Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2019 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Work SessionMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Kristin Gensmer, Co-Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Bello Fort Collins, Colorado Mollie Bredehoft Katie Dorn 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. This meeting will be broadcast live and replayed at 10:00 a.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. Landmark Preservation Commission AGENDA Packet Pg. 1 • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2019. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 21, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SINCE AUGUST 21, 2019 LPC MEETING Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last meeting of the Commission. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 1112 MATHEWS STREET – REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF DANGEROUS BARN LOCATED IN THE LAUREL SCHOOL NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider the issuance of a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the demolition of the barn at 1112 Mathews Street, in the Laurel School National Register District. The barn has been found dangerous and is proposed to be demolished. APPLICANT: Rebecca Masler, Owner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the Barn is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation due to its loss of integrity, and that the barn may be demolished following the issuance of a report to the SHPO. The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ● Approval of Minutes ● Items of no perceived controversy ● Routine administrative actions Packet Pg. 2 4. 629 S HOWES – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW – THIS ITEM HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER MEETING 5. 117 N SHERWOOD STREET – REQUEST FOR NON-HISTORIC ROOF MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for changing a roof on a designated property from wood shingle to a synthetic roofing product that simulates the appearance of wood. The alterations are proposed for the Boughton (Bouton) Carriage House, 117 North Sherwood Street. APPLICANT: Anders Lindwall and Claire Boustred, Owners. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacing the wood shingle roof with a synthetic material. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Date: Roll Call Bello Bredehoft Dorn Gensmer Murray Nelsen Simpkins Wallace Dunn Vote absent absent  absent  6 present 1 & 2 - Consent Agenda: August Minutes & Staff Design Review Report Bello Murray Gensmer Dorn Wallace Bredehoft Nelsen Simpkins Dunn absent Yes absent Yes Yes absent Yes Yes Yes 6:0 3 - 1112 Mathews Street Barn Demolition - Approved Murray Gensmer Dorn Wallace Bredehoft Nelsen Simpkins Bello Dunn Yes absent Yes Yes absent Yes Yes absent Yes 6:0 5 - 117 N Sherwood Roofing Request - Denied Gensmer Dorn Wallace Bredehoft Nelsen Simpkins Bello Murray Dunn absent Yes Yes absent Yes Yes absent recused Yes 5:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 9/18/2019 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 9/18/19 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC August Hearing – Minor updated posted on 9/12/19 2. Staff Design Review Decisions on Designated Properties Since August 21, 2019 LPC Meeting DISCUSSION AGENDA: 3. 1112 Mathews Street – Review of Proposed Demolition of Dangerous Barn Located in the Laurel School National Register District 4. 629 S Howes – Development Review – THIS ITEM HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER MEETING 5. 117 N Sherwood Street – Request For Non-Historic Roof Material EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 3 A Updated Staff Presentation 5 A Updated Staff Presentation 5 B Applicant Statement & Documents 5 C Applicant Roof Photos 5 D CeDUR Product Information 5 E Photos of Material Samples 5 F Staff Memo - Answers to Commission Questions Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 18, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2019 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 21, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC August 21, 2019 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Kristin Gensmer, Co-Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Bello Fort Collins, Colorado Mollie Bredehoft Katie Dorn 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 August 21, 2019 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Gensmer, Nelsen ABSENT: Wallace, Dorn, Murray, Simpkins STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager, Lambrecht • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 19, 2109 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 19, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Ms. Gensmer moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the minutes of the June 19, 2019 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 5-0. 2. 612 S HOWES – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed duplex addition to a historic property, 612 S Howes (the Anderson- Goff House, 1900). Site alterations would include a five-stall parking pad on the alley side and a shared courtyard between the old and new residences. The project would retain the existing residence without alterations and demolish the detached 1948 garage. APPLICANT: Stan Arnett, r4 Architects Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She clarified the area of adjacency specifying that the historic properties directly abutting the property are the priority for compatibility considerations, based on the relevant Code provisions. She reviewed the history of the on-site historic resources and clarified the period of significance. Ms. Bzdek stated early staff findings show it is worth discussing the garage being constructed after the period of significance in terms of its proposed demolition. [Secretary's Note: The Commission took a brief recess due to a technical issue.] Applicant Presentation Mr. Arnett gave the Applicant presentation detailing the proposed project and parking. He also noted all four units will include transom windows and detailed the proposed façade. [Secretary's Note: The Commission took a brief recess due to a technical issue.] Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn requested the Commission discuss the garage and noted the property does not have to be landmarked in order to be considered historic under the Land Use Code. She also noted the property has been determined to be eligible based on a thorough survey by a third party, but because it hasn't been landmarked, it hasn’t been clearly determined whether the garage would be part of the eligibility. Mr. Bello stated he did not believe the garage was significant given its later date of construction. Ms. Nelsen agreed stating the garage is secondary to the home. Ms. Gensmer and Ms. Bredehoft agreed. Chair Dunn stated she does not believe the garage is historic as it falls outside the period of significance. Chair Dunn suggested discussing each standard one by one. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT Regarding standard 1, Chair Dunn stated the project complies. Regarding standard 2, Chair Dunn noted the Commission agrees the garage is not historic. The Commission agreed the project meets standards 3, 4, and 5, and standards 6, 7, and 8 do not apply. Chair Dunn stated standard 9 addresses making new work differentiated from the old and compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. She requested Commission input on this issue. Ms. Nelsen asked the applicant if he is familiar with the Secretary of the Interior standards and Old Town guidelines. Mr. Arnett replied he has not done many historic projects; however, the addition is intended to not tower over the existing structure and has the same roof pitch making it not visible from the street. Ms. Nelsen requested additional information on how this design communicates with the surroundings. Mr. Arnett replied he examined the addition from the view corridor. Ms. Nelsen asked Mr. Arnett if he considers the addition to be secondary to the existing structure. Mr. Arnett replied in the affirmative. Ms. Nelsen commented on the eave lines being identical and asked if that could be dropped for the addition. Mr. Arnett replied in the negative noting the existing home is quite shallow. He noted the first-floor elevation for the new structure has been kept at grade. Mr. Bello discussed the verticality of the windows on the existing building versus the horizontal windows on the addition. Ms. Gensmer commented on the sandstone foundation of the existing building but noted it is not the dominant material. She encouraged Mr. Arnett to look at the material ratios. Ms. Bredehoft asked about the proposed scale of the stone veneer. Mr. Arnett replied the stone would be larger and perhaps not as cultured. Ms. Bredehoft stated the front entry is not obvious. Mr. Arnett replied placing entries in the courtyard seemed too intimate for guests; therefore, the entries are faced to the east to be closer to the parking lot. Ms. Bredehoft commented on the lack of a sense of arrival and asked why the front entrance is being downplayed. Mr. Arnett replied he was attempting to keep as much room in the courtyard as possible. Chair Dunn commented on the overhang looking more office-oriented than residential. She stated she would prefer to see a gable or something similar to what is on the historic house to mark the front entrance. Ms. Nelsen commented on ensuring drainage does not affect the historic materials of the existing property. Mr. Arnett replied he has a civil engineer working on a swale design. Chair Dunn asked why the parking is not directly off the alley. Mr. Arnett replied there is a desire to not have to back into the alley. Ms. Gensmer stated it is compatible to keep parking at the rear of the lot, though it does take up space. She agreed with the concept of preserving as much courtyard space as possible. Ms. Bredehoft asked where residents would be storing garage items. Mr. Arnett replied the property manager will be responsible for yard maintenance. Ms. Nelsen stated she does not see compatibility and is not convinced the building is secondary on the lot. Chair Dunn stated the compatibility should show a family resemblance to the historic structure. Ms. Nelsen commended the perspective from the street. Regarding standard 10, Chair Dunn noted the new structure is a separate building rather than an addition. Chair Dunn requested materials samples when they are decided upon. She noted the historic structure has been covered in stucco and suggested its inclusion on the new building could be helpful. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT 3. 220 EAST LAUREL STREET – APPEAL OF STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISION DESCRIPTION: This is a request for consideration of an appeal of Staff’s decision to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for proposed alterations to the Long Apartment Complex, 220 East Laurel Street. The property is an officially designated Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Annie Obermann, Forge and Bow Dwellings, for D.L. Obermann Trust, Owner. Staff Report Mr. Yatabe explained the appeal review process stating the Commission will be making a decision to uphold or overturn the staff decision that is on appeal. He noted any changes to the proposed plan would require the applicant to come back before the Commission and if the Commission overturns the staff denial, it would be approving the plan as is. Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report and discussed the property and staff's denial of a request for the replacement of a historic window and door on the addition, the request to paint unpainted brick on the addition, and the request to substantially change and modernize the front and side landscaping of the property. She stated the denials were based on the findings that the proposed work did not comply with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. She noted staff approved a request for landscaping changes to the rear courtyard. Ms. McWilliams showed photos of the property over time and outlined the role of the Commission. Applicant Presentation Ms. Oberman gave an overview of the proposal citing the reason for the requested door change and noting deficiencies in the brick are the reason for the painting request. She stated many of the requested changes would help the addition match the original 1920's construction of the larger building. Ms. Oberman discussed the requested landscape changes which would pull sod away from the building to avoid water damage to the building, add raised planters, place a fence for privacy from the unkempt lot to the north, and place a metal screen in front of the dumpster area. She discussed the desire to increase outdoor amenities for residents. Public Input None Commission Questions Mr. Bello requested clarification on what staff did and did not approve. Ms. McWilliams replied the only item approved by staff were the landscape changes behind the addition. She noted she was unaware of the proposed pergola and requested additional information. She stated staff also tabled the dumpster screen and fence for lack of information at the time. Ms. McWilliams stated staff was unaware of the changes made to the windows in the building as mentioned by Ms. Oberman and will therefore need to look at those changes. Mr. Bello requested details about the proposed door and window replacement. Ms. Oberman replied the two would not be connected in one unit. Chair Dunn outlined the way in which the Commission would address the discussion. Mr. Bello asked what the new windows would look like. Ms. Oberman replied they would look the same but be more efficient. Chair Dunn noted the standards require first evaluating the existing materials to determine they need to be removed. Chair Dunn asked for details relating to the door replacement. Ms. Oberman replied the door has a veneer layering that has been peeling up over time and it is not a high-quality door. She also stated the replacement would provide additional light. She stated replacing the veneer on the door would be more expensive than replacing it with a new door. Chair Dunn noted the Commission is looking for the addition to retain the characteristics of its own time rather than have it look like the original structure. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT Ms. Oberman stated they would like to replace the door with one that will function better for the new use as a fitness center and allow more light. Chair Dunn reviewed standards and discussed mid-century design stating the door and windows fit with the time period the addition was constructed and should therefore be retained. Ms. Gensmer noted replacement in-kind is required if replacement is necessary. Ms. Bredehoft agreed. Chair Dunn stated there is a lack of information on whether the door actually needs to be replaced. Ms. Oberman replied the quality of the door is lacking. She stated she understands the intention of keeping the integrity of architectural styles; however, the issue with this building is that the matching of the two styles was not done well in the original build. Chair Dunn stated maintaining the 1950's style of the addition is important. Ms. Gensmer discussed the importance of not creating a false sense of history for the addition. Ms. Oberman discussed some of the architectural aspects of the addition that are significant to the 1950's and asked if items such as the door are considered to be as significant as the roof line or other features. Chair Dunn recommended Ms. Oberman review the Secretary of Interior standards for additional guidance, adding that all elements are of equal importance. Chair Dunn discussed the standards for maintaining the same operability for windows to show craftsmanship and the requirement to repair rather than replace damaged distinctive features. Mr. Bello commented that replacing the windows with more energy efficient windows complies the City's net-zero goals. Chair Dunn noted there is quite a bit of energy loss with replacement and stated there are ways to increase the efficiency of historic windows. She asked Ms. Oberman what has been done to research using the current materials. Ms. Oberman replied the windows were painted shut at one point and attempts to make the single-pane windows operable has left them only able to open partially. She stated they could be taken apart and stripped but they have not used contractors with historic experience. Ms. McWilliams suggested Ms. Oberman could use the Design Assistance program for a window study. Ms. Nelsen noted this is a landmarked building which is why the Secretary of Interior standards must be applied. Chair Dunn requested Commission input regarding the brick painting. She stated seeing the difference between the addition and the original building is important. Ms. Gensmer stated the brick painting seems to be related solely to aesthetics. Ms. Oberman stated the brick is in good condition; the painting was a matter of preference. Ms. Gensmer noted brick painting would be difficult to reverse without causing damage to the structure. Chair Dunn requested input as to the proposed landscaping changes. She asked if there are existing planters in the southwest corner. Ms. Oberman replied in the affirmative but noted they are quite dilapidated and are larger than the proposed. Chair Dunn stated samples of the paver materials would be needed. Ms. Bredehoft asked about the proposed use for the east side. Ms. Oberman replied it is designed to feel like a courtyard. Ms. Bredehoft asked about the height of the proposed pergola. Ms. Oberman replied it is probably 8 feet tall, is freestanding, and is a combination of metal and wood. Chair Dunn commented that would be easily removed if necessary. Chair Dunn stated the landscape has been minimal in the past and the proposed landscaping is more complex. Ms. Bredehoft stated the landscaping seems quite modern and stated it is wise to pull the turf away from the building in order to protect it. Ms. Oberman discussed the way in which the landscaping was designed to reflect the 1950's. Chair Dunn stated the 1950's structure is small in comparison to the two 1920's apartment buildings. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT Chair Dunn requested input regarding the alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property. Ms. Bredehoft discussed the landscape plan and stated some of the pavers take away from the residential feel of the front of the building. She also asked about the spatial relationship of the adjacent front lawns. Ms. Nelsen asked whether the landscaping is historic therefore falling into the Commission's purview relating to the Secretary of Interior standards. Chair Dunn replied the landscaping would be included in the landmarked property but stated its character may need to be defined. Mr. Bello stated the proposed landscaping does not seem to match the rest of the neighborhood or the historic building. Ms. Oberman stated an apartment complex to the west has completed similar landscaping to make a larger buffer between the turf and the sidewalk. Chair Dunn asked if the referenced complex is landmarked. Ms. McWilliams replied in the negative. Chair Dunn commented the pavers in the middle of the lawn do not fit with the historic context. Ms. Oberman replied they are meant to fit with the 1950's historic nature of the addition. Chair Dunn stated there is a lot going on that does not match the largest 1920's building on the property. She suggested there are simple solutions that would not detract from the character of the building but would still serve the desired purpose. Ms. Nelsen stated it is a reasonable request to pull the turf away from the building so as to not deteriorate building materials with irrigation. Chair Dunn suggested the landscape should be simpler and more symmetrical. Ms. McWilliams suggested the design assistance program could also be used for landscape design. Ms. Bredehoft stated the landscaping of the space in back is perfectly acceptable and stated the proposed dumpster screen could be removable. Ms. Nelsen expressed concern about the height of the pergola and requested assurance it would not be visible from the font. Ms. Oberman replied it would not be visible. Commission members and Ms. McWilliams discussed the pergola and the need to acquire additional information regarding materials as it is a semi-permanent structure. Chair Dunn asked if a plan of protection is in place to ensure the garage is not disturbed by the formation of the concrete furniture. Ms. McWilliams replied in the negative. Chair Dunn stated that would be required. Chair Dunn asked if shade awnings are planned. Ms. Oberman replied in the negative. Commission members did not express concerns about the rear cedar fence other than ensuring it is not attached to the building. Chair Dunn requested input about the dumpster screen. Ms. Oberman stated it would be free- standing but with some type of concrete footings. Ms. Bredehoft noted the dumpster screen and raised planters are to be powder coated white and asked Ms. Oberman if they would consider using a different color. Ms. Oberman replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bredehoft asked when the tiles in the front entry were added. Ms. Oberman replied they were added over the last few years. Ms. McWilliams stated those have not been reviewed. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Bello stated he did not have any concerns about the back area with the exception of ensuring the pergola height is appropriate. Chair Dunn suggested reviewing the items in order with the windows first. Ms. Nelsen stated the request for the window replacement does not meet the Secretary of Interior standards for a landmarked property and the Commission would need to see evidence that all other avenues have been explored first. Ms. Gensmer agreed. Regarding the door replacement request, Ms. Nelsen reiterated her remarks about the windows and stated if the door were to be replaced, it should be replaced in kind. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFT Regarding painting the brick, Ms. Gensmer stated that would not meet the Secretary of Interior standards. Regarding the visible landscaping, Mr. Bello stated the front should be simpler and the applicant could use design review assistance for developing something more appropriate. Regarding the rear courtyard, Ms. Bredehoft stated the pergola height and ensuring a plan of protection is in place for the garage are the only concerns. Regarding the cedar fence, Ms. Nelsen stated there are no concerns assuming it is not attached to the garage. She suggested the plan of protection could address that. Regarding the dumpster screen, Mr. Bello suggested the applicant consider a different color. Ms. Bredehoft stated the applicant should work with design assistance. Chair Dunn stated she would like the design of the screen to be simpler. Ms. Gensmer asked if the Commission could conditionally approve or deny the seven elements individually. Mr. Yatabe replied the Commission could approve or deny portions of the request and summarized the Commission's discussion and previous staff determinations. [**Secretary's Note: The Commission took a brief recess.] Commission Deliberation Ms. Gensmer requested clarification on the condition related to the pergola height. Commission members replied it must not be visible from the street. Ms. Gensmer moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission uphold the staff decision to deny Items 1-4 as listed in the August 21, 2019 staff report. Ms. Gensmer further moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission uphold the staff decision to approve Item 5 with the following conditions: 1) limit the height of the pergola so the top is not visible from the street, and 2) provide an acceptable plan of protection to be reviewed by staff. Ms. Gensmer further moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve Item 6 regarding the fence with the condition that it is freestanding and does not connect to the garage. Ms. Gensmer further moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny Item 7 regarding the screen. This decision is based on the materials provided for this hearing, testimony at this hearing and board discussion. Ms. Nelsen seconded the motion. Commission members agreed staff could review the plan of protection. Mr. Bello stated he is concerned about denying the request to replace the windows but will support the motion. The motion passed 5-0. 4. LINDEN STREET IMPROVEMENTS – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Create a “convertible” street on Linden Street from Walnut to Jefferson, combining roadway, on-street parking, pedestrian walkways, event space, placemaking elements, and artwork. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Engineering Department (Kyle Lambrecht); Ditesco (Keith Meyer); Russell Mills Studios (Craig Russell) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report noting the proposed alterations are within the Old Town Historic District established in 1979. Applicant Presentation Mr. Lambrecht briefly discussed the proposed project, budget, and schedule. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 DRAFT Mr. Meyer stated the 200 block of Linden Street has historically been a community gathering space which makes the concept of a convertible street ideal. He noted he and Mr. Russell have worked on nearly every Old Town alleyway project and Old Town Square so they are very familiar with the Secretary of Interior standards. He stated a plan of protection would be incorporated into the construction specifications prior to bidding. Mr. Russell detailed various alternatives relating to establishing the street layout cross-section, parking, how pedestrian spaces relate to parking, landscaping, and lighting. He noted the importance of all modes of travel sharing the environment and discussed the integration of the historic pavers around the Linden Hotel building. He also discussed the importance of accessibility, safety, energy, and environment. Mr. Meyer highlighted the applicable categories of the Secretary of Interior standards for this project, including the protection of existing trees and existing structure survey. He noted some of the Linden Hotel pavers may not meet accessibility standards at this point. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Bello asked if area businesses have been concerned about a possible parking reduction. Mr. Meyer explained various options and stated the Old Firehouse parking garage at the Elizabeth Hotel, which is about 200 feet away, has provided 216 public parking spaces to offset any lost parking. Ms. Bredehoft asked if the clock will be conserved. Mr. Meyer replied it was installed in 1995 and is therefore not historic. Ms. Bredehoft replied she was aware of that; however, she noted it was donated and suggested it be reviewed. Ms. Bredehoft asked about the creation of a barrier between Old Town Square and Linden Street by adding more planters. Mr. Meyer replied there are currently linear planters along Old Town Square which are interrupted by the crosswalk locations. He stated the suggestion is to expand those locations to further narrow the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Russell discussed the concept of a pedestrian refuge for the area. Ms. Bredehoft asked how this project ties to Old Town Square. Mr. Russell replied the raised planter beds and pots, lights, material palette, and street trees tie the areas together. Ms. Bredehoft asked how this project ties to the River District. Mr. Russell replied a bulb-out has been added and the intersection will be treated as a gateway with a seat wall and elevated planter pots. Mr. Lambrecht discussed the improvement implementation noting the River District has its own palette. Commission members discussed the Linden Hotel pavers. Chair Dunn noted an Historic District sign on Linden near Jefferson will need to be replaced nearby if moved. Chair Dunn requested input regarding the proposed circular paving patterns. Ms. Bredehoft replied she was unsure how they tied into Old Town Square. Mr. Meyer discussed the replication of the oval granite pavers in the Old Town play structure. Mr. Bello asked how the other side of Jefferson was designed. Mr. Meyer replied that section of Linden Street was updated a few years ago. Chair Dunn asked about opening car doors to the right and associated parking. Mr. Meyer replied that level of detail has yet to be determined but noted the concept of a convertible street is to have no curb and gutter. Chair Dunn requested assurance the tenants go through the proper channels to ensure patio fencing is properly approved. Mr. Meyer replied those approvals would require an encroachment permit which mandates no attachment to the building. Ms. Bredehoft asked about the plan to remove snow from diagonal parking islands. Mr. Meyer replied the standards require a certain radius to allow for a plow and there would be no curb there. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 DRAFT • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tara Lehman, Tripoint Data, and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 18, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SINCE AUGUST 21, 2019 LPC MEETING STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. At the August 21, 2019 LPC meeting, the LPC requested improved access to staff decisions made in the interim between LPC meetings. Staff decisions are provided in this report and posted on the HPD’s “Design Review Notification” page. Notice of staff decisions are provided to the public and LPC for their information, but are not subject to appeal under Chapter 14, Article IV, except in cases where an applicant has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for a project and that request has been denied. In that event, the applicant may appeal staff’s decision to the LPC pursuant to 14-55 of the Municipal Code, within two weeks of staff denial. Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 612 S. College Ave. (Darrah House) In-kind roof replacement on City Landmark. Approved 8/26/2019 630 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement on contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP) Approved 8/26/2019 628 Peterson St. Construction of new garage in rear of property; contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP) Approved 9/3/2019 Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 18, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 1112 MATHEWS STREET – REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF DANGEROUS BARN LOCATED IN THE LAUREL SCHOOL NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider the issuance of a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the demolition of the barn at 1112 Mathews Street, in the Laurel School National Register District. The barn has been found dangerous and is proposed to be demolished. APPLICANT/OWNER: Rebecca Masler, Owner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the Barn is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation due to its loss of integrity, and that the barn may be demolished following the issuance of a report to the SHPO. COMMISSION’S ROLE AND ACTION The property at 1112 Mathews Street is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties, as part of the Laurel School National Register District. The property contains a house (constructed 1923) and barn (c.1923). The barn has deteriorated to the point that it has been posted as dangerous by the Chief Building Official. Municipal Code Chapter 14-51 directs that resources that have been determined to be dangerous, but which do not pose an imminent danger, are subject to the City’s review and permitting processes. Due to its designated status, before a demolition permit may be issued for the barn, the Landmark Preservation Commission should be reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission and a report issued to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). At this hearing, the Commission shall determine whether the historic barn retains sufficient integrity to qualify as a Fort Collins Landmark. If the barn does not retain sufficient integrity, the Commission shall direct staff to prepare a report to SHPO regarding its demolition, and the demolition permit for the barn shall be approved. If the Commission believes the barn does retain its integrity and is eligible for Fort Collins Landmark recognition, the Commission may choose to ask Council to protect the resource from demolition through an involuntary Landmark designation. Without such action, the permit for demolition of the barn will be approved, and the report issued. Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 BACKGROUND On April 23, 1923 Mr. R.W. Clark filed a building permit with the city to construct a four-room frame house with an estimated cost of $2,500. The 1925 Sanborn map for Fort Collins shows the property in its current configuration, with the house and two-story barn. The barn structure on the east end of the property features a gable roof, board-and-batten siding, and some remaining tar-paper roofing. The north elevation which faces the alleyway has a pedestrian entrance, an upper- story access port, and a ventilation opening high in the gable end. The east elevation of the barn is directly connected with the neighbors’ garage, with the peak of their gable roof intersecting just below the roofline of the barn. On the north elevation is located a brick chimney, which ends at the roofline due to deterioration; a small one- story shed roof addition with plywood siding; and a ventilation opening matching the south elevation. The facade of the west elevation is primarily missing due to deterioration. Bracing has been installed to support the west end of the second floor and the roof above. Floor joists for the building were either installed on grade or on stone piers originally but are currently touching the soil and deteriorating. The building is lightly framed with an open plan on the first and second levels. REVIEW AND EVALUATION Chapter 14, Section 14-51 of the Municipal Code provides the process for reviewing alterations to designated resources requiring a certificate of appropriateness or report. Both the house and barn are listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Laurel School District. The house retains integrity and continues to contribute to the National Register District. Due to its deteriorated condition, the barn is proposed to be demolished. Staff has evaluated the barn and finds that it no longer retains sufficient integrity of its character-defining features necessary to convey its significance and would not qualify for Fort Collins Landmark designation. National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, provides guidance on evaluating integrity. Integrity is the ability of a resource to convey its significance. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. For a resource that is significant under Criterion A, Bulletin 15 notes, “A basic integrity test for a property associated with an important event or person is whether a historical contemporary would recognize the property as it exists today.” In evaluating integrity of Criterion C, Bulletin 15 states, “A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features…but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.” Phillip Barlow of Barlow Cultural Resource Consulting, LLC was contracted with in August 2019 to survey the property at 1112 Mathews Street. Barlow’s professional conclusions are that the home at 1112 Mathews retains integrity and remains contributing to the historic district, but the barn has lost integrity to the extent that it is no longer a viable contributor to the historic district… Barlow notes that, “The physical integrity of the barn has degraded to the extent that even with a restoration effort it is difficult to be sure that enough of the structure will remain to be considered a historic building…. “Unfortunately, the barn structure, which is an important feature that reflects the agricultural past of the property, has lost integrity to the extent that it no longer will be able to contribute to the district. The structure has lost all windows and doors, the floor joists on the ground level are severally decayed, the siding is heavily deteriorated and Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 missing in large portions on the west elevation, and the roof structure is heavily deteriorated and open to the elements in several locations. Restoration of this structure would involve replacement of more than an estimated 40% of all remaining material, calling into question if the structure that results can be considered historic. Standards of Significance: Significance is the importance of a site, structure, object or district to the history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture of our community, State or Nation. For designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts properties must meet one (1) or more of the following standards: Standard 1: Events The resource is associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A resource can be associated with either or both of two (2) types of events: * A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or * A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the community, State or Nation. The barn is significantly deteriorated and has lost a substantial amount of historic integrity of Materials, Design, Workmanship, and Feeling and is no longer able to convey its significance, and therefore would not be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under this Criterion. NO Standard 2: Person Groups The resource 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. N/A Standard 3: Design/ Construction The resource 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 resources. The resource may be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and/or uses over time. The barn is significantly deteriorated and has lost a substantial amount of historic integrity of Materials, Design and Workmanship, and is no longer able to convey its significance, and therefore would not be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under this Criterion. NO Standard 4: Information potenti The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. N/A Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 Standards of Integr Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. The integrity of a resource is based on the degree to which it retains all or some of seven (7) aspects or qualities established by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 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: Locatio Location is the place where the resource was constructed or the place where the historic or prehistoric event occurred. The barn remains in its original location. YES Standard B: Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space, structure and style of a resource. The barn has lost a substantial amount of its historic materials, including character defining elements such as siding, windows, and roofing. Materials that remain are in poor condition, and in many cases, would require full replacement. NO Standard C: Setting Setting is the physical environment of a resource. Setting refers to the character of the place; it involves how, not just where, the resource is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. The property at 1112 Mathews Street is situated in the Laurel School National Register District. The area is primarily residential, with relatively little change. Many of the homes in this neighborhood, including this one, are vernacular structures with outbuildings consisting primarily of one-story garages and sheds. YES Standard D: Materia Materials are the physical elements that form a resource. The barn has lost all windows and doors, the floor joists on the ground level are severally decayed, the siding is heavily deteriorated and missing in large portions on the west elevation, and the roof structure is heavily deteriorated and open to the elements in several locations. Restoration of this structure would involve replacement of more than an estimated 40% of all remaining material, calling into question if the structure that results can be considered historic. NO Standard E: Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure or site. The deteriorated condition of the barn means that the barn exhibits very little evidence of workmanship in the labor or skills involved in constructing the building. NO Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 Standard F: Feeling Feeling is a resource’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the resource's historic or prehistoric character. NO Standard G: Association Association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historic or prehistoric resource. A resource 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. The barn, while significantly deteriorated, retains a strong association with the development of the Laurel School neighborhood in the early twentieth century, and represent a time when most families kept some livestock on their property. YES FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION In evaluating the request for the issuance of a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the demolition of the barn at 1112 Mathews Street, staff makes the following findings of fact: 1. That the property at 1112 Mathews Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. 2. That the barn located on this property is in deteriorated condition and has been posted as dangerous by the Chief Building Official. 3. That the barn is significantly deteriorated and has lost a substantial amount of historic integrity of Materials, Design, Workmanship, and Feeling. For these reasons, the barn would not be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a motion finding that the barn at 1112 Mathews Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation due to its loss of integrity, and directing staff to sign off on an application for the demolition of the barn following the issuance of a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office. SAMPLE MOTION I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt a motion that the barn at 1112 Mathews Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation due to its loss of integrity, based on the findings of fact contained in the staff report of September 18, 2019, and direct staff to issuance a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office regarding these findings. ATTACHMENTS 1. Notice of Dangerous Building 2. Architectural Inventory Form 3. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 19 1 Gretchen Schiager From: Russell Hovland Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:45 PM To: Marcus Coldiron Cc: Sam Hancock; Karen McWilliams Subject: 1112 mathews Marcus, Please send the owner of 1112 Mathews a notice that the barn is considered and posted dangerous and per 2006 IPMC section 110.1.1 the barn must repair the structure to safe and sanitary condition or apply for a demo permit and obtain approval from Historical Preservation staff. 30 days notice please. Russ Hovland Chief Building Official City of Fort Collins 970-416-2341 rhovland@fcgov.com ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 OAHP1403 Rev. 9/98 COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY Architectural Inventory Form Official eligibility determination (OAHP use only) Date Initials Determined Eligible- NR Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible- SR Determined Not Eligible- SR Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District Field Evaluation of Fort Collins Landmark Eligibility ܆Individually Eligible ;Contributing to District ܆Not Eligible ܆Likely Eligible for State/National Register I. Identification 1. Resource number: 5LR.2917 2. Temporary resource number: N/A 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: N/A 6. Current building name: 1112 Mathews Street 7. Building address: 1112 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 21 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 8. Owner name and address: Masler, Rebecca 1112 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6th Township 7N Range 69W SE 1⁄4 of NW 1⁄4 of SW 1⁄4 of section 13 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 494565 mE 4492131 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Quadrangle Year: 2016 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' ܆Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 11/12 Block: 9 Addition: N/A Year of Addition: N/A 13. Boundary Description and Justification: The site boundary corresponds to the recorded legal description of Larimer Country parcel number 9713313011, listed as " Legal Description: N 50 FT OF LOTS 11 & 12, BLK 9, CRAFTS RESUB, FTC ". The .12 acre lot is rectangular and approximately 100 feet in depth and 50 feet in width. The lot is located on the east side of Mathews Street and is on the south side of the central alleyway. The parcel contains a single-family dwelling which faces Mathews Street and a large barn structure to the east of the home along the alley and on the eastern border of the property line. The site boundary encompasses the area associated with its historic residential use. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Currently irregular, original plan consisted of a rectangular front gable form. A shed-roof addition off of the rear and a one-story gable-roof addition on the south have produced what is now an irregular footprint 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 31' x Width 32' 16. Number of stories: 1.5 17. Primary external wall material(s): Wood clapboard and wood shingle 18. Roof configuration: Gable End 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt shingle 20. Special features: Entry porch hood, exposed rafter tails, upper half story is sheathed in wood shingles. Upper half story is delineated from the first story with a belt course of cove moulding. Addition on the south features a jerkinhead roof 21. General architectural description: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 22 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 This property consists of a small (approximately 1,044 ft²) one-and-one-half-story residential home of wood frame construction and a two-story barn structure of wood frame construction. The residence rests on a poured concrete foundation that has been covered with a stucco-like material and painted. There are three roof forms on the residence, the primary block of the home is front-gable with exposed rafter tails, an addition on the south elevation is a jerkinghead roof, and the addition on the rear has a shed roof. The addition on the south is one-story and set back from the primary facade, which provides a subservient association with the primary block of the building. On the east side of the south addition, at the wall junction with the primary block, there is a small protrusion from the addition that appears to be cantilevered as there is no obvious support underneath. The shed-roof addition on the rear of the home is set back slightly from the eave-side walls of the primary block and is also one-story. This rear addition appears to be an enclosure of what was once an open porch. The primary block and south addition are both clad in narrow wood clapboard. The primary block has a belt course below the upper half story that consists of a wide wood board with cove moulding above. On the upper half story the home is clad in painted or stained wood shingles. The rear addition is clad is wood clapboards that are wider than those seen on the majority of the home. Fenestration on the primary block on the street-facing gable end is symmetrically arranged and consists of paired three-over-one windows in the upper half-story, a three-over-one window on each side of the primary entrance, and two-pane basement hopper windows below. The other windows on the street facing west elevation are two five-over-one windows paired together on the south addition. The north elevation features a pedestrian entrance that appears to no longer be used with a small three-over-one window to the east and a larger three-over-one window to west with a basement window below. The rear, or east, elevation features two three-over-one windows in the upper half story mimicking the front elevation. The enclosed rear porch has nine one- over-one windows arranged in a gang with a pedestrian entrance on the south side. The south elevation of the home has a small three-over-one window near the wall junction with the south addition, and the south addition has a four-over-one window centered on the gable end. The two-story barn structure on the east end of the property features a gable roof, board-and -batten siding, and some remaining tar-paper roofing. The north elevation which faces the alleyway has a pedestrian entrance, an upper-story access port, and a ventilation opening high in the gable end. The east elevation of the barn is directly connected with the neighbors garage with the peak of their gable roof intersecting just below the roofline of the barn. The north elevation of the barn features a brick chimney which ends at the roofline due to deterioration, a small one-story shed roof addition with plywood siding, and a ventilation opening matching the south elevation. The facade of the west elevation is primarily missing due to deterioration. Bracing has been installed to support the west end of the second floor and the roof above. Floor joists for the building were either installed on ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 23 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 grade or on stone piers originally, but are currently touching the soil and deteriorating. The building is lightly framed with an open plan on the first and second levels. 22. Architectural style/building type: No definitive style. Simple residential home with Craftsman elements 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The property is located on a rectangular lot on a residential street that features multiple homes of similar age. The residence is set close to the sidewalk with a small front yard. An alleyway runs the length of the lot providing access to the rear of the home and barn, and features a small yard and gravel parking area. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: The previously described barn appears to be original to the property IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1923 Source of information: Building permits, Special Collections box BP-1 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: No information found 27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown Source of information: No information found 28. Original owner: Clark R.W. Source of information: Building permits, Special Collections box BP-1 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): On April 23, 1923 Mr. R.W. Clark filed a building permit with the city to construct a four room frame house with an estimated cost of $2,500. The 1925 Sanborn map for Fort Collins shows the property in its current configuration with rear porch, south addition, and barn. While this Sanborn map has been updated through the sixties, no patching was done on this property to indicate that this configuration was from a later date. However, a permit was filed on August 11, 1927 for construction of an addition which appears to match the protrusion on the south elevation. The addition was described in the permit as: "New room addition, frame, 12x14, shingle roof, lap siding exterior, oak floors, floor joist 2/8, rafters 2/4, studding 2/4, open roof sheathing, tar paper, wood lath, ship lap sub floor, ceiling joists 2/4, double plates and headers, ship lab wall sheathing." In general, it appears that the home was in its current configuration relatively soon after the initial construction. The barn to the east was also on site near the date of initial construction and appears to have always been abutting the neighboring garage. On the east wall of the barn ghost lines can be seen in the paint where something else intersected with the wall aside from the gable end roof that is currently there, so it is not known if the neighboring ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 24 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 garage was replaced at some point. Windows, doors, and siding on the principal block of the home and south addition appear to be original and are typical of the era in which they were installed. Siding and windows on the rear porch were replaced at some point although no record exists of exactly when. The barn has what appears to be its original siding, but is missing all original windows, doors, and around two-thirds of the sheathing and framework on the west elevation. The ground plan sketch on the 1948 Tax assessor card shows that there were two additional buildings on the site at some point prior to 1948, a 24'x12' building with concrete floor in the southeast corner of the lot, and a 8'x14' building just to the west of this building. There is a large tree in this corner of the lot currently, and a concrete slab near the barn which may be the remains of the 24'x12' building. As described in section V. Historical Associations, this lot had an agricultural use in its early history and these buildings were likely associated with that purpose. The 1948 assessor card has the notation "39" under the age column for these structures, and R.W. Clark was listed for the first time as a farmer in the City Directory in 1936, so c.1939 is the assumed construction date of these buildings. The 1948 card has these buildings crossed out, so they were demolished sometime prior to that date. 30. Original location X Moved ܆Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Residential-Single Family Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): None 33. Current use(s): Residential-Single Family Dwelling 34. Site type(s): House 35. Historical background: In 1922 R.W. Clark was living with his wife Evalena at 300 Edwards in Fort Collins with their son, also named R.W. Clark who was a student at the time. 300 Edwards is the direct neighbor to the south of 1112 Mathews, so R.W. Clark senior must have seen an opportunity in the neighboring land and applied for a permit to build a house in 1923. By 1925 the address appears in the City Directory with V.E. Cram, a physician, residing. It would appear that Mr. Clark owned both buildings for some period of time, as he is also listed on building permits for 300 Edwards until 1945. In 1936 there is a Robert Shay residing in 1112 Mathews with Mr. Clark listed as being a farmer at 1116 Mathews, an address that does not exist in historical or current records and is assumed to refer to the barn on the property. In 1929 this neighborhood was flanked by the agricultural college which was two blocks to the west and the Experimental Station Farm which was three blocks to the east. It is likely that Mr. Clark was conducting his farming business either associated with the college or with the sugar beet industry which had been a major factor driving growth in Fort Collins during the first decade of the twentieth century. By 1927, when Mr. Clark applied for a permit ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 25 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 to build an addition onto 1112 Mathews, 927,475 bags of sugar were produced with sugar beets and represented a major need for labor. This demand for labor corresponded with an increase in population in Fort Collins, and as the population increased, so too did the demand for housing. Fort Collins expanded both via construction and the annexation of neighboring communities. The streetcar system that was introduced in 1907 was a response to the enlarging area and provided the transportation that was needed for the development of suburban communities that could reliably make their way into the city daily for work. 1112 Mathews was near the trolley line that ran south down College Avenue, making the neighborhood accessible and likely dooming its agricultural nature as the city continued to grow. This trend is reflected in the history of 1112 Mathews. Mr. Clark was a farmer by 1936, and assessor data shows that in addition to the extant barn he also had two other outbuildings that were likely associated with agricultural uses. However, not even ten years later in 1948 the updated assessor card shows these buildings crossed out, having been demolished. Mr Clark no longer lived at 300 Edwards and took up residence in 1112 Mathews, where he resided until at least 1962 where he was listed as retired. Following the long-term ownership of Mr. Clark, the home changed hands more frequently in the years that followed. Vernon Kimble owned the home in 1968, followed by Nancy Arbini, an employee of Rocky Mountain bank, who owned the home in 1973. A warranty deed was filed in 1977, and the next owner was listed as Albert Young. Another long time owner, Albert Young filed a quit claim deed in 2013, with the grantees listed as Albert Young and Rebecca Masler. Ms. Masler is currently listed as the owner of the home. This property is associated with the overall trend in Fort Collins of urbanization replacing agricultural uses south of the city center. The property reflects the importance that agriculture had in the early twentieth century and demonstrates the economic transition of the area from an agricultural basis to suburban living. 36. Sources of information: City of Fort Collins. Public Records. "Building Permits" Accessed online, August 25, 2019 > https://history.fcgov.com/collections/building-permits< Fort Collins Tax Assessor Records. From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. Archive located at 408 Mason Court, Fort Collins. Fort Collins City Directories, for the years 1910-1975. From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. Accessed online, August 25, 2019 > https://history.fcgov.com/collections/directories< Larimer County Assessor ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 26 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 2019 Property information record for 1112 Mathews Street. Accessed online, August 25, 2019 Sanborn Map Company. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps : Illinois. Teaneck, NJ :Chadwyck- Healey, 1925. Simmons, Thomas, and Laurie Simmons. 1992 City of Fort Collins Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture Historic Contexts. Report prepared by Front Range Research Associates for the City of Fort Collins Advance Planning Department. Willits, W.C. 1929 City Map "Fort Collins and Suburbs" From the collection of the Fort Collins Local History Archive. Accessed online, August 25, 2019 > https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/hm/id/1394/rec/18< VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ;No ܆Date of designation: 10/3/1980 This property is a contributing element of the Laurel School Historic District 5LR.463 Designating authority: United State Dept. of the Interior 38. Applicable Eligibility Criteria: National Register Fort Collins Register ; A. ; 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; ܆B. 2. ܆Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; ܆C. 3. ܆Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ܆D. 4. ܆Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. ܆Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) ܆Does not meet any of the above criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Associated with a pattern of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. 40. Period of significance: 1923-1948 41. Level of significance: National ; State ܆Local ܆Not Applicable 42. Statement of significance: NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION The property at 1112 Mathews is currently listed as a contributing element to a National ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 27 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Register Historic District. The residential property continues to contribute to the district as it has retained a high level of integrity, including location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Homes in the Laurel School Historic District should "reflect the ambiance of a late nineteenth/early twentieth century agricultural community", and the residential property retains the characteristics that contribute to this ambiance. Unfortunately the barn structure, which is an important feature that reflects the agricultural past of the property, has lost integrity to the extent that it no longer will be able to contribute to the district. The structure has lost all windows and doors, the floor joists on the ground level are severally decayed, the siding is heavily deteriorated and missing in large portions on the west elevation, and the roof structure is heavily deteriorated and open to the elements in several locations. Restoration of this structure would involve replacement of more than an estimated 40% of all remaining material, calling into question if the structure that results can be considered historic. FORT COLLINS EVALUATION The City of Fort Collins has specific guidelines regarding the evaluation of individual integrity. Applicable portions of the guidelines as of their most recent update on December 18, 2017 are addressed below: "1) Look at the property in relationship to other similar buildings in the community and in its immediate context to establish a comparative understanding of significance and integrity." The home at 1112 Mathews retains a visual and historical continuity with neighboring structures. Other residential homes on the street are visually from the same era and the historic district appears cohesive along this block. The barn is unusual among the other residential properties but clearly evokes a sense of agricultural purpose which is a key feature of the historic district. Unfortunately, deterioration has caused the loss of much of the structures physical integrity. "2) Consider the following guidelines in relationship to other aspects of integrity and evaluate the property’s overall integrity in sum. A property may retain eligibility if one or two desired integrity aspects are weak or lacking if it is otherwise in very good condition and/or is highly significant compared to other buildings of its type. Historic alterations that have taken on their own significance should be considered as potential exceptions to the guidelines below." ‡ In-kind replacement materials (including different materials with similar profile) may be ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 28 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 acceptable if the structure is otherwise relatively unaltered." The home at 1112 Mathews retains a high level of physical integrity, including original windows, doors, and siding. Additions on the south and east are of sufficient age to have garnered their own significance and were designed in a non-intrusive manner that does not affect the readability of the original structure. Non-original windows and siding on the shed roof rear porch are visually non-intrusive and do not damage integrity significantly. The bar does not appear to have much, if any, replacement materials. Many of the remaining historic materials are in poor condition. ‡ The majority of the original fenestration pattern (location and dimension of windows and doors) should be intact. o If not, primary elevation(s) most important o Changes to two openings or fewer is usually okay" The original fenestration pattern on the home is intact. The original fenestration pattern on the barn is obscured by the loss of a significant portion of the west wall. While some window openings remain, it is unknown if these contained windows or ventilation screens. ‡ An open porch that has been enclosed with screen or glass is not disqualifying as long as no structural changes have been made (assumption of reversibility). o For half wall porches, historic half wall should be intact" The rear porch on the home is currently enclosed. It is not known if the original porch was enclosed or open. No major structural changes appear to have been made to the porch. ‡ When looking at additions, the following criteria are positive and support eligibility. o The addition is more than 50 years old. o It is set in from the primary planes of the structure. o It is no more than 1/3 the size of the original structure. o It is “hyphenated” with a transitional element that preserves the original shape of the structure. o It could be removed without loss of original historic fabric. o It is not readily visible from the right of way. o It is not a modern “pop top” addition o The addition is in character with the original structure o In general, it is subordinate in character and fades into background without competing with ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 original structure." The additions on the south and rear of the home are more than fifty years old, are set in from the primary planes of the structure, and are no more than 1/3 the size of the original structure. These additions have gained historical significance and do not detract from the integrity of the home. The south end addition on the barn is of unknown age, is not more than 1/3 the size of the structure, is not readily visible from the right of way, and could be removed without loss of original historic fabric. Given these criteria, the addition does not affect integrity. Given these assessments, the home at 1112 Mathews is considered to retain integrity and remain contributing to the historic district, but the barn has lost integrity to the extent that it is no longer a viable contributor to the historic district. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The physical integrity of the home is strong and retains its historical associations. The physical integrity of the barn has degraded to the extent that even with a restoration effort it is difficult to be sure that enough of the structure will remain to be considered a historic building. VII. National and Fort Collins Register Eligibility Assessment 44. Eligibility field assessment: National: Eligible ;Not Eligible ܆Need Data ܆ Fort Collins: Eligible ; Not Eligible ܆Need Data ܆ 45.Is there district potential? Yes ;'LVWULFWDOUHDG\H[LVWV No ܆ Discuss: The neighborhood is not cohesive enough in any of the Fort Collin's criteria to support a district nomination If there is district potential, is this building: Contributing ܆Non-contributing ܆ 46.If the building is in existing district, is it: Contributing ; Noncontributing ܆ VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: 001_1112 Mathews through 037_1112 Mathews Negatives filed at: Historic Preservation Program, City of Fort Collins ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 30 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 281 N. College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80522 48. Report title: Historic and Architectural Assessment for 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 49. Date(s): August 25, 2019 50. Recorder(s): Phillip Barlow 51. Organization: Barlow Cultural Resource Consulting LLC 52. Address: 4576 Tanglewood Trail, Boulder, CO 80301 53. Phone number(s): (303) 746-1602 NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and photographs. History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 31 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Site Photos and Maps ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 32 001_1112 Mathews_NW Corner 002_1112 Mathews_West Elevation Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 33 003_1112 Mathews_SW Corner 004_1112 Mathews_South Addition Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 34 005_1112 Mathews_North Elevation 006_1112 Mathews_NE Corner Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 35 007_1112 Mathews_SE Corner 008_1112 Mathews_East Elevation Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 36 009_1112 Mathews_North Elevation Detail 010_1112 Mathews_Barn, Looking East Down Alley Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 37 011_1112 Mathews_Barn, West Elevation 012_1112 Mathews_Barn, NW Corner Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 38 013_1112 Mathews_Barn, NE Corner 014_1112 Mathews_Barn, SE Corner Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 39 015_1112 Mathews_South Elevation 016_1112 Mathews_Barn, South Elevation Addition Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 40 017_1112 Mathews_Barn, South Elevation Detail 018_1112 Mathews_Barn, SW Corner Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 41 019_1112 Mathews_Barn, West Elevation Detail 1 020_1112 Mathews_Barn, West Elevation Detail 2 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 42 021_1112 Mathews_Barn, West Elevation Detail 3 022_1112 Mathews_Barn, East Elevation Detail 1 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 43 023_1112 Mathews_Barn, Framing Detail 1 024_1112 Mathews_Barn, Framing Detail 2 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 44 025_1112 Mathews_Barn, Interior Detail 026_1112 Mathews_Barn, Bracing Detail 1 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 45 027_1112 Mathews_Barn, Bracing Detail 2 028_1112 Mathews_Barn, Bracing Detail 3 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 46 029_1112 Mathews_Barn, Bracing Detail 4 030_1112 Mathews_Barn, Knob and Tube Wiring Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 47 031_1112 Mathews_Context_Neighboring Garage 032_1112 Mathews_Context_Alley View Looking East Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 48 033_1112 Mathews_Context_Alley View Looking West 034_1112 Mathews_Context_Neighboring Homes to the North Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 49 035_1112 Mathews_Context_Mathews Street Looking North 036_1112 Mathews_Context_Mathews Street Looking South Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 50 037_1112 Mathews_Context_Neighboring Homes to the South Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort ITEM Collins, 3, ATTACHMENT CO 80524 2 Packet Pg. 51 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins Residential Property Record Card, Photo dated October 1948 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 52 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Fort Collins Residential Property Record Card, Photo dated December 1968 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 53 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 2016 USGS Map_Fort Collins Quadrangle, arrow to 1112 Mathews Street ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 54 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Detail showing location of 1112 Mathews Street on 2016 USGS Map_Fort Collins Quadrangle ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 55 Resource Number: 5LR.2917 Temporary Resource Number: N/A Address: 1112 Mathews, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Location map. City of Fort Collins GIS Online Mapping tool. https://www.fcgov.com/gis/maps.php Building footprint and location on lot. City of Fort Collins GIS Online Mapping tool. https://www.fcgov.com/gis/maps.php ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 56 Review of Proposed Demolition – 1112 Mathews Street Barn 1 Landmark Preservation Commission 9.18.2019 Commission’s Role Determine if barn is eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. • If the barn is eligible: • Adopt a motion to begin the involuntary designation process. or • Direct staff to prepare report to SHPO and to sign off on demolition permit. • If the barn is not eligible: • Direct staff to prepare report to SHPO and to sign off on demolition permit. 2 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 57 Staff Findings of Fact 1. That the property at 1112 Mathews Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. 2. That the barn located on this property is in deteriorated condition and has been posted as dangerous by the Chief Building Official. 3 Staff Findings of Fact 4 3. That the barn is significantly deteriorated and has lost a substantial amount of historic integrity of Materials, Design, Workmanship, and Feeling. For these reasons, the barn would not be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 58 5 6 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 59 7 8 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 60 9 10 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 61 11 12 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 62 13 14 13 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 63 15 15 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 64 Review of Proposed Demolition – 1112 Mathews Street Barn 1 Landmark Preservation Commission 9.18.2019 Commission’s Role Determine if barn is eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. • If the barn is eligible: • Adopt a motion to begin the involuntary designation process. or • Direct staff to prepare report to SHPO and to sign off on demolition permit. • If the barn is not eligible: • Direct staff to prepare report to SHPO and to sign off on demolition permit. 2 1 2 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-1 Background • 1980: Property (house & barn) listed on National Register (contributing to Laurel School District) • 2019: Barn posted as “Dangerous” by Chief Building Official (CBO) • CBO: Barn not “Imminently Dangerous” - Needs to follow review requirements in Chapter 14 • Owner option to demolish or repair • 2019: Historic Survey - finds barn has lost substantial material; loss of integrity 3 4 3 4 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-2 5 6 5 6 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-3 7 8 7 8 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-4 9 10 9 10 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-5 11 12 11 12 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-6 13 14 13 14 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-7 Requests for Add. Information - Applicant 1. Please provide statement regarding your desire: demo or rebuild. 2. How long has the barn been in disrepair? When was property purchased? Was the barn in this condition when your family purchased the property? 3. Does the garage next door share the barn’s wall. If so, what happens to the garage’s wall if the barn is demolished? Or is the plan to keep the portion of the shared garage wall, and demolish the rest? 15 Requests for Add. Information – Staff How will demolition of shared wall between garage and barn affect continued National Register status of garage? • Is garage currently a contributing resource to property? Yes, the entire property (house & garage, other bldgs. if any) is a contributing resource. • What effect would demolition of shared wall have on garage’s status? Side of garage would be open; result in loss of historic integrity. Garage would likely become “dangerous;” new wall would need to be built or garage demolished. • Chief Building Official: OK to retain portion of wall that is shared by garage. 16 15 16 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-8 Staff Findings of Fact 1. That the property at 1112 Mathews Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. 2. That the barn located on this property is in deteriorated condition and has been posted as dangerous by the Chief Building Official. 17 Staff Findings of Fact 18 3. That the barn is significantly deteriorated and has lost a substantial amount of historic integrity of Materials, Design, Workmanship, and Feeling. For these reasons, the barn would not be eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark. 17 18 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 64-9 ITEM 4 - 629 S HOWES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THIS ITEM HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER 16, 2019 MEETING. Packet Pages 65-167 have been removed. Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 18, 2019 Landmarks Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 117 N SHERWOOD STREET – REQUEST FOR NON-HISTORIC ROOF MATERIAL STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Division Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for changing a roof on a designated property from wood shingle to a synthetic roofing product that simulates the appearance of wood. The alterations are proposed for the Boughton (Bouton) Carriage House, 117 North Sherwood Street. APPLICANT/OWNER: Anders Lindwall and Claire Boustred, Owners. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacing the wood shingle roof with a synthetic material. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to request a Certificate of Appropriateness for a change of materials on the historic Boughton (Bouton) Carriage House. Staff is recommending denial, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Standards contained in Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Boughton (Bouton) House property was owned by Jay H. Boughton, who was admitted to the bar in 1870. Upon relocating to Fort Collins in 1871, Mr. Boughton served as the first town attorney, the county attorney, the county judge, the President of the Board of Education and also served as an alderman and member of the Fort Collins City Council. Interested in public education, he was instrumental in introducing what is reputed to be the first kindergarten west of St. Louis, and secured passage of a law incorporating kindergarten into Colorado’s public-school systems. In 1893, Boughton turned to local architect Harlan Thomas to design his home, an outstanding example of the Victorian Shingle Style. On December 18, 1978, the Boughton House property, containing the main house, carriage house, and root cellar, was individually designated on the National Register of Historic Places (5LR.465), and subsequently listed on the Colorado Register of Historic Properties. In describing the house, the National Register nomination notes, “The roof, covered with cedar shingles, is a combination of hip and gable forms that has much more variety than the square floor plan of the structure would suggest.…Important to the setting are the carriage house and root cellar located to the west of the house. Built in 1904, the carriage house is L-shaped, in good condition, and retains its original appearance. A frame structure, it has clapboard siding and a [cedar] shingled roof with gables. A cupola lies in the center of the roof apex. The root cellar, built before 1900, is made of native rubble sandstone…” and as is evident from the photographs accompanying the designation, the tall gable roof of the root cellar is also clad in wood shingles. Packet Pg. 168 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 In 2014, Randy Everett applied to subdivide the Boughton property into a parcel containing the primary house (113 N. Sherwood), and the parcel consisting of this carriage house and the root cellar (117 N. Sherwood). A key concern staff expressed was that the buildings would likely fall under different ownership and could potentially be modified in ways that would erode their historic connection and weaken the property’s high degree of significance and integrity. To allay this concern, Mr. Everett placed a restriction on the properties that requires that any and all future exterior improvements receive a report of acceptability (a Certificate of Appropriateness) from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This restriction is recorded as a note on the approve Project Development Plan and carries forward with any subsequent changes in ownership. The carriage house property sold in 2017 to Anders Lindwall and Claire Boustred. The couple worked with Historic Preservation and Building staff to convert the carriage house into a year-round dwelling, receiving professional assistance through the Design Assistance Program and using the historic preservation exceptions for alternative compliance in the Building Codes. In June 2019, staff received a request from Added Value Exteriors to write a letter stating the requirement for a wood roof, to be submitted to the owners’ insurance company, which staff prepared. In August 2019, an application was submitted by Added Value Exterior to re-roofing the house using a synthetic roofing product instead of the required wood shingles. FINANCIAL PROGRAMS The property has received public funding from two different State Tax Credit projects and at least two Design Assistance Program projects. In 1995, previous owners Randy and Ruth Ann Everett received State Tax Credit funding to restore the house and re-roof the carriage house. In compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, both roofs were clad in matching wood shingles. A second State Tax Credit application was fully funded in 1997, for the rehabilitation of the carriage house to convert it to a guest suite. Additionally, both the Everett’s and the current owners, Anders Lindwall and Claire Boustred, have received City Design Assistance Program funding. The Boughton Property is designated individually on the National Register; however, as the property is not a designated Fort Collins Landmark, it does not qualify for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program. Additionally, while not a direct financial assistance program, the property owners have indirectly benefitted through historic preservation exceptions for alternative compliance in the Building Codes. PROCESS AND STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code provides the process for reviewing proposed alterations and changes to properties that have been officially designated as Landmarks, including applications for (1) Alteration of any land surface, including the addition or removal of any improvement to or from any land surface, that is within or part of any designated resource; and/or (2) Exterior alterations, including windows or siding replacement, or partial or total demolition of any designated resource. [(14-51)(b)]. Section 14-53(b)(1) identifies the Standards for review, which for this property are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The relevant treatment for this application is the Rehabilitation treatment which contains ten (10) Standards, of which all applicable Standards must be met. To understand how each of the ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standard’s for Rehabilitation work together, it is important to review the explanatory text found in “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.” The document, which was provided to the applicant, presents a clear hierarchy of priorities as follows: 1) identify, retain, and preserve the historic materials and features of a building and its historic setting; 2) protect and maintain those materials and features, 3) repair those materials and features when the physical condition warrants it; and finally, 4) replace deteriorated historic materials and features only when “the level of deterioration or damage of materials precludes repair” and if so, “in-kind”. (see “Introduction” section, page 77). Packet Pg. 169 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 3 PROPOSED WORK FOR WHICH APPLICANT IS SEEKING A REPORT OF ACCEPTABILITY: Replace the historic wood shingle roof with a synthetic roofing product that simulates the appearance of wood. Staff finds that this request does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOTI) Standard #2, which requires that distinctive materials and features not be removed or altered without sufficient cause; Standard #5, which is unambiguous in regard to retention of historic materials, stating that distinctive character-defining features, including their materials and construction techniques, “will be preserved”; and Standard #6, which requires that the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. As City Building codes allow wood roofs on historic properties, and as historic wood shingle roofing is available, there is no compelling reason to find that the Standards cannot be met. STAFF EVALUATION OF REVIEW CRITERIA: Secretary of the Interior Standards Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Does Work Meet Standard? SOI #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; The building retains its historic use as a multi-family building. YES SOI #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. Staff finds that the proposed work to replace the historic wood shingle roof with a synthetic material would alter a distinctive feature that characterize the property. Further, there is no compelling reason for the change of materials, as the historic material is available for purchase and a replacement material is not required to meet building codes. NO SOI #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. Staff finds that this Standard is not applicable. N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Staff finds that this Standard is not applicable. N/A Packet Pg. 170 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 4 SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard, which is unambiguous in regard to retention of historic materials, stating that distinctive character-defining features, including their materials and construction techniques, “will be preserved.” The applicant’s proposal to change the roof’s materials do not preserve the property’s distinctive materials and finishes, and as appropriate historic materials are available, do not meet the standard. NO SOI #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. Staff finds that the proposed work does not meet this standard. Standard 6 provides requirements that materials match as closely as possible the historic roof in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. While the synthetic roof may be similar its design, color and, possibly, texture, as the historic materials are available, the proposed change of materials does not meet the standard. NO SOI #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. Staff finds that this Standard is not applicable. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Staff finds that this Standard is not relevant for the current application. N/A SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff finds that this Standard is not applicable. N/A SOI #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. The proposed synthetic roof is reversible and could be removed in the future without impairment to the historic building. YES Packet Pg. 171 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny the application for re-roofing the Boughton Carriage House at 117 North Sherwood Street with a synthetic material, finding that there is no basis for approval based on the following findings of fact: • That the Boughton Carriage House is subject to review by the Landmark Preservation Commission and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards by virtue of a recorded note on the PDP for the subdivision; • That the proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, because it fails to satisfy all applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as required for approval. Specifically, the proposed work fails to meet Standards 2, 5, and 6; • That wood shingles that would closely match the existing wood shingles in materials, texture, design and appearance are available for purchase; and • That wood roofs are allowed on historic properties and comply with the City’s building codes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Review Requirement 2. Design Review Application 3. Correspondence with Added Value Exteriors, June 2019 4. Applicant Photographs 5. Product Specifications 6. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 172 1 CITY OF FORT COLLINS TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS AND DECISION HEARING DATE: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 PROJECT NAME: Boughton House Subdivision Modification of Standard CASE NUMBER: MOD #140002 APPLICANT/OWNER: Randy Everett 113 North Sherwood Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 HEARING OFFICER: Marcus A. McAskin PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a standard in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zone district, specifically the dimensional lot width standard set forth in Land Use Code Section 4.8(E)(1), which requires a minimum lot width of forty feet (40’). The request has been submitted in advance of a formal request to subdivide the existing lot owned by the Applicant (containing approx. 0.72 acres) into two (2) lots. Parcel 1 (proposed) would be approximately 15,255 in area and would be twenty seven feet (27’) wide in the front portion (abutting North Sherwood Street), widening to forty feet (40’) in the middle portion of the proposed lot and ultimately to approximately one hundred and fifteen feet (115’) in the real portion of the proposed lot. Parcel 2 (proposed) would be approximately 16,035 in area and is the lot on which the existing historic single family home would remain. The Subject Property is a historic single family residential property located at 113 North Sherwood Street, in the older West Side Neighborhood near downtown Fort Collins. The Subject Property is located west of North Sherwood Street, north of West Mountain Avenue, south of Laporte Avenue, and east of North Whitcomb Street. The Subject Property contains an existing historic single family house and associated outbuildings and structures, known as the “Boughton House.” The historical property contains an accessory barn building with habitable space in the rear of the lot, and a root cellar building. The existing single family home would remain on one of the lots, specifically Parcel 2. The barn building would remain on the other lot, Parcel 1, to enable separate sale and conversion to a single family dwelling. As demonstrated in the application materials, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 would each have their own driveway access. The Applicant has not yet formally submitted a project development plan (“PDP”) to the City. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 173 2 However, the Applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for the Boughton House Subdivision Modification (the “Plan”) to City Staff. The Plan was presented to the Hearing Officer at the December 3, 2014 public hearing. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved. ZONE DISTRICT: N-C-M (Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District). HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 5:00 p.m. on December 3, 2014, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) PowerPoint presentation prepared by Staff including multiple photographs of the subject property; (3) Block Context Plan and Sketch Plan submitted by the Applicant; (4) affidavit of publication dated November 25, 2014, confirming publication of the notice of public hearing in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on November 25, 2014; and (5) notice of public hearing dated November 18, 2014. In addition, the City’s Land Use Code (“Code”), the Comprehensive Plan and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the record considered by the Hearing Officer. TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing: From the City: Clark Mapes, AICP, City Planner From the Applicant: Randy Everett From the Public: Chet Wisner, 508 West Mountain Avenue Jim Kelly, 430 West Mountain Avenue (email comment submitted to City Staff on October 27, 2014) FINDINGS 1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. 2. The Subject Property, located at 113 North Sherwood Street and consisting of approximately 0.72 acres, is situate in a neighborhood that has primary dwellings units located behind existing dwellings units, some on existing flag lots. 3. The Subject Property is known as the Boughton House property and is a prominent historic resource in Fort Collins. 4. The large Queen Anne style home located on Subject Property was constructed in or about 1894, with the barn/summer house building added within a decade. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 174 3 5. The Subject Property includes two gravel driveways, one to the main house and one to the barn/summer house in the rear of the existing lot. 6. The Staff Report identifies the Subject Property as being listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The Applicant confirmed this fact at the December 3, 2014 public hearing. 7. The Hearing Officer evaluated the request based on findings required under Section 2.8 of the Land Use Code governing Modification decisions. 8. During the Applicant’s presentation, the Applicant informed the Hearing Officer that the property was owned by Jay H. Boughton, who was admitted to the bar in 1870. Upon relocating to Fort Collins in the late nineteenth century, Mr. Boughton served as the county attorney, the county judge, the President of the Board of Education and also served as an alderman and member of the Fort Collins City Council. 9. The Hearing Officer finds that the problems and issues of substandard lot width, and flag lots in generally, are adequately addressed and resolved in this case. 10. The Subject Property is located within a unique block that has already been subdivided and developed with rear dwellings and flag lots, unlike any other block in the immediate neighborhood of the Subject Property. 11. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials submitted to the Hearing Officer is this case, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Modification of Standard (for Section 4.8(E)(1) of the Land Use Code) meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code. Specifically, the Hearing Officer finds as follows: a. The requested Modification of Standard is not detrimental to the public good. b. The Modification satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the Code – the Plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. DECISION Based on the findings set forth above, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following ruling: 1. The Request for Modification of Standard 4.8(E)(1) is approved for the Subject Property, subject to the following conditions: a. The Modification shall be applicable to the Subject Property exclusively. b. The Applicant shall submit a PDP within one (1) year following the date of this decision. If Applicant fails to submit a PDP to the City within said one (1) year period, this Modification shall automatically expire in accordance with Section 2.8.2(K) of the Land Use Code. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 175 4 c. If the Applicant submits a PDP to City Staff within one (1) year of this decision, the same shall, consistent with the Plan, propose not more than two (2) single family detached lots. d. The PDP shall be reviewed against the applicable District standards set forth in Division 4.8 of the Code and all applicable General Development Standards set forth in Article 3 of the Code, including but not limited to the Historic and Cultural Resource Standards set forth in Section 3.4.7 of the Code (“Historic and Cultural Resources”). e. The PDP shall contain a note requiring that any future single family dwelling unit located on Parcel 1 (the proposed flag lot) will be required to have a fire sprinkler system installed, which system shall be reviewed and approved in advance by an authorized representative of the Poudre Fire Authority. f. The PDP shall contain a note requiring that any and all future exterior improvements to the Subject Property, including but not limited to the existing single family home located on Parcel 2 and the barn/summer house located on Parcel 1, shall be required to obtain a report of acceptability from the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission. g. As the Subject Property is designated on the National Register of Historic Places, the Subject Property remains subject to all requirements and provisions of Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. 2. For the limited purpose of any subsequent review of the PDP submitted by the Applicant for the Subject Property, the dimensional lot width standard set forth in Land Use Code Section 4.8(E)(1), which requires a minimum lot width of forty feet (40’), shall be amended to allow for a minimum lot width of twenty seven feet (27’). This modification to the lot width standard shall be applicable to Parcel 1 only, as shown in the conceptual Plan reviewed at the hearing. DATED this 16th day of December, 2014. _____________________________________ Marcus A. McAskin Hearing Officer ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 176 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 177 1 Design Review Small Project Application 1. Applicant completes the application with a complete description, sketch, and photographs. 2. Applicant submits completed form. Any other information that describes the proposal may also be submitted. By Email: Send to preservation@fcgov.com. Electronic submission should include PDF with the completed form (“youraddress-app.pdf”). Include address of property in subject line of email. File size should not exceed more than 25 MB combined. In person: Development Review Center, 1st floor, 281 North College Avenue, 9:00am – 4:00pm, Monday – Friday excluding holidays. 3. Historic Preservation staff reviews the application. If approved, Historic Preservation staff will issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and email the applicant a copy of the fully approved application and certificate. Please note: some applications may require further review. Landmark staff will contact applicant when these situations arise. Detailed description of work should include dimensions, material specifications (including color), method of installation, and details of existing conditions. Every application must include photographs of existing conditions of property. Project Address:________________________________________________________________________ Designated Fort Collins Landmark □ Listed on State Register/National Register of Historic Places □ Applicant Name:________________________________________________________________________ Email Address:__________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number:__________________________________________________________________________ Owner Name: ___________________________________________________________________________ Owner Email Address:_____________________________________________________________________ Owner Phone Number:____________________________________________________________________ 117 North Sherwood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 X Josh Heminger - Project Manager - Added Value Exteriors Josh@addedvalue.pro 970-306-3314 Anders Lindwall anders@lindwall.com (906) 284-0648 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 178 2 Detailed Description of Project Scope: (required for all proposed work-please attach separate sheet if necessary) Diagram or Site Plan (show street, lot, building) (NOT required for reroofing, but required for all other scopes of work) By signing below, I attest that no additional exterior work or window replacement will occur under this application. Applicant Signature: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________ Remove and replace the existing wood shake roof damaged by hail, and replace with Cedur roofing system. Please see attached material sheet for reference. In compliance with current building codes including ice and water shield, (resheathing if it is space decking found at tear off), and complying with the current building code requiring class A fire rating and impact resistant. This is the only roofing system which keeps the current aesthetics of wood shake shingles while complying with current building codes. of class A fire rating AND impact resistant rating. This will allow us to maintain the historic look seamlessly while complying with code requirements. Additionally this provides the homeowner with a current roofing system and vastly lowers any probability of it needing to be done again in the future, along with additional safety standards which is everyones first priority. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 179 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 180 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 181 8/26/2019 AV19-1007: Anders Lindwall · AccuLynx https://my.acculynx.com/jobs/b8c68ac4-a1b3-486a-af95-fb836f1ca0bb/photos?view=tags 1/6 AV19-1007: Anders Lindwall Job Priority: Normal Packet Pg. 182 8/26/2019 AV19-1007: Anders Lindwall · AccuLynx https://my.acculynx.com/jobs/b8c68ac4-a1b3-486a-af95-fb836f1ca0bb/photos?view=tags 2/6 Packet Pg. 183 8/26/2019 AV19-1007: Anders Lindwall · AccuLynx https://my.acculynx.com/jobs/b8c68ac4-a1b3-486a-af95-fb836f1ca0bb/photos?view=tags 3/6 Packet Pg. 184 8/26/2019 AV19-1007: Anders Lindwall · AccuLynx https://my.acculynx.com/jobs/b8c68ac4-a1b3-486a-af95-fb836f1ca0bb/photos?view=tags 4/6 Packet Pg. 185 8/26/2019 AV19-1007: Anders Lindwall · AccuLynx https://my.acculynx.com/jobs/b8c68ac4-a1b3-486a-af95-fb836f1ca0bb/photos?view=tags 5/6 Packet Pg. 186 8/26/2019 AV19-1007: Anders Lindwall · AccuLynx https://my.acculynx.com/jobs/b8c68ac4-a1b3-486a-af95-fb836f1ca0bb/photos?view=tags 6/6 Packet Pg. 187 Class A Fire Rating without the requirement of special fire resistant underlayment Molded from natural cedar shakes Certified to 115 mph wind gusts Class 4 Impact Resistant UL2218 Freeze/Thaw Resistant Required Maintanence Life Cycle Costs Weight 3/4” Standard Thickness Multiple Widths including 12” Improves Insulation of Roof CeDUR other synthetic shake stone coated steel panels wood shake concrete & clay tile Yes Yes Yes Yes Available in 3 natural wood colors and molded from natural cedar shakes Yes 50 Year Limited Material Warranty Low Low Life Cycle Costs Yes Yes Yes No No Warranty No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Cracks easily, hail can cause severe damage Yes Wind damage not covered Yes-but limited Limited No No Yes although ice may accumulate in the cavity back Yes No not waterproof, can absorb 15% of water weight when wet lifetime limited material 25-50 year warranty warranty limited warranty 50 year limited material warranty Yes No High Performance Simulated Wood Shakes ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 189 CeDUR is a high performance synthetic roofing product and leader in simulated wood shake roofing products. Our State-of-the-Art Polyurethane Technology ensures long term durability and is developed to withstand nature’s harsh fire, hail, wind, and UV conditions while reflecting the enduring elegance of natural cedar shakes. CeDUR has passed the industry’s most stringent testing standards for wind, impact, and fire, all while obtaining a Class A Fire Rating without the use of a special fire resistant underlayment. Our proprietary technology allows us to incorporate a fire retardent into our product while maintaining its lightweight composition at just 170 pounds per square. Manufactured in Colorado, CeDUR outperforms our competitors while delivering beautiful aestethic appeal, everlasting dependability, and long term value for both residential and commercial applications. Discerning property owners choose CeDUR as the low maintenance, high performance roofing product to enhance the aestethic allure and value of any property. ABOUT US Walden~Staggered Look Shiloh~Staggered Look ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 190 50 YEAR LIMITED MATERIAL WARRANTY CeDUR features the unmatched durability of Polyurethane Technology and passes the industry’s most stringent testing standards. POLYURETHANE TECHNOLOGY COLOR SYSTEM Our color system is designed to weather to natural wood tones 2-4 months after installation. After the initial weathering process the color sets and remains relatively constant over the life of the product. Our fire retardant technology ensures maximum protection and difuses flames, even amidst nature’s most extreme conditions. FIRE RETARDENT TRUST SCIENCE Our breakthrough State-of-the-Art manufacturing process delivers superior protection and elite insulative properties. LIGHT. YEARS AHEAD. ECO FRIENDLY The use of natural wood is harmful to our environment, CeDUR offers the same aestethic appeal without threatening our Precision engineered at just 170 environment. pounds per square, CeDUR is the next generation standard of excellence in the roofing industry. Live Oak WE PIONEER THE FUTURE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 191 Similar to natural wood, CeDUR implements a proprietary color system that is designed to weather to a natural wood tone after the first 2-4 months of installation. After the initial aging process the color will set and remain constant over the balance of the life of the product. We produce our molds from natural cedar shakes, which create a variation in both the grain patterns and the overall appearance of the shakes. We feature 5”, 7”, and 12” shakes and a 3/4” butt, which gives deeper shadow lines making your roof virtually indistinguishable from natural cedar shakes. This produces a natural wood appearance and a unique variation of shakes in each individually packaged bundle. Installing CeDUR shakes is simple, we do not require any batten systems or special accessories, and our installation is exactly like natural cedar wood shakes. Our products feature color through pigmentation and no cavity back, meaning you can cut through our product with a utility knife. This reduces waste and offers superior aesthetic finishing in roof valleys, rakes, hips, and eaves. Any project is one installation away from high performance peace of mind for decades to come. COLOR SELECTION LIVE OAK Caramel Brown SHILOH Charcoal Gray WALDEN Chocolate Brown New New New Aged Aged Aged Enduring Elegance Ɣ Timeless Durability Walden ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 192 The most realistic wood shake replacement product available. What is a Class A Fire Rating and what is the best rating? Fire ratings (UL 790 testing protocol) are granted at one of three levels: Class A, Class B, and Class C. Class A is the highest rating a product can receive. The Class A rating indicates the product has equaled the testing industry’s most stringent fire resistance standard, a measure of how the roof will perform in severe fire conditions. CeDUR boasts a Class A Fire Rating without the need of a special fire resistant underlayment. Visit YouTube to view our Class A Burn Test video. What is the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc (UL) 2218 impact test and how do CeDUR shakes rate? There are four impact resistance ratings from 1 to 4, with 4 being the most impact resistant. In the Class 4 test, a 2” steel ball is dropped from a height of 20 feet on multiple surface points of a CeDUR shake. CeDUR passed the test with a Class 4 Impact Rating. How long has CeDUR shake been on the market? For more than 15 years CeDUR has proven itself a premiere roofing material in one of nature’s toughest testing grounds ņthe Western United StatesņZKHUH hail, wind, rain, fire, and snow conspire against all things man-made. How does CeDUR perform in high wind areas? CeDUR is certified to a wind speed of 115 mph (3-second gust), with a mean roof height no greater than 40 feet. Above 115 mph wind resistance installations are considered “High Wind” and CeDUR should be consulted for proper design. CeDUR is warrantied for wind speeds up to 90 mph. TIMELESS 50 Year Limited Warranty Virtually indistinguishable from natural cedar shakes No splitting, rotting, warping, or risk of fire Molded from natural cedar shakes with 5”, 7”, and 12” shakes and a 3/4” butt AFFORDABLE Competitively priced Low maintenance costs Long term value benefits Very low life cycle costs Improves roof insulation value Listed on American Family Insurance and State Farm’s premium credits product listing EASILY INSTALLED No special tools, hardware, or accessories are required Can be cut, nailed, and screwed Can be installed directly on a deck - no battens required Solid product with Color Through Pigmentation means superior finishes at hips, valleys, eaves, etc. WEIGHS 170 CeDUR 3590 Himalaya Road Aurora, CO 80011 8180-2224:0100 8180-2224:0101 CeDUR 3590 Himalaya Road Aurora, CO 80011 8180-2224:0100 8180-2224:0101 CONTACT INFO HEADQUARTERS 3590 Himalaya Rd Aurora, CO 80011 EMAIL info@cedur.com CONNECT WITH US LEARN MORE WEBSITE PHONE www.cedur.com Local (720) 974-9200 Toll Free (844) 974-9196 facebook.com/cedurshakes# youtube.com/channel/UC1a 2c2Y2ERcXslF_VMAB0Hg twitter.com/CeDURRoofing linkedin.com/company/cedur plus.google.com/+Cedurshakes MEMBER W E S T E R N S T A T E S R O O F I N G C O N T R A C T O R S CeDUR 3590 Himalaya Road Aurora, CO 80011 8180-2224:0100 8180-2224:0101 © 2019 CeDUR. All Rights Reserved. cedur.com | (720) 974-9200 | info@cedur.com Our shakes are molded from natural hand split 5”, 7“, and 12” shakes. This gives your roof rich beautiful texture, incredible realism, and unique grain patterns. A 3/4” butt end provides deep shadow lines and makes for stunning curb appeal. CeDUR Shakes give you the most attractive roof in the neighborhood with unsurpassed durability, reduced insurance cost, increased curb appeal, and increased insulation value (R-Value in excess of 2.0). TIMELESS WOOD BEAUTY CeDUR Shakes give your roof the beautiful wood look in a low maintenance lightweight polyurethane material. Finally you can have the authenthic wood look in a highly engineered synthetic roofing product that provides superior protection and value. The colors shown in this brochure or our website may vary from actual colors. Before making a final selection, be sure to review actual material samples and roof installations. CeDUR 3590 Himalaya Road Aurora, CO 80011 8180-2224:0100 8180-2224:0101 SUPERIOR VALUE PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY CeDUR meets and exceeds the roofing industries most difficult testing standards for wind, impact (Class 4 Impact Rating) and fire (Class A Fire Rating). CeDUR is a solid product throughout with no cavity back. Backed by a 50 Year Warranty, you can trust CeDUR to protect your home for decades. LASTING PERFORMANCE EASY INSTALLATION At only 170 pounds per square CeDUR is extremely lightweight and allows easy installation without the need for costly structural modifications. CeDUR installs like natural cedar shake. No special tools are required. CeDUR can be cut, nailed, and installed directly to the roof deck. To replicate the varied appearance of natural cedar shake, CeDUR uses a proprietary color system that ages to a natural wood tone. CeDUR is fire resistant and has a proprietary fire retardant system that does not allow a flame to propogate on the surface of the product. CeDUR Shakes are impact resistant and do not split, rot, crack, or decay. MEMBER W E S T E R N S T A T E S R O O (720) 974-9200 info@cedur.com 3590 Himalaya Rd Aurora, CO 80011 www.cedur.com CeDUR 3590 Himalaya Road Aurora, CO 80011 8180-2224:0100 8180-2224:0101 Beautiful wood look Low maintenance No splitting, rotting, decaying, insect or debris build up Energy efficient: R-Value in excess of 2.0 gives added roof insulation Stunning curb appeal - unique grain patterns, color, and texture Insurance savings - potential reductions in homeowners insurance cost Cool Roof Rated Product available (Golden Cedar) - Title 24 compliant Molded from natural cedar shakes with 5”, 7”, and 12” shakes 3/4” butt gives incredible shadow lines Solid product - color throughout - no cavity back Very low water absorption - resists freeze/thaw cycles State-of-the-Art Polyurethane Technology Ages to beautiful natural wood tones Installs like natural cedar shakes Wind resistant - certified to 115 mph wind (warrantied to 90 mph) - please inquire if your area requires a higher wind rating Lightweight - only 170 pounds per square 50 Year Limited Material Warranty Class 4 Impact Rating (best rating) Class A Fire Rating (best rating) - proprietary fire retardant system No fire resistant underlayment needed to achieve Class A Fire Rating HIGH PERFORMANCE SIMULATED WOOD SHAKES MEMBER W E S T E R N S T A T E S R O O F I N G C O N T R A C Prepared for you by ADDED VALUE EXTERIORS Precise Aerial Measurement Report 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Added Value Exteriors 599 Seth Place Castle Pines , CO 80108 Jeff Karstens tel. 303-513-5191 email: Addedvaluejeff@gmail.com ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 197 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. Measurements provided by www.eagleview.com www.eagleview.com/Guarantee.aspx In this 3D model, facets appear as semi-transparent to reveal overhangs. PO: AV19-1007 PREPARED FOR Contact: Leah Karstens Company: VALUE ADDED SERVICES Address: 7346 S Alton Way Centennial, CO 80112- 2327 Phone: 920-248-1504 TABLE OF CONTENTS Images .....................................................................1 Length Diagram.........................................................4 Pitch Diagram............................................................5 Area Diagram ............................................................6 Notes Diagram...........................................................7 Report Summary........................................................8 Total Roof Area =2,708 sq ft Total Roof Facets =14 Predominant Pitch =10/12 Number of Stories >1 Total Ridges/Hips =112 ft Total Valleys =27 ft Total Rakes =198 ft Total Eaves =213 ft MEASUREMENTS ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 198 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 IMAGES © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 1 The following aerial images show different angles of this structure for your reference. Top View ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 199 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 IMAGES © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 2 North Side South Side ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 200 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 IMAGES © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 3 East Side West Side ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 201 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 LENGTH DIAGRAM © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 4 Note: This diagram contains segment lengths (rounded to the nearest whole number) over 5.0 Feet. In some cases, segment labels have been removed for readability. Plus signs preface some numbers to avoid confusion when rotated (e.g. +6 and +9). Total Line Lengths: Ridges = 91 ft Hips = 21 ft Valleys = 27 ft Rakes = 198 ft Eaves = 213 ft Flashing = 36 ft Step flashing = 28 ft Parapets = 0 ft 27 14 21 13 21 21 22 13 13 13 17 16 16 17 +9 13 17 38 17 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 7 11 7 7 8 7 8 10 19 10 19 10 10 19 N S W E Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 PITCH DIAGRAM © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 5 Note: This diagram contains labeled pitches for facet areas larger than 20.0 square feet. In some cases, pitch labels have been removed for readability. Blue shading indicates a pitch of 3/12 and greater. Gray shading indicates flat, 1/12 or 2/12 pitches. Pitch values are shown in inches per foot, and arrows indicate slope direction. The predominant pitch on this roof is 10/12 10 → +6 +6 +6 +6 ← 10 10 → ← 10 1 → ← 3 10 → 10 → 8 → ← 8 N S W E © 2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 203 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 AREA DIAGRAM © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 6 Note: This diagram shows the square feet of each roof facet (rounded to the nearest Foot). The total area in square feet, at the top of this page, is based on the non-rounded values of each roof facet (rounded to the nearest square foot after being totaled). Total Area = 2,708 sq ft, with 14 facets. 526 313 14 613 14 14 14 302 56 288 198 198 79 79 N S W E © 2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 204 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 NOTES DIAGRAM © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 7 Note: This diagram also appears in the Property Owner Report. Roof facets are labeled from smallest to largest (A to Z) for easy reference. M K D N C B A J E L I H F G N S W E © 2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 205 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: REPORT SUMMARY © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 8 * Rakes are defined as roof edges that are sloped (not level). ** Eaves are defined as roof edges that are not sloped and level. Areas per Pitch Roof Pitches Area (sq ft) % of Roof 1/12 3/12 6/12 8/12 10/12 56.0 287.8 54.8 158.6 2150.5 2.1% 10.6% 2% 5.9% 79.4% The table above lists each pitch on this roof and the total area and percent (both rounded) of the roof with that pitch. Waste Calculation Table Waste % 0% 10% 12% 15% 17% 20% 22% Area (sq ft) 2,708 2,979 3,033 3,114 3,168 3,250 3,304 Squares 27.1 29.8 30.3 31.1 31.7 32.5 33.0 This table shows the total roof area and squares (rounded up to the nearest decimal) based upon different waste percentages. The waste factor is subject to the complexity of the roof, individual roofing techniques and your experience. Please consider this when calculating appropriate waste percentages. Note that only roof area is included in these waste calculations. Additional materials needed for ridge, hip, valley, and starter lengths are not included. Total Roof Facets = 14 Lengths, Areas and Pitches Ridges = 91 ft (5 Ridges) Hips = 21 ft (4 Hips). Valleys = 27 ft (2 Valleys) Rakes* = 198 ft (18 Rakes) Eaves/Starter** = 213 ft (16 Eaves) Drip Edge (Eaves + Rakes) = 411 ft (34 Lengths) Parapet Walls = 0 (0 Lengths). Flashing = 36 ft (6 Lengths) Step flashing = 28 ft (7 Lengths) Total Area = 2,708 sq ft Predominant Pitch = 10/12 Property Location Longitude = -105.0852831 Latitude = 40.5878159 Notes This was ordered as a residential property. There were no changes to the structure in the past four years. Measurements by Structure Structure Area (sq ft) Ridges (ft) Hips (ft) Valleys (ft) Rakes (ft) Eaves (ft) Flashing (ft) Step Flashing Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 9 All values in this table are rounded up to the nearest Foot for each separate structure. Measurement totals displayed elsewhere in this report are added together before rounding which may cause totals to differ. The table above lists each pitch on this roof and the total area and percent (both rounded) of the roof with that pitch. Online Maps Online map of property http://maps.google.com/maps?f=g&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521 Directions from VALUE ADDED SERVICES to this property http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=7346+S+Alton+Way,Centennial,CO,80112- 2327&daddr=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 207 Premium Report 3/29/2019 117 North Sherwood Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Report: 27567845 BUSINESSES NEAR THIS PROPERTY © 2008-2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. – All Rights Reserved – Protected by European Patent Application No. 10162199.3 – Covered by one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,145,578; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,515,125; 8,825,454; 9,135,737; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 8,818,770; 8,542,880; 9,244,589; 9,329,749; 9,599,466. Other Patents Pending. PAGE 10 The links on this page point to businesses near this property (marked by a green arrow in the maps). Restaurants http://maps.google.com/maps?near=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521&q=Restauraunts Fast Food http://maps.google.com/maps?near=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521&q=Fast+Food Medical Centers http://maps.google.com/maps?near=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521&q=Medical+Centers Hospitals http://maps.google.com/maps?near=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521&q=Hospitals Doctors http://maps.google.com/maps?near=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521&q=Doctors Gas Stations http://maps.google.com/maps?near=117+North+Sherwood+Street,Fort+Collins,CO,80521&q=Gas+Stations ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 208 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 1 Installation Recommendations Introduction - CeDUR™ Shakes CeDUR™ Shakes are inspired by the enduring beauty of natural cedar shakes. CeDUR™ is manufactured using state of the art polyurethane technology that was developed to withstand harsh: fire, hail, wind, and UV conditions. Discerning property owners choose CeDUR™ as the low maintenance, high performance roofing product that enhances the beauty and value of their property. The product combines the beauty of natural cedar shakes with unsurpassed durability and ease of standard shakes installation methods. CeDUR™ Shakes are a lightweight, fire, hail, and wind resistant product that are ideal for projects that demand a natural cedar shake appearance. CeDUR™ Shakes are x UL 2218 Class 4 impact rated x Class “A” Fire rated without the requirement of a special fire-resistant underlayment. ASTM E108, UL 790 x Rated @ an insulation value of R > 2.0 R factor (approximately 20% greater than natural Heavy Cedar Shakes) x 115 mph wind resistant rated for the “Standard Application” – at a 10” exposure. ASTM E330, UL 1897 (warrantied to 90mph) x Above 115 mph wind resistance installations are considered “High Wind Application” – consult CeDUR™. x Resistant to water absorption. x Colored throughout for stability and uniformity at cuts. Solid product, no cavity back. x Lightweight (170 lbs. per Square). x Resistant to rot, moss, and insects x CeDUR™ Shakes are protected by a 50 Year Limited Material Warranty. x Ideal for new construction and re-roofing applications for residential and commercial projects Design CeDUR™ Shakes are a realistic synthetic shake alternative with a nominal 3/4” thick butt edge which tapers to 1/8” thick. It is manufactured in three widths: 5¼ ", 7¼”, and 12¼” & four natural wood colors. The shakes are reproductions of natural wood cedar shakes. CeDUR™ Shakes provide a personal preference option for architectural compatibility, roof appearance, fire resistance and roofing weight. Refer to the CeDUR™ Shakes Technical Specifications for details and coverage based on exposure and spacing between shakes. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 209 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 2 Pitch The minimum roof pitch for CeDUR™ Shakes is a 4:12 slope. Applications below 4:12 are considered decorative. For pitches under 4:12, please consult CeDUR for proper installation recommendations. Roof Framing CeDUR™ Shake’s lightweight system allows direct replacement of existing roof systems without the structural evaluations and enhancements necessary for heavier roofing products. This product feature also holds true for new construction. No unusual design or engineering considerations are required. CeDUR™ Shakes weigh approximately 30% less than Asphalt Architectural Shingles and less than natural Heavy Cedar Shakes. CeDUR™ Shakes are approximately 80% less than the weight of standard Concrete Roof Tile. Decking Install CeDUR™ Shakes on solid decking consisting of either code-complying, 15/32” thick American Plywood Association (APA) rated plywood, APA rated wood panels, or other building materials meeting these minimum requirements in accordance with DOC PS-1. Temperature/Cold Climates – Storage & Installation CeDUR™ Shakes should be stored at temperatures above 40ºF and pallets should not be stacked more than two pallets high. CeDUR™ Shakes can be installed in temperatures as low as 20°F. Underlayment (For pitches 6:12 and above) No special underlayment is required for a Class A Fire rating. One of the following base underlayment’s is required as part of the normal application process. • One layer of Number 30 base sheet conforming to ASTM D 226 covering the entire roof deck; or alternatively, synthetic underlayment manufactured for and utilized for shingle underlayment purposes. Verify with the manufacturer that the specific base sheet is water resistant. • Ice Protection In areas where the average daily temperature in January is 25°F (-4°C) or less, install an ice barrier that consists of a self-adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet in lieu of normal underlayment at the eaves. Extend ice protection underlayment from the eaves edge to a point at least 24 inches (610mm) inside the exterior wall line of the building. • Valley’s Install a high temperature ice/water barrier that consists of a self-adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet in lieu of normal underlayment at the valley’s. To assure proper horizontal alignment we recommend that chalk lines be snapped frequently. These chalk lines should be placed on the underlayment so that the shakes are aligned by the tips rather than the butts. Chalk Lines should be snapped on the underlayment with the tips of the shakes following the lines. Do not snap lines on the CeDUR™ Shakes or use red chalk as the chalk may permanently discolor the shakes. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 210 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 3 Note: A base (dry in) underlayment may be installed covering the entire roof deck prior to the CeDUR™ Shake installation assembly described above as a temporary dry-in if desired or if required by local building codes. The CeDUR™ roofing system can be installed over existing temporary dry-in providing the material lays flat and tight to the roof deck. Underlayment (For pitches between 4:12 and under 6:12) In addition to one of the base sheet options described above, install one layer of ASTM D 226 type II 36-inch NO 30 underlayment at the eave line. After applying the starter shakes, a minimum 18” wide strip of interlay of ASTM D 226-type II (ASTM D 4869) No. 30 shall be laid over the top portion of the starter shakes, the butt end of the interlay course extending up-slope onto the sheathing and/or dry-in, approximately 9 inches above the fascia (For a 1 inch overhang). After installing the field shakes over the starter shakes, position the bottom edge of the next interlay on the 10-inch line of the interlay previously installed, with successive courses laid on the 10-inch line (or less depending on roof layouts less than 10”) Refer to the installation diagram following the written text. Note: Felt interlayment on the CeDUR™ Shakes is to be installed so it does not extend below a line that is twice the exposure above the butt (i.e. a 23.5" shakes at 10", exposure would have felt applied 20” above the butt). No felt should be visible between the side joints of the shakes (keyway). Refer to the CeDUR™ Shakes Technical Specification Details. Starter CeDUR™ Shakes “Starter” is to be installed at all eave-lines. Butts of the starter shakes and first course of CeDUR™ Shakes are to project equally beyond the finished fascia as determined by conditions to insure proper water drainage. Typical installation is a ¾” - 1 inch (25.4 mm) overhang. Where gutters are present, the overhang may be adjusted to insure proper water flow into the gutters. Secure each 15” CeDUR™ Starter with four corrosive resistant fasteners. Refer to the CeDUR™ Shakes Technical Specification Details. Gable Ends - Rakes Extend CeDUR™ Shakes approximately ¾ inch over gable - rake ends. Exposure A 10” (254 mm) weather exposure for straight-line installations is standard, and has been used for all calculations, testing and certifications, and the basis for the product warranty. When 1” staggered installation is used, shakes exposure is laid at 9” (229 mm) exposure and random shakes are at 10” (254 mm) exposure or 1" (25.4 +/-) stagger. The maximum recommended stagger is 2 inches (8” exposure). Spacing (Keyway) & Joint Off-Set CeDUR™ Shakes are resistant to water absorption. Expansion and contraction due to temperature or moisture content fluctuations (hot/cold, wet/dry or freeze/thaw) is negligible, thereby ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 211 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 4 permitting the choice of spacing between shakes to be based on roof appearance only. The minimum standard keyway is ¼” and the maximum standard keyway is 3/8”. Note: The number of CeDUR™ shakes per square are based on a nominal 3/8” keyway. Off-Set joints between courses a minimum of 1 ½”. Packaging CeDUR™ Shakes are packaged with 7 each of 5 ¼”, 7 ¼”, and 12 ¼” wide-pieces per bundle (total 21 pieces). The pieces are 23-1/2" length. When installed with a Standard 10” weather exposure and a 3/8” keyway, 168 field pieces or 8 bundles will cover 1 roofing square (SQ). Closer spacing between shakes will require additional field pieces. Color CeDUR™ Shakes will, by design, shift color upon exposure to the sun. This color change takes place gradually over a four to eight-week period (depending on time and intensity of sun exposure) and then stabilizes at a weathered wood color for the life of the product. Installation CeDUR™ Shakes are applied on solid sheathing / wood board and plank roof decks in the same manner as wood shakes, in accordance with National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) guidelines and applicable building codes. Refer to the detail schematics following the written text. Workability CeDUR™ Shakes may be sawn, planed, sanded, nailed, stapled, and/or screwed with common roofing tools and materials. It will not split to width in the traditional wood shakes installation manner due to its non-fibrous and uniform composition. The shakes can also be scored with a utility knife and snapped at the score-line. CeDUR™ Shakes requires no sealing or treatment to cut edges due to their closed cell structure which permits no significant water absorption. Fastening – Standard Application Secure each 5 ¼” and 7 ¼” CeDUR™ Shake with two corrosive resistant fasteners; and, each 12 ¼” CeDUR™ Shake with three corrosive resistant fasteners. Nails: minimum 11-gauge shank and 5/16” head, ring shank roofing nails (1 ¾” in length typically). Staples: 15/16" CRN by 16 GA by (1-7/8" in length typically). Building code dependent. Screws: Corrosive resistant screws with a minimum 5/16” head may also be used. Fasten a minimum 1” from shakes edge and place in the fastening zone 1” above the butt line of the course to follow. Fasteners shall be of sufficient length to fully penetrate a minimum of 3/4” into and / or through the decking. Do not fasten through the void area between shakes and roof deck unsupported by the CeDUR™ Shakes course below. Fasteners are to be driven flush to the product surface; and, not over driven or under driven. Fasteners are to be driven perpendicular to material face. Non-compliance to these fastening requirements may void the warranty. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 212 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 5 Hip and Ridge – Factory Formed & Two-Piece Field Assembled Pre-formed one-piece units (10” (254 mm) exposure). Two concealed standard roofing fasteners per side (see fastener section – increase length) are required at the over-lap. Install 1 layer of #30 felt under the hip & ridge pieces. Pitch Range for Hip & Ridge - Factory Formed 4:12 – 7:12 Low Hip : Low Ridge. Above 7:12 – 11:12 Low Hip : Medium Ridge. Above 11:12 – 14:12 Medium Hip : High Ridge. Above 14:12 – 21:12, Ridge to be field assembled per below instructions Two Piece – Field Assembled CeDUR™ Shakes supplied for this Hip & Ridge option are 5 1/4" wide field pieces. The Weather Exposure is the same as the field exposure of the roof shakes. Pieces are to be alternately lapped. Standard roofing gauge fasteners of sufficient length to fully penetrate roof sheathing / boards is required, placed two per side, driven a minimum of 1” from each edge, and 1” - 2” above the butt line of the course to follow. Fasteners are to be concealed by the subsequent overlapping unit. Install 1 layer of #30 felt under the ridge pieces. Refer to the CeDUR™ Shakes Technical Specification Details. 12-inch-wide - Piece Bundle (optional) Bundles of 12” CeDUR™ Shakes are available as an accessory option to provide additional pieces for valley/hip cuts. This accessory option helps to minimize waste and facilitate job site production. Snow Brackets (Optional) Standard snow brackets should be considered in areas with high snow load requirements. Metal Flashing Roof flashing shall not be less than No. 26 gauge (0.019 inches - .048 mm) corrosion resistant sheet metal. Sections of flashing shall have an end lap of not less than 4 inches (102 mm). Single crown (W) valley flashing shall extend 11 inches (279 mm) from the centerline each way. A 36” minimum width, high-temperature self-adhered polymer modified bitumen membrane underlayment shall be installed in the valley prior to valley metal installation. Reference Detail # 2 on page # 8 for the two acceptable methods of valley metal installation: Stripped in edge flanges or Hemmed edges secured with metal clips and fasteners which do not penetrate the valley flashing. Chimney / Skylight / Side Wall - Step Flashing Step flashing is to extend not less than 5” under the shakes and not less than 5” up the vertical surface that the shakes butt up against. A moisture-resistant barrier is to be installed between galvanized flashing and vertical surfaces. When chimneys, curbs, skylights, or any vertical protrusion through the roof are at least 30” wide; saddles or crickets are required. These flashings are to extend not less than 10” under the shakes. In areas with adverse weather conditions, extended metal flashing lengths and / or a 36” wide layer of pressure sensitive polymer modified bitumen flashing strip-in sheet are required. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 213 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 6 Step flashing must be used where vertical surfaces occur in connection with slopes. Flashing is to be formed of separate pieces, installed with each course of shakes, and lap no less than 3”. Counter-flashing is to be installed in a step manner to follow the joints of masonry and be raggled into mortar joints / properly surface mounted. Dormer Flashing Dormer flashing shall run up not less than 6” under the shakes and a minimum of 5” up the vertical interface. Windows, caps, and all other projections at points where rainwater accumulates are to be protected with metal flashing. Metal flashing is to be extended up under the shakes at the sidewalls and behind outside finish materials for a distance of at least 5”. In areas with adverse weather conditions, extended metal flashing height is recommended. Pipe Flashing All pipes projecting through roofs must have a deck flashing and be water proofed appropriately. The flashing flanges are to extend out on the roof not less than 6”. The flashing flanges are to be of sufficient length to cover the shakes course below the pipe, and extend up under the butt of the course above, as far as possible without being punctured by fasteners. Maintain a 1” (25.4 mm) shakes clearance around the pipe projection. Safety and Health Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) prescribed safety standards, are to be followed during product loading and installation; as well as and any subsequent roof traffic. Product Dimensions Available Sizes & Installed Weight Length 23 ½” Width 5 ¼”, 7 ¼”, 12 ¼” Thickness 3/4” tapered to 1/8” Installed Weight per 100 sq. ft. 170 lbs. Pieces per Bundle 7 pieces each of 5 ¼”, 7 ¼”, & 12 ¼” shakes Bundles per pallet 36 Coverage (based on 3/8” standard keyway) 10” Standard Exposure SQ/Bundle 0.125 Pieces/SQ 168 SQ/8-Bundles 1 SQ/Pallet of 36 Bundle 4.5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 214 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 7 CeDUR Diagrams – CeDUR installs in a similar fashion to Cedar Shakes Use CeDUR material where Wood Shakes are referenced in the following drawings (Used with permission from NRCA) 1.) Standard Field Lay-out Drawing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 215 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 8 2.) Valley Flashing Detail (Use either of the two options detailed below) 3.) Cricket Flashing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 216 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 9 4.) Apron Flashing 5.) Vent Pipe Flashing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 217 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 10 6.) Sidewall Step Flashing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 218 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 11 7.) Curb Mounted Skylight Flashing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 219 Update Effective January, 2019 Page 12 8.) Headwall Flashing ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 220 1 Application for Non-Historic Roof Material – Boughton Carriage House, 117 N. Sherwood Landmark Preservation Commission September 18, 2019 2 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 221 3 4 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 222 5 5 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 223 1 Application for Non-Historic Roof Material – Boughton Carriage House, 117 N. Sherwood Landmark Preservation Commission September 18, 2019 Commission’s Role Role of the Landmark Preservation Commission: • In order to approve: • Plans must be final • All ten Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation are met 2 1 2 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 224 Background 2014: Restriction requiring compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards; part of Modification of Standards for lot subdivision • Applies to both properties (113 & 117 N. Sherwood) • Retain shared historic character, Nat. Reg. status Public Funding and Incentives: • State Tax Credits, c.1993 and 1997; included wood roof • Design Assistance Program funds • Alternative compliance for historic buildings June 2019: Request for letter to insurance re: requirement for wood roof 3 4 3 4 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 225 5 6 5 6 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 226 7 Requests for Additional Information Applicant: 1. Please provide samples of proposed material and an original cedar shingle. 2. Clarify that the proposed change is to the one structure. 3. Statement from homeowner about why they are proposing the change. 4. Why have they chosen this particular material as the replacement? Staff: 5. How often does subdivision of historic properties occur? 6. City wood roof requirements, and exemptions for historic structures. 8 7 8 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 227 Requests for Add. Information – Staff Response How often does subdivision of historic properties occur? • Information not tracked; on average once or twice/year • Most often, barn/carriage house/garage separated from house City wood roof requirements • Allowed on all historically designated buildings; fire‐rated class C or better • CBO: Impact resistance not rated nationally; good performance – last many years, survive multiple hail events • Incentives: State Tax Credits, 0% Rehabilitation Loans, Historic Fund Grants 9 Staff Findings of Fact 1. That the Boughton Carriage House is subject to review by the Landmark Preservation Commission and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards by virtue of a recorded note on the PDP for the subdivision; 2. That the proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, because it fails to satisfy all applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as required for approval. Specifically, the proposed work fails to meet Standards 2, 5, and 6; 3. That wood shingles that would closely match the existing wood shingles in materials, texture, design and appearance are available for purchase; and 4. That wood roofs are allowed on historic properties and comply with the City’s building codes. 10 9 10 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Revised Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 228 To whom it may concern, Anders & Claire Lindwall 117 N. Sherwood Street Fort Collins, Co, 80521 Wednesday, 18th September, 2019. My husband Anders and I have been slowing renovating The Barn at 117 N. Sherwood street for the past couple years. It has been a joy and privilege and we initially were drawn to the property because of its history and our desire to restore and maintain the structure of this unique historic landmark here in Fort Collins. For the most part we have been able to keep the integrity of the original design, however, we are at the point where we will be moving forward with restoring the shingles on our roof and have some concerns. For the safety of our family, we ask that you would consider allowing us to use a composite roofing material. The beauty of this product is it's fire retardant nature, it's longstanding nature and its resemblance to that of the current shingles. We have spoken to Jim Lynxweiler from the Poudre Fire Authority. Our home is already viewed as a fire hazard due to it being hard to access from the road. An easement with our neighbors has been drawn up for a fire vehicle to gain access to the property. Having dried wood on top of the home makes it all the more dangerous and susceptible to the structure catching fire, add to that the fact that the majority of this structure is composed of over a 100 year old dry wood. The belief is that it could burn in a matter of minutes! The overwhelming feeling the Jim Lynxweiler at the Poudre Fire Authority has, is that a composite roof is much safer than a wood shingled roof and would be the strongly recommended route. Some things to consider ... The roofing material is tighter and easier on the structure itself, aiding in the longevity of the building. The roofing material will only be viewed from 300 ft away, and is impossible to tell the difference from afar. Cedur Composite Shakes are Class A fire retardant This roofing material comes with a lifetime warranty. Again we would like to stress that aside from these shingles, we have opted for materials in our restoration project that have truly persevered and retained the original design and look of the building. What small difference the composite option may give up in esthetic we will gain in safety and it will also aid in the longevity and life of the building. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen and consider this option, Anders & Claire Lindwall anders@lrndwall.co Ill (906) 284-0648 claireboustred@gmail.co... Ill (970) 371 -5770 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT B Applicant Statement & Documents Packet Pg. 229 HEA.Rr.--IG DA TE: PROJECT ·AME: C E lUMBER: APPLIC 1T/O~ HEARING OFFICER; \ ednesday. December 3. _014 Boughton House ubd.ivision fodification of tandard i OD #L40002 Rand Everett 113 orth Sherwood treet Fon Collins. CO 80524 Marcus A. McAskin PROJECT DE CRIPTIO ': This is a request for a stand-alone Modification of a stan~d ~ the reighborhood · Mediwn Density -C- z.one district. specifically the dimensional lot width standard ses: focth in Land se Code ection 4.8(E 1 . which requires a minimum lot 'A<idth of forty feet (40. ). The request has been submitted in advance of a formal request to subdivide the existing lot owned b> the Applicant (cornaioiog approx. 0.72 acres into two 2) lots. Parcel J (proposed) w be approximately 15,255 in area and would be twenty seven feet (2T) wide in the from portion abutting orth herwood treet) widening to fony feet ( 40 ') in the middle portion of the proposed ot and ultimately to approximately one hundred and fifteen feet (115') in the real portion of the proposed lot. Parcel 2 (proposed) ould be approximately 16 035 in area and is the lot on which the existing historic ingle family home would remain. The ubject Property is a historic single family residential property located at 113 onb he.rw d treet. in the older est ide eigbborhood near downtown Fort Collins. The ubject Property is located west of orth bcrwood treet, north of West Mountain A venue south of Laport A venu , and east of orth Wlriu:omh treet. The ubJect Property coma.ins an existing historic single family house and as ociated outbuilding and tructures. known as the -Boughton House. ' J he historical property coutains an ac e sory barn building with habitable pace in th r ar of the lot and a r t cellar · · . The existing ingle family horn would remain on on of the lots. specjficalJy Par~J 2 The~ build~ng woul~ remain on the other Lot Parcel I, to enable eparat sale and convern n Lo a single family d~ellmg. As demonstrated in the appli ation m t rial . Parcel I and Pared 2 would each have their own driveway access. The Applicant has not yet fonnalJy submitted a project d velopment plan ( 'PDP ) to the i . ITEM 5, EXHIBIT B Applicant Statement & Documents Packet Pg. 230 Secrd:ary of the Interior' · tandards for Rehabilitation Rehabilitation i defined as the act or proce of making possible a compatibl~ use for a p~pe~ ~ugh repair, alterations, and additions while preserving tho e portion or features which convey its historical, ultural, or architectural alues. Rebabilita · 1. property will be used as it was hi torically or ~e give~ a ne~ use that require minimaJ change to its di tinctive materials, features space , and spatial relat1onsh1ps. Rehabilita · · 2. Th hi toric character of a property will be retained and pre erved. he . remo al of distincti e material or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that charactenze a prop rty will be a oided. Rebabilita · 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and u e. Change that crea1e a false n of hi torical de elopment, uch as adding conjectural features or elements from other histori propertie , will not be undertaken. Rebabilit.a · 4. Change to a property that ha e acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Rebabili 5. Distincti e material , feature , fini he , and construction techniques or example of cra.ft:smansbip tbat. chara terize a property will be pre erved. Rehabili '-. Deteriorated hi toric features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the e erity of deteri,,...., .... ,,- requir replacement of a distincti e feature, the nev featur will match the old in de ign. col r. and, wh re po ible, material . Replacement of mi ing featur will be ub tantiated b d and phy ical e idence. Rehabili · 7. Chemical or ph ical treatment , if appropriate will be undertaken u ing the gentle t means pos ible. Trcannents that cau e damage to hi toric mat rial will not be u d. Rehabili · 8. A.rcheological re ource will be protected and pre erv d in place. I uch re ource must be disturbed.. miugation mca ures, ill b u11dertaken. Rehabili 9. ew addition ·, e teri r alteration , or relat d ne, con truction \! ill n t de tro hi_ tori ~ eature. and ~atial rel lion~hip · that chara t rize the prop rty. Then " ' , ork hall be d1fi~erentiated from the old and \i 11~ be c~mpa11ble, ith the hi toric mat ri I , feature , iz , cale and propon1on. and to p tect th mt gnly of the prop rty and it en ironment. ~ebabilita · . 1 . e~ ddition · and adjacent or related nev con truction will b undertak n in ~ch a ~anner tha1. if rem eel in the future, thee cntiul form and integrity fthc hi t ric property and 1L en 1ronment w Jd be unimpaired. ITEM 5, EXHIBIT B Applicant Statement & Documents Packet Pg. 231 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT C Applicant Roof Photos Packet Pg. 232 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT C Applicant Roof Photos Packet Pg. 233 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT C Applicant Roof Photos Packet Pg. 234 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 235 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 236 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 237 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 238 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 239 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 240 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 241 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 242 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 243 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 244 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 245 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 246 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 247 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 248 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 249 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 250 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 251 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 252 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT D CeDUR Product Information Packet Pg. 253 Photos of Materials Samples Provided to the Commission at Hearing ITEM 5, EXHIBIT E Photos of Material Samples Packet Pg. 254 . Photos of Current Shingle Provided to the Commission at Hearing ITEM 5, EXHIBIT E Photos of Material Samples Packet Pg. 255 ITEM 5, EXHIBIT F Answers to Commission Questions Packet Pg. 256 (ft) Parapet s (ft) 1 2097 61 21 27 113 153 37 28 0 2 396 20 0 0 42 39 0 0 0 3 215 11 0 0 43 22 0 0 0 2 3 1 N S W E © 2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 206 © 2019 Eagle View Technologies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 202 T O R S A S S O C I A T I O N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 196 F I N G C O N T R A C T O R S A S S O C I A T I O N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 195 A S S O C I A T I O N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 194 POUNDS PER SQUARE ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 193 available but not standard High costs Medium costs Low life cycle costs cleaning debris from behind High costs due to breakage Lifespan is 20-50 years Wood shake would have some r value No No No 1.70 lbs/sq ft 1.5-2 lbs/sq ft 2.5-3 lbs/sq ft 1.25-1.75 lbs/sq ft 6-15 lbs/sq ft High fire resistance maintenance required Moderate to High -broken tiles Low Moderate replacement for breakage/curling *Information gathered from manufacturer’s specifications, promotional literature, websites, independent testing laboratories and published industry statistics. ©2018 CeDUR CeDUR Comparison www.cedur.com No Solid product with color throughout (no cavity back) Yes No cavity back creates need for special flashing and allows insects/debris buildup Yes No Yes No No No No ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 188