Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/2020 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingPage 1 Meg Dunn, Chair Meeting to be conducted remotely. Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair See below for instructions on how Mollie Bredehoft, Co-Vice Chair to attend online or by phone. Michael Bello Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Vacant Seat Regular Meeting May 20, 2020 5:30 PM Landmark Preservation Commission AGENDA As required by City Council Ordinance 061, 2020, a determination has been made that holding an in-person hearing would not be prudent and that the matters to be heard are pressing and require prompt consideration. The written determination is contained in the agenda materials. This remote Landmark Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:15 p.m. Participants should try to join prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/98187397204. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: Please dial 669-900-9128 and enter Webinar ID 981 8739 7204. Keep yourself on muted status. For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Commission for its consideration must be emailed to kmcwilliams@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Provide Comments via Email: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing comments to kmcwilliams@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2020. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES 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 regular meeting of the Commission. 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 Page 3 • 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. 609 S COLLEGE – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed rear addition and rehabilitation work on a single-family residential historic building at 609 S College Avenue, converting the building to a mixed- use function as an extension of The Music District. APPLICANT: John Dengler, Architect OWNER: South College 609 LLC 4. 600 MATHEWS STREET, THE E.D. BALL PROPERTY – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to make modifications to the property for ease of use. This includes demolition of a portion of a c.1921 addition and replacement with a new addition, and modifications to the porch, windows, and doors of the property. APPLICANT: Taylor Meyer, VFLA OWNER: Susan and Douglas Naffziger • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Date: Roll Call Bello Bredehoft Knierim Michell Murray Nelsen Vacant Wallace Dunn Vote N/A  8 present Consent - 1 & 2 - February Minutes and Staff Design Review Report Bello Murray Knierim Michell Wallace Bredehoft Nelsen Vacant Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes 8:0 3 - 609 S College Development Review Murray Knierim Michell Wallace Bredehoft Nelsen Vacant Bello Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes 8:0 4 - 600 Mathews Street Design Review Knierim Michell Wallace Bredehoft Nelsen Vacant Bello Murray Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A RECUSED Yes Yes 7:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 5/20/2020 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! Visitor Sign-In Meeting Held Remotely Via Zoom. Speakers stated their name for the record. The Secretary filled out the sign in sheet. DATE: 5/20/20 Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance John Dengler Architect for 609 S. College Taylor Meyer, VFLA Design Rep. for 600 Mathews Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 5/20/20 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC February Hearing 2. Staff Design Review Decisions Report DISCUSSION AGENDA: 3. 609 S. College Ave Development Review • Citizen emails/letters: o None • Att 5 – Color and Materials Board (added to packet on 5/12/20) • Att 6 – Roof Egress Skylight (added to packet on 5/18/20) • Att 7 – Applicant Presentation (added to packet on 5/19/20) 4. 600 Mathews Design Review • Citizen emails/letters: o None • Edits made to Staff Report, Staff Presentation and Draft Report Letter on 5/19/20 • Att 6 - Applicant response to LPC WS questions (added 5-19-20) • Att 7 - Sample Cost Calculator report - windows (added 5-19-20) EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: None CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO The following disclosure statement is submitted to the Clerk of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to the requirements of Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and, to the extent applicable, Section 24-18-109(3)(a), C.R.S. or pursuant to City of Fort Collins Personnel Policy 5.7.2.F. Name: Title: Decision(s) or contract affected (give description of item to be addressed by Council, Board, Service Area Director, etc.): Brief statement of interest: Date: Signature: REMOVAL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I affirm that the above-stated conflict of interest no longer exists. Date: Signature: cc (if Councilmember or Board or Commission member): City Attorney and City Manager cc (if City employee): HR Director Updated: March 2014 600 MATHEWS STREET, THE E.D. BALL PROPERTY – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION – DESIGN REVIEW Landmark Preservation Commission Member Mike Bello Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 20, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2020 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the February 19, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC February 19, 2020 Minutes – DRAFT 2. Remote Hearing Request Form Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 February 19, 2020 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Mollie Bredehoft Fort Collins, Colorado Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins Regular Meeting February 19, 2020 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bredehoft, Dunn, Knierim, Murray, Nelsen, Simpkins, Wallace ABSENT: Bello, Michell STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager New member, Kurt Knierim, introduced himself and shared his credentials. He spoke briefly about the importance of preservation and the Commission. • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from consent. • STAFF REPORTS Ms. McWilliams reported on a presentation about Historic Preservation survey work given by the City’s consultant for surveying, Sherry Albertson-Clark, at last night’s Council meeting. [Secretary's Note: The video of the referenced presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1fnoCoj9DY&feature=youtu.be] • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 2 February 19, 2020 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES 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 regular meeting of the Commission. Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the February 19, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Mr. Knierim seconded. The motion passed unanimously. • DISCUSSION AGENDA Chair Dunn recused herself from this item and Vice Chair Wallace acted as Chair. 3. THE LOIS STRUBLE PROPERTY AT 129 NORTH MCKINLEY AVENUE - APPLICATION FOR FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION: This item is to consider the request for a recommendation to City Council for landmark designation of the Lois Struble Property at 129 N. McKinley Ave. APPLICANT: Kim Baker Medina and Ramon Medina Aguilera Staff Report Mr. Bertolini presented the staff report. He provided background on the property. He explained the property is being nominated under Standard 3, Design/Construction, and meets all seven of the Secretary of Interior aspects of integrity. He reviewed the role of the Commission and the applicable codes. Applicant Presentation Ms. Medina addressed the Applicant presentation. She stated the desire to honor the memory of Lois Struble. She said that while this property is being recognized for architecture, the importance of working-class people like Lois Struble to the history of Fort Collins as well. Public Input Heather Navratil, a neighbor of the property, spoke to the Commission, sharing her memories of Lois Struble. She talked about other aspects of the historic homes in the neighborhood and stressed the importance of preservation. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Murray said the research was very well done. Ms. Nelsen said it was a very well-preserved home and agreed it was significant under Standard 3. Ms. Wallace asked Staff about other post WWII properties designated in the City. Mr. Bertolini said there are a few, but they are rare. Mr. Murray asked about the possibility of creating a historic district. Ms. Medina explained her efforts to generate interest in a district among the residents of the neighborhood and commented about the varied architectural styles represented there. Mr. Murray commented that after WWII, with many soldiers going to school through the GI Bill, many people turned garages into apartments, and the basement apartment was something new. He also pointed out Ms. Stroud’s husband being in uniform in the photo. He added that the contractor may have been a mason due to all the brick, and stated it is a beautiful building. Acting Chair Wallace stated the property does seem to meet all seven aspects of integrity. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 February 19, 2020 Mr. Murray commented that the garage door was probably original. Ms. Medina stated that it was. Mr. Murray stated that the energy savings resulting from preserving the building, the significance of the neighborhood and growth patterns and keeping it a single-family neighborhood are all ways that this will promote the policies and purposes of the City. Commission Deliberation Ms. Nelsen moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend that City Council adopt an ordinance to designate the Lois Struble Property at 129 N. McKinley Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark, finding that this property is eligible for its significance to Fort Collins under Standard 3, design/construction, as supported by the analysis provided in the staff report dated February 19, 2020, and that the property clearly conveys this significance through all seven aspects of integrity; and finding also that the designation of this property will promote the policies and purposes of the City as specified in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Simpkins seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Dunn returned to the meeting. Ms. Wallace excused herself from the rest of the meeting. 4. 720 W PROSPECT (EMMA BROWN/SUSAN WINTER HOUSE) – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Exterior rehabilitation work (window rehab, in-kind stucco repair and paint, rehab wood barge rafters and rafter tails, replacement asphalt roof, new half- round gutters and downspouts) on the landmarked residence. Construction of a new three-story apartment building behind the historic residences. APPLICANT: Ian Shuff, alm2s; CSU Research Foundation /Maximo Development Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She explained the Commission is the decision maker for the design review but will make a recommendation to the decision maker for the development review, which is why they are two separate agenda items. Ms. Bzdek provided background information on the property and discussed the proposed rehabilitation work. She stated the role of the Commission is to consider the request for a certificate of appropriateness and either approve or deny the application for alterations to this particular building which is part of the overall development project. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff, alm2s Architects, stated the applicant intends to rehabilitate the exterior of this property and convert the interior into two one-bedroom apartments. He discussed proposed changes and showed slides of existing conditions and proposed plans. He detailed window conditions and provided a window rehabilitation schedule. Public Input None. Commission Questions Mr. Murray asked if the stucco has been painted. Mr. Shuff replied in the affirmative and stated the proposed treatment has enough elasticity to allow a bit of movement. He stated painting the stucco provides a sealant and stated he does not plan to install a weather barrier from the inside. Ms. Nelsen asked about the insulation plan for the walls. Mr. Shuff replied it will likely be blown-in without a vapor barrier. Ms. Nelsen asked about the visible cold joint between the patch and existing stucco. Mr. Shuff discussed the complexity of the stucco repair noting the repair will be obvious; however, it is on a non- dominant elevation. Commission Discussion Chair Dunn requested the Commission discuss how this work meets the standards. Mr. Murray discussed the installation of the vinyl windows, which are currently functioning, and suggested the wood ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 February 19, 2020 sashes should eventually be replaced at least once the vinyl windows fail. Ms. Simpkins asked if the owner would be required to return to the Commission for replacement of those vinyl windows. Ms. Bzdek replied in the affirmative. Ms. Simpkins and Ms. Nelsen agreed the vinyl windows do not need to be replaced for now. Chair Dunn asked Mr. Shuff if the hopper windows would be rehabilitated. Mr. Shuff replied in the affirmative. Chair Dunn requested the Commission address spatial issues. Ms. Bredehoft stated she likes the relationship of the backyard better than when they saw this last year. Ms. Simpkins agreed. Ms. Bredehoft commented that the driveway placement was also improved since last year’s plan. Chair Dunn agreed. Mr. Murray stated he was glad to see the rehabilitation of the hopper windows. Chair Dunn reviewed other standards. Ms. Nelsen requested input regarding the visible stucco patching. Mr. Murray recommended the applicant get a historic mason to get the best match. Mr. Knierim noted the fix is necessary. Ms. Simpkins acknowledged the repairs must be made and stated they will not likely be visible to most people. Chair Dunn said most people wouldn’t see it and it would be a good solution. Ms. Bredehoft agreed. Ms. Bredehoft commented on the trees shown in the site plan and suggested keeping them far enough from the house to avoid future issues. She also cautioned the applicant to be mindful of the overspray from irrigation. Ms. Nelson stated this is a good use of the property and she appreciated the work that went into the design. Ms. Bzdek commented on items that may ultimately be conditions of approval, including stucco issues and future vinyl window replacement. Commission Deliberation Ms. Simpkins moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the plans and specifications for alterations to the Emma Brown/Susan Winter House at 720 West Prospect as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior standards, understanding that the applicant may keep the existing vinyl windows that are currently in place, that they investigate the cause of the stucco damage and minimize the potential for future stucco damage after the proposed repair is complete, that they rehabilitate the existing hopper windows that are currently in the basement, and that more appropriate wood sash windows replace the existing vinyl windows when they fail. Ms. Bredehoft seconded. Ms. Nelson asked if it is within the Commission's purview to require the window replacement as outlined in the motion. Mr. Yatabe replied that is within the Commission's purview to the extent the Commission agrees that the current windows are not in keeping with the historic nature of the property. The motion passed 6-0. 5. APEX HAVEN APARTMENTS (PDP190017) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitation work on the windows, stucco, chimney, wood fascia; a replacement asphalt roof; and the construction of a new three-story apartment building behind the designated landmark at 720 W Prospect and the abutting residence at 730 W Prospect. APPLICANT: Ian Shuff, alm2s; CSU Research Foundation (CSURF) Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report and described the proposed project. She outlined the Commission's role and detailed the proposed changes to the historic home. Applicant Presentation Mr. Shuff discussed the existing condition and proposed renovations for the former 730 West Prospect house. He stated the building will include two units, one on the upper half and one on the lower half. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 February 19, 2020 He detailed the window treatment plan, noting most of the windows are original, and discussed the need for stucco repair and patching. Mr. Shuff discussed the recent contextual changes to the neighborhood noting the proposed project serves as a transition between the 5-story apartments and single-story homes. Shelley Lamastra, Russell Mills Studio, stated this property is in a high-density zone district and, though five stories are allowed, the proposal is for three stories to help contextualize the existing homes on the site. She discussed changes to the design of the project since the last meeting noting the access will still be off Prospect but will no longer serve a podium parking garage, but just the nine parking spaces between the buildings, five of which will be permitted for the two homes on the site. She detailed pedestrian connections and plans to protect as many evergreen trees along Prospect as possible. Ms. Lamastra discussed the work to restructure the property to move the outdoor gathering area closer to the multi-family units and away from the single-family residential uses to the east. She also noted all the landscaping surrounding the homes will be drip-irrigated so as to ensure the stucco is not sprayed by sprinklers. She went on to discuss other landscaping features. Mr. Shuff discussed the reduction in building mass and the south-facing court and gathering plaza. He stated the roof pitch and dormers on the apartment building have been changed since the Commission last saw this plan and he showed materials and color samples. He also spoke about stepping down the building to relate more to the single-family homes. Public Input None. Commission Questions Regarding the House Ms. Bredehoft asked about plans for the trash enclosure. Mr. Shuff replied they could use stucco, brick, or siding, whichever is less impactful to the residences. Ms. Bredehoft suggested it should be more similar to the Apex project. Mr. Murray asked about the rough opening of the window that is being removed to put in casement. Mr. Shuff replied the goal is to keep the opening the same size and clarified two windows will be removed. Mr. Shuff described the color palette that is planned to be used for the houses and their window sashes as well as the materials and colors for the new building. Chair Dunn asked about the removal of the stoop and subsequent stucco patching. Mr. Shuff replied the stucco will likely need repair and discussed options for patching. Mr. Murray commented on the poor stucco patch job that is present on the west side. Commission Discussion Regarding the House Chair Dunn noted the Commission will be making a recommendation on this house rather than a decision; therefore, a clear recommendation will help the decision maker. Mr. Murray commented on leaving the egress window as is and commended the idea of having the stucco porch in front of the door. He asked if there would be a way to securely store the two windows that are being removed so they could be replaced at some point in the future. He questioned whether the proposed door would offer a false sense of history. Ms. Nelsen questioned whether the door is overly ornamental and suggested it should be less prominent. Chair Dunn suggested researching a plainer door with a large enough window at the top to keep the pattern of the three windows across. Mr. Murray asked if there is an issue with the age of significance noting the concrete in the back is not historic. Ms. Bzdek confirmed staff does not believe that is historic. Chair Dunn commented on the improvement of the relationship between the two houses and noted the setting has already significantly changed. Mr. Knierim stated using a historic mason would be especially important on this building. Chair Dunn asked if the door and window on the house are both wood. Mr. Shuff replied in the affirmative. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 6 February 19, 2020 Commission Questions Regarding the Infill Mr. Murray asked if the new detention pond is a grassy usable space. Mr. Shuff replied it will likely only hold water in the event of a large storm event. He noted the pond will be lined and there will be a perimeter drain on the north side of the house. Ms. Lamastra stated the detention pond will have a 30" retaining wall and will not really be a usable space. She stated there will be some cobble in the bottom with potentially some seeded area on top. Ms. Bredehoft stated it is a huge improvement and she appreciated the Commission’s suggestions being incorporated. Chair Dunn asked why lap siding is being used on the building. Mr. Shuff replied it was incorporated on Apex and this will allow a relation to that project. He also commented on the use of materials to break up the massing. Commission Discussion Regarding the Infill Chair Dunn directed the Commission to examine the standards in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. Regarding massing and articulation, Ms. Simpkins stated it is a big improvement from the previous design. Mr. Murray commended the height step down. Chair Dunn commended the parking design stating it enabled more creativity with the building massing. Regarding materials, Ms. Nelsen asked if the brick is a full veneer. Mr. Shuff replied it is a full veneer with an air space. Mr. Murray commented the use of brick is more effective in bringing the building's height down and there is still an effective use of stucco, which is the predominant material in the houses. Ms. Bzdek clarified Code language stating each new material shall create compatibility by meeting at least two criteria, including type and color. Mr. Murray stated the brick aids in massing and in differentiating the new building from the older homes. He also stated the lap siding is not all that noticeable. Mr. Knierim noted the roof material also ties the buildings together. Ms. Simpkins commented on this Code section not making sense for stucco being the predominant material on the historic resources as the first story of the new building should not be stucco. Ms. Nelsen stated the proposed construction respects the Code section requirement in spirit as it does a good job of referencing the predominant materials. Other members agreed. Chair Dunn stated the windows meet Code criteria and the rooflines are drawn from the historic buildings as a reference which is an improvement over the previous design. Chair Dunn commented on the parking and trees which help keep the hobby farm feel. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the development proposal for Apex-Haven Apartments, finding it is in compliance with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: • The project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • The project design reflects massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with the historic context, creates a visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction, and meets the requirements outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7. • The proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources. Mr. Knierim seconded. Ms. Nelson appreciated the work that was put into this design and said it was well done. Chair Dunn commented that the two houses provide context for each other. She stated the changes roofline, addition of the greenery and openings, and the change in massing were excellent. The motion passed 6-0. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 7 February 19, 2020 • OTHER BUSINESS o Discussion with Erica Duvic, History Colorado Certified Local Government Coordinator Ms. McWilliams introduced Ms. Duvic and explained the review of the City's program being conducted this evening. Ms. Duvic commended the City's historic preservation program and Commission. Mr. Murray asked about the state plan. Ms. Duvic explained the process for the plan and stated a draft will be available in the next few months. Ms. Duvic reported on training webinars on tax credits, Secretary of the Interior standards, preservation plans, the national and state registers, evaluating economic hardship, education and outreach, and working with underrepresented communities. She also reported on upcoming events. Ms. Duvic commended the City's preservation staff and stated she has few comments on how the Commission conducts its meetings. The members introduced themselves and stated their professions. o Election of 2020 Officers (Chair & Vice Chair) Mr. Murray nominated Chair Dunn for Chair and Ms. Wallace for Vice Chair. Mr. Knierim seconded the nomination for Chair Dunn. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bredehoft stated she would be willing to be a co-chair, but only has one term left. Ms. Nelson stated she was unable to be a co-chair. Mr. Murray nominated Ms. Bredehoft and Ms. Wallace as co-vice chairs. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed unanimously. o Chair Dunn mentioned Annie’s landmarked gravesite and asked staff to make a list of City-owned landmarks and who is responsible for maintaining them. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Minutes prepared by 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. 11 Boards and Commissions Remote Hearing Item Request Form Submission of this form initiates review to determine if items ready for hearing are also considered “pressing and require prompt consideration” and that it would not be prudent to hear such items at an in-person meeting pursuant to City Council Ordinance 061, 2020. Board or Commission: Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson: Meg Dunn Date of Requested Hearing: May 2020 – December 2020 Staff Liaison: Karen McWilliams Agenda Item: Approval of Minutes of LPC Meetings Description: This is a request for the LPC’s ability to review and approve the minutes of previous LPC meetings. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. This item is being brought before the LPC during this time as it relates to operation and business activities that the City must continue despite the current crisis. Applicant Justification: The ability to review and approve minutes in a timely manner provides the Commission, applicants, and community members with an official and accurate accounting of LPC decisions and actions. This is critical to the on-going performance of the Commission, promotes transparency, and enables staff and the public to understand the LPC’s reasoning behind its decisions. Recommendations (If recommendation is denial, please include additional information): Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Council Liaison Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval Service Area Director Decision: Approval ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 20, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, APRIL 4 TO MAY 6, 2020 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. 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. The report below covers the period between April 4 to May 6, 2020. Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 334 E. Mulberry St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 6, 2020 328 W. Mountain Ave. Addition of security lighting to northeast entry of primary building. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 7, 2020 509 E. Myrtle St. Interior storm windows, exterior storm windows, and electrical upgrade. City Landmark and Landmark Rehab Loan recipient. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 7, 2020 546 Willow St. Replacement of additional conveyor belts (addition to previously approved work). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 7, 2020 625 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle), power wash brick, window & door replacement. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 7, 2020 315 Whedbee St. Replace south elevation vinyl siding (in-kind); in- kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 9, 2020 Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 2902 Rigden Pkwy. In-kind roof replacement, window repair on barn and garage, gutter replacement on main house. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 15, 2020 821 Peterson St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 16, 2020 220 E. Pitkin St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District (NRHP). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 16, 2020 328 Remington St. Field modification to previously approved work. Replace decking, add vents, add gutters, and painting wood trim (eaves, doors, windows). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 17, 2020 710 Mathews St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 20, 2020 618 W. Mountain Ave. Partial storm window replacement from aluminum to wood; exterior repaint. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 23, 2020 2902 Rigden Pkwy. In-field update to previously approved work. Discovered crumbling stucco along roof flashing. Approved repair to include patching up to full color coat. Approved April 29, 2020 140 N. McKinley Ave. Exterior paint. City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved April 29, 2020 100 First St. Repair of gazebo/shed in rear yard (non- contributing structure). City Landmark. Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved May 1, 2020 129 N. McKinley Ave. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Pending City Landmark (not reviewed by Council). Reviewed by staff under Municipal Code 14.4. Approved May 6, 2020 ATTACHMENTS 1. Remote Hearing Request Form Packet Pg. 14 Boards and Commissions Remote Hearing Item Request Form Submission of this form initiates review to determine if items ready for hearing are also considered “pressing and require prompt consideration” and that it would not be prudent to hear such items at an in-person meeting pursuant to City Council Ordinance 061, 2020. Board or Commission: Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson: Meg Dunn Date of Requested Hearing: May 2020 through Dec. 2020 Staff Liaison: Karen McWilliams Agenda Item: Discussion of Staff Approvals of Design Review Applications Description: This is a request to enable the LPC to discuss design review applications for work which has been reviewed and received final approval by staff since the previous LPC meeting. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. This item is being brought before the LPC during this time as it relates to funding, operation and business activities that the City must continue despite the current crisis. Applicant Justification: The ability for the LPC to discuss and inform the public of these final decision in a timely manner is critical to the quasi-judicial process. This is a means to provide the Commission, applicants, and community members with public notice of final decisions for these design reviews and informs them of the opportunity to appeal certain final decisions. Recommendations (If recommendation is denial, please include additional information): Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Council Liaison Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval Service Area Director Decision: Approval ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 20, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 609 S COLLEGE – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed rear addition and rehabilitation work on a single-family residential historic building at 609 S College Avenue, converting the building to a mixed- use function as an extension of The Music District. APPLICANT: John Dengler, Architect OWNER: South College 609 LLC RECOMMENDATION: Approval LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will provide a recommendation to the decision maker regarding this project’s compliance with the standards in Fort Collins Land Use Code section 3.4.7 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. BACKGROUND: The applicant has completed a conceptual development review process with City staff and is now seeking a recommendation from the Commission regarding compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, in preparation for review as a Basic Development Review (BDR) project. The City’s survey professional provided an intensive-level site form on the property (attached) and concluded that it is eligible for designation as a landmark under Standards 2 and 3 for its association with the Ritz and Reitzer families and as a good example of Classic Cottage architecture. The property is situated between two abutting Fort Collins Landmarks: the Frank Corbin House (Canino’s), designated in 1995; and the Beebe Clinic, designated in 2005. As such, the proposed development application must comply with the requirements in Section 3.4.7 of the land use code. PROPOSED DESIGN: The project will provide additional space for visiting artists associated with The Music District to the south at 639 S College Avenue. The owner proposes to reconfigure the first-floor interior of the existing residence to accommodate a new floor plan, modify the existing attic space for a bedroom loft, and add a single-story, cubic rear addition of dark stucco and stone, connected to the existing building with a new rear entry foyer of light stucco and glass. The rear foyer would include stair access on its upper floor to the loft and bedroom area in the existing building. Four on-site parking spaces are also included along the alley, outside of a new security fence that will enclose the rear of the property behind the historic residence. AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY: The area of adjacency extends to an outer boundary that is 200 hundred feet in all directions from the perimeter of the development site. Any lot or parcel of property is within the area of adjacency if any portion of the lot or parcel crosses the 200-foot outer boundary. According to the requirements in 3.4.7(B), staff has identified the following historic resources that meet the above requirement and shall be used for the establishment of the Historic Influence Area, to which the standards in Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 3.4.7(E) apply. • Historic Resources on the Development Site, Abutting, or Across a Side Alley (to be used for the evaluation of Section 3.4.7(E) Table 1 of the land use code): • 609 S College (Rist-Reitzer Residence, Classic Cottage, constructed 1901) – red brick Classic Cottage with rough stone trim and raised foundation; hipped roof • 613 S College (Frank Corbin House/Canino’s, designated 1995) – blond brick Foursquare (Mission influences); rough stone trim and foundation; hipped roof • 605 S College (Beebe Clinic, designated 2005) – Art Moderne; flat roof with parapet, stucco walls, glass block and steel casement windows • Other Historic Resources within 200 feet: • 612 S College (Darrah House, designated 2003) • 608 S College (2019 recon survey flagged property for potential landmark eligibility) • Other properties within 200-foot not evaluated for this report due to presence of abutting historic resources, as listed above • Historic Influence Area: The historic influence area, within which the design compatibility standards provided in LUC 3.4.7 apply, includes the entire development site. REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT: Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources, contains the applicable standards for new buildings, where designated or eligible historic landmarks or historic districts are part of the development site or surrounding neighborhood context. 3.4.7(D): Treatment of Historic Resources on Development Sites – Design Review The Commission will need to determine if the proposal complies with the relevant code section, 3.4.7(D)(3), which requires the preservation and adaptive use of eligible resources on the development site, following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to the maximum extent feasible. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) 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; This single-family residential property is the last remaining residence on the block that has retained its residential use to date. With this project, it will undergo a change of use more appropriate to the current commercial zoning of the block, to a commercial office with accessory uses. To date, the applicant has worked with staff in the conceptual review process to create a rehabilitation treatment approach to repair the existing residential structure without any replacement of historic materials or removal of character- defining features. The applicant has also revised an earlier design to reduce the scale of the rear addition, the impact of its intersection with the original residence, and its visibility from College Avenue, by narrowing the addition’s width and altering the connecting foyer and stair element to maintain more of the rear elevation’s original roof form and wall. The new construction would remove Y Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 or obscure some existing historic material on the rear elevation in order to connect the old to the new, but the biggest change to the existing historic materials would be removal of the existing enclosed rear porch, which was constructed about 1906 and enclosed sometime before 1968. However, staff finds that the changes do not impact the properties most distinctive and visible features and spaces and are thus within the bounds of this standard. 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. The proposal retains and rehabilitates the historic residential character of the building’s most significant and visible elevations: the College Avenue façade and the north and south elevations that abut the historic landmarks on each side. Despite the addition on the back, the design retains a clear visual understanding of the original building’s cottage form, including the roof form. As noted elsewhere, the proposal preserves and rehabilitates the residence’s most distinctive and character-defining features while minimizing the visibility of the character changes associated with the new addition and new use to the rear of the property, Y 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. The proposed new construction and site alterations are clearly of their own time and include no new elements that would create a false sense of history. Building “hyphenation” that maintains understanding of the original building form and strong material and building form differentiation further provides a clear record of change over time. The original, front portion of the building along College continues to serve as a clear representation of the 20th century residential use of the site, although that record will be heavily altered on the property’s rear portion. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Strictly speaking, the removal of the enclosed rear porch, which constitutes a historic alteration, would not be in keeping with this standard. However, in similar projects the removal of historic rear porch features has been considered an appropriate tradeoff to retain the structure’s most important character-defining features, elevations, and building form, while accommodating new changes for a new use in a less visible location. Y SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The rehabilitation plan for the existing residence will retain all historic materials and character-defining features, with the exception of the alterations to the rear elevation. The applicant has provided an appropriate plan that meets this Y Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 standard regarding porch rehab, masonry work, and window rehabilitation that preserve the original craftsmanship of the residence. 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. See staff notes above re: SOI #5. Y 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 has discussed the importance of extremely gentle procedures for cleaning the masonry and removing paint from the rear elevation, which the applicant has agreed to employ. These include using a stripper, hand scraping, and brushing to remove paint on the rear elevation rather than blasting. Y SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The plan of protection covers fulfillment of this standard and supply the applicant’s proposed course of action in the event of discovery of subsurface resources at the time of construction. Y 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. As always, the balance between differentiation and compatibility for an addition is the primary overall goal related to this standard, which can be met with a variety of design options. The applicant has responded to staff’s initial comments to reduce the scale of the rear addition and concerns about the impact of the connecting point between old and new. The result is a more graceful transition of scale and preservation of the original cottage building form. The addition is approximately 800 square feet, while the original is 1,275 square feet. The hyphenation of the foyer and stairs creates a smaller scale element to transition between the old and new. The new construction materials and building design shown in this proposal attempts to speak to both the historic residence on the site and an abutting historic resource, by providing referential nods to the raised stone foundation of the original residence as well as the stucco exterior of the landmark Beebe Clinic to the north. The historic resources on the site as well as on abutting sites are relevant points of comparison—because the properties are bordered to the west by an improved alley with public views of their rear elevations, the question of how the properties will cohere as a trio in their design from the rear is worthy of consideration. Staff finds that the proposed solution, while highly differentiated in Y Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 character from the original residence, manages to fit into the scene based on its simplicity of form, scale, and placement. The exterior alterations do remove the rear porch (constructed in 1906 and enclosed before 1968) and will require penetration of the building envelope at the roof and the newly exposed rear elevation to connect the old and the new. As previously discussed, staff feels the historic materials that will be affected are not character-defining and thus this standard is considered to be met. 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. In general, it seems possible that the proposed design could be carried out in such a way that the form of the roof and wall on the rear elevation could be restored to their original, essential form (with the loss of the rear porch addition understood) if the new construction were removed. Y Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 6 3.4.7(E)(1): Design Requirements for a Proposed Development Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Standard Met (Y/N) Massing and Building Articulation 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The new construction is more narrow in width than the original residence and of subordinate scale and placement, and effectively meets this standard. Y Massing and Building Articulation 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new buildings to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Additionally, in the Downtown zone district, the widest portions of stepbacks required in the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. This code requirement is not relevant for additions to historic resources. N/A Building Materials 3. The lower story facades until any stepback (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EIFS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. Stucco to be used is real hard coat stucco and the stone product is natural sandstone that directly references the rusticated stone on the original in both authenticity and material scale. Y Building Materials 4. New construction shall reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley, by using at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building on the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) three-dimensionality; 5) pattern. The most important historic resource that should serve as the reference is the historic residence at 609 S College, as those building materials must be compatible with the new materials that will join to them. The proposal also seeks to create compatibility with the Beebe Clinic due to the close proximity of those two structures, as an opportunity to create an overt, cohesive relationship between the two properties. Y Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 7 Façade Details 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) similar window pattern; 2) similar window proportion of height to width; 3) similar solid-to-void pattern as found on historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. The solid-to-void pattern is similar and the proportion and verticality of the double- hung windows on the north and south elevations also contribute to achievement of this standard. Y Façade Details 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and bell courses) to relate the new construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. Application of this standard will have the most impact on the south and north elevations, in which the old and new building forms will be seen together as a whole. Horizontal alignment with the historic eave-height and decorative brick molding is achieved through the height of the first-floor connecting foyer element. Y Visibility of Historic Features New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. There are no character-defining or primary design features on the rear elevation. The placement of the new construction on this site is sensitive to the historic resources on and abutting the site. The new construction’s intersection with the central portion of the historic rear elevation preserve an understanding and view of its original form and retain or enhance visibility of the original rear wall on the interior of the foyer addition. Y 3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection A draft plan of protection is included in the applicant’s packet and will be finalized prior to permit approval, to include follow up on any comments provided by the Commission at this meeting. Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Approval: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of approval of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the development proposal for 609 S College Avenue, finding it complies with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: • The project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • The project design reflects massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with historic resources in the area of adjacency, creates an appropriate visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction, and meets the specific requirements as outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7. Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 8 • The proposed design protects the visibility of nearby historic resources. Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. Sample Motion for a Recommendation of Denial: The Commission may propose a motion for a recommendation of denial of the proposal based on the following suggested outline: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker denial of the development proposal for 609 S College Avenue, finding it does not comply with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 for the following reasons: • The project does not meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. • The project design does not reflect massing, building materials, and façade details that are compatible with historic resources in the area of adjacency, does not create an appropriate visual relationship between the historic architecture and the new construction, and does not meet the specific requirements as outlined in Table 1 of Section 3.4.7. • The proposed design does not protect the visibility of nearby historic resources. Note: The Commission may elaborate on these basic findings, propose additional findings, or remove any of these proposed findings according to its evaluation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Submittal Packet 2. 609 S College Architectural Inventory Form 3. Staff Presentation 4. Remote Hearing Request Form 5. Color and Materials Board (added 5/12/20) 6. Roof Egress Skylight (added 5/18/20) 7. Applicant Presentation (added 5/19/20) Packet Pg. 23 April 27, 2020 Historic Preservation City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: 609 S. College Avenue Addition and Rehabilitation Dear Karen and Maren, We are submitting the following documents for consideration at the next LPC meeting which we assume to be in May: - Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division - Addendum A - analysis of design in accordance with Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of historic properties - Addendum B – analysis of design as per Secretary of Interior recommendations for new exterior additions to historic buildings and related new construction - Addendum C – analysis of design as per Fort Collins Land Use Code section 3.4.7 - 609 S College Existing Elevations - Plans and Elevations - 609 S College Details of Proposed Rehabilitation Work Photos - 609 S College Neighboring Property Elevations - 609 S College Photos in Context with Neighborhood - 609 S College Plan of Protection Thank you and please let us know if there is anything else you may be needing. Sincerely, John Dengler Project architect ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 609 S. College Avenue Existing Elevations F a c a b d 1.EastElevation 2.NorthElevation 3.WestElevation 4.SouthElevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31 609 S. College Avenue F a c a b d Feature A/ Front Porch ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32 609 S. College Avenue F a c a b d Feature B/ Chimney Rear Chimney ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 Feature C/ Rear Porch F a c a b d 609 S. College Avenue ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 609 S. College Avenue F a c a b d Feature D/ Roof ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 609 S. College Avenue F a c a b d Feature E/ Brick and Masonry ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 36 609 S. College Avenue F a c a b d Feature F/ Windows and Doors ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 37 609 S. College Avenue F a c a b d Feature G/ Exterior Wood Trim and Decorative Siding ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 38 C.O. G W C S E VAULT ELEC TELE T VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / G G G G G E E E E E E E CTV CTV CTV X X G G G G OHU OHU X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 41 605 S. College Avenue Existing Elevations F a a b d 1.EastElevation 2.SouthElevation 3.WestElevation 4.NorthElevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 42 613 S. College Avenue Existing Elevations F a a b d 1.EastElevation 2.SouthElevation 3.WestElevation 4.NorthElevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 43 Existing View From College Ave (Looking Southwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 44 Proposed View From College Ave (Looking Southwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 45 View From College Ave (Looking Northwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 46 View From College Ave (Looking Northwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 47 View From Alley (Looking West) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 48 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 49 View From W Myrtle St & Alley Entrance (Looking Southeast) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 50 View From W Myrtle St & Alley Entrance (Looking Southeast) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 51 ADDENDUM A 609 S. College Ave. Analysis of Design in accordance with Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Secretary of Interior Standards: 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 project will have a change in use from a residential property to mixed-use (commercial and residential) as part of the Music District campus. Administrative Interpretation #2-18 was received on October 24, 2018 from Cameron Gloss indicating the proposed uses are permitted under C-C zone district as well other uses described in Administrative Interpretation #1-14 issued September 18, 2014. The project proposes a rear addition to the existing residential structure, the use of which space cannot be accommodated within the current residential structure. The addition requires no change to the distinctive materials, features, spaces, and special relationships to convert to the new use from residential. Due to the development of this section of College Avenue all of the former residential structures have been converted to commercial use. The design of the addition is such that the residential structure will continue to appear as the original residential structure from College Avenue frontage. We believe the design meets the intent of Standard 1. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”). (see attachment “609 S College Existing Elevations”) 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. The owner, the builder and architect have had several meetings with LPC in the conceptual review process to create a design that repairs the existing residential structure without the replacement of historical materials or the removal of any character defining features. There were a number of iterations of the design to reduce the scale of the addition, both in height and width in relationship to the residential structure, thus retaining the historical character of the property from College Avenue and on the north and south sides. The connection of the new addition is unseen from College Avenue and is appropriately subordinate to the existing historical home. The addition is “attached” with a smaller scale hyphen to separate the old and the new volumes of the residential structure per the guidance of the standard. In order to attach the new addition, the only alteration of the existing home will be the removal of an enclosed rear porch attached to the west wall and a small 6’ wide portion of the existing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 52 roof above for connecting the addition. The porch is estimated to have been added on in 1906 and enclosed around 1968. The porch is not considered distinctive in materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property as described above, thus meeting the standard. After removing the porch, the existing doorway, windows, and brick façade of the rear elevation of the original historic home will all be preserved with much of it exposed to the interior of the new connector piece. The original rear entry door will not be used here but will be saved for use elsewhere. The door frame and transom window above the door will be saved and utilized as a passageway from the addition to the existing home. We believe the design meets the intent of Standard 2. (see attachment “Details of Proposed Rehabilitation Work Photos” / Rear Porch) 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. The design of the new addition is clearly of its own time. It is visually distinguishable from the historic residence and does not compromise the character of the residential nor is it glaringly different, taking cues from the residential structure and neighboring historic structures. Examples include using double hung windows similar in scale to the existing home’s north and south elevations, the creation of horizontal reveal lines on the new addition corresponding to the horizontal decorative brick mold on the existing home, and the warm gray stucco color of the addition which is the same color as the accent color to be painted on the existing home’s decorative scalloped siding in the gables, a color complementary to the warm red brick color. We believe the design meets the intent of Standard 3. ( see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”) 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The design indicates the removal of the rear porch which was added on circa 1906 and enclosed in 1968. It is unclear as to the original design of the rear porch in 1906 and how it was altered in 1968 with the enclosure. Although the “new” enclosed porch qualifies as an historic addition due to its age, in order to accommodate the adaptive reuse of the property, the addition is required. In accordance with City of Fort Collins Code Section 3.4.7 (D)(3) the design has incorporated, to the maximum extent feasible, the standards as outlined by the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. More specifically, the proposed design is presented in accordance with the Technical Preservation Brief #14 New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings; Preservation Concerns as the porch and a small portion of the west roof are the only ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 53 features being removed and they are located on the rear of the original structure, thus avoiding impactful changes to the primary or “public” elevation. After the porch is removed, the original brick elevation of the home including its doorway and window openings, is being preserved, much of which will be exposed to the interior of the new “connector” piece between the house and the main addition. Additionally, per the Secretary of Interior Standards, it is most important that such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes. The rear porch is not seen as character defining space, materials, feature, or finish. The character defining aspect of the historic home is the original front porch seen from College Avenue which is being restored and will continue to serve as a clear representation of the 20 th century residential use of the site. We believe the design meets the intent of Standard 4. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship will be preserved. The designed and planned rehabilitation of the original structure will retain all historic materials, features other than the rear porch and west roof section described above. We believe our choice of materials and use of construction techniques, as discussed further in the Plan of Protection, meets the intent of Standard 5. 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. The design and planned rehabilitation of the original structure will retain all historic materials and features other than the rear porch and west roof section. We believe, as described further in Addendums B and C and in the Plan of Protection, we meet the intent of Standard 6. 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. The design and planned rehabilitation of the original structure will retain all historic materials and features (other than the rear porch). We believe, as described further in the Plan of Protection, we meet the intent of Standard 7. (see attached “609 S College Plan of Protection”) 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in space. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. There are no known archeological resources known to be present on the site. Should any be encountered during construction, work on the site will be halted and the City will ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 54 be notified. We will meet the intent of Standard 8 if archeological resources are discovered. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. The design of the new addition preserve’s the historic home’s significant features and is compatible with the residential structure’s massing, size, and scale and architectural features. It is appropriately differentiated from the home, thus preserving its historic character. Pursuant to Technical Preservation Brief #14 New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, the connector between the original structure and the new addition is facilitated with a simple, recessed small scale hyphen which subordinates the addition from the home. The new addition is not visible from the College Avenue primary or “public” elevation, which is character defining. The new addition is subordinate in size and clearly differentiated and distinguishable so that the identity of the historic structure is not lost in the composition. The design has gone through a number of iterations with City staff to accomplish the desired result, retaining the historic character of the residential structure on the east (front) north, and south elevations, thus meeting the standard. Additionally, the design and use of materials of the addition are appropriately differentiated from the existing house and the adjacent historic structures. In accordance with DDA Downtown Alley’s Master Plan, which has received City funding through the General Improvement District No.1 to create design concepts for vibrant alleys/walkways which are activated, safe, and engaging and help stimulate business activity. - They are to emphasize the connections with retail corridors. - Develop examples of on-alley entrances that address a variety of applications. - Integrate a variety of outdoor spaces within alleyways including outdoor café seating, courtyards, plazas, and private nooks. - Emphasize safe, vibrant ambience with festive lighting, Integrated art, architectural treatments, special pavings and a variety of plantings. - Design alleys with a unique theme/character responding to the respective zones and districts. - Identify opportunities for redevelopment and infill where appropriate. The design accomplishes the goals of the enhanced alleyways in its design and program while still respecting the original form of the historic residential structure and compatibility with adjacent historic properties. The proposed improvements are much more conducive to achieving the desired interaction with the enhanced alleyway in accordance with the Master Plan goals than the existing rear porch planned to be ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 55 removed. We believe the design meets both the intent of Standard 9 as well as the goals of the Alley’s Master Plan. 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 design of the new addition and the use of the hyphenated connector space minimizes the alterations to the existing home. When the added -on porch is removed, the original historic home is being preserved including all windows, doors, brick, front porch, chimneys, and the three prominent sides of the roof. The roof was re-shingled in 1977, therefore not a historic materials consideration. The design of the connector and addition are such that should they ever be removed in the future, the existing historic home would remain and be seen in its original design. We believe the design and construction meet the intent of Standard 10. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 56 ADDENDUM B 609 S. College Ave Analysis of Design as per Secretary of Interior recommendations for new exterior additions to historic buildings and related new construction Recommended: - Constructing a new addition on a secondary or non-character defining elevation and limiting its size and scale in relation to historic building The owner, the builder, and the architect have had several meetings with LPC in the conceptual review process modifying the design of the addition. There were a number of iterations of the design to reduce the scale of the addition, both in height and width in relation to the historic home, thus retaining the historic character of the property from College Avenue, the main character defining elevation, and the north and south sides. The connection of the new addition is on the rear, the least character defining elevation, and is unseen from College Avenue. It is appropriately subordinate to the existing historic home. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations” for dimensions and square footage of the addition and the existing home) - Constructing a new addition that results in the least possible loss of historic materials so that character defining features are not obscured, damaged or destroyed. The design indicates the removal of the rear porch which was added on circa 1906 and enclosed in 1968. Although this porch qualifies as an historic addition due to its age, in order to accommodate the adaptive reuse of the property, the addition is required. The proposed design is presented in accordance with the Technical Preservation Brief #14 New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings; Preservation Concerns as the porch and a small portion of the west roof are the only features being removed and they are on the rear of the original structure, thus avoiding impactful modifications to the primary or “public” elevation. After the porch is removed, the original brick elevation of the home including its doorway and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 57 windows is being preserved, much of which will be exposed to the interior of the new connector piece between the house and the main addition. - Designing a new addition that is compatible with the historic building The design of the new addition is clearly of its own time. It is visually distinguishable from the historic residence and does not compromise the character of the residential structure, nor is it glaringly different, taking cues from the house and neighboring historic structures. Examples include using double hung windows similar in scale to the existing home’s north and south elevations, the creation of horizontal reveal lines on the new addition corresponding to the decorative brickwork on the eaves of the existing home, and the warm gray stucco color of the addition which is the same color as the accent color to be painted on the existing home’s decorative siding found in the dormers, a color complementary to the warm red brick color. Additionally, the stone base designed for the addition will be of the same sandstone , both in size and pattern, as found on the historic home’s exposed foundation. ( see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”) ( see attachment “609 S College Building Elevations”) (see attachment “Addendum C Analysis per Land Use Code” for additional design compatibility in context with the neighboring historic buildings). - Ensuring that the addition is subordinate and secondary to the historic building and is compatible in massing, scale, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. The addition is smaller than the existing home in footprint, height, width, and square footage. As mentioned above, the warm gray color of the main addition complements the warm brick color without trying to “match” it and is compatible to the existing home where we have introduced this same color in the scalloped siding found in the existing gables. The existing home is connected to the main addition with a hyphenated rear entry that reads as more of a void with lots of glass and light colored stucco, similar to the light stucco found on the historic building adjacent to this site to the north. This reinforces the concept of a lesser “connector” between the darker color of the existing home and the new massing and darker color of the addition. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 58 (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations” for dimensions and square footages on the plans ) (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations” for visualizing the addition as secondary in size and scale on the elevations) ( see attachment “609 S College Photos in Neighborhood Context”) - Using the same forms, materials, and color range of the historic building in a manner that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes the addition from the original building. It is obvious that this design for the addition is not trying to duplicate the historic home in accordance with Department of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Standard 3, but rather distinguishes it as its own modern entity and of its time. However, as mentioned above, its color, windows, horizontal banding, and stone foundation, though not exact duplications, all add to it being a complementary, yet distinguishable addition to the original residential structure. (see attachment “609 S College Building Elevations” for photos of the existing historic home) (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”) - Basing the alignment, rhythm, and size of the window and door openings of the new addition on those of the historic building. The rhythm, style, color, and size of the double-hung windows on the addition’s north and south elevations is a nod to the windows found on the north and south elevations of the original residential structure. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”) - Incorporating a simple, recessed, small scale hyphen, or connection, to physically and visually separate the addition from the historic building. Between the existing home and the main addition is the new rear entry space. The architectural design of this space has the smallest massing of the 3 distinguishable masses (home, connector, addition) in both size and width. It is also differentiated with the light stucco color, lots of glass , and a low slung flat roof, visually creating a more secondary or “void” feel to ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 59 the connection between the larger masses of the existing home and the new addition. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations” which includes floorplans, dimensions, and square footages) - Distinguishing the addition from the original building by setting it back from the wall plane of the historic building. The main addition and connecting hyphen are both less wide than the existing home which make it not visible from the front elevation of the home. It is separated from the rear wall of the existing home by 18’ which is the hyphenated connection composed of light colored stucco, glass, and flat roofs. The rear wall plane of the existing historic home, including the door, windows, and brick façade, is being preserved and will be seen from the interior of the connector piece. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations” for floorplan dimensions ) - Placing functions and services required for a new use (including elevators and stairways) in secondary or non-character defining interior spaces of the historic building rather than constructing a new addition. The project will have a change in use from a residential property to mixed- use (commercial and residential) as part of the Music District campus. Administrative Interpretation #2-18 was received on October 24, 2018 from Cameron Gloss indicating the proposed uses are permitted under the C-C zone district as well as other uses described in Administrative Interpretation #1-14 issued September 18, 2014. The project proposes a rear addition to the existing residential structure , the use of which space cannot be accommodated within the current residential structure. The addition requires no change to the distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships to convert to the new use from residential. Due to the development of this section of College Avenue all of the former residential structures have been converted to commercial use. The design of the addition is such that the residential structure will continue to appear as the original residential structure from College Avenue frontage. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 60 The existing historic home, with very little remodel to the existing main level floorplan, along with the addition of additional sleeping room in the existing attic space is to become the residential portion of the new use. A new stairway is required to access this new second floor area. The addition is necessary for a music room that cannot be accommodated in the original residential structure. The addition of a new stairway within the existing floorplan would begin to change its original historic character. Therefore, it was decided best to provide this stair access in the connector piece on the rear of the home within the addition. This allows the existing historic home to maintain its residential function while providing the needed commercial space in the new addition, separated by the connector. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations” for seeing the stair) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 61 ADDENDUM C 609 S. College Ave. Analysis of Design as per Fort Collins Land Use Code section 3.4.7 table 1 - standards for compatibility with historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across side alley A. Massing and building articulation : (integrate new construction into existing context and use massing options that respect historic buildings) Standard 1. The new addition is designed to be on the rear of the existing historic residence and is smaller in height, width, and square footage than the existing historic home so as to be subordinate to it. It has been designed to not be seen from the main character-defining elevation of the home which is to S. College Avenue. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”) Standard 2. The massing and building articulation of the design are distinguishable as three complementing architectural pieces: Rehabilitated historic structure, smaller lighter colored connector piece, and larger main addition of a complementary color still smaller than the existing house. This allows for the gradual massing transitions from the historic structure referred to in this standard. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”) B. Building Materials: ( create visual connection between modern building materials and historic building materials) Standard 3. The addition, both the connector and the main new room, are to be constructed with hard coat stucco utilized as the main material meeting the standard for using authentic, durable, high quality materials. The lower portion of the addition is composed of real sandstone, replicating the rusticated sandstone foundation seen on the existing home. This stone is to match as closely as possible the existing historic stone in color, pattern, dimension, and application. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations” / material notes) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 62 Standard 4. Besides its compatibility to the existing home, this new addition, more modern in its design, also draws inspiration for compatibility to the Beebe Clinic, as they are in close proximity to each other. The Art Moderne style of the clinic includes off-white colored stucco and flat roofs inside of parapets, both of which are included in the addition. This helps to create an overt, cohesive relationship between the two properties, especially as they are viewed from the pedestrian alleyway. The existing historic residence has always been much smaller in scale than Canino’s as viewed from both College Avenue and the alleyway. The addition, not visible from College Avenue, will only been seen in reference to Canino’s from the rear alleyway. As there are no planned material connections to Canino’s, the addition to the rear adds to a more compatible massing as viewed from the alley. The warm gray stucco color of the main addition is complementary to the warm blonde brick color on Canino’s. (see attachment “609 S College Photos in Neighborhood Context”) C. Façade Details: (create visual connection between modern building design and historic building design) Standard 5. The modern architecture of the addition connects to the architecture of the historic residence with its use of white, vertical shaped double-hung windows, similar to those on the north and south elevations of the historic home. They are of a similar proportion in height vs width. Standard 6: The existing historic home is one story and detailed with a decorative horizontal brick course at the eave. As the addition connects, its single story height and flat roof facia both contribute to achieving its horizontal connection to the historic structure. As well, the horizontal detail grooves in the stucco mimic the horizontal detailing in the brick beneath the windows. (see attachment “609 S College Plans and Elevations”) D. Visibility of Historic Features: (Protect visibility of historic architecture and details) There are no currently identified character-defining or primary design features on the rear elevation of the existing historic residence. The placement of the new construction on this site has been designed to be sensitive to the historic resources both on and abutting the site. The attachment of the new addition will ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 63 obscure the existing door and windows from view outside but are now visible from the interior of the addition), while preserving an understanding and view of the historic structure’s original form. (see attachment “609 S College Photos in Neighborhood Context”) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 64 Plan of Protection for Historic Properties Project Title: 609 South College Ave. Mixed Use Full Property Address: 609 South College Ave. Fort Collins, CO Form Prepared by: Forest Glaser, Tree Line Builders, LLC. Please complete the following as applicable. Please answer each question thoroughly, and add additional pages if needed: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Description of project location: The site frontage is located on the west side of South College Avenue and backs to Dalzell Alley to the west. 613 S College, Canino’s Restaurant, shares the Southern property line, and 605 S. College is an existing office building that borders the north property line. 1.2 General description of work to be performed, including which firm(s) will be doing the work: Historic renovation of an existing residential home built in 1901 with a new mixed-use addition constructed on the back of the property including full sitework remodel and infrastructure upgrades. All work will follow The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. The design team includes John Dengler and Associates, Ripley Design, TD Structural Engineering, Northern Engineering, Adonai Professional Services, and the Ballard Group. Construction services will be performed by Tree Line Builders. 1.3 Building(s) or portion(s) of designated and eligible buildings within the area of adjacency that will be affected: 605 S. College Ave. (Art Moderne Office Building), 613 S. College Ave. (Canino’s), and the subject property 609 S. College Ave. 1.4 Is building adjacent to other buildings or structures, on or off site, and if so, how close?: Canino’s building is 16’ off site and adjacent to the south, the Art Moderne Office Building is 27.5’ off site and adjacent to the north. Planning, Development & Transportation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 65 1.5 Are any of these other buildings or structures 50 years old or older (which ones, and what are their dates of construction, if known): Yes: Canino’s, 1908, and the Art Moderne Office Building, 1938 per Larimer County Property Records. Further detail per Fort Collins Historic Preservation: 613 S College (Frank Corbin House/Canino’s, designated 1995) – blond brick Foursquare (Mission influences); rough stone trim and foundation; hipped roof; 605 S College (Beebe Clinic, designated 2005) – Art Moderne; flat roof with parapet, stucco walls, glass block and steel casement windows. 2.0 Scope of Work Describe the work, and how it will affect any historic building(s) (both on the subject property and on adjacent properties, if applicable). Provide descriptions on each of the following, as applicable: 2.1 Demolition: Demolition to the existing property will be contained to the rear west porch addition on the west side of the building, removing a small brick planter on the front East porch, and shutters from one window on the front East elevation, restoring the building’s original character. The original structure of the exterior will remain substantially intact. Some paint removal from brick may be required on the west elevation. Stripper, hand scraping and brushing will be used but no blasting of any kind to preserve the soft brick and mortar. All original finishes adjacent to the work will be protected from damage during the demolition with blankets, plywood, tarpaulin and careful low vibration demolition practices. 2.2 Site preparation: The entire site perimeter will be fenced with chain link and cloth/mesh privacy fence which also acts as a dust and debris collector. Construction access gates will be installed on the west side in the alley for main access. Tree protection will be provided for the large old growth oak tree on the back of the property. 2.3 Excavation: The new addition will be excavated for a basement with smallest equipment possible and low impact methods. Excess dirt beyond what can be stored within the site parameters will be trucked off site until needed for backfill. During backfill low vibration methods will be used to the fullest extent possible to preserve existing structure and minimize neighboring impact. 2.4 Utilities: The following utility work will be completed on the subject property without any effect on the existing historic structure or adjacent properties. Refer to Utility plan from Northern Engineering in BDR Submittal: Electrical service being upgraded from 100 AMP to 200 AMP. Existing gas service to be used. Existing domestic water service to be used. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 66 Existing sewer service to be replaced with same size to west property boundary. A new 4” fire sprinkler service line will tie in from the east side of College Ave. to the new addition crawl space. The line will enter the property through the existing driveway approach which is to be removed and replaced. 2.5 New foundation: New foundation tie-in to existing structure to be designed by TD Structural Engineering. Protection of existing structure will be done to prevent concrete splatter or damage from equipment, such as protective concrete blankets, plywood, and tarpaulin. Exposure to adjacent buildings from concrete work is not anticipated due to the distance between structures. On site cleanout as specified on Utility plan from Northern Engineering included in BDR submittal. 2.6 New construction: A new addition is to be constructed on the west elevation of the existing structure and tied in with a narrow foyer and stair connection minimizing the impact on the existing structure. See architectural drawings from John Dengler and Associates. Protection of existing structure will be done with physical barriers along the west side of existing structure to north and south property lines to prevent material storage or work in a location that could damage the existing historic building. Extreme care will be taken with full time site management and coordination of deliveries to ensure a safe site and no impact on the existing or adjacent structures. 2.7 Parking lot: No existing parking lot. A new parking lot with 3 spots will be provided with access from Dalzell Alley to meet land use code. 2.8 Driveways/alleyways: The existing front driveway access from College Ave. is to be removed and tied into existing curb and gutter. This will be done in accordance with approved plans and ROW permit. All construction vehicle access will be from alley on west side of lot through the existing drive. We will install a track pad and clean daily to minimize impact on Dalzell alley. 2.8 Landscaping: All landscaping to be completed with recognition of historical structure,historical designation, and significance of existing adjacent properties. Although site fencing will be present for hardscape portions of landscaping, final landscape elements will be installed with care to prevent any damage to existing building or adjacent buildings. Building protection is not anticipated but will be used if necessary. 2.9 Drainage: Drainage during construction will be controlled with construction fence and silt barrier along property lines. Rock sock barriers along College Avenue curb, vehicle track pad at alley edge and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 67 inlet protection at corner of Myrtle and South College Avenue to be used to prevent silt escape into storm water system. The proposed site will generally maintain the existing site drainage. Drainage from the rear yard and proposed planters directed overland via concrete pan along the southern lot line to College Avenue. The parking area will maintain the existing drainage pattern and flow west to Dalzell Alley. Existing grades outside of our improvements will remain unchanged, including along the north side of the existing house where no improvements are proposed. For more detail see Northern Engineering Drainage Plan. 2.11 Other: N/A 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities 3.1 Name of person or persons responsible for overseeing the demolition and/or construction activities: Forest Glaser of Tree Line Builders and Clif Dimon of Tree Line Builders. 3.2 Will they be on site when that work is occurring? Yes 3.3 If not, how may they be contacted if needed when that work is underway? (970) 493-9127 3.4 What specific coordination practices will be used to coordinate work activities? Tree Line Builders will be coordinating all project management and coordination of this project in direct contact with the Owner. Tree Line Builders takes historically significant projects seriously and treats them with extra care and consideration. Project critical path scheduling will be managed with project management software and updated often as each phase is complete. Project coordination, time management and cost analysis will keep the historic aspect of the project at the forefront of decision making while updating a three week look ahead schedule with associated coordination. All sub-contractors will be contracted and held to highest quality and safety standards. OSHA standards will be followed for all aspects of the project demolition and construction. All revisions or omissions found in the plans will be routed through the architect or appropriate professional by way of a Request for Information form. All revisions or omissions pertaining to historic aspects of the project will be directed to the Architect. Project professionals contracted for this project: - Architect: John Dengler and Associates (970) 223-1512 - Landscape Architect: Ripley Design Inc. (970) 224-5828 - Structural Engineer: TD Structural (970) 372-1140 - Site Engineer and Surveyor: Northern Engineering (970) 221-4158 - Electrical Engineer: APS Inc. (970) 206-0269 - Mechanical Engineer: Ballard Group (970) 568-8762 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 68 4.1 Which historic materials will be deconstructed and salvaged? Interior materials will be carefully deconstructed and documented with photos and reused in the renovation where possible, including but not limited to door and window hardware, decorative vent covers, window/door trim, baseboard, decorative mouldings, miscellaneous hardware and finishes. Any materials not used will be donated or stored for future use. Anticipated exterior materials being salvaged include some stone from subgrade beams/foundation from the back porch and the existing rear entry door. 4.2 Which historic materials will not be salvaged, and how will they be disposed of? Existing deteriorated wood removed from the enclosed porch and roofing materials are not significant and will likely not be salvaged. These materials will be recycled or saved if first deemed appropriate. Wood without finish can be separated from standard refuse to be recycled/mulched. Any metals found during demolition can be recycled. The stone foundation of the porch will be salvaged and used in landscaping where appropriate or recycled. 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property How will you ensure that historic buildings, structures, and surface features will not be damaged during work? What means will be used to protect them? 5.1 Site Conservation The existing site will be rebuilt to account for new drainage, walkways, parking, and landscaping. Any unforeseen elements uncovered will be handled with care. Construction fencing and tree blankets will be installed to preserve the existing trees that will remain in place. 5.2 Demolition of Building All exposed finishes on the existing structure adjacent to work being performed during demolition and new construction will be protected with blankets, plywood, and tarpaulin as necessary. Demolition will be contained to the west wall of the existing building. 5.3 Foundation Stability The existing foundation appears to be stacked stone foundation with mortar bedding. Required shoring or pinning to be determined by Structural Engineer. Preliminary observations have been made and determined the existing foundation is stable. 5.4 Structural Existing structural integrity has been evaluated by structural engineer, and a design for protection and integration will be provided with LPC design approval and prior to construction. 5.5 New Construction Care will be taken to separate the new construction from the existing structure by way of scaffolding, plywood, temporary protection walls, and tarpaulin as necessary. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 69 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials All historic openings will be preserved, rehabilitated, and repaired as needed. The original rear entry door will not be used but will be stored on site following completion of the project. All openings will be protected with plywood during adjacent work when appropriate. 5.7 New Openings N/A 5.8 Floor Framing N/A 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing Tie in of new building into existing roof will be designed by TD Structural Engineering. Care will be taken to preserve any adjacent historic finishes with blankets, plywood, and tarpaulin. 5.10 Structural Loads TBD per TD Structural Engineering 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning TBD per TD Structural Engineering 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure TBD per TD Structural Engineering 5.13 Site Cleanup Jobsite will be maintained and kept clean at all times during construction. Trash and recycle containers will be kept on site and emptied regularly to prevent build-up of debris. All new construction of addition will be kept to the back of the site away from the existing structure to prevent any accidental damage to historic structure. 6.0 Documentation for Record 6.1 Does the project include measured drawings and/or photographs? Yes 6.2 Where will these be stored? Drawings will be kept on site at job site office. Digital copies will also be available at Tree Line Builders office at 141 S. College, Suite 103. Hard copies can be provided on request. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 70 7.0 Archeology How will you address archeological resources if they are likely to be present or if you should unexpectedly find them? (e.g., contact the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery; have an archeologist on site to monitor the work; have an archeologist on call.) We do not anticipate any archeological discoveries, but if they are encountered, work will be stopped, and an archeologist will be called to investigate prior to work resuming. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 71 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue 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 General Recommendations: Click here to enter text. I. Identification 1. Resource number: 5LR.1508 2. Temporary resource number: 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 72 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue 5. Historic building name: Rist-Reitzer Residence 6. Current building name: Rist-Reitzer Residence 7. Building address: 609 S. College Avenue 8. Owner name and address: South College 609 LLC, 262 E. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Co 80524 II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6th PM Township 7N Range 69W NE ¼ of NE ¼ of ¼ of ¼ of section 14 10. UTM reference Zone 13; 493443 mE 4492101 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 1984 Map scale: 7.5' ☒ 15' ☐ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): North 43’ of Lot 5 Block: 116 Addition: Harrison’s Year of Addition: 1887 13. Boundary Description and Justification: This property (97141-14-017) consists of the north 43’ of Lot 5 of Block 116 of Harrison’s Addition to the Town of Fort Collins, Colorado including the land and structures historically associated with this property. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular plan 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 50’ x Width 25’ 16. Number of stories: 1-1/2 17. Primary external wall material(s): Brick 18. Roof configuration: Truncated Hipped Roof 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt Composition Roof 20. Special features: Porch, Chimney, Flared eave 21. General architectural description: This brick building sits on a raised rusticated stone foundation with a truncated hipped roof of asphalt composition shingles. Two brick chimneys are located on the roof, with brick detailing on the eastern-most chimney and a simple metal cap attached above each chimney. Two rows of stretchers separated by and aligned with repeating recessed ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue headers circle the building at the top of windows, forming a decorative brick band. A double belt course circles the building in line with the windowsills. East (front) wall: The east wall has two concrete steps leading to an open porch supported by pairs of wooden classic columns at either end and a single classic column next to the building at each end. The door has a non-original unpainted storm door and the painted wooden door has a lower mail slot and a glass oval in the upper half with a transom above the door. The porch roof is a shed roof with flared, overhanging eaves and dentils under the roof overhang. A steeply pitched front gable sits over a 2/2 window with transom and simple, painted wooden shutters and rusticated lintels and sills. Above this window is a fixed-pane single window with wooden surrounds and imbricated wood fish scale shingles under the gable. South wall: There are four 1/1 double hung windows on this brick wall, with a pair of windows in the center of the wall and singles near either end. A gabled dormer rests above the pair of windows, with a single fixed-pane window with wood surrounds and imbricated wood fish scale shingles under the gable. West (back) wall: This wall is covered by an enclosed porch with shed roof with a central door that appears to have solid material in place of glazing. The porch is constructed of vertical wood siding, topped by three wide, 1/1 double hung windows south of the door and one window north of the door. North wall: This brick wall has four 1/1 double hung windows, with a single window toward the east side of the wall and three windows evenly spaced at the west end of the wall. A gabled dormer rests above two of the trio of windows, with a single fixed-pane window with wood surrounds and imbricated wood fish scale shingles under the gable. 22. Architectural style/building type: Early 20th Century American Movements / Classic Cottage 23. Landscaping or special setting features: This property fronts on College Avenue where there is a mature deciduous shade tree between the curb and public sidewalk. A concrete sidewalk connects the public sidewalk to the building front and a narrower concrete walk extends along the north wall to the back of the building. A large evergreen shrub is at the SE corner of the building and a smaller evergreen shrub is next to the front steps. Shrub beds are along the south wall and at the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 74 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue NW corner of the building. There are four mature deciduous shade trees at the back of the building. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None - a wood frame garage built in 1957 on the property was demolished in 2018. IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1901 Source of information: 1902 Fort Collins City Directory, 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: J. E. Welker Source of information: Fort Collins Weekly Courier, January 2, 1902 28. Original owner: William and Texanna Rist Source of information: 1902 Fort Collins City Directory, 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): Few building permits exist for this property, but reveal a garage built in 1957 (Note: garage was demolished in 2018); re-roofing in 1977; and a new water line was installed in 2003. The enclosed porch on the back of the property was constructed circa 1906 and was enclosed by 1968 (based on Sanborn Maps and Larimer County Assessor’s Records). 30. Original location ☒ Moved ☐ Date of move(s): V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic – Single Dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): 33. Current use(s): Domestic – Single Dwelling 34. Site type(s): Residence 35. Historical background: This six-room brick residence was built in 1901 by J. E. Welker for William and Texanna Rist, who moved to Fort Collins in 1881 from the Big Thompson Valley, near Loveland, Colorado. William was the son of Abraham Rist, a pioneer of the Big Thompson Valley and he and his father moved in 1869 from Pennsylvania to the Loveland area. William was a civil engineer and over his 22-year public career, was County Surveyor, City Engineer and Division Engineer for Irrigation Division No. 1 of Colorado. The Rists had four children: Rodney, Irene, Charlotte, and Anna. William died in 1915 and Texanna continued to live at their home until her death in 1945. Between 1948 and 1954, the Ray ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 75 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue M. and Helen G. Griffith family lived at this residence. Ray worked at the family business “Griffiths”, which was a sporting goods store at 160 North College Avenue. From 1954 – 1956, Robert S. and Joyce Everitt resided at this location. Robert was the owner and manager of the Everitt Lumber Company and would go on to become one of Fort Collins’ foremost developers from the 1970’s – early 2000’s. By 1963, Reverend William Reitzer, a retired pastor of the Immanuel Evangelical and Reformed Church (now the Immanuel Christian Reformed Church), bought this property, moving from the church rectory at 307 Remington Street. Reverend Reitzer had been pastor there for 22 years before his retirement in 1959. His wife, Johanna M. was a professor of German at Colorado State University. William died in 1969 and Johanna in 1983, after which, their daughter Ann Reitzer continued to live in the home until 2017, when it was sold. 36. Sources of information: Fort Collins Building Permit data for 609 S. College Avenue 1920 – 1945 (Fort Collins Discovery Museum History Archive, accessed via Fort Collins History Connection website) Fort Collins Building Permit data for 609 S. College Avenue 1945 – Present (accessed via Public Records on City of Fort Collins website) Fort Collins City Directories for years 1902 – 2008 (with gaps), from Fort Collins Discovery Museum History Archive, accessed via Fort Collins History connection website) Fort Collins Harrison’s Addition Plat, dated 1887 (accessed via CityDocs/Public Records on City of Fort Collins website) Fort Collins Weekly Courier, January 2, 1902 “Fort Collins Splendid Building Record” Larimer County Tax Assessor Records for 609 S. College Avenue for Parcel #97141-14- 017 (1969 & 1978 Property Information Cards – Fort Collins Discovery Museum History Archive) Loveland Daily Herald, Number 130, January 8, 1915 “Will Rist, County Pioneer Dies Last Evening” Marmor, Jason. Reconnaissance Survey Forms, Eastside Neighborhood Survey Project, 609 S. College Avenue, 04/08/1998 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 76 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, Sanborn Map Company, March 1906 and December 1925 The History of Immanuel Christian Reformed Church, http://www.immanuel- crc.org/History2014.html VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes ☐ No ☒ Date of designation: Designating authority: 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 Needs additional research under standards: ☐ A/1 ☐ B/2 ☐ C/3 ☐ D/4 39. Area(s) of significance: Engineering; Architecture 40. Period of significance: 1902 - 2017 41. Level of significance: National ☐ State ☒ Local ☒ 42. Statement of significance: Engineering - Historical Association: This building is significant under Criterion 2 for its association with the Rist and Reitzer families. William Rist was a notable resident of Fort Collins, as a civil engineer serving as County Surveyor, City Engineer and Division Engineer for Irrigation Division No. 1 of Colorado over the course of a 22-year public career. Members of the Rist family occupied this house for 44 years. Several other local families lived at this location between the Rists and Reitzers, most notably, Robert S. and Joyce Everitt. “Bob” Everitt went on to become ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 77 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue one of the most well-known and prolific developers in Fort Collins between the 1970’s – 2000’s. Reverend William Reitzer, a retired pastor of the Immanuel Evangelical and Reformed Church (now the Immanuel Christian Reformed Church) and his family lived at this location from 1963 until his death in 1969 and his wife’s death in 1983. Wife Johanna Reitzer taught German at Colorado State University. The Reitzer’s daughter Anna lived in the house until 2017, making the Reitzer family the longest residents of the property, for a continuous 54 years. These two families – the Rists and Reitzers - owned and resided at this house for a combined 98 years. It is the last remaining single-family residence that has been in continuous residential use in this block of South College Avenue. Architecture: This building is significant under Criteria 3 for its architecture. The property retains its historic exterior materials, including its wall and roof materials and windows and they are visible. Its basic features of configuration, proportions, roofline, and window pattern are also intact and the back porch, while enclosed after its construction, qualifies as a historic addition, given its age. There is evidence of historic construction techniques in the imbricated shingles, classic porch columns, and decorative brick work. The building is on its original site and its physical character and relationship to surrounding features is similar to its historic period. This Classic Cottage is an excellent example of this early 20th century architectural style and it is very well-preserved. The building’s appearance is consistent with its original appearance at the time of construction in 1901 and it is a solid candidate for local and state designation. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Location: This building is in its original location, so it retains integrity of location. Setting: The setting for this building has changed somewhat, as the buildings to the south have been altered and changes in land use have occurred across College Avenue. The overall character of the area has moved from one of residential to commercial. Thus, the property does not retain integrity of setting. Design: The building’s configuration, proportions, roofline and window pattern are intact and consistent with the building as it appeared in 1901 after its construction. The only alteration to the building has been the addition of an enclosed porch on the back of the building. This porch has become historic, having existed as an enclosed porch since at least 1968. This building retains the integrity of its original design. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 78 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue Materials: The historic materials of this building have been retained and unaltered, except for the addition of the enclosed porch on the back of the building. This porch does hide materials on the west (back) wall, but the porch is a historic addition that is now at least 50 years of age. It is not visible from the front or sides of the building. The building retains its integrity of materials. Workmanship: There is physical evidence of craftsmanship in the quality of construction in this building. The stonework on the windowsills and lintels, imbricated shingles under the gable ends, and dentils on the front porch are all indications of the quality of craftsmanship used in the construction of this building. The integrity of workmanship is retained. Feeling: The aesthetic and historic sense of the property at its period of significance (1901) is still intact. The majority of physical features that convey historic character (design, materials, workmanship) are intact. The building appears as it did when constructed, except for the porch added circa 1906. This building retains its integrity of feeling. Association: There is a strong association between this building and the two families that resided there for nearly 100 years – the Rist and Reitzer families. The building appears much as it did shortly after construction and would be easily recognizable by its long-time owners/residents. It is an excellent representation of the Classic Cottage style and its association with two prominent families over more than 100 years makes it eligible for local and state landmark status. It does not rise to the level of National Register eligibility, since the building does not represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. 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 ☒ No ☐ Discuss: This building, along with several others on the block (613,621, 633, 639, 641), represent residential development in the early 20th century along College Avenue. As the community grew south from downtown, residential development followed College Avenue ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 79 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue and other streets in this part of the city. This block of College Avenue was originally home to several large residential buildings, which were converted to apartments or fraternity/sorority uses, due to their proximity to the university campus. Now, commercial land uses occupy the structures. The building at 605 S. College Avenue (Beebe Clinic) and 613 S. College Avenue (Corbin House – now Canino’s restaurant) have local landmark status. Buildings at 621, 633, 639 and 641 are all part of what is known in Fort Collins as the Music District, created in 2016 when these structures were renovated. The building at the south end of the block (657, 659) has had numerous alterations so that the original structure is no longer visible. This block has the potential for the creation of a cohesive local landmark district, since many of the buildings share a common history and architecture. The residence at 609 is the last building that was occupied as a residence in this block. 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: IMG_1819 – 1826, 1900.JPG Negatives filed at: City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office 48. Report title: South College Avenue Historic Survey (Mulberry – Horsetooth) 49. Date(s): May 24, 2019 50. Recorder(s): Sherry Albertson-Clark, AICP 51. Organization: City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office 52. Address: 281 North College Avenue, P. O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 53. Phone number(s): 970-224-6045 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. 80 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue Site Photos and Maps View of south wall looking NW ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 81 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue View of west (rear) wall looking east ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 82 Resource Number: 5LR.1508 Temporary Resource Number: Address: 609 S. College Avenue View of north wall looking SW ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 83 609 S College: Development Review 1 Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, May 20, 2020 Area of Adjacency 2 605 613 612 REPLACE MAP 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 84 Area of Adjacency 3 Area of Adjacency 4 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 85 Area of Adjacency 5 Area of Adjacency 6 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 86 Rist-Reitzer Residence, 609 S College: Front 7 609 S College : South Elevation 8 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 87 609 S College : Northeast 9 609 S College : Rear 10 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 88 Proposed Alterations 3.4.7 (D)(3) – Treatment of Eligible Resources on Site • Front porch (rehab existing features, replace any rotted wood trim in kind, remove non-historic brick planter) • Rehab all windows and doors; rehab original wood storms/replace aluminum storms with new wood to match originals • Repair/paint fish scale/scalloped shingles in gable ends • Careful cleaning of brick and sandstone foundation and sills; repointing • Chimneys (retain, repoint, reinforce from within, rebuild from photos if necessary) • Remove non-historic shutters from front window 11 Proposed Alterations: Addition 12 3.4.7 (D)(3) – Eligible Resources on Site Site Alterations: • Residential character and spatial relationships altered on rear to accommodate mixed use • Buffering tree canopy retained • Screening fence • 1957 garage removed in 2018 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 89 Proposed Alterations: Rear 13 • Removal of historic materials on rear elevation • Remove existing full- width rear porch • Remove 6-foot wide roof section for addition attachment • Insert low-profile roof window (egress) • Roof: structural reinforcement from within; in-kind replacement of composition shingles Proposed Alterations: Rear • Remove paint from rear elevation • Remove/save rear door (no change in opening) 14 13 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 90 Staff Findings SOI Standards • Standards met in general • All rehab work is appropriate and preserves publicly visible, character- defining features • Removal of historic materials minimizes or has no impact on distinctive and readily visible character-defining features • Hyphenation, subordinate scale and inset of addition meet SOI guidelines for rehabilitation/adaptive reuse and further guidance in Technical Brief #14 • Adaptive reuse: removal of similar rear porch features considered appropriate tradeoff to retain character-defining features/elevations/form 15 Design Compatibility 16 Design Compatibility (3.4.7(E) Table 1, Column A (all required) • Compatible height, width, scale, massing of new construction • Materials that are similar in quality and character to primary materials in area of adjacency • Relationship of new and old façade details • Visibility of historic features 15 16 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 91 Staff Findings 3.4.7 Design Compatibility • Height, width, massing of new construction complies with standards; addition difficult to see from primary viewpoints on College Avenue • Materials: hard coat stucco, real sandstone veneer relate to historic resources • Double-hung vertical windows relate to scale and proportion of existing north and south elevations • Horizontal reveal lines in stucco mimic decorative brick mold; addition height connects at decorative brick course • Design of connecting hyphen preserves and improves visibility of original rear elevation features 17 609 S College: Development Review 18 Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, May 20, 2020 17 18 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 92 Boards and Commissions Remote Hearing Item Request Form Submission of this form initiates review to determine if items ready for hearing are also considered “pressing and require prompt consideration” and that it would not be prudent to hear such items at an in-person meeting pursuant to City Council Ordinance 061, 2020. Board or Commission: Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson: Meg Dunn Date of Requested Hearing: May 20, 2020 Staff Liaison: Karen McWilliams Agenda Item: 609 South College Avenue - Development Review and Recommendation to Decision Maker Description: This item is for consideration of a change of use and proposed rear addition and rehabilitation work on a historic single-family residential building at 609 S College Avenue, converting the building to a mixed-use function as an extension of The Music District. Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. This item is being brought forward during this time as the property owner has a pending development application which cannot be approved until the project is reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Staff considers the request to be justified in moving forward in order to avoid unnecessary delay to construction activity. Applicant Justification: The applicant has provided the following justification: We would prefer not to delay the review of our proposed exterior alterations. Our intent is to submit for a building permit as quickly as we can after we complete the historic preservation review process. The house is sitting empty and our contractor is ready to start construction on this project very soon. Recommendations (If recommendation is denial, please include additional information): Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval Service Area Director Decision in Consultation with the City Attorney: Remote hearing approved on 05/08/20 by Caryn Champine, PDT Director, on the basis that holding an in-person hearing on this matter would not be prudent due to the declared local emergency and that the matter is pressing and requires prompt action based upon the above reasons and because the item is substantially complete, has completed significant public process, is ready for Commission consideration, and is being heard to ensure that work does not have to be redone and can continue to move forward. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 93 Materials and Color Board 609 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Stone & Masonry All existing masonry, including all brick veneer and stone to remain. All masonry to be thoroughly cleaned with the gentlest method possible. Repoint all mortar joints as needed. Colors: Remain as is, Red Brick and Buff Stone Existing Scalloped Shingle Siding All existing scalloped shingle siding to remain. Any areas in disrepair shall be carefully repaired and replaced only if absolutely necessary with compatible wood siding shingles. Prepare for repainting with the gentlest methods possible. Paint Color: Sherwin Williams custom color, Fairway Lane Gray, Warm1006241 Existing Wood Trim and Columns All existing wood trim including fascia, soffit, frieze, beams and columns shall be carefully repaired as needed and prepped by gentlest methods for new paint. Paint Color: Pure White by Sherwin WilliamsSW7005 Existing Windows Existing windows to remain. Existing windows shall be repaired as needed to be operational. Evaluate installing new insulated glazing (if possible with existing sashes). Provide caulking and other methods as needed to enhance weather tightness. Prepared for new paint with the gentlest methods possible. Paint Color: Pure White by Sherwin Williams SW7005 High Profile Composite Shingles Existing composite asphalt shingles shall be replaced with new high profile, impact resistant composite shingles, with a wood shake look: "GAF" HZ (or equal) Color: Shakewood Hardcoat Stucco 3-coat hardcoat stucco (El Rey fiber 47 or equivalent) over metal lath over over (1) layer 'Tamlyn homewrap" (or equal) drainable building wrap over o.s.b. shtng. Stucco Color: Color match of Sherwin Williams custom color, Fairway Lane Gray, Warm1006241 Stone Veneer: Real Stone Veneer (4" thick) All new stone veneer to match size, pattern and color of existing stone on existing structure. Stone to be locally sourced. Color: Buff Sandstone Break Metal Fascia and Parapet Cap Pre-finished, 26 gauge, break metal from Sheffield Metals at parapet cap and at stepped 15" deep fascia. Color: Dark Charcoal Hardcoat Stucco 3-coat hardcoat stucco (El Rey fiber 47 or equivalent) over metal lath over over (1) layer 'Tamlyn homewrap" (or equal) drainable building wrap over o.s.b. shtng. Stucco Color: This color is intended to mathc neighboring property at 605 S. College .Color match of Sherwin Williams Moderate White SW 6140 Storefront: Provide storefront system at new entry. Color: White (to match all other windows) New Windows Windows to be metal clad, wood windows. From Sierra Pacific (or equal). New windows to compliment existing historic windows in scale, shape and color. color: New windows to be White SP 001 and will match the color of the existing rehabilitated windows. Low Profile roof Window “Velux CABRIO" Balcony low profile, 37”x99”roof window for egress. Color: Dark Bronze c Sto All Exi All Exis Edition 1.0 – 01.01.2015 Product information Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL Product description • High quality natural pinewood coated with impregnation and layers of water-based acrylic clear lacquer or white paint • Top-hung upper section with bottom handle for convenient operation • Bottom-hung lower section with handles on top sash - opens outwards • Banister railings and balusters • Triple glazing • Ventilation flap and integrated dust and insect filter • Maintenance-free exterior covers Roof pitch • Can be installed in roof pitches between 35° and 53° Materials • Laminated pinewood • Glass, toughened outer glass / laminated inner glass • Lacquered aluminium, copper or zinc • VELUX ThermoTechnology™ insulation Downloads For installation instructions, CAD drawings, 3D BIM objects, SketchUp objects etc, please visit velux.nn. Certifications The VELUX product factories guarantee quality systems implementation process and environmental management systems through appropriate accreditations ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 EUTR In compliance with the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), EU regulation 995/2010 REACH We are aware of the REACH regulation and acknowledge the obligations. No products are obliged to be registered in accordance to REACH and none of our products contain any Substances of Very High Concern. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 95 Product information: Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL VELUX® 2 Available sizes and daylight area 472 mm 550 mm 660 mm 780 mm 942 mm 1140 mm 1340 mm 1600 mm Upper section PK10 Upper section SK10 (1.07) (1.35) 920 mm Lower section PK34 Lower section SK34 (0.56) (0.70) ( ) = Effective daylight area, m2 Lining measurements Size Width (mm) PK-- 887 SK-- 1085 Size Height (mm) --19 2461 CABRIO® GDL total height 2520 mm GDL PK19 glass unit PK10 GDL SK19 glass unit SK10 glass unit PK34 glass unit SK34 942 mm 1140 mm Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL • opens into an instant balcony in seconds • offers direct access to the outside • adds fresh air, daylight and a great view The top-hung upper section is bottom-operated and remains open in all positions up to 45° The bottom-hung lower section is opened/closed with two handles on the top sash. Integral banister railings automatically slide into position when the balcony is opened Width Height ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 96 Product information: Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL VELUX® 3 Technical values --66 --66L Uw [W/m2K] 1.2 1.2 Ug [W/m2K] 0.7 0.6 Rw [dB] 37 34 g [ ] 0.50 0.50 ττττV [ ] 0.69 0.70 ττττUV [ ] 0.05 0.05 Air permeability [class] 3 3 Thermal improvements such as lower U-value (Uw) and lower linear heat loss coefficient (φ) can be obtained with frame insulation collar and/or recessed installation. * Rw value 37 dB applies to GDL PK19 only. For information about Rw value for SK19, please contact velux.nn. Glazing structure --66 --66L Inner glass pane 2 x 3 mm laminated float with low ε coating 2 x 2 mm laminated float with low ε coating Middle glass pane 3 mm heat strengthened float with low ε coating 2.2 mm heat strengthened float with low ε coating Outer glass pane 4 mm toughened with coatings 3 mm toughened with coatings Cavity 2 x 12 mm 2 x 14 mm Glass panes Triple Triple Gas filling Argon Argon ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 97 Product information: Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL VELUX® 4 Glazing features --66 Heat insulation Low energy glazing provides reduced heat loss through the window and enhanced indoor comfort. ●●● Solar gain In the wintertime, the heat from the sun entering through the windows is a usable solar gain. ●● Solar protection In warm climates and in rooms with large window areas, a sun protective coating provides a better indoor climate during summer periods. Alternatively, exterior sunscreening can be installed. Sound insulation A combination of laminated glass and optimal glass thickness provides better sound insulation. Frame/sash construction and gaskets are equally important. ●●● Security Thicker laminated inner glass pane designed to increase resistance to manual attack (burglary). ● Energy balance The energy balance represents the ability of the roof window to utilise the passive solar gain and keep in the heat during winter and its ability to protect against the risk of overheating during summer. Sunscreening products can further improve indoor summer comfort. Safety Laminated inner glass is designed to hold the fragments together if the glass breaks. We recommend that you consider using glass units with laminated glass on the inside for windows placed above areas where people sleep, play or work. Outside strength Toughened outer glass pane makes your glazing more resistant to hail, heavy wind and snow loads. Delayed fading of materials Inner laminated glass protects materials behind the glass against UV radiation and therefore delays fading of the materials. Rain noise reduction The combination of laminated glass and extra thick glass helps provide a significant, audible reduction of rainfall sound. Frame/sash construction and gaskets are equally important. Easy-to-clean The easy-to-clean coating minimises the cleaning frequency of the outer glass pane and gives you a clearer view in case of rain. Anti-dew The anti-dew coating significantly reduces the days with dew on the outer glass pane and thus gives you a clear view. ● Good ●● Better ●●● Best Feature included in glazing variant ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 98 Product information: Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL VELUX® 5 Technical values, ventilation through ventilation flap Property Windows with triple glazing Width PK-- SK-- Air flow characteristics [l/s] 1.7 2.1 Air flow exponent [-] 0.63 0.63 Ventilation capacity at 4 Pa [l/s] 4.1 4.9 Ventilation capacity at 8 Pa [l/s] 6.3 7.6 Ventilation capacity at 10 Pa [l/s] 7.3 8.2 Ventilation capacity at 20 Pa [l/s] 8.1 9.8 Equivalent area through ventilation flap [mm2] 2900 3500 Geometrical free area [mm2] 6100 7200 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 99 Product information: Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL VELUX® 6 Visible features Lock casing Data plate Click-on covers Control bar • electro-galvanised steel • colour: "silver" • window type, size and variant code • CE marking • production code • QR code • lacquered aluminium • anodised aluminium Excellent insulation Barrel bolt Hinges with friction Barrel bolt bushings • expanded polystyrene • colour: grey charcoal • plastic • colour: grey • steel • colour: "silver" • electro-galvanised steel • colour: "silver" • plastic • colour: grey Bottom handle Triple glazing Railings and balusters • anodised aluminium • toughened outer glass • laminated inner glass for personal safety • plastic and painted aluminium • colour: black • passivated steel hinges • colour: "silver" ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 100 Product information: Roof balcony CABRIO® GDL VELUX® 7 Cleaning and maintenance To clean the outer pane from the inside, rotate sash and secure in cleaning position with barrel bolt. Open the upper section to clean the outer pane of the lower element. VELUX repair and maintenance kits are available. Exterior covers Material NCS standard colour RAL nearest standard colour Lacquered aluminium (-0--) grey S 7500-N 7043 Lacquered aluminium (-5--) black S 9000-N 9005 Copper (-1--) - - Titanium zinc (-3--) - - Special colour requests, please contact velux.nn. Interior finish Clear lacquer Impregnation and layers of water-based acrylic lacquer White paint Impregnation and layers of water-based acrylic lacquer and paint, NCS standard colour: S 0500-N, nearest RAL standard colour: 9003. Special colour requests, please contact velux.nn. Blinds, awnings and shutters Interior sun screening Blackout blind Roller blind Pleated blind Flying pleated blind Double pleated energy blind Venetian blind Duo blackout blind ●●● ●●● ●● ● ●● ●● 609 S. College Avenue Existing Elevations F a c a b d 1.EastElevation 2.NorthElevation 3.WestElevation 4.SouthElevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 102 609 S. College Avenue Features to be Rehabilitated F a c a b d Allgabledormers,shinglesiding,frontchimney Allelementsoffrontporch Allwindows,allbrick andmasonry Windows,dooropening, Frontdoor brickandmasonry Rearchimney Allelementsoffrontporch, includingcolumns,andalltrim ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 103 C.O. G W C S E VAULT ELEC TELE T VAULT ELEC VAULT ELEC / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / G G G G G E E E E E E E CTV CTV CTV X X G G G G OHU OHU X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 105 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 106 605 S. College Avenue Existing Elevations F a a b d 1.EastElevation 2.SouthElevation 3.WestElevation 4.NorthElevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 107 613 S. College Avenue Existing Elevations F a a b d 1.EastElevation 2.SouthElevation 3.WestElevation 4.NorthElevation ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 108 Existing View From College Ave (Looking Southwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 109 Proposed View From College Ave (Looking Southwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 110 View From College Ave (Looking Northwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 111 View From College Ave (Looking Northwest) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 112 View From Alley (Looking West) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 113 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 114 View From W Myrtle St & Alley Entrance (Looking Southeast) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 115 View From W Myrtle St & Alley Entrance (Looking Southeast) 609 S College Ave ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 116 Materials and Color Board 609 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Stone & Masonry All existing masonry, including all brick veneer and stone to remain. All masonry to be thoroughly cleaned with the gentlest method possible. Repoint all mortar joints as needed. Colors: Remain as is, Red Brick and Buff Stone Existing Scalloped Shingle Siding All existing scalloped shingle siding to remain. Any areas in disrepair shall be carefully repaired and replaced only if absolutely necessary with compatible wood siding shingles. Prepare for repainting with the gentlest methods possible. Paint Color: Sherwin Williams custom color, Fairway Lane Gray, Warm1006241 Existing Wood Trim and Columns All existing wood trim including fascia, soffit, frieze, beams and columns shall be carefully repaired as needed and prepped by gentlest methods for new paint. Paint Color: Pure White by Sherwin WilliamsSW7005 Existing Windows Existing windows to remain. Existing windows shall be repaired as needed to be operational. Evaluate installing new insulated glazing (if possible with existing sashes). Provide caulking and other methods as needed to enhance weather tightness. Prepared for new paint with the gentlest methods possible. Paint Color: Pure White by Sherwin Williams SW7005 High Profile Composite Shingles Existing composite asphalt shingles shall be replaced with new high profile, impact resistant composite shingles, with a wood shake look: "GAF" HZ (or equal) Color: Shakewood Hardcoat Stucco 3-coat hardcoat stucco (El Rey fiber 47 or equivalent) over metal lath over over (1) layer 'Tamlyn homewrap" (or equal) drainable building wrap over o.s.b. shtng. Stucco Color: Color match of Sherwin Williams custom color, Fairway Lane Gray, Warm1006241 Stone Veneer: Real Stone Veneer (4" thick) All new stone veneer to match size, pattern and color of existing stone on existing structure. Stone to be locally sourced. Color: Buff Sandstone Break Metal Fascia and Parapet Cap Pre-finished, 26 gauge, break metal from Sheffield Metals at parapet cap and at stepped 15" deep fascia. Color: Charcoal Hardcoat Stucco 3-coat hardcoat stucco (El Rey fiber 47 or equivalent) over metal lath over over (1) layer 'Tamlyn homewrap" (or equal) drainable building wrap over o.s.b. shtng. Stucco Color: This color is intended to match neighboring property at 605 S. College. Color match of Sherwin Williams Moderate White SW 6140 Storefront: Provide storefront system at new entry. Color: White (to match all other windows) New Windows Windows to be metal clad, wood windows. From Sierra Pacific (or equal). New windows to compliment existing historic windows in scale, shape and color. color: New windows to be White SP 001 and will match the color of the existing rehabilitated windows. Low Profile roof Window “Velux CABRIO" Balcony low profile, 37”x99” roof window for egress. Color: Dark Bronze c Sto All Exi All Exis CABRIO™ Balcony roof window When closed, the CABRIO fits snugly to the roof just like our other roof windows. But when you open it, you open up a whole new dimension an instant balcony with your own personal rooftop view. 60 0 0:12 - 20:12 60 10 2:12 - 20:12 60 15 3:12 - 20:12 85 15 3:12 - 137:12 30 0 0:12 - 7 :12 ½ 55 18.5 4:12 - 17:12 VELUX Font 53 8.5:12 - 15:12 35.25 Roof pitch/slope ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 118 A step beyond standard roof windows Imagine a home that captures beautiful outdoor views as interior focal points. Rooms that invite nature in by moving beyond confining walls. With the VELUX CABRIO™ balcony roof window, you’ll realize these design possibilities and much more. Designed for within-reach installations, the CABRIO features an exclusive duo-sash operation: the top sash section of the CABRIO opens to provide ventilation, and the bottom sash section opens outward, actually creating a step-out roof balcony for the ultimate blending of interior spaces with the outdoors. Rooms are visually expanded with the light-filled, spacious atmosphere that the balcony creates. And when the unit is closed, an exclusive ventilation flap provides air circulation – even when it’s raining. Features Exclusive dual-sash operation. Top sash opens for maximum ventilation and also pivots inward for easy glass cleaning from inside the room. Bottom sash opens outward to actually create a roof balcony. When the GDL CABRIO roof window is closed, a ventilation flap allows fresh air to circulate. Durably constructed with a select wood frame and sashes coated with a clear protective finish and exterior aluminum or copper cladding. Blinds are also available. Available with laminated insulated glass only. • • • • • • • VUSA-2519-0507 ©2007 VELUX Group ®VELUX, VELUX logo are registered trademarks ™CABRIO are trademarks of VELUX Group VELUX America Inc. 450 Old Brickyard Road • PO Box 5001 • Greenwood, SC 29648-5001 Tel 1-800-888-3589 • Fax 1-864-943-2631 • www.veluxusa.com Model GDL CABRIO™ Size code P19 Outside frame in. 371⁄16 x 991⁄4 Rough opening in. 393⁄8 x 101 Daylight area (upper section) in. 30 x 531⁄4 Daylight area (lower section) in. 30 x 283⁄4 Ventilation area sq. ft. (upper section) 22.5 Ventilation area (flap) sq. in. 36.7 Net wt (w/ temp. glass) lbs. 269 The CABRIO maintains a low profile when closed to preserve the beauty of the Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 STAFF REPORT May 20, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 600 MATHEWS STREET, THE E.D. BALL PROPERTY – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION – DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to make modifications to the property for ease of use. This includes demolition of a portion of a c.1921 addition and replacement with a new addition, and modifications to the porch, windows, and doors of the property. APPLICANT/OWNER: Susan and Douglas Naffziger (owners); Taylor Meyer, VFLA, (design representative) 600 Mathews St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RECOMMENDATION: Proposal does not meet the Standards ROLE OF LPC: Design review in this case is required and governed by the City’s Municipal Code under Chapter 14.54(b). In cases where a property’s historic designation does not come from Fort Collins City Council (i.e., listings in the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic Places), a report must be prepared documenting whether the project meets or does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). This report is typically issued by staff in most cases – currently staff forwards reports to the Landmark Preservation Commission when alterations do not meet the Standards to a degree that threatens the historic designation of the property. In these cases, the Commission’s role is to review the drafted report, provide additional comment regarding how the project does or does not meet the Standards and what effect the project will have on the historic status of the property, and issue the report. Reports, once issued, are not subject to appeal. Staff has drafted the report called for under Chapter 14, Article IV for the Commission’s review of exterior alterations. This is provided in place of an analysis in the staff report to avoid unnecessary duplication. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The E.D. Ball Residence at 600 Mathews was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District. It was constructed in c.1895. It is not a City Landmark. The applicant is proposing several exterior alterations including the demolition of a c.1921 addition, construction of a new addition in its place, infill of an historic entry, replacement of windows, and modifications to the porch. Review by either staff or the Commission is required under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Staff has forwarded this application for review to the Commission due to the extensive nature of exterior modifications and the possibility that the property may no longer contribute to the Historic District after the project is completed. Revised 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 120 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Excerpt from 1980 NRHP Nomination: 103. E. D. Ball House (600 Mathews): c. 1895, single, detached, one and a half stories. Irregular plan, clapboard, truncated hip with projecting gables, plain, boxed comice, three bays. Current survey documentation has been attached for the Commission’s review. ALTERATION HISTORY: The property does not appear to have undergone design review before the Commission in the past. The following is a record of known alterations to the property: • 1921 – Remodeling house (based on cross-referencing Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, it is probably that this is when the east addition was constructed) • 1939 – Reroof garage; repair porch • 1942 – reshingling (likely main house) • 1948 – Repair porch and garage (based on cross-referencing Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, it appears this is when the wrap-around porch was most likely added). • 2006 – Garage reroof DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability for the following items: 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch 5. Demolition and reconstruction of concrete porch floor 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal 7. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle) – Since this item clearly meets the Standards and is typically approved by staff, it is not recommended for Commission discussion. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, on April staff asked the applicant to provide more detail on the following items: 1. Elaboration on materials used for alterations. 2. Additional photography documenting conditions of materials. 3. Further explanation on removal and infill of the north-facing doorway. 4. Elaboration on the condition of the windows that may justify replacement rather than repair under the Standards. The applicant’s design representative, Taylor Meyer, provided additional information and photographs to staff on May 5, 2020, and provided additional information and project changes in response to LPC questions at the work session on May 19, 2020. PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff has provided an analysis of the applicable review criteria in the attached draft report. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations to 600 Mathews, staff makes the following findings of fact: • The property at 600 Mathews is not a City Landmark, but is designated as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Revised 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 121 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 • Upon review, the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission issue the attached draft report as final, documenting that the project’s effects on the historic property and its likely resulting status within the Laurel School Historic District. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alterations to the E.D. Ball Property at 600 Mathews Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that our findings shall be conveyed to the owner, and shall be filed for potential transmittal to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the property’s historic status. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft report for project pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. (revised 5-19-20) 2. Design review application and supplemental information from applicant. 3. Survey documentation for 600 Mathews St. 4. Staff Presentation (revised 5-19-20) 5. Remote Hearing Form 6. Additional information and project changes submitted by the applicant May 19, 2020 (revised 5-19-20) 7. Sample Cost Calculator report for window rehab vs. replacement (using 45”x70” south window) (revised 5- 19-20) Revised 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 122 REPORT OF ALTERATIONS TO DESIGNATED RESOURCE Site Number/Address: 600 Mathews St. Laurel School National Register Historic District ISSUED: DRAFT - PENDING Susan and Douglas Naffziger 600 Mathews St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Naffziger: This report is to document the summary of effects from proposed alterations to the E.D. Ball Residence at 600 Mathews Street, pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, made by the Landmark Preservation Commission at their May 13th meeting. A copy of this report may be forwarded to the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. More specifically, the Commission commented on the following work items: 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch 5. Demolition and reconstruction of concrete porch floor 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal 7. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle) – Since this item clearly meets the Standards and is typically cleared by staff, it has not been included in the summary below. Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis (Rehabilitation) Standard Met (Y/N) 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 property is remaining residential in use, and will remain recognizable as a residential building. Y ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 123 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. 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; • This addition appears to be historic, based on its construction year in relation to the period of significance suggested in the Laurel School Historic District documentation (1876-1930). A permit pulled in 1921 to remodel the home precedes the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance map in which the east side of the residence matches its current configuration. The remodel appears to have extended the original T-form of the home, adding a second north-south section, as well as a small bump out, likely for a kitchen or mudroom. It is the small bump out that is proposed for demolition. While minor, these are common historic features on homes of this style and type and are typically considered historic alterations that should be preserved. Its demolition does not meet this Standard. 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted above, the demolition of this portion of the existing c.1921 addition does not meet this Standard. 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. • The replacement of historic windows is generally not recommended unless their condition makes them unable to be repaired. Windows on this home are predominantly one-over-one wood sash windows of varying sizes, although some non-historic metal storms and window units are present on the east and south elevations. In this case, the windows do not appear to warrant replacement as they are in good condition overall, although several appear to require repair. It is not expected that there will be significant energy performance gain from the replacement of these windows as most of the windows appear to already have metal storm coverings. Furthermore, the proposal includes altering the window form from the existing one-over-one to a two-, three-, and four-over-one configuration without historic documentation to substantiate whether that configuration is appropriate on this property. This item does not meet this Standard. N ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 124 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch • From available documentation, the second doorway was likely added as part of the 1921 remodel. Looking at city directories after that point, multiple residents are listed at the property, indicating that this may have been a modification to accommodate apartment use in the front room. Considering that this is a comparatively unique alteration in the Laurel School Historic District, and took place during the suggested period of significance for the district, removing this feature does not meet this Standard. 5. Demolish and reconstruct concrete porch floor • The concrete flooring on the porch is likely not original to the home, as the porch appears to have been modified several times over the life of the home. Potentially relevant permits include two issued to “repair porch” in both 1939 and 1948. The Sanborn map in 1943 shows only a partial frame porch on the north portion of the building, indicating that the wrap-around and concrete floor was likely added in 1948. While occurring outside the period of significance, this modification is over fifty years of age and distinctive for the property. While repair is generally recommended over wholesale replacement, this item generally meets this Standard. 6. Construct new guardrail • The installation of the guardrail is a common addition to historic homes to meet current building code and safety requirements. However, wood is a more appropriate product in these circumstances than the proposed powder-coated metal. Nearly all of the finishes on the exterior are wood. If metal is used, it would be best for it to not anchor into the wood porch columns to avoid damaging the historic carpentry. This item generally meets this Standard. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 125 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. 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted under Standard 2, although a smaller feature and not original to the house, rear additions made during an historic period for kitchens or mudrooms are typically considered historic and are recommended for preservation. It appears the east addition, along with this kitchen/mudroom, were added in 1921, during the period of significance for the district. It is distinctive and recommended for preservation. This item does not meet this Standard. 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted above, the demolition of this portion of the existing c.1921 addition does not meet this Standard. 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. • This item includes replacement of the existing windows with metal-clad wood windows of a new configuration (shifting from existing one-over-one configuration to a new two-, three-, or four-over one). The new configuration appears to be conjectural and something more common in later Arts-and-Crafts era homes. This alteration would create a false sense of history and does not meet this Standard. 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch • As noted under Standard 2, it appears this doorway was likely added along with the east addition in 1921 to allow the owners to let rooms to guests or students at Colorado Agricultural College (now Colorado State University). Removing this alteration would eliminate a record of use during the historic period and does not meet this Standard. 5. Demolish and reconstruct concrete porch floor • Although wholesale replacement is not typically recommended, this element generally meets this Standard. 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal • As noted under Standard 2, adding new guard rails are common alterations to historic homes that typically meet Standards. Although wood would be a more appropriate N ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 126 material, the proposed railing is of simple design and generally meets this Standard. SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted under Standard 2, although a smaller feature and not original to the house, rear additions made during an historic period for kitchens or mudrooms are typically considered historic and are recommended for preservation. It appears the east addition, along with this kitchen/mudroom, were added in 1921, during the period of significance for the district. It is distinctive and recommended for preservation. This item does not meet this Standard. 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted above, the demolition of this portion of the existing c.1921 addition does not meet this Standard. 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. • N/A 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch • As noted under Standard 3, it appears this doorway was likely added along with the east addition in 1921 to allow the owners to let rooms to guests or students at Colorado Agricultural College (now Colorado State University). The modification of homes to serve as apartments is an under-studied but likely significant period in the development of this neighborhood east of campus. Removing this alteration would eliminate a record of use during the historic period and does not meet this Standard. 5. Demolish and reconstruct concrete porch floor • As noted under Standard 2, it is likely that the north portion of the porch was original to the home, while the east and south elements, along with the concrete foundation, were added in 1948 as part of a porch repair. Although falling outside of the period of significance, it is a distinctive architectural feature of the home that appears to have acquired its own significance. While wholesale replacement is typically not recommended, this item generally meets this Standard. 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal • N/A N ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 127 SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted above, the c.1921 addition, including the mudroom/kitchen bump-out is a distinctive alteration of buildings of this era and is typically recommended for preservation. 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted above, the demolition of this portion of the existing c.1921 addition does not meet this Standard. 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. • As noted under Standard 2, the replacement of historic windows is generally not recommended unless their condition makes them unable to be repaired. This is largely due to the significance of historic windows to defining the character of most historic buildings. Windows on this home are predominantly one-over-one wood sash windows of varying sizes. In this case, the windows do not appear to warrant replacement as they are in good condition overall, although several appear to require repair of varying degrees. This item does not meet this Standard. 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch • As noted under Standard 4, it appears this doorway was likely added along with the east addition in 1921 to allow the owners to let rooms to guests or students at Colorado Agricultural College (now Colorado State University). The modification of homes to serve as apartments is an under-studied but likely significant period in the development of this neighborhood east of campus. Alterations that represent significant shifts or trends are typically considered character-defining features recommended for preservation. This item does not meet this Standard. 5. Demolish and reconstruct concrete porch floor • The concrete flooring on the porch is likely not original to the home, as the porch appears to have been modified several times over the life of the home. Potentially relevant permits include two issued to “repair porch” in both 1939 and 1948. The Sanborn map in 1917 shows only a partial frame porch on the north portion of the building. The wrap-around may have been added later. It N ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 128 is probable the concrete flooring was added in either 1939 or 1948 along with the wrap-around expansion of the porch as it exists today. While over fifty years of age, it does not appear to have taken place during the period of significance. While wholesale replacement is typically not recommended, there are not substantial differences in the workmanship of concrete in the mid-twentieth century and current concrete methods. This item generally meets this Standard. 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal • As noted previously, the addition of guardrails on porches for safety is a common rehabilitation method for historic buildings. While wood is typically recommended over metal, this item appears to meet this Standard. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 129 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. 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; • N/A; the demolition of this section is not based on condition. 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; • N/A 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. • As noted previously, while several of the historic window units are in need of repair, the overall condition of the windows appears to warrant repair rather than replacement under this Standard. The new proposed windows would be metal-clad wood of two-, three-, or four-over-one design. The proposed replacements would not match the historic in design, color, texture, or materials. This item does not meet this Standard. 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch • N/A; the removal of this feature does not appear to be based on condition. 5. Demolish and reconstruct concrete porch floor • As noted previously, the concrete flooring on the porch is likely not original to the home, probably added in 1948 along with the entire west portion of the porch. Wholesale replacement is typically not recommended and in this case, while there are cracks in the concrete, this form of cracking is typical and can usually be repaired with epoxy sealant or a new top seal rather than full demolition. This item does not meet this Standard. 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal • N/A; the construction of this feature is not related to the condition of the property. N 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. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 130 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. 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted previously, the portion of the c.1921 addition proposed for demolition appears to be a character- defining feature and would not be recommended for removal under the Standards. 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; • The demolition of the existing portion of the home does not appear to meet this Standard. But for the demolition of that feature, the addition appears to meet many of the requirements of additions on historic buildings under this Standard. It is of compatible design, would be distinguishable from the new construction and is subordinate to the primary historic building. However, the engineered wood product proposed for siding the new addition is not typically recommended for use on historic buildings due to its questionable durability compared to old-growth lumber, such as that on the portion of the 1921 addition proposed for demolition. Furthermore, due to the demolition involved, this alteration would not be reversible. 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. • N/A 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch • As noted previously, this doorway seems likely to represent an important development trend during the Historic District’s suggested period of significance. Although likely reversible if the door is retained on-site, its removal and infill would not likely meet this Standard. 5. Demolish and reconstruct concrete porch floor • The project proposes replacement generally in-kind, with modification to south side area. This item generally meets this Standard. 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal • The proposed guardrail is of minimalist design and, while wood would be recommended in this case for material, the powder-coated metal should not have a detrimental effect on the character of the property. This item likely meets this Standard. N ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 131 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. 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; • As noted previously, the portion of the c.1921 addition proposed for demolition appears to be a character- defining feature and would not be recommended for demolition under the Standards. Demolition is not reversible, so this item does not meet the Standards. 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; • The project proposes replacement generally in-kind, with modification to south side area. This item generally meets this Standard. 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. • N/A 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch • N/A 5. Demolish and reconstruct concrete porch floor • As noted previously, the construction of the deck does appear to be reversible, and does meet this Standard. 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal • The construction of the deck does appear to be reversible, and does meet this Standard. N The Commission found that the proposed work does not meet the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Based on the degree of alterations it is expected that the property will remain contributing to the district. However, any further alterations, such as replacement of siding, removal of porch posts, or further additions, would likely render the property non-contributing to the Laurel School Historic District and ineligible for potential City Landmark listing. That would also prohibit current and future owners from leveraging multiple financial incentives for historic preservation. Notice of the completion of this report has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. Please note that all ensuing work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming alterations are subject to stop- work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration requirements and penalties. If you have any questions regarding the Commission’s report, or if we may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at preservation@fcgov.com or 970-416-4250. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 132 Sincerely, Meg Dunn Chair, Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 133 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 134 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 135 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 136 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 137 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 138 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg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±+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHU 5H  0DWKHZV)RUW&ROOLQV&2  'HDU0U%HUWROLQL  7KLVSXUSRVHRIWKLVOHWWHULVWRDGGUHVVWKHTXHVWLRQVDVNHGLQHPDLOVIURP\RXGDWHGDQGWR VXSSOHPHQWRXUUHTXHVWIRUD'HVLJQ5HYLHZE\WKH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ'LYLVLRQVXEPLWWHGRQ /LVWHGEHORZDUH\RXUTXHVWLRQVHDFKIROORZHGE\DUHVSRQVH  • /ŶŐĞŶĞƌĂů͕LJŽƵ͛ůůǁĂŶƚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵŽƌĞƵƉͲĐůŽƐĞƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ͕ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJƚŽĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚǁŝŶĚŽǁĂŶĚĚŽŽƌ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘EŽƚĞǀĞƌLJǁŝŶĚŽǁŶĞĞĚƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚ͕ďƵƚƚŚĞƌĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĞŶŽƵŐŚƚŽŐĞƚĂŐĞŶĞƌĂůƐĞŶƐĞŽĨƚŚĞ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐĂŶĚĚŽŽƌƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ĂƌĞƐƚŝůĞƐĂŶĚƌĂŝůƐƌŽƚƚŝŶŐŽƵƚ͕ŽƌĂƌĞƚŚĞLJũƵƐƚĂďŝƚƐĐƵĨĨĞĚĂŶĚ ŝŶŶĞĞĚŽĨĂƐĂŶĚĂŶĚƌĞƉĂŝŶƚͿ͘ 3OHDVHVHHDWWDFKHGSDJHVZLWKDGGLWLRQDOSKRWRJUDSKV  • tĞŚĂĚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĚŽŽƌǁĂLJƐŝŶĐĞŚĂǀŝŶŐƚǁŽĞŶƚƌŝĞƐƐŽĐůŽƐĞŝƐƵŶƵƐƵĂůʹLJŽƵ͛ůůũƵƐƚǁĂŶƚƚŽĞdžƉůĂŝŶ ƚŚĞũƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨǁŚLJƚŚĂƚŝƐďĞŝŶŐƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ͘ 7KHUHDUHWZRHQWU\GRRUVVLGHE\VLGHRQDGMDFHQWH[WHULRUZDOOVDFFHVVLQJWKHIURQWSRUFK2QHRIWKHGRRUV LVRQDZHVWZDOOIDFLQJ0DWKHZV6WUHHWDQGSURYLGHVDFFHVVWRWKHPDLQHQWU\KDOO7KHRWKHUGRRULVRQD QRUWKZDOOIDFLQJ0\UWOH6WUHHWDQGSURYLGHVDFFHVVWRDURRPWKDWZLOOEHFRPHWKHPDVWHUEHGURRPDIWHUWKH UHQRYDWLRQLVFRPSOHWH&XUUHQWO\ZKHQDJXHVWVWHSVRQWKHIURQWSRUFKWKH\DUHJUHHWHGZLWKWKHVHWZRGRRUV RIPDWFKLQJVW\OHZKLFKJLYHVWKHDSSHDUDQFHRIWZR³IURQW´GRRUV(OLPLQDWLQJWKHQRUWKIDFLQJGRRUUHPRYHV WKLVFRQIXVLRQDQGNHHSLQJWKHZHVWIDFLQJGRRUFRPSOLHVZLWK/DQG8VH&RGH )  E   9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621DUFKLWHFWV  &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2 (DVW/LQFROQZD\&KH\HQQH:< ZZZYIODFRP  • ŽƵůĚLJŽƵŝŶĐůƵĚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǁǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͕ĚŽŽƌƐ͕ĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǁĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚĚĞĐŬΘƌĂŝůŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞƉŽƌĐŚ͍dŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƉƌŽĚƵĐƚďƌŽĐŚƵƌĞŽƌƐƉĞĐƐŚĞĞƚŝĨLJŽƵ͛ǀĞŶĂƌƌŽǁĞĚƚŚĂƚ ĨĂƌ͕ďƵƚĂƚůĞĂƐƚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĚĞƚĂŝůƐƐƵĐŚĂƐǁŚĞƚŚĞƌƚŚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐǁŽƵůĚďĞǁŽŽĚ͕ǁŚĂƚƚLJƉĞŽĨĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞĚĞĐŬŝŶŐ LJŽƵ͛ƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉŽƌĐŚ͕ǁŚĂƚŬŝŶĚŽĨƐŝĚŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞŽŶƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ;ĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞǀƐ͘ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚůĂƉďŽĂƌĚͿ͕ ĞƚĐ͘hƐƵĂůůLJ͕ĂĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐƉĞĐƐŚĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚƐĂŶĚĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶƐŝƐƚŚĞďĞƐƚǁĂLJƚŽĐŽŶǀĞLJƚŚĂƚ͘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acket Pg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acket Pg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acket Pg. 144 &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2_ (DVW/LQFROQZD\&KH\HQQH:<_ ZZZ9)/$FRP '5$:,1*180%(5 352-(&7180%(5 6($/ ,1$662&,$7,21:,7+ 6WUHQJWKLQGHVLJQ6WUHQJWKLQSDUWQHUVKLS 6WUHQJWKLQFRPPXQLW\ 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621$5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256,1& 7+,6'5$:,1*0$<127%(3+272*5$3+('6&$11('75$&('25 &23,(',1$1<0$11(5:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)9)/$ &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &23<5,*+7 6+((7,668$1&(6 '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 5(9,6,216 1R 'HVFULSWLRQ 'DWH 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621 70 70 $5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256 $0 $0 *??1DII]LJHU5HVLGHQFH?5HYLW?1DII]LJHU5HVLGHQFH5HPRGHOUYW $; :,1'2:6 1$))=,*(5 5(6,'(1&( 0$7+(:6675((7 )257&2//,16&2  +,6725,&35(6(59$7,21 68%0,77$/  (;7(5,25 ,17(5,25                           ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 145 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 146 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 147 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 148 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 149 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 150 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 151 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 152 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 153 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 154 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 155 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 156 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 157 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 158 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 159 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 160 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 161 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 162 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 163 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 164 Design Review (NRHP) – Alterations to 600 Mathews 1 Landmark Preservation Commission – Item #4 May 20, 2020 Commission’s Role Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide additional comment regarding: • whether alterations do/do not meet SOI Standards • Whether property will likely remain contributing to the Laurel School Historic District Staff issues report on behalf of LPC 2 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 165 Background • c.1895 – property constructed • c.1921 – major addition to east side of property • c.1948 – addition of wrap-around porch to west side of property • 1980: Property (house & garage) listed in National Register (contributing to Laurel School Historic District) 3 Proposed Alterations 1. Demolition of a portion of the c.1921 addition on the east side of the main house; 2. Construction of a new addition on the east side of the main house; 3. Replacement of exterior windows with metal clad wood replacements. 4. Infill of north-facing doorway on porch 5. Demolish & reconstruct concrete porch floor 6. Construct new guardrail of powder-coated metal 7. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle) – Since this item clearly meets the Standards and is typically cleared by staff, it is not recommended for Commission discussion. 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 166 Requests for Add. Information by staff 1. Elaboration on materials used for alterations. 2. Additional photography documenting conditions of materials. 3. Further explanation on removal and infill of the north-facing doorway. 4. Elaboration on the condition of the windows that may justify replacement rather than repair under the Standards. Additional information provided by applicant’s design representative on May 5 in letter in packet as attachment. 5 Proposed Alterations – North Elevation 6 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 167 Proposed Alterations – East Elevation 7 Proposed Alterations – South Elevation 8 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 168 Proposed Alterations – West Elevation 9 Proposed Alterations – Details 10 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 169 New Info From Applicant 1. Memo in response to 5-13-2020 Work Session questions from Commission 2. Project revised: synthetic deck on porch removed from scope; proposing demolition and reconstruction of concrete slab instead. Additional information provided by applicant’s design representative on May 19 in packet as extra attachment. 11 5-19-2020 Additional Details 12 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 170 5-19-2020 Additional Details 13 Staff Findings of Fact • The property at 600 Mathews is not a City Landmark, but is designated as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places. • Upon review, the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 14 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 171 Reminder: Commission’s Role Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide additional comment regarding: • whether alterations do/do not meet SOI Standards • Whether property will likely remain contributing to the Laurel School Historic District Staff issues report on behalf of LPC 15 15 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - updated 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 172 Boards and Commissions Remote Hearing Item Request Form Submission of this form initiates review to determine if items ready for hearing are also considered “pressing and require prompt consideration” and that it would not be prudent to hear such items at an in-person meeting pursuant to City Council Ordinance 061, 2020. Board or Commission: Landmark Preservation Commission Chairperson: Meg Dunn Date of Requested Hearing: May 20, 2020 Staff Liaison: Karen McWilliams Agenda Item: 600 Mathews Street – Design Review Description: This is a request to make exterior alterations to the property at 600 Mathews Street, a contributing building in the Laurel School National Register Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, 1980). Remote Meeting Justification Pursuant to Section 4.A. & 6.A. of Ordinance 61,2020: An in-person meeting would not be prudent due to COVID-19 public health emergency. This item is being brought before the LPC at this time as it relates to funding, operation and business activities that the City must continue despite the current crisis. The property owner has a pending application which cannot be approved until the alterations are reviewed by the LPC and either a Certificate of Acceptability is issued, or a report is provided to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office. Applicant Justification: The applicant has requested that the item be heard as promptly as possible in order to avoid unnecessary delay in approval of his building permit and subsequent construction activity. Recommendations (If recommendation is denial, please include additional information): Chairperson Recommendation: Approval Staff Liaison Recommendation: Approval Service Area Director Decision in Consultation with the City Attorney: Remote hearing approved on 05/08/20 by Caryn Champine, PDT Director, on the basis that holding an in-person hearing on this matter would not be prudent due to the declared local emergency and that the matter is pressing and requires prompt action based upon the above reasons and because the item is substantially complete, has completed significant public process, is ready for Commission consideration, and is being heard to ensure that work does not have to be redone and can continue to move forward. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 173 6WUHQJWKLQGHVLJQ6WUHQJWKLQSDUWQHUVKLS6WUHQJWKLQFRPPXQLW\ 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621DUFKLWHFWV &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH )RUW&ROOLQV&2 (DVW/LQFROQZD\&KH\HQQH:<  ZZZYIODFRP 0D\ &LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV &RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW 1HLJKERUKRRG6HUYLFHV 1&ROOHJH$YH )RUW&ROOLQV&2 $WWHQWLRQ -LP%HUWROLQL±+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHU 5H 0DWKHZV)RUW&ROOLQV&2 'HDU0U%HUWROLQL 7KLVSXUSRVHRIWKLVOHWWHULVWRDGGUHVVWKHTXHVWLRQVDVNHGE\WKH/3&ERDUGPHPEHUVGXULQJWKH/3&ZRUN VHVVLRQPHHWLQJRQ/LVWHGEHORZDUH\RXUTXHVWLRQVHDFKIROORZHGE\DUHVSRQVH  1HOVRQ D 3URYLGHUHDVRQIRUUHSODFLQJIURQWGRRU SULPDU\IDFLQJZHVW 7KHKRPHRZQHUVSUHIHUDGLIIHUHQWVW\OHGRRUWKH\KDYHQRW\HWVHOHFWHGZKDWVW\OH GRRUWKH\ZDQW%XWWKH\KDYHVDLGWKH\¶GOLNHO\VHOHFWDRUSDQHJODVVGRRUZLWKD VROLGSDQHODWWKHERWWRPSRUWLRQRIWKHGRRU7KH\KDYHGHFLGHGQRWWRDGGD WUDQVRPZLQGRZDERYHWKHHQWU\GRRU E 5HDVRQIRUUHSODFLQJZLQGRZV" 7KHKRPHRZQHUVSODQVWRDJHLQSODFHLQWKLVKRPH7KHLUILUVWSULRULW\ZLWKWKLV UHPRGHOSURMHFWLVWRFUHDWHDKRPHWKDWLVFRPIRUWDEOHHQHUJ\HIILFLHQWORZ PDLQWHQDQFHDQGDOOWKHZKLOHNHHSLQJEXGJHWLQPLQG1HZZLQGRZVZRQ¶WEHGUDIW\ DQGZLOOEHPRUHHQHUJ\HIILFLHQWHDVLHUWRRSHUDWHDQGZRQ¶WUHTXLUHORWVRI PDLQWHQDQFHDQGZLOOOLNHO\FRVWOHVVWKDQZKDWLVUHTXLUHGWRDFKLHYHWKLVE\UHSDLULQJ WKHH[LVWLQJZLQGRZV F 5HDVRQUDLOLQJLVQHHGHGIRUSRUFK" 7KHUHLVQREXLOGLQJFRGHWKDWUHTXLUHVDJXDUGUDLORQWKHSRUFK7KHKRPHRZQHUVZDQW DJXDUGUDLOIRUWKHLURZQVDIHW\DVWKHHGJHRIWKHSRUFKLVDWULSIDOOKD]DUGHVSHFLDOO\ IRUKRPHRZQHUVZKRLQWHQGWRDJHLQSODFH  0XUUD\ D :RXOG9)/$WKHRZQHUVEHZLOOLQJWRZRUNZLWKVWDIIWRPRGLI\WKHSURMHFWWREH PRUHFRQVLVWHQWZLWK6WDQGDUGV" 9)/$DQGWKHKRPHRZQHUVDUHZLOOLQJWRZRUNZLWKVWDIIWRPRGLI\WKHSURMHFWWREHPRUH FRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH6WDQGDUGVKRZHYHULIWKHUHVXOWLVDGHVLJQWKDWGRHVQ¶WDFKLHYHWKH KRPHRZQHUV¶JRDOVDQGZLWKLQWKHLUEXGJHWWKHQLW¶VXQOLNHO\WKH\¶OOZDQWWRPRYHIRUZDUG ZLWKWKHPRGLILHGGHVLJQ ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Responses to Work Session Questions, rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 174   9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621DUFKLWHFWV  &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH)RUW&ROOLQV&2 (DVW/LQFROQZD\&KH\HQQH:< ZZZYIODFRP E 'HFNFDQRQO\FRPHXSDERXWKRZDUHWKH\KDQGOLQJWKHSRUFKFROXPQVDQG EDVHVZKLOHUDLVLQJWKHGHFN" 7KHKRPHRZQHUV¶FRQFHUQVUHJDUGLQJWKHSRUFKKDYHEHHQUHJDUGLQJPDMRUFUDFNLQJLQ WKHFRQFUHWHSRUFKDQGLWVSRWHQWLDOIRUEHLQJRUEHFRPLQJDWULSKD]DUG 3OHDVHVHH DWWDFKHGSLFWXUH 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621DUFKLWHFWV &DQ\RQ$YH6XLWH )RUW&ROOLQV&2 (DVW/LQFROQZD\&KH\HQQH:<  ZZZYIODFRP G 5HJDUGLQJUHSODFHPHQWGRRUVDWWDFKHGGUDZLQJLVVPDOOHLWKHUSURYLGHDQ HQODUJHGGUDZLQJRUPRUHGHWDLO 7KHKRPHRZQHUVKDYHQRW\HWVHOHFWHGWKHVW\OHRIGRRUWKH\ZDQWIRUWKHHQWU\GRRU UHSODFHPHQW H :LOOQHZGHFNEHDWWDFKHGWRFRQFUHWH"RU³IORDW´RYHUWRSRIFRQFUHWHSDG" 3OHDVHUHIHUWRDQVZHUE I :K\ZDVDPHWDOUDLOLQJVHOHFWHGRYHUZRRG" %HFDXVHDPHWDOUDLOLQJLVORZHUPDLQWHQDQFH J 'LGRZQHUVFRQVLGHUWKHFRVWGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQNHHSLQJZLQGRZVRUUHSODFLQJ" 7KHKRPHRZQHUVDUHZLOOLQJWRFRQVLGHUNHHSLQJDQGUHSDLULQJWKHZLQGRZVLIWKH ZLQGRZVFDQEHPHHWWKHIROORZLQJFULWHULD • EHGRXEOHJOD]HG • EHPXFKPRUHDLUWLJKWWKDQWKH\FXUUHQWO\DUH • KDYHVFUHHQVDGGHG • DQGQRWKDYHWRPRXQWDQGGLVPRXQWVWRUPZLQGRZVVHDVRQDOO\ 7KHLUILUVWSULRULWLHVIRUWKHLUKRPHDUHWRFUHDWHDORZPDLQWHQDQFHDQGPRUHHQHUJ\ HIILFLHQWSODFHWRDJHLQSODFH7KHLULPSUHVVLRQLVWKDWWKLVZLOODGGVLJQLILFDQWFRVWWR WKHLUSURMHFW,IWKH\ILQGWKDWLWGRHVQRWDGGVLJQLILFDQWFRVWWKHQWKH\ZLOOFRQVLGHUWKLV DSSURDFK 3OHDVHOHWPHNQRZLI\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVRUFRQFHUQV 5HVSHFWLYHO\ 7D\ORU0H\HU$,$1&$5%/(('$3%'&3DVVLYH+RXVH7UDGHVSHUVRQ 9DXJKW)U\H/DUVRQ$URQVRQ$UFKLWHFWV,QF ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Responses to Work Session Questions, rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 176 9$8*+7)5<(/$5621$521621 &$1<21$9(18(67(_)257&2//,16&2/25$'2__($67/,1&2/1:$<_&+(<(11(:<20,1*__ZZZ9)/$FRP $5&+,7(&785(,17(5,256 )5217325&+ 1$))=,*(55(6,'(1&(  &2/8016,7621,62/$7(' &21&5(7(3,(5 &2/801,61273/80% &2/801'2(6127 0$7&+27+(5 &2/8016 &5$&.('&21&5(7(6/$% &5$&.('&21&5(7(6/$% ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Responses to Work Session Questions, rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg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eveloped by Preservation Resources, Inc. for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, 2018 RESIDENTIAL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Cost Comparison Tool ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 179 45 70 ENTER YOUR WINDOW MEASUREMENTS HERE then move to the appropriate bottom tab for Double Hung, Storm, or Casement Window. Width Height YOUR WINDOW SIZE in inches Enter your Dimensions here Theses dimensions will be carried over to all window types; Move Cursor to green cells and click on cell to enter your window size in inches ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 180 Wooden Double Hung Repair vs. Replacement Complete Repair Existing Wooden Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Tune-Up Repair Existing Wooden Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Replace with Alum or Vinyl Clad Wood See Definitions Clad Wood Lifespan Cost Per Year Replace with wood no cladding, tilt, insulated glass, finished interior & exterior wood faces, screen, paint/finish two sides. Non-Clad Wood Lifespan Cost Per Year Vinyl, Tilt, Low-e, Insulated glass, full screen Vinyl Lifespan Cost Per Year ++ Always review Repair Definitions prior to entry in the fields below Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan)* Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (40 Year Lifespan)* Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (15 Year Lifespan)** Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (15 Year Lifespan)** Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (15 Year Lifespan)*** $ 1,331.00 $ 26.62 $ 847.00 $ 21.18 $1,739.32 $115.95 $1,870.00 $124.67 $1,223.64 $81.58 $ 1,331.00 $ 1,058.75 $5,797.15 $6,233.27 $4,078.39 Enter Value Below: Window Width (Inches) 45 Square Feet 22.00 Window Height (Inches) 70 Actual Sq. Ft 21.88 Window Type Double Hung Number of Panes 1 over 1 *** = Average time IG seal & balance failure ++ = See Repair Definitions Tab Cost Per Window Cost over Fifty Years REPAIR REPLACEMENT Notes: Storm Windows Storm Window Options STORM Repair Existing Wooden Storm Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Wooden Storm w/removable screen & glass panels from inside, factory oil primed, site painted, shipping & install. Lifespan Cost Per Year Wooden Storm, triple track w/self storing, operable screen & glass, factory oil primed, site painted, shipping/install. Lifespan Cost Per Year Commercial grade, extruded Alum. Triple-track, self- storing, operable, factory paint, w/install. Lifespan Cost Per Year Aluminum, lumber yard grade, unpainted, triple- track, self storing, operable with install. Lifespan Cost Per Year ++ Always review Repair Definitions prior to entry in the fields below WINDOWS Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan)* Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan)* Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan)** Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (30 Year Lifespan)** Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (30 Year Lifespan)** $605.00 $12.10 $921.36 $18.43 $1,181.40 $23.63 $752.40 $25.08 $242.00 $8.07 $605.00 $921.36 $1,181.40 $1,254.00 $242.00 Windows with Storms Wooden window with storm options Complete Repair Window and Existing Wooden Storm Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Complete Repair Window and New Wooden Storm Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Complete Repair Window and new wooden triple track storm window Lifespan Cost Per Year Tune-Up and Existing wooden Storm Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Tune-Up and New Wooden Storm Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Tune-Up and New Wooden Triple- Track Storm Window Lifespan Cost Per Year Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan) Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan) Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan) Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan) Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan) Cost are quoted per rounded square foot (50 Year Lifespan) $1,936.00 $38.72 $2,252.36 $45.05 $ 2,512.40 $50.25 $ 1,452.00 $29.04 $ 1,768.36 $35.37 $ 2,028.40 $40.57 $1,936.00 $2,252.36 $ 2,512.40 $1,452.00 $1,768.36 $2,028.40 Window Width (Inches) 45 Square Feet 22.00 Window Height (Inches) 70 Actual Sq. Ft 21.875 WOODEN WINDOWS WITH STORMS * Assumes normal periodic Maintenance and painting COMPLETE REPAIR WITH WOOD STORM TUNE-UP WITH WOOD STORMS Cost Per Window Cost over Fifty Years Notes: x Sash removal and securing the opening x Cut new weight access panels in jamb if missing x Paint, putty & glass removal from both sides of two sashes x Paint removal from jamb, interior stops & sub-sill only x Re-pinning mortise & tenon joints as needed without disassembling the sashes x Minor architectural epoxy repairs x Parting stops restored, made or provided x Alkyd oil priming of both sides of sashes, interior and parting stop, jamb & sub-sill x Re-bedding of original & new glass (figure 20% glass breakage) x New knife grade angled glazing putty x Two top coats of paint on two sides of both sashes, interior stop, parting stops, jamb & sub-sill x Weather stripping/track on sides of two sashes x Weather stripping at the bottom rail of lower sash, top rail of upper sash & at the meeting rails x Sash locks and sash lifts cleaned or supplied if missing x Installation of restored sashes, stops & hardware with new sash cord and weather stripping x Top & bottom sashes operational NOTE: These original windows can be restored again for another 50 years Window Repair Definitions WOOD DOUBLE HUNG Complete Repair & Weatherization: Wooden Double Hung Opening (two sashes) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 184 x Sash removal and securing the opening x Cut new weight access panels in jamb if missing x Paint removal from jamb & sub-sill as needed for smooth operation x Parting stops re-used, made or provided x Minor glazing putty repair x Touch up existing paint as needed x Existing metal weather stripping cleanup (if present & useable) x Weather stripping/track on sides of two sashes as needed x Weather stripping at the bottom rail of lower sash, top rail of upper sash & at the meeting rails x Sash locks cleaned or supplied if missing x Installation sashes, stops & hardware with new sash cord x Top & bottom sashes operational Tune-Up & Weatherization: Wooden Double Hung Opening (two sashes) NOTE: These original windows can be restored again for another 40 or 50 years ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 185 x Sash removal and securing the opening x Paint, putty & glass removal from both sides of sash x Paint removal from jamb, stops & sub-sill only x Re-pinning mortise & tenon joints as needed without disassembling the sash x Removal of all old, failed weather stripping as needed x Minor architectural epoxy repairs x Alkyd oil priming of both sides of sash, stops, jamb & sub-sill x Re-bedding of original & new glass (figure 20% glass breakage) x New knife grade angled glazing putty x Two top coats of paint on two sides of sash, stops, jamb & sub-sill x Weather stripping all four edges of sash x Sash lock handles and hinges cleaned or supplied if missing x Installation of restored sash, stops & hardware with new weather stripping x Sash fully operational NOTE: These original windows can be restored again for another 50 years x Sash removal and securing the opening x Paint removal from jamb & sub-sill as needed for smooth operation x Minor glazing putty repair x Touch up existing paint as needed x Existing metal weather stripping cleanup (if present & useable) x Weather stripping all four edges of sash as needed x Sash hardware cleaned or supplied if missing x Installation of sash, stops & hardware x Sash fully operational NOTE: These original windows can be restored again for another 40 or 50 years Tune-Up & Weatherization: Wooden Casement (one sash) CASEMENT Complete Repair & Weatherization: Wooden Casement (one sash) ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 186 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 183 Enter Value Below: Window Width (Inches) 45 Square Feet 22.00 Window Height (Inches) 70 Actual Sq. Ft 21.88 STORMS WINDOW OPTIONS Cost Per Window Cost over Fifty Years ++ = See Repair Definitions Tab REPAIR REPLACEMENT Notes: * = with periodic paint and putty maintenance ** = with periodic paint maintenance and weather stripping replacement once ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 182 * = with storm window and periodic paint maintenance ** = Average time for wood to rot, cladding to fail & IG seal & balance failure Double Hung Windows ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 7 Sample Cost Calculator - Rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 181   325&   +)/2253/$1 1257+ ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Responses to Work Session Questions, rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 178 2XUSUHYLRXVVROXWLRQWRWKLVSUREOHPZDVWROHDYHWKHFRQFUHWHVODE DORQHDQGRYHUIUDPHZLWKDV\QWKHWLFGHFNLQJV\VWHP+RZHYHUDIWHUIXUWKHUUHYLHZ ZHKDYHGHFLGHGLWZRXOGEHEHVWWRUHPRYHWKHH[LVWLQJSRUFKDQGUHSRXUDQHZ FRQFUHWHSRUFKLQWKHVDPHORFDWLRQDQGDWWKHVDPHHOHYDWLRQDVWKHH[LVWLQJSRUFK 7KHUHLVRQHGHYLDWLRQZH¶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¶OOEH LPSDFWLQJWKHVLWHIXUWKHUDQGFUHDWLQJDORQJHUDQGPRUHVSUDZOLQJDGGLWLRQWR DFFRPPRGDWHWKHKRPHRZQHU¶VQHHGV E :KDWVWUXFWXUDOGLIIHUHQFHVDUHWKHUHEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJHDVWVLGHRIWKH EXLOGLQJZKHUHWKHDGGLWLRQH[LVWVDQGKRZWKHQHZDGGLWLRQZLOOEHDWWDFKHGWR WKHEXLOGLQJ" 7KHH[LVWLQJPXGURRPDGGLWLRQLV¶E\¶7KHQHZDGGLWLRQLVWZRURRPVWKH VXQURRPLV¶E\¶DQGWKHODXQGU\URRPLV¶E\¶7KHQHZIRXQGDWLRQZLOOEH DWWDFKHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJIRXQGDWLRQYLDUHEDUGRZHODQGHSR[\DQGWKHZRRGZDOO IUDPLQJZLOOEHQDLOHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJZRRGZDOO7KHURRIVWUXFWXUHZLOOEHZLOOIURPD QHZZRRGOHGJHUWKDWZLOOEHVLGHQDLOHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJZRRGZDOO F :KDWRSWLRQVWRUHWDLQWKHQRUWKGRRUZHUHFRQVLGHUHGWKDWFRXOGVWLOOGLUHFW SHRSOHWRWKHSULPDU\ ZHVWIDFLQJ GRRU" :HFRQVLGHUHGRQHGRRUFRXOGEHVROLGDQGWKHIURQWGRRUFRXOGEHJODVV«WKLVZRXOG KHOSGLVWLQJXLVKWKHHQWU\GRRUIURPDVLGHGRRU%XWXOWLPDWHO\WKHKRPHRZQHUVIHHO XQFRPIRUWDEOHZLWKDQH[WHULRUDFFHVVGRRULQWKHLUPDVWHUEHGURRPIRUVHFXULW\ UHDVRQV ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Responses to Work Session Questions, rec'd 5-19-20 Packet Pg. 175 RIWKH1&0=RQH 'LVWULFWZKLFKUHTXLUHVWKDWWKHSULPDU\HQWUDQFHWRDGZHOOLQJEHORFDWHGDORQJDIURQWZDOODQGQRWDVLGHZDOO  • KŶƚŚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͕ďĞLJŽŶĚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂďŽƵƚŽƉĞƌĂďŝůŝƚLJĂŶĚĞŶĞƌŐLJƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ͕LJŽƵ͛ůůǁĂŶƚƚŽďĞƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚƚŽ ƐƉĞĂŬƚŽĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ƐŝŶĐĞLJŽƵ͛ƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶĂǁĂLJĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐ;ĨƌŽŵϭͬϭƐĂƐŚ ƚŽĂϯͬϭŽƌϰͬϭƐĂƐŚͿ͕LJŽƵ͛ůůǁĂŶƚƚŽĞdžƉůĂŝŶĂŶLJĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚůĞĚLJŽƵƚŽƚŚĂƚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ͘dLJƉŝĐĂůůLJ͕ĞǀĞŶ ǁŚĞŶƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞũƵƐƚŝĨŝĞĚ͕ƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐƵƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞŝŶͲŬŝŶĚ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ĐůŽƐĞƚŽĂŶĞdžĂĐƚŵĂƚĐŚƚŽĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐͿ͕Žƌ ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝŶƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŽĂǀŽŝĚĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĂĨĂůƐĞƐĞŶƐĞŽĨ ŚŝƐƚŽƌLJ͘dŚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐLJŽƵĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĨŽƌƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĂƌĞŵŽƌĞƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJĨŽƵŶĚŽŶůĂƚĞƌƌƚƐͲĂŶĚͲƌĂĨƚƐĞƌĂ ŚŽŵĞƐ;ϭϵϭϬƐͲϭϵϯϬƐͿƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶsŝĐƚŽƌŝĂŶĞƌĂ;ϭϴϴϬƐͲϭϵϭϬƐͿŚŽŵĞƐůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐ͕ƐŽƚŚĞƌĞƵƐĞŝŶƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞƐĞĞŵƐ ĂŶĂĐŚƌŽŶŝƐƚŝĐ͘ *HQHUDOO\WKHFRQGLWLRQRIWKHZRRGZLQGRZIUDPHVDQGVDVKHVDUHLQWDFWEXWZLWKPRGHUDWHDQGVHYHUH ZHDWKHULQJDQGKDYHGDPDJHGXHWRQDLOKROHV VWDSOHVVRPHEURNHQURSHVURWWHQZRRGIUDPHVORRVH VDVKHVZLWKQRZHDWKHUVWULSSLQJODFNDLUWLJKWQHVVXQLQVXODWHGVLQJOHSDQHJOD]LQJZHDWKHUHGILQLVK ZHDNHQHGVDVKMRLQWVDIHZZLQGRZV PRVWO\VRXWKIDFLQJ DUHPLVVLQJVHFWLRQVRIVWRSVDQGPHVV\FDXONLQJ ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 141 *??1DII]LJHU5HVLGHQFH?5HYLW?1DII]LJHU5HVLGHQFH5HPRGHOUYW $ (;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 1$))=,*(5 5(6,'(1&( 0$7+(:6675((7 )257&2//,16&2  +,6725,&35(6(59$7,21'(6,*1 5(9,(:   ( ;,67,  1*1257+(/(9$7,21  ( ;,67,  1*6287+(/(9$7,21  352326(   '6287+(/(9$7,21  ( ;,67,  1*($67(/(9$7,21  ( ;,67,  1*:(67(/(9$7,21  352362(   '($67(/(9$7,21  352326(   '1257+(/(9$7,21  352326(   ':(67(/(9$7,21 $//:,1'2:672%(5(3/$&(':,7+1(:(1(5*<()),&,(17:,1'2:6 $//5(3/$&(0(17:,1'2:6:,//0$,17$,17+(6$0(6,=(DQG23(5$7,217<3(81/(66127('27+(5:,6( $//5(3/$&(0(176,',1*$1'75,0720$7&+(;,67,1* $//6,',1*$1'75,072%(3$,17('$1(:&2/256&+(0(&2/256&+(0(7%' *(1(5$/127(6  1257+($679,(:  1257+:(679,(:  6287+($679,(:  6287+:(679,(: 3+272*5$3+2)(;,67,1*6287+(/(9$7,21 3+272*5$3+2)(;,67,1*($67(/(9$7,21 3+272*5$3+2)(;,67,1*1257+(/(9$7,21 3+272*5$3+2)(;,67,1*:(67(/(9$7,21 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 140 original roofline. Upper and lower sash sections open separately for flexible control. The bottom sash section opens to create a step-out balcony for a spacious interior atmosphere and a panoramic view of the outdoors. Notes: In Combi-flashing applications with GDL roof windows, 4” frame-to-frame spacing is required for proper flashing. Roof windows are not designed to be used in combination with skylights. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 119 All e Exist Exist High Exist Hard 3-co 'T G Bre Pre I Sto Pr N W Existing Building South Elevation L L. Low Profile Roof window North Elevation J &K H ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 117 X X X X X X X G G G G C CONTROL IRR G G G F EXISTING HOUSE (TO BE REMODELED) DALZELL ALLEY (BRICK PAVERS) 3 PARKING SPACES EXISTING BUILDING GRASS PAVERS FOR TEMPORARY LOADING AREA FENCE EXISTING GARAGE NEIGHBORING TRASH ENCLOSURE NEIGHBORING TRASH ENCLOSURE SIDEWALK VEHICLE GATE ENTRY GATE EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING PATIO EXISTING WATER METER EXISTING FENCE EXISTING PLANTER WALL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY BRICK PATIO APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING PLANTER WALL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EDGE OF NEIGHBORS EXISTING ASPHALT EDGE OF NEIGHBORS EXISTING ASPHALT TRASH ENCLOSURE SEAT WALL GAS FIRE PIT MOVEABLE CHAIRS EXISTING WALK RAISED LID PLANTER LID RAIN GARDEN PLANTER POTENTIAL SCULPTURE LOCATION DRAIN PAN NEW SECURITY LIGHT AND CAMERA PATIO OVERHANG EXISTING PATIO POST BUILDING OVERHANG BIKE RACKS 4'-0" 4'-0" WALK 3'-0" WALK 1'-6" 2'-0" 13'-0" 12'-0" 5'-6" NEW ADDITION (812 SF) EXISTING BUILDING 17'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" 7'-2" 10'-2" 6'-0" 2'-8" MAN GATE 8'-0" WHEEL STOPS, TYP. 17'-0" RISERS S. COLLEGE AVE. (APPROXIMATE 137 FT ROW) 5'-0" MIN BUILDING SETBACK FROM ALLEY 13'-7" 17'-6" 5'-0" MIN BUILDING SETBACK FROM BACK OF WALK 100-YR FLOODPLAIN MATCH LINE FIRE UTILITY LINE, RE: CIVIL SAW CUT LINE, RE: CIVIL EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN G CTV X C CONTROL IRR PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED CABLE UTILITY PROPOSED GAS UTILITY PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED CABLE UTILITY BOX PROPOSED IRRIGATION CONTROL PROPOSED CONTOUR W W W MATCH LINE FIRE UTILITY, RE: CIVIL FIRE UTILITY LINE, RE: CIVIL SAW CUT LINE, RE: CIVIL CTV G OHU E EXISTING CABLE UTILITY EXISTING GAS UTILITY EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY G E VAULT ELEC EXISTING ELECTRIC VAULT & TELEPHONE POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE C L 100-YR FLOODPLAIN (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) DRAWING NUMBER: 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com ■ land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ ■ urban design ■ entitlement ■ ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE Plotted By: Andrew Papke-Larson Layout: 2 SITE PLAN Printed On: 3/11/2020 11:09 AM File Name: L1 Site Plan.dwg ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTITLEMENT DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Sam Coutts 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 OWNER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT South College 609 LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 SITE PLAN BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 609 SOUTH COLLEGE 01 BDR SUBMITTAL 02.05.2020 FORT COLLINS, CO SC APL R19-053 2 NORTH 0 05 10 20 SCALE: 1"=10'-0" LEGEND NOTES: 1. RACK COLOR AND FINISH TO BE BLACK POWDER COAT. 2. INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3. FOR PRODUCT AND COMPANY INFORMATION VISIT https:/www.dero.com/product/hoop-rack/ BIKE RACK NOT TO SCALE FRONT ELEVATION PLAN VIEW ISOMETRIC SIDE ELEVATION 2'-10" 2'-6" MIN. TO NEXT RACK SURFACE MOUNTED TO CONCRETE 2 OP-SO3-03 8'-0" MAX 6'-0" PRIVATE FENCE 3/4" = 1'-0" 6' HIGH x 8' HIGH WHITE VINYL FENCE PANELS, INCLUDES HORIZONTAL RAILS AND VERTICAL PICKETS, (PANELS CAN BE CUT DONE IN WIDTH WHERE NEEDED) 5"x5"x9' WHITE VINYL POST, INSTALLED BELOW GRADE ON CONCRETE WHITE VINYL POSTS CAPS 1 OP-SO3-04 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Presentation - added 5/19/20 Packet Pg. 104 ● Exterior sun screening Awning blind Roller shutter ●●● ●●● Additional accessories Insect roller screen ● ●●● Available in manual and mains/solar powered versions ●● Available in manual and mains powered versions ● Available in manual version The mains and solar powered versions are part of the VELUX INTEGRA® product range. Flashings and installation products Flashings: • ED- -K19 for single installation • EK- -K10 / ET- -K34 --00 / ET- -K34 --00- for combi installation Available for standard installation Installation products: • Installation set BDX 2000 (incl BFX) + extension pieces BDX W34 (incl BFX) • Underfelt collar BFX 1000 incl transverse drainage gutter • Vapour barrier collar BBX 0000 + extension pieces BBX WK34 • Linings LS- (incl BBX) + additional lining parts LL- (incl BBX) • Kit for lining LSG 1000 (incl BBX) Note We reserve the right to make technical changes. For more information on roof balcony CABRIO® GDL and other VELUX products, please visit velux.nn. © 2015 VELUX Group ® VELUX and the VELUX logo are registered trademarks used under licence by the VELUX Group ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 101 All e Exist Exist High Exist Hard 3-co 'T G Bre Pre I Sto Pr N W Existing Building South Elevation L L. Low Profile Roof window North Elevation J &K ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Added 5/12/20 Packet Pg. 94 X X X X X X X G G G G C CONTROL IRR G G G F EXISTING HOUSE (TO BE REMODELED) DALZELL ALLEY (BRICK PAVERS) 3 PARKING SPACES EXISTING BUILDING GRASS PAVERS FOR TEMPORARY LOADING AREA FENCE EXISTING GARAGE NEIGHBORING TRASH ENCLOSURE NEIGHBORING TRASH ENCLOSURE SIDEWALK VEHICLE GATE ENTRY GATE EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING PATIO EXISTING WATER METER EXISTING FENCE EXISTING PLANTER WALL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY BRICK PATIO APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXISTING PLANTER WALL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EDGE OF NEIGHBORS EXISTING ASPHALT EDGE OF NEIGHBORS EXISTING ASPHALT TRASH ENCLOSURE SEAT WALL GAS FIRE PIT MOVEABLE CHAIRS EXISTING WALK RAISED LID PLANTER LID RAIN GARDEN PLANTER POTENTIAL SCULPTURE LOCATION DRAIN PAN NEW SECURITY LIGHT AND CAMERA PATIO OVERHANG EXISTING PATIO POST BUILDING OVERHANG BIKE RACKS 4'-0" 4'-0" WALK 3'-0" WALK 1'-6" 2'-0" 13'-0" 12'-0" 5'-6" NEW ADDITION (812 SF) EXISTING BUILDING 17'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" 7'-2" 10'-2" 6'-0" 2'-8" MAN GATE 8'-0" WHEEL STOPS, TYP. 17'-0" RISERS S. COLLEGE AVE. (APPROXIMATE 137 FT ROW) 5'-0" MIN BUILDING SETBACK FROM ALLEY 13'-7" 17'-6" 5'-0" MIN BUILDING SETBACK FROM BACK OF WALK 100-YR FLOODPLAIN MATCH LINE FIRE UTILITY LINE, RE: CIVIL SAW CUT LINE, RE: CIVIL EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN G CTV X C CONTROL IRR PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPOSED CABLE UTILITY PROPOSED GAS UTILITY PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED CABLE UTILITY BOX PROPOSED IRRIGATION CONTROL PROPOSED CONTOUR W W W MATCH LINE FIRE UTILITY, RE: CIVIL FIRE UTILITY LINE, RE: CIVIL SAW CUT LINE, RE: CIVIL CTV G OHU E EXISTING CABLE UTILITY EXISTING GAS UTILITY EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY G E VAULT ELEC EXISTING ELECTRIC VAULT & TELEPHONE POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE C L 100-YR FLOODPLAIN (CITY OF FORT COLLINS) DRAWING NUMBER: 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 phone 970.224.5828 | fax 970.225.6657 | www.ripleydesigninc.com ■ land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ ■ urban design ■ entitlement ■ ISSUED PROJECT No.: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: SEAL: PREPARED BY: No. DESCRIPTION DATE REVISIONS No. DESCRIPTION DATE Plotted By: Andrew Papke-Larson Layout: 2 SITE PLAN Printed On: 3/11/2020 11:09 AM File Name: L1 Site Plan.dwg ORIGINAL SIZE 24X36 ENTITLEMENT DRAWINGS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIPLEY DESIGN INC. Sam Coutts 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 p. 970.224.5828 f. 970.225.6657 OWNER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT South College 609 LLC 262 E. Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 SITE PLAN BASIC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 609 SOUTH COLLEGE 01 BDR SUBMITTAL 02.05.2020 FORT COLLINS, CO SC APL R19-053 2 NORTH 0 05 10 20 SCALE: 1"=10'-0" LEGEND NOTES: 1. RACK COLOR AND FINISH TO BE BLACK POWDER COAT. 2. INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3. FOR PRODUCT AND COMPANY INFORMATION VISIT https:/www.dero.com/product/hoop-rack/ BIKE RACK NOT TO SCALE FRONT ELEVATION PLAN VIEW ISOMETRIC SIDE ELEVATION 2'-10" 2'-6" MIN. TO NEXT RACK SURFACE MOUNTED TO CONCRETE 2 OP-SO3-03 8'-0" MAX 6'-0" PRIVATE FENCE 3/4" = 1'-0" 6' HIGH x 8' HIGH WHITE VINYL FENCE PANELS, INCLUDES HORIZONTAL RAILS AND VERTICAL PICKETS, (PANELS CAN BE CUT DONE IN WIDTH WHERE NEEDED) 5"x5"x9' WHITE VINYL POST, INSTALLED BELOW GRADE ON CONCRETE WHITE VINYL POSTS CAPS 1 OP-SO3-04 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 39