Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2018 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Bud Frick Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting March 21, 2018 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW • STAFF REPORTS • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. 225 MAPLE STREET - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Continental Oil Company at 225 Maple Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2017. The proposed work includes a retractable or fixed patio system. The applicants are seeking feedback on the proposed patio system, including the design’s shape, system, and material options. APPLICANT: Mallory Andrews, Owner of FoCo Cafe Landmark Preservation Commission 2. 225 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins local landmark designation of 225 South Loomis Avenue, which was considered eligible for its architecture. OWNER/APPLICANT: Karin Boes 3. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449-acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection, and also fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction 4. OASIS ON OLIVE - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for the development of a 3 story multi-family condominium building and ground level parking located at 312 W Olive Street, between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The 7-unit building includes an enclosed at-grade parking garage with 7 parking spaces. Access to the controlled garage will be from Olive Street on the south side of the complex. Exiting will be out to Canyon Avenue to the west along a one-way private drive. This proposal will be subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen Slezak, Owner/Developer • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Date: Roll Call Bello Dorn Frick Gensmer Hogestad Murray Simpson Wallace Dunn Vote  absent  #2 - 225 South Loomis DOE Appeal Murray Hogestad Simpson Bello Dorn Frick Wallace Gensmer Dunn Yes Yes absent No Yes Yes Yes Yes recused 6:1 #4 - Oasis on Olive Area of Adjacency? Hogestad Simpson Bello Dorn Frick Wallace Gensmer Murray Dunn Yes absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 3/21/2018 DATE: LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Sign In Sheet THIS IS AP ART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schlager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Tiuu;,· dc you! Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 3/21/18 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published. These are posted online in the Supplemental Documents section for this meeting.) DISCUSSION AGENDA: 1. 225 MAPLE STREET - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW • Updated Staff Presentation • Updated Staff Report (updated directly in packet) • Location Map • Legal Description 2. 225 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL • 2005-10-06 Determination of Eligibility • 2018-02-21 Appeal Letter from Applicant • Updated Staff Report (updated directly in packet) 3. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • Updated Staff Report • Updated Staff Presentation • Updated Applicant Submittal • Minutes Excerpt from the 5-14-2008 LPC Meeting • Plans and Elevations from the 2016 LPC Review 4. OASIS ON OLIVE - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • 2016 September 14 LPC Minutes - Olive Street Apts. Excerpt • Updated Staff Report (updated directly in packet) • Updated Staff Presentation • Applicant Response to Work Session Requests (Drawings and Elevations) EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 1 1 Updated Staff Presentation 1 2 New Sketch from Applicant 2 1 Updated Staff Presentation 2 2 Applicant Slides Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 21, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 225 MAPLE STREET - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Continental Oil Company at 225 Maple Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 2017. The proposed work includes a retractable or fixed patio system. The applicants are seeking feedback on the proposed patio system, including the design’s shape, system, and material options. APPLICANT: Mallory Andrews, Owner of FoCo Cafe OWNER: The City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: N/A. The applicant is still in the conceptual design review phase and has not yet finalized plans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Continental Oil Company Property warehouse/office building, constructed in approximately 1913, shop/garage building, constructed at the same time, and the pump house, constructed in the fall of 1949, were designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in 2017. This is a conceptual design review of a proposed fixed or temporary awning system for the FoCo Café, a restaurant where patrons eat locally and sustainably sourced meals, prepared and served by volunteers in a pay-what-you-can setting. The applicant seeks feedback on the proposed concept of a temporary or fixed awning for the comfort of patrons. They have not yet fulfilled the requirements for final review, which include finalized sketches and plans and a plan of protection. The applicants will return later for another conceptual design review and later, a final design review to request a report of acceptability from the Commission. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The Continental Oil Company Property 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. More detailed architectural and historical information can be found in the attached landmark nomination form. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking design review feedback for the attached preliminary design of an awning system. In this design, the awning is both partially fixed and retractable. The proposed awning covers the porch on the west elevation of the building and would wrap around the north and south elevations. There would be retractable sections on the east elevation and a door that opens out so patrons 1 Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 2 can enter onto the porch. The proposed awning system is approximately 25 feet in width and 7 feet tall. The applicant is interested in fabric or vinyl for the awning system. A sketch and bid for the project is attached. 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 National Park Service defines rehabilitation as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values." As stated in the definition, the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Exterior Integrity Exterior integrity is the composite of seven (7) aspects or qualities, which convey a property’s identity for which it is significant. These seven aspects are: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 1 Packet Pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 3 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: The Continental Oil Company Property is a designated Fort Collins landmark, and thus careful scrutiny is required for any proposed exterior changes that would affect the property’s ability to continue to convey its character and significance through its physical integrity. As with all design reviews for designated landmarks, evaluation of the proposed work should be based on the revised “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” published in 2017 by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services for guidance on interpreting the Standards for Rehabilitation. As the guidelines indicate, additions and alterations to historic properties should only be done when needed to retain functional use of a property to ensure continued use. The Guidelines for the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards can be found at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf. 1. Landmark Designation Form 2. Photographs of Property - 2017 3. Awning Design and Bid 4. Staff Presentation 1 Packet Pg. 5 ATTACHMENTS Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 225 Maple Street Legal Description: Please see the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A. 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 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 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. Please see the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A. 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. 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 3 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 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 4 whale oil to light their homes. In the early years of the company, Blake also constructed the first oil pipeline in California.1 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. 1 “Our History,” ConocoPhillips, accessed at http://www.conocophillips.com/who-we-are/our-legacy/history/Pages/1909-1875.aspx. 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. 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 5 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. 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. 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. 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. 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 6 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.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 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. 1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 7 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. 1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 8 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. 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. 1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 9 1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 10 1.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 11 1.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Revised 08-2014 Page 12 1.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Landmark Designation Form (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Photographs of Property - 2017 (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.c Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Awning Design and Bid (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 1.c Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Awning Design and Bid (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3/13/2018 1 1 Conceptual Design Review – 225 Maple Street The Continental Oil Company Property Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner 225 Maple St. – Continental Oil Company • Applicant: Mallory Andrews, FoCo Cafe • Designation includes footprint of historic warehouse/office building, oldest part of shop/garage building, and pumphouse Proposed Work: • Awning system for entire east elevation/facade 2 1.d Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3/13/2018 2 225 Maple Street 3 225 Maple Street 4 1.d Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3/13/2018 3 225 Maple Street – Proposed Plans 5 Role of the LPC • Evaluate the revised option presented for Conceptual Review in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14 of Municipal Code • Not ready for Final Design Review 6 1.d Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3/13/2018 4 7 Conceptual Design Review – 225 Maple Street The Continental Oil Company Property Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Section 14-48, “Approval of Proposed Work” (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. The proposed work would fall under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation. 8 1.d Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) 3/13/2018 5 Sect of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 9 Sect of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 10 1.d Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6576 : 225 MAPLE STREET CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 21, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 225 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the appeal of the determination of eligibility for Fort Collins local landmark designation of 225 South Loomis Avenue, which was considered eligible for its architecture. OWNER/APPLICANT: Karin Boes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND On January 17, 2018, Historic Preservation staff received the materials for a determination of eligibility for the 225 South Loomis Avenue property from homeowner Karin Boes. On January 25, 2018, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the 225 South Loomis Avenue property based on the provisions in Chapter 14 Section 14-72 and found that the property is individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark based on significance under Standard C, as a property that embodies the distinctive original characteristics of a vernacular cottage with Colonial Revival details. The reviewers found that seven of the seven aspects of integrity are intact, as follows: • Materials: Exterior materials appear to be original based on evidence from the Larimer County Tax Assessor card and photograph from 1948 and 1968 and present-day photos provided by the applicant. • Design: Building proportions, configuration, roofline, and windows remain intact. • Workmanship: The property provides evidence of historic construction trends for twentieth century vernacular architecture. • Location: Building is in its original location on the site. • Setting: The building’s residential setting on a narrow lot in a block of residences remains largely intact. • Feeling: The majority of physical features-design, materials, workmanship, and setting-are intact and convey the building’s intact historic character. • Association: The building retains its historic association as a residential property. The following documentation was provided at the January 25, 2018 meeting as evidence to inform the determination of eligibility: Larimer County Tax Assessor information, the applicant’s photographs, photographs from the Historic Preservation files, building permits and records, and previous surveys. This information has been 2 Packet Pg. 37 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 attached to this report. When making the original determination of eligibility, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission did not have the appellant’s letter. This new information is also attached. Following the determination of eligibility, the property was posted and public notice in the Coloradoan and on the City website was provided, as required by Section 14-6(a) of the Fort Collins Municipal Code in order to provide opportunity for public comment and appeal of the determination of eligibility. On February 5, 2017, Karin Boes, current owner of 225 South Loomis Avenue, submitted a written appeal of the decision that the property is individually eligible in accordance with the appeal procedure outlined in Sections 14-6(b) and 14-72(e). The appellant has met all of the requirements outlined in the code regarding the appeal process. The appeal of the determination of eligibility was publicly posted on March 5, 2018. Historic Preservation staff received no other comment or appeals from other members of the public within fourteen days of the original determination of eligibility. RELEVANT CODES AND PROCESSES FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Section 14-5, “Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” includes the following information regarding determinations of eligibility. “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered. (1) Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how properties are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential. (2) Standards for determining significance: a. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. b. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. c. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. d. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (3) Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or 2 Packet Pg. 38 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. (4) Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property. c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. (5) Context. The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area. Upon the submittal of an application necessitating a determination of eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark or Landmark District, the Director and/or the chair of the Commission shall determine the minimum area required for evaluating context, and such information, including photographs and other documents, as required for the determination.” The process for application of the above Municipal Code to properties submitted for historic review is based on the framework established in the National Park Service Bulletin 15, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” According to that federal guidance, a property considered significant under Standard C (architectural significance), must retain three of the seven aspects of integrity in particular: materials, design, and workmanship. The bulletin also notes that feeling is an aspect of integrity that requires the presence of the majority of the physical features (design, materials, workmanship, and setting) that together convey historic character. Because this relies on perception, feeling should be noted as an intact aspect of integrity only in combination with those other aspects of integrity to support a determination of eligibility. Likewise, association also relies on perception and thus must be combined with other aspects of integrity to support eligibility. ROLE OF THE COMMISSION Based on the appeal process for determinations of eligibility outlined in Section 14-6(b), the Commission must consider an appeal of determination based on the provided evidence from the initial review and the new evidence in the form of the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation. The Commission should use the above standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects, and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks in Section 14-5 to make that determination. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the City Council, as stated in Section 14-9. 2 Packet Pg. 39 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 4 SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission determines that the property is individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find 225 South Loomis Avenue individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark, according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings].” If the Commission finds that the property is not individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find 225 South Loomis Avenue not individually eligible as a Fort Collins landmark according to the standards outlined in Section 14-5 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact [insert findings].” Note: The Commission may propose other wording for the motion based on its evaluation. 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. 2018-01-25 Determination of Eligibility (PDF) 3. Photos of Property (PDF) 4. 1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor Cards (PDF) 5. 2000 Westside Survey (PDF) 6. Loomis Addition Survey (PDF) 7. Staff Presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 40 ATTACHMENTS S Loomis Ave W Oak St W Olive St 225 South Loomis Avenue © Location Map 1 inch = 103 feet Site 2.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Location Map (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 2.b Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 2018-01-25 Determination of Eligibility (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 2.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 2018-01-25 Determination of Eligibility (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 2.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 2018-01-25 Determination of Eligibility (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 2.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 2018-01-25 Determination of Eligibility (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 2.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 2018-01-25 Determination of Eligibility (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1999 Photos 2.c Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL)  1IPUP 2.c Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL)  1IPUP 2.c Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL)  1IPUP 2.c Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL)  1IPUP 2.c Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL)  1IPUP 2.c Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL)  1IPUP 2.c Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Undated Photo 2.c Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT 2.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT/FJHICPS4-PPNJT 2.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1IPUPT/FJHICPS4-PPNJT 2.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Photos of Property (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 2.d Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor Cards (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF 2.d Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor Cards (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF 2.d Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor Cards (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF 2.d Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 1948 and 1968 Tax Assessor Cards (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF 2.e Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 2000 Westside Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Loomis Addition Survey Historical and Architectural Reconnaissance Form IDENTIFICATION 1. Current Property Name: BOES, KARIN MARTA Historic Property Name UNKNOWN 2. Resource Classification: Building 3. Ownership: Private Owner(s) contact info: BOES, KARIN MARTA 225 S LOOMIS AVE FORT COLLINS, CO 805212540 LOCATION 4. Street Address: 225 S LOOMIS AVE 5. Municipality: Fort Collins, Colorado 6. County: Larimer 7. USGS Quad (7.5’): Fort Collins NAD 83 WGS84 8. Parcel Number: 9711315018 9. Parcel Information: Lot(s): E 100 Ft of Lot 13 Block: 279 Addition: Loomis 10. Acreage: Not required 11. PLSS information: Not required 12. Location Coordinates: Lat: 40.584609795699997 Long:-105.08827499500001 WGS 84 DESCRIPTION 13. Construction features (forms, materials) Property Type: Single Dwelling Stories: 1 Architectural Style/Type: Craftsman Foundation: Concrete Walls: Exterior walls are sheathed with wood clapboard siding with cornerboards and frieze boards. Windows: East façade has two sets of paired 6-over-1 double-hung windows. South side has one single double-hung and 1 set of paired double-hung windows. North side Eligibility Evaluation (OAHP use only) Date _____________ Initials _______ ____ Determined Eligible – NR ____ Determined Eligible - SR ____ Needs Data ____ Eligible District – Contributing ____ Eligible District - Noncontributing 2.f Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 features two single double-hung windows, one set of paired double-hung windows, and three sliding windows. Windows appear to be original wood and all have wood trim and slipsills. Roof: Gabled roof is sheathed with composition roofing and has cornice returns in gable ends. Chimney(s): Two chimneys: first, small brick chimney rises from ridge of gable; second, large brick chimney extends up south side and projects above roof. Porch(s) / Doors: A full-width porch with colonial revival features, hipped roof, and wood paneled knee walls projects from the east façade. Porch roof is supported by four wood Tuscan columns rising from the knee walls, and features a small centered open pediment with clapboard siding above steps leading from sidewalk to porch. Front door is wood with 15 rectangular lights. 14. Landscape (important features of the immediate environment) Garden X Mature Plantings Designed Landscape Walls Parking Lot X Driveway X Sidewalk Fence Seating 14a. # of ancillary buildings: 1 (form 1417b attached for each ancillary building) HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS (based on visual observations and/or review of secondary sources) 15. Historic function/use: Single Dwelling Current function/use: Single Dwelling 16. Date of Construction: 1924 Estimated U X UActual Source: Building Records/Permits 17. Other Significant Dates: 18. Associated NR Areas of Significance Agriculture X Architecture Archaeology Art Commerce Community Planning & Development Conservation Economics Education Engineering Entertainment/Rec. Ethnic Heritage Exploration/ Settlement Health/Medicine Industry Invention Landscape Architecture Law Literature Maritime History Military Performing Arts Philosophy Politics/Gov’t. Religion Science Social History Transportation Other 19. Associated Historic Context(s) (if known): Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015. 2.f Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 20. Retains Integrity of: X Location X Setting X Materials X Design X Workmanship X Association X Feeling 21. Notes on integrity: Excellent – Siding and windows appear to be original and are consistent with those visible in a 1948 historic photograph, so integrity of materials and workmanship are retained. The porch was screened-in in photographs from 1948 and 1968; porch screens have been removed since then, but the change is insignificant and does not affect integrity of design. Because the property retains a high level of its original architectural character, integrity of association and feeling are not compromised. Because this property also includes an intact garage built five years after the house, the property has special significance. 22. Sources: Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015; Fort Collins History Connection Website, 30TUhttp://history.poudrelibraries.org/U30T; Larimer County Assessor Records 2.f Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 FIELD RECOMMENDATIONS: POTENTIAL ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION Note: eligibility recommendation based solely on architectural reconnaissance except as noted above. Full evaluations of historical significance require additional property-specific research beyond the scope of this form and typically require completion of the OAHP Historical / Architectural Properties: Intensive Level / Evaluation form (OAHP form # 1403). Individually Eligible - Local Landmark? X yes no needs data officially designated Individually Eligible - State Register? X yes no needs data Individually Eligible - National Register? X yes no needs data Contributes to a Potential National, State and/or Local Historic District? X yes no needs data RECORDING INFORMATION Recorded by: Luke Anderson Date: August 9, 2016 Affiliation/Organization: Humstone Consulting Phone Number: 970.420.5275 Report title: Loomis Addition Survey Report Project Sponsor: City of Fort Collins/Historic Preservation Division Photo Log: sloom225.01.la, sloom225.03.la 2.f Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 SKETCH PLAN based on 2014 GIS data, field checked from public ROW ¿ N 2.f Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 PHOTOGRAPHS 225 S Loomis Ave., east façade and north side (Luke Anderson, August 2016) 2.f Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 225 S Loomis Ave., east façade (Luke Anderson, August 2016) 2.f Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5LR.7723 USGS Fort Collins Quadrangle (NAD83; WGS84) 2.f Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5.LR. 7723 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Loomis Addition Survey Historical and Architectural Reconnaissance: Ancillary IDENTIFICATION 1. Current Property Name: BOES, KARIN MARTA Historic Property Name UNKNOWN 2. Resource Classification: Building 3. Ancillary Identification Garage DESCRIPTION 4. Construction features (forms, materials) Property Type: Garage Stories: 1 Architectural Style/Type: Single-bay Garage Foundation: Concrete Walls: Exterior walls are sheathed with wood drop siding with cornerboards. Windows: No windows are visible from the public ROW. Roof: Gabled roof is sheathed with composition roofing with exposed rafter tails. Chimney(s): None Porch(s) / Doors: Three-leaf hinged wood garage door with four lights in each leaf on east side. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS (based on visual observations and/or review of secondary sources) 5. Historic function/use: Garage Current function/use: Garage 6. Date of Construction: 1929 Estimated X Actual Source: Building Records/Permits 7. Other Significant Dates: 8. Associated NR Areas of Significance Agriculture X Architecture Archaeology Art Commerce Eligibility Evaluation (OAHP use only) Date _____________ Initials _______ ____ Determined Eligible – NR ____ Determined Eligible - SR ____ Needs Data ____ Eligible District – Contributing ____ Eligible District - Noncontributing 2.f Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5.LR. 7723 Community Planning & Development Conservation Economics Education Engineering Entertainment/Rec. Ethnic Heritage Exploration/ Settlement Health/Medicine Industry Invention Landscape Architecture Law Literature Maritime History Military Performing Arts Philosophy Politics/Gov’t. Religion Science Social History Transportation Other 9. Associated Historic Context(s) (if known): Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015. 10. Retains Integrity of: X Location X Setting X Materials X Design X Workmanship X Association X Feeling 11. Notes on integrity: Excellent – Garage appears to have original siding and doors which retains integrity of materials and workmanship. There have been no additions or reconfiguration of doors which retains integrity of design. The garage has been preserved as an excellent example of a garage from the 1920s and retains integrity of association and feeling. 12. Sources: Humstone, et al: Loomis Addition Historic Context, 2015; Fort Collins History Connection Website, 30Thttp://history.poudrelibraries.org/30T; Larimer County Assessor Records FIELD ELIGIBILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Note: eligibility recommendation based solely on architectural reconnaissance except as noted above. Full evaluations of historical significance require additional property-specific research beyond the scope of this form and typically require completion of the OAHP Historical / Architectural Properties: Intensive Level / Evaluation form (OAHP form # 1403). Potentially Local Landmark Eligible? yes X no needs data officially designated Potentially Individually State Register Eligible? yes X no needs data Potentially Individually National Register Eligible? yes X no needs data Contributes to a Potential Historic District? X yes no needs data 2.f Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) OAHP Site #: 5.LR. 7723 RECORDING INFORMATION Recorded by: Luke Anderson Date: August 9, 2016 Affiliation/Organization: Humstone Consulting Phone Number: 970.420.5275 Report title: Loomis Addition Survey Report Project Sponsor: City of Fort Collins/Historic Preservation Division Photo Log: sloom225A.01.la PHOTOGRAPHS 225 S Loomis Ave., Garage, east side (Luke Anderson, August 2016) 2.f Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Loomis Addition Survey (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 1 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 03.21.2018 225 South Loomis Avenue, Appeal— Landmark Designation Eligibility Background and History 2 • Construction Date: 1924 • Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair Review: • Property was determined individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard C: • Design/Construction - Interesting example of a vernacular cottage with Colonial Revival features, all 7 aspects of integrity 2.g Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Location and Context 3 225 S Loomis Ave East Elevation, 2018 2.g Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 225 S Loomis Ave North Elevation, 2018 225 S Loomis Ave West Elevation, 2018 2.g Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 225 S Loomis Ave South Elevation, 2018 225 S Loomis Ave Garage, 2018 2.g Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) 225 S Loomis Ave Garage, 2018 Relevant Codes and Processes Section 14-5, ““Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” provides framework for making the determination of eligibility. Eligibility is • Significance • Exterior Integrity • Context 10 2.g Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Relevant Codes and Processes Significance is… • Events • Groups/People • Design/Construction • Information Potential 11 Relevant Codes and Processes 12 Exterior Integrity is… • Location • Design • Setting • Materials • Workmanship • Feeling • Association 2.g Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) National Register Criteria for Evaluation The framework for processing applications is established in the National Park Service Bulletin 15, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Standard A/B: • Location • Setting • Materials •Design Standard C: • Materials •Design • Workmanship 13 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission • Based on the appeal process outlined in Section 14-6(b), the Commission must determine whether 225 S Loomis Avenue is individually eligible. • This is a new determination of eligibility based on provided evidence from the initial review and the new evidence in form of the letter from the appellant. • The Commission should use the above criteria from Section 14-5 to make that determination. 14 2.g Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Appeal of Decisions Sec. 14-9. - Appeal of decisions. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the City Council as set forth in §2-46et seq., unless otherwise provided. Any action taken in reliance upon any decision of the Commission that is subject to appeal under the provisions of this Chapter shall be at the sole risk of the person(s) taking such action, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. 15 16 Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission 03.21.2018 225 South Loomis Avenue, Appeal— Landmark Designation Eligibility 2.g Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Relevant Codes and Processes Section 14-5, “Standards for determining the eligibility of sites, structures, objects and districts for designation as Fort Collins landmarks or landmark districts,” includes the following information regarding determinations of eligibility. “Properties eligible for designation must possess both significance and exterior integrity. In making a determination of eligibility, the context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered. (1) Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. Significance is achieved through meeting one (1) or more of four (4) standards recognized by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. These standards define how properties are significant for their association with events or persons, in design or construction, or for their information potential.” 17 Relevant Codes and Processes “(2) Standards for determining significance: a. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events: • 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or • 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. b. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented.” 18 2.g Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Relevant Codes and Processes “c. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have high artistic values. d. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” 19 Relevant Codes and Processes “(3) Exterior integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven (7) qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. (4) Standards for determining exterior integrity: a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. b. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a property.” 20 2.g Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Relevant Codes and Processes “c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. d. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. f. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character.” 21 Relevant Codes and Processes “g. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character.” 22 2.g Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Relevant Codes and Processes (5) Context. The area required for evaluating a resource's context is dependent on the type and location of the resource. A house located in the middle of a residential block could be evaluated in the context of the buildings on both sides of the block, while a house located on a corner may require a different contextual area...” 23 2.g Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6568 : 225 S LOOMIS AVE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL) Item # 3 Page 1 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 3 March 21, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449-acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection, and also fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments regarding the proposed project’s compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. The applicant will be submitting a BDR application in April 2018 and will return to the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) at that time for additional review. LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will conduct conceptual review of the project’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7 based on the attached plans. Because the applicant has not yet made formal application to the City, the LPC may not offer a recommendation to the decision maker at this time. POTENTIAL AREA OF ADJACENCY: The potential area of adjacency consists of historic properties within a 200-foot radius of the project parcel. 1. Abutting Properties Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) • 133 Mathews (Frozen Food Center) 2. Other Properties within 200-foot radius-Designated Fort Collins Landmarks • Old Town Historic District (250 and 238/240 E. Mountain) • Poudre Garage, 148 Remington 3. Other Properties within 200-foot radius-Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) • 137-143 Mathews (McIntyre House) Packet Pg. 93 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 2 • 210 E Oak (Zoric Cleaners) • 300 E. Oak (Mennonite Church) - constructed 1954 • 142 Remington 4. At Least 50 Years Old--Not Eligible for Designation (based on recent non-binding determinations of eligibility conducted for nearby development review) • 216 E. Oak • 220 E. Oak (Community of Christ Church) The Commission should consider the nature of the Historic Core Subdistrict of the Downtown Zone and the varying ages, styles, proximity, and typologies present in the buildings within the Area of Adjacency to determine those that are most relevant to the review of this project. REQUESTS FROM THE WORK SESSION ON MARCH 14, 2018 From Applicant (to be provided at the meeting): • Explanation of compliance with 3.4.7(f)(2) - visual ties, window patterns, alignment of horizontal elements between buildings • Details on dimensions and application of building materials • Show alternate design with stepback abutting 133 Mathews From Staff: • Updated area of adjacency map (see updated “potential area of adjacency” list above and updated map in the staff slide presentation) • Elevations and site plan from former plans, approved by Commission on 7-13-16 (See Supplemental Documents) • Minutes from 2008 complimentary review of Mitchell Block at 252 E Mountain (See Supplemental Documents) 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 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.” • This project site does not contain designated or eligible historic resources and is not within the Old Town Historic District. • There are several historic resources within the proposed area of adjacency, noted above. Packet Pg. 94 Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 3 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.” • Proposed height is 54 feet; the height of the abutting Frozen Food Center is 26 feet. • Proposed façade width is 150 feet on Mountain and 130 feet on Mathews. The façade width of the abutting Frozen Food Center is 45 feet. • Facades are articulated into discernable sections through the use of varying materials and material planes. • The setback on both streets will be within 1 foot of the property line, with some variations due to façade detailing. The abutting Frozen Food Center building at 133 Mathews also has a zero-lot line. • The applicant notes that the header height of the second-floor windows and the width of the material change and architectural articulation on the proposed building relate directly to the dimensions of the Frozen Food Building. “(2) New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of such existing historic structures to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of such existing structures (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.” • The applicant has not specifically addressed this standard in the proposal packet. “(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 project consists of a steel super structure with a composite concrete/steel floor system with balloon framed metal studs at the exterior skin. • The proposed skin will consist of brick and stone masonry, prefinished cementitious smooth wall panels, prefinished smooth metal panels, and aluminum glazing systems with clear glass. The roofing system will be an adhered TPO membrane. “(4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible.” • The applicant notes that the project will improve existing pedestrian conditions on the southwest corner of East Mountain and Mathews. Sidewalks will be repaired and/or replaced and widened to meet the building edge. “(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 project will incorporate new landscaping elements at the building base and will include new street trees as required by City code. The existing trees on East Mountain Avenue along the north property line and in the landscaped island will remain. ATTACHMENTS 1. 221 E Mtn Conceptual Review Staff Presentation (PDF) 2. Applicant Submittal (PDF) Packet Pg. 95 1 221 East Mountain – Conceptual Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018 Project Summary • Historic Core Subdistrict of the Downtown (D) District • Half-acre lot at 221 East Mountain Avenue (former location of Goodyear Tire) • Fronts East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner (alleys to west and south) • 4-story mixed-use: office, retail and residential uses • Single-level parking structure below grade • Approximate square footage, including garage = 90,172 square feet 2 3.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 221 E Mtn Conceptual Review Staff Presentation (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Area of Adjacency 3 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Provide conceptual review comments related to the proposed project’s compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, which requires new construction to respect the historic character of surrounding historic properties on or adjacent to the development site. 4 3.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 221 E Mtn Conceptual Review Staff Presentation (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 5 221 East Mountain – Conceptual Development Review Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018 3.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 221 E Mtn Conceptual Review Staff Presentation (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 0$7+(:6675((7 ($6702817$,1$9( :$/187675((7 5(0,1*721675((7 ($672$.675((7 6,7( 1   KůĚdŽǁŶĞŶƚĞƌ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ>ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞ͕ŝǀ͘ϰ͘ϭϲ 3.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 &2//(*($9( :$/187675((7 0$7+(:6675((7  (02817$,1$9( 9,&,1,7<6,7(3/$1 1  6,7( 3.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 &2//(*($9( :$/187675((7 0$7+(:6675((7  (02817$,1$9( 1(,*+%25+22'&217(;7 1  6,7( +,6725,&2/'72:1',675,&7 7+(0,7&+(//%/2&. &,7<RI)257&2//,16 3$5.,1**$5$*( 7+(0F,17<5(+286( )52=(1)22'&(17(5%8,/',1* 7+($5025< 7+(+20(67$7(%$1.%8,/',1* 7+((/,=$%(7++27(/ 3.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21  &KZdK>>/E^>Eh^K͕^͘ϯ͘ϰ͘ϳͲ,/^dKZ/Eh>dhZ>Z^KhZ^ 675((79,(:)5200$7+(:6   &ZKE&KKEdZ >>z ϮϮϭ͘DKhEd/E  +25,=217$/5()(5(1&(/,1(6 7+( :,'7+2)7+()52=(1)22'&(17(5 %8,/',1*,6(48$/727+($5&+,7(&785$/ 0$66,1*(/(0(1721(02817$,1 :,1'2:+(,*+76 $5(6,08/$5#5' 7+)/2256 7+(0F,17<5(+286( )52=(1)22'&(17(5%8,/',1* 3.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 3$125$0,&9,(:/22.,1*:(67  7+(0F,17<5(+286( )52=(1)22'&(17(5%8,/',1* ($6702817$,1 0,7&+(//%/2&. (/,=$%(7++27(/ 3$5.,1**$5$*( 3.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 9,(:)5201257+($67 9,(:)5206287+($67  3.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 9,(:)5201257+($67 9,(: )520+20(67$7(%$1.  3.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 9,(:)5201257+($67  3.b Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW)  ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 6,7(3/$1 5(6,'(17$/(175$1&( ($6702817$,1$9( ($6702817$,1$9( (;,67,1*$//(<:$< (;,67,1* 3$5.,1* 6758&785(  :($60(17 *$5$*((175< 3.b Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21         $ % & ' ( ) * $     72%(9(5,),('                                               3523(57</,1( :$7(5(175< ),5(3803 %2267(53803 612:0(/7&21752/6 5220 1 ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21           )8785(.,7&+(1 /2&$7,21 )8785(5(675220/2&$7,216   0$,/%2;(6 5(48,5('(;,7 )520*$5$*(/(9(/ (;,67,1*75$16)250(5 72%(5(/2&$7('                                        52:  52: '2:1  :&21&5(7( $3521#7232)5$03 Z52//836(&85,7<*$7( 83 5,6( ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 83 5,6( '1 5,6( '2:1 5,6( 83 5,6(   /(1*7+2)',$*21$/ ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 23(1$%29( 83 5,6( '1 5,6( '2:1 5,6( 83 5,6( 64)7#/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7#/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7#/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220  64 )7 /,9,1* $5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220Z'(1 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220            64)7*5266 $3352; 0(&+&+$6( (/(&75,&$/&+$6( (/(9 (/(&7&/26(7  0(&+&+$6( (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( 7+,5')/2253/$1 64)7#/,9,1*$5($ ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 83 5,6( '1 5,6( '2:1 5,6( 83 5,6( 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64 )7/,9,1*$5($  64)7 '(&. %('5220Z'(1 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220Z'(1 64)7/,9,1*$5($  64 )7 '(&. %('5220 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 64)7*5266 $3352;           23(1 72 %(/2: (/(9  (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( /,'%$6,1 0(&+&+$6( (/(&75,&$/&/26(7 (/(&75,&$/&+$6( 5$,/,1*#23(1,1* &+$6( 64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220 ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 62/$5$55$</2&$7,21 522)3/$1 '1 5,6( '1 5,6(  +0(&+$1,&$/ 6&5((1 0(&+$1,&$/81,767+,6$5($ 5(6,' (/(9 '2*581 522)7233/$=$  ; 6.</,*+76 7<3RI '2*:$6+67$77,21 7+,6$5($+26(%,% 5(48,5(' 287'225.,7&+(1 7+,6$5($ :$7(56285&(5(48,5(' 48$5'5$,/7<3,&$/# ('*(2)3/$=$  +)(1&(7<3,&$/ $73(5,0(7(5 2)'2*581  (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(         $ % & ' ( ) * $ 522)7233/$=$ 1   3.b Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21         1257+(/(9$7,21 ($67(/(9$7,21 (/(9 6(&21')/225 (/(9 *5281'/(9(/),567)/225 (/(9 7+,5')/225 (/(9 )2857+)/225 (/(9 522)'(&.        (/(9 6(&21')/225 (/(9 *5281'/(9(/),567)/225 (/(9 7+,5')/225 (/(9 )2857+)/225 (/(9 522)'(&.          $5&+,7(&785$/0(7$/ 3$1(/635(),1,6+(' 0(7$/+($'(563$,17(' 6721(9(1((5 6721(9(1((5 3/$17(5%2; 352326('6,*1$*( /2&$7,21 %5,&.9(1((5 &2/25 %5,&.9(1((5 &2/25 &(0(17,7,2863$1(/ 60227+35(),1,6+(' ;3$1(/667$&. %21' */$665$,/7<3 $7%$/&21,(6 $5&+,7(&785$/0(7$/ 3$1(/635(),1,6+(' 6721(9(1((5 352326('6,*1$*( /2&$7,21 ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 :(67(/(9$7,21 6287+(/(9$7,21 (/(9 6(&21')/225 (/(9 *5281'/(9(/),567)/225 (/(9 7+,5')/225 (/(9 )2857+)/225 (/(9 522)'(&.          678&&2),1,6+ &2/25720$7&+&(0(17,7,286 3$1(/6$%29( 3.b Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 $(5,$/9,(:)5201257+($67  3.b Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) ($6702817$,1$9()257&2//,16&2 /$1'0$5.35(6(59$7,21&200,66,21 9,(:)5206287+($67 9,(:)5201257+($67  3.b Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT March 21, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME OASIS ON OLIVE - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for the development of a 3 story multi-family condominium building and ground level parking located at 312 W Olive Street, between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The 7-unit building includes an enclosed at-grade parking garage with 7 parking spaces. Access to the controlled garage will be from Olive Street on the south side of the complex. Exiting will be out to Canyon Avenue to the west along a one-way private drive. This proposal will be subject to a Planning and Zoning Board (Type II) review. APPLICANT/OWNER: Stephen Slezak, Owner/Developer RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review regarding compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for the proposed design of a three-story seven-unit residential building at 312 W. Olive Street, between S. Howes Street and Canyon Avenue. The PDP application has not yet been submitted, so this is a conceptual review only. The applicant is planning to return to the LPC on April 18, 2018 for a recommendation to the decision maker (Planning and Zoning Board). The developer owns both 227 and 231 S Howes Street; this lot was created from their two backyards. The property at 231 S. Howes Street is a Fort Collins Landmark (the Humphry-Davis House); the property at 227 S. Howes has previously been determined to be individually eligible for landmark designation. The Landmark Preservation Commission held a conceptual review on the creation of the third lot at its September 14, 2016 Regular Meeting. Two garages at the rear of these properties were determined to not be individually eligible for landmark designation through an administrative review, and were subsequently demolished. PROPOSED DESIGN: The project is a 3-story multi-family development on a recently subdivided 3rd lot located behind both 227 and 231 S. Howes Street properties. The proposed building will be 3 stories. The proposed building includes 7-condominium units; 3 one-bedroom units, and 4 two-bedroom units. Eight on-site parking spaces are proposed at ground level in an enclosed garage. Primary access to the site will be taken from Olive St. with a second exit onto Canyon Ave. LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will provide a conceptual review of the project’s compliance with LUC 3.4.7. The project is scheduled to return to the Commission for final development review and 4 Packet Pg. 118 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 a recommendation to the hearing officer as required by LUC 3.4.7(6), on April 18, 2018. POTENTIAL AREA OF ADJACENCY: Staff offers the following information for consideration regarding the area of adjacency for the proposed project. Within a 200-foot radius, the Area of Adjacency includes the following buildings that are 50 years of age or older: 1. Individually Designated Fort Collins Landmarks a. 231 S. Howes Street, the Humphry-Davis House b. 223 South Howes Street, the Dealy-Goode House 2. Properties Individually Eligible for Fort Collins Designation a. 227 S. Howes Street 3. Eligibility Unknown. If a property is to be included in the Area of Adjacency of relevant historic properties, a determination of eligibility will be required: a. 315 W. Oak/211 W. Canyon - The Old Town Professional Center Building, constructed in 1966 b. 316 W. Olive Street - Miscio Real Estate Services, constructed in 1900 The Commission should consider the nature of the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict and the varying ages, styles, and typologies present in the buildings within the Area of Adjacency to determine those that are most relevant to the review of this project. 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 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 4 Packet Pg. 119 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 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 applicants have provided the following information that addresses 3.4.7(F)(1): • Building heights shown on the working architectural drawings indicate new roof lines compatible with the existing while diminishing the visual impact of the 7 story Cortina Lofts. • Two of the four historically residential properties adjacent to this project are 2-story and the other two are single story. • On the proposed building, the height of the tower is 40’ while the ridge of the building is 39’-5”. • The ridge of 231 S. Howes is 36 feet; the ridge of 227 S. Howes is 30 feet; the ridge of 316 W. Olive is 22 feet. • he new building is compatible because the roof itself is much shorter than the historic properties giving the appearance of a stepping effect from the 76-foot Cortina, to the 36-foot ridge at 231 S. Howes to the 30 feet at 227 S. Howes to the 22 feet at 316 W. Olive. • These variances between buildings are no more of an impact than any other two-story building adjacent to a single-story building. In fact they contribute to the diversity of the block without adversely affecting the integrity of the historic properties. • 3.4.7 (F) is satisfied in part by the lining up of the front setback. The new buildings face is directly in line with both the 231 S. Howes and the 316 W. Olive buildings thus diminishing the impact of the larger structure. The smaller appearance of the garage with its hip roof and side loaded overhead door eliminates the possibility of any negative visual impact to the adjacent structures. “(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 applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(2): • Wrought iron fences, ½ round gutters and a mix of lintels and window sills, combined with scale and proportion, are thoughtfully repeated. “(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 applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(3). • The mix of building materials of the adjacent buildings is seamlessly blended on the new, while picking up the dominant elements of the old. • Stone, brick and real, old fashion cement based stucco, with all its inconsistencies, provides an irregular texture rather than the mono-chromatic, perfectly consistent coat of modern day synthetic stucco. “(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.” Staff has not identified any relevant neighborhood focal points relevant to this project. “(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 applicants have identified the following areas that address 3.4.7(F)(5): • The two properties owned by this developer have long been admired for the landscaped gardens that surround the buildings. • Recycled City of Fort Collins sidewalk stones form expansive patios and walking paths. 4 Packet Pg. 120 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 • Award winning roses lovingly grown by original owner Adelia Davis, as well as multi- colored Iris have provided the foundation for incredible gardens. To the extent possible these garden will remain and the roses will be the central feature. • The many street trees along Olive and Howes Street will remain and they exhibit that old town feel for which Fort Collins is known. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Summary 2. 3D Model Street Views 3. 3.4.7 Compliance Statement 4. Applicant Presentation 5. Plans File 1 - Combined 6. Plan of Protection 7. Plans File 2 - Combined 8. Oasis Adjacency 9. Staff Presentation 4 Packet Pg. 121 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net The OASIS on OLIVE The Oasis on Olive in a condominium, covenant controlled community consisting of seven (7) residential units. The project was designed by the noted Fort Collins architect John Dengler and is situated on Olive Street between Howes Street and Canyon Avenue at 312 W. Olive. This property is being developed on the westerly half of the historic Humphries-Davis House located at 231 S. Howes by Oasis Development a subsidiary of Amshel Corporation. Formerly the location of a couple of old yet non historic garages, the complex will utilize their footprints while maintaining the gardens for which this property has become famous. Amshel Corporation was formed in 1984 and has built numerous townhome, condominium and apartment properties along the Front Range of Colorado. Additionally, Amshel Corporation was the 1987 recipient of the cities Friends of Preservation award. The Oasis will take full advantage of the historic character of surrounding landmarks as well as the extensive landscaping existing on the properties. The most significant amenity of the Oasis is the outdoor space along with ample balcony space, designed for the individual units, to take advantage of the wonderful vistas available in this part of the downtown. Units will vary in size from an 850 square foot one bedroom to a 1370 square foot two bedroom. The units will be sold individually with a target market toward professionals living in the immediate area to CSU professors who wish to take advantage of the university experience while living in a comfortable, secure, lock & leave, controlled community. Each condominium unit will have a single, assigned, secured parking space confidently “tucked” under the second level living space. Access to the controlled garage will be from Olive Street on the south side of the complex. Exiting will be out to Canyon Avenue to the west along a one way private drive. An area within the garage will be designated for bicycle storage. Access to the garage will be controlled by individual key “fobs” that will also access the enclosed & heated stair tower as well as their personal front doors. This exciting project will add a dimension to the currently, under-represented quadrant of the downtown. Residents can walk to the many dining establishments and entertainment venues nearby. They may enjoy a short stroll to work in one the many towers or offices or city & county facilities, CSU campus or the Otterbox campus just a block away. Work is expected to begin in the spring of 2018 with occupancy in the summer of 2019. 4.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Project Summary (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 3D Model Street Views (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 3D Model Street Views (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 3D Model Street Views (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 3D Model Street Views (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 3D Model Street Views (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 3D Model Street Views (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.b Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 3D Model Street Views (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net Compliance with 3.4.7 Section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code states…”to the maximum extent feasible, historic sites, structures or objects are preserved…” and “new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site…” The Oasis on Olive does just that in every sense of the word. The Oasis, a small seven unit condominium property, designed by acclaimed Fort Collins architect, John Dengler, has fit a compatible property in an otherwise eclectic neighborhood actually enhancing the historic nature by downplaying those buildings that detract from that character. In its September 16, 2016 Conceptual Design Review of the project, LPC Chair Sladek stated …”there was a general level of comfort with the project and that he had not heard any opposition to the project…” Dengler has artfully utilized many of the architectural features seen in adjacent historic properties without seeming to copy any particular style. By setting a single garage unit outside the parking structure, the leading face of the project exhibits the hip roof consistent with three of the adjacent historic buildings along with window size and spacing, frieze & soffit details, stone base and a mixture of brick or stucco wall covering materials. Window placement is sensitive to existing structures in size and groupings. Multiple balconies break up massing and the stone base anchors the property giving the sense of permanence and endurance. Dengler has excelled in fitting this design into the developers objective that the building wants to look as if its’ been there for decades. This desire can also be seen in the historic renovations owned by this same developer. 3.4.7 (F) is satisfied in part by the lining up of the front setback. The new buildings face is directly in line with both the 231 S. Howes and the 316 W. Olive buildings thus diminishing the impact of the larger structure. The smaller appearance of the garage with its hip roof and side loaded overhead door eliminates the possibility of any negative visual impact to the adjacent structures. Building heights, shown on the working architectural drawings indicate new roof lines certainly compatible with the existing while diminishing the visual impact of the 7 story Cortina Lofts. The height of the tower is 40’ while the ridge of the building is 39’-5”. Two of these historic properties are 2-story and the other two properties are single story,. However, these details are insignificant. What makes the new building compatible is that the roof itself is much shorter than the historic properties giving the appearance of a stepping effect from the 76 foot Cortina, to the 36 foot ridge at 231 S. Howes to the 30 feet at 227 S. Howes to the 22 feet at 316 W. Olive. These variances between buildings are no more of an impact than any other two story building adjacent to a single story building. In fact they contribute to the diversity of the block without adversely affecting the integrity of the historic properties. 4.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 3.4.7 Compliance Statement (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net The architect skillfully mixes the building materials of the adjacent buildings into a seamless blend on the new while picking up the dominant elements of the old. Stone, brick and real, old fashion cement based stucco, with all its inconsistencies, gives way to the craftsman’s art that has the irregular texture rather than the mono-chromatic, perfectly consistent coat of modern day synthetic stucco. Wrought iron fences, ½ round gutters and a mix of lintels and window sills, combined with scale and proportion, are thoughtfully repeated and the workmanship is assured by the years of construction experience of the owner/developer. Two of the properties, owned by This Old Howes, LLC, have long been admired not only for the quality of the renovations but also by the landscaped gardens that surround the buildings. Recycled, City of Fort Collins sidewalk stones form expansive patios and walking paths. Award winning roses lovingly grown by Adelia Davis as well as multi- colored Iris have provided the owner a foundation for incredible gardens. To the extent possible these garden will remain and the roses will be the central feature. The many street trees along Olive and Howes Street will remain and they exhibit that old town feel for which Fort Collins is known. Every aspect of the historic properties is of paramount concern to the developer. The new becomes an extension of the portfolio controlled by the developer rather than a variety of ownership groups that may have conflicting ideas for the outdoor space that is to be shared by all residents and tenants. These gardens and exteriors will be covenant controlled and maintained by an Owners Association. It is evident that the Oasis on Olive has thoughtfully considered the land use code section 3.4.7 to insure the integrity of the historic properties to use their value to enhance the entire block and that area of the downtown. 4.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 3.4.7 Compliance Statement (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street Front (east) elevation The Humphries-Davis house was built in 1898 and renovated in 1998 by the current owner/developer, Stephen Slezak. It was designated as a historic landmark in 1998. The building is currently occupied as commercial offices by various tenants in the energy industry. In comparison, the building height at the roof peak is 36’ 4.d Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street North elevation Rear (west) elevation South elevation 4.d Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 227 S. Howes Street Front (East) elevation Built in 1905 this building was completely renovated in 2006. Currently occupied as commercial offices by Old Towne Wealth Advisors For comparison, the height of this building from roof peak to top of curb is approximately 30’ 4.d Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 227 S. Howes South elevation Rear (west) elevation North elevation 4.d Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 316 W. Olive Street Front (south) elevation West elevation Rear (north) elevation East elevation In comparison this building is 22’ in height. 4.d Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 223 S. Howes Street Front (east) elevation This building is currently occupied as commercial offices by the Linden Company. It was renovated in 1995 and was later designated as a historic landmark. In comparison, this building is approximately 30’ from top of curb. 4.d Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Howes streetscape looking north Streetscape with Cortina in background 4.d Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 301 S. Howes St. Federal Building/ Post Office 4- stories in height 320 S. Howes Street Single story office building constructed in 1976 4.d Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 205 S. Meldrum streetscape w/ OtterBox Cortina Lofts 224 Canyon 7-story 76 foot high condominium. Located at the north end of the block. 4.d Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Applicant Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 141 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 142 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 143 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 144 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 145 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 146 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 147 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 148 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 149 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 150 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 151 4.e Attachment: Plans File 1 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 152 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 153 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 154 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 155 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 156 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 157 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 158 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 159 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 160 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 161 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 162 4.f Attachment: Plans File 2 - Combined (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) Packet Pg. 163 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net Plan of Protection for Historic Properties Project Title: Oasis on Olive Full Property Address: 312 W. Olive Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Form Prepared by: Stephen Slezak/ developer Please complete the following as applicable. Please answer each question thoroughly, and add additional pages if needed: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Legal Description: 312 W. Olive Street Lot 3 Olive Street Apartments SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST ¼ OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 7 N, RANGE 69 W OF THE SIXTH P.M. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 1.2 General description of work: Project is owned & developed by Stephen Slezak dba Oasis Development, LLC. This will be the new construction of a 3- story condominium building with ground floor ‘tuck-under’ parking. There are 7 condominiums that will be FOR SALE & will be controlled by a Homeowners Association. Construction by Amshel Corporation, 231 S. Howes Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 1.3 Eligible historic structures are at 223 & 231 S. Howes Street. Eligible structures include 227 S. Howes & 316 W. Olive. 1.4 The building at 316 W. Olive is immediately to the west of the new construction and will be separated by a total of 15 feet. The new building will sit the required 5 feet east of property while the 316 building sits 10 feet west of property line. The buildings at 227 & 231 S. Howes are considerable distance from the new construction with the 227 building a full 21’ from the closest construction element & the 231 building 25’ from the closest element. Foundation over dig is generally 3-5 feet from the outside edge of the concrete wall so there will remain between 10 feet & 22 feet respectively from any open excavations. These locations are detailed on the building SITE PLAN & enclosed in this submittal package. 1.5 223 S. Howes is a designated historic landmark. Construction date is unknown 227 S. Howes is eligible for designation & was built in 1905 231 S. Howes is a designated historic landmark & was built in 1898 316 W. Olive is eligible for designation. Date of construction is unknown. 4.g Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net 2.0 Scope of Work Describe the work, and how it will affect any historic building(s) (both on the subject property and on adjacent properties, if applicable). Provide descriptions on each of the following, as applicable: 2.1 Demolition: N/A 2.2 Site preparation: Erosion controls will be installed on the subject property & streets ONLY. A temporary fence will be erected around the perimeter with weighted stands. 2.3 Excavation: A 30” deep trench will provide for the foundation wall except at the ground floor unit #1. That 850 s.f. area will have a basement where sufficient excavation will be required with anticipated haul of excess material. Access will be on to Olive at an existing drive approach. There is no anticipation of shoring on underpinning. 2.4 Utilities: Water & Sewer excavations will be between two existing street trees out to Olive Street sufficiently away from existing structures. Electrical has been installed from the ground vault to the SW corner of the building so will not require additional excavation near the 316 building. Gas will come from Olive directly north 60’ east of the 316 building. 2.5 New foundation: The new foundation will be grade beam spanning drilled piers. Foundation at the basement will be spread footings with concrete walls. The drilled piers will cause less impact adjacent to the 316 W. Olive building while the top of pier will be mitigated to 30” meaning a more shallow excavation. 2.6 New construction: Exterior walls of the parking area will be concrete block with brick veneer. Scaffolding will be set on the west exterior but access will be limited to within property line without encroachment onto the 316 W. Olive property. Building line of that property is 10 feet from property so masonry construction will be 15 feet from existing building. Structure above the garage level will be steel beams with concrete toping. All work will be from the garage side or from the street. Cranes will not swing over the 316 building, rather only over the new construction. Permits will be secured for street closures if necessary. No work will be allowed over others existing structures. 2nd & 3rd floor exterior walls will be either brick or stucco & again will be performed within ‘enclosed” scaffolding on subject property. No access from adjacent property will be allowed. 2.7 Parking lot: Parking area is poured concrete on the enclosed area only. 2.8 Driveways/alleyways: Existing curb approaches on Olive & Canyon will be removed & replaced according to city engineer specifications. Work must be performed by licensed ‘right of way’ contractors who are bonded & insured. 2.9 Landscaping: Most of the existing landscaping will be preserved with new ‘rain gardens’ constructed according to civil engineers design in compliance with City of Fort Collins storm drainage requirements. 4.g Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net 2.10 Drainage: Low Impact Development Site drainage will be incorporated using ‘rain gardens from roof downspouts & underground piping. 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities 3.1 General Contractor: Amshel Corporation Stephen Slezak 970-484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net 231 S. Howes, adjacent to the proposed construction site. Superintendent: Wayne Hupp 970-545-0687 3.2 Wayne will be on site daily while work is occurring. 3.3 If not, how may they be contacted if needed when that work is underway? n/a 3.4 What specific coordination practices will be used to coordinate work activities? Wayne has been in the business for almost 50 years. Wayne will coordinate subcontract activities & schedule, maintain safety practices & tool box meetings weekly. Amshel has written Safety Manual & requires all trades to follow industry safety practices. 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials 4.1 Which historic materials will be deconstructed and salvaged? n/a 4.2 Which historic materials will not be salvaged, and how will they be disposed of? n/a 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property How will you ensure that historic buildings, structures, and surface features will not be damaged during work? What means will be used to protect them? 5.1 Site Conservation The building was designed to take advantage of the Landscaping element that existed. The new building footprint is essentially where the old garages were with much of the existing landscaping meant to provide the project with the amenity of the “outdoor space”. While care will be used in the protection of existing landscape elements, much of the site requires modification for storm drainage requirements. Existing Ash street trees will be fenced with signage that those areas are Tree Protection Zones. 5.2 Demolition of Building n/a 5.3 Foundation Stability adjacent building is of sufficient distance & separated by the construction fence that no additional protections are anticipated. 4.g Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 231 S. Howes Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 970.484-5907 s.amshel@comcast.net 5.4 Structural New construction is independent from other structures. No overhead material movement (crane) will be allowed. 5.5 New Construction: The building is entirely independent of any existing buildings whether designated historic or not. State & City laws & codes regulated the protection & exposure mitigation for all construction projects & are monitored by building officials & inspectors, bank inspectors, insurance inspectors & of course by the decades of construction experience of the general contractor & the field supervision. Many layers of insurance serve to protect to the greatest extent any damage that may occur. Nothing is 100% certain but the safeguards that are delineated in code & law serve to protect the best anyone can expect. 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials n/a 5.7 New Openings n/a 5.8 Floor Framing n/a 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing n/a 5.10 Structural Loads n/a 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning n/a 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure None 5.13 Site Cleanup: Tracking pads are required to knock mud & debris from equipment tires prior to entering roadway. Street will be cleaned according to City requirements. Trash & recycles will be confined to designated dumpsters located is specified areas. Concrete washout will be controlled by City standards. 6.0 Documentation for Record 6.1 Does the project include measured drawings and/or photographs? Yes. Project will be constructed from plans that are stamped by State Certified engineers and architects. City of Fort Collins requires licensed trades including right-of way, framing & structural steel, mechanical & electrical. Time lapse photography is not anticipated on a project of this size. 6.2 Where will these be stored? Hard copies & digital copies will be maintained with the City Building Department as well as with the developer/ property owner. 7.0 Archeology How will you address archeological resources if they are likely to be present or if you should unexpectedly find them? (e.g., contact the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery; have an archeologist on site to monitor the work; have an archeologist on call.) None expected. Garage demolition was completed with no discoveries & no evidence of artifacts within the soil borings. 4.g Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Plan of Protection (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) CANYON AVE S SHERWOOD ST S MELDRUM ST S HOWES ST W OLIVE ST W MAGNOLIA ST W OAK ST S MASON ST Legend 200-ft Buffer Subject Parcel Adjacent Historic 0 125 250 ± Feet 4.h Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Oasis Adjacency (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 1 Oasis on Olive – Conceptual Development Review Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018 Project Summary • 3-story multi family residential project with 7 units • Addressed as 312 W. Olive; access from Olive Street • Located behind 227 S. Howes and 231 S. Howes Street • New lot created from rear portions of these lots • Also abuts 223 South Howes and 316 W. Olive 2 4.i Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 3 Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Provide conceptual review comments related to the proposed project’s compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, which requires new construction to respect the historic character of surrounding historic properties on or adjacent to the development site. 4 4.i Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 5 Oasis on Olive – Conceptual Development Review Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager Landmark Preservation Commission, March 21, 2018 4.i Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Staff Presentation (6577 : OASIS ON OLIVE (PDP18XXXX) - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 35(&$67%$6( 7<3$7&2/%$6(6 &+$,1/,1.)(1&+ $7'2*581%(<21' 7232)3$5$3(7 7232)3$5$3(7#67$,572:(5(/(9$72572:(5 9'(&.3$1(/6 $70(&+6&5((1:$// 3.b Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW)  64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220   64)7 /,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220  75$6+50 )2857+)/2253/$1 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6         $ % & ' ( ) * $  1  3.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) 64)7'(&. %('5220  64)7/,9,1*$5($ 64)7'(&. %('5220Z'(1  75$6+50 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6         $ % & ' ( ) * $ 1   3.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW)   5(48,5('6(3(5$7,212)(;,76  6(3(5$7,21#(;,76  5(48,5(' 5(6,' (/(9 (/(9 /($6(63$&( 64)7 &200(5&,$/ /2%%< 0(16 5(6750 :20(16 5(6750 -$1 &+$6( '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 64)7*5266 $3352; (;7(5,25 '(&. (/(& 50  0(&+$1,&$/&+$6( )520)8785(.,7&+(1 %(/2: (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( /($6(63$&( 64)7 ( ) /($6(63$&( 64)7 * 6(&21')/2253/$1         $ % & ' ( ) * $  1  3.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) '1 5,6( 83 5,6( 127((/(&75,&$/75$16)250(5 72%(/2&$7(',168%0(56('9$8/7 /2&$7,21$1'6,=(72%('(7(50,1(' ($6702817$,1$9(18( 0$7+(:6675((7 0$,/ 50 *5($6(75$3/2&$7,21 6(7#(/(9$7,21 (/(9  (/(9   <''80367(5V  [  75$6+ (1&/2685( *$60(7(56 %2//$5'6 (;,67,1*$//(< 3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1( 3523(57< /,1( 5(6,'(17,$/ /2%%< /($6(63$&( 64)7 /($6(63$&( 64)7 5(6,' (/(9  [ (/(&7,&$/ &+$6(72&21'26  [ (/(&75,&$/ &+$6(72)/2256  (/(9 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 '277('/,1(,1',&$7(6 +55$7(':$//6 /($6(63$&( 64)7 64)7*5266 $3352; &200(5&,$/ /2%%< 5(6,'(17,$/(175$1&( &200(5&,$/(175$1&( 0(16 5(6750 :20(16 5(6750 0*5 -$1 2)),&( 0') (/(&7 5220 5$03'2:1 5(48,5('(;,7 /($6(63$&( 64)7 ,1&/8'(6.,7&+(1$5($ [*$5$*( (;+$8679(17(;7(1' 72),567)/225&(,/,1* 3/(180 [*$5$*( (;+$8679(17(;7(1' 72),567)/225&(,/,1* 3/(180 ,17$.( 9(17/2&$7,21)25 *$5$*( '5,1.,1*)2817$,16 127(2876,'()$&(2) )281'$7,21:$//6(7  )5203523(57</,1( 7<3,&$/$71257+:(67 $1'($676,'(6 2))6(7216287+6,'(72 %(   [*$5$*( (;+$8679(17(;7(1' 72),567)/225&(,/,1* 3/(180 (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785( /($6(63$&( 64)7 $ % & ' ),567)/2253/$1         $ % & ' ( ) * $ ( 1   3.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) : 6 ( 1RR ( 6 :  52:  52:      (/(&7 50 (/(9 (/(9 5$0383 9(67 9(67 9(67 ($6702817$,1$9(18( 0$7+(:6675((7 (;,67,1*$//(< 3$5.,1*63$&(6 67$,583 7<3 :[ ' 3$5.,1*67$//6 &08RU7+. &21&:$//6 ',$&21&5(7( &2/80167<3,&$/# 3$5.,1*67$//6 7+.&08 3285(',13/$&( &21&:$//7+. &21&75(7()/2256/23(72'5$,16# &21&5$0383 (/(9  (/(9  (/(9  (/(9  67$,5683 5,6(   *5($6(75$3/2&$7,216(7$7(/(9$7,21  81'(5$352172*$5$*(5$03  [  (/(9$7256+$)7 7<3,&$/2) 127(2876,'()$&(2) )281'$7,21:$//6(7  )5203523(57</,1( 7<3,&$/$71257+:(67 $1'($676,'(6 2))6(7216287+6,'(72 %(  64)7*5266 %,.(6725$*( 7+,6$5($ %,.(6725$*( 7+,6$5($ 6725$*(81,76Z52//83 '22567<3,&$/2)  # [  # [  (;,67,1*3$5.,1*6758&785(         $&&(66$%/( 3$5.,1*67$// 6758&785$/ &5266%5$&( 7+,6%$< *$5$*(/(9(/)/2253/$1  1  3.b Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Applicant Submittal (6574 : 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW)