page 4 that they shared, located at 109 W. Olive Street. Both received certification to practice medicine by the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners in the early 1930s. They purchased the home for $1.00 in 1937 and lived there until 1960. Ray and Clara Gile lived in the home from 1960 to 2008. In 1983, the Gile family installed an active/passive solar system. Gile worked for Woodward Manufacturing and purchased the rights to the design of a fishing lure, a decidedly lucrative endeavor for the family. In 2008, Chris and Michelle Ray purchased the property and rented the home out for several years prior to selling to the current owners, William and Kathleen Whitley, in 2012. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1907 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Lapped board siding/Wood frame/Concrete and sandstone foundation Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow Description: Origins of the Craftsman-style are traceable to the American and English Arts and Crafts Movements of the 1880s and 1890s. The Arts and Crafts movement reacted to the materialism of the Victorian period of the early and mid-nineteenth century; emphasizing modest, efficient buildings made to blend relatively seamlessly with their surroundings and focused on the artisanship of the craftsperson. The Craftsman-type bungalow was derivative of this movement. Bungalows became a popular building form in the western United States in the early part of the 20 th century. The most prominent advocate for this movement in the United States was Gustav Stickley (1858- 1942). Stickley, an architect and furniture designer, published a monthly magazine called The Craftsman. Stickley’s ideas would become the guidelines for the American bungalow-form came in many styles, including the Craftsman. The bungalow-form is always one or one-and-a-half-story. Many bungalow houses came from plans available in pattern books, in conjunction with the rise of pre-fabricated boards and timbers available after 1908, the form became a relatively low-cost option for home construction. The style emphasized horizontal elements and grounding into nature utilizing low-pitched roofs and wide rectangular or square footprints. Wide eaves with exposed rafter tails and deep roof overhangs further contributed to the illusion of a wide, grounded, and horizontal building. A large front porch, typical to the architectural style, provided a connection to the natural environment. A mix of materials and textures composed the exterior walls and gable ends to create contrast in an otherwise simple structure. The most commonly used materials for this purpose were stucco, horizontal lap siding, or wood shingles. Stemming from the early Arts and Crafts movement, Craftsman-style homes utilized colors and tones of the surrounding environment. The use of stained glass windows became popular during the Movement. The type that appears at 618 West Mountain mimics that of Tiffany glass, characterized by an unusual combination of colors and opaqueness. Stained glass created interesting and exaggerated color variations and became used widely in the early 1900s.The western United States embraced this form and style; Fort Collins was no exception. The Craftsman-style bungalow located at 618 West Mountain holds true to many of Stickley’s above-mentioned criteria. 8.d Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Page 5 In August of 1906, construction began on the home on two Fort Collins town lots (21 and 22 of Block 271) that became 618 W. Mountain. The original structure followed traditional Craftsman- styles and standard, balloon-frame construction, complete with one-and-one-half stories and an integral porch at the east side of the primary elevation. 5 The gabled roof contains a central bell-cast hip, wide over-hanging eaves, and exposed rafters. The front elevation features multiple gables with massive scroll sawn brackets (triangular braces), square-cut shingles on the gables, and exposed forked rafter ends lay beneath the eave. Asphalt shingling covers the roof with a tall hard-pressed brick chimney. The foundation of the home is primarily sandstone; however, foundation of the garage (an addition in 1948) is concrete. The three moderately pitched roofs (two on the front elevation, one of the east elevation), with wide, overhanging eaves and overhangs, and exposed rafter tails serve as excellent intact example of Craftsman-type bungalow architecture as derived from the Arts and Crafts Movement. The multiple moderately pitched and shingled gabled roof elements with bracketed eaves, significant overhangs, exposed rafters, and integral porch (the floor of which is set within the main structure) are also reflective of this architectural style. The entryway, accessed by brick steps that match the chimney, sits directly in the middle of the primary elevation. The primary entry door is framed glass and flanked by casement windows, all with standard trim. An accent trim sits above the cornice. Stained glass sits over the main entry cornice in a multi-light transom pattern. The glazed sunroom has single-pane windows, three on the south and two on the east elevations, with operable, awning windows below on the south-facing elevation. To the west, the first story contains four, 4-over-4, double-hung windows. While the basement level has two, three-light, picture windows and the half-story is lit by three 6-over-6 double-hung windows. In 1922, Mrs. A.R. (Minnie) Scott was issued a building permit for remodeling valued at $1000, which was roughly 25% of the price paid for the house in 1918. The Scotts likely added the shed- roofed portion to the rear elevation of the building, as evidenced by the use of different material than the gables and main roof, as well as all of the living space on the second floor. According to the current property owners, the second-floor additions are of particular interest, since many of them are traceable to the 1922 remodeling. There is evidence of a bathroom in a different location from the current second-story bathroom. All original ceiling joists are 2x4s and, where they also serve as floor joists for the second floor, there is a corresponding and parallel 2x4 sistered on top to form a rather inadequate truss. The ceilings – and many of the corresponding floors – have sagged over time, and the owners are currently working with an engineer to remedy the issue. As a result, the first floor ceiling joists are currently exposed, and the pairs of 2x4s are visually of different ages and finishes. Additionally, the original knob and tube electrical wiring remains on the lower portion of these structural members. The original piping for gas lights lies on top of the lower member, and is accommodated by notches in the upper members. Furthermore, several original walk boards remain in place, between the two members. In 1938, the Dickey family re-shingled the home and re-roofed in 1944, but the next major change to the footprint of the home did not occur until 1948. At that time a detached out building to the rear of the property, which appears on Sanborn Fire Insurance maps as early as 1917, was attached to the house. The Dickey family also made changes to the interior, including the removal of a partition in one of the bathrooms. The fireplace was refaced between 1960 and 1980 by Ray 5Fort Collins Weekly Courier August 22, 1906 8.d Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Page 6 Gile, prior to his solar retrofit. He is also most likely responsible for covering over, or stripping much of the original interior detail. The solar retrofit on the sunroom at the southeast corner occurred in 1983. Several notable features remain on the exterior of the home including shed dormers and canted bay windows. On the interior, the mantelpiece has a large Neo-classical plaster plaque. The image is of Nike, the Goddess of Victory, driving Alexander the Great in a Quadriga and is visually identical to a frieze created by Bertel Thorvaldsen for Emperor Napoleon in 1812 to decorate his throne in Quirinale and celebrate his Italian Campaign. The historically interesting piece of semi-permanent plasterwork was likely installed by Ray Gile while he occupied the residence. 8.d Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Page 7 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION Cigliano, Jan. Bungalow. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, 1998 Colorado Historical Society: Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. A Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering. (2003 Colorado Historical Society). Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. Fort Collins City Directories (1940 -2005). Larimer County Assessor’s Office, Residential Property Information McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Fort Collins Weekly Courier 8.d Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Page 8 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary 8.d Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 1 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application Applicant Information William J Whitley 970-692-3730 970-692-3730 Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone 618 W Mountain Ave, Fort Collins CO 80521 Mailing Address (for receiving loan-related correspondence) State Zip Code william.whitley@gmail.com Email Property Information Kathleen P. Whitley, William J Whitley 618 W Mountain Ave, Fort Collins 80521 Owner’s Name(s) (as it appears on the Deed of Trust) Landmark Property Address Project Description Total Project Cost*: Project Start Date: May 1, 2017 Loan Requested (up to $7,500): Project Completion Date: December 30, 2017 Owner Match: Check if work is to be completed by owner Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, why the project needs funding, sources of funding and other information as necessary to explain your project. Please see attached overview: 1 – 2 Four current views of house 3 Description of long-term project, listing examples 4 – 5 Long-term work accomplished so far 6 Proposed 2017 work 7 – 10 New Front Stair design (via Design Assistance Program) 11 – 12 Contributing garage - exterior work 13 Financial overview 14 – 17 Estimates for proposed 2017 work Empire Carpentry, Kevin Murray PO Box 245, Bellvue CO (970) 493-3499 Contractor Name Address Phone Blue Pine Construction, Mike Bockleman PO Box 16395, Wellington CO (970) 412-9858 Contractor Name Address Phone 8.e Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL appl_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide individual costs for each feature. Feature A Name: Storm/Screens - South and West face Cost Describe property feature and its condition: Storm/Screens: South face – Front gable, front below gable, and West face - bay window and rear wall. Describe proposed work on feature: Refer to photographic examples 6 and 7. Remove aluminum storm windows on South (street) face: Front gable, front below gable. Replace with wooden storm/screens (“Marvin Storms” – use approved by Karen McWilliams). (Empire Carpentry, Kevin Murray) Feature B Name: Front Entry Steps Describe property feature and its condition: Existing front steps are brick, installed ~1980s. Original side wooden “wings” have deteriorated. Describe proposed work on feature: Refer to photographic examples 6 and 7. Remove brick steps, replace with wooden steps similar to original (see examples 1, (1928) and 2, 1968). Repair & rebuild side “wings”, restore as original. (Empire Carpentry, Kevin Murray) Attach Additional Sheets As Needed TOTAL COST: 8.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL appl_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 3 Feature C Name: Rehabilitate listed attached garage Describe property feature and its condition: Listed attached “old garage” is too small for modern automobile use, and cannot be expanded without compromising the footprint and historic aspects of the structure. It has also been is made redundant by construction of new 2 car garage on alley. It is difficult to re-use the space as is, due to the lack of insulation, HVAC and sub-standard electrical wiring. Describe proposed work on feature: While maintaining the integrity of the historic exterior, convert the interior to usable domestic space: Remove old plaster, fir out studs to 2x6 for adequate insulation and new electrical wiring. Install new level wooden floor over old concrete floor. Finish walls and ceiling. Install HVAC. Fill in modern garage door opening with sympathetic windows and custom egress door. (Blue Pine Construction, Mike Bockelman) (Fort Collins Heating & Air Conditioning) Feature D Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Attach Additional Sheets As Needed TOTAL COST: 8.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL appl_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 4 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. At least one detailed, itemized construction bid for each feature of your project. Bids must include product details for replacement materials, a basic description of the repair/installation methodology that will be used, and a breakdown of labor and materials costs. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product spec sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. 8.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL appl_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 5 Assurances The Owner and Applicant hereby agree and acknowledge that: A. Loan recipients agree to supply at least an equal match to the requested loan amount. B. Funds received as a result of this application will be expended solely on described projects, and must be completed within established timelines. C. The subject structure must have local landmark designation or be a contributing structure in a local landmark district. D. Loan funds may be spent only for exterior rehabilitation of the structure. E. Matching funds may be spent for exterior rehabilitation/stabilization of the property, interior structural work, and/or the rehabilitation of electrical, heating or plumbing systems, including fire sprinkler systems in commercial buildings. F. Neither loan monies nor matching funds may be spent for the installation of or rehabilitation of signage, interior rehabilitation or decorations, building additions, or the addition of architectural or decorative elements which were not part of the original historic structure. G. All work must comply with the standards and/or guidelines of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. H. Loan recipients must submit project for design review by the Landmark Preservation Commission and receive approval for loan funding before construction work is started. I. All work approved for loan funding must be completed even if partially funded through the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program. J. Loan recipients will receive disbursement of loan funds not sooner than thirty (30) days after all work has been completed and approved, receipts documenting the costs of the work have been submitted to the City, and physical inspection has been completed by the City. K. Loan recipients agree to place a sign, provided by the City, on the property stating that the rehabilitation of the property was funded in part by the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for the duration of the rehabilitation work. L. The award and disbursement of this loan shall be governed by the provisions of the ordinance of the Council of the City of Fort Collins establishing the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program as an ongoing project of the City. M. The owner agrees to maintain the property after rehabilitation work has been completed. N. Loans are provided at zero percent interest. Upon successful completion and inspection of the project, loan recipients will be required to sign a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust to secure loan funds. Repayment will be required upon sale or transfer of the property, except for public and non-profit projects which are required to repay the loan within 5 years. O. Loans may be subordinated in second position below the property's mortgage. Subordination below second position will require the owner to demonstrate that the equity in the property exceeds its debt. Signature of Applicant (if different than owner) Date Signature of Legal Owner Date 8.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL appl_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 6 Affidavit-Restrictions on Public Benefits AFFIDAVIT Pursuant to section 24-76.5-103(4)(b), C.R.S. I, William J Whitley , Swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that I am (check one of the following): A United States citizen; A Legal Permanent Resident of the United States; or Otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to Federal law. I understand that this sworn statement is by law because I have applied for a public benefit as defined by law. I understand that state law requires me to provide proof that I am lawfully present in the United States prior to receipt of this public benefit. I further acknowledge that making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in this sworn affidavit is punishable under the criminal laws of Colorado as perjury in the second degree under Colorado Revised Statute §18-8-503 and it shall constitute a separate criminal offense each time a public benefit is fraudulently received. If I checked the second or third option above, I understand that my lawful presence in the United States will be verified through the Federal Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement Program (SAVE Program). William J Whitley Printed Name of Legal Owner _______________________________________________ ________________ Signature of Legal Owner Date 8.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL appl_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Southeast elevation, showing original Eastern gable and porch (2016) Southwest elevation, showing restored rafter tails (2016) 8.f Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE Northwest elevation - showing rear gable (added in 1922), garage (attached in 1948), and small shed dormer (1984). Elevation is obscured by proximity of attached garage to neighbor’s fence. Northeast elevation showing rear gable (added in 1922), and garage (attached in 1948). 8.f Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE This project is part of a multi-year effort to restore the exterior of our designated house to a more original appearance. Built in 1907, with a significant remodel 1922, the structure is a rare example of a “Swiss chalet” style Arts and Crafts bungalow. In the past 70 years or so, key design ele- ments have deteriorated, been altered, or removed entirely. Since we first purchased the house in 2012, we have been attempting to repair and restore these damaged or missing elements. When, we discovered that, in addition to the planned renovation, we had to re-support the entire second floor. Between late 2012 and 2014, we spent upwards of on interior renovation and structural rehabilitation. In 2014, we began serious work on the exterior, to bring it back to the way it used to look. Given the scope of work, we necessarily split the project into several phases, to ease the fi- nancial strain. Example 1 (1928) is the earliest image we found, and shows many of the elements we are trying to restore. Example 2 (1968) significant elements had already been removed, but the facade was still fairly intact. Example 3 (2012) a number of features had been altered, and “upgrades” had been employed to poor effect. Example 4 (2014) the “before” picture. Example 5 (2015) shows the first phase of restoration - removal of the 1980s solar col- lector, and (not shown), restoration of two sets of flanking casement windows on the East side of the porch. Example 6 (2016) shows the replacement of 4 large brackets, and two large gable screens, some of the most characteristic features in the 1928 photo. Less visible are the 29 restored or replaced rafter tails on the South and West faces. Example 7 (2017) intends to show the proposed improvements to the front façade for this year: removing the modern aluminum storm windows in favor of period-appropri- ate wooden ones, and replacing the 5 brick steps with 6 wooden steps. A set of mini- mally-visually-invasive iron handrails will address safety issues, and bring the steps into compliance with building code. Example 8 (2017) Shows existing aluminum storm windows. Example 9 (2017) Shows existing front steps. Example 10 (2017) Shows exterior work on listed garage. Contributing interior reha- bilitation not shown -see estimates. 8.f Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE Example 1 - c.1928 - Kappa Delta Sorority- CSU “Silver Spruce” yearbook, p.242 Example 2 - c.1968 - Photo from Fort Collins City tax photo Archive 1928 details 1. Large brackets. 2. Gable screens. 3. Notched rafter tails. 4. Low profile gutter. 5. Double Columns. 6. Note original configuration of East side porch showing double columns. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 1968 details 1.Fewer Large brackets. 2. (Gable screens and some brack- ets have been removed). 3. Wooden screen door. 4. Six wooden steps. 2012 details: 1. South-facing porch enlarged 2. Porch enclosed in glass panels 3. East facing windows altered 4. Solar collector added 5. Flanking casement windows (not shown - on exterior house wall, in- side porch)) replaced by solid glass panels 6. Aluminum Storm windows 7. Rafter tails deteriotrated, some re- moved 8. Rafter tails removed, gutter pro- file changed 9. Front steps are now brick, 5 steps in total. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Example 3 - c.2012 - showing damaged or missing elements 8.f Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 2012-2014: Interior restructuring and renovation Interior restructuring required re- supporting entire second floor. Wiring, plumbing, heating systems upgraded, interior details reintro- duced. Example 5 - 2015 Example 4 - 2014 Example 6 - 2016 A brief overview of work done so far 2015 improvements 1. Solar collector removed 2. Flanking glass panels removed , casement windows restored, rein- stalled 2016 improvements 1. Rafter tails repaired, restored, and replaced. 2.Replacement brackets fabricated and installed 3. Gable screens re-installed 1 2 3 1 2 8.f Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 2017 - proposed work 2017 project 1. Remove aluminum storms on South (street) face, install wooden storms (2 up, 4 down). 2. Remove aluminum storms on West face, install wooden storms (5 total). 3. Remove brick steps, install six wooden steps. 4. Fabricate and install iron handrail for safety. ) 5.Contributing work on listed at- tached garage. Exterior shown, inte- rior work described in estimates Example 7 - 2017 projects (front façade) 1 2 4 3 Example 8 - existing aluminum storms Example 9 - existing brick steps 8.f Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 8.f Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 8.f Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 8.f Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE Example 9 - old vs new stairs with handrail Detail Drawing - Empire Carpentry 8.f Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 2017 - proposed work (cont’d) Example 10 - Listed attached garage, showing construction to be contained within the existing overhead garage door opening. 8.f Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE Proposed casement details for garage North Face To be fitted with wooden exterior storm panels. 2017 - proposed work (cont’d) Proposed egress doors, see photo for style Casements shown are on new garage at rear of prop- erty. Casements on listed garage will match. 8.f Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE Financial overview 8.f Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 8.f Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 8.f Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE 8.f Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE Estimate from Selva Aesthetics Verbal estimate for double 30” doors: delivered. 8.f Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: 2017 Whitley ZIL Project attachment revised_Redacted (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE WUDH COLL-1 19972255 Marvin Architectural Detail Manual Wood Ultimate Double Hung Collection Ver 2012.1 2012-12-17 Unit Features - Wood Ultimate Double Hung Wood Ultimate Double Hung Collection: Wood Ultimate Double Hung: WUDH Wood Ultimate Double Hung Picture: WUDHP Wood Ultimate Double Hung Transom: WUDHT Wood Ultimate Double Hung Round Top: WUDHRT Wood Ultimate Double Hung Bows and Bays: WUDHBB Frame: z Frame thickness: 11/16"(17), Subsill thickness: 1 3/32"(28) z Frame base (with pre-drilled installation holes in jambs): is 4 9/16"(116) from backside of BMC to interior wood face of frame. z Optional DP50 sill liner maximum size 2830 or 3026 z 8 degree bevel on sill and subsill Sash: z Transom and Picture unit sash thickness 1 5/8"(41) or optional 2" (51) z All Measurements are Nominal - Sash: All removable for easy cleaning. ƕ WUDH: Bottom of subsill to top of interior wood sill liner - 3 11/16" (94); z Top Rail - 2 7/32" (56); Stiles - 2 7/16" (62); Bottom Rail - 3 9/16" (90) ƕ WUDHT: Bottom of sill to top of interior wood sill liner - 1 31/32" (50); z Top Rail - 2 7/32" (56); Stiles - 2 7/16" (62); Bottom Rail - 2 19/32" (66) ƕ WUDHP: Bottom of subsill to top of interior wood sill liner - 3 11/16" (94); z Top Rail - 2 7/32" (56); Stiles - 2 7/16" (62); Bottom Rail - 3 9/16" (90) ƕ WUDHRT: Bottom of subsill to top of interior wood sill liner - 3 11/16" (94); z Top Rail - 2 7/32" (56); Stiles - 2 7/16" (62); Bottom Rail - 3 9/16" (90) Hardware: - See Individual Product Chapters Weather Strip: z Operating units: Continuous leaf weather strip at head jamb; dual bulb at check rail, weather strip and bottom rail. ƕ Color: Beige. z Picture units: Continuous weather strip at perimeter; leaf and bulb weather strip at jamb, bulb weather strip at head and sill. ƕ Color: Beige Insect Screens: z Aluminum screen: Full screen standard, half screen optional. z Aluminum screen surround colors: Stone White, Pebble Gray, Bronze, Bahama Brown, or Evergreen. z Screen mesh: standard is charcoal fiberglass with optional charcoal High Transparency screen mesh (CH Hi-Tran) fiberglass is also available. z Optional Magnum Screen for Ultimate Double Hung is available. Wood Combination Storm Sash and Screen: z Frame: Treated bare wood or white primed (pine only) z Storm panel: Select quality glass is an extruded aluminum frame. Frame color: Stone White, Pebble Gray, Bronze, Bahama Brown or Evergreen. z Insect screen: Screen mesh: charcoal aluminum wire. Optional screen material: Charcoal fiberglass mesh, Black aluminum wire, Bright Aluminum wire, Bright Bronze wire. Optional Charcoal High Transparency screen mesh (CH Hi-Tran) fiberglass. z Weather strip: Pile weather strip between operating panels and at stiles of main frame. z Hardware: Spring loaded latches to secure storm panel. Glass and Glazing: z Glazing method: Insulating. z Glazing seal: Silicone glazed. z Standard glass is insulating LoƜ²272® with Argon or Air. z Optional glass types: Clear, LoƜ180™ with Argon or Air, LoƜ 366® with Argon or Air, Laminated, Tempered, and Obscure, Bronze tint, Gray tint, and Reflective Bronze. z Glazing will be altitude adjusted for higher elevations, argon gas not included. z See unit features in product sections for Tri-pane glass options 8.g Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Window product cut sheets_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND WINDOW AND DOOR LIMITED WARRANTY 19913555 Marvin Window and Door Effective January 1, 2013 Limited Warranty This Limited Warranty applies to Marvin® windows and patio doors purchased on or after the Effective Date from an authorized Marvin dealer, and extends to the owner of the structure in which the products are originally installed. This Limited Warranty is fully transferable. This Limited Warranty is applicable only to product installed in the U.S.A. and Canada. For information on warranties available in other countries, please contact Marvin at the address or phone number below. GLASS COMPONENTS Glass warranties apply to factory-installed glass or Marvin-supplied glass installed by Marvin-authorized service personnel. Clear insulating glass with stainless steel spacers is warranted against seal failure caused by manufacturing defects and resulting in visible obstruction through the glass for twenty (20) years from the original date of purchase. Non-tempered glass is warranted against stress cracks caused by manufacturing defects for ten (10) years from the original date of purchase. All other glass and glass features are provided with the same warranties, limitations, and exclusions Marvin receives from its supplier; contact Marvin for further details. EXTERIOR CLADDING FINISH Except as provided below, Marvin’s standard exterior cladding finish is warranted against manufacturing defects resulting in chalk, fade, and loss of adhesion (peel), per the American Architectural Manufacturer’s Association’s (AAMA) Specification 2605-11 Sections 8.4 and 8.9, for twenty (20) years from the original date of purchase. Anodized finishes and other specialty exterior finishes are warranted to be free from manufacturing defects for five (5) years, from the original date of purchase. Standard exterior cladding finish installed in coastal environments (within one (1) mile of a sea coast or other salt water source) is warranted against manufacturing defects resulting in abnormal deterioration caused by corrosion and/or loss of adhesion for ten (10) years from the original date of purchase. “Abnormal deterioration” means damage to the finish (such as peeling, flaking, or blistering) beyond what is normal for an ocean coastline environment. Anodized or other specialty finishes are not warranted in coastal environments. NON-GLASS COMPONENTS Hardware and other non-glass components are warranted to be free from manufacturing defects for ten (10) years from the original date of purchase. Stainless steel hardware, hardware with physical vapor deposition (“PVD”), and other specifically-designated “coastal” hardware finishes (collectively “Coastal Hardware”) installed in coastal environments are warranted to be free from manufacturing defects that result in abnormal deterioration of the finish for a period of 10 years from the original date of purchase. Other hardware finishes are not warranted in coastal environments. Electric operators and other motorized accessories are provided with the same warranties, limitations, and exclusions Marvin receives from its supplier; contact Marvin for further details. INTERIOR FINISH Factory-applied interior finish is warranted to be free from Finish Defects for a period of five (5) years from the original date of purchase. Finish Defects include cracking, peeling, checking, delamination, blistering, flaking, excessive chalking and, in the case of painted interior finish, fading or change in color (per ASTM D2244), under normal interior environmental conditions. The color of wood changes, typically darkening over time, and is not a defect. The application of stains and/or clear finish does not prevent this natural process. Color change may be more noticeable in woods treated with a clear coat or light colored stain. The appearance of a raised grain or other natural variation in the wood grain may be enhanced by the interior finish and is not a defect. Interior finish is applied prior to assembly and is not intended to cover joinery seams. Products with factory-applied primer only are not covered under this provision. Factory-applied primer must be painted in accordance with Marvin’s finishing instructions within 90 days of installation. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY This Limited Warranty is made as of the original date of product purchase and is not a warranty of future performance. If a covered defect is reported during the term of the applicable warranty notice period, and otherwise in accordance with the terms of the Limited Warranty, Marvin will, at its option, repair or replace the product or component, or refund the price paid for the defective product or component. Removal, installation, finishing, refinishing, and disposal costs and services are not included. Marvin will endeavor to supply original replacement parts; however, replacement parts may differ from the original parts. Replacement parts, including upgrades, are warranted for the remainder of the original product warranty. EXCLUSIONS Damage, defects, or problems resulting from causes outside Marvin’s control are excluded from coverage under the Limited Warranty. Such causes include, without limitation: Installation, Maintenance, and Acts of God  installation not in conformance with Marvin’s installation instructions and applicable building codes  improper or non-standard field finishing  non-standard installation, such as non-vertical or sloped glazing, upside down, or out-of square  installation or use in applications exceeding design standards  field mulls; field finishes  insulating glass installed above 5000 feet without capillary tubes (except as specifically provided in the Marvin Limited Warranty High Altitude Supplement)  installation or use near pools, saunas, hot tubs, or other high-humidity environments 8.g 19913555 Marvin Window and Door Effective January 1. 2013 Limited Warranty  failure to follow Marvin’s care and maintenance instructions  failure to properly treat, seal, and maintain exposed wood  use of brick wash, razor blades or other inappropriate cleaners or chemicals  misuse, abuse, modification, alteration, accident, negligence  shifting or settling of the structure in which the product is installed  extreme weather events, extreme or unusual atmospheric conditions  normal wear and tear; normal discoloration or fading of finishes  variation in wood color, texture, and grain  glass imperfections consistent with ASTM or other industry standards, which do not affect structural integrity  war, insurrection, civil unrest, terrorism, or Acts of God Warp Bow, twist, and warp shall not be considered defects unless in excess of ¼” in the plane of the door. Doors 8’ or higher ordered without multi-point hardware are not performance-certified and are not warranted against bow, twist, or warp. Action on claims for bow, twist, or warp may be deferred at Marvin’s option for a period not to exceed (12) months after installation to permit the door in question to acclimate to temperature and humidity conditions. Moisture Management Products installed in wall systems that do not allow for proper moisture management, such as exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS) or “synthetic stucco” without effective engineered drainage systems, are not covered under the Limited Warranty. Thermal Efficiency Marvin does not warrant the amount or percentage of argon or other inert gas present in insulating glass at any time after manufacture. Inert gas dissipates over time, and may be ineffective in products manufactured with capillary tubes. Thermal efficiencies vary with the application of the product. Marvin does not warrant a specific level of thermal efficiency will be maintained by inert gas, low emissivity coatings, or other product features. Condensation Condensation is not a product defect, but the result of excess humidity. Condensation, frost, or mold, mildew, or fungus on product surfaces is not covered by the Limited Warranty. Corrosion Except as expressly provided in this Limited Warranty, finish failure or corrosion of aluminum cladding, anodized and other specialty finishes, hardware, or other components due to environmental conditions such as air pollutants, acid rain, salt, sand, chemicals, or other corrosive substances is not covered by the Limited Warranty. The environment within one mile of an ocean coastline or other salt water source can be extremely corrosive; some finish deterioration is normal in these environments. Follow Marvin’s care and maintenance instructions, available at www.marvin.com/care. Screens Screens are not designed to, and will not prevent falls. Window Opening Control Devices Window Opening Control Devices (WOCDs) are not a substitute for careful supervision of children. WOCDs must be tested at least monthly. Follow all safety information and instructions provided with WOCDs. This information is also available online at www.marvin.com/wocd-safetyinformation. DISCLAIMERS, LIMITATIONS, AND ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Disclaimers This Limited Warranty is the only warranty, written or oral, express or implied, provided by Marvin. No dealer, employee, or agent of Marvin, nor any third party, may create or assume any other liability, obligation, or responsibility on behalf of Marvin. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. Any implied warranty which cannot be disclaimed under applicable law will be limited in duration to the shortest permissible term and, in any event, will not exceed the term of the applicable express limited warranty; the requirements for presenting any claim so affected will be as provided in this Limited Warranty. Any product or component not specifically subject to this Limited Warranty or another written Marvin product warranty is provided AS IS and without warranty. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights, which may vary from state to state. THIS WARRANTY IS NOT A WARRANTY OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE OR A STATEMENT OF THE USEFUL LIFE OF ANY MARVIN PRODUCT, BUT ONLY A WARRANTY TO REPAIR, REPLACE, OR REFUND. Limitations IN NO EVENT WILL MARVIN BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT WILL MARVIN’S LIABILITY EXCEED THE PRICE PAID FOR THE AFFECTED PRODUCT OR COMPONENT. The limitations of warranty and liability set forth herein shall survive and apply, even if the exclusive remedy set forth in this Limited Warranty is found to have failed of its essential purpose. 8.g Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Window product cut sheets_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND 19913555 Marvin Window and Door Effective January 1. 2013 Limited Warranty Certifications and Ratings Many standard Marvin products are labeled with the Window & Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) Hallmark Certification. WDMA Certification is based on the performance of a single sample of the product at the time of manufacture. Many standard Marvin products are labeled with National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) ratings. NFRC ratings are based on a combination of computer simulations and physical testing of product samples. Certifications and ratings typically apply to single products only; however certain factory-mulled or combined product configurations may also be certified. Performance of individual products may vary and will change over time, depending upon the conditions of use. WDMA certifications and NFRC ratings are not performance warranties. For details on Hallmark Certification, go to www.WDMA.com. For details on NFRC Energy Performance ratings, go to www.NFRC.org. Suitability Determining the suitability and compliance with local or other applicable building codes or standards, of all building components, including the use of any Marvin product, and the design and installation of any flashing or sealing system, is the responsibility of the buyer, user, architect, contractor, installer, and/or other construction professional. Marvin will not be liable for any problem or damage relating to inappropriate or faulty building design or construction, maintenance, installation, or selection of products. Windows and doors are only one element of a structure; Marvin does not warrant that third party certification of a building or project to any specific standard will be achieved through the use of any Marvin product. No Waiver Marvin may, in its discretion, extend benefits beyond what is covered under this Limited Warranty. Any such extension shall apply only to the specific instance in which it is granted, and shall not constitute a waiver of Marvin’s right to strictly enforce the exclusions, disclaimers, and limitations set forth in this Limited Warranty in any or all other circumstances. Warranty Claims All warranty claims must be made within sixty (60) days of the appearance of the defect. To make a warranty claim, contact your local Marvin dealer or distributor. If you do not know the name of your local dealer or distributor, use the “Where to Buy” feature at www.marvin.com, or call 800-533-6898 to locate the one nearest you. If, after five days, your dealer or distributor has not responded, send a written request to Marvin Windows and Doors, PO Box 100, Warroad, MN 56763, Attn: Warranty Department. Include the following information: your name, address, and telephone number, the date you purchased your product, the name of the dealer or distributor from whom you purchased your product, a description of product, order number, specific definition of problem or defect, actions you have taken and contacts you have made with your local dealer or distributor. Once we’ve received your letter, we will respond to your claim promptly. 8.g Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Window product cut sheets_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND 8.g Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Window product cut sheets_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE Wood Ultimate Double Hung WUDH-20 19972255 Marvin Architectural Detail Manual Ver 2012.1 2012-12-17 Section Details: Combination/Storm Sash Scale: 3" = 1’ 0" 1 3/8" (35) 1 13/16" (46) 1 13/16" (46) 3 11/16" (94) 1 13/16" (46) Head Jamb and Sill Jambs Combination w/ 6 9/16 4 1/16" (103) 1 3/8" (35) 2 1/8" (54) 2 1/8" (54) 2 1/8" (54) Jambs Head Jamb and Sill Storm Sash CHECK M ARVINONLINE DO CS FO R LATEST VERSION Printed O n:Apr24,2013,4:20 pm 8.g Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Window product cut sheets_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND 618 W Mountain Ave - designated garage details, and a brief timeline The original garage was constructed in 1916 (see newspaper article and Sanborn Insurance maps), and is believed to have measured 15’ x 27’, based on the visible framing, and concrete foundation and floor. The garage door faced East, and the driveway turned South to parallel the lot line. There is a curb cut on the Southeastern corner of the property, wide enough for a very small vehicle. In 1948, the original 15’ x 27’ structure was expanded and reoriented to 27’ x 22’, and a build- ing permit issued to “remodel house and garage” at a cost of $2500. We believe it was at this time that the garage door orientation was moved to the North side, facing the alley at the rear of the property, and the southern wall of the garage was extended 7 feet, for a total length of 22 feet (which length at that orientation would accommodate a contemporary ve- hicle). Additionally, a connecting structure was built to link the house and garage. There is a cold cellar beneath the connector, with a stairway to the garage and cellar, utilizing an old foundation doorway for access. A portion of the original cedar shingled garage roof is still visible in the attic under the new garage roof. The overhead garage door is not original to the Dickey’s 1948 remodel, since a manufac- turer’s sticker on the door displays a zip code, dating it after 1963. There was a lot of work done on the house in the mid-1980s, and the date ‘1983’ was found inscribed in the rear con- crete driveway (since removed). It is reasonable to assume the door dates from the early 1980s, and does not contribute historically. Timeline 1906 Newton Crose marries Louisa “Mettie” Avery, daughter of Franklin & Sara Avery. 1907 House constructed by Newton Crose. 1909 Louisa Avery purchases all property owned by husband, Newton Crose, for $2. 1914 Newton Crose killed by irate husband of client, Louisa moves back in with parents. 1916 Dr. A R Scott purchases house, builds garage (see newspaper article). 1918 Deed recorded for $4200. 1920 Dr. A R Scott dies in Denver, from complications of surgery (August). 1922 Mrs. A R Scott obtains permit to “remodel frame house”, at a cost of $1000. 1937 Mrs. A R Scott sells house to Dr. Dickey for $1 “plus other considerations”. Based on City Directory listings, it appears that the Dickeys exchanged their house at 800 W Mountain Ave with Mrs. Scott for the property at 618 W Mountain Ave. 1948 Dickeys issued building permit to “Remodel House and Garage”, Dec 13, 1948 Estimated cost $2500. 1960 Ray Gile purchases house. 2008 Chris Ray purchases house. 2012 Whitleys purchase house. 8.h Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Garage history_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Berthoud Bulletin, July 28, 1916 Sanborn Map Dec 1917 1916 Garage 1948 Addition 1948 Connector 8.h Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Garage history_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –) Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Window product cut sheets_618 W Mountain (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND a x f c g o v . c o m 8.d Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 618WMountainDesignation (5490 : 618 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, THE CROSE-SCOTT-DICKEY HOUSE AND GARAGE –)  Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-41 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Deleted metal panel replace with fiber cement panel ADDED TEXTURED TERRA COTTA HEAD DETAIL ADDED TEXTURED TERRA COTTA HEAD DETAIL Deleted ebony terracotta and replaced with textured terracotta in same color tones Deleted ebony terracotta and replaced with textured terracotta in same color tones EXTENDED THE SILL DETAIL TO PROJECT OUT 1 ½ Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-32 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” D Deleted metal and glass storefront Shortened third floor and window height. DELETED METAL PANEL. REPLACED WITH FIBER CEMENT PANEL Added textured terracotta head detail Added textured terracotta head detail T T DELETED EBONY TERRACOTTA AND RELACED WITHTEXTURED TERRA COTTA IN SAME COLOR TONES Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-19 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation Shortened third floor and window height. Deleted metal panel replace with fiber cement panel Added textured terracotta head detail Added textured terracotta head detail Deleted ebony terracotta and replaced with textured terracotta in same color tones Deleted ebony terracotta and replaced with textured terracotta in same color tones Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-8 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation        #$                                !     ! %              7F736C #     % %   %   % # #  #                                                !    !   !    !                                                                                            !                                                      !    !    !                            !   !      !  !                       % %   % %                                                                                                        !     !     !     !    !    !  !     !                                                                                                                    !                  #"  !!" !                                                                                                                                                     !                               $3 !!"       !-5.,*+43 $&/(.3 &22&530) 1&/(.3(&'+ 404&. 1&/(.3     PLANS ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-5 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation   UNIT 4        ! 4 0' - 0"          ! UNIT 2        !       !              #$                         !       ! %        SITE & FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” Item 7, Exhibit A Living Oaks Updated Applicant Presentation Submitted at Hearing Packet Pg. 180-4 Exhibit A: LIVING OAKS - Updated Applicant Presentation ECONOMIC HEALTH 3.5 Foster sustainable infill and redevelopment. Living Oaks is a net zero energy project. This development could become the poster child for the city’s sustainable development initiative. It incorporates geothermal and solar energy and encourages residents to reduce dependency on individual cars. In addition to raising the bar for the possibilities of “green and clean” living, the project entails an environmental cleanup of an urban site which contains buried fuel tanks and possibly contaminated soil. By allowing Living Oaks to go forward, the city has an opportunity to show future developers the preferred direction of development. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 4.1 Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals by reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs). Living Oaks will have substantially lower greenhouse gas emission than the surrounding buildings. In keeping with its NZE status, it is expected that there will be no emission after construction is complete. 4.3 Engage citizens in ways to educate and encourage behaviors toward more sustainable living practices. Just by its presence, Living Oaks is an illustration of the possibilities of sustainable development. Open house or tour of the building which are required by the Living Building Challenge will show interested community members and businesses the advantages of green design. The building is an example of how multiple sources Appendix 3 2016 Strategic Plan of green energy can be utilized together to increase efficiency, and how small lifestyle changes of individual residents (i.e. sharing a car or eschewing one all together) can make a difference, especially when the building is designed to make those lifestyle choices easier and more practicable. 4.5 Work towards long term net zero energy goals within the community and the City organization using a systems approach. Living Oaks is a net zero energy project, a direct contributor and forerunner to achieving these goals. The project is utilizing the Integrated Design Assist Program (IDAP) implemented by the City to maximize energy efficiency and increase transparency to City requirements. 4.9 Meet all regulatory requirements while supporting programs that go beyond compliance. As a net zero energy building, Living Oaks goes far beyond compliance. It embodies a “higher and/or best use” of the property, with requested variances in order to maximize this use. Regulatory requirements by their nature do not always facilitate innovation, based as they are on past uses and abuses. By meeting the spirit of the requirements and pushing the envelope on sustainability, Living Oaks is an invitation for the City to review the requirements and adjust for the future. 7.b Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) significance of any existing landmarked structures. Visual and Pedestrian Connections Between Site and Neighborhood Focal Points 7.b Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Individually Eligible for Local Designation 26’ 2 45’ 0’ Concrete block Painted White Flat 137-43 Mathews Street (McIntyre House) 1872 Individually Eligible for Local Designation 27’ 2 42’ 20’ Brick Red Pitched 221 Mathews Street (Parkview Apartments) 1936 Individually Eligible for Local Designation 30’ 3 70’ 10’ Brick Red and Black Flat/False Dormer Front East Side of Mathews 200 Mathews Street (Carnegie Library) 1903 Local landmark and NRHP 32’ 2 83’ 60’ Rusticated stone masonry Reddish Hipped 250, 270, 286, Mathews Street (cabins) various 19c. Local Landmark as Special Objects 15’/ varies 1 varies varies varies varies Pitched Neighborhood Context 7.b Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4. Parkview Apartments • Flat Roof w/ charcoal false parapet for PA, (Living Oaks charcoal clerestory and pitched roof) • Reddish brick with dark accents 5. Carnegie Library • Reddish Masonry • Vertical Windows 6. Mennonite Church • Reddish brick 7. 308 E. Oak St. Apartment Building • Reddish brick with dark accents • Flat roof w Dark charcoal mansard roof (Living Oaks dark charcoal clerestory and pitched roof) • Height 35’ (Living Oaks 35’) 8. Frozen Foods Building • Flat roof • Zero Setback 7.b Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Cladding: stone Roof: hip, red asphalt shingles Date:1889 148 Remington St. (Poudre Garage) 4-story mixed use (addition/renovation currently under review) Cladding: yellow brick Roof: flat Date: 1936 200 Mathews St. (Carnegie Library) 2-story museum Cladding: stone Roof: hipped, red clay tile Date: 1903 HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED UPDATED POST 3.15.17 LPC REVIEW 7.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) B A C F A B C NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” F D 7.b Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL #2 3.22.17 PDP SUBMITTAL 2.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3/30/2017 8:37:14 AM LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO A1.2 First Floor 02/16/17 KB, CJ LD, BD OAKS FIRST 1/FLOOR 4" = 1'-0" 1 SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 1 8/31/ 16 7F736C UP DN DN REF. REF. DW DW REF. DW REF. DW UP UP DN UP DN A B C D E 1 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 85' - 4" 39' - 5 1/2" 87' - 0" E1 3' - 4 5/8" 3' - 3 5/8" 12' - 11 7/8" 12' - 9" 723 SF UNIT 4 240 724 SF UNIT 3 230 717 SF UNIT 1 210 724 SF UNIT 2 220 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 0" 21' - 7 5/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 7 5/8" A4.0 1 2 3 4 20' - 0" 8' - 0" 12' - 0" 20' - 0" 8' - 0" 12' - 0" 5' - 1 5/8" 6' - 0 5/8" 5' - 2 1/4" 20' - 9 1/4" 20' - 6" 60 SF BALCONY 211 4' - 0" 12' - 0" 3' - 7" 2' - 0" 2' - 7 5/8" 12' - 0" 4' - 2" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 2" 12' - 0" 2' - 7 5/8" 2' - 0" 3' - 7" 12' - 0" 4' - 0" 60 SF BALCONY 221 60 SF BALCONY 231 60 SF BALCONY 241 1' - 5" 2' - 10 5/8" B B B B B D D D D E E E E C C C C 39 SF BATHROOM 212 39 SF BATHROOM 222 39 SF BATHROOM 232 39 SF BATHROOM 242 1' - 5" 21 1' - 6 1/2" 22 23 24 6' - 0" 5' - 7" 5' - 7" 10' - 10" AC R H DAVI S I DI A V S S TECT 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 2.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2/23/2017 8:55:46 AM LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO A1.3 Second Floor 02/16/17 KB, CJ LD, BD OAKS SECOND 1/FLOOR 4" = 1'-0" 1 SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE DN W W DN DN DN W W A B C D E 1 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 85' - 4" 5' - 1 29/32" 5' - 1 29/32" 87' - 0" 40' - 0" 43' - 6" 43' - 6" 5' - 0" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 6" 2' - 6" 6' - 6 1/4" 10' - 1 3/4" 8' - 0" 3' - 2" 13' - 0" 8' - 0" 2' - 0" 6' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 0" 8' - 0" 265 SF BEDROOM 310 132 SF BEDROOM 318 184 SF HALL 317 295 SF BEDROOM 320 212 SF HALL 328 120 SF BEDROOM 326 88 SF BATH 322 53 SF BATH 324 114 SF BATH 312 47 SF BATH 315 WC 314 CLOSET 319 CLOSET 327 WC 323 BEDROOM 330 HALL 338 BEDROOM 336 BATH 334 BATH 332 WC 333 BATH 342 BEDROOM 340 BATH 345 BEDROOM 348 CLOSET 349 W/D 346 WC 344 CLOSET 337 HALL 437 W/D 325 W/D 335 8' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 9' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 9' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 8' - 0" 10' - 1 3/4" 13' - 8 1/4" 4' - 5 5/8" 5' - 0" 8' - 6" 10' - 2 7/8" 2' - 4 3/4" 10' - 0 1/8" 2' - 4 3/4" 8' - 0" 1' - 5" 1' - 5" 21' - 7 5/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 10 3/8" 21' - 7 5/8" 40' - 0" BUILDING CENTER LINE ROOF ACCESS HATCH 9' - 4 1/8" A A A A A A A A D A A A A A A D D D D 33 32 35 37 38 39 41 40 42 43 45 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 56 58 59 60 3' - 2 1/4" 2' - 5 3/8" 8' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 0" 12' - 0" 2' - 4 3/8" 4' - 6" 2' - 6" 8' - 0" 2' - 6" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 2' - 6" 1' - 6" 1' - 4" 1' - 4" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 2' - 6" 3' - 0" 2' - 0" 7' - 11 5/8" 7' - 11 5/8" 7' - 6 1/4" 1' - 0" 11' - 8" 22 SF WD 316 AC R H DAVI S I DI A V S S TECT 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Scale As Noted Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 2.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2/23/2017 8:56:26 AM LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO A1.4 Third Floor 02/16/17 KB, CJ LD, BD OAKS THIRD 1/4" FLOOR = 1'-0" 1 SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE A B C D E 1 0' - 10" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 0' - 0" 21' - 4" 21' - 4" 0' - 10" PV's ROOF ACCESS HATCH 87' - 0" 0' - 10" PV Panels: Skylights 4 arrays of 30 panels each total 120 panels 0' - 5 7/8" 0' - 5 7/8" AC R H DAVI S I DI A V S S TECT 141 South College Ave. Ste. 102 Fort Collins Colorado 80524 970 . 482 . 1827 Revision Date Drawn by Checked by SET ISSUE PDP SUBMITTAL 2.21.17 - - Project number DESIGN DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 017 8:39:55 AM LIVING OAKS 221 East Oak Street, Fort Collins, CO A1.5 Roof 02/16/17 KB, CJ LD, BD OAKS 1/4" = ROOF 1'-0" 1 SHEET ISSUE REVISION DATE 141 S. College Ave. Suite 102 Fort Collins, CO 80524 t. 970.482.1827 www.davisdavisarch.com LIVING OAKS at 221 Oak Street Fort Collins, CO Landmark Preservation Commission Review 4/3/17 9 PROPOSED BUILDING: Plans PLANS ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” 7.b Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 87’- 0” SITE & FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” 7.b Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Living Oaks Applicant Packet_LPC 4-15-17 meeting (5487 : LIVING OAKS (PDP170009) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) MARCH SAID 20130016329. LINE 1, PER 2013 (PLAT RECORD AT RECEPTION OF BEARING CMC NO. OF CENTER S00"53 '48 OFFlCE "W) BUILDING IS .... a, � , F 0 r,i � >- w _J _J <( ci m ::, (I) C, 'iii' � C, 9� 5� m w W m E� 0 (I) �! z w o. ...... o � 5 0 • go .., � E' w w z ::.:: 3: (I) 0 . ...... g� 0 u... m '° r 0 w z ::I f;l t- � (I) omCE BLOCK SW'L Y CORNER 1, BUILDING CIVIC OF CENTER SUBD. FOUND BRASS NAIL TAG, AND LS 14823 A ttachment: Exhibit A - Legal Description (5462 : 225 MAPLE LANDMARK DESIGNATION) Packet Pg. 43-2