Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/2019 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Kristin Gensmer, Co-Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Bello Fort Collins, Colorado Mollie Bredehoft Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Katie Paecklar Anna Simpkins Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting OCTOBER 16, 2019 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. Landmark Preservation Commission AGENDA Packet Pg. 1 • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2019. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 18, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SINCE SEPTEMBER LPC MEETING Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last meeting of the Commission. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 629 S HOWES – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Construct ten new townhouse units and convert existing historic building into an additional housing unit at 629 S Howes in the Community Commercial Downtown Zone District. APPLICANT: Spencer Lindstrom, [au]workshop 4. 249-261 S. COLLEGE AVENUE, ARMSTRONG HOTEL – REHABILITATION OF LEADED GLASS TRANSOM WINDOWS DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness regarding the rehabilitation of leaded glass transom windows at 249-261 S. College Avenue, the Armstrong Hotel. The transom windows have experienced deterioration since their 2005 restoration. The project would repair the windows and improve the interior storm window units. APPLICANT: CCC Armstrong, LLC 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 5. ADOPTION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S 2020 WORK PLAN DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to discuss and adopt the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Work Plan for 2020. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 Date: Roll Call Bello Bredehoft Gensmer Murray Nelsen Paecklar Simpkins Wallace Dunn Vote  absent  absent  7 present Consent - 1) Minutes; 2) Staff Design Review Report Gensmer Paecklar Bredehoft Simpkins Wallace Murray Nelsen Bello Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes absent absent Yes Yes Yes 7:0 4 - 249-261 S College Window Rehab Paecklar Bredehoft Simpkins Wallace Murray Nelsen Bello Gensmer Dunn Yes Yes Yes absent absent Yes Yes Yes Yes 7:0 5 - LPC 2020 Work Plan Bredehoft Simpkins Wallace Murray Nelsen Bello Gensmer Paecklar Dunn Yes Yes absent absent Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7:0 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 10/16/2019 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 10/16/19 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC September Hearing 2. Staff Design Review Decisions Report DISCUSSION AGENDA: 3. 629 S Howes – Development Review • Updated Staff Presentation 10-9-19 – replaced in packet 4. 249-261 S. College Avenue, Armstrong Hotel – Rehabilitation of Leaded Glass Transom Windows • Updated Staff Presentation 10-16-19 – replaced in packet 5. Adoption of the Landmark Preservation Commission’s 2020 Work Plan • Updated LPC 2020 Work Plan DRAFT 10-16-19 – replaced in packet EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 3 A Updated Applicant Presentation N/A N/A Flyer for History Colorado outreach meeting on 10/23 – presented by staff 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 Kevin Murray Landmark Preservation Commission Member 629 S Howes - Development Review Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 16, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 18, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC September 18, 2019 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 September 18, 2019 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Kristin Gensmer, Co-Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Bello Fort Collins, Colorado Mollie Bredehoft Katie Dorn Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting September 18, 2019 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dorn, Dunn, Murray, Nelsen, Simpkins, Wallace ABSENT: Bello, Bredehoft, Gensmer STAFF: Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek noted that agenda item #4 had been postponed until October. Chair Dunn reviewed the Consent Agenda. No items were pulled. • STAFF REPORTS Ms. Bzdek reported that Nuance Chocolates on Pine Street had reopened following repairs to the façade where a car had hit it. They used the Design Assistance Program with a successful outcome. • 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 September 18, 2019 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2019 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 21, 2019 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES SINCE AUGUST 21, 2019 LPC MEETING Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last meeting of the Commission. Ms. Dorn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the September 18, 2019 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 6-0. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 1112 MATHEWS STREET – REVIEW OF PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF DANGEROUS BARN LOCATED IN THE LAUREL SCHOOL NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider the issuance of a report to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the demolition of the barn at 1112 Mathews Street, in the Laurel School National Register District. The barn has been found dangerous and is proposed to be demolished. APPLICANT: Rebecca Masler, Owner Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She reviewed the Commission’s role and its options. She provided some background, noting that staff believes this property to be ineligible for designation. She explained that the barn and the garage share a wall. Ms. Bzdek conveyed the Applicant’s responses to the Commission’s questions at the work session. She noted that the barn and garage are contributing resources to the National Register listing. She also reviewed the staff’s findings of fact. Applicant Presentation Ms. Masler did not have a presentation. Public Input None Commission Questions Chair Dunn asked why Zoning would prohibit using the barn for another purpose. Ms. Masler stated she was told it could not be used for inhabitation. Mr. Murray asked why the property wouldn’t be eligible. Ms. Bzdek said it had lost too much integrity. Ms. Masler stated that the barn had no foundation, and some materials had been stolen from it over the last couple of years. Ms. Dorn asked if the property was vacant. Ms. Masler said it had been a rental and expressed safety concerns about the state of the barn. Ms. Bzdek stated the zoning for the property was NCM which would not allow a carriage house. Commission Discussion Chair Dunn reviewed the Standards of Integrity and stated the barn would have been eligible under Standards 1 and 3 were it not for the loss of materials. Mr. Murray said it was beyond being significant due to the loss of major architectural features. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 3 September 18, 2019 Ms. Nelsen concurred with staff’s assessment, noting that it could have been significant at one time. She expressed concern about setting a precedent. Ms. Bzdek explained the updated code addressing demolition by neglect and how staff could now potentially intervene. Ms. Nelsen asked whether a zoning variation to allow another use would be a possibility. Mr. Yatabe explained that it was not within the purview of the Landmark Preservation Commission to condition a decision on a variance, however there may be other channels that could be pursued in future situations. Mr. Murray asked about the Chief Building Official’s role in determining demolition by neglect. Mr. Yatabe stated the CBO would discuss it with Historic Preservation staff. Chair Dunn suggested discussing demolition by neglect and vandalism at another time. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission find the barn at 1112 Mathews Street is not eligible for a Fort Collins Landmark designation due to its loss of integrity, and direct staff to sign off on an application for demolition of the barn following the issuance of a report to the State Historic Preservation Office. Ms. Nelsen seconded. Ms. Nelsen asked what would be done with the materials. Mr. Yatabe suggested addressing that after the motion has been decided. Ms. Dorn requested an amendment to the motion to add that the loss of integrity was due to vandalism and possibly demolition by neglect. Mr. Murray rejected the amendment, noting that adding that language might cause problems for the owner. Chair Dunn said it was important to inform the public about options in this situation. Ms. Bzdek commented on staff’s outreach within the Laurel School District. The motion passed 6-0. Mr. Yatabe added clarification that the owner may need to come back to the Commission regarding the garage and shared wall. Ms. Bzdek commented that the barn and the garage will be considered in two separate review processes. Mr. Murray commented about requirements to recycle materials for demolitions which must be documented. Chair Dunn asked the owner about her plans for the materials. Ms. Masler said she is willing to recycle or donate any useful materials. Mr. Murray suggested contacting Habitat for Humanity ReSTore. Ms. Bzdek noted that Jonathan Nagel in Environmental Services could help identify resources for recycling. 4. 629 S HOWES – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW – THIS ITEM WAS RESCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER MEETING Mr. Murray recused himself from the next item and left the meeting at this time. 5. 117 N SHERWOOD STREET – REQUEST FOR NON-HISTORIC ROOF MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for changing a roof on a designated property from wood shingle to a synthetic roofing product that simulates the appearance of wood. The alterations are proposed for the Boughton (Bouton) Carriage House, 117 North Sherwood Street. APPLICANT: Anders and Claire Lindwall, Owners. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She provided background about this property which is listed on the National Register. She explained the lot had been subdivided in 2014. She noted the various public funding and incentives that had been utilized for this property. Ms. Bzdek reviewed the Commission’s requests from the work session and provided the staff responses, noting that the Applicant would address questions directed to them. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 4 September 18, 2019 Applicant Presentation Ms. Lindwall read a prepared statement to the Commission explaining the reasoning for requesting the composite roofing material. She said fire safety was the biggest concern and this product looks very much like the original. [Secretary’s Note: A copy of the statement has been added to the record.] Josh Hemiger, the contractor, pointed out the root cellar roof was also being replaced. He said they will reuse the ridge vents and flashings so the only thing changing is the shingles. Chris Blackstock from CeDUR, the manufacturer of the roofing material, described the material and showed a sample to the Commission. He said it looks like natural cedar wood shake and shared details about the composition of the material. He said the National Park Service and preservation commissions in other municipalities had already approved the use of their products. He mentioned the savings on insurance premiums by using non-wood shingles. Mr. Hemiger showed a sample of the roof material from the root cellar and stated it is very thin and would be difficult to replace with the same material. Mr. Blackstock explained that their product was environmentally friendly. Mr. Hemiger passed around samples of the CeDUR and a small shingle of the original cedar. Chair Dunn stated the CeDUR shingles are about three times as big as what is currently there. Ms. Nelsen noted the difference in the edge profile of the faux shingle versus the cedar. Mr. Hemiger responded there was a slight difference. Public Input None Commission Discussion Chair Dunn asked the Commission to weigh in on the Standards of Integrity. Ms. Dorn agreed with staff findings on Standard 1, that the building retains its historic use, and agreed with staff findings on Standard 2. Ms. Wallace agreed, adding that a lot of the building’s character is represented by those shingles. Ms. Nelsen discussed the difference in the weight of the material. Mr. Hemiger stated that the weight difference is pretty significant. Chair Dunn asked if staff had information about the shape and size of the previous material. Ms. Bzdek didn’t have that information, but it may be in the state tax credit application from the previous re-roof. Ms. Nelsen said asked about fire safety options for the Applicant. Chair Dunn referred to Preservation Brief No. 19 on replacing wood shingles. Ms. Bzdek suggested underlayment and treated wood could be used to resolve fire safety issues. Ms. Simpkins stated cedar is a Class B rating, which is above the minimum threshold. Ms. Bzdek agreed. Members agreed that Standards 3 & 4 do not apply. Regarding Standard 5, Ms. Simpkins expressed concern about the color of the proposed shingles. She stated that the cedar shingles start out as more orange and fade to gray. The samples of the proposed material, both new and aged, look brown. Chair Dunn said the color doesn’t change with aging which is a distinctive feature of the original material. Ms. Wallace commented on the construction techniques and craftmanship, noting that the craft would be lost. Chair Dunn asked how they are installed. Mr. Hemiger said both types of shingles are installed exactly the same way. Chair Dunn asked how the shingles would be recycled when no longer in use. Mr. Blackstock said he’s seen it used in playground bedding, and noted it was a 50-year product, which makes it more environmentally responsible. Ms. Dorn commented about the prevalence of cedar roofs in Nantucket, adding that it isn’t seen much in Fort Collins and should be celebrated. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT Landmark Preservation Commission Page 5 September 18, 2019 Ms. Simpkins said this roofing is very visible from the street, and in this quantity, the difference would be noticeable. Regarding Standard 6, Ms. Dorn asked whether they are replacing the entire roof rather than repairing and replacing. Mr. Hemiger replied the damaged shingles are scattered around the whole roof. Chair Dunn said the materials are not similar in design, color, texture or thickness, adding that even if it were similar, it wouldn’t meet Standard 6. Ms. Simpkins agreed; other members nodded in agreement. Members agreed that Standards 7, 8 and 9 are not applicable. Chair Dunn stated that since the shingles could be removed in the future, it does meet Standard 10. Chair Dunn summarized that Standards 2, 5 and 6 are not met. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dorn moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny the application for re- roofing the Boughton Carriage House and root cellar at 117 North Sherwood Street with a synthetic material, finding that there is no basis for approval based on the following findings of fact: • That the Boughton Carriage House is subject to review by the Landmark Preservation Commission and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards by virtue of a recorded note on the PDP for the subdivision; • That the proposed work does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, because it fails to satisfy all applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as required for approval. Specifically, the proposed work fails to meet Standards 2, 5, and 6; • That wood shingles that would closely match the existing wood shingles in materials, texture, design and appearance are available for purchase; and • That wood roofs are allowed on historic properties and comply with the City’s building codes. Ms. Simpkins seconded. Chair Dunn proposed an amendment to include the root cellar, which Ms. Dorn and Ms. Simpkins accepted. The motion passed 5-0. Chair Dunn suggested the Applicant explore grants and tax credits. She added that the property currently falls under the regulations of a locally designated property without any of the advantages, so they may want to consider designation. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn asked mentioned there were 30 people at the pub crawl on Friday. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 16, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, SEPTEMBER 5 TO OCTOBER 3 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 September 5 and October 3, 2019. Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 214 Pine St. Emergency stabilization & repair of masonry wall following vehicle collision. Design Assistance Funding may be used to support. Approved 9/13/2019 615 Mathews St. Stabilization of foundation (helical piers and cementitious coating on interior of stone foundation). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 9/19/2019 831 Mathews St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingles). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 9/19/2019 818 Peterson St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingles). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 9/19/2019 700 Remington St. Landscape alterations to rear of property, including additional parking spaces (work on buildings modified to avoid exterior changes). City Landmark. Approved 9/19/2019 1613 Sheely Dr. Replacement of garage doors, painting siding, and painting trim and gutters. City Landmark District. Approved 9/19/2019 610 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingles). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 9/19/2019 631 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingles). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 9/20/2019 638 Whedbee St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingles). City Landmark. Approved 9/20/2019 2112 E. Harmony Rd Replacement of rolled asphalt membrane with additional 5” of height and insulation. New height will remain below parapet wall. City Landmark. Approved 9/23/2019 Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 1014 Peterson St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 9/24/2019 124 N. Sherwood St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). City Landmark. Approved 9/24/2019 125 S. College Ave. Rehabilitation of store-front on first floor. Non- historic transoms replaced with metal paneling. Non-historic wood windows and doors to be retained. (Eligible for City Landmark status) Approved 9/27/2019 222 Whedbee St. Replacing rolled-steel windows with vinyl units. Work does not meet SOI Standards. Laurel School HD contributing property. Report to SHPO issued. (NRHP) Approved 9/27/2019 618 W. Mountain Ave. Replacement/installation of gutters based on historic photographs. City Landmark. Approved 9/27/2019 717 W. Olive St. Replacing existing non-historic square columns with rounded wood Doric columns based on historic photography. City Landmark. Approved 9/30/2019 313 Edwards St. Making addition to rear of home. Application reviewed under Demo/Alt process but permit pulled under new Chapter 14. Addition is not consistent with SOI Standards. Laurel School HD contributing property. Report to SHPO issued. (NRHP) Approved 9/30/2019 400 E. Elizabeth St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 10/2/2019 509 Remington St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingles). City Landmark. Approved 10/3/2019 902 Remington St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 10/3/2019 637 Peterson St. Rooftop solar installation on rear, south-facing elevations. Laurel School HD contributing property (NRHP) Approved 10/3/2019 Packet Pg. 11 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 16, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 629 S HOWES – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct ten new townhouse units and convert existing historic building into an additional housing unit at 629 S Howes in the Community Commercial Downtown Zone District. APPLICANT: Spencer Lindstrom, [au]workshop OWNER: St. Vrain Land Holdings, LLC RECOMMENDATION: N/A LPC’S ROLE: At this meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission will provide conceptual review comments for consideration by the applicant and City staff regarding this project’s compliance with the standards provided in Fort Collins Land Use Code section 3.4.7. The applicant will return for a recommendation to the decision maker from the Commission at a later date, after a development application has been submitted to the City for review. BACKGROUND: In April 2019 the applicant completed a conceptual development review process with City staff and is now seeking initial comments from the Commission regarding compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 for the attached conceptual plans. The item was continued at the Commission’s last meeting on September 18, 2019 due to a lack of quorum. PROPOSED PROJECT OVERVIEW: This project would result in construction of ten three-story townhouses on the property and conversion of the existing historic residence into an additional residential unit. To accomplish the project, the applicant proposes to demolish an extant, non-contributing garage (historically associated with the demolished residence to the south) and to demolish the 1955 addition to the 1904 Foursquare residence on its southeast corner and the enclosed rear porch (date unknown, but indicated on 1925 Sanborn map). The project would also involve removal of a set of concrete steps leading to the front porch, and rehabilitation of the front porch in a compatible design with the original Foursquare form, which would include replacement of the steel porch columns that date to the 1950s alterations. A treatment plan for the rehabilitation of the southeast corner of the building and the central question of the impact of removing the addition will be a necessary component of the Commission’s recommendation to the decision maker. 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 3.4.7(E) apply. Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 • Historic Resources on the Development Site, Abutting, or Across a Side Alley: • The Murray-Stow House (c. 1904; on development site) • Other Historic Resources within 200 feet (all eligible for landmark designation): • 612 S Howes • 620 S Howes • 624 S Howes • 636 S Howes • 642 S Howes • 630 S Meldrum • 624 S Meldrum • 626 S Meldrum (designated Fort Collins Landmark) • Historic Influence Area: The historic influence area, within which the standards provided in LUC 3.4.7 apply, includes the entire development site. • The applicant must meet all the design compatibility standards in Table 1 of LUC 3.4.7(E) by using the Murray-Stow House on the development site as the primary point of comparison. Because this historic resource is on the development site, all the Table 1 standards must be met by the design of the new construction on the site. Compatibility with the other historic resources within 200 feet may also be considered, but not at the expense of meeting the standards relative to the Murray-Stow House. • In addition, all exterior treatments and alterations to the Murray-Stow House must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to the maximum extent feasible [3.4.7(D)(3)]. PRESERVATION CONSIDERATIONS Eligibility as a Historic Resource: The eligibility of this property for Fort Collins landmark status is based on the collective weight of significance under two periods of significance for three separate criteria: events, persons, and architecture. While not exceptionally significant in any of those three areas, together the history of the property’s occupants, their activities, and the building form in its original and adapted form provide a combined argument for significance that supports treating this building as a historic resource in Fort Collins. The statement of significance provided on the survey form for the Murray-Stow property notes that it is eligible for local landmark designation under Criterion 1 (Events), based on its association with early twentieth-century residential development in Fort Collins in its first primary period of significance (weakly supported) and also based on its function in the latter half of the twentieth century as the Colorado State University campus ministry outreach center of the Presbyterian Church and, after the Reverend Robert Geller’s arrival in 1962, as a center for youth- oriented, interfaith cooperation and birthplace of several progressive community nonprofit efforts. Of the latter period of significance under this criterion, staff finds that emphasis on the post-1962 period is more in keeping with the federal guidelines regarding appropriate recognition of the historic significance of religious entities and activities. The existing survey documentation doesn’t address Criteria 2, but a more intensive documentation of the property would look into whether the property’s association with two prominent families who occupied the building between 1904 and the 1940s; and Robert Geller, the person whose original vision and leadership created the Geller Center as a place of interfaith progressive community organizations after 1962, would support eligibility under this criteria. The survey also recognizes the property’s eligibility under Criterion 3 (Architecture) in two ways: in its current state, as a special use type recognized by History Colorado known as “House with Commercial Addition;” and, if the wraparound office addition were removed, for its Foursquare architecture. Staff agrees that the property meets the basic requirements for both periods of significance under Criterion 3, but also notes that the property is not an Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 exceptional example of either type and that its significance is more clearly derived based on Criterion 1 (Events). Four Approaches to the Treatment of Historic Properties: Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. Restoration depicts a property at a particular period in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes. Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character. Treatment Considerations: • The selection of a treatment approach is guided by not just the building’s history, significance, and physical condition but also the intended use of a property. Additional considerations include structural assessment and intended interpretation. • The work recommendations associated with a treatment approach are guided by both project goals and building condition. • The proposed work should follow one overall treatment approach, although it is acceptable to include elements from other treatments. • Buildings of exceptional significance (at any level) often warrant preservation or restoration treatments, while rehabilitation is more common for other historic resources. A preservation approach that would leave the building “as is” can be difficult to justify outside of passive or interpretive uses with limited need to adapt to a new use. A restoration treatment is typically chosen when the building has an exceptional period of significance that requires removing evidence from other periods that detract from the building’s ability to convey that era. • Rehabilitation is the best approach for creating a new use that is compatible with a building’s history and its ability to convey that history. Staff’s Recommended Treatment Approach: Rehabilitation With the above treatment considerations in mind, staff recommends the following for this property: • The proposed work is undergoing review under the Land Use Code (section 3.4.7), which requires that historic resources that are not protected by designation be incorporated into the redevelopment in a manner that meets the SOI standards to the maximum extent feasible. Unlike proposed alterations to a designated landmark property, which are reviewed under Chapter 14, the land use code provides the basis for considering alterations to non-designated historic structures that encourage retention and adaptive reuse, even on parcels within zone districts that provide for much greater densification. • While the Murray-Stow House is a historic resource, it does not bear such exceptional significance under any single criteria to warrant a strict preservation treatment (as the Geller Center, in order to preserve the historic addition) or a full restoration treatment (as the original Foursquare). • A rehabilitation approach allows for the property to retain historic character while meeting the requirements for a new use. Section 3.4.7 intents to support the new use while also maintaining the integrity of the historic resource. • While retaining some or all alterations that reflect the building’s history would be appropriate for a rehabilitation project, it can also be appropriate to remove features that are not character-defining if necessary for a new use. To evaluate this proposed alteration, the Commission must consider and compare two possible rehabilitation plans, one that is more supportive of the original Foursquare form and the other that would retain the historic character from the building’s post-1962 use as a center for progressive community initiatives. It is also appropriate to weigh these two options against what is most appropriate for the intended use of the property, as noted above under “Treatment Considerations.” • The survey addendum (attached) verified that it would be possible to remove the front addition without impacting the basic Foursquare building form, but it would require a porch rehabilitation project that would Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 be compatible with the original Foursquare design. As noted in the applicant’s presentation materials, the Commission’s input on a preferred “patch” option would be another necessary component of approving this alteration. • Staff finds (and federal NPS guidelines allow) that it is appropriate to use elements from other treatment approaches within the broader umbrella of a rehabilitation project. For example, a reconstruction treatment for the front porch would be possible if the front addition were removed but would require documentary and physical evidence to minimize conjecture. Again, such effort is not necessarily warranted based on the building’s architectural and historical significance as a Foursquare residence, and a compatible porch design under the rehabilitation guidelines likely would be more successful. • Removal of the garage is appropriate because it is not related to the significance of this property and does not have enough significance on its own as a remnant secondary structure from a previously abutting property. However, it retains strong integrity of historic materials and should be carefully deconstructed, and its valuable materials salvaged for reuse. • The rear addition is not a character-defining feature of the property, but it is a historic feature constructed before 1925. Its features include beadboard walls, wood skirting, and a post-on-stone foundation. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (LPC WORK SESSION, SEPTEMBER 11, 2019): From applicant: • More information and photos about the existing back porch on the historic building • Info on parking for unit 101 • Explanation of window placement and number on new construction • Explanation of second floor “overhang” design choice • A few additional options for discussion on southeast corner “patch” treatment, and summary of what is known about the existing conditions under the 1955 addition • Diagrams explaining roof form choice and relationship to historic building • Comparative dimensions • Explanation of how conceptual design has evolved • Planned order of construction • Efforts to date that have reduced massing of new construction From staff: • Provide additional information about two periods of significance for the historic building (Foursquare residence and campus ministry building with 1955 addition) and guidance on how LPC should consider and compare them (see above discussion) • Address the rear porch’s significance as a component of the historic structure (see above discussion) • Does the use of brick on the ground floor, up to the overhang, meet the LUC requirements for base materials? (see discussion below under Standard #4 in 3.4.7(E) chart) 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 must 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. Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 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; • The proposal would restore the original residential use of the property and preserves the only historically significant structure remaining on the site in its original form. • Because the “new” use is reflective of the original use and not the latter period of significance for the property, the proposal would require demolition of a contributing historic feature: the front addition (character- defining for the Geller Center period after 1962). • It also creates changes to the spatial relationships on the site through densification and the loss of the existing rear yard setting. TBD 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. • As noted above, the proposed demolition of the 1950s front addition to return the building to its original residential use would remove a character-defining feature of the post-1962 period. Its removal would be offset by the rehabilitation and visibility of the original Foursquare residential building form and features. • The proposal also includes removal of the rear enclosed porch, which does not constitute a character-defining feature for a Foursquare building, but also may not be necessary to accommodate the new use. • Similarly, the removal of the garage that is not historically associated with the residence does not constitute a violation of this standard. However, the materials in the garage are valuable and should be deconstructed and salvaged, and similar consideration should be given to the front and rear porches if demolished. TBD 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 new construction and site alterations would be clearly of their own time. • If the porch were to be rehabilitated as a result of gaining approval to remove the front addition, it would be appropriate to replace the 1950s steel columns with a compatible, simple, wood column design given the lack of photographic evidence for this building. Typical columns for Foursquare residences are Doric, Tuscan, or square posts. TBD Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 6 SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. • As noted above, the front addition does have its own significance as a character-defining feature of the House with Commercial Addition building type. This concern should be weighed against what would be gained by restoring the building to its original residential form and use. • The rear porch is a minor, non-character-defining feature but dates to the early decades of the property. While not highly significant, the decision to remove it should also be carefully considered. • If the front addition is removed, should the existing opening between the addition and the original structure be preserved as a new window? TBD SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. • Many of the buildings distinctive materials and features are part of the original Foursquare construction and several are partially obscured by the front addition. • The exterior materials, form, and features of the front addition are also characteristic of mid-1950s architecture and with the change in use to a religious community center have their own significance as representative of that era. TBD 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. • The plan to replace the porch columns should be considered under this treatment. Because the original columns would have been wood and their form is unknown, it would be best to choose a simplified column design rather than attempting to “match” a design that may not have been used on this building. • The original porch roof could be reconstructed on the SE corner, based on the existing porch roof form and the proportions of the NE corner. • The overall rehab plan for the porch, including any necessary repairs, should be considered under this standard. • The applicant notes deterioration of the front porch; more information and an approved rehabilitation plan will be required to satisfy this standard. TBD Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 7 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. • This will be covered in the required plan of protection at the next stage of review and should also be considered for the “patch” treatment at the SE corner of the residence. TBD SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. • This will be covered in the required plan of protection at the next stage of review. Excavation on the site will be limited to what is needed for foundations. TBD 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. • The proposed new construction is responsive to but differentiated from the original residential building on the site and meets many of the required design compatibility requirements that are further specified in our land use code (further discussion regarding materials is necessary). • As noted above, the removal of the 1955 addition would remove a character-defining feature from the building’s later period of significance but would simultaneously improve visibility and condition of the original historic Foursquare materials. • The courtyard environment for the seven townhouse units that will frame the historic residence and the use of ground-floor front porches on the new units create additional elements of compatibility between old and new. TBD SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. • The proposed new construction could be removed without affecting the Murray-Stow residence. • Additional consideration regarding the “patch” treatment is necessary to finalize analysis of this standard. TBD Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 8 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 design of the new construction, which breaks up the width of the new construction into masses ranging from 20 to 32 feet wide, is similar to the width of the Murray-Stow House at 26 feet and meets this standard. Yes 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. • The Murray-Stow House is a two-story structure. A setback would be required only if the proposed new construction would be more than 3 stories. 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 EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. • The proposal to use red brick for most of the ground level material, with prominent use on the east elevation facing Howes, is an appropriate treatment to create compatibility with the red brick Murray-Stow House. The upper-level materials include architectural metal panels, fiber cement shiplap and v-groove siding, steel trim, and sandstone accents, all which meet the durability standard along with the brick veneer. Yes Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 9 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. • This requirement calls for the primary building material(s) to reflect the brick of the Murray-Stow house in at least two ways, as noted above. While the red brick on the base clearly meets the standard regarding the original brick Foursquare building, the fiber cement siding (shown in two patterns) would only meet the standard if related to the vertical wood and shingle siding of the 1955 addition. This standard applies to all primary materials up to a required stepback—in this case, it would include all three stories. • The applicant proposes to reference type and color from the above requirements to create compatibility between the red brick of the original building and the new construction; however, the applicant is seeking feedback on the pattern and size/scale of the red brick. • The proposal also includes referential use of sandstone accents and a white metal parapet cap to correspond to the white-painted frieze/eaves of the historic residence. TBD 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 applicant is referencing the proportion of the windows on the Murray-Stow House, most of which have a 2:1 height to width ratio. The design shows windows on the new buildings in similar proportion, using steel and sandstone headers and lintels to create the 2:1 proportion. Yes 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. The applicant effectively uses horizontal lines to create a relationship between the eave height and the parapet height and metal panel joint line of the new construction facing Howes, as well as alignment of the vertical windows on the Howes-facing elevations at both the front and rear. Also on the Howes elevation, the new design also shows an interesting concave curve to complement the convex curvature of the bay on the existing residence. Yes Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 10 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. The position and design of the new construction on the site minimizes impact on the visibility of the existing structure at the front of the lot. The applicant notes further discussion is required regarding the “patch” treatment for the SE corner of the Murray-Stow building regarding this standard. TBD 3.4.7(E)(3): Plan of Protection A plan of protection will be required prior to the Landmark Preservation Commission providing a recommendation to the decision maker regarding a development project. Staff will work with the applicant to add this to the review packet for the next discussion with the Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC Application 2. 629 S Howes Survey Form 3. 620 S Howes Survey Form Addendum 4. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 21 629 SOUTH HOWES STREET SCHEMATIC DESIGN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSESSION OCTOBER 16, 2019 SOUTH HOWES 6FORT29STREET COLLINS, COLORADO ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 CONTEXT PLANS LPC WORKSESSION | 2 SOUTH HOWES STREET SOUTH MELDRUM STREET “MAX” ROUTE (APPROX. 550 FT AWAY) 629 HOWES STREET NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - BUFFER DISTRICT COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MIXED USE - 4 STORIES INSTITUTIONAL - 6 STORIES LAUREL STREET FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 LPC WORKSESSION | 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1955 COMMERCIAL ADDITION 1905 FOURSQUARE REAR PORCH PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 24 PROPOSED DEMOLITION PLAN LPC WORKSESSION | 4 0510 DEMOLISH GARAGE; HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH 633 S HOWES. REMOVE CONCRETE STEPS. REPAIR EXISTING PORCH. RENOVATE SITE TO FIT NEW BUILDINGS AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT. PROVIDE NEW WATER DETENTION AREA. REMOVE DETERIORATING COVERED BACK PORCH, RECONSTRUCT UNCOVERED PATIO. DEMOLISH ONE- STORY 1955 ADDITION AND BASEMENT. TWO-STORY C. 1905 BRICK FOURSQUARE TO REMAIN. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 PREVIOUS SCHEME (CONCEPTUAL REVIEW) LPC WORKSESSION | 5 012 4 8 012 4 8 EAST ELEVATION WITH EXISTING HOUSE EAST ELEVATION WITH CONTEXT CHARACTERISTICS -4 stories with setback at 3 stories -Wider massing to cover shared parking garage below -No activating uses ȌȁǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ FLATS AT THE OVAL SETBACK AREA UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER Note: These comparisons with the early conceptual review intended to show project development and allowable massing only. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 26 CURRENT PROPOSAL LPC WORKSESSION | 6 EAST ELEVATION WITH EXISTING HOUSE 0’ 2’ 4' 8’ EAST ELEVATION WITH CONTEXT FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER CHARACTERISTICS -3 story townhouses (scale reduced) -Narrower building mass better relates to existing house -Private garages fully screen vehicles from view -Foyers and porches ƊƧɈǞɨƊɈƵǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ -Creates a courtyard environment with the existing house as the central focus ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 27 PREVIOUS SCHEME LPC WORKSESSION | 7 CHARACTERISTICS -4 stories with setback at 3 stories -Wider massing to cover shared parking garage below -No activating uses ȌȁǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ Note: These comparisons with the early conceptual review intended to show project development and allowable massing only. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 28 LPC WORKSESSION | 8 PROPOSED SCHEME CHARACTERISTICS -3 stories (scale reduced) -Narrower building mass better relates to existing house -Private garages fully screen vehicles from view -Foyers and porches ƊƧɈǞɨƊɈƵǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ -Creates a courtyard environment with the existing house as the central focus ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 29 PREVIOUS SITE PLAN LPC WORKSESSION | 9 BIKE PARKING AMENITY Note: These comparisons with the early conceptual review intended to show project development and allowable massing only. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 30 LPC WORKSESSION | 10 TOWNHOUSE SITE PLAN STUDIES  " !(($"(                        %(  &(  !"     %(      (  %" $!  $   CURRENT SITE PLAN LPC WORKSESSION | 11 0åX2ÀXyJR„Ç20 !„ß0a0( §0(02ÀaXy §22J0 Àay2 خÀa2R  ۋa0!æ!m0 mXy0„I§a0ßXmXyJ20À !j ׄ ر ׉ٌ ز ImÀ2ÀÀR0„ßm !2Ç 20 ز ׀ ׅ ڡÀ !jÀ„ §ajXyJ !2Ç ÇXm(XyJ ÇÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ׈ ر ׀ ٌ ز  ز ׅ ۋÇÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ز ׀ ׉ׁ ڡ ImÀ2À ÀR0„ßm §ajXyJ ز ׀ ׀ ׁ ڡ ÇyXÀׂ ׃ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׂ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׅ ׀ß0 فÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׄ ׀ß0 ف ÇyXÀׂ ׆ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׇ ׀ ÇyXÀׁ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀ ׁ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׂ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׃ ׀ ׃ §a„§„20( (0w„mXÀX„y ر ׆ ٌ ز ׀ ׁ ر ׂٌ ز ׀ ׃  ز ׀ ׂ ڡÇII0a 2R„à022Àa00À §„a!R §ÀX„ ׂׄ  زwXy !  خjXyJ ׂׅ ر ׀ ׁٌ ز  ز ׀ ׂwXy !  خjXyJ ز ׀ ׂ ڡ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׂׅ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׆ ׂ mm0æ „y0àæ „y0àæ „y0àæ y ز ׀ ׄ ز ׀ ׂ ز ׀ ׁ ز ׅ ز ׀ ر ׉ٌ ز ׂ ׃  ز ׂׂ ڡÇII0a §a„§„20( 2À„awàÀ0a a0À0yÀX„y !„ÇaÀæa( ر ׁٌ ز ׄ ׃ PARKING FOR UNIT 101 PARKING FOR UNITS 204-205 IF NOT REMOVED, EXISTING 1955 ADDITION SEVERELY 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 12 (E) Design Requirements for a Proposed Development (1) Design Compatibility. Proposed development may represent the architecture and construction standards of its own time but must also convey a standard of quality and durability ƊȯȯȲȌȯȲǞƊɈƵǏȌȲǞȁ ̨ǶǶǞȁƊǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧƧȌȁɈƵɮɈ and protect and complement the historic character of historic resources both on the development site and within the area of adjacency. The design of development on development sites containing historic resources or with historic resources located within the area of adjacency shall meet the requirements in below Table 1 in addition to applicable Land Use Code requirements. The Table 1 requirements shall apply to the development of buildings or structures, other than those addressed in above Subsection (D), ȌȁɈǘƵƮƵɨƵǶȌȯǿƵȁɈȺǞɈƵǶȌƧƊɈƵƮɩǞɈǘǞȁƊǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊ  ةƊȺȺɐƧǘɈƵȲǿǞȺ ƮƵ ̨ȁƵƮǞȁƊƦȌɨƵ2ɐƦȺƵƧɈǞȌȁ  ة ف ׄ ـ ف ـƊȺǏȌǶǶȌɩȺ  ب )a) If ȌȁƵ  ف ׁ ـȌȲǿȌȲƵǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺƵɮǞȺɈ that are associated with historic resource(s) on the development site, or which abut or are on the other ȺǞƮƵȌǏƊȺǞƮƵƊǶǶƵɯɈǘƊɈƊƦɐɈȺɈǘƵƮƵɨƵǶȌȯǿƵȁɈȺǞɈƵ  ةɈǘƵȁƊǶǶǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵ areas shall be considered to be associated with such historic resource(s) and the standards set forth in Table 1, Column A, shall apply. If two (2) or more ǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺƵɮǞȺɈɈǘƊɈƊȲƵƊȺȺȌƧǞƊɈƵƮɩǞɈǘǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧȲƵȺȌɐȲƧƵȺȌȁɈǘƵ development site, or which abut or are on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site, the applicant may satisfy the standards set forth in Table 1, Column A, by choosing characteristics from one (1) or more of such historic resources. ـƦ  فXǏȁȌǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺƵɮǞȺɈɈǘƊɈƊȲƵƊȺȺȌƧǞƊɈƵƮɩǞɈǘǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧȲƵȺȌɐȲƧƵȺ on the development site, or which abut or are on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site, the standards set forth in Table 1, Column B, ȺǘƊǶǶƊȯȯǶɯɈȌƊǶǶǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺ خ Response §ƵȲ ـ ف ׁ ـ ف 0 ـ ׇ خ ׄ خ ׃Ɗ  ة فɩƵ ƊȲƵ ƊȯȯǶɯǞȁǐ ɈǘƵ standards of Column A in Table 1. We strive to design to a high standard of quality and durability (while also dealing with the reality of cost). As shown in the following pages, we believe we have successfully allowed the project to represent contemporary architecture and construction while also protecting and complementing the historic character of the adjacent house. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 33 AREA OF ADJACENCY - HOWES LPC WORKSESSION | 13 LINE OF 200’ FROM PROPERTY BOUNDARY 612 S HOWES ST 620 S HOWES ST 624 S HOWES ST 636 S HOWES ST 642 S HOWES ST 642 S HOWES ST 636 S HOWES ST 629 S HOWES 624 S HOWES ST 620 S HOWES ST 612 S HOWES ST COMMON CHARACTERISTICS • Front porches (including full-width, partial width centered, partial width asymmetrical) • Expressed eaves • Double-hung windows • Wood siding (excludes 612 and 620) ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 34 AREA OF ADJACENCY - MELDRUM LPC WORKSESSION | 14 COMMON CHARACTERISTICS • Red brick • Expressed eaves • Sloped roofs • We feel these resources are less important to reference; their primary facades are nowhere visible at the same time as the project’s main facade. LINE OF 200’ FROM PROPERTY BOUNDARY 629 S HOWES 624-626 S MELDRUM ST 630 S MELDRUM ST 624-626 S MELDRUM ST 630 S MELDRUM ST ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 35 LPC WORKSESSION | 15 AREA OF ADJACENCY : CONCLUSIONS AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY §ƵȲ ـ ف ׁ ـ ف 0 ـ ׇ خ ׄ خ ׃Ɗ  ة فɩƵƊȲƵƊȯȯǶɯǞȁǐɈǘƵȺɈƊȁƮƊȲƮȺȌǏColumn A in Table 1. As such, the primary historic resource to reference is the red brick house at 629 S. Howes street, as it is within the project site. The remaining historic resources on within the area of adjacency are quite eclectic, but nonetheless have some common characteristics we propose to reference in a contemporary way, including the following: • Single family dwelling scale (Howes street), with widths in the 30-35’ range • Front porches that help to activate the street • Sloped roofs with expressed eaves • Double-hung windows with an approximate 1:2 vertical proportion • Painted wood siding is a common material ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 36 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 16 0’ 2’ 4' 8’ 26’ AT FRONT FACE ~20’ MASS 27’ AT FRONT FACE 32’ AT WIDEST POINT 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MASSING 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be ƊȲɈǞƧɐǶƊɈƵƮ ǞȁɈȌ ǿƊȺȺǞȁǐ ȲƵ ̃ƵƧɈǞɨƵ ȌȲ the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. RESPONSE 1. ÀǘƵׁ׉ ׅ ׀ǘȌɐȺƵǞȺƊȯȯȲȌɮǞǿƊɈƵǶɯׂ ٚ ׆ɩǞƮƵ  خÀǘƵǏȲȌȁɈٌǿȌȺɈȯȌȲɈǞȌȁȌǏ ɈǘƵȁƵɩǿƊȺȺǞȁǐǞȺƊȯȯȲȌɮǞǿƊɈƵǶɯׇׂ ٚ ةȯȲȌɨǞƮǞȁǐƊȺǞǿǞǶƊȲɩǞƮɈǘ  خ At its widest, the massing adjacent to the house is 32’ wide, narrower than even a single-loaded corridor building ـƊȯȯȲȌɮ  ة ׅٚ ׃  خȺƵƵȯȲƵɨǞȌɐȺȺƧǘƵǿƵ for the site). The massing facing the house to the west and north is further broken into a series of 20’ wide blocks, separated from each other by several feet, to better relate to the scale of the house, and to enhance the perception of the project as a series of smaller buildings rather than one large building. FRONT PORCH FACING HOWES, ADDITIONAL PORCHES BEYOND AND FACING HOUSE ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 37 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 17 0’ 5’ 10’ FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MASSING 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) 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 by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. RESPONSE ׂ  خÀǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐׁ׉ ׅ ׀ǘȌɐȺƵǞȺׂȺɈȌȲǞƵȺɈƊǶǶ  ةrequiring a setback for massing above 3 stories. The proposed massing is 3 stories tall and is thus in compliance. XȁɈǘƵǶƊȲǐƵȲƧȌȁɈƵɮɈ  ةɈǘƵȺǞɈƵǞȺƊƦɐɈɈƵƮƦɯɈǘƵٌׄȺɈȌȲɯIǶƊɈȺƊɈ ɈǘƵ„ɨƊǶɈȌɈǘƵȺȌɐɈǘƊȁƮɈǘƵ ٌ ׆ȺɈȌȲɯÇȁǞɨƵȲȺǞɈɯ2ƵȲɨǞƧƵȺ!ƵȁɈƵȲ ɈȌɈǘƵȁȌȲɈǘ  خàƵ ̨ȁƮɈǘƊɈɈǘƵȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮǐȲƊƮɐƊǶǞȁƧȲƵƊȺƵǞȁȺƧƊǶƵ  ة from two to three stories, helps transition between these larger buildings and helps ground the house in the disparate context that has grown around it. 6 STORIES 3 STORIES 2 STORIES ׄ2À„aX02 SCALE TRANSITION ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 38 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 18 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MATERIALS 3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high- quality materials ـƦȲǞƧDz  ةȺɈȌȁƵ  ةǐǶƊȺȺ  ةɈƵȲȲƊƧȌɈɈƊ  ةȺɈɐƧƧȌ ـȁȌȁ0IX2  ة ف precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. RESPONSE 3. We have proposed that the majority of the ground level of the new construction be clad in a red brick in response to the ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵ ـȺƵƵƵȁɈȲɯȌȁǞɈƵǿׄǏȲȌǿɈǘƵɈƊƦǶƵ  خ فàƵƊǶɩƊɯȺ ȺɈȲǞɨƵɈȌɐȺƵƊɐɈǘƵȁɈǞƧ  ةƮɐȲƊƦǶƵ  ةƊȁƮǘǞǐǘٌȱɐƊǶǞɈɯǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȺ  ةƊȁƮ the remaining materials at the lower stories include architectural ǿƵɈƊǶȯƊȁƵǶȺ ̨ ةƦƵȲƧƵǿƵȁɈȺǞƮǞȁǐ  ةƊȁƮȯƊǞȁɈƵƮɩȌȌƮȺǞƮǞȁǐ  خ All materials will be installed to industry standards. BRICK AT HOWES FACADE AND LOWER LEVELS RELATES TO EXISTING HOUSE SEE NEXT PAGE FOR TYPICAL UNIT MATERIALS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 39 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 19 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MATERIALS (CONTINUED) Typical Unit Materials 1. ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANELS 2. DARK GREY FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING 3. LIGHT GREY FIBER CEMENT V-GROOVE SIDING 4. RED BRICK (SIZE TBD) 5. PAINTED STEEL TRIM 6. MASONVILLE SANDSTONE ACCENTS 1 1 2 2 3 3 ׄ ׄ ׅ ׅ 6 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 40 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 20 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MATERIALS ׄ  خyƵɩ ƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁ ȺǘƊǶǶ ȲƵǏƵȲƵȁƧƵ ȌȁƵ ȌȲ ǿȌȲƵ ȌǏ ɈǘƵ 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 or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) Type 2) Scale 3) Color ׄ  فÀǘȲƵƵٌ(ǞǿƵȁȺǞȌȁƊǶǞɈɯ ׅ §  فƊɈɈƵȲȁ RESPONSE ׄ  خÀǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵǞȺƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈƵƮȯȲǞǿƊȲǞǶɯȌǏƊȲƵƮƦȲǞƧDz  ةɩǞɈǘ sandstone window s and foundation and some painted wood frieze boards and trim. As such, we propose to reference the type and color by using a red brick as the primary material on the ground level of the new construction. As we are early in the design process, we have not yet evaluated whether we wish to imitate the scale and pattern of the brick; using an ambassador or other oversized brick may be a way to subtly distinguish the ȌǶƮǏȲȌǿɈǘƵȁƵɩƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁ  خIƵƵƮƦƊƧDzȌȁɈǘǞȺɩȌɐǶƮȌǏƧȌɐȲȺƵ be welcomed. àƵƊȲƵƊǶȺȌƊɈɈƵǿȯɈǞȁǐɈȌ ̨ȁƮȌɈǘƵȲǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȯƊȲǞɈǞƵȺƦƵɈɩƵƵȁ the old and new construction, including sandstone details. BRICK MASS RELATES TO EXISTING HOUSE BUT IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER AND DEFERENTIAL WHITE PRECAST OR METAL PARAPET CAP REFERENCES WHITE PAINTED EAVES RED BRICK CONTINUES AT LOWER LEVEL SANDSTONE ACCENTS ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 41 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 21 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - FACADE DETAILS ׅ  خÇȺƵ 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. RESPONSE ׅ  خÀǘƵɩǞȁƮȌɩȺȌǏɈǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵƊȲƵƮȌɐƦǶƵٌǘɐȁǐ  ةƊȁƮƊȲƵ ǞȁƧȌȁȺǞȺɈƵȁɈǶɯȯȲȌȯȌȲɈǞȌȁƵƮ  ةƦɐɈɈƵȁƮɈȌǏȌǶǶȌɩƊȁƊȯȯȲȌɮǞǿƊɈƵǶɯ 2:1 height to width ratio. We reference this proportion in the new typical windows, while subtly distinguishing the new construction by combining two such windows together in a ƧƊȺƵǿƵȁɈƊȁƮ ̨ɮƵƮٌǶǞɈƵȯƊǞȲ خ CONTEMPORARY STEEL HEADERS AND LINTELS ALLOW 1:2 PROPORTIONS WHERE WINDOWS CANNOT BE ENLARGED THREE WINDOWS AND A DOOR SIMILAR TO QUANTITY OF WINDOWS ON HISTORIC HOUSE, NUMBER OF WINDOWS ON THIS FACADE LIMITED BY PLAN EXAGGERATED SANDSTONE LINTEL FORMS 1:2 PROPORTION WITH WINDOW EACH OF 2 PAIRED WINDOWS IN CASEMENT/PICTURE PAIR 1:2 PROPORTION ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 42 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 22 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - FACADE DETAILS 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements ـȺɐƧǘƊȺȲȌȌ ̃ǞȁƵȺ  ةƧȌȲȁǞƧƵȺ  ةƊȁƮƦƵǶɈƧȌɐȲȺƵȺ  فɈȌȲƵǶƊɈƵɈǘƵȁƵɩ construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley. RESPONSE 6. Because of the horizontal nature of the project, we have found several horizontal lines at which the new construction can reference the old house. 1. The eave of the house is taken as the top of the parapet of the 2 story brick volume adjacent to Howes. 2. The ƦȌɈɈȌǿ ȌǏ ɈǘƵ ɈɯȯǞƧƊǶ ȺƵƧȌȁƮ ̃ȌȌȲ ɩǞȁƮȌɩȺ (and associated trim) has been aligned with the bottom of the second ̃ȌȌȲɩǞȁƮȌɩȺǞǶǶȺof the house. 3. The bottom of selected windows facing Howes has been ƊǶǞǐȁƵƮɩǞɈǘɈǘƵɈȌȯȌǏɈǘƵǘƵƊƮƵȲȌǏɈǘƵǐȲȌɐȁƮ ̃ȌȌȲɩǞȁƮȌɩȺ ȌȁɈǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵ خ À„§„I§a§0À EAVE METAL PANEL JOINT LINE „ÀÀ„w„I WINDOWS À„§„I WINDOWS „ÀÀ„w„I WINDOWS CONCAVE CURVE AS COMPLIMENT TO EXISTING HOUSE CONVEX CURVE ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 43 RESPONSES LPC WORKSESSION | 23 0åX2ÀXyJR„Ç20 !„ß0a0( §0(02ÀaXy §22J0 Àay2 خÀa2R  ۋa0!æ!m0 mXy0„I§a0ßXmXyJ20À !j ׄ ر ׉ٌ ز ImÀ2ÀÀR0„ßm !2Ç 20 ز ׀ ׅ ڡÀ !jÀ„ §ajXyJ !2Ç ÇXm(XyJ ÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ׈ ر ׀ ٌ ز ImÀ2À  ز ׅ ۋÇÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ÀR0„ßm §ajXyJ ÇyXÀׂ ׃ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׂ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׅ ׀ß0 فÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׄ ׀ß0 ف ÇyXÀׂ ׆ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׇ ׀ ÇyXÀׁ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀ ׁ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׂ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׃ ׀ ׃ §a„§„20( (0w„mXÀX„y ر ׆ ٌ ز ׀ ׁ ر ׂٌ ز ׀ ׃  ز ׀ ׂ ڡÇII0a 2R„à022Àa00À §„a!R §ÀX„ ׂׄ  زwXy !  خjXyJ ׂׅ ر ׀ ׁٌ ز  ز ׀ ׂwXy !  خjXyJ ز ׀ ׂ ڡ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׂׅ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׆ ׂ „y0àæ „y0àæ „y0àæ y ز ׀ ׄ ز ׀ ׂ ز ׀ ׁ ز ׅ ز ׀ ر ׉ٌ ز ׂ ׃  ز ׂׂ ڡÇII0a §a„§„20( 2À„awàÀ0a a0À0yÀX„y !„ÇaÀæa( ر ׁٌ ز ׄ ׃ ׁ ׀ ׂ ر ׆ ٌ ز ׀ ׁ ر ׂٌ ز ׀ ׃ 2R„à022Àa00À §„a!R ׂׅ ر ׁׁٌ ز §a„§„20( 2ÀÀ„awàÀ0a 2ÀÀÀÀ 2À a 0À0yÀX„y 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - VISIBILITY OF HISTORIC FEATURES ׇ  خyƵɩ ƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁ shall not cover or obscure character- ƮƵ ̨ȁǞȁǐ ƊȲƧǘǞɈƵƧɈɐȲƊǶ ƵǶƵǿƵȁɈȺ ةsuch as windows or primary THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 24 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE 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. 1. The rehabilitated project will be used for housing, in keeping with the original function of the 1905 portion of the house; either a single unit or potentially 2 units. • The commercial addition c. 1955 will be removed, returning the house to its original use. 2. The primary historic character of the property lies in the brick massing of the 1905 foursquare house, and its associated details (e.g. the chimneys, sandstone headers and lintels at windows). The original house in its entirety will remain, ɩǞɈǘȺȌǿƵǿǞȁȌȲȁȌȁٌƧȌȁɈȲǞƦɐɈǞȁǐ additions removed (enclosed porch at rear). 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 3. No conjectural features or other non-historic additions will be made to the property. • In the repair of the front porch, we believe it would be appropriate to replace the slender steel columns (which appear to be associated with the 1955 addition) with dimensional lumber columns that would be more typical of the construction of the house. If period photographs can be located, the details of such columns could be matched. Additional advisement in this area would be appreciated. • Areas potentially damaged by the 1955 addition are proposed to be covered (see end of document) in a way that distinguishes them from the historic construction. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 45 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 25 ׄ  خChanges to a property that have acquired historic ȺǞǐȁǞ ̨ƧƊȁƧƵ Ǟȁ ɈǘƵǞȲ Ȍɩȁ ȲǞǐǘɈ ɩǞǶǶ ƦƵ ȲƵɈƊǞȁƵƮ ƊȁƮ preserved. ׅ )  خǞȺɈǞȁƧɈǞɨƵ ǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȺ  ةǏƵƊɈɐȲƵȺ ̨  ةȁǞȺǘƵȺ  ةƊȁƮ ƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁɈƵƧǘȁǞȱɐƵȺȌȲƵɮƊǿȯǶƵȺȌǏƧȲƊǏɈȺǿƊȁȺǘǞȯ that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the ȁƵɩ ǏƵƊɈɐȲƵ ɩǞǶǶǿƊɈƧǘɈǘƵȌǶƮǞȁƮƵȺǞǐȁ  ةƧȌǶȌȲ  ةɈƵɮɈɐȲƵ and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE ׄ  خȺȺǘȌɩȁƦɯɈǘƵɐȯƮƊɈƵɈȌɈǘƵǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁɈƵȁȺǞɨƵȺɐȲɨƵɯ  ة the 1955 addition ǞȺ ǶƊȲǐƵǶɯ ȁȌȁٌƧȌȁɈȲǞƦɐɈǞȁǐ ɈȌ ɈǘƵ historic nature of the property, and its removal would “substantially restore the architectural integrity of the original house.” ׅ  خThe distinctive features of the house, including the brick construction and chimneys, stone foundation, large sandstone headers and lintels at the windows, ɈǘƵ ƦȌɩ ɩǞȁƮȌɩ  ةƊȁƮ ƵɮȯȲƵȺȺƵƮ ȲƊǏɈƵȲȺ Ǟȁ ɈǘƵ ƦƵǶǶƧƊȺɈ hipped roof, will remain. ÀǘƵ ׁ׉ׅׅ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁ ȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮ ǏȌȲ ȲƵǿȌɨƊǶ ǏƵƊɈɐȲƵȺȌȁǶɯɩȌȌƮȺǞȁǐǶƵȺƊȁƮȌɈǘƵȲȁȌȁٌ distinctive materials and features. 6. The deteriorated front porch is planned to be repaired rather than reconstructed. There remains a question about the appropriate treatment of the porch ƧȌǶɐǿȁȺƊȺɈǘƵɯƊȯȯƵƊȲȁȌȁٌȌȲǞǐǞȁƊǶ ـȺƵƵǞɈƵǿ  خ ف ׃ •Other non-distinctive features such as the non-original enclosed back porch may be replaced. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 46 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 26 ׇ !  خǘƵǿǞƧƊǶ ȌȲ ȯǘɯȺǞƧƊǶ ɈȲƵƊɈǿƵȁɈȺ  ةǞǏ ƊȯȯȲȌȯȲǞƊɈƵ  ةɩǞǶǶ be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ׉  خyƵɩ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁȺ  ةƵɮɈƵȲǞȌȲ ƊǶɈƵȲƊɈǞȌȁȺ  ةȌȲ 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. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE ׇ  خNo chemical or physical treatments to the typical ƵɮɈƵȲǞȌȲ ǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȺ ƊȲƵ ƧɐȲȲƵȁɈǶɯ ȯǶƊȁȁƵƮ  خIn the area ȌǏ ɈǘƵ ׁ׉ׅׅ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁ ȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮ ǏȌȲ ȲƵǿȌɨƊǶ  ةȺƵɨƵȲƊǶ options for treatment are discussed near the end of the document. 8. The historic intensive survey does not indicate a high likelihood of archaeological resources being present on the site. As such, no archaeological resources are anticipated to be disturbed. Additionally, because the ȯȲȌǯƵƧɈ ǘƊȺ ȁȌ ƦƊȺƵǿƵȁɈȺ  ةǶǞɈɈǶƵ ƵɮƧƊɨƊɈǞȌȁ ǞȺ ȯǶƊȁȁƵƮ beyond what is necessary for foundations. 9. The related new construction will not physically engage the historic resource and as such will not damage or destroy any historic materials, features, or spatial relationships. The new work will be differentiated from the old by contemporary construction and detailing, while remaining compatible in massing, features, materiality, and proportions and detail relationships. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 47 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 27 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. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE 10. The related new construction will not physically engage the historic resource and as such could potentially be removed in the future in its entirety without affecting the historic resource. The treatment of the area underlying the 1955 addition requires special attention (see “patch” section at end of this document). • Existing damage from the 1955 addition to the underlying brick in this area is likely, and full restoration is unlikely to be possible. • New cladding in this area, however, may not be removable in the future without further damage. Because this area is likely to already be damaged, we believe this may be the best way to preserve the underlying structure. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 48 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS (NTS) LPC WORKSESSION | 28 %5 %5  0$67(5 72,/(7 :$/.,1 :$/.,1 87,/,7<  $    $   )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ ϭϬΖͲϬΗ ϴΖͲϵΗ ϵΖͲϵΗ ϯϬΖͲϬΗ ϲΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϰϭͬϴΗ ϮϮΖͲϬϯͬϴΗ ϭϯΖͲϵϯͬϴΗ ϯΖͲϴϭͬϴΗ ϮΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϯΗ ϮϲΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϯΗ ϮΖͲϯϭͬϮΗ ϰΖͲϭϬΗ ϯΖͲϯϭͬϮΗϭϮΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϭϯΖͲϳϯͬϴΗ ϯΖͲϭϬϭͬϴΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϱͬϴΗ ϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϯϯͬϰΗ ϮΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϱͬϴΗ ϰΖͲϬϭͬϰΗ ϱΖͲϰϭͬϰΗ ϰΖͲϯΗ FR %5 72,/(7 /,9,1*.,7&+(1 :$/.,1 -8/,(7 %$/&21< $  $       )/ )/ )/ )/ ϭϮΖͲϴΗ ϯΖͲϳΗ ϭϬΖͲϬΗ ϯϬΖͲϬΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϯϯͬϰΗ ϭϯΖͲϵϭͬϮΗ ϯΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϮΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϯΗ ϮϱΖͲϵΗ ϮΖͲϲΗ ϮΖͲϯϭͬϮΗ ϵΖͲϰΗ ϭϭΖͲϳΗ ϯΖͲϵΗ TYPICAL UNIT SECTION (NTS) LPC WORKSESSION | 29 *5281'  /(9(/   /(9(/   522)   “OVERHANG” USED TO: • MINIMIZE GROUND FLOOR FOOTPRINT OF GARAGE • REDUCE VEHICULAR FOOTPRINT ON SITE • ALLOW THE MOST DISTANCE POSSIBLE BETWEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND HISTORIC RESOURCE • ADD DEPTH AND CHARACTER TO FACADE WHILE • “RIGHT SIZING” THE DESIRED SF OF LIVING SPACE ABOVE • AND WORKING WITH STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS BEDROOM 1 PORCH BATH 1 LIVING BATH 2 (SHARED) BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 50 ROOF SHAPE DIAGRAM (NTS) LPC WORKSESSION | 30 1* 12 2ׁׂ ب ׀m„§0 ـßX2ÇmmæImÀ 2 ڕ ׄ فÀ„aX02 2 STORIES 3 STORIES PARAPET FLAT ROOF ـImÀ2ÀÀR0„ßmy( UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER)  ؤmma„„I2m„§02§§a„åXwÀ0 BELLCAST HIPPED ROOF ـI„Ça2©Ça0R„Ç20 ف RX§§0(y(J m0(a„„I2 !„ww„yXya0„I(h!0y!æ ف REPEATED SINGLE-SLOPE ROOF 3* 6* 12 12 += • MEDIATES BETWEEN FLAT ROOFS AND SLOPED ROOFS IN CONTEXT WITH SHALLOW SLOPE • SMALL AREAS OF FLAT ROOFS VISUALLY SEPARATE BUILDING INTO INDIVIDUAL UNITS THAT BETTER RELATE TO THE SCALE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE A.O.A. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 51 EAST (HOWES STREET) ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 31 FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 52 NORTH ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 32 ALLEY S HOWES STREET ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 53 WEST (ALLEY) ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 33 FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 54 SOUTH ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 34 ALLEY S HOWES STREET VIEW FROM FLATS AT THE OVAL PARKING COURT ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 55 PERSPECTIVE FROM HOWES STREET FORECOURT LPC WORKSESSION | 35 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 56 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE FROM NORTHEAST LPC WORKSESSION | 36 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 57 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE FROM NORTHEAST LPC WORKSESSION | 37 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 58 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 38 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 59 “PATCH” LPC WORKSESSION | 39 PROPOSED TREATMENT OF DEMOLITION AFFECTED BRICK Xȁ ȯȲȌȯȌȺǞȁǐ ɈȌ ȲƵǿȌɨƵ ɈǘƵ ׁ׉ׅׅ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁ  ةɩƵ anticipate that there may be substantial damage to the underlying brick wall and chimney from any one of the following: 2ƵƊǶƊȁɈ ɐȺƵƮ ɈȌ ̃ƊȺǘ ƊȁƮ ɩƊɈƵȲȯȲȌȌǏ ɈǘƵ connection between the buildings (potentially ɈƊȲٌƦƊȺƵƮ ف Possible painting of the brick, currently hidden behind the walls of the addition Nail or other damage to the brick from structure for the addition being attached to ɈǘƵƵɮɈƵȲǞȌȲȌǏɈǘƵƦȲǞƧDzɩƊǶǶ ÀǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐȌȯƵȁǞȁǐǿƊɯǘƊɨƵƦƵƵȁƧɐɈǞȁɈȌ the brick wall rather than being an original doorway There may also be damage to the sandstone foundation and s from the above. Knowing that this damage is unlikely to be invisibly repairable, we propose an alternate strategy of creating a “patch” that acknowledges ɈǘƵƵɮǞȺɈƵȁƧƵȌǏɈǘƵׁ׉ׅׅƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁƊȁƮƊǶǶȌɩȺɈǘƵ memory of it to remain. EXAMPLE OF DAMAGE TO BRICK FROM REMOVAL OF ATTACHED STRUCTURES CSU CAMPUS - POTTING SHED ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 60 EXISTING CONDITIONS LPC WORKSESSION | 40 EXAMPLE OF AREA AFFECTED 1905 HOUSE 1955 ADDITION SEALANT/FLASHING ON BRICK SANDSTONE FOUNDATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SEALANT/FLASHING TOUCHING SANDSTONE WALLS BEHIND POTENTIALLY PAINTED OR AFFECTED BY NAIL DAMAGE ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 61 “PATCH” SCHEME 0: REPAIR LPC WORKSESSION | 41 OPENING BETWEEN ORIGINAL HOUSE AND ADDITION PRESERVED AS NEW WINDOW • DISTINGUISHED FROM EXISTING WINDOWS BY CONTEMPORARY DETAILING BRICK RESTORED USING GENTLEST PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MEANS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE • WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MAY BE SIGNIFICANT SURFACE DAMAGE. PORCH RECONSTRUCTED IN A WAY THAT IS SUPPORTED BY FOURSQUARE STYLE HOUSES OF SIMILAR AGE. • REMOVES EVIDENCE OF 1955 ADDITION. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 62 “PATCH” SCHEME 1: OUTLINE LPC WORKSESSION | 42 OUTLINE AREA PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY ADDITION WITH STEEL ANGLE, APPROX. 1.5” SQUARE • HIDES SEALANT DAMAGE BUT NOT DAMAGE FROM NAILS, PAINT, ETC. OVER FULL AREA OF ADDITION REPAIR EXISTING PORCH • REPLACE 1955 SLENDER STEEL COLUMNS WITH DIMENSIONAL LUMBER MORE TYPICAL OF THE HOUSE’S CONSTRUCTION. IF PERIOD PHOTOGRAPHS ARE AVAILABLE, MATCH STYLING OF ORIGINAL. • MODIFY STEPS TO FIT NEW SITE PLAN • “SLICE” PORCH TO REFERENCE DEMOLISHED ADDITION OPENING BETWEEN ORIGINAL HOUSE AND ADDITION PRESERVED AS NEW WINDOW • DISTINGUISHED FROM EXISTING WINDOWS BY CONTEMPORARY DETAILING ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 63 “PATCH” SCHEME 2: OUTLINE AND PAINT LPC WORKSESSION | 43 SAME AS SCHEME 1 EXCEPT • AREA OF “OUTLINE” SIMPLIFIED • AREA WITHIN OUTLINE PAINTED OR PLASTERED TO COVER NAIL DAMAGE ETC. AND PROTECT EXISTING BRICK FROM FURTHER DAMAGE • STEEL ANGLE ENLARGED TO MAKE OLD/NEW LINE MORE DISTINCT ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 64 “PATCH” SCHEME 3: TIN SHINGLES LPC WORKSESSION | 44 SAME AS SCHEME 1 EXCEPT • AREA OF “OUTLINE” SIMPLIFIED • AREA WITHIN OUTLINE CLAD WITH TIN SHINGLES OVER FURRING/ UNDERLAYMENT TO COVER AREA OF POTENTIALLY DAMAGED BRICK AND PROTECT AGAINST FURTHER DAMAGE. • EXISTING OPENING BETWEEN ADDITION AND ORIGINAL HOUSE PRESERVED AS WINDOW THAT MORE CLOSELY MATCHES THE EXISTING WINDOWS BUT IN A CONTEMPORARY DOUBLE-HUNG FASHION • TIN SHINGLES AND PAINTED STEEL ALLOW A REFERENCE BACK TO THE OTHER NEW CONSTRUCTION, FURTHER INTEGRATING THE PROJECTS. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 65 FOURSQUARE PORCH COMPARISON LPC WORKSESSION | 45 Unfortunately, no photos of the house prior to the 1955 addition could be located by the FCMoD History Connection Archive staff, City Historic Preservation Staff, or Larimer County Assessor staff. ÀǘƵٗƮƵƊƮ˛ǶƵ٘ƊȺȺƵȺȺȌȲٚȺƧƊȲƮɩǞɈǘɈǘƵȯǘȌɈȌ removed (left) and this later assessors card (below) that already shows the addition are all that was located. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 66 FORUSQUARE PORCH COMPARISON LPC WORKSESSION | 46 As such, a suitable comparision is needed to guide the discussion on the treatment of the front porch and columns. We propose the use of 616 S Howes Street. From the Fort Collins History Connection: “In 1904, builder Harry Noel constructed a two-story Foursquare style residence in the Harrison Addition for Emery D. Searling at 616 South Howes. The frame dwelling atop a raised stone foundation had a hipped roof with widely overhanging eaves with modillions and a central dormer with shingled walls and a window with multiple small lights.  ˜ƊɈ roofed porch with corniceline balustrade was supported by classical columns. A variety of windows ornamented the exterior, including double-hung windows, horizontal windows with multiple lights, and a sash and transom parlor window. “ 616 S Howes c. 1977 616 S Howes c. 1969 616 S Howes c. 2016 616 S Howes c. 1948 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 67 STREET-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE FROM NORTH LPC WORKSESSION | 47 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 68 ADDITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS LPC WORKSESSION | 48 20’-6” 14’-0” 1’-9” 2’-6” INVERTED BOW WINDOW BOW WINDOW 1:8 PROPORTION 1:8 PROPORTION *BUILDING ROTATED FOR CLARITY PORCH PORCH EAST FACE SOUTH FACE* METAL METAL ACCENT ACCENT BRICK BUILDING WITH BOW WINDOW BRICK BUILDING WITH BOW WINDOW ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 69 BOW WINDOW LPC WORKSESSION | 49 !ÀÇmª0mÀX„y²RX§„I „à AND INVERTED BOW ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 70 SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP TO HISTORIC RESOURCE LPC WORKSESSION | 50 In summary, we propose the following strategies for relating the new construction to the historic resource while allowing the new construction to represent its own time: • Site Plan طPlace the driveway away from the historic resource طUse the mass of the new construction to frame and engage with the historic resource, creating a pedestrian forecourt طSet the new construction as far away as possible from the historic resource to maximize its continued visibility • Massing طRather than merely providing the required setback, fully limit the mass of the new construction to 3 stories, 1 greater than the historic resource. طUse a townhome massing strategy rather than a double-loaded corridor building strategy in order to minimize the width of the new construction along Howes. طArticulate the new construction to be a similar width to the historic resource. طMake the extent of the new construction brick smaller than the historic resource to remain deferential. طUse repeated low-slope roofs ɈȌ ǿƵƮǞƊɈƵ ƦƵɈɩƵƵȁ ɈǘƵ ̃ƊɈ parapet roofs and hipped and gabled roofs both common in the context. طSeparate each roof form into individual townhouse units to better match the scale of single-family homes in the A.O.A. • Materiality طUse Red Brick as the primary material on the lower facades to relate to the red brick of the historic resource طUse additional material relationships to link the old and the new, such as sandstone accents. طUse authentic, quality and durable materials like architectural ǿƵɈƊǶȯƊȁƵǶȺ ̨ ةƦƵȲƧƵǿƵȁɈȺǞƮǞȁǐ  ةƊȁƮȯƊǞȁɈƵƮɩȌȌƮȺǞƮǞȁǐ on the new construction. • Proportions and alignments طUse 1:2 window proportions on the new construction as part of paired casement/picture windows, and as single windows, especially on the Howes street facade طUse a similar number and type of windows on the Howes facade ɈȌ ȲƵǶƊɈƵ ɈȌ ɈǘƵ ǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧ ȲƵȺȌɐȲƧƵ ƊȁƮ ̨Ɉ ɈǘƵ ǞȁɈƵȲǞȌȲ plan. طUse contemporary detailing like steel window headers and exaggerated sandstone sills to reference the brick and sandstone construction of the historic resource’s windows in a contemporary way. طReference the Bow window of the historic house with a new, “inverted bow” with the same arc proportions طDemolition طUse a contemporary “patch” at the site of demolition that may affect the historic resource, to protect possible damaged areas of brick and allow the memory of the 1955 addition to remain. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 71 629 SOUTH HOWES STREET SCHEMATIC DESIGN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSESSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 SOUTH HOWES 6FORT29STREET COLLINS, COLORADO THANK YOU! ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 72 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 I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5LR 14396 2. Temporary resource number: 3. County: Larimer 4. City: Fort Collins 5. Historic building name: Murray-Stow House 6. Current building name: Geller Center for Spiritual Development 7. Building address: 629 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 8. Owner name and address: Geller Center, 629 S. Howes St, Fort Collins, CO 80521 II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9. P.M. 6 Township 7N Range 69W ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 73 NE ¼ of SW ¼ of NW ¼ of NE ¼ of section 14 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 4 9 3 1 2 4 mE 4 4 9 2 0 2 1 mN 11. USGS quad name: Fort Collins Year: 1980 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): 2&3 Block: 96 Addition: Harrison Year of Addition: 1881 13. Boundary Description and Justification: N 1/2 LOT 2 & S 1/2 LOT 3, BLK 96, HARRISON, FTC This legally defined parcel encompasses but does not exceed the land historically associated with this property. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Original house: Rectangular; Rear addition: Rectangular; Front/Side addition: Irregular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length 34 x Width 26; Building Total Sq Ft: 2,375 16. Number of stories: 2 17. Primary external wall material(s): Original house: Brick; Addition: Wood shingles 18. Roof configuration: Bellcast hipped roof 19. Primary external roof material: Asphalt roof/Composition roof 20. Special features: Porch, Chimney, Bay window 21. General architectural description: 629 S. Howes consists of the original 1904-05 Foursquare with a modern one-story addition attached to the east and south elevation. The Foursquare is built on a stone foundation with brick walls and painted frieze boards. The bellcast hipped roof has boxed eaves and modillions. There are two red brick chimneys: an interior one on the north slope, and a second one located near the end of the south slope with exterior brick detailing on the south elevation of the house. The large one-story addition begins on the south portion of the front elevation, wraps around the southeast corner and ends approximately half-way along the south elevation. The hipped-roof addition sits on a concrete foundation with walls clad in wood and redwood shingles. At the rear of the addition (west) is a low gable-roofed wood structure covering the exterior entrance to the basement. Windows of the Foursquare are primarily one-over-one double hung sash. The first story windows have stone lintels and sills, while the second story windows have stone sills. The windows in the addition are mainly fixed- over-side sliding units, with the exception of a large nine-light window on the west elevation. The front (east) façade features a hipped-roof open porch approached by concrete access ramps. The porch has a concrete floor, metal railings, and slender metal roof supports. The front screened door is a mid-20th ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 74 century design with four lights. A large cottage window is located south of the entry. A second screened door is set in the addition wall perpendicular to the façade. The south elevation of the brick house features a curved 2-story bay with four windows. The south side of the addition has a Trombe wall. The west elevation (rear) of the house has a one-story enclosed porch with post-on- stone foundation, wood skirting, and beadboard walls. The double-hung windows have storm covers. The flat roof was once the floor for the second-story balcony; there is a disused wood-paneled door as well as ghosting of original second-story low rail. The north elevation contains two fixed multi-light windows: a 12-light on the second floor, and a 28-light directly beneath it on the first floor. 22. Architectural style/building type: Foursquare; House with Commercial Addition 23. Landscaping or special setting features: The property has minimal landscaping but does have a large bronze sculpture in the front. The building is on the west side of the 600 block of S. Howes street, located between the multi-story Flats at the Oval apartment building (306 W. Laurel) to the south, and the 6-story University Service Center (601 S. Howes) to the north. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: Detached single bay garage at rear of property on the alley. It has a hipped roof, brick walls, side-swing garage doors, and windows with decorative brick crowns and stone lintels. IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 25. Date of Construction: Estimate: 1904-1905 Actual: ___ Source of information: 1904 Building Summary, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 4 Jan 1905 1905 Building Summary, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 27 Dec 1905 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder/Contractor: Schroeder & Lunn Source of information: 1904 Building Summary, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 5 Jan 1905 1905 Building Summary, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 27 Dec 1905 28. Original owner: Mrs. Joseph Murray Source of information: 1904 Building Summary, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 5 Jan 1905 1905 Building Summary, Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 27 Dec 1905 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): According to the Fort Collins Weekly Courier yearly building summaries, the original 8-room brick house was constructed in 1904-1905 for Mrs. Joseph Murray. A building permit taken out by Herb Heilig in 1945 called for an unspecified house remodel; this may be the rear porch enclosure. A 1955 article in the Fort Collins ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 75 Coloradoan announced a planned $20,000 expansion of the house, now called the Westminster Foundation building. This presumably was the one-story addition. The current property encompasses two lots; a house that was on the south lot was demolished in 1962. 30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s): V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS 31. Original use(s): Domestic/Single dwelling 32. Intermediate use(s): Religion/Religious-related Residence 33. Current use(s): Religion/Religious-related Facility 34. Site type(s): 35. Historical background: The original owner of 629 S. Howes street was Mrs. Margaret H. Murray, a widow with seven children. Her husband was Joseph Murray, who at the time of his death in 1898 was the appointed special agent of the U. S. Treasury Department in charge of the seal islands of Alaska. Mrs. Murray had the house built in 1904-1905 and lived in it until at least 1914. After she left, the building was the Kappa Delta sorority house in 1917. Fred and Fona Stow became the next long-term owners of the house in 1919. Fred Stow (1877-1931) first came to Colorado in 1899, attended the law school at University of Colorado in Boulder, graduating in 1902. He moved to Fort Collins that year and practiced law first with Franklin J. Annis, then solo, then as a partner in the law firm of Stow, Stover & Mantz. He later became the City Attorney for Fort Collins. Mr. Stow died in 1931, and Fona Stow (1882-1961) stayed on until some time in the early 1940s. The next owners were Herbert and Alice Heilig; they lived in the house from at least 1945 to 1950. Mr. Heilig was a professor in the department of vocational guidance at Colorado A & M. By 1952, the house was the Westminster House, a student center for Presbyterian students at the college. Rev. Leroy Loach and wife Mary Ellen were in residence from 1952 to 1956, followed by Rev. Maynard Strothmann and wife Willa from 1957 to 1962. Rev. Robert Geller began his tenure as the director in 1962, and over the next thirty years spearheaded many initiatives for interfaith cooperation as well as community outreach programs. The building housed resident student interns, served as the headquarter for the United Campus Ministry, and over the years provided office space for various programs such as the U. S. Draft Information Service Center and the Women and Crises Information Center. The organization was renamed the Geller Center for Spiritual Development in honor of Rev. Geller’s decades of service. 36. Sources of information: Building Permits and Building Records. Fort Collins History Connection: An Online Collaboration of the Fort Collins Museum and the Poudre River Public Library District. 8 July 2018. http://database.history.fcgov.com/cdm/search/collection/bp!br!ph/searchterm/629%20howes/field/all/mode/all/co nn/and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 76 “Enlargement of Westminster Foundation Center.” In Historical Sketches: Fort Collins and Larimer County, edited by James R. Miller, 635. Fort Collins: Fort Collins Public Library, 1965. Fleming, Barbara. “A Walk Through History: Rev. Geller helped unite Fort Collins into compassionate community.” Coloradoan (Fort Collins, CO), 9 Feb. 2014. Coloradoan. 10 July 2018. https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2014/02/09/a-walk-through-history-rev-geller-helped-unite-fort-collins- into-compassionate-community/5349637/ “Herb Heilig." The Spear 1 (Winter 1950): 3. 10 July 2018. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5438756de4b03eeb59204c48/t/54cceef1e4b0256f2799bc7d/1422716657 511/spear_1950_1_winter.pdf Fort Collins City Directories. Larimer County Assessor records. Larimer County Assessor: Residential Property Appraisal Cards. Watrous, Ansel. “Fred W. Stow.” In History of Larimer County, Colorado, 431. 1911. Reprint, Fort Collins: The Old Army Press, 1972. VI. SIGNIFICANCE 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: City of Fort Collins Applicable Local Register Criteria Applicable Fort Collins Criteria (Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Section 14-5): X 1. Events: Associated with events that have made a recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation (a specific event or pattern of events) __2. Persons/Groups: Associated with the lives of persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific contributions to that history can be identified and documented. X 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 __4. Information potential: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. ____ Does not meet any of the above criteria 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; _ C. 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 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 77 D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: N/A 40. Period of significance: N/A 41. Level of significance: National State _ Local X 42. Statement of significance: The house is historically significant for its association with the residential and commercial development in Fort Collins dating from the time of its construction in 1904-1905 as a single-family residence. It is also significant for its association with the Presbyterian church in Fort Collins first as a parsonage and campus ministry, and for its current function as a multi-denominational ministry and community center. The house is architecturally significant for its Foursquare characteristics, including the simple box shape, the bellcast hipped roof with modillions, the decorative brickwork, and its many original double-hung windows. The building as a whole with its 1950s addition is a well-defined example of a House with Commercial Addition and retains its readily perceptible historic progression from a private residence to its use as a religious facility and outreach center. The property’s significance, either as the original Foursquare or as a house with commercial addition, is probably not to the extent that it would qualify for the State or National Register, but it may qualify for City of Fort Collins Local Landmark designation and would be a contributing property within a potential National Register historic district. 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: The original brick house displays a good level of physical integrity (with important compromises as discussed below) relative to the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the National Park Service and the Colorado Historical Society: materials, design, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, and association. If regarded as a whole -- as a house with commercial addition -- the entire building has a high level of physical integrity. If the house were to be considered for local landmark status as a Foursquare, further data would be needed to assess the integrity of the original part of the building where the addition is attached. If the building were to be considered as a whole for landmark status, the assessment would need to balance the significance of the original house with the importance of the building as a center for Christian ministry and community outreach over the past six decades. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 78 Materials: The original house retains a high level of materials integrity with its stone foundation, brick cladding and decorative brickwork, windows with stone lintels and sills, and modillions. The addition retains its original vertical wood panels, redwood shingles, and windows. Design: The basic features of the brick house are mostly intact with its bellcast hipped roof, window pattern, exterior chimney, bay window, and old enclosed back porch. The now-historic 1955 addition retains its low hipped roofline, alternating cladding pattern of vertical panels and square cut shingles, window pattern, and configuration and proportion in relation to the brick house. Considered separately, the design integrity of the Foursquare is definitely compromised by the 1955 addition with its large size, prominent placement, and completely different style and materials. However, the house has not been subsumed by the addition and is clearly visible and well-maintained The building as a whole is a distinctive example of an early 20th-century house with a mid-20th century commercial addition. Workmanship: Evidence of historic construction techniques remain on the brick house, including the modillions, windows with stone lintels and sills, the decorative brickwork on the chimney, and the curved bay window with the matching curved frieze board. Location: The building is in its original location. Setting: The building is located in a transitional neighborhood where most single dwellings are now rentals with multiple units or have been converted to commercial use. Some houses no longer exist, having been replaced with large apartment complexes or office blocks. 629 S. Howes is located between the large Flats at the Oval (306 W. Laurel) and the large concrete office block (University Services Center) at 601 S. Howes. Even considered as a house with commercial addition, its integrity of setting is compromised. Feeling: Much of the physical features that convey historic character of early 20th century is intact, as are the features that convey historic character of mid-20th century. Association: For the first period of significance (1905-1955), one could still see the house as a residence in a neighborhood that still contains many early 20th-century homes. For the second period of significance (1955- present), this historic house with commercial addition can be considered an example of a transitional building in a neighborhood uneasily balanced between residential and commercial, and between single houses and large scale multi-unit dwellings. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X No Discuss: Historic properties in this neighborhood may collectively possess the historical and or architectural significance, and display enough physical integrity, to comprise a National Register historic district. If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing X Noncontributing 46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 79 VIII. CITY OF FORT COLLINS LOCAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT 47. Local Landmark eligibility field assessment: Eligible X Not Eligible Need Data ____ IX. RECORDING INFORMATION Photograph numbers: HowesS629E, HowesS629garage, HowesS629NW, HowesS629S, HowesS629SE, HowesS629W Digital copies filed at: Historic Preservation Office, Community Development & Neighborhood Services, 281 North College Avenue, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 48. Report title: City Intensive Surveys 49. Date(s): June/July 2018 50. Recorder(s): Elizabeth Michell, K. Murray 51. Organization: Empire Surveys 52. Address: PO Box 245, Bellvue, CO 80512 53. Phone number(s): (970) 493-3499 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 80 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 81 Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395 629 S Howes St. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 82 Update to Architectural Inventory Form (OAHP #1403) for 629 South Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO (5LR.14396) Part 1. Assessment of potential effects to the integrity of the historic home located at 629 South Howes Street in Fort Collins, resulting from proposed removal of c. 1955 addition, including sketch map and photographs Part 2. Photo documentation of brick garage on parcel containing residence at 629 Howes Street Part 3. Historical investigation of brick garage on parcel containing former single-family residence at 629 S. Howes Street Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department Prepared by Jason Marmor/Retrospect May 14, 2019 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 83 Part 1: Assessment of potential effects to the integrity of the historic home located at 629 South Howes Street in Fort Collins (5LR.14396), resulting from proposed removal of c. 1955 addition Introduction: This assessment was completed on behalf of the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Department, for their use in reviewing implications from the potential removal of a c. 1955 one-story wood frame addition to a c. 1905 two-story brick Foursquare house. In coordination with Historic Preservation Planner Maren Bzdek, historic preservation consultant Jason Marmor (Retrospect) was engaged to investigate the potential implications regarding the historic house’s integrity by removing the mid-1950s addition. The focus of the effort was careful inspection and photography of the interior of the now vacant house where the addition is attached. Methods: The methods employed included review of a detailed Architectural Inventory Form for the property as well as Larimer County Assessor’s property cards maintained at the Local History Archive at the Fort Collins Discovery Museum. A search for old photographs of the house (prior to construction of the addition) was unfortunately fruitless. Such photos would be of particular value in terms of revealing the appearance of the portions of the house’s south and main/east elevations before they were covered and altered by the wraparound addition. Numerous photographs were taken of the interior and exterior of the house and addition, in order to show what changes were made c. 1955 where the southeastern portion of the house’s first floor was literally opened up to access the new addition. This visual information was used to make informed suppositions about what historic fabric remains/may remain intact. Results: Inspection of the southeastern area of the dwelling’s first floor, where the 1955 addition is attached, yielded the following observations regarding the historic architectural integrity of the building if the addition were to be removed: • The 1955 addition has affected the house’s south elevation (1st floor only), extending from the eastern edge of the large convex bay window to the front/southeast corner of the building. • The addition’s north wall has covered up/obscured from view the lower portion of the exterior chimney, which obviously is vertically aligned with the interior fireplace. Removal of the addition will completely expose the exterior chimney – an important historic architectural element and character-defining feature. • To the left/east of the fireplace, the wall did not exhibit any sign of a sealed window, which appeared possible based upon the fenestration of the dwelling’s second story. • On the east wall near the southeast corner of the house is a large doorway that appears identical in terms of size, surround and molding with other doorways in the house. It is not clear if this doorway, which currently lacks a door and provides access into the addition, is an original feature or not (this could likely be settled through review of historic photographs of the house, should any exist). If in fact it represents an original doorway, it would be a secondary entrance, and would possibly have been accessed from a porch. This issue remains unresolved without further evidence. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 84 Restoration Potential: Based on inspection, it appears that removal of the 1955 addition will substantially restore the architectural integrity of the original house. The removal will expose approximately 15 feet of the original eastern exterior brick wall, including the prominent exterior chimney. Outstanding unresolved questions exist, however, such as whether or not there was a first floor window to the left/east of the fireplace; it appears unlikely but would likely be answered during the addition demolition process. The other unanswered question concerns the doorway near the southeast corner of the house – and pre-1955 photographic evidence would likely be needed to ascertain whether or not the extant doorway is an original feature or if it was created when the addition was constructed. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 85 Fireplace Bay window Exterior chimney N 1955 1-story addition Original doorway for secondary entrance near dwelling’s SE corner?? 629 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins (5LR.14396) – southeastern portion of first floor ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 86 Interior and Exterior Photo Documentation of Modified Historic House for Assessment of Impacts Associated with Proposed Removal of c. 1955 Addition. Prepared by Jason Marmor/Retrospect May 14, 2019 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 87 629 S. Howes St., southern portion of façade, with wraparound addition in foreground. 629 S. Howes St., one-story addition to house, looking northwest. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 88 629 S. Howes St., looking north and showing c. 1955 one-story addition. 629 S. Howes St., one-story addition on south elevation of brick house, looking northeast. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 89 629 S. Howes St., exterior chimney on south elevation of house, looking northeast. One story addition (c. 1955) covers lower portion of exterior chimney. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 90 629 S. Howes St., living room with fireplace facing original southeastern corner of house. Facing SE. 629 S. Howes St., living room with fireplace, looking SW, with convex bay window at right. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 91 629 S. Howes St., bay window in living room with c. 1955 addition visible beyond window, looking SSE. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 92 629 S. Howes St., living room with fireplace, looking SW, with convex bay window at right. Doorway to left of fireplace may be original or was created when one-story addition was built c. 1955. 629 S. Howes St., fireplace on original south brick wall of house, with entry to left providing access to the c. 1955 addition. Southeast corner of the original house is just to left of doorway. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 93 629 S. Howes St., original fireplace on house’s south side, looking south. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 94 629 S. Howes St., another view of original fireplace on house’s south side, looking south. 629 S. Howes St., original fireplace on house’s south side, looking southeast. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 95 629 S. Howes St., doorway near southeast corner of historic house, with portion of interior of non- residential addition visible beyond. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 96 629 S. Howes St., interior of one-story wraparound addition, at southeast corner of original house (the white-painted right-angled walls in foreground). Doorway at right is the primary access to the c. 1955 ecclesiastical addition. 629 S. Howes St., facing original southeast corner of house, beyond non-original doorway to addition. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 97 629 S. Howes St., original southeast corner of historic house, looking southeast. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 98 629 S. Howes St., view looking through non-original doorway from one story addition into living room,; original southeast corner of house is to right of doorway. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 99 629 S. Howes St., wall with shelves in one-story addition on south elevation of brick house. Shelving has been placed on what was the original brick exterior wall near the home’s southwest corner. Looking north-northeast. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 100 Update to Architectural Inventory Form (OAHP #1403) for 629 South Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO (5LR.14396) Part 2: Photo Documentation of Detached Garage Prepared by Jason Marmor/Retrospect May 14, 2019 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 101 6339 S. Howes Street detached garage, looking north-northeast with associated house in distance. 633 S. Howes Street detached garage adjacent to alley, looking northeast. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 102 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, looking southeast. 633 S. Howes Street, front of detached garage, looking east. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 103 633 S. Howes Street, front of detached garage, looking east. 633 S. Howes Street, garage doors, looking northeast. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 104 633 S. Howes Street, detached garage, looking southwest from backyard. 633 S. Howes Street, detached garage, looking southwest. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 105 633 S. Howes Street, detached garage, north and east elevations, looking southwest. 633 S. Howes Street, detached garage, looking southeast. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 106 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, north elevation, looking south-southeast. 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, east elevation, looking southwest. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 107 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, looking southwest. 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, east elevation, looking west. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 108 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, looking west-northwest. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 109 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, window on east elevation, looking northwest. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 110 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, window with arched brick lintel on east elevation. 633 S. Howes Street garage - dressed stone sill on east elevation window. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 111 633 S. Howes Street garage, south elevation, looking north-northwest. 633 S. Howes Street garage, south elevation, looking north. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 112 633 S. Howes Street garage, south elevation, looking north. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 113 633 S. Howes Street garage, original door on south elevation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 114 633 S. Howes Street garage, original door on south elevation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 115 633 S. Howes Street garage, arched brick lintel over south elevation doorway. 633 S. Howes Street garage, windows on south elevation, looking east. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 116 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, close-up of concrete foundation. 633 S. Howes Street detached garage, roof eaves and soffits. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 117 Update to Architectural Inventory Form (OAHP #1403) for 629 South Howes Street, Fort Collins, CO (5LR.14396) Part 3: Historical Investigation of Detached Brick Garage on Parcel Formerly Containing Single-Family Residences at 629 and 633 S. Howes Street Prepared by Jason Marmor/Retrospect May 14, 2019 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 118 629 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins (5LR.14396) Page 38 This update presents the result of a review to answer the question of whether the small detached garage located upon Larimer County parcel # 97141-12-002 is associated with the historic (c. 1910) brick dwelling at 629 South Howes Street, or with a no-longer extant historic residence located on an adjacent (unnumbered) lot within the same parcel. The parcel is composed of portions of two contiguous double-size lots in Block 96 of the original Fort Collins town site plat, including the north half of Lot 2 and the south half of Lot 3. While under common ownership, these partial lots were developed as individual adjacent residential properties. The house on 629 S. Howes Street occupies the south half of Lot 3, while the lot to the south (the north half of Lot 2) contained another house with an address of 633 S. According to a handwritten note on an obsolete (c. 1981) Larimer County Assessor’s property card, the dwelling at 633 S. Howes Street was razed in 1962. The answer to the question of which residential property the garage was historically associated with is definitively provided by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Co. atlas sheets from 1925 and 1948 (see figures below). The garage is located near the northwest corner of the southernmost residential lot of Parcel # 97141-12-002, comprising the north half of Lot 2 in Block 96. As the Sanborn maps show, the garage was undoubtedly constructed for and utilized by the residents of 633 South Howes Street until its demolition in 1962. The only association this garage has to the dwelling at 929 South Howes Street is by the common ownership of both residential lots comprising one Larimer County parcel in Block 96 of the Fort Collins town site. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 119 629 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins (5LR.14396) Page 39 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map including 629 and 633 S. Howes Street in Ft. Collins. Garage ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 120 629 S. Howes Street, Fort Collins (5LR.14396) Page 40 1948 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map, showing early 20th century brick garage originally associated with residential property at 633 S. Howes Street in Fort Collins. Garage ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 121 629 S Howes: Development Review 1 Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, October 16, 2019 Area of Adjacency Map 2 Legend Development Site Abutting Within 200 Ft Area of Adjacency Boundary 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - Updated 10/9/19 Packet Pg. 122 On-Site Historic Resources 3 Criterion 1 (Events) •Early 20th Century: Residential Development (weakly supported) • Post-1962: Center’s contribution to progressive, student-oriented interfaith, progressive community organizations and projects (after 1962) Criterion 2 (Persons) •Early 20th Century: Murray and Stow families • Post-1962: Rev. Robert Geller Criterion 3 (Architecture) • Foursquare (c. 1904, Schroeder & Lunn) • House with Commercial Addition (1955) Proposed Alterations 4 3.4.7 (D)(3) – Eligible Resources on Site Building Alterations (Residence): • Remove 1955 front addition; treat SE corner with a “patch” option • Remove enclosed rear porch • Remove concrete steps leading to front porch • Rehab existing front porch (incl. replace steel front porch columns) Site Alterations: • Demolish non-contributing garage • Construct ten 3-story townhouses • New courtyard/detention area 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - Updated 10/9/19 Packet Pg. 123 Treatment Approaches 5 Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes. Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character. Preliminary Staff Findings 6 LUC 3.4.7 (D)(3) – Eligible, non-designated historic resources on a development site will be preserved and adaptively reused pursuant to the SOI Standards, to the maximum extent feasible LUC 5.1.2 - Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. _____________________________________________________ Rehabilitation (Recommended): best approach for creating new use compatible with building’s history Incorporates: • Building history/significance • Physical condition/structural assessment • Intended use and interpretation 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - Updated 10/9/19 Packet Pg. 124 Preliminary Staff Findings 7 Option 1: Rehab of House with Commercial Addition • Retain front addition (character-defining feature) • Porch rehab: address condition issues, maintain existing character • Could remove rear addition (not character-defining) Option 2: Rehab of Foursquare • Remove front addition (uncover partially hidden side bay and chimney, expose original façade and form) • Require appropriate treatment option for SE corner and existing opening between addition and residence + compatible porch rehab design • Make stronger contribution to early 20th century context on block • Better suited for this proposal Preliminary Staff Findings 8 Garage Demolition • Does not contribute to property’s significance (remnant of former adjoining residence) • Good candidate for deconstruction/salvage 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - Updated 10/9/19 Packet Pg. 125 Preliminary Staff Findings 9 Design Compatibility 3.4.7(E) • All Table 1, Col. A Standards Required • N/A: Standard 2 (Stepback) Discuss: • Spatial relationships/visibility of historic features (with or without removal of addition) • Primary building materials linked to rehab option (e.g. removing addition would require more masonry; red brick material scale and pattern) LPC’s Role 1. Does proposed work on the historic resource meet Standards to maximum extent feasible [3.4.7(D)(3)]? 2. Is the design of new construction compatible with historic resource based on requirements in 3.4.7(E), Table 1? This meeting: Conceptual review comments Next meeting: Provide a recommendation to the decision maker 10 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - Updated 10/9/19 Packet Pg. 126 629 S Howes: Development Review 11 Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, October 16, 2019 Character-Defining Features 12 Foursquare • Brick; Stone Foundation • Bellcast Hipped Roof (boxed eaves, modillions) • 2-story bay with four windows (south) • Open porch (hipped roof, concrete floor, metal railings) • Brick chimneys (one exterior with brick detailing) • 1-over-1 double hungs; stone lintels/sills 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - Updated 10/9/19 Packet Pg. 127 Character-Defining Features 13 House with Commercial Addition • One-story abutting addition that wraps SE corner (1955, vertical wood panels, redwood shingles, fixed sliders and a nine-light window) • Majority of house retains integrity (may be obscured) • Addition includes separate entry • Note: this example displays different character than a more typical commercial addition, reflecting its use as meeting/office space 13 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Presentation - Updated 10/9/19 Packet Pg. 128 629 SOUTH HOWES STREET SCHEMATIC DESIGN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSESSION OCTOBER 16, 2019 SOUTH HOWES 6FORT29STREET COLLINS, COLORADO ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-1 CONTEXT PLANS LPC WORKSESSION | 2 SOUTH HOWES STREET SOUTH MELDRUM STREET “MAX” ROUTE (APPROX. 550 FT AWAY) 629 HOWES STREET NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION - BUFFER DISTRICT COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MIXED USE - 4 STORIES INSTITUTIONAL - 6 STORIES LAUREL STREET FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-2 LPC WORKSESSION | 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1955 COMMERCIAL ADDITION 1905 FOURSQUARE REAR PORCH PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-3 PROPOSED DEMOLITION PLAN LPC WORKSESSION | 4 0510 DEMOLISH GARAGE; HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH 633 S HOWES. REMOVE CONCRETE STEPS. REPAIR EXISTING PORCH. RENOVATE SITE TO FIT NEW BUILDINGS AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT. PROVIDE NEW WATER DETENTION AREA. REMOVE DETERIORATING COVERED BACK PORCH, RECONSTRUCT UNCOVERED PATIO. DEMOLISH ONE- STORY 1955 ADDITION AND BASEMENT. TWO-STORY C. 1905 BRICK FOURSQUARE TO REMAIN. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-4 PREVIOUS SCHEME (CONCEPTUAL REVIEW) LPC WORKSESSION | 5 012 4 8 012 4 8 EAST ELEVATION WITH EXISTING HOUSE EAST ELEVATION WITH CONTEXT CHARACTERISTICS -4 stories with setback at 3 stories -Wider massing to cover shared parking garage below -No activating uses ȌȁǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ FLATS AT THE OVAL SETBACK AREA UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER Note: These comparisons with the early conceptual review intended to show project development and allowable massing only. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-5 CURRENT PROPOSAL LPC WORKSESSION | 6 EAST ELEVATION WITH EXISTING HOUSE 0’ 2’ 4' 8’ EAST ELEVATION WITH CONTEXT FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER CHARACTERISTICS -3 story townhouses (scale reduced) -Narrower building mass better relates to existing house -Private garages fully screen vehicles from view -Foyers and porches ƊƧɈǞɨƊɈƵǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ -Creates a courtyard environment with the existing house as the central focus ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-6 PREVIOUS SCHEME LPC WORKSESSION | 7 CHARACTERISTICS -4 stories with setback at 3 stories -Wider massing to cover shared parking garage below -No activating uses ȌȁǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ Note: These comparisons with the early conceptual review intended to show project development and allowable massing only. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-7 LPC WORKSESSION | 8 PROPOSED SCHEME CHARACTERISTICS -3 stories (scale reduced) -Narrower building mass better relates to existing house -Private garages fully screen vehicles from view -Foyers and porches ƊƧɈǞɨƊɈƵǐȲȌɐȁƮ˜ȌȌȲ -Creates a courtyard environment with the existing house as the central focus ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-8 PREVIOUS SITE PLAN LPC WORKSESSION | 9 BIKE PARKING AMENITY Note: These comparisons with the early conceptual review intended to show project development and allowable massing only. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-9 LPC WORKSESSION | 10 TOWNHOUSE SITE PLAN STUDIES  " !(($"(                        %(  &(  !"     %(      (  %" $!  $   LPC WORKSESSION | 11 TOWNHOUSE SITE PLAN STUDIES: ADDITION TO REMAIN " !(($"( &(  !"     (  %" $! SUMMARY • If the 1955 addition is required to remain, Studies A, B, C, and D would not be viable. • Site constraints preclude other variations of these schemes. طA one way drive aisle is required to maintain a narrow (12’) drive. A dead- end condition would require at least 22’, which cannot be accomodated. طCode required minimum ̨ȲƵȺƵȯƊȲƊɈǞȌȁȺƦƵɈɩƵƵȁ non-rated walls (walls with windows) preclude units too close to the addition. This is also undesireable from a historic preservation standpoint. • The double-loaded corridor site plan (from the Conceptual Review, see page 9) remains architecturally viable and is likely the only option ɈǘƊɈǞȺ ̨ȁƊȁƧǞƊǶǶɯɨǞƊƦǶƵ خ •Architecturally we much prefer the smaller scale of a townhouse scheme. • Driveway obstructed • Cannot be shifted south far enough to allow passage around addition and maintain required clearances. • At least 2 units lost • Not Viable • Units too close to historic resource to maintain code required clearances and would impact historic resource. • 3 units lost • Not Viable • Driveway obstructed • 2 units lost • Could potentially reduce loss to 1 unit, but will result in unfavorably close relationship of new construction to existing addition. • Not Viable • Units too close to historic resource to maintain code required clearances and would impact historic resource. • 3 units lost • Not Viable STUDY A STUDY C STUDY D STUDY B ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A CURRENT SITE PLAN LPC WORKSESSION | 12 0åX2ÀXyJR„Ç20 !„ß0a0( §0(02ÀaXy §22J0 Àay2 خÀa2R  ۋa0!æ!m0 mXy0„I§a0ßXmXyJ20À !j ׄ ر ׉ٌ ز ImÀ2ÀÀR0„ßm !2Ç 20 ز ׀ ׅ ڡÀ !jÀ„ §ajXyJ !2Ç ÇXm(XyJ ÇÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ׈ ر ׀ ٌ ز  ز ׅ ۋÇÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ز ׀ ׉ׁ ڡ ImÀ2À ÀR0„ßm §ajXyJ ز ׀ ׀ ׁ ڡ ÇyXÀׂ ׃ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׂ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׅ ׀ß0 فÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׄ ׀ß0 ف ÇyXÀׂ ׆ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׇ ׀ ÇyXÀׁ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀ ׁ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׂ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׃ ׀ ׃ §a„§„20( (0w„mXÀX„y ر ׆ ٌ ز ׀ ׁ ر ׂٌ ز ׀ ׃  ز ׀ ׂ ڡÇII0a 2R„à022Àa00À §„a!R §ÀX„ ׂׄ  زwXy !  خjXyJ ׂׅ ر ׀ ׁٌ ز  ز ׀ ׂwXy !  خjXyJ ز ׀ ׂ ڡ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׂׅ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׆ ׂ mm0æ „y0àæ „y0àæ „y0àæ y ز ׀ ׄ ز ׀ ׂ ز ׀ ׁ ز ׅ ز ׀ ر ׉ٌ ز ׂ ׃  ز ׂׂ ڡÇII0a §a„§„20( 2À„awàÀ0a a0À0yÀX„y !„ÇaÀæa( ر ׁٌ ز ׄ ׃ PARKING FOR UNIT 101 PARKING FOR UNITS 204-205 IF NOT REMOVED, EXISTING 1955 ADDITION SEVERELY 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 13 (E) Design Requirements for a Proposed Development (1) Design Compatibility. Proposed development may represent the architecture and construction standards of its own time but must also convey a standard of quality and durability ƊȯȯȲȌȯȲǞƊɈƵǏȌȲǞȁ ̨ǶǶǞȁƊǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧƧȌȁɈƵɮɈ and protect and complement the historic character of historic resources both on the development site and within the area of adjacency. The design of development on development sites containing historic resources or with historic resources located within the area of adjacency shall meet the requirements in below Table 1 in addition to applicable Land Use Code requirements. The Table 1 requirements shall apply to the development of buildings or structures, other than those addressed in above Subsection (D), ȌȁɈǘƵƮƵɨƵǶȌȯǿƵȁɈȺǞɈƵǶȌƧƊɈƵƮɩǞɈǘǞȁƊǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊ  ةƊȺȺɐƧǘɈƵȲǿǞȺ ƮƵ ̨ȁƵƮǞȁƊƦȌɨƵ2ɐƦȺƵƧɈǞȌȁ  ة ف ׄ ـ ف ـƊȺǏȌǶǶȌɩȺ  ب )a) If ȌȁƵ  ف ׁ ـȌȲǿȌȲƵǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺƵɮǞȺɈ that are associated with historic resource(s) on the development site, or which abut or are on the other ȺǞƮƵȌǏƊȺǞƮƵƊǶǶƵɯɈǘƊɈƊƦɐɈȺɈǘƵƮƵɨƵǶȌȯǿƵȁɈȺǞɈƵ  ةɈǘƵȁƊǶǶǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵ areas shall be considered to be associated with such historic resource(s) and the standards set forth in Table 1, Column A, shall apply. If two (2) or more ǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺƵɮǞȺɈɈǘƊɈƊȲƵƊȺȺȌƧǞƊɈƵƮɩǞɈǘǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧȲƵȺȌɐȲƧƵȺȌȁɈǘƵ development site, or which abut or are on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site, the applicant may satisfy the standards set forth in Table 1, Column A, by choosing characteristics from one (1) or more of such historic resources. ـƦ  فXǏȁȌǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺƵɮǞȺɈɈǘƊɈƊȲƵƊȺȺȌƧǞƊɈƵƮɩǞɈǘǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧȲƵȺȌɐȲƧƵȺ on the development site, or which abut or are on the other side of a side alley that abuts the development site, the standards set forth in Table 1, Column B, ȺǘƊǶǶƊȯȯǶɯɈȌƊǶǶǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁ ̃ɐƵȁƧƵƊȲƵƊȺ خ Response §ƵȲ ـ ف ׁ ـ ف 0 ـ ׇ خ ׄ خ ׃Ɗ  ة فɩƵ ƊȲƵ ƊȯȯǶɯǞȁǐ ɈǘƵ standards of Column A in Table 1. We strive to design to a high standard of quality and durability (while also dealing with the reality of cost). As shown in the following pages, we believe we have successfully allowed the project to represent contemporary architecture and construction while also protecting and complementing the historic character of the adjacent house. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-13 AREA OF ADJACENCY - HOWES LPC WORKSESSION | 14 LINE OF 200’ FROM PROPERTY BOUNDARY 612 S HOWES ST 620 S HOWES ST 624 S HOWES ST 636 S HOWES ST 642 S HOWES ST 642 S HOWES ST 636 S HOWES ST 629 S HOWES 624 S HOWES ST 620 S HOWES ST 612 S HOWES ST COMMON CHARACTERISTICS • Front porches (including full-width, partial width centered, partial width asymmetrical) • Expressed eaves • Double-hung windows • Wood siding (excludes 612 and 620) ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-14 AREA OF ADJACENCY - MELDRUM LPC WORKSESSION | 15 COMMON CHARACTERISTICS • Red brick • Expressed eaves • Sloped roofs • We feel these resources are less important to reference; their primary facades are nowhere visible at the same time as the project’s main facade. LINE OF 200’ FROM PROPERTY BOUNDARY 629 S HOWES 624-626 S MELDRUM ST 630 S MELDRUM ST 624-626 S MELDRUM ST 630 S MELDRUM ST ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-15 IMPACT OF PROPOSAL ON HISTORIC RESOURCES ON MELDRUM STREET LPC WORKSESSION | 16 APPROXIMATE EYE-LEVEL VIEW FROM MELDRUM ST 3D VIEW OF MASSING ANALYSIS BACK PORTION OF 630 MELDRUM ROOF 624-626 AND 630 S. MELDRUM MASSING APPROXIMATED PROPOSAL JUST VISIBLE BEYOND; IMPACT OF PROPOSAL DWARFED BY IMPACT OF OTHER ADJACENT PROJECTS. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-16 LPC WORKSESSION | 17 AREA OF ADJACENCY : CONCLUSIONS AREA OF ADJACENCY SUMMARY §ƵȲ ـ ف ׁ ـ ف 0 ـ ׇ خ ׄ خ ׃Ɗ  ة فɩƵƊȲƵƊȯȯǶɯǞȁǐɈǘƵȺɈƊȁƮƊȲƮȺȌǏColumn A in Table 1. As such, the primary historic resource to reference is the red brick house at 629 S. Howes street, as it is within the project site. The remaining historic resources on within the area of adjacency are quite eclectic, but nonetheless have some common characteristics we propose to reference in a contemporary way, including the following: • Single family dwelling scale (Howes street), with widths in the 30-35’ range • Front porches that help to activate the street • Sloped roofs with expressed eaves • Double-hung windows with an approximate 1:2 vertical proportion • Painted wood siding is a common material ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-17 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 18 0’ 2’ 4' 8’ 26’ AT FRONT FACE ~20’ MASS 27’ AT FRONT FACE 32’ AT WIDEST POINT 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MASSING 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be ƊȲɈǞƧɐǶƊɈƵƮ ǞȁɈȌ ǿƊȺȺǞȁǐ ȲƵ ̃ƵƧɈǞɨƵ ȌȲ the mass and scale of historic resources on the development site, abutting, or across a side alley. RESPONSE 1. ÀǘƵׁ׉ ׅ ׀ǘȌɐȺƵǞȺƊȯȯȲȌɮǞǿƊɈƵǶɯׂ ٚ ׆ɩǞƮƵ  خÀǘƵǏȲȌȁɈٌǿȌȺɈȯȌȲɈǞȌȁȌǏ ɈǘƵȁƵɩǿƊȺȺǞȁǐǞȺƊȯȯȲȌɮǞǿƊɈƵǶɯׇׂ ٚ ةȯȲȌɨǞƮǞȁǐƊȺǞǿǞǶƊȲɩǞƮɈǘ  خ At its widest, the massing adjacent to the house is 32’ wide, narrower than even a single-loaded corridor building ـƊȯȯȲȌɮ  ة ׅٚ ׃  خȺƵƵȯȲƵɨǞȌɐȺȺƧǘƵǿƵ for the site). The massing facing the house to the west and north is further broken into a series of 20’ wide blocks, separated from each other by several feet, to better relate to the scale of the house, and to enhance the perception of the project as a series of smaller buildings rather than one large building. FRONT PORCH FACING HOWES, ADDITIONAL PORCHES BEYOND AND FACING HOUSE ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-18 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 19 0’ 5’ 10’ FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MASSING 2. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) 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 by the Downtown zone district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. RESPONSE ׂ  خÀǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐׁ׉ ׅ ׀ǘȌɐȺƵǞȺׂȺɈȌȲǞƵȺɈƊǶǶ  ةrequiring a setback for massing above 3 stories. The proposed massing is 3 stories tall and is thus in compliance. XȁɈǘƵǶƊȲǐƵȲƧȌȁɈƵɮɈ  ةɈǘƵȺǞɈƵǞȺƊƦɐɈɈƵƮƦɯɈǘƵٌׄȺɈȌȲɯIǶƊɈȺƊɈ ɈǘƵ„ɨƊǶɈȌɈǘƵȺȌɐɈǘƊȁƮɈǘƵ ٌ ׆ȺɈȌȲɯÇȁǞɨƵȲȺǞɈɯ2ƵȲɨǞƧƵȺ!ƵȁɈƵȲ ɈȌɈǘƵȁȌȲɈǘ  خàƵ ̨ȁƮɈǘƊɈɈǘƵȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮǐȲƊƮɐƊǶǞȁƧȲƵƊȺƵǞȁȺƧƊǶƵ  ة from two to three stories, helps transition between these larger buildings and helps ground the house in the disparate context that has grown around it. 6 STORIES 3 STORIES 2 STORIES ׄ2À„aX02 SCALE TRANSITION ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-19 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 20 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MATERIALS 3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high- quality materials ـƦȲǞƧDz  ةȺɈȌȁƵ  ةǐǶƊȺȺ  ةɈƵȲȲƊƧȌɈɈƊ  ةȺɈɐƧƧȌ ـȁȌȁ0IX2  ة ف precast concrete, wood, cast iron, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. RESPONSE 3. We have proposed that the majority of the ground level of the new construction be clad in a red brick in response to the ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵ ـȺƵƵƵȁɈȲɯȌȁǞɈƵǿׄǏȲȌǿɈǘƵɈƊƦǶƵ  خ فàƵƊǶɩƊɯȺ ȺɈȲǞɨƵɈȌɐȺƵƊɐɈǘƵȁɈǞƧ  ةƮɐȲƊƦǶƵ  ةƊȁƮǘǞǐǘٌȱɐƊǶǞɈɯǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȺ  ةƊȁƮ the remaining materials at the lower stories include architectural ǿƵɈƊǶȯƊȁƵǶȺ ̨ ةƦƵȲƧƵǿƵȁɈȺǞƮǞȁǐ  ةƊȁƮȯƊǞȁɈƵƮɩȌȌƮȺǞƮǞȁǐ  خ All materials will be installed to industry standards. BRICK AT HOWES FACADE AND LOWER LEVELS RELATES TO EXISTING HOUSE SEE NEXT PAGE FOR TYPICAL UNIT MATERIALS ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-20 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 21 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MATERIALS (CONTINUED) Typical Unit Materials 1. ARCHITECTURAL METAL PANELS 2. DARK GREY FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING 3. LIGHT GREY FIBER CEMENT V-GROOVE SIDING 4. RED BRICK (SIZE TBD) 5. PAINTED STEEL TRIM 6. MASONVILLE SANDSTONE ACCENTS 1 1 2 2 3 3 ׄ ׄ ׅ ׅ 6 6 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-21 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 22 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - BUILDING MATERIALS ׄ  خyƵɩ ƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁ ȺǘƊǶǶ ȲƵǏƵȲƵȁƧƵ ȌȁƵ ȌȲ ǿȌȲƵ ȌǏ ɈǘƵ 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 or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) Type 2) Scale 3) Color ׄ  فÀǘȲƵƵٌ(ǞǿƵȁȺǞȌȁƊǶǞɈɯ ׅ §  فƊɈɈƵȲȁ RESPONSE ׄ  خÀǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵǞȺƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈƵƮȯȲǞǿƊȲǞǶɯȌǏƊȲƵƮƦȲǞƧDz  ةɩǞɈǘ sandstone window s and foundation and some painted wood frieze boards and trim. As such, we propose to reference the type and color by using a red brick as the primary material on the ground level of the new construction. As we are early in the design process, we have not yet evaluated whether we wish to imitate the scale and pattern of the brick; using an ambassador or other oversized brick may be a way to subtly distinguish the ȌǶƮǏȲȌǿɈǘƵȁƵɩƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁ  خIƵƵƮƦƊƧDzȌȁɈǘǞȺɩȌɐǶƮȌǏƧȌɐȲȺƵ be welcomed. àƵƊȲƵƊǶȺȌƊɈɈƵǿȯɈǞȁǐɈȌ ̨ȁƮȌɈǘƵȲǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȯƊȲǞɈǞƵȺƦƵɈɩƵƵȁ the old and new construction, including sandstone details. BRICK MASS RELATES TO EXISTING HOUSE BUT IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER AND DEFERENTIAL WHITE PRECAST OR METAL PARAPET CAP REFERENCES WHITE PAINTED EAVES RED BRICK CONTINUES AT LOWER LEVEL SANDSTONE ACCENTS ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-22 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 23 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - FACADE DETAILS ׅ  خÇȺƵ 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. RESPONSE ׅ  خÀǘƵɩǞȁƮȌɩȺȌǏɈǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵƊȲƵƮȌɐƦǶƵٌǘɐȁǐ  ةƊȁƮƊȲƵ ǞȁƧȌȁȺǞȺɈƵȁɈǶɯȯȲȌȯȌȲɈǞȌȁƵƮ  ةƦɐɈɈƵȁƮɈȌǏȌǶǶȌɩƊȁƊȯȯȲȌɮǞǿƊɈƵǶɯ 2:1 height to width ratio. We reference this proportion in the new typical windows, while subtly distinguishing the new construction by combining two such windows together in a ƧƊȺƵǿƵȁɈƊȁƮ ̨ɮƵƮٌǶǞɈƵȯƊǞȲ خ CONTEMPORARY STEEL HEADERS AND LINTELS ALLOW 1:2 PROPORTIONS WHERE WINDOWS CANNOT BE ENLARGED THREE WINDOWS AND A DOOR SIMILAR TO QUANTITY OF WINDOWS ON HISTORIC HOUSE, NUMBER OF WINDOWS ON THIS FACADE LIMITED BY PLAN EXAGGERATED SANDSTONE LINTEL FORMS 1:2 PROPORTION WITH WINDOW EACH OF 2 PAIRED WINDOWS IN CASEMENT/PICTURE PAIR 1:2 PROPORTION ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-23 3.4.7 (E) COMPLIANCE LPC WORKSESSION | 24 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - FACADE DETAILS 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements ـȺɐƧǘƊȺȲȌȌ ̃ǞȁƵȺ  ةƧȌȲȁǞƧƵȺ  ةƊȁƮƦƵǶɈƧȌɐȲȺƵȺ  فɈȌȲƵǶƊɈƵɈǘƵȁƵɩ construction to historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley. RESPONSE 6. Because of the horizontal nature of the project, we have found several horizontal lines at which the new construction can reference the old house. 1. The eave of the house is taken as the top of the parapet of the 2 story brick volume adjacent to Howes. 2. The ƦȌɈɈȌǿ ȌǏ ɈǘƵ ɈɯȯǞƧƊǶ ȺƵƧȌȁƮ ̃ȌȌȲ ɩǞȁƮȌɩȺ (and associated trim) has been aligned with the bottom of the second ̃ȌȌȲɩǞȁƮȌɩȺǞǶǶȺof the house. 3. The bottom of selected windows facing Howes has been ƊǶǞǐȁƵƮɩǞɈǘɈǘƵɈȌȯȌǏɈǘƵǘƵƊƮƵȲȌǏɈǘƵǐȲȌɐȁƮ ̃ȌȌȲɩǞȁƮȌɩȺ ȌȁɈǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵ خ À„§„I§a§0À EAVE METAL PANEL JOINT LINE „ÀÀ„w„I WINDOWS À„§„I WINDOWS „ÀÀ„w„I WINDOWS CONCAVE CURVE AS COMPLIMENT TO EXISTING HOUSE CONVEX CURVE ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-24 RESPONSES LPC WORKSESSION | 25 0åX2ÀXyJR„Ç20 !„ß0a0( §0(02ÀaXy §22J0 Àay2 خÀa2R  ۋa0!æ!m0 mXy0„I§a0ßXmXyJ20À !j ׄ ر ׉ٌ ز ImÀ2ÀÀR0„ßm !2Ç 20 ز ׀ ׅ ڡÀ !jÀ„ §ajXyJ !2Ç ÇXm(XyJ ÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ׈ ر ׀ ٌ ز ImÀ2À  ز ׅ ۋÇÀXmXÀæ020w0yÀ ÀR0„ßm §ajXyJ ÇyXÀׂ ׃ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׂ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׅ ׀ß0 فÇyXÀׂ „  ـ ׄ ׀ß0 ف ÇyXÀׂ ׆ ׀ÇyXÀׂ ׇ ׀ ÇyXÀׁ ׁ ׀ ÇyXÀ ׁ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׂ ׀ ׃ÇyXÀ ׃ ׀ ׃ §a„§„20( (0w„mXÀX„y ر ׆ ٌ ز ׀ ׁ ر ׂٌ ز ׀ ׃  ز ׀ ׂ ڡÇII0a 2R„à022Àa00À §„a!R §ÀX„ ׂׄ  زwXy !  خjXyJ ׂׅ ر ׀ ׁٌ ز  ز ׀ ׂwXy !  خjXyJ ز ׀ ׂ ڡ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׂׅ ر ׁׁٌ ز ׆ ׂ „y0àæ „y0àæ „y0àæ y ز ׀ ׄ ز ׀ ׂ ز ׀ ׁ ز ׅ ز ׀ ر ׉ٌ ز ׂ ׃  ز ׂׂ ڡÇII0a §a„§„20( 2À„awàÀ0a a0À0yÀX„y !„ÇaÀæa( ر ׁٌ ز ׄ ׃ ׁ ׀ ׂ ر ׆ ٌ ز ׀ ׁ ر ׂٌ ز ׀ ׃ 2R„à022Àa00À §„a!R ׂׅ ر ׁׁٌ ز §a„§„20( 2ÀÀ„awàÀ0a 2ÀÀÀÀ 2À a 0À0yÀX„y 3.4.7 (E) TABLE 1 REQUIREMENT - VISIBILITY OF HISTORIC FEATURES ׇ  خyƵɩ ƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁ shall not cover or obscure character- ƮƵ ̨ȁǞȁǐ ƊȲƧǘǞɈƵƧɈɐȲƊǶ ƵǶƵǿƵȁɈȺ ةsuch as windows or primary THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 26 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE 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. 1. The rehabilitated project will be used for housing, in keeping with the original function of the 1905 portion of the house; either a single unit or potentially 2 units. • The commercial addition c. 1955 will be removed, returning the house to its original use. 2. The primary historic character of the property lies in the brick massing of the 1905 foursquare house, and its associated details (e.g. the chimneys, sandstone headers and lintels at windows). The original house in its entirety will remain, ɩǞɈǘȺȌǿƵǿǞȁȌȲȁȌȁٌƧȌȁɈȲǞƦɐɈǞȁǐ additions removed (enclosed porch at rear). 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 3. No conjectural features or other non-historic additions will be made to the property. • In the repair of the front porch, we believe it would be appropriate to replace the slender steel columns (which appear to be associated with the 1955 addition) with dimensional lumber columns that would be more typical of the construction of the house. If period photographs can be located, the details of such columns could be matched. Additional advisement in this area would be appreciated. • Areas potentially damaged by the 1955 addition are proposed to be covered (see end of document) in a way that distinguishes them from the historic construction. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-26 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 27 ׄ  خChanges to a property that have acquired historic ȺǞǐȁǞ ̨ƧƊȁƧƵ Ǟȁ ɈǘƵǞȲ Ȍɩȁ ȲǞǐǘɈ ɩǞǶǶ ƦƵ ȲƵɈƊǞȁƵƮ ƊȁƮ preserved. ׅ )  خǞȺɈǞȁƧɈǞɨƵ ǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȺ  ةǏƵƊɈɐȲƵȺ ̨  ةȁǞȺǘƵȺ  ةƊȁƮ ƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁɈƵƧǘȁǞȱɐƵȺȌȲƵɮƊǿȯǶƵȺȌǏƧȲƊǏɈȺǿƊȁȺǘǞȯ that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the ȁƵɩ ǏƵƊɈɐȲƵ ɩǞǶǶǿƊɈƧǘɈǘƵȌǶƮǞȁƮƵȺǞǐȁ  ةƧȌǶȌȲ  ةɈƵɮɈɐȲƵ and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE ׄ  خȺȺǘȌɩȁƦɯɈǘƵɐȯƮƊɈƵɈȌɈǘƵǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧǞȁɈƵȁȺǞɨƵȺɐȲɨƵɯ  ة the 1955 addition ǞȺ ǶƊȲǐƵǶɯ ȁȌȁٌƧȌȁɈȲǞƦɐɈǞȁǐ ɈȌ ɈǘƵ historic nature of the property, and its removal would “substantially restore the architectural integrity of the original house.” ׅ  خThe distinctive features of the house, including the brick construction and chimneys, stone foundation, large sandstone headers and lintels at the windows, ɈǘƵ ƦȌɩ ɩǞȁƮȌɩ  ةƊȁƮ ƵɮȯȲƵȺȺƵƮ ȲƊǏɈƵȲȺ Ǟȁ ɈǘƵ ƦƵǶǶƧƊȺɈ hipped roof, will remain. ÀǘƵ ׁ׉ׅׅ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁ ȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮ ǏȌȲ ȲƵǿȌɨƊǶ ǏƵƊɈɐȲƵȺȌȁǶɯɩȌȌƮȺǞȁǐǶƵȺƊȁƮȌɈǘƵȲȁȌȁٌ distinctive materials and features. 6. The deteriorated front porch is planned to be repaired rather than reconstructed. There remains a question about the appropriate treatment of the porch ƧȌǶɐǿȁȺƊȺɈǘƵɯƊȯȯƵƊȲȁȌȁٌȌȲǞǐǞȁƊǶ ـȺƵƵǞɈƵǿ  خ ف ׃ •Other non-distinctive features such as the non-original enclosed back porch may be replaced. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-27 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 28 ׇ !  خǘƵǿǞƧƊǶ ȌȲ ȯǘɯȺǞƧƊǶ ɈȲƵƊɈǿƵȁɈȺ  ةǞǏ ƊȯȯȲȌȯȲǞƊɈƵ  ةɩǞǶǶ be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ׉  خyƵɩ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁȺ  ةƵɮɈƵȲǞȌȲ ƊǶɈƵȲƊɈǞȌȁȺ  ةȌȲ 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. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE ׇ  خNo chemical or physical treatments to the typical ƵɮɈƵȲǞȌȲ ǿƊɈƵȲǞƊǶȺ ƊȲƵ ƧɐȲȲƵȁɈǶɯ ȯǶƊȁȁƵƮ  خIn the area ȌǏ ɈǘƵ ׁ׉ׅׅ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁ ȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮ ǏȌȲ ȲƵǿȌɨƊǶ  ةȺƵɨƵȲƊǶ options for treatment are discussed near the end of the document. 8. The historic intensive survey does not indicate a high likelihood of archaeological resources being present on the site. As such, no archaeological resources are anticipated to be disturbed. Additionally, because the ȯȲȌǯƵƧɈ ǘƊȺ ȁȌ ƦƊȺƵǿƵȁɈȺ  ةǶǞɈɈǶƵ ƵɮƧƊɨƊɈǞȌȁ ǞȺ ȯǶƊȁȁƵƮ beyond what is necessary for foundations. 9. The related new construction will not physically engage the historic resource and as such will not damage or destroy any historic materials, features, or spatial relationships. The new work will be differentiated from the old by contemporary construction and detailing, while remaining compatible in massing, features, materiality, and proportions and detail relationships. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-28 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION LPC WORKSESSION | 29 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. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION RESPONSE 10. The related new construction will not physically engage the historic resource and as such could potentially be removed in the future in its entirety without affecting the historic resource. The treatment of the area underlying the 1955 addition requires special attention (see “patch” section at end of this document). • Existing damage from the 1955 addition to the underlying brick in this area is likely, and full restoration is unlikely to be possible. • New cladding in this area, however, may not be removable in the future without further damage. Because this area is likely to already be damaged, we believe this may be the best way to preserve the underlying structure. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-29 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS (NTS) LPC WORKSESSION | 30 %5 %5  0$67(5 72,/(7 :$/.,1 :$/.,1 87,/,7<  $    $   )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ )/ ϭϬΖͲϬΗ ϴΖͲϵΗ ϵΖͲϵΗ ϯϬΖͲϬΗ ϲΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϰϭͬϴΗ ϮϮΖͲϬϯͬϴΗ ϭϯΖͲϵϯͬϴΗ ϯΖͲϴϭͬϴΗ ϮΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϯΗ ϮϲΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϯΗ ϮΖͲϯϭͬϮΗ ϰΖͲϭϬΗ ϯΖͲϯϭͬϮΗϭϮΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϭϯΖͲϳϯͬϴΗ ϯΖͲϭϬϭͬϴΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϱͬϴΗ ϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϯϯͬϰΗ ϮΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϱͬϴΗ ϰΖͲϬϭͬϰΗ ϱΖͲϰϭͬϰΗ ϰΖͲϯΗ FR %5 72,/(7 /,9,1*.,7&+(1 :$/.,1 -8/,(7 %$/&21< $  $       )/ )/ )/ )/ ϭϮΖͲϴΗ ϯΖͲϳΗ ϭϬΖͲϬΗ ϯϬΖͲϬΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϯϯͬϰΗ ϭϯΖͲϵϭͬϮΗ ϯΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϮΖͲϬΗ ϮΖͲϯΗ ϮϱΖͲϵΗ ϮΖͲϲΗ ϮΖͲϯϭͬϮΗ ϵΖͲϰΗ ϭϭΖͲϳΗ ϯΖͲϵΗ TYPICAL UNIT SECTION (NTS) LPC WORKSESSION | 31 *5281'  /(9(/   /(9(/   522)   “OVERHANG” USED TO: • MINIMIZE GROUND FLOOR FOOTPRINT OF GARAGE • REDUCE VEHICULAR FOOTPRINT ON SITE • ALLOW THE MOST DISTANCE POSSIBLE BETWEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND HISTORIC RESOURCE • ADD DEPTH AND CHARACTER TO FACADE WHILE • “RIGHT SIZING” THE DESIRED SF OF LIVING SPACE ABOVE • AND WORKING WITH STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS BEDROOM 1 PORCH BATH 1 LIVING BATH 2 (SHARED) BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-31 ROOF SHAPE DIAGRAM (NTS) LPC WORKSESSION | 32 1* 12 2ׁׂ ب ׀m„§0 ـßX2ÇmmæImÀ 2 ڕ ׄ فÀ„aX02 2 STORIES 3 STORIES PARAPET FLAT ROOF ـImÀ2ÀÀR0„ßmy( UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER)  ؤmma„„I2m„§02§§a„åXwÀ0 BELLCAST HIPPED ROOF ـI„Ça2©Ça0R„Ç20 ف RX§§0(y(J m0(a„„I2 !„ww„yXya0„I(h!0y!æ ف REPEATED SINGLE-SLOPE ROOF 3* 6* 12 12 += • MEDIATES BETWEEN FLAT ROOFS AND SLOPED ROOFS IN CONTEXT WITH SHALLOW SLOPE • SMALL AREAS OF FLAT ROOFS VISUALLY SEPARATE BUILDING INTO INDIVIDUAL UNITS THAT BETTER RELATE TO THE SCALE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE A.O.A. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-32 EAST (HOWES STREET) ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 33 FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-33 NORTH ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 34 ALLEY S HOWES STREET ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-34 WEST (ALLEY) ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 35 FLATS AT THE OVAL UNIVERSITY SERVICES CENTER ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-35 SOUTH ELEVATION-PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 36 ALLEY S HOWES STREET VIEW FROM FLATS AT THE OVAL PARKING COURT ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-36 PERSPECTIVE FROM HOWES STREET FORECOURT LPC WORKSESSION | 37 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-37 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE FROM NORTHEAST LPC WORKSESSION | 38 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-38 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE FROM NORTHEAST LPC WORKSESSION | 39 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-39 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE LPC WORKSESSION | 40 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-40 “PATCH” LPC WORKSESSION | 41 PROPOSED TREATMENT OF DEMOLITION AFFECTED BRICK Xȁ ȯȲȌȯȌȺǞȁǐ ɈȌ ȲƵǿȌɨƵ ɈǘƵ ׁ׉ׅׅ ƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁ  ةɩƵ anticipate that there may be substantial damage to the underlying brick wall and chimney from any one of the following: 2ƵƊǶƊȁɈ ɐȺƵƮ ɈȌ ̃ƊȺǘ ƊȁƮ ɩƊɈƵȲȯȲȌȌǏ ɈǘƵ connection between the buildings (potentially ɈƊȲٌƦƊȺƵƮ ف Possible painting of the brick, currently hidden behind the walls of the addition Nail or other damage to the brick from structure for the addition being attached to ɈǘƵƵɮɈƵȲǞȌȲȌǏɈǘƵƦȲǞƧDzɩƊǶǶ ÀǘƵƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐȌȯƵȁǞȁǐǿƊɯǘƊɨƵƦƵƵȁƧɐɈǞȁɈȌ the brick wall rather than being an original doorway There may also be damage to the sandstone foundation and s from the above. Knowing that this damage is unlikely to be invisibly repairable, we propose an alternate strategy of creating a “patch” that acknowledges ɈǘƵƵɮǞȺɈƵȁƧƵȌǏɈǘƵׁ׉ׅׅƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁƊȁƮƊǶǶȌɩȺɈǘƵ memory of it to remain. EXAMPLE OF DAMAGE TO BRICK FROM REMOVAL OF ATTACHED STRUCTURES CSU CAMPUS - POTTING SHED ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-41 EXISTING CONDITIONS LPC WORKSESSION | 42 EXAMPLE OF AREA AFFECTED 1905 HOUSE 1955 ADDITION SEALANT/FLASHING ON BRICK SANDSTONE FOUNDATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SEALANT/FLASHING TOUCHING SANDSTONE WALLS BEHIND POTENTIALLY PAINTED OR AFFECTED BY NAIL DAMAGE ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-42 “PATCH” SCHEME 0: REPAIR LPC WORKSESSION | 43 OPENING BETWEEN ORIGINAL HOUSE AND ADDITION PRESERVED AS NEW WINDOW • DISTINGUISHED FROM EXISTING WINDOWS BY CONTEMPORARY DETAILING BRICK RESTORED USING GENTLEST PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MEANS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE • WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MAY BE SIGNIFICANT SURFACE DAMAGE. PORCH RECONSTRUCTED IN A WAY THAT IS SUPPORTED BY FOURSQUARE STYLE HOUSES OF SIMILAR AGE. • REMOVES EVIDENCE OF 1955 ADDITION. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-43 “PATCH” SCHEME 1: OUTLINE LPC WORKSESSION | 44 OUTLINE AREA PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY ADDITION WITH STEEL ANGLE, APPROX. 1.5” SQUARE • HIDES SEALANT DAMAGE BUT NOT DAMAGE FROM NAILS, PAINT, ETC. OVER FULL AREA OF ADDITION REPAIR EXISTING PORCH • REPLACE 1955 SLENDER STEEL COLUMNS WITH DIMENSIONAL LUMBER MORE TYPICAL OF THE HOUSE’S CONSTRUCTION. IF PERIOD PHOTOGRAPHS ARE AVAILABLE, MATCH STYLING OF ORIGINAL. • MODIFY STEPS TO FIT NEW SITE PLAN • “SLICE” PORCH TO REFERENCE DEMOLISHED ADDITION OPENING BETWEEN ORIGINAL HOUSE AND ADDITION PRESERVED AS NEW WINDOW • DISTINGUISHED FROM EXISTING WINDOWS BY CONTEMPORARY DETAILING ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-44 “PATCH” SCHEME 2: OUTLINE AND PAINT LPC WORKSESSION | 45 SAME AS SCHEME 1 EXCEPT • AREA OF “OUTLINE” SIMPLIFIED • AREA WITHIN OUTLINE PAINTED OR PLASTERED TO COVER NAIL DAMAGE ETC. AND PROTECT EXISTING BRICK FROM FURTHER DAMAGE • STEEL ANGLE ENLARGED TO MAKE OLD/NEW LINE MORE DISTINCT ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-45 “PATCH” SCHEME 3: TIN SHINGLES LPC WORKSESSION | 46 SAME AS SCHEME 1 EXCEPT • AREA OF “OUTLINE” SIMPLIFIED • AREA WITHIN OUTLINE CLAD WITH TIN SHINGLES OVER FURRING/ UNDERLAYMENT TO COVER AREA OF POTENTIALLY DAMAGED BRICK AND PROTECT AGAINST FURTHER DAMAGE. • EXISTING OPENING BETWEEN ADDITION AND ORIGINAL HOUSE PRESERVED AS WINDOW THAT MORE CLOSELY MATCHES THE EXISTING WINDOWS BUT IN A CONTEMPORARY DOUBLE-HUNG FASHION • TIN SHINGLES AND PAINTED STEEL ALLOW A REFERENCE BACK TO THE OTHER NEW CONSTRUCTION, FURTHER INTEGRATING THE PROJECTS. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-46 FOURSQUARE PORCH COMPARISON LPC WORKSESSION | 47 Unfortunately, no photos of the house prior to the 1955 addition could be located by the FCMoD History Connection Archive staff, City Historic Preservation Staff, or Larimer County Assessor staff. ÀǘƵٗƮƵƊƮ˛ǶƵ٘ƊȺȺƵȺȺȌȲٚȺƧƊȲƮɩǞɈǘɈǘƵȯǘȌɈȌ removed (left) and this later assessors card (below) that already shows the addition are all that was located. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-47 FORUSQUARE PORCH COMPARISON LPC WORKSESSION | 48 As such, a suitable comparision is needed to guide the discussion on the treatment of the front porch and columns. We propose the use of 616 S Howes Street. From the Fort Collins History Connection: “In 1904, builder Harry Noel constructed a two-story Foursquare style residence in the Harrison Addition for Emery D. Searling at 616 South Howes. The frame dwelling atop a raised stone foundation had a hipped roof with widely overhanging eaves with modillions and a central dormer with shingled walls and a window with multiple small lights.  ˜ƊɈ roofed porch with corniceline balustrade was supported by classical columns. A variety of windows ornamented the exterior, including double-hung windows, horizontal windows with multiple lights, and a sash and transom parlor window. “ 616 S Howes c. 1977 616 S Howes c. 1969 616 S Howes c. 2016 616 S Howes c. 1948 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-48 STREET-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE FROM NORTH LPC WORKSESSION | 49 ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-49 ADDITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS LPC WORKSESSION | 50 20’-6” 14’-0” 1’-9” 2’-6” INVERTED BOW WINDOW BOW WINDOW 1:8 PROPORTION 1:8 PROPORTION *BUILDING ROTATED FOR CLARITY PORCH PORCH EAST FACE SOUTH FACE* METAL METAL ACCENT ACCENT BRICK BUILDING WITH BOW WINDOW BRICK BUILDING WITH BOW WINDOW ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-50 BOW WINDOW LPC WORKSESSION | 51 !ÀÇmª0mÀX„y²RX§„I „à AND INVERTED BOW ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-51 SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP TO HISTORIC RESOURCE LPC WORKSESSION | 52 In summary, we propose the following strategies for relating the new construction to the historic resource while allowing the new construction to represent its own time: • Site Plan طPlace the driveway away from the historic resource طUse the mass of the new construction to frame and engage with the historic resource, creating a pedestrian forecourt طSet the new construction as far away as possible from the historic resource to maximize its continued visibility • Massing طRather than merely providing the required setback, fully limit the mass of the new construction to 3 stories, 1 greater than the historic resource. طUse a townhome massing strategy rather than a double-loaded corridor building strategy in order to minimize the width of the new construction along Howes. طArticulate the new construction to be a similar width to the historic resource. طMake the extent of the new construction brick smaller than the historic resource to remain deferential. طUse repeated low-slope roofs ɈȌ ǿƵƮǞƊɈƵ ƦƵɈɩƵƵȁ ɈǘƵ ̃ƊɈ parapet roofs and hipped and gabled roofs both common in the context. طSeparate each roof form into individual townhouse units to better match the scale of single-family homes in the A.O.A. • Materiality طUse Red Brick as the primary material on the lower facades to relate to the red brick of the historic resource طUse additional material relationships to link the old and the new, such as sandstone accents. طUse authentic, quality and durable materials like architectural ǿƵɈƊǶȯƊȁƵǶȺ ̨ ةƦƵȲƧƵǿƵȁɈȺǞƮǞȁǐ  ةƊȁƮȯƊǞȁɈƵƮɩȌȌƮȺǞƮǞȁǐ on the new construction. • Proportions and alignments طUse 1:2 window proportions on the new construction as part of paired casement/picture windows, and as single windows, especially on the Howes street facade طUse a similar number and type of windows on the Howes facade ɈȌ ȲƵǶƊɈƵ ɈȌ ɈǘƵ ǘǞȺɈȌȲǞƧ ȲƵȺȌɐȲƧƵ ƊȁƮ ̨Ɉ ɈǘƵ ǞȁɈƵȲǞȌȲ plan. طUse contemporary detailing like steel window headers and exaggerated sandstone sills to reference the brick and sandstone construction of the historic resource’s windows in a contemporary way. طReference the Bow window of the historic house with a new, “inverted bow” with the same arc proportions طDemolition طUse a contemporary “patch” at the site of demolition that may affect the historic resource, to protect possible damaged areas of brick and allow the memory of the 1955 addition to remain. ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-52 629 SOUTH HOWES STREET SCHEMATIC DESIGN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORKSESSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 SOUTH HOWES 6FORT29STREET COLLINS, COLORADO THANK YOU! ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-53 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 16, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 249-261 S. COLLEGE AVENUE, ARMSTRONG HOTEL – REHABILITATION OF LEADED GLASS TRANSOM WINDOWS STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this item is to consider the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness regarding the rehabilitation of leaded glass transom windows at 249-261 S. College Avenue, the Armstrong Hotel. The transom windows have experienced deterioration since their 2005 restoration. The project would repair the windows and improve the interior storm window units. APPLICANT/OWNER: CCC Armstrong, LLC RECOMMENDATION: Approval COMMISSION’S ROLE: The Commission’s role as outlined in Municipal Code 14-54(a) is to review the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and, based on those findings, to either issue a Certificate of Appropriateness (with or without conditions), or deny the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  The Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College Avenue was designated a Fort Collins Historic Landmark by ordinance on December 16, 1997.  The Hotel was listed in the National Register of Historic Places, along with the Colorado State Register of Historic Places, on August 31, 2000.  A partial list of historic preservation funding for the Armstrong Hotel building includes; City preservation funding in the form of a $5,000 loan in 2005 for repair of window screens, $1,470 in 2019 for mortar analysis, and will receive up to $2,000 for window consultation on this application (invoice pending). The property also received a State Historic Fund grant of $171,000, partially matched with City funds, and a 20% federal tax credit on its 2005 $2.8 million rehabilitation project (approximately $560,000). The work included the restoration and repair of the windows.  Consistent with National Park Service Preservation Brief 33, The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass, the project will temporarily remove and repair the existing leaded glass transom panels in the Armstrong Hotel along the Olive Street (south) and College Avenue (west) elevations. The panels will be reinstalled with additional “J” metal trim in the window frame to seat the windows properly and avoid further warping and other temperature-related damage. Interior storm windows will also be installed to minimize the effects of the building’s heat system on the windows. Packet Pg. 129 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: [Adapted from the 2000 National Register nomination] Built in 1923, the Armstrong hotel was constructed in response to the booming tourism industry which was spurred by the invention of the automobile. Originally conceived as a two-story building, the hotel design was modified to include another story to accommodate the increasing number of travelers passing through Fort Collins. When completed, the hotel offered 40 guest rooms and two large dining rooms capable of seating 182 guests. The local chapter of the AAA occupied an office in the building. Three stories in height, the Armstrong Hotel was one of the tallest buildings in early twentieth century Fort Collins. Except for a short period during World War II, the building has functioned as a hotel and residential hotel without interruption throughout its operational life. The Armstrong Hotel is a three story red brick building constructed in an E shape, with a flat roof and a full Basement. It has a terra cotta coping at the parapet. The College Avenue facade features a broad central raked parapet with flat shoulders at each end. The brick is laid in a modified Flemish bond, consisting of five courses of stretchers followed by a course of alternating stretchers and headers, with the headers being of contrasting black brick. This contrasting black brick is also used for the window sills and lintels. Sills are black brick laid in a sloping header course. A belt course of dark brick extends across both east and south elevations above the third story windows. T-shaped glazed terra cotta plaques are affixed on the shoulders at each corner of the east and south elevations, each containing a cartouche with an organic motif. Upper floor fenestration is symmetrical on the second and third floors, mostly of wood sash windows of varying configurations. Street-level store fronts were rehabilitated and partially restored in 2005, and include metal and glass windows, wood doors and transoms, and leaded glass transoms above the store windows along both College Avenue and Olive Street. The south elevation was originally designed with no door openings; however in 1927 a glass storefront was installed in the third bay from College Avenue. In the 1930s, a new corner entrance was installed which had a conical roof (see historic photo #5-7). This entrance was removed at an unknown date. ALTERATION HISTORY: Known alterations of the property to date include  1927 – single-bay glass storefront added to College Avenue elevation  1930s – corner entrance installed w/ conical roof (removed at unknown date)  1950s – two bays of new storefront added to Olive Street elevation (totaling three bays); steel paneling installed over transoms;  Date unknown – transoms replaced with wood fixed-pane glass instead of historic leaded glass & steel.  2005 – full rehabilitation of the building (federal Tax Credits, State Historic Fund grant), including replacement of non-historic wood transoms with leaded glass (existing)  Since 2005, various minor alterations related to business change-overs (new signs, egress improvements, etc. HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: This property has undergone Design Review on several past occasions, including:.  2005 – Full building rehabilitation – approved (LPC, SHPO, & NPS), including installation of missing leaded glass transoms based on historic photographs.  2011 – Egress upgrades – Approved  2014 – Ace Gillett’s Sign – approved (NE corner)  2019 – Signs & awnings for Armstrong Hotel, HuHot Grill – approved  2019 – painting windows – approved  2019 – Sconces – not approved Packet Pg. 130 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: The Armstrong Hotel building has received public funding via historic preservation incentives in the following projects:  2005, City Landmark Rehabilitation Loan, $5,000 loan for repair of window screens  2005, Federal Historic Tax Credit, on $2.8 million rehabilitation project (approximately $560,000). 2005 State Historic Tax Credits were also claimed.  2005 State Historic Fund grant for $171,000  2019, City Design Assistance Program, $1,470 for mortar analysis, and up to $2,000 for window consultation on this application (invoice pending). DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability for the following items:  Removal, cleaning, rehabilitation, and reinstallation of the leaded glass panels on the Olive & S. College elevations of the hotel based on Preservation Brief 33 and Preservation Tech Note Historic Glass No. 1 – Repair and Reproduction of Prismatic Glass Transoms.  Add new J metal track to transom framing to ensure firm seating of rehabilitated glass panels into transom frame.  Modify interior (non-historic) wood storm windows to include mullion bars to align with leaded glass reinforcement (also allowing for removal and cleaning), and improving stability via support wiring between the storm window assembly and the leaded glass assembly. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant submitted initial information to staff in August 2019. Based on that preliminary submission, staff posed the following questions, all of which have been addressed by this application:  Details and/or drawing on “J” support; provide more clarification/drawing of what “wired between supports” means.  Consideration of whether the interior storms are doing more harm than good (i.e., if they are trapping so much heat that it is leading to the problems seen now.  Clarification on whether any part of the attachment method would be exposed on the exterior. If so, should that be powder‐coated treatment for longevity?  Clarification on who would do the work on the leaded glass.  Attach a window schedule with details (original or date of replacement, other pertinent info) (Leaded glass panels were installed as part of the 2005 rehabilitation, using historic photographs to guide design. Drawings from 2005 project have been attached to this staff report) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: 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; The property is not changing use as a result of this project. N/A Packet Pg. 131 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 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 leaded glass transoms are character-defining, and will remain as part of this project. The modifications to the interior storm windows are not expected to have a detrimental impact on the historic character of the building. 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. N/A SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. N/A SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Leaded glass panels are a character-defining feature of the historic building. The project will retain, repair, and rehabilitate the leaded glass panels. The additional “J” track and bracing are not expected to have a detrimental effect on the leaded glass paneling. Y 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. Leaded glass panels are a character-defining feature of the historic building, although the existing units were installed as part of a 2005 rehabilitation of the building. The project will retain, repair, and rehabilitate the leaded glass panels, focusing on cleaning and minor installation improvements. 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. The leaded glass panels will be removed and cleaned using low-impact means (water, dish soap only if needed), consistent with NPS Preservation Brief 33. Y SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Leaded glass panels are a character-defining feature of the historic building. The project will retain, repair, and rehabilitate the leaded glass panels. The Standards and NPS Preservation Brief 33 caution against the Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 5 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. N/A INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the rehabilitation of leaded glass transom panels at 249-261 S. College Avenue, staff makes the following findings of fact:  The property is a City Landmark, designated in 1997 and subject to Chapter 14, Article IV of Fort Collins Municipal Code.  The existing leaded glass transoms are suffering from deterioration and are in need of repair and improvements to the window openings to reduce further damage. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rehabilitation of the leaded prismatic glass transoms as the proposed treatment appears consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and NPS Preservation Brief 33 on The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass. SAMPLE MOTIONS SAMPLE MOTION FOR APPROVAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the request for proposed rehabilitation of the leaded prismatic glass transoms for the Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. SAMPLE MOTION FOR DENIAL: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission deny the request for approval for proposed rehabilitation of the leaded prismatic glass transoms for the Armstrong Hotel at 249-261 S. College Avenue as presented, finding that the proposed work does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant Submittal 2. Installation Drawings from 2005 Rehabilitation Project 3. 1997 City Landmark Ordinance and 2000 NRHP Nomination form 4. Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 133 ARMSTRONG HOTEL 259 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521 Leaded Glass Panel Repairs COLORADO SASH & DOOR, INC. 4521 ENDEAVOR DRIVE, UNIT C JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO 80525 (970)226-1460, WWW.COLOSASH.COM Packet Pg. 134 The current leaded glass transom panels are showing signs of failure and are starting to pull away from the building. It appears that this problem has been happening for some time. As you will see in the photos, wood spacers were added to attempt to lift the lead glass into its original position. This attempt has not kept the majority of the panels from sagging, and most are no longer held in place by the metal cover system. At two locations, a metal tab has been added to help hold the panels in place. It appears, but subject to change with inspection after the panel has been removed, that almost all glass is original and undamaged and the lead came is still solid. Our first recommendation is to modify the existing interior storm windows by adding mullions and making the glass panels removable for cleaning. The storm windows will better insulate the leaded glass from the hotter ceiling air. Adding mullion bars to align with the reinforcement in the leaded glass panels can add stability. These would be wired between the two supports. The interior storm would be painted black to match the trim behind the leaded glass and would visually disappear. The profiles would be as narrow as possible to blend visually. Once the wood storm windows are installed, we would pull a three-panel section of leaded glass. This will allow us to determine the size and shape for the metal support, confirm how the metal plates work, and determine the appropriate finish color. We would fabricate a ‘J’ metal trim to hang from the screws holding the plate in place with the outer cap. This will eliminate the need for the wood spacers that are currently there. We would clean the exterior metal parts, replace any missing parts or fastener, and then re-paint them. Some research should be done to confirm what color the material should be. On the leaded glass, we would remove the panels, confirm the shape of the lead came, and perform repairs as needed to return the panels to a flat condition. Currently, we believe that repairs should be minimal, but upon inspection the lead came might have small fractures and require replacement to minimize future failure. Once the panels are solid, we would clean and re-bed the glass prior to installation. The flattened panels would be set into the ‘J’ track noted above and the metal holders re-attached. This process would be done in all five openings. We suggest starting on the Olive Street side to better determine the time necessary for the process prior to removing all of the panels facing College Avenue. In the attached photo and drawing you can see the existing conditions as well as a section of how we think the metal ‘J’ support would be used. In the attached photo and drawing Packet Pg. 135 Note that the top edge of the leaded glass panel is fully below the metal framework that should be holding it in place. You can also see the bow in the panel on either side of the clip added to try and keep the panel in place. Note the flat lead came in this location. Flat caming was observed on the side units in each bay of three. Since this condition appears in the historic photos, we suggest preserving this detail. In this photo, you can see the wood spacer installed to help hold the glass up, but glass has still slipped almost 1/2” down. Note the gap with the storm panel removed. Packet Pg. 136 Here is an interior photo as the panels are currently installed. Packet Pg. 137 Packet Pg. 138 Packet Pg. 139 34" +/- 88" +/- Existing Interior Wood Storm 1 1/8" Thickness - Painted Black with Removable Glass Panel and 3/4" Wood Vents Added bars for potential support - align with leaded glass supports Armstrong Hotel 19019 1 Interior Storm . . 259 S. College Avenu Fort Collins, Colorado . . . . 8/31/2019 MJW 3/4" = 1' - 0" REVISION: 3 2 1 DRAWN BY FIRST ISSUE DATE SCALE ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR PROJECT TITLE OF DRAWING DRAWING NO. Colorado Sash & Door, Inc. PROJECT NO. 4521 Endeavor Drive, Unit C Johnstown, Colorado 80534 ph (970) 226-1460, Cell (970) 402-2623 office@colosash.com Packet Pg. 140 Leaded Glass Existing Metal Cap Added Metal Supporrt J, Z or H Profile Armstrong Hotel 19019 1 Metal Glass Holder . . 259 S. College Avenu Fort Collins, Colorado . . . . 8/31/2019 MJW 3/4" = 1' - 0" REVISION: 3 2 1 DRAWN BY FIRST ISSUE DATE SCALE ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR PROJECT TITLE OF DRAWING DRAWING NO. Colorado Sash & Door, Inc. PROJECT NO. 4521 Endeavor Drive, Unit C Johnstown, Colorado 80534 ph (970) 226-1460, Cell (970) 402-2623 office@colosash.com Packet Pg. 141 Packet Pg. 142 The work on the leaded glass follows the preservation brief #33, which we have pulled out the parts that pertain to this work. We are first going to remove the glass with a support / carrier board and take to our shop. Once there we will immerse in warm water with a mild cleaner and clean all surfaces. After the glass has been cleaned, we will us weight to flatten out the bowed panels. Once flattened, any broken glazing will be removed and replaced with similar new. Currently this is 4 pieces of glass and only on the perimeter. Any lead caming that has issues will be replaced with similar profile material. Once the panel is solid it will be resealed for installation back in to the openings. Our plan on the panels is to start with the 3 panels on the Olive Street side, work out the size and profile of the new support and process for pulling and re-installing the glass panels. Once the panels are back in place, we will add support wire from the reinstalled storms to the reinforcement bars already in place on the leaded glass. The added bars to the storms are set to align with the leaded glass panel supports. We believe the first three panels will take us two weeks to pull, clean repair and reinstall but once we have completed this side the other 4 sets of three should take a week per section. While the leaded glass is out, we are looking at having temporary protection to keep any weather out of the structure. Packet Pg. 143 Packet Pg. 144 Packet Pg. 145 Packet Pg. 146 From: Mark Wernimont To: Jim Bertolini Subject: RE: Armstrong Hotel - leaded glass transoms - follow-up ?"s Date: Monday, September 30, 2019 2:38:14 PM Attachments: image001.png See Below From: Jim Bertolini [mailto:jbertolini@fcgov.com] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 1:05 PM To: mwernimont@colosash.com Subject: Armstrong Hotel - leaded glass transoms - follow-up ?'s Mark, My name is Jim Bertolini, a relatively recent addition to the Historic Preservation team with the City. I’ve been tasked with preparing your item for LPC review at the October meeting and wanted to check in regarding two questions Maren sent you in August for which we still don’t have information. I want to make sure the LPC meeting goes smoothly and we can handle any anticipated questions from the LPC. 1. Maren had asked if there was consideration about whether the interior storm windows were causing the heat buildup that led to the deterioration of these windows. I believe these were installed as a restoration item under the 2005 rehabilitation, and there’s significant damage considering their length of installation. Could you provide some detail about what, if any, consideration was given to the effects the interior storm windows are having on the leaded glass panels? The storms seem to have been added to keep bugs and weather out of the building. Our change is to have the glass panels being able to be removed for cleaning, so they are not creating a sealed unit. But the heated air in the building would be far less than the heat from direct sunlight on the leaded glass I do not think so. If we were putting storms on the exterior, we would be looking at vents in these to let the heat out. But since they are on the inside, do not think so. 2. Your proposal includes cleaning the glass panels while they are removed from the transom. Can you briefly describe your cleaning process (i.e., will you just be using water, or will you be using a detergent? If a detergent, have you selected a product?)? In the past we have used just warm/hot water, but we have also had good results with Dawn dish washing liquid. Cuts through some of the grease and oils. A response to this email can suffice. Feel free to call if you have questions. Thanks! JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Packet Pg. 147 Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolini@fcgov.com Twitter | Facebook Access Fort Collins - easy, quick responses to your questions/comments Packet Pg. 148 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 149 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 150 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 151 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 152 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 153 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 154 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 155 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 156 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 157 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 158 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 159 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 160 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 161 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 162 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 163 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 164 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 165 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 166 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 167 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 168 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 169 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 170 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 171 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 172 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 173 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 174 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 175 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 176 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 177 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 178 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 179 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 180 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 181 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 182 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 183 1 Review of Proposed Transom Window Rehabilitation 249-261 S. College Avenue – Armstrong Hotel Landmark Preservation Commission 9.18.2019 Commission’s Role Determine if the proposed treatment meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and, based on those findings: • Issue a Certificate of Appropriateness (with or without conditions). or • Deny the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness 2 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 184 Background • 1997: Building listed as a City Landmark • 2000: Building listed in the National Register of Historic Places • 2005: Rehabilitation completed, including restoration of leaded glass transoms (new units) based on historic photographs. • 2018: Planning begins to address deterioration of leaded glass transoms. 3 4 Armstrong Hotel in c.1928 (above) and c.1960 (below) (Fort Collins History Connection) College Avenue (east) elevation prior to 2005 rehabilitation 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 185 5 6 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 186 7 8 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 187 9 10 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 188 11 12 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 189 Requests for Add. Information – Staff Consideration of heat concerns and ventilation? • Avoid sealed storms to allow for removal, cleaning, and easier ventilation. Cleaning method for leaded glass transoms? • Warm water, standard soap if needed 13 Requests for Add. Information – LPC Reason for accelerated deterioration? • Seems to be related to lack of sufficient support when installed in 2003‐ 2005 rehabilitation. 14 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 190 Staff Findings of Fact 1. The property is a City Landmark, designated in 1997 and subject to Chapter 14, Article IV of Fort Collins Municipal Code. 2. The existing leaded glass transoms are suffering from deterioration and are in need of repair and improvements to the window openings to reduce further damage. 15 15 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 191 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 9, 2019 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME ADOPTION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S 2020 WORK PLAN STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager PROJECT INFORMATION The purpose of this item is to discuss and adopt the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Work Plan for 2020. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City’s Municipal Code requires all boards and commissions to file work plans in Q3 for the next year. The City Council will review the work plan for each board and commission in October and November, and the work plans typically take effect in January. For reference, the LPC 2019 Work Plan is attached. The Commission should consider a motion for adoption of the 2020 work plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft LPC 2020 Work Plan 2. LPC 2019 Work Plan Packet Pg. 192 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services MEMORANDUM DATE: October 16, 2019 TO: Susan Gutowski, Council Liaison CC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk FROM: Meg Dunn, Chair, Landmark Preservation Commission RE: Landmark Preservation Commission 2020 Work Plan The Landmark Preservation Commission (Est 1968): ▪ Federally authorized Certified Local Government (CLG) since 1991. CLG status: o Authorizes LPC to administer state and federal preservation regulations, notably Section 106 Review and Compliance for all projects with federal licensing, permitting, or funding. Ex: MAX bus system, Linden Street improvements, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), flood mitigation, telecommunications. o Enables residents to participate in the 20% Colorado Tax Credit program. o Provides a dedicated pool of federal grants: Fort Collins has received over $200,000 in CLG grants for training, surveys, building preservation, and community education and outreach. o Requires enforcement of appropriate state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties, consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. o Requires on-going survey of historic resources. ▪ Nine-member board, at least 40% of whom must have professional expertise in the fields of historic preservation, architectural history, architecture, archaeology, or closely related fields: o Commission professional expertise includes: Architecture (Nelson, Paecklar, Simpkins); Landscape Architecture (Bredehoft); Archeology (Gensmer); Finance (Bello); Historic Preservation (Murray, Wallace); and Education (Dunn). ▪ Final decision-maker on: o Requests for alterations to properties designated on the National Register, Colorado State Register, and as Fort Collins Landmarks o Determinations of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation o Allocation of Landmark Rehabilitation Loan funds ▪ Makes recommendations: o To Council on Fort Collins Landmark designations; o To the Colorado State Review Board on nominations to the National and State Register o To Decision Makers on compatibility of developments adjacent to historic properties ▪ Advises Council on the identification and significance of historic resources, threats to their preservation, and methods for their protection ▪ Advises Council and staff with regard to policies, incentives and regulations for historic preservation. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 193 Landmark Preservation Commission 2020 Work Plan - 2 - 2019 Quick Review: ▪ Presented "Friends of Preservation" Awards to four projects: o Bohemian Companies and 4240 Architecture: Superior Infill Development, Elizabeth Hotel; o Susan Hoskinson: Landmark Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources; o Poudre Heritage Alliance, City Recreation and Parks Departments, Ethan Cozzens, and Empire Carpentry: Outstanding Dedication to Preserving Historic Resources for the Restoration and Rehabilitation of the Ross Homestead Act Proving Up House; o Myrne Watrous: Exceptional Contributions to Historic Preservation. ▪ Generated over $116,843 in local preservation work by provided $43,182 in Landmark Rehabilitation Loans to eight property owners, for window rehabilitation and weatherization, porch repair, stabilizing foundations, and more. ▪ Supported two State Historic Fund grant applications, for the survey of 50 properties in Old Town Fort Collins between Mulberry Street and Laporte Avenue; and for a comprehensive Historic Structure Assessment of Fort Collins Water Treatment Plant No. 1 at Gateway Park. ▪ Recommended seven properties for Fort Collins Landmark designation, and two others for designation on the National Register of Historic Places. ▪ Provided Council and staff with input on the Historic Preservation Code Changes, the Downtown Plan, the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan, and the KFCG Tax Initiative. A full description of LPC activities is contained in the Certified Local Government Annual Report. 2020 Responsibilities and Initiatives: In 2020, the Landmark Preservation Commission will continue to directly support the City’s Strategic Plan in the Key Outcome Areas of Neighborhood Livability and Social Health, Economic Health, Environmental Health, and High Performing Government, and has identified additional goals to further align its strategic objectives with those of City Council: Support the Neighborhood Livability and Social Health Outcome by: • Enhancing the community’s sense of place by protecting historic character through landmark designation; and through design review and development review, helping to ensure compatible alterations and new development; • Celebrating historic resources through a wide variety of community recognition and appreciation opportunities, such as the Friends of Preservation Awards; tours, signage and brochures; and partnerships with community history organizations; • Supporting Housing Affordability goals by retaining and rehabilitating historic building stock, promoting more affordable options in housing; • Developing a community-wide survey plan and identifying priorities for historic survey. Support the Economic Health Outcome by: • Allocating Landmark Rehabilitation Loans and promoting Design Assistance Program, State Tax Credits, State Historic Fund grants, and other financial incentives to eligible properties; ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 194 Landmark Preservation Commission 2020 Work Plan - 3 - • Supporting Housing Attainability and Affordability through revisions to the Rehabilitation Loan Program and the Design Assistance Program to address financial equity issues, and better assist low and moderate-income citizens with cost-effective repairs and improvements to their homes. • Ensuring a smooth, integrated Development Review process by providing early comments to developers and staff on Land Use Code projects; and by providing decision makers with recommendations on development near historic properties • Promoting and subsidizing the use of Fort Collins’ specialized skills and tradespeople to keep more financial resources in the community. • Assist staff in the performance of two State Historic Fund grant-funded projects: the survey of 50 properties in Old Town Fort Collins between Mulberry Street and Laporte Avenue; and the comprehensive Historic Structure Assessment of Fort Collins Water Treatment Plant No. 1 at Gateway Park. Support the Environmental Health Outcome by: • Incentivizing sustainable building practices and energy conservation measures in older homes through historic preservation review processes; • Promote sustainability, retention of embodied energy, and waste-steam reduction by encouraging the reuse of existing buildings and materials • Facilitating safe, cost-effective building rehabilitation and energy retrofitting and resource sustainability through 0%-interest loans, free professional advice, and the City’s Design Assistance Program; • Promoting the Historic Preservation Division’s Costs Calculator, an on-line tool that enables area contractors and residents to understand the cost, longevity and energy trade-offs in material choices. Support the High Performing Government Outcome by: • Overseeing the implementation of the new historic preservation codes and processes and continuing to identify improvements, recommending appropriate code revisions as needed; • Providing the best service to Council and the residents of Fort Collins by identifying and implementing innovative solutions and best practices through partnerships, continuing education, and professional trainings; • Building capacity, increasing productivity, and facilitating the career training and growth of young professionals by working with CSU students in Historic Preservation, Archeology, Construction Management, Heritage Tourism and other related fields of study; • Furthering Council’s and the City’s goals and objectives through the performance of the Commission’s duties. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 10-16-19 Packet Pg. 195 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 196 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 197 use of interior storm windows in many cases due to the potential for heat build-up in the intervening space between a storm and the leaded glass panel. The interior storms will not be a sealed unit and will be removable for cleaning, alleviating some of the need for ventilation. Y Packet Pg. 132 ϭϳΖͲϵϭͬϰΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϭͬϰΗ ϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϯϯͬϰΗ ϮΗ ϭϮΖͲϳϭϵͬϯϮΗ ϮΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ ϱΖͲϭϬΗ ϮΖͲϳϭͬϮΗ ϳΖͲϭΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϭͬϰΗ HW 81,7 : $ $ ( ) )2<(5 :&    ϮϮΖͲϬϭͬϯϮΗ ϭΖͲϲΗ ϮϭΖͲϭΗ ϮϬΖͲϵϭͬϰΗ ϳΖͲϮϭϯͬϯϮΗ ϭϯΖͲϰϳͬϴΗ ϯΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ ϰΖͲϬΗ ϭϯΖͲϯϭϳͬϯϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϰΗ ϲΖͲϱΗ ϮϱΖͲϬϭͬϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϮϯͬϰΗ ϮϰΖͲϭϭϳͬϴΗϱΖͲϳϭͬϮΗ ϲΖͲϰϯͬϴΗ LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 GROUND LEVEL ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-30 design features, of historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley. RESPONSE ׇ  خThe new construction does not physically engage with the ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵ  خƵƧƊɐȺƵɈǘƵȁƵɩƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁǞȺȁȌɈȺǞǐȁǞ ̨ƧƊȁɈǶɯ ƧǶȌȺƵȲ ɈȌ RȌɩƵȺ ȺɈȲƵƵɈ ɈǘƊȁ ɈǘƵ ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐ ǘȌɐȺƵ  ةɈǘƵ ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐ house remains prominently visible from Howes street and the sidewalk. IɐȲɈǘƵȲƮǞȺƧɐȺȺǞȌȁǞȺȲƵȱɐǞȲƵƮȌȁɈǘƵƊȲƵƊɩǘƵȲƵƮƵǿȌǶǞɈǞȌȁȌǏ ɈǘƵׁ׉ׅׅƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁǞȺȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮ خ HISTORIC RESOURCE REMAINS PROMINENTLY ßX2X m0Ia„w2X(0àmj AND HOWES STREET ßX0à„IR„Ç20 UNRESTRICTED BY PROJECT THIS DIRECTION ~22’ BUFFER ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-25 LIMITS BUFFER AREA TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-12 Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-11     '!"($! ( ( ($" ( (  (&(#&$!! ( ( !(("!(  (#"( !( (#&( ( ((   (!(( (!( (  (#"( (!! SUMMARY • Studies A and D place drive adjacent to existing house and do not activate the alley with pedestrian uses • Study B allows view directly from street to alley, rather than providing a visual terminus • Study C selected: طPlaces vehicular drive away from existing house طcreates a pedestrian forecourt that engages and frames the existing house طProvides a visual terminus to vehicular drive, covered passage adds charm and allows pedestrian access to the rear units طRear units activate alley with pedestrian frontage ITEM 3, EXHIBIT A Applicant Presentation - presented at hearing Packet Pg. 128-10 ϭϳΖͲϵϭͬϰΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϭͬϰΗ ϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϴϭͬϰΗ ϯΖͲϯϯͬϰΗ ϮΗ ϭϮΖͲϳϭϵͬϯϮΗ ϮΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ ϱΖͲϭϬΗ ϮΖͲϳϭͬϮΗ ϳΖͲϭΗ ϮΖͲϭϬϭͬϰΗ HW 81,7 : $ $ ( ) )2<(5 :&    ϮϮΖͲϬϭͬϯϮΗ ϭΖͲϲΗ ϮϭΖͲϭΗ ϮϬΖͲϵϭͬϰΗ ϳΖͲϮϭϯͬϯϮΗ ϭϯΖͲϰϳͬϴΗ ϯΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ ϰΖͲϬΗ ϭϯΖͲϯϭϳͬϯϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϰΗ ϲΖͲϱΗ ϮϱΖͲϬϭͬϮΗ ϭϴΖͲϮϯͬϰΗ ϮϰΖͲϭϭϳͬϴΗϱΖͲϳϭͬϮΗ ϲΖͲϰϯͬϴΗ LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 GROUND LEVEL ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 49 design features, of historic resources on the development site, abutting or across a side alley. RESPONSE ׇ  خThe new construction does not physically engage with the ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐǘȌɐȺƵ  خƵƧƊɐȺƵɈǘƵȁƵɩƧȌȁȺɈȲɐƧɈǞȌȁǞȺȁȌɈȺǞǐȁǞ ̨ƧƊȁɈǶɯ ƧǶȌȺƵȲ ɈȌ RȌɩƵȺ ȺɈȲƵƵɈ ɈǘƊȁ ɈǘƵ ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐ ǘȌɐȺƵ  ةɈǘƵ ƵɮǞȺɈǞȁǐ house remains prominently visible from Howes street and the sidewalk. IɐȲɈǘƵȲƮǞȺƧɐȺȺǞȌȁǞȺȲƵȱɐǞȲƵƮȌȁɈǘƵƊȲƵƊɩǘƵȲƵƮƵǿȌǶǞɈǞȌȁȌǏ ɈǘƵׁ׉ׅׅƊƮƮǞɈǞȌȁǞȺȯȲȌȯȌȺƵƮ خ HISTORIC RESOURCE REMAINS PROMINENTLY ßX2X m0Ia„w2X(0àmj AND HOWES STREET ßX0à„IR„Ç20 UNRESTRICTED BY PROJECT THIS DIRECTION ~22’ BUFFER ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 44 LIMITS BUFFER AREA TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 32     '!"($! ( ( ($" ( (  (&(#&$!! ( ( !(("!(  (#"( !( (#&( ( ((   (!(( (!( (  (#"( (!! SUMMARY • Studies A and D place drive adjacent to existing house and do not activate the alley with pedestrian uses • Study B allows view directly from street to alley, rather than providing a visual terminus • Study C selected: طPlaces vehicular drive away from existing house طcreates a pedestrian forecourt that engages and frames the existing house طProvides a visual terminus to vehicular drive, covered passage adds charm and allows pedestrian access to the rear units طRear units activate alley with pedestrian frontage ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 31