The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/20/2019 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Mollie Bredehoft Fort Collins, Colorado Katie Dorn Kristin Gensmer Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins 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 39TUhttp://www.fcgov.com/fctv/U39T for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: 39Thttp://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php39T. Regular Meeting February 20, 2019 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Landmark Preservation Commission Packet Pg. 1 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2019. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 16, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW - PULLED FROM AGENDA BY APPLICANT 3. 321 GARFIELD – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for. APPLICANT: Tara Schumacher 4. 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for a revised set of proposed alterations associated with the development of residential lofts at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District. APPLICANT: David Kress, RB+B (architect); Tom Moore (owner) 5. NEWMAN PROPERTY 1019 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Newman Property, an example of an early twentieth-century rectangular hipped-roof box. APPLICANT: Susan Teruel, Owner • OTHER BUSINESS o In Memoriam of Robert Bailey and Justin Larson o Election of 2019 Officers (Chair and Vice Chair) • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 2 Date: Roll Call Bello Bredehoft Dorn Gensmer Murray Nelsen Simpkins Wallace Dunn Vote absent  8 present 1-Minutes of January 16th Murray Bredehoft Simpkins Nelsen Wallace Bello Gensmer Dorn Dunn Yes Yes Yes absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8:0 3-321 Garfield LRL - Move to Final Nelsen Wallace Bello Gensmer Dorn Murray Bredehoft Simpkins Dunn absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8:0 3-321 Garfield LRL - Design Approval Wallace Bello Gensmer Dorn Murray Bredehoft Simpkins Nelsen Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes absent Yes 8:0 5-1019 W. Mountain Landmark Designation Dorn Murray Bredehoft Simpkins Nelsen Wallace Bello Gensmer Dunn Yes RECUSED Yes Yes absent Yes Yes Yes Yes 7:0 Election of President (Meg Dunn) Murray Bredehoft Simpkins Nelsen Wallace Bello Gensmer Dorn Dunn Yes Yes Yes absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8:0 Election of Co-Vice Presidents (Alex Wallace & Kristi Gensmer) Bredehoft Simpkins Nelsen Wallace Bello Gensmer Dorn Murray Dunn Yes Yes absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 2/20/2019 Packet Pg. 3 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 2/20/19 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) DISCUSSION AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC January 16, 2018 Hearing • Minor typo fixed on 2/19/19, packet re-posted. 2. 1501 Peterson Conceptual/Final Review – PULLED FROM AGENDA BY APPLICANT 3. 321 Garfield Conceptual/Final Review • Att 1 - Loan Application, 321 E Garfield – UPDATED 2-20-19 • Att 3 - Staff Presentation – UPDATED 2-20-19 4. 247 Linden Conceptual Review • Staff Report - Updated 2-20-19 • Att 1 - Applicant Proposal - UPDATED 02-20-19 • Att 2 - Staff Presentation - UPDATED 2-20-19 • Att 3 - SOI Rooftop Additions – Received 2-20-19 • Att 4 - LPC June 20 2018 Minutes Excerpt - Received 2-20-19 5. 1019 W. Mountain Landmark Designation • Staff Report - Updated 2-20-19 • Att 3 - Staff Presentation - UPDATED 02-20-19 EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 3 A Handrail Concept Drawing Packet Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Kevin Murray Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Member Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): 24 7 Linden Street Conceptual Design Review Brief 1- statement "'Pit\of 3) ~ interest: 0 (r- ~-'l_ c) (AJ ~ I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no I Date: Signature: ... cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 Packet Pg. 6 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. I Name: Kevin Murray Title: Landmark Preservation Commission Member Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): 1019 W. Mountain Landmark Designation Brief statement of interest: +l n 4v.t._ ~w p%~ <?'t>IL ()t,jNA_ -- I REMOVAL O CONFLICT OF INT I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no long Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 Packet Pg. 7 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 20, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2019 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 16, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC January 16, 2019 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 January 16, 2019 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Mollie Simpson Fort Collins, Colorado Katie Dorn Kristin Gensmer Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins 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 January 16, 2019 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Gensmer, Simpson, Dorn, Bello, Murray, Nelson, Simpkins ABSENT: Wallace STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager, Sawyer Chair Dunn introduced and welcomed new member Anna Simpkins. • AGENDA REVIEW Chair Dunn requested that agenda item #3 be discussed before item #2. • STAFF REPORTS Ms. McWilliams reminded the Commission about the Saving Places Conference next week. • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA No members of the public were present. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 January 16, 2019 • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2018. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 19, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Ms. Dorn moved to accept the minutes as written. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. [Secretary’s Note: Agenda item #3 was discussed before item #2.] 3. REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION REGARDING KFCG The Commission will hear a presentation from City Staff regarding the “Keep Fort Collins Great” (KFCG) tax and consider making a recommendation to Council. Staff Report Ginny Sawyer, Senior Project Manager with the City Manager’s Office, gave a presentation. She provided some history about sales tax in the City. She described how the KFCG funds are used. She explained some of the options Council has considered and detailed the two options currently being considered. With option A, the .85% would be added to the base tax rate for the General Fund. Option B would add .6% to the General Fund and the remaining .25% would be dedicated to community priorities such as transportation and sustainability. She said the measure could go to the voters this April, this November, or next November, but they are targeting the April election. Board Questions & Discussion Mr. Bello asked whether police, fire and transportation services would be funded at current levels through the General Fund if KFCG was not extended. Ms. Sawyer said funding for Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) will be protected because of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), but the other services would be funded to a level of service rather than a dedicated allocation. Mr. Bello thought those services should be included in the base rate, and for that reason he preferred the second option. Chair Dunn asked about the allocation of the KFCG funds versus the General Fund. Ms. Sawyer said there is a balance between the General Fund and KFCG, noting that the budget process strives for transparency, but is very complex. Ms. Sawyer said she would like everyone in the community to understand that while the ballot language will likely start with “By increasing taxes, shall the City…”, this is not an increase in the total tax burden, but rather an extension and reallocation of what is already in place. She said the Commission is welcome to make a recommendation to Council if they wish, either in terms of whether to maintain the same level overall, or to express a preference between option A or B. Mr. Murray asked if KFCG funding is used for Historic Preservation. Ms. McWilliams said about one- third of the Historic Preservation program comes from KFCG. Ms. Bzdek specified that the Landmark Rehabilitation 0% Interest Loan Program and the Design Assistance Program, as well as matching funds for grants and funding for third-party surveys as needed, are funded by KFCG as part of “other community priorities”. Mr. Bello asked whether a straight extension of KFCG is an option. Ms. Sawyer said due to the dynamic nature of the community’s needs, funding these core services through a base rate in perpetuity, is preferable to funding them through an expiring tax. Council will be asked to choose between option A or B. Option A would be one ballot question, but option B would be two ballot questions. Chair Dunn asked the Commission for their thoughts on a recommendation and preferences between A & B. Mr. Murray asked why transportation and sustainability were chosen for dedicated funds in option B. Ms. Sawyer said input from the community indicated that core services such as street maintenance, police, fire and parks & recreation should be funded through a base tax. Transportation and sustainability were identified as priorities among the discretionary services. Mr. Murray asked about the proportion of funds between those two areas. Ms. Sawyer said it was the same proportion as it has been with KFCG. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 January 16, 2019 Ms. Dorn asked if Historic Preservation tied in with sustainability, to which Ms. Sawyer answered in the affirmative. Mr. Bello pointed out that citizens have historically voted for these taxes. Ms. Sawyer agreed that the community is supportive of funding the things they care about. Ms. Nelsen asked if public support leaned toward option A or B. Ms. Sawyer said that based on her interactions with the community, there does seem to be a preference for option A. She discussed voter fatigue, noting additional taxes for street maintenance, community enhancements and open spaces will expire in the coming years and will likely go back to the voters. Mr. Bello asked if the Historic Preservation staff had a preference between A & B. Ms. McWilliams didn’t see either option as better, noting that either will be beneficial. Ms. Sawyer said other boards have simply recommended that the revenue be replaced in full at .85%. Chair Dunn likes option A because having only one ballot question saves the City money. Mr. Bello preferred option B so the citizens can to determine priorities. Ms. Simpson said without giving it more thought, she would not have a preference between options, but would like to keep the overall revenue in place. Members Gensmer, Nelsen, Simpkins and Dorn agreed with Ms. Simpson. Mr. Murray expressed a slight preference for A, but ultimately would just like to see the revenue continued, especially for Historic Preservation programs. Ms. Sawyer suggested a letter of support to Council through the Board Liaison. Chair Dunn agreed. 2. REVISIONS TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14 (LANDMARK PRESERVATION) The purpose of this item is to seek a recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission to City Council regarding proposed revisions to the Municipal Code Chapter 14, which will implement recommendations for improvements to standards and processes that apply to historic resources. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams gave a condensed presentation, noting that the Commission had an extensive presentation at the work session. She reviewed the changes made to each section of Chapter 14. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray asked how the State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO) timeline meshed with the City’s timeline for reviews. Ms. McWilliams stated that the State and City reviews are done independently. She said the City can use SHPO as a resource, but it is not mandatory. Ms. Gensmer asked that references to the Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form in Section 14-23(a) and other places, omit the word Architectural, since there are also archeological forms. Ms. McWilliams said that would likely be a simple change, but she would defer to the City Attorney. Mr. Murray pointed out that Section 14-23(a) states, “A determination that a site, structure, object or district is eligible shall be valid for five (5) years…”. He suggested including determinations of ineligibility by changing the language to: “A determination of eligibility for a site, structure, object or district shall be valid for five (5) years…”. Mr. Murray pointed out a missing word in Section 14-31 where “an expert in historic” should say “an expert in historic preservation”. Mr. Murray asked for clarification regarding the use of Rehabilitation Loan funds for improvements in energy efficiency. Ms. McWilliams stated all work still must meet the Secretary of Interior Standards. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to City Council approval of the changes to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code Articles 1-5 as presented, with the corrections mentioned. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 8:0. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 January 16, 2019 • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn asked those who had attended the meeting in Loveland to report back to the Commission. Ms. Bzdek noted that staff in other communities have more time to work with landmarked property owners and are also using fun and creative activities for community outreach. She said the code changes recommended tonight will help free up staff time to make those things possible here. Ms. Dorn commented that the City of Loveland hosted the meeting in a beautiful space and suggested the City of Fort Collins host one in a historic building. Chair Dunn said she and Ms. Bzdek are already talking about ideas. Chair Dunn talked about the value in collaborating with their counterparts in neighboring communities. She also talked about fun activities that others are using to interact with the community and promote preservation. Chair Dunn shared that Loveland’s walking tour book is the best she has ever seen anywhere. Ms. Bzdek said she had an opportunity to share about the role Historic Preservation and the Commission play in development review here, and the benefits of the newly-established pre-staff review meeting with applicants. Chair Dunn gave an example of some gaps in another community’s process. Ms. Nelsen said it was an enjoyable experience and it was interesting to see our strengths in contrast with the others. Mr. Murray and Ms. Nelson both commented on the energy in the room during the discussion about using “carrots versus sticks” to promote preservation, and talked about how other communities are involving youth, even on the Commissions. Ms. Nelsen also shared a list of fun things other communities were doing. Ms. Dorn encouraged more frequent meetings to increase the learning, energy and community-building. Chair Dunn said Historic Larimer County plans to offer real estate classes. She said there was a lot of interest in that, and perhaps all the communities could participate. Mr. Yatabe cautioned the Commission and Staff against commenting on KFCG in an official capacity after it goes on the ballot. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 AGENDA ITEM #2, 1501 PETERSON – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 20, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 321 GARFIELD – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for the proposed work at 321 E. Garfield. APPLICANT/OWNER: Tara Schumacher RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Emerson H. Kirkpatrick House at 321 E. Garfield Street was designated as a Fort Collins Landmark by Ordinance No. 26 on February 18, 1997, under Criterion C as an excellent example of the “Plains Cottage” architectural style. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-46, “Work requiring building permit,” requires that the applicant obtain a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: This six-room brick and stone residence was constructed in 1905 by C.L. Golladay for Emerson H. Kirkpatrick. Emerson, a stone cutter, lived in the house with his father and mother, Jacob and Nancy Kirkpatrick, through the early 1920s. By 1924, the home was occupied by Ernest Porter Selch, his wife Dora, and their four children. The Selch family owned the house for more than fifty years, through the mid-1970s, after which it served as a rental until 1985 when it again became an owner-occupied residence. The Emerson H. Kirkpatrick House was built as a modified Queen Anne style of architecture sometimes referred to as the “Plains Cottage.” These houses were typically built in an “ell,” with the entrance nestled into the intersection of the two sides. Roofs are commonly intersecting gables or, as is the case with the Kirkpatrick House, intersecting hip and gable. Other Plains Cottage characteristics include the front porch set into the intersection of the ell, and Queen Anne details such as the decorative fishscale and octagonal shingles in the gable ends. Sandstone lintels inset into a brick belt course and sandstone sills accent 1-over-1 double-hung windows. The house experienced some alterations between 1978 and 1985, to accommodate its use as a rental. Exterior changes included moving the front door to the west side of the porch, replacing the original wooden sash windows with double-pane aluminum windows, and removing the rear service porch, which now sports a shed roof over wooden decking. The appearance of a front entry door in its original location is suggested by the use of darker brick to fill in the opening and by the installation of a window in the wall that reads as a door’s upper sash. In 1986, two Velux and two bubble skylights were added to the building, none visible from the front. In 1996, the non- original front porch was removed and reconstructed below the existing cornice band. Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 PROPOSED ALTERATION: The applicant is presenting for conceptual/final design review a proposal to replace the deteriorated red sandstone front steps, replace rotted decking on the front porch, replace the façade under the deck due to missing boards, and add a simple handrail at the front steps for safety. REVIEW CRITERIA: Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, “Work requiring building permit,” describes a two- phase review process for the Commission to consider applications for a report of acceptability. The conceptual review allows the Commission to identify problems and propose solutions prior to final review. If upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines there is no significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may waive conceptual review and proceed to consideration of the proposed work for final review at the same meeting. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Report of acceptability” for compliance with the following Standards: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. • Rehabilitation Standard 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; • Rehabilitation Standard 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Rehabilitation Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. • Rehabilitation Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. • Rehabilitation Standard 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • Rehabilitation Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 • Rehabilitation Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. STAFF EVALUATION: Staff finds that the proposed methodology is generally in keeping with the City code requirements and federal guidelines for rehabilitation in its effort to work with similar materials, use simple design for added features, and address safety and durability concerns that will protect and perpetuate use of the landmark. There are several questions that the Commission should evaluate in order to determine whether all standards are met. Specifically: Regarding Standard (1): Does the proposed work enhances the general historical and architectural character of the landmark? Regarding Standard (2): Is the style and materials of the front steps (replacing a reddish sandstone with buff sandstone) appropriate for the property? Is the proposed cedar decking material appropriate? Is the simple iron handrail an appropriate addition in both design and material? Regarding Standard (3): Does the proposed work on the façade under the deck preserve the exterior characteristics of the structure? Regarding Standard (4): Does the proposed work protect, enhance, and perpetuate the use of the landmark? Regarding Standard (5): Does the proposed work meets all applicable federal rehabilitation standards listed above, particularly #6, which addresses replacement of materials when repair is not possible? RECOMMENDATION: As directed in Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, proposed work to Landmark properties is reviewed by the Commission in two phases, Conceptual Review and Final Review. This Section states that, if upon the review of the proposed work, the Commission determines that a Conceptual Review is not necessary given the absence of a significant impact on the landmark, and if the Commission has the necessary information and details to make its decision, then the Commission may pass a motion waiving the Conceptual Review and proceed to a Final Review. Staff recommends that the Commission move to final design review and approve the proposed work at 321 E. Garfield. SAMPLE MOTION FOR MOVE TO FINAL REVIEW: Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property and with all necessary information in place, I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 321 E. Garfield. If, at Final Review, the Commission wishes to approve the project, with or without conditions, then the Commission should pass a motion stating that the specified project at this location is approved. SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work at 321 E. Garfield, finding that the it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” as described in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Loan Application 2. Plains Cottage Style 3. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 16 City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 1 Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving loan-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information Owner’s Name(s) (as it appears on the Deed of Trust) Landmark Property Address Project Description Total Project Cost: Project Start Date: Loan Requested (up to $7,500): Project Completion Date: Match (50% or more of total) : (if you have additional contractors list them below) Check if work is to be completed by owner Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, why the project needs funding, sources of funding and other information as necessary to explain your project. Contractor Name Address Phone ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Tara Schumacher 970-219-9739 970-219-9739 321 Garfield Street CO 80524 t.schu@mac.com Tara Schumacher 321 Garfield Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 $24,750 $7,500 $17,250 Approx mid summer Estimated 2 weeks Summit Hardscaping 41764 Co Rd 15, Fort Collins, 80524 970-567-8208 -Replacement of front steps due to uneaven wear and deterioration of red sandstone -Addition of handrail -Replacement of decking due to rot and deterioration -Replacement of facade under deck due to missing boards Packet Pg. 17 City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide individual costs for each feature. Feature A Name: Cost Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Front steps: -Red sandstone -Wearing unevenly on tops -Current front steps are cemented into place so cannot be turned and are worn enough that any attempt would result in them breaking/crumbling -Use Rock Garden 'Watermark Buff' 6 inch thick slabs, 72 inches wide, and 12 inch deep treads (matching current size/shape of existing steps) to replace current red sandstone steps -Install stair slabs with two degree slope away from house -New steps will match size/shape of existing steps but buff in color to match current existing stone sidewalk and walkway to home (Red sandstone slabs to match current foundation are no longer available) -Buff steps will be similar in color to existing steps up to back porch $4,900 Handrail: -None currently in place -Make and install custom black iron to appropriately match design of home. Packet Pg. 18 City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 3 Feature C Name: Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature D Name: Cost Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 $2,100 Front Porch Decking: -Worn ainted wood -Rotting and soft in spots -Replace with natural stained wood on flat surface -Remove existing porch decking and facia -Remove porch posts, set aside for re-instillation -Temporarily brace porch for construction -Build new deck same size and style as existing deck structure -Decking will be replaced with smooth cedar and stained with Messmer's 'natural cedar' color -Cedar is being chosen for it's known long-term durability and ability to withstand elements -Facia under deck will be replaced and painted to match trim of home (matching existing size/shape) -Re-install existing posts over new deck surface $14,500 Vertical Facia under deck: Boards missing Optional: use brick to replace vertical facia under deck to match brick of house Packet Pg. 19 City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 4 Feature E Name: Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature F Name: Describe feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Attach Additional Sheets As Needed TOTAL COST: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 $24,750 Packet Pg. 20 City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 5 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. At least one detailed, itemized construction bid for each feature of your project. Bids must include product details for replacement materials, a basic description of the repair/installation methodology that will be used, and a breakdown of labor and materials costs. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product spec sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Packet Pg. 21 City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 6 Assurances The Owner and Applicant hereby agree and acknowledge that: A. Loan recipients agree to supply at least an equal match to the requested loan amount. B. Funds received as a result of this application will be expended solely on described projects and must be completed within established timelines and without making unapproved changes to the scope of work or the contractors associated with the loan application. C. The subject structure must have local landmark designation or be a contributing structure in a local landmark district. D. Loan funds may be spent only for exterior rehabilitation of the structure. E. Matching funds may be spent for exterior rehabilitation/stabilization of the property, interior structural work, and/or the rehabilitation of electrical, heating or plumbing systems, including fire sprinkler systems in commercial buildings. F. Neither loan monies nor matching funds may be spent for the installation of or rehabilitation of signage, interior rehabilitation or decorations, building additions, or the addition of architectural or decorative elements which were not part of the original historic structure. G. All work must comply with the standards and/or guidelines of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. H. Loan recipients must submit project for design review by the Landmark Preservation Commission and receive approval for loan funding before construction work is started. I. All work approved for loan funding must be completed even if partially funded through the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program. J. Loan recipients will receive disbursement of loan funds after all work has been completed and approved, receipts documenting the costs of the work have been submitted to the City, and physical inspection has been completed by the City. K. Loan recipients agree to place a sign, provided by the City, on the property stating that the rehabilitation of the property was funded in part by the City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for the duration of the rehabilitation work. L. The award and disbursement of this loan shall be governed by the provisions of the ordinance of the Council of the City of Fort Collins establishing the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program as an ongoing project of the City. M. The owner agrees to maintain the property after rehabilitation work has been completed. N. Loans are provided at zero percent interest. Upon successful completion and inspection of the project, loan recipients will be required to sign a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust to secure loan funds. Repayment will be required upon sale or transfer of the property, except for public and non-profit projects which are required to repay the loan within 5 years. O. Loans may be subordinated in second position below the property's mortgage. Subordination below second position will require the owner to demonstrate that the equity in the property exceeds its debt. If the property owner refinances the mortgage and receives cash or equity, the loan must be repaid in full at that time. Signature of Applicant (if different than owner) Date Signature of Legal Owner Date ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 2/19/2019 Packet Pg. 22 City of Fort Collins Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Application 7 Affidavit-Restrictions on Public Benefits AFFIDAVIT Pursuant to section 24-76.5-103(4)(b), C.R.S. I , Swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that I am (check one of the following): A United States citizen; A Legal Permanent Resident of the United States; or Otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to Federal law. I understand that this sworn statement is by law because I have applied for a public benefit as defined by law. I understand that state law requires me to provide proof that I am lawfully present in the United States prior to receipt of this public benefit. I further acknowledge that making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in this sworn affidavit is punishable under the criminal laws of Colorado as perjury in the second degree under Colorado Revised Statute §18-8-503 and it shall constitute a separate criminal offense each time a public benefit is fraudulently received. If I checked the second or third option above, I understand that my lawful presence in the United States will be verified through the Federal Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement Program (SAVE Program). Printed Name of Legal Owner _______________________________________________ ________________ Signature of Legal Owner Date ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Tara Schumacher ■ ■ ■ Tara Schumacher 2/19/2019 Packet Pg. 23 Schumacher Residence, 321 Garfield Street Images, Example Images, Concept Renderings, and Paint Chips North (front) Side of 321 Garfield St. Front Steps at 321 Garfield St. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 24 Front Steps and Faded Paint on Porch Decking at 321 Garfield St. Rotted Porch Decking on East side of Porch at 321 Garfield St. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 25 Rotting Front Porch at 321 Garfield St. Rotting Front Porch at 321 Garfield St. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 26 South (back) Side of 321 Garfield St. -Note buff stone steps (addition of steps unknown) West Side of 321 Garfield St. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 27 East Side of 321 Garfield St. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 28 Example of Stained Deck at 336 Garfield St. (across the street from 321 Garfield St.) 336 Garfield St. also has buff colored stone steps that match proposed project at 321 Garfield St. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 29 Concept Renderings for 321 Garfield St. Project (Provided by Summit Hardscaping): ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 30 Paint Colors from Behr Paint: Maintain fascia paint colors as sage and change contrast to cream to match mortar Historic Photo (date unknown—at least 80 years old—the hydrangea is not in the image. It was a Mother’s Day gift to Dora Selch 80-90 years ago.): Current front door added: 1995 Current front porch reconstruction: 1996 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 31 Responses to LPCs Questions: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 32 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 33 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 34 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 35 1 321 E Garfield Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, February 20, 2019 2 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 36 The Emerson Kirkpatrick House, 321 E Garfield • Constructed 1905 • 1997: Designated as Fort Collins Landmark • Standard C: excellent example of Plains Cottage Style 4 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 37 1948, 1968 5 Proposed Alterations 6 • Replace the deteriorated red sandstone front steps • Replace rotted decking on the front porch with stained cedar • Replace the façade under the deck due to missing boards • Add simple handrail at front steps 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 38 7 8 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 39 1985 9 10 Updated Information 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 40 11 321 E Garfield Conceptual/Final Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, February 20, 2019 11 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 41 Guardrail JOB ADDRESS 321 Garfield Created February 20, 2019 MODIFIED February 20, 2019 DRAWING TITLE Schumacher Residence DRAWN BY PROJECT NO. Distinctive Welding Inc. 700 W. Willox Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.482.2224 Ext 105 Lambs Tongue Return both ends 36-1/2” 2-1/4” MCR Cap 1-1/2” sq. tube 1/2” sq. tube 3/16”x4”x4” base plate 3/8”x1-1/2” flat bar Finish: Gloss Black Powder Coat Materials: 2-1/4” MCR Top Cap 1-1/2” sq. Tube Posts 3/8”x1-1/2” Flat Bar Bottom Rail 1/2” sq. Tube Pickets ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A, Handrail Drawing ADDED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 42 Agenda Item 4 Updated 2/20/19 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 20, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for a revised set of proposed alterations associated with the development of residential lofts at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District. APPLICANT/OWNER: David Kress, RB+B (architect); Tom Moore (owner) RECOMMENDATION: N/A (Conceptual Review) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND: The Old Town Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 and, with a smaller boundary that stops at Jefferson Street, it was designated as a local landmark district in 1979. Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 14-46, “Work requiring building permit,” requires that the applicant obtain a report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) for proposed alterations to designated historic resources. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY: The building at 247-249 Linden Street was constructed circa 1880 and is a contributing property to the locally designated Old Town Historic District as well as the National Register Old Town Historic District. Early commercial occupants of the building included a gun shop, a novelty shop, and a coal, hay, and feed shop. The two-story rectangular brick structure has a flat roof and façade with many original features (including projecting ornamental brick pilasters, recessed window bays, stone lintels and sills, and an elaborate brick and pressed tin cornice) as well as modifications that began in the 1940s when the first-floor commercial space was initially occupied by Joe’s Auto Upholstery, owned by Joe Cienfuegos. It is likely that garage doors with new brick surround were installed at that time. In 2005, Mr. Cienfuegos received approval from the LPC to replicate the double entry doors to the second floor at 249 Linden based on the reconstructed doors at the abutting 251 Linden property (funded by the State Historic Fund). The original double entry doors at 249 Linden had been removed in the 1980s or later because they were in poor condition and had been replaced with the entry system that is still in place today, as Mr. Cienfuegos chose not to proceed with the restoration at that time. When Mr. Cienfuegos passed away in 2011, his son Richard carried on the business at the same location until the recent sale to the current owner. The auto upholstery business continues to operate under the same name but is now located at 310 Willow Street. PROPOSED ALTERATIONS: The applicant is requesting conceptual review comments for a revised proposal based on a response to the conceptual review comments received at the June 20, 2018 LPC meeting. The revised proposal includes: Packet Pg. 43 Agenda Item 4 Updated 2/20/19 Item 4, Page 2 • Replacing all of the existing, non-historic doors and windows on the ground floor and second floor of both the façade and the rear elevations within the existing openings. • Rather than the rooftop addition formerly proposed, the application now shows a rooftop patio and railing and a patio access structure on the northwest corner of the roof. • Retain the existing sign housing on the ground floor of the façade, which will be upgrade with new LED lighting hardware, mounting hardware, and signage for the ground floor tenant • Install new canopies over the ground floor openings on the facade • Repair of historic materials on the building (window surrounds and sills, brick, stucco, tin cornice). REVIEW STANDARDS: Section 14-46 of the Municipal Code, “Work requiring building permit,” describes a two-phase review process for the Commission to consider applications for a report of acceptability. The conceptual review allows the Commission to identify problems and propose solutions prior to final review. If upon review of the proposed work, the Commission determines there is no significant impact on the landmark or landmark district involved, it may waive conceptual review and proceed to consideration of the proposed work for final review at the same meeting. Proposed changes to Fort Collins Landmarks are reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission under Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Report of acceptability” for compliance with the following Standards: (1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark or landmark district; (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their relation to the sites, structures and objects in the district; (3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done; (4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark or landmark district; and (5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the city and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. (See below for these standards.) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The revised standards and guidelines document (2017) is available at <https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf>. 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. Packet Pg. 44 Agenda Item 4 Updated 2/20/19 Item 4, Page 3 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. Old Town District Design Standards (adopted 2014) The full adopted standards document is available at https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/pdf/old-town- design-standards.pdf. Standard 3.9: Replace a historic window with a matching design if repair is not possible. The standard notes the replacements should use the same opening size and the same window material, appearance, size, shape, number of panes, profile of sash and muntin, and glazing appearance. It also notes that alternative materials and design are permitted when it is not possible to match the historic design and materials of a window, if no other option is available and/or the opening is on a non-primary elevation. Alternative window designs shall match the general profile and details of the historic window and use materials that match the historic appearance in dimension, profile, and finish. Standard 3.10: Use special care when replacing a window on a primary façade. Give special attention to matching the historic design and materials of windows located on the façade. Also, match the historic design when replacing a window located on a secondary wall. Standard 3.12: Restore a historic window opening that has been altered. Standard 3.15: Maintain a historic primary entrance. The relevant details in this standard call for maintaining the historic size and shape of the door openings and locations on primary facades and do not allow the addition of new door openings on primary facades. Standard 3.17: Location and design a new door and entry to preserve the historic composition. Locate a new door to be consistent with the historic architectural style of the structure. Design a new door or entry to match historic door proportions. Standard 3.19: Replace storefront features to match historic features if necessary. . . .Use historical documentation to guide the design of replacement features, or design simplified versions of similar elements seen on nearby historic properties, if no documentation is available. Standard 3.22: Preserve the historic roofline on a historic structure. Maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Standard 3.31: Design an addition or accessory structure to be compatible with the historic structure. More specifically, this standard calls for the addition or accessory structure to be visually subordinate to the historic building and not replicate the design of the historic building. It must use materials of a similar color, texture and scale to materials in the surrounding historic context. The addition must be compatible with the scale, massing, and rhythm of the surrounding historic context and must incorporate windows and other openings at a consistent solid-to-void ration to those found on nearby historic buildings. The addition should not use replicas of historic building components and details that would convey a false sense of history or draw undue attention to the addition. Standard 3.32: Design an addition or secondary structure to be subordinate to the historic building. (To the side or at the rear; rooftop additions to the rear to minimize visual impacts from public streets.) Standard 3.35: Do not damage the historic fabric of the historic building when adding an addition. Packet Pg. 45 Agenda Item 4 Updated 2/20/19 Item 4, Page 4 STAFF EVALUATION: There are several questions that the Commission should evaluate in order to determine whether all standards are met. Specifically: Does all of the proposed work enhance the general historical and architectural character of the landmark? Is the style and materials of the replacement products for windows and doors appropriate for the property? Does the proposed work preserve the exterior characteristics of the structure? Does the proposed work protect, enhance, and perpetuate the use of the landmark? Does the proposed work meet all applicable federal rehabilitation standards listed above? Does the proposed work meet all applicable Old Town Historic District Standards listed above, particularly 3.9 and 3.10? ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Proposal – Updated 2-20-19 2. Staff Presentation – Updated 2-20-19 3. SOI Rooftop Additions – Added 2-20-19 4. LPC June 20, 2018 Minutes Excerpt – Added 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 46 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL LINDEN LOFTS JUNE 2018 n association with ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 47 Contents Project Goals Project Summary 1 Structural Summary 2 Site Plan 3 Existing Building Conditions 4 South Elevation 5 North Elevation 6 West Elevation 7 Old Town Element Study 8 Floor Plans 9 Building Section 10 Perspective View - Linden Street 11 Perspective View - Firehouse Alley 12 Perspective View - Walnut/Linden Intersection 13 Perspective View and Sight Line Section 14 Joe’s Upholstery Signage 15 Replacement Window and Sectional Doors 16-17 Respect, restore and enhance the historical integrity of the building with a sensitive addition. Create a design that honors without dominating the existing historical structure. Expand the residential base of the area by providing spaces for new living opportunities. rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 48 rbbarchitects.com Project Summary This project proposes to both preserve and revitalize the building located at 247 Linden Street. The current building has been vacated by Joes Auto Upholsteryon the main level and two residential units on the upper level. The conceptual intent is to promote historic use of main level retail and to renovate the two upper level living units. Eﬀort will be made to preserve the existing elevations and make them structurally sound, secure, weather tight and more energy eﬃcient. Exterior masonry will be repainted to match the color of the upper portion of the façade as it likely was before fading. Currently the roof structure is failing in the vicinity of an existing skylight. The structural roof plane will be replaced or rehabilitated as part of the renovation and addition. The project will add a roof access stair to service a small deck area on the alley side of the building The Roof access addition to be located in the North West cornerwould be substantially out of view fromLinden. This access stair enclosure will be sided in simply detailed metal panels to set the addition apart from the existing building. The metal panels will be a lighter silver/ grey color to fade away against the sky. The shape/design for the stair enclosure provides for a self-draining design and allows for a light gauge framing structure. Constraining the overall height and depth of the enclosure, allows for safety and manuverability in the upper landing space, yet allows for natural light to wash the space to make it feel less constrained. The deck guardrail will be exposed to both the alley and the view from farther North on Linden, but railing details will be slender and lighter silver/grey in color to fade away against the sky. The existing metal cornice will be refurbished to be structurally sound with major holes patched. It will be repainted with a more subtle one or two color scheme that allows light and shadow to deﬁne the detailing. Parapets on the exposed sidewall will be repaired without adding exposed ﬂashing. The roof drainage plane will continue to slope to the north, as currently designed. Drainage from the roof to the alley has not been determined at this time, but sensitivity to the current parapet conﬁguration and parapet system will be respected asthetically. Upper level windows that have been replaced overt time and that are not Structural Summary The following is a structural narrative for the anticipated renovation and addition of the 247 Linden Street project in Fort Collins, Colorado. EXISTING BUILDING CONDITIONS The existing building is comprised of three (3) wythe brick walls which are assumed to be supported by stone plank foundations. Steel plates bearing against the southwest brick wall and ties rods are visible near the roof elevation. This retroﬁt, sometimes referred to as star anchors, is common for brick buildings of this vintage. A concrete slab on grade is the ﬁrst ﬂoor ﬁnish and is assumed to have been constructed many decades after the original construction of the building. The second level framing consists of 2” x 12” saw lumber joists at approximately 24” on center with traditional wood ﬂooring. OSB ﬂoor sheathing has been used in locations to patch the original ﬂoor structure. Some of the existing ﬂoor joists show signs of minor structural failures. These failures are localized and are not wide spread throughout the building. However, a majority of the existing ﬂoor joists have deﬂected permanently with some deﬂections over 2-1/2” which is far more than recommended. Structural reinforcing will be required for the existing second level framing to address the structural failures, deﬂection, and meet building code requirements. The roof level framing consists of 2” x 12” saw lumber joists at approximately 24” on center with traditional wood rooﬁng. A large skylight has been added sometime after the original construction with a majority of the framing around the skylight showing signs of signiﬁcant structural failure. New structural framing for the skylight would be required in addition to structural reinforcing of the existing roof level framing to address the structural failures and meet building code requirements. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL FRAMING Wood framed structural reinforcing and steel framing will be required at the second level framing due to the condition of the existing framing. Reinforcing will consist of newwood joists being attached to each existing joist to provide additional strength and alleviate the current deﬂection issues. In addition to the wood reinforcing a line of steel beams and columns will be centered in the building to support the second level wood framing as well as framing above. The columns will be Site Plan rbbarchitects.co Linden Lofts 247 3 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 51 Roof Existing Building Conditions Facade Windows Entry & Sectional Doors 4 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 52 South Elevation 5 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 53 North Elevation 6 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 54 REPAIR & PAINT EXISTINGBRICK STRUCTURE TO ALLOW FOR ROOF ACCESS TO ROOF DECK/PATIO LIGHT GREY METAL PANEL ROOF ANDSIDING NEW RAILING West Elevation 7 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 55 rbbarchitects.com Old Town Element Study ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 8 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 56 Old Town Element Study (Cont.) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 57 Floor and Roof Plans Roof Upper Level Main Level rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 58 Building Section rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 59 rbbarchitects.com Perspective View Linden Street 1 1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 60 rbbarchitects.com Perspective View Firehouse Alley 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 61 Perspective View Walnut/Linden Intersection 1 3 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 62 Perspective View Linden Street rbbarchitects.com Sight Line Section 1 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 63 Joe’s Auto Upholstery Sign FRAME GLASS IN SHADOW BOX 3020 Transom 2670 Sliding BarnDoor 2470 Pocket 2880 +36"COUNTER PANTRY REF 2470 REF PANTRY 36"x56" Shower +36"COUNTER +36"COUNTER HOOKS &BENCH +36" COUNTER +36"COUNTER 2470 36"x56" Shower +18"BENCH 5080 Double Barn Door Slider 2470 Pocket 2880 2670 Sliding BarnDoor 60SF Entry 51SF Bat h 16SF Laundry 271SF Kitche n 163SF LivingRoom 152SF Bedroom 69SF Master Bath 34SF Master Closet Entry 51SF60SF Bat h Laundry 5080 Double 31SF BarnDoor Slider 270SF Kitche n 174SF rbbarchitects.com Roof Conditions ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 65 Rooftop Deck Railing Systems rbbarchitects.com AGS Stainless – Glacier Railing System Glass System Prova – Stainless Steel Cable Rail Cable Rail System • Unobstructed Views from Roof Deck and Street Visibility • Light Construction • Timeless Design • Low-Maintenance ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 66 Existing Windows rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 67 Window and Opening Conditions rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 68 Features DESIGN VERSATILITY With an array of simulated divided lite patterns, interior and exterior color options, ten hardware ﬁnishes, and hundreds of round-top sizes. NARROW CHECKRAIL Provides a sleek aesthetic to maximize daylight opening while maintaining historical accuracy. SASH BALANCE SYSTEMS Enable smooth operation even at the largest sizes. ENERGY STAR Meets standards in energy eﬃciency with multiple glass options for various regions, climates and weather needs. EXPANSIVE SIZES Up to 5’ wide by 10’ tall (Custom) STANDARD CLADDING COLORS Marvin's low maintenance, clad-wood products feature an extruded aluminum exterior with high performance PVDF ﬂuoropolymer paint ﬁnish as a standard that oﬀers superior resistance to fading and chalking and meets the toughest AAMA 2605 standard. Marvin’s standard palette of nineteen durable colors. CUSTOM COLORS Any custom color on any line of window(s) ordoor(s). Window Replacement Marvin Ultimate Double Hung rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 16 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 69 Sectional Door Conditions ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 70 Features DESIGN VERSATILITY AND CONSTRUCTION Glazing openings along with vertical and horizontal stiles are customizable for crating a custom ﬁnished frame design, Frame thickness at 3” allows for an insulated frame design anodized aluminum frame; insulated glazing options are also available. MATERIAL AND FINISHES Pre-ﬁnished Aluminum; Custom colors available. HARDWARE OPTIONS Finished track design, and optional Lock bar is also available. Sectional Door Replacement AlumaView AV300 rbbarchitects.com 1 7 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 71 1 247 Linden Conceptual Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, February 20, 2019 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 72 Application History June 20, 2018: Conceptual Design Review (minutes attached) • Upper level addition (now a roof access structure) • Proposed new ground floor openings on rear (now limited to replacing non-historic doors) 3 247 Linden Street 4 • c.1880 • 2-story brick commercial • Ornamental brick pilasters • Stone sills and lintels • Brick and pressed tin cornice 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 73 247 Linden Street 5 • 1929: Permit # 2515, “Double doors for garage in front of building” (W.E. Hurdle) • 1930s: Hawley’s Auto Top Shop • Late 1940s-2016: Joe’s Auto Upholstery • 1968: Permit # 12786 for 3’ x 5’ sign above door 6 c. 1884 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 74 c.1900 7 1914 8 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 75 1927 9 Joe Cienfuegos, 253 Linden c. 1940 10 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 76 1976,1979 11 1983, 1986 12 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 77 2018 13 2018 14 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 78 2018 15 2018 16 15 16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 79 17 18 17 18 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 80 19 Example: 201 Linden 20 19 20 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 81 Example: 201 Linden 21 Example: 320 Walnut 22 21 22 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 82 Example: 217 Linden 23 Example: 217 Linden 24 23 24 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 83 25 26 25 26 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 84 LPC Role Conceptual Design Review: Provide comments for applicant regarding compliance with adopted standards: • Old Town District Design Standards • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 27 28 247 Linden Conceptual Design Review Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, February 20, 2019 27 28 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 UPDATED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 85 REHABILITATION ROOFS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Alterations and Additions for a New Use Installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof (such as heating and air-conditioning units, elevator housing, or solar panels) when required for a new use so that they are inconspicu- ous on the site and from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-deﬁning historic features. Installing roof-top mechanical or service equipment so that it dam- ages or obscures character-deﬁning roof features or is conspicuous on the site or from the public right-of-way. Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair towers, decks or ter- races, dormers, or skylights when required by a new or continu- ing use so that they are inconspicuous and minimally visible on the site and from the public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure character-deﬁning historic features. Changing a character-deﬁning roof form, or damaging or destroying character-deﬁning rooﬁng material as a result of an incompatible rooftop addition or improperly-installed or highly-visible mechanical equipment. Installing a green roof or other roof landscaping, railings, or furnishings that are not visible on the site or from the public right-of-way and do not damage the roof structure. Installing a green roof or other roof landscaping, railings, or furnish- ings that are visible on the site and from the public right-of-way. [17] New wood elements have been used selectively to replace rotted wood on the underside of the roof in this historic warehouse. ROOFS 101 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ADDED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 86 REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Rooftop Additions Designing a compatible rooftop addition for a multi-story build- ing, when required for a new use, that is set back at least one full bay from the primary and other highly-visible elevations and that is inconspicuous when viewed from surrounding streets. Constructing a rooftop addition that is highly visible, which nega- tively impacts the character of the historic building, its site, setting, or district. [ 63] (a) A mockup should be erected to demonstrate the visibility of a proposed rooftop addition and its potential impact on the historic building. Based on review of this mockup (orange marker), it was determined that the rooftop addition would meet the Standards (b). The addition is unobtrusive and blends in with the building behind it. New addition NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION 159 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ADDED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 87 REHABILITATION NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Limiting a rooftop addition to one story in height to minimize its visibility and its impact on the historic character of the building. Constructing a highly-visible, multi-story rooftop addition that alters the building’s historic character. Constructing a rooftop addition on low-rise, one- to three-story his- toric buildings that is highly visible, overwhelms the building, and negatively impacts the historic district. Constructing a rooftop addition with amenities (such as a raised pool deck with plantings, HVAC equipment, or screening) that is highly visible and negatively impacts the historic character of the building. [64] Not Recommended: It is generally not appropriate to construct a rooftop addition on a low-rise, two- to three-story building such as this, because it negatively affects its historic character. 160 NEW EXTERIOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 ADDED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 88 EXCERPT City of Fort Collins Page 1 June 20, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Mollie Simpson 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 June 20, 2018 Minutes – Excerpt for 247 Linden • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Gensmer, Dorn, Bello, Murray ABSENT: Simpson, Wallace STAFF: Bzdek, Beals, Yatabe, Schiager ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** 2. 247 LINDEN – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking conceptual review comments from the Landmark Preservation Commission for the development of residential lofts at 247-249 Linden Street in the Old Town Historic District. The proposal includes modifications or replacement of all of the existing doors and windows on the façade and the second floor of the rear elevation within the existing openings, as well as new openings and garage doors on the first floor of the rear elevation on the alley. The project also includes a rooftop addition to create additional square footage for the two residential units associated with the project, and the removal of a portion of the masonry on the side elevations to install railing for the residential patios. APPLICANT/OWNER: David Kress, RB+B (architect); Tom Moore (owner) Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 ADDED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 89 EXCERPT City of Fort Collins Page 2 June 20, 2018 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She provided background information about the property and building. She also explained the role of the Commission and reviewed the relevant code. She noted there are standards for the Old Town Historic boundary. Lastly, she reminded the Commission of the questions they had at the work session and noted the Applicant had provided additional information to address those. Chair Dunn asked about the name of the subject building. Ms. Bzdek replied it is the Robertson and Haynes Block which was built in 1882. Mr. Hogestad disclosed that he worked for RB+B Architecture 25 years ago, and knows the team present at the meeting, but he does not believe that creates a bias for him. Applicant Presentation David Kress addressed the Commission and introduced his team. He stated the project aims to respect, restore, and enhance the building’s historical integrity. He stated the project would retain the ground-floor retail and add two living units on the upper floors; the third floor is a new addition which would be set back from both the front and rear façades. Public Input – None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn reviewed the relevant code to ensure the Commission members are all considering the same information. She asked Mr. Yatabe about any of the documents taking precedence over others. Mr. Yatabe replied that specific instances must be considered should a conflict exist between the documents. Chair Dunn asked the Commission if anything should be added or subtracted to the list of character defining features. Mr. Hogestad mentioned scale, mass, bulk, window patterns, materials, and other elements. He discussed the human scale of the building. Mr. Murray discussed the physical characteristics of the building. Mr. Murray asked if the stucco would be removed. Mr. Kress said that was not necessarily the case. Mr. Murray asked if the garage door will remain. Mr. Kress replied that would depend upon on the tenant; however, the idea of including the garage door is a good idea. Mr. Hogestad asked about the door and window replacement for the storefront. Mr. Kress replied the elements would likely have metal cladding as opposed to painted wood. Tom Moore, building owner, replied the project can be flexible with the window assembly or garage door. Mr. Hogestad opposed using a storefront system. Mr. Hogestad asked about the structural stability of the walls. Mr. Kress replied it seems structurally sound and questioned what occurred at the building next door to cause the need for stabilization. Mr. Hogestad encouraged the placement of the new structure in the interior of the building to avoid injuring the exterior walls. Mr. Hogestad asked what materials will be used for the third-floor addition. Mr. Kress replied it will be a cementous material with a rainscreen system. Mr. Hogestad stated he finds those problematic from a preservation standpoint. Mr. Kress stated they are open to suggestions; however, they would like to do something lighter weight as opposed to masonry. Mr. Hogestad stated a metal panel could make sense. Chair Dunn asked what size panel is being considered. Mr. Kress replied they have yet to work out those details; however, the goal is to not draw attention with an unusual material. Mr. Bello agreed with Mr. Hogestad in terms of metal being appropriate. Ms. Dorn discussed the applicable Secretary of Interior standards and questioned whether original building materials will be removed to accommodate the new level. Mr. Kress replied original materials will not be removed for the upper floor; however, the two alley garage doors are being considered. He stated the roof will be removed to accommodate the addition and noted the structure under the roof has some shearing taking place. Mr. Hogestad stated the roof is not critical to understanding the building’s history. Chair Dunn agreed and noted it is completely invisible from the pedestrian perspective. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 ADDED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 90 EXCERPT City of Fort Collins Page 3 June 20, 2018 Mr. Hogestad expressed concern the addition is too close to the face of the building. Mr. Bello disagreed and stated the character of the addition makes it distinct and separate. Chair Dunn read the applicable Secretary of Interior standard which stated the addition should be set back at least one full bay from the primary structure and should be inconspicuous when viewed from surrounding streets. Mr. Kress replied visibility rather than setback should be the concern. Ms. Dorn asked about the creation of the new openings in the rear of the building which would remove materials from the existing building. Mr. Moore replied that is planned. Ms. Dorn asked if the windows on the building façade are being planned for removal. Mr. Moore replied they would be removed if they cannot be rehabilitated or are not of historic significance. Ms. Dorn asked if the entry door is planned to be replaced. Mr. Kress replied the residential access door does not seem to be significant as it stands. Mr. Hogestad stated some of the door replacement was done in the 1980’s to appear historic and stated he would like to leave the garage door, or something similar, as part of the character of the building. Mr. Murray stated the design is going in the right direction and either the storefront or garage door would be considered historic. Mr. Hogestad discussed aspects of the garage door. Ms. Gensmer stated the garage door is appropriate to the building as is a storefront. The garage door could be something that evokes the appropriate character. Ms. Dorn stated a period of significance needs to be established to inform the front restoration and appropriate standards. Mr. Bello stated the garage door makes sense as it was likely present 50 years ago. Chair Dunn stated both the garage door and storefront would be appropriate. She supported an auto-centric feel. Mr. Hogestad suggested the period of significance is the automotive period. Chair Dunn asked about the materials and step back for the penthouse addition. Ms. Gensmer expressed concern that darker colors could overwhelm the historic building. Mr. Murray suggested horizontal patterning and agreed the colors should be lighter to make the addition disappear. Ms. Dorn agreed lighter colors would fade but also stated it would be interesting to see something different from the original building. She stated she would like to see more setback of the upper level to reduce its visibility from the street. Chair Dunn stated the Secretary of the Interior guidelines recommend using the same forms, materials, color, range, et cetera; however, materials are not mentioned in the rooftop addition section. Mr. Bello stated the third story on this building should be notably different to allow the historic structure to stand out. Mr. Hogestad stated he likes the idea of a lighter color, adding that a tin or metal graphite-colored material could work as well. He stated the windows in the back are contemporary, but proportional to the historic windows. He asked where the mechanical units will be located. Mr. Kress replied that is planned to be addressed in the ceiling space above the retail. Ms. Gensmer stated it is important the side parapet is preserved and clearly differentiated. She stated it is difficult to mitigate the impact of the third story from the Cozzola’s side as it is a single-story structure. Mr. Murray appreciated the nine-foot setback and stated it is difficult to see from the street. Ms. Dorn stated she is not convinced the third story has been reduced to the maximum extent feasible and it might be helpful to see other perspectives to get a better sense of the visibility of the addition. Mr. Kress asked if shifting the entire third story back would be viewed positively. Chair Dunn replied it would be helpful to see renderings of both options. Mr. Hogestad stated it is not just about visibility but about the relationship between the face of the historic building and the addition. He also suggested modulating the face of the addition. Chair Dunn stated the application is headed in the right direction in terms of the Commission. ***END EXCERPT*** ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 ADDED 2/20/19 Packet Pg. 91 Agenda Item 5 UPDATED 2-18-19 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT February 20, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME NEWMAN PROPERTY 1019 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council regarding landmark designation for the Newman Property, an example of an early twentieth-century rectangular hipped-roof box. APPLICANT: Susan Teruel, Owner RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The owner of the Newman Property, Susan Teruel, has requested the Landmark Preservation Commission review her application for landmark designation of 1019 West Mountain Avenue. The Newman Property has potential significance under Fort Collins Landmark Designation Standard C, as an example of an early twentieth-century rectangular hipped-roof box. Staff has evaluated the exterior integrity and finds that while not pristine, the property does retain a preponderance of exterior integrity. There is potential that this property qualifies as a local Fort Collins Landmark; however, staff will not be providing a recommendation on the eligibility. Staff looks to the expertise of the Landmark Preservation Commission for more discussion of the potential significance and integrity of the property. COMMISSION ACTION Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures,” provides the process and standards for designation of a property as a Fort Collins Landmark. The Commission shall adopt a motion providing a recommendation on eligibility to City Council. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY As an example of an early twentieth-century rectangular hipped-roof box with front-facing gable, the Newman Property is relevant under Standard C. This house’s original design is simple, relatively unadorned, and does not fall distinctly within a particular architectural style. Its uncomplicated design and its deep, functional porch are indicative of a vernacular building type. Although the house has undergone changes since its construction, many of these modifications are themselves historic. For example, the rear addition that extended the house’s original rectangular plan dates to 1947, and the recent opening of the front porch reversed a previous enclosure. Such alteration over time is characteristic of a vernacular building type and does not necessarily detract from the overall Packet Pg. 92 Agenda Item 5 UPDATED 2-18-19 Item 5, Page 2 integrity of the house. However, some materials have been replaced, such as the west elevation windows and the historic porch foot wall, and the rectangular form, extended by the addition, and the front-facing gable are atypical of a hipped-roof box. Under Standard C, this property embodies the identifiable characteristics of the Classic Cottage. Features of the Classic Cottage style include a one-story, rectangular plan, masonry building with a central dormer, hipped roof, and front porch. The property retains a preponderance of exterior integrity, as follows: Standard A: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. The house has not been moved since its construction. According to Sanborn maps and tax assessor records, the garage was moved from the west side of the lot to the east side sometime before 1955.1 Standard B: Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. This house has a deep, usable porch, characteristic of vernacular dwellings. Alterations, such as the rear addition and enclosure of the rear porch, indicate adaptation, another characteristic of vernacular architecture. The original design, a simple hipped-roof, rectangular box with gable, is still the primary impression from the street despite these changes. The garage is similarly simple and picks up some design elements of the house, such as the narrow drop siding and the exposed rafter tails like those on the front porch. Standard C: Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. This property is still located in a residential area, and several similar cottages still exist on this street. Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The double-hung sash windows on the façade and forward east elevation are original. The sliding windows on the west elevation were replaced at an unknown date. The windows on the 1947 addition appear to be original to that alteration excluding one pane of glass on the south elevation (Photo 14). The narrow, wooden drop siding appears unchanged on both the original portion of the house and the addition, although the paint is in poor condition across the structure (Photo 11). Although the house has been reroofed more than once, asphalt shingles have been replaced with asphalt shingles according to building and tax assessor records. The tongue and groove porch deck appears original, but is also showing signs of age (Photo 7). The stairs leading up to the porch do not appear to be original based on a 1948 photograph and tax assessor record but date to sometime before 1968 based on a 1968 photograph. The house underwent reroofing in 1944, then again in 2015, asphalt shingles replaced with asphalt shingles according to building permits.2 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. Because this is a vernacular building, it is relatively plain. However, there are some decorative details such as the imbricated shingles in the front-facing gable end, the molding topping many of the windows and door, and the exposed rafter tails on the front porch and garage. Standard F: Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Because the rear addition is not visible from the street, the house retains its original early twentieth-century appearance. The façade’s emphasis remains on its large front porch. Because the garage’s swinging double-door has not been replaced by a modern alternative, it retains the feeling of an early garage. 1 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, Sanborn Map Company, Mar, 1906-1917, Map; 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Record 1955, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO. 2 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Photograph 1968, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins History Connection, Bldg. Permit Record, March 6, 1944, http://database.history.fcgov.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/bp/id/8531/rec/2; Building Permit No. B1503616, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO, May 18, 2015, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=2&docid=2505435&dt=PERMITS. Packet Pg. 93 Agenda Item 5 UPDATED 2-18-19 Item 5, Page 3 Standard G: Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Cottages like this one were a mainstay of the middle class who moved to this area in the early twentieth century. An uncomplicated, practical design associates this house with this pattern of city development. HISTORICAL INFORMATION In Fort Collins at the end of the nineteenth century, little but open fields stretched west from Washington Avenue, the western-most edge of the Loomis Addition. However, in February 1898, Charles Pennock and his associates purchased nearly seventeen acres of this land, including what would become the Newman Property, from Abner Loomis by mortgage deed. Pennock hoped to expand his successful Bellvue business, Pennock Nursery and Seed Company. Fortunately, Loomis owned considerable land west of town, and he was also co-director of the same company, allowing Pennock and his partners to repay the mortgage at “any amount at any time.” Pennock Nursery and Seed Company planted between ninety and one hundred thousand trees, shrubs, and vines, both fruit-bearing and ornamental over the next several years, selling them for transplant in the gardens and yards of Fort Collins residents.3 With construction booming and the population growing in the city, by the spring of 1903, O. D. Shields, J. J. Noble, and Jefferson McAnelly bought up some of the valuable land west of the Loomis Addition, McAnelly purchasing what would become the Newman Property. They filed a petition to plat the land and proposed the development of a new addition called Washington Place. By May, they began clearing the land of trees from the former nursery for their endeavor; this allowed for the extension of Mountain Avenue from Washington Avenue to Grandview Cemetery.4 Shortly after the platting of Washington Place, in 1904, McAnelly sold lot 10 of block 2 to Edson Newman and his wife, Minnie for $150. Newman most likely built his house in late 1904 or 1905, based on his listing in the 1906 City Directory. The Newmans’ dwelling was a simple rectangular hipped-roof box, much like several of the other properties built on the south side of West Mountain Avenue around that time. As a result of moving to Wyoming, Newman and his wife sold their house July 5, 1906 to A. W. Peterson for $1100. Peterson immediately sold the property that same day to W. H. Smith, a retired miller, at the same price.5 Three weeks later, a special election occurred in response to the development west of town. Voters approved the annexation of several new neighborhoods into the city of Fort Collins, including Washington Place. The following year, as the Mountain Avenue trolley lines were being laid down, Smith sold the Newman Property to Jeremiah “Jerd” Hutchison, a construction worker, and his wife for $2000, nearly double what he paid just one year earlier. The Hutchisons resided in the home until 1913, when Gertrude and Jerd had their third child, Dorothy. They sold the home to Alexander Ault, who owned the property until 1919. Ault rented the property to Edward Heumesser, 3 Deed Book 120:72, February 28, 1898, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; “New Corporations,” Fort Collins Courier, July 29, 1897; “A Splendid Enterprise,” Fort Collins Courier, July 28, 1898 4 No Title, Fort Collins Courier, April 22, 1903; No Title, Fort Collins Courier, May 6, 1903; Deed Book 137:76, March 9, 1903, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. 5 Deed Book 195:128, November 22, 1904, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins City Directory: 1906 (Fort Collins: The Courier Printing & Publishing Co., 1906); No Title, Fort Collins Courier, March 16, 1904; Deed Book 221:100, July 5, 1906, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Book 221-101, July 5, 1906, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. Edson and Minnie are listed in the 1906 directory at 1017 W. Mountain, but it is likely that the address changed that year; the 1906 Sanborn Map labels the Newman Property’s small frame cottage and frame shed at 1019 W. Mountain and does not show any building labeled 1017 W. Mountain. Packet Pg. 94 Agenda Item 5 UPDATED 2-18-19 Item 5, Page 4 the assistant superintendent of the Great Western Sugar Company, and his wife, Della; he sold the property to David N. Salyers, who sold to the Great Western Sugar Company less than two months later. GWSC used the property as employee housing for Heumesser until 1925.6 The Great Western Sugar Company sold the Newman Property to James H. Davis, who rented out the house to a variety of people including a barber and a quarry foreman. When Davis passed away in 1936, he left the property to his daughter, Carrie Estella Davis. In the spring of 1937, C. E. Davis entered into a sales agreement with the Assembly of God Church, allowing the church to purchase the property for $1800 in $20 monthly installments until paid off, or until her death. For nineteen years, the Newman Property served as the Assembly of God Church parsonage. The cottage housed four different ministers during that time.7 Assembly of God Church sold the Newman Property in 1956 to Raymond Taylor, a supervisor at the Larimer County Highway Department and his wife, Rose, a saleslady for Montgomery Ward. Raymond and Rose sold their house to their children in 1971. In total, the Newman Property remained in the Taylor family for nearly thirty years.8 In 1985, the Taylor children sold the house to Charles and Eleanor Ferrie for $55,000. Tim and Nancy Hild, under the name of their company Homeworks Telluride, LLC, purchased the property for $209,000. Finally, Homeworks Telluride sold the Newman Property to Susan Teruel, the current owner, in 2010.9 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: Circa 1905 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Frame Architectural Style: Early Twentieth-Century Rectangular Hipped-Roof Box Description: The residence at 1019 W. Mountain Avenue is a one-story rectangular hipped-roof box with gable, constructed c. 1905. Its rectangular plan was made more rectangular with the 1947 rear addition. Original to the house are façade and forward east elevation windows. Although the paint is in poor condition across the house’s exterior, the narrow wooden drop siding that clads the entire house appears original as well. Forward west elevation windows appear to have been replaced, possibly concurrently with the construction of a rear addition in 1947, based on the appearance of the rear window on that elevation. The historic garage retains its original materials, but it was moved sometime between 1917 and 1955 from the rear west side of the property to the east side. Behind this historic garage sits a modern 1.5 car garage built in 2015. A non-historic white fence surrounds the property. 6 “People Declare for Annexation to the City,” Weekly Courier, August 1, 1906; Deed Book 235:188, August 6, 1907, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; “Local News Items,” Weekly Courier, April 11, 1913; Deed Book 310:138, March 31, 1913, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Courier’s Larimer County Directory: 1917 (Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1917); Deed Book 394:530, May 9, 1919, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Book 394:530, September 16, 1919, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County Directory: 1925 (Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1925). 7 Deed Book 495:35, April 6, 1925, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Directory: 1925; Fort Collins City Directory: 1936 (Salt Lake City: R. L. Polk and Co., 1936); Will 656:292, June 26, 1936, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins: CO; Deed Book 674:68, February 27, 1937, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins City Directory: 1938-54 (Salk Lake City: R. L. Polk and Co.). 8 Deed Book 1015:401, April 6, 1956, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins City Directory: 1959 (Salt Lake City: R. L. Polk and Co., 1959); Deed Book 1483:787, November 19, 1971, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. 9 Deed Reception No. 85050189, October 1, 1985, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Reception No. 2001088783, October 2, 2001, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Reception No. 20100016842, March 29, 2010, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. Packet Pg. 95 Agenda Item 5 UPDATED 2-18-19 Item 5, Page 5 The hipped roof has asphalt shingles, which have been replaced multiple times in kind, and boxed eaves. A central front-facing gable adorns the front slope of the roof and is sheathed in decorative imbricated shingles. These shingles are visible in a 1948 photograph, but they have since been painted in multiple colors to emphasize this feature. A metal gable vent was also added sometime before 1968. Below this gable, a shallow-hipped roof with exposed rafter tails protects a nearly-full-width wooden porch. The eaves of the porch roof extend all the way to the edges of the main house, giving the porch the illusion of full-width. The porch itself is supported by four square, wooden posts. The historic solid knee wall was replaced sometime between 1999 and 2007 with a wooden balustrade of the same height. The wooden deck shows some signs of wear and age. A flagstone walkway and non-original cement stairs lead up to this porch. Although the porch is symmetrical, the façade itself is asymmetrical because the front door is slightly offset to the left. A piece of decorative molding sits atop the door as well as the original one-over-one double-hung sash windows to either side. There are hinges on the right side of the door frame, indicating that a storm door was removed. The paint on the house is flaking and weathered, but is in better condition than the paint on the addition.10 A flagstone path leads past the east elevation, which includes both an original and added section. Halfway back, an air conditioning unit sits on the ground. On the older, northern portion, there is an original one-over-one double- hung sash window toward the front of the building and one set of original paired one-over-one double-hung sash windows to their left. These windows are topped with the same decorative molding seen on the front windows and door. There is also a three-over-three window in a shallow window well on this elevation. The portion of the rear addition on this elevation is an enclosed porch with a hipped roof. It is probable that this porch was enclosed between when the c. 1947 rear addition was constructed and 1968 given a note on Jason Marmor’s architectural survey and sketches on tax assessor records. On the right side of this addition is a small, single-light window; this window may have been taken from the original rear of the dwelling because its frame and decorative topper match windows on the façade and the older portion of the east elevation. To the left of this single window is one set of paired two-over-two, square windows, nearly at the top of the wall, with framing distinct from the other windows on this elevation and most likely original to the addition.11 The south elevation includes the c. 1947 rear addition and the enclosed porch. A wood deck, construction date unknown, extends off the rear of the building but is not visible from the street. A two-over-two window original to the addition abuts the back door on the enclosed porch. There is a nine-light window in the top half of the back door. On the rear addition itself, a wooden belt course runs just above the windows, about three-quarters of the way up the side of the building. On the left is a three-over-three window, likely original, and on the right is a single- pane window of the same size with what appears to be an interior grille; the glass of this right window may have been replaced. The west elevation features small, rectangular, horizontal sash windows. There are two sets of these windows on the original portion of the house, and there is one set on the addition. There is evidence in the appearance of the siding that the original windows on the older portion of the house were replaced with these sliding windows. The one-car garage has a gable roof with asphalt shingles and exposed rafter tails, like the house’s porch, as well as narrow drop siding like the house. The north elevation of the garage has a wooden, swinging double door set off to the left. The west elevation has one set of original paired two-over-two windows in the center. The south elevation is plain, but there is a small half-story shed-roofed add-on; it is unknown whether this section was added on or if it is original, but it does not appear on the any Sanborn map. The east elevation is obscured by a fence 10 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Photographs 1948, 1968, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO.; Photograph, 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Property File, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO. 11 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Record 1955, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO; Jason Marmor, Architectural Survey, 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Property File, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO. Packet Pg. 96 Agenda Item 5 UPDATED 2-18-19 Item 5, Page 6 shared with the neighbor property. Because it of its location shown on Sanborn maps from 1906 till 1917 and its changed location sketched on a 1955 tax assessor card, the garage itself was likely moved from the opposite side of the yard sometime between 1917 and 1955.12 In the original place of the garage on the west side of the yard is a small shed with a gable roof and exposed rafter tails. It was constructed between 2012 and 2013 from vertical wood that is wider than the house and garage siding. The swinging door resembles the garage’s double-doors, indicating that the garage door may be non-original. Behind the original garage is a non-historic garage constructed in 2015. It is one and a half stories with a gable roof. A garage door opens on the alley to the south elevation. There is a door on the west elevation as well as a pair of windows with decorative shutters. There are similar windows with decorative shutters on the north elevation; there is also a set of paired two-over-two windows in both gable ends. The east elevation is obscured by a fence shared with the neighbor property. This non-historic garage is set far back from the street and behind the original garage, making it unobtrusive from the street.13 STAFF EVALUATION Staff finds that the Newman Property could qualify for Fort Collins Landmark designation under Designation Standard C as an example of an early twentieth-century residence with a preponderance of exterior integrity. Staff is not providing a recommendation on the eligibility of the property because staff has questions about whether the Newman Property has both enough significance and integrity required to be an individual Fort Collins Landmark. There have been several modifications to the property, some of which would be eligible for significance due to their age. SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission finds that the Newman Property meets one or more of the criteria for Fort Collins landmark designation, the Commission shall adopt the following motion: That the Landmark Preservation Commission pass a resolution recommending that City Council designate the Newman Property as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standard C for its design as a rectangular hipped-roof box residence, and its preponderance of exterior integrity. If the Commission finds that the Newman Property does not meet the criteria for landmark designation, it shall adopt a motion to this effect, and state its reasoning. ATTACHMENTS 1. Landmark Designation Application 2. Location Map 3. Staff Presentation 12 Sanborn Maps, Fort Collins, 1906-1917; Tax Assessor Record 1955. 13 Building Permit no. B1508020, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO, November 25, 2015, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=2&docid=2613860&dt=PERMITS. Packet Pg. 97 Revised 08-2014 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 1019 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 2, Washington Place, Fort Collins Property Name (historic and/or common): Newman Property OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Susan Teruel Company/Organization (if applicable): N/A Phone: (970) 556-4828 Email: sbeth112@gmail.com Mailing Address: 1019 W Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80521 CLASSIFICATION: Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Reyana Jones, Intern Address: City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Division, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: (970) 224-6078 Email: preservation@fcgov.com DATE: January 22, 2019 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 98 Revised 08-2014 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, which encompasses .13 acres. Historic resources on the property consist of the c. 1905 house and garage. SIGNIFICANCE and INTEGRITY Properties are eligible for designation if they possess both significance and exterior integrity. Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard A: Events. This property is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. It is associated with either (or both) of these two (2) types of events: 1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or 2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. Standard B: Persons/Groups. This property is associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. Standard C: Design/Construction. This property embodies the identifiable characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represents the work of a craftsman or architect whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possesses high artistic values or design concepts; or is part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. Standard D: Information potential. This property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Exterior Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The exterior integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. All seven qualities do not need to be present for a site, structure, object or district to be eligible as long as the overall sense of past time and place is evident. Standard A: Location. This property is located where it was originally constructed or where an historic event occurred. The house has not been moved since its construction. According to Sanborn maps and tax assessor records, the garage was moved from the west side of the lot to the east side sometime before 1955.1 Standard B: Design. This property retains a combination of elements that create its historic form, plan space, structure, and style. This house has a deep, usable porch, characteristic of vernacular dwellings. Alterations, such as the rear addition and enclosure of the rear porch, indicate adaptation, another characteristic of vernacular architecture. The original design, a simple hipped-roof, rectangular box with gable, is still the primary impression from the street despite these changes. The garage is similarly simple and picks up some design elements of the house, such as the narrow drop siding and the exposed rafter tails like those on the front porch. Standard C: Setting. This property retains a character and relationship with its surroundings that reflect how and where it was originally situated in relation to its surrounding features and open space. This property is still located in a residential area, and several similar cottages still exist on this street. 1 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, Sanborn Map Company, Mar, 1906-1917, Map; 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Record 1955, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 99 Revised 08-2014 Page 3 Standard D: Materials. This property retains much of the historic physical elements that originally formed the property. The double-hung sash windows on the façade and forward east elevation are original. The sliding windows on the west elevation were replaced at an unknown date. The windows on the 1947 addition appear to be original to that alteration excluding one pane of glass on the south elevation (Photo 14). The narrow, wooden drop siding appears unchanged on both the original portion of the house and the addition, although the paint is in poor condition across the structure (Photo 11). Although the house has been reroofed more than once, asphalt shingles have been replaced with asphalt shingles according to building and tax assessor records. The tongue and groove porch deck appears original, but is also showing signs of age (Photo 7). The stairs leading up to the porch do not appear to be original based on a 1948 photograph and tax assessor record but date to sometime before 1968 based on a 1968 photograph. The house underwent reroofing in 1944, then again in 2015, asphalt shingles replaced with asphalt shingles according to building permits.2 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. Because this is a vernacular building, it is relatively plain. However, there are some decorative details such as the imbricated shingles in the front-facing gable end, the molding topping many of the windows and door, and the exposed rafter tails on the front porch and garage. Standard F: Feeling. This property expresses the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. This results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Because the rear addition is not visible from the street, the house retains its original early twentieth-century appearance. The façade’s emphasis remains on its large front porch. Because the garage’s swinging double-door has not been replaced by a modern alternative, it retains the feeling of an early garage. Standard G: Association. This property retains an association, or serves as a direct link to, an important historic event or person. It retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. Cottages like this one were a mainstay of the middle class who moved to this area in the early twentieth century. An uncomplicated, practical design associates this house with this pattern of city development. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE and EXTERIOR INTEGRITY As an example of an early twentieth-century rectangular hipped-roof box with front-facing gable, the Newman Property is relevant under Standard C. This house’s original design is simple, relatively unadorned, and does not fall distinctly within a particular architectural style. Its uncomplicated design and its deep, functional porch are indicative of a vernacular building type. Although the house has undergone changes since its construction, many of these modifications are themselves historic. For example, the rear addition that extended the house’s original rectangular plan dates to 1947, and the recent opening of the front porch reversed a previous enclosure. Such alteration over time is characteristic of a vernacular building type and does not necessarily detract from the overall integrity of the house. However, some materials have been replaced, such as the west elevation windows and the historic porch foot wall, and the rectangular form, extended by the addition, and the front-facing gable are atypical of a hipped-roof box. 2 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Photograph 1968, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins History Connection, Bldg. Permit Record, March 6, 1944, http://database.history.fcgov.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/bp/id/8531/rec/2; Building Permit No. B1503616, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO, May 18, 2015, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=2&docid=2505435&dt=PERMITS. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 100 Revised 08-2014 Page 4 HISTORICAL INFORMATION In Fort Collins at the end of the nineteenth century, little but open fields stretched west from Washington Avenue, the western-most edge of the Loomis Addition. However, in February 1898, Charles Pennock and his associates purchased nearly seventeen acres of this land, including what would become the Newman Property, from Abner Loomis by mortgage deed. Pennock hoped to expand his successful Bellvue business, Pennock Nursery and Seed Company. Fortunately, Loomis owned considerable land west of town, and he was also co-director of the same company, allowing Pennock and his partners to repay the mortgage at “any amount at any time.” Pennock Nursery and Seed Company planted between ninety and one hundred thousand trees, shrubs, and vines, both fruit- bearing and ornamental over the next several years, selling them for transplant in the gardens and yards of Fort Collins residents.3 With construction booming and the population growing in the city, by the spring of 1903, O. D. Shields, J. J. Noble, and Jefferson McAnelly bought up some of the valuable land west of the Loomis Addition, McAnelly purchasing what would become the Newman Property. They filed a petition to plat the land and proposed the development of a new addition called Washington Place. By May, they began clearing the land of trees from the former nursery for their endeavor; this allowed for the extension of Mountain Avenue from Washington Avenue to Grandview Cemetery.4 Shortly after the platting of Washington Place, in 1904, McAnelly sold lot 10 of block 2 to Edson Newman and his wife, Minnie for $150. Newman most likely built his house in late 1904 or 1905, based on his listing in the 1906 City Directory. The Newmans’ dwelling was a simple rectangular hipped-roof box, much like several of the other properties built on the south side of West Mountain Avenue around that time. As a result of moving to Wyoming, Newman and his wife sold their house July 5, 1906 to A. W. Peterson for $1100. Peterson immediately sold the property that same day to W. H. Smith, a retired miller, at the same price.5 Three weeks later, a special election occurred in response to the development west of town. Voters approved the annexation of several new neighborhoods into the city of Fort Collins, including Washington Place. The following year, as the Mountain Avenue trolley lines were being laid down, Smith sold the Newman Property to Jeremiah “Jerd” Hutchison, a construction worker, and his wife for $2000, nearly double what he paid just one year earlier. The Hutchisons resided in the home until 1913, when Gertrude and Jerd had their third child, Dorothy. They sold the home to Alexander Ault, who owned the property until 1919. Ault rented the property to Edward Heumesser, the assistant superintendent of the Great Western Sugar Company, and his wife, Della; he sold the property to David N. Salyers, who sold to the Great Western Sugar Company less than 3 Deed Book 120:72, February 28, 1898, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; “New Corporations,” Fort Collins Courier, July 29, 1897; “A Splendid Enterprise,” Fort Collins Courier, July 28, 1898 4 No Title, Fort Collins Courier, April 22, 1903; No Title, Fort Collins Courier, May 6, 1903; Deed Book 137:76, March 9, 1903, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. 5 Deed Book 195:128, November 22, 1904, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins City Directory: 1906 (Fort Collins: The Courier Printing & Publishing Co., 1906); No Title, Fort Collins Courier, March 16, 1904; Deed Book 221:100, July 5, 1906, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Book 221-101, July 5, 1906, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. Edson and Minnie are listed in the 1906 directory at 1017 W. Mountain, but it is likely that the address changed that year; the 1906 Sanborn Map labels the Newman Property’s small frame cottage and frame shed at 1019 W. Mountain and does not show any building labeled 1017 W. Mountain. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 101 Revised 08-2014 Page 5 two months later. GWSC used the property as employee housing for Heumesser until 1925.6 The Great Western Sugar Company sold the Newman Property to James H. Davis, who rented out the house to a variety of people including a barber and a quarry foreman. When Davis passed away in 1936, he left the property to his daughter, Carrie Estella Davis. In the spring of 1937, C. E. Davis entered into a sales agreement with the Assembly of God Church, allowing the church to purchase the property for $1800 in $20 monthly installments until paid off, or until her death. For nineteen years, the Newman Property served as the Assembly of God Church parsonage. The cottage housed four different ministers during that time.7 Assembly of God Church sold the Newman Property in 1956 to Raymond Taylor, a supervisor at the Larimer County Highway Department and his wife, Rose, a saleslady for Montgomery Ward. Raymond and Rose sold their house to their children in 1971. In total, the Newman Property remained in the Taylor family for nearly thirty years.8 In 1985, the Taylor children sold the house to Charles and Eleanor Ferrie for $55,000. Tim and Nancy Hild, under the name of their company Homeworks Telluride, LLC, purchased the property for $209,000. Finally, Homeworks Telluride sold the Newman Property to Susan Teruel, the current owner, in 2010.9 6 “People Declare for Annexation to the City,” Weekly Courier, August 1, 1906; Deed Book 235:188, August 6, 1907, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; “Local News Items,” Weekly Courier, April 11, 1913; Deed Book 310:138, March 31, 1913, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Courier’s Larimer County Directory: 1917 (Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1917); Deed Book 394:530, May 9, 1919, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Book 394:530, September 16, 1919, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County Directory: 1925 (Colorado Springs: R. L. Polk Directory Co., 1925). 7 Deed Book 495:35, April 6, 1925, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Directory: 1925; Fort Collins City Directory: 1936 (Salt Lake City: R. L. Polk and Co., 1936); Will 656:292, June 26, 1936, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins: CO; Deed Book 674:68, February 27, 1937, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins City Directory: 1938-54 (Salk Lake City: R. L. Polk and Co.). 8 Deed Book 1015:401, April 6, 1956, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Fort Collins City Directory: 1959 (Salt Lake City: R. L. Polk and Co., 1959); Deed Book 1483:787, November 19, 1971, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. 9 Deed Reception No. 85050189, October 1, 1985, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Reception No. 2001088783, October 2, 2001, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO; Deed Reception No. 20100016842, March 29, 2010, County Clerk and Recorder, Fort Collins, CO. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 102 Revised 08-2014 Page 6 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: c. 1905 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Frame Architectural Style: Early Twentieth-Century Rectangular Hipped-Roof Box Description: The residence at 1019 W. Mountain Avenue is a one-story rectangular hipped-roof box with gable, constructed c. 1905. Its rectangular plan was made more rectangular with the 1947 rear addition. Original to the house are façade and forward east elevation windows. Although the paint is in poor condition across the house’s exterior, the narrow wooden drop siding that clads the entire house appears original as well. Forward west elevation windows appear to have been replaced, possibly concurrently with the construction of a rear addition in 1947, based on the appearance of the rear window on that elevation. The historic garage retains its original materials, but it was moved sometime between 1917 and 1955 from the rear west side of the property to the east side. Behind this historic garage sits a modern 1.5 car garage built in 2015. A non-historic white fence surrounds the property. The hipped roof has asphalt shingles, which have been replaced multiple times in kind, and boxed eaves. A central front-facing gable adorns the front slope of the roof and is sheathed in decorative imbricated shingles. These shingles are visible in a 1948 photograph, but they have since been painted in multiple colors to emphasize this feature. A metal gable vent was also added sometime before 1968. Below this gable, a shallow-hipped roof with exposed rafter tails protects a nearly-full- width wooden porch. The eaves of the porch roof extend all the way to the edges of the main house, giving the porch the illusion of full-width. The porch itself is supported by four square, wooden posts. The historic solid knee wall was replaced sometime between 1999 and 2007 with a wooden balustrade of the same height. The wooden deck shows some signs of wear and age. A flagstone walkway and non-original cement stairs lead up to this porch. Although the porch is symmetrical, the façade itself is asymmetrical because the front door is slightly offset to the left. A piece of decorative molding sits atop the door as well as the original one-over-one double-hung sash windows to either side. There are hinges on the right side of the door frame, indicating that a storm door was removed. The paint on the house is flaking and weathered, but is in better condition than the paint on the addition.10 A flagstone path leads past the east elevation, which includes both an original and added section. Halfway back, an air conditioning unit sits on the ground. On the older, northern portion, there is an original one-over-one double-hung sash window toward the front of the building and one set of original paired one-over-one double-hung sash windows to their left. These windows are topped with the same decorative molding seen on the front windows and door. There is also a three-over-three window in a shallow window well on this elevation. 10 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Photographs 1948, 1968, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO.; Photograph, 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Property File, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 103 Revised 08-2014 Page 7 The portion of the rear addition on this elevation is an enclosed porch with a hipped roof. It is probable that this porch was enclosed between when the c. 1947 rear addition was constructed and 1968 given a note on Jason Marmor’s architectural survey and sketches on tax assessor records. On the right side of this addition is a small, single-light window; this window may have been taken from the original rear of the dwelling because its frame and decorative topper match windows on the façade and the older portion of the east elevation. To the left of this single window is one set of paired two-over-two, square windows, nearly at the top of the wall, with framing distinct from the other windows on this elevation and most likely original to the addition.11 The south elevation includes the c. 1947 rear addition and the enclosed porch. A wood deck, construction date unknown, extends off the rear of the building but is not visible from the street. A two-over-two window original to the addition abuts the back door on the enclosed porch. There is a nine-light window in the top half of the back door. On the rear addition itself, a wooden belt course runs just above the windows, about three-quarters of the way up the side of the building. On the left is a three-over-three window, likely original, and on the right is a single-pane window of the same size with what appears to be an interior grille; the glass of this right window may have been replaced. The west elevation features small, rectangular, horizontal sash windows. There are two sets of these windows on the original portion of the house, and there is one set on the addition. There is evidence in the appearance of the siding that the original windows on the older portion of the house were replaced with these sliding windows. The one-car garage has a gable roof with asphalt shingles and exposed rafter tails, like the house’s porch, as well as narrow drop siding like the house. The north elevation of the garage has a wooden, swinging double door set off to the left. The west elevation has one set of original paired two-over-two windows in the center. The south elevation is plain, but there is a small half-story shed-roofed add-on; it is unknown whether this section was added on or if it is original, but it does not appear on the any Sanborn map. The east elevation is obscured by a fence shared with the neighbor property. Because it of its location shown on Sanborn maps from 1906 till 1917 and its changed location sketched on a 1955 tax assessor card, the garage itself was likely moved from the opposite side of the yard sometime between 1917 and 1955.12 In the original place of the garage on the west side of the yard is a small shed with a gable roof and exposed rafter tails. It is constructed from vertical wood that is wider than the house and garage siding. The swinging door resembles the garage’s double-doors, indicating that the garage door may be non-original. It is unknown when this shed was constructed. Behind the original garage is a non-historic garage constructed in 2015. It is one and a half stories with a gable roof. A garage door opens on the alley to the south elevation. There is a door on the west elevation as well as a pair of windows with decorative shutters. There are similar windows with decorative shutters on the north elevation; there 11 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Tax Assessor Record 1955, Local History Archive, Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, Fort Collins, CO; Jason Marmor, Architectural Survey, 1019 W. Mountain Avenue Property File, City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO. 12 Sanborn Maps, Fort Collins, 1906-1917; Tax Assessor Record 1955. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 104 Revised 08-2014 Page 8 is also a set of paired two-over-two windows in both gable ends. The east elevation is obscured by a fence shared with the neighbor property. This non-historic garage is set far back from the street and behind the original garage, making it unobtrusive from the street.13 13 Building Permit no. B1508020, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Fort Collins, CO, November 25, 2015, http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=2&docid=2613860&dt=PERMITS. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 105 Revised 08-2014 Page 9 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Deed Books. Larimer County Court House. Fort Collins, CO. Fort Collins History Connection. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and Poudre River Public Library District. Fort Collins, CO. https://history.fcgov.com/. Larimer County Newspaper Collection. Fort Collins Courier. Colorado Historic Newspapers Digital Archive. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/cgi- bin/colorado?a=cl&cl=CL1&e=-------en-20-FCC-1--txt-txIN--------0- Larimer&sp=FCC/. ———. Weekly Courier. Colorado Historic Newspapers Digital Archive. https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=cl&cl=CL1&sp=TWC&e=-------en- 20--1--txt-txIN--------0- Local History Archive. Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. Fort Collins, CO. Marmor, Jason. “City of Fort Collins Architectural Inventory Form: 1998.” Property File. City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division. Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Fort Collins, CO. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Sanborn Map Company, 1906-1917. Maps. https://www.loc.gov/collections/sanborn- maps/?fa=location%3Acolorado%7Clocation%3Afort+collins&all=true&st=gallery. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 106 Revised 08-2014 Page 10 MAPS and PHOTOGRAPHS Map 1 1019 W. Mountain Ave. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 107 Revised 08-2014 Page 11 Photo 1: Tax Assessor Photograph, 1948 Photo 2: Tax Assessor Photograph, 1968 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 108 Revised 08-2014 Page 12 Photo 3: North Elevation (Kylee Cole) Photo 4: East Elevation (Kylee Cole) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 109 Revised 08-2014 Page 13 Photo 5: South Elevation (Kylee Cole) Photo 6: West Elevation (Kylee Cole) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 110 Revised 08-2014 Page 14 Photo 7: Front Porch Stairs (Kylee Cole) Photo 8: Window Detail and Siding, North Elevation (Kylee Cole) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 111 Revised 08-2014 Page 15 Photo 9: Window, East Elevation (Kylee Cole) Photo 10: Window, Enclosed Porch, East Elevation (Kylee Cole) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 112 Revised 08-2014 Page 16 Photo 11: Siding, East Elevation (Yani Jones) Photo 12: Crawl Space Window Well, East Elevation (Yani Jones) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 113 Revised 08-2014 Page 17 Photo 13: Window and Door, South Elevation (Kylee Cole) Photo 14: South Elevation, Window Left of Door (Yani Jones) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 114 Revised 08-2014 Page 18 Photo 15: Window, West Elevation (Kylee Cole) Photo 15: Historic Garage, North Elevation (Kylee Cole) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 115 Revised 08-2014 Page 19 Photo 16: Historic Garage, West Elevation (Kylee Cole) Photo 17: Historic Garage, South and West Elevations (Kylee Cole) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 116 Revised 08-2014 Page 20 Photo 18: Non-historic Garage, North and West Elevations (Kylee Cole) Photo 19: Shed (Date Unknown), North and East Elevations (Kylee Cole) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 117 Revised 08-2014 Page 21 AGREEMENT The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins prior to the occurrence of any of the following: Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to, or demolition of improvements on the property DATED this __________________ day of _______________________________, 201___. _____________________________________________________ Owner Name (please print) _____________________________________________________ Owner Signature State of ___________________________) )ss. County of __________________________) Subscribed and sworn before me this _________ day of ___________________, 201____, by _____________________________________________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires _________________________. _____________________________________________________ Notary ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 118 S Shields St N Shields St W Mountain Ave W Mountain Ave W Oak St S Mack St Bungalow Ct N Mack St © 1019 West Location Mountain Map Avenue 1 inch = 110 feet Site ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 119 1 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – Newman Property Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Intern Landmark Preservation Commission 02.20.2019 Location and Context 2 1019 W. Mountain Ave. Ad for Washington Place, Fort Collins Courier, May 13, 1903 Constructed: c. 1905, Photo: 1948 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 120 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property Façade, North Elevation 3 1948 1968 Façade, North Elevation 4 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 121 East Elevation (Original) 5 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property East Elevation (Addition- Enclosed Porch) 6 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 122 South Elevation 7 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property West Elevation 8 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 123 Historic Garage 9 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property North West South and West 10 2015 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property Non-historic Garage and Shed 2012-2013 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 124 Sanborn Maps 11 1906 1917 Aerial Images 12 2012 2014 2016 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 125 East Elevation Siding 13 West Elevation Windows 14 13 14 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 126 West Elevation Windows (cont.) 15 View of Addition from Street 16 North and East Elevations North and West Elevations 15 16 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 127 • Construction: c. 1905 • Standard C: Design/Construction: Vernacular rectangular hipped-roof box • Exterior Integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association 17 1019 W. Mountain Ave.- Newman Property Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission Chapter 14, Article II of the Municipal Code, “Designation Procedures:” • Determine if property meets the criteria of a Fort Collins landmark • Must possess both significance and exterior integrity • Context of the area surrounding the property shall be considered Sec. 14-22(a): If all owners consent in writing, and a majority of Commission approves: • Commission may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation 18 17 18 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 128 Summary of Alterations- Newman Property 19 Structure Contributing? Change Date/Range House Yes Front porch enclosed 1948-1968 Front porch re-opened and knee wall replaced with balustrade 1999-2007 Rear addition (9 ft X 18 ft) and porch (9 ft X 6 ft) 1947 Rear porch enclosed 1947-1968 West elevation windows replaced c. 1947 Garage Yes Moved to opposite side of property 1917-1948 Rear Garage No Constructed behind original garage, facing alley 2015 Shed No Construction of small wooden shed on or near original location of garage 2012-2013 20 Application for Fort Collins Landmark Designation – Newman Property Yani Jones, Historic Preservation Intern Landmark Preservation Commission 02.20.2019 19 20 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 129 21 Additional Photos 22 Front Porch 21 22 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 130 Additional Photos 23 East Elevation (Addition 1947) Foundation- Concrete Block East Elevation (Original) Foundation- Parged Concrete Additional Photos 24 Façade Foundation- Parged Concrete East Elevation (Original) Foundation in Window Well- Parged Concrete 23 24 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 UPDATED 2-18-19 Packet Pg. 131 Bob Bailey Packet Pg. 132 Justin Larson Packet Pg. 133 LivingRoom 139SF Master Bedroom 69SF Master Bath 34SF Master Closet +18"BENCH 3680 Cased Opening 3680 Cased Opening Hal 69SF 3070 w/ 3020 Transom +36" COUNTER HOOKS &BENCH 36"x42" Shower 36"x42" Shower +30"TABLE TALLCAB TALLCAB SHELVES SHELVES FIREPLACE WDTOP +36"COUNTER FIREPLACE TV TV 37' − 91ƒ2" 10" 37' − 8" 12' -1 1/2" 6' -6 3/4" 10 " 6' -0 1/4" 12' -1 1/2" 3070 w/ 1' -01/4" 4' -10" UNITB 873 SF UNIT A 869 SF Remove and Repurpose 28' −4" 25' −10" 78' − 31ƒ2" ADD LIGHTING EFFECT THAT IS CONSISTANT WITH HISTORICAL REFERANCE ADD SHADOW BOX TO SECOND LEVEL LANDING FOR HISTORICAL REFERANCE AND AESTHETIC HALLWAY LIGHTING AT NIGHT Second Level 1 5 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 64 supported by shallow concrete foundations at the main level. The new third level stair enclosure will consist of light gauge framing materials. New wood walls will be constructed adjacent to the existing brick walls to provide support for the roof deck and stair enclosure design. The wood walls and ﬂoor framing will be attached to the existing brick walls to maintain the structural integrity of the walls. Newwood walls will be continuous through all levels and will be supported by shallowconcrete foundations at the main level. Light weight façade components for the stair enclosure would provide the means for greater eﬃciency in the rooftop structure and overall a more cost eﬀective build. Regards, Nick Decker, PE Director – Fort Collins Oﬃce Raker Rhodes Engineering, LLC 2 rbbarchitects.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 50 historically signiﬁcant will be replaced with new windows that retain the conceptual character of the original windows. They will be double hung with a transom in locations that historically had one. An attempt will be made to provide window trim with original proﬁles. Main level garage doors and their surrounding masonry are not original but may have become historically signiﬁcant over time. The intent is to replace these doors with a similar simple stile and rail design to match the existing and to include glass inﬁll panels in an eﬀort to make a retail space more viable. The preﬁnished aluminum doors will match the windowcolor. The main level retail entry door is also in a modiﬁed masonry aperture. The intent is to rebuild this door and windowsystem within the current masonry opening with the exception of cutting some existing masonry to allow the sidelight and/or inﬁll panel to extend the full length of the door. The main level access door to the stairway leading to the upper level will be replaced with a single leaf, secure door and transom window that is consistant with other examples near the buildings location. The reuse of the brass mail slots are to be incorporated into the new storefront doors. Single doors on the alley side will be replaced with ﬂush hollow metal doors painted to match the masonry. Transom windows will be designed into the new hollow metal door frames to match the existing intent. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 1 UPDATED 2-20-19 Packet Pg. 49