The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/12/2015 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingRon Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair Maren Bzdek Meg Dunn Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink Tom Leeson Staff Liaison, Interim CDNS Director City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison 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. Regular Meeting August 12, 2015 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 89 2015 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 8, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. • PULLED FROM CONSENT • DISCUSSION AGENDA Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 August 12, 2015 2. 808 WEST PROSPECT ROAD. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are asking the Commission to review their plans for a multifamily project at 808 West Prospect Road. Located in the Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MMN) Zone District, the project, as currently proposed, contains 59 units and 70 bedrooms in a three-story building. A multifamily project with 50 or more units is subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review. APPLICANT: OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Ian Shuff, alm2s Architects; Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios City of Fort Collins Page 2 Agenda Item 1 STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 87 2015 REGULAR MEETING. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 8, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft LPC July 8, 2015 Minutes (PDF) Item # 1 Page 1 Packet Pg. 3 1.a Ron Sladek, Chair Doug Ernest, Vice Chair Maren Bzdek Meg Dunn Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Alexandra Wallace Belinda Zink Laurie Kadrich Staff Liaison, PDT Director City Council Chambers City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Gino Campana Preservation Planner Preservation Planner Council Liaison 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. Regular Meeting July 8, 2015 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER Chair Sladek called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Wallace, Gensmer, Ernest, Sladek ABSENT: Lingle, Bzdek STAFF: McWilliams, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 1 MEETING. 2015 REGULAR LO 0 N w 0 m LO W M M El Landmark Preservation Commission Page 1 July 8, 2015 Packet Pg. 4 1.a The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 10, 2015 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 24, 2015 SPECIAL MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the June 24, 2015 special meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission accept the Consent Agenda as presented at the July 8, 2015 regular meeting. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 7=0. [Timestamp: 5:35 p.m.] • PULLED FROM CONSENT • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. 254/256 LINDEN STREET; FINAL DESIGN REVIEW OF PROPOSED SIGNS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Final Design Review for proposed signage on the building at 254/256 Linden Street, which is within the Old Town Historic District. APPLICANT: Brandon Silar; Lark Design/Build Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Silar addressed the Commission. He explained that they had requested several zoning variances for the proposed signage which were approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. One change that was made as a result of that process was to move the red "swoosh" logo from the top of the "Artery" sign to the right side of the marquee. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek pointed out Section 6.24 of the Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines with regard to illuminated signs, and asked for clarification from Staff as to the Commission's options, since this sign clearly does not comply. Ms. McWilliams explained that the Commission would be looking at the impact of the design on the District as a whole, and they should assess how that standard should be applied in this situation. A Member recalled that at the previous review they had discussed photometrics and light spill and asked whether the Applicant had found any examples of other signs in the area that might have similar illumination levels. The Applicant had not found any comparable signs, but they did an analysis of the illumination of the streetlight at Linden and Jefferson and the amount of illumination they anticipated from the sign. An illustration of a night scene based on their findings was included in the packet. The Applicant asked for clarification as to which part of the sign was problematic, and Chair Sladek explained that the "Artery" portion of the sign seemed to comply, but the marquee with the backlighting is the part that conflicts with the standards. Members discussed the fact that the location was a mitigating factor in allowing the sign. It is on the edge of the district, facing away from the district, and is not directly adjacent to an historic building. Including language in the motion to stress that the sign is allowed because of the specific location and the lack of impact on a historic building would avoid setting a precedent. City of Fort Collins Page 2 0 0 N w 0 m _ 0 W M M El Packet Pg. 5 1.a Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve as final design review the proposed signage on the building at 2541256 Linden Street, which is within the Old Town Historic District, finding that it meets Section 14.48 of the City Code and also finding that the illumination aspect of the sign is acceptable given its location on the edge of the Old Town Historic District on Jefferson Street. Mr. Hogestad seconded. Motion passed 7=0. [Timestamp: 5:52 p.m.] 4. FORRESTER BLOCK MURAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This request is for a painted mural on the southeast wall of the Forrester Block, near Walnut Street. APPLICANT: Scott Ranweiler, Bohemian Companies Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Ranweiler addressed the Commission. He displayed a few images that were not provided in the packet depicting other buildings with similar styles of murals both before and after the murals were painted. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked Staff for clarification on whether this is a final or preliminary review. Ms. McWilliams explained that the Applicant is requesting final approval, but it is up to the Commission to determine whether they feel they have enough information for a final review. A Member asked when the brick wall had been plastered over. Staff was unable to determine when or why the wall was plastered, noting that sometimes it is done to reinforce the structure when the brick is failing. In response to a question, the Applicant confirmed that the two existing windows on the mural wall would be retained and painted around. A Member commented that the mural did not appear to violate the standards for murals on Page 108 of the Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. Several Members expressed concerns that the mural was so realistic that some people may not realize it was a painting. Others said it could be perceived as being representative of what the original building had looked like. There was discussion that there was no demarcation between the real wall and the mural wall at the corner where it transitions from brick to plaster. Looking at the building from that corner, both walls are clearly visible. There were also comments that the mural competes with the building. A suggestion was made to add elements to the mural, such as a branch, or a figure in a window or leaning against the wall, possibly an historic figure, something to make it more obvious that it was a painting. Several Members supported that idea, and mentioned Jazz Alley as an example. There were also suggestions to omit the painted arches, and reduce the ornamentation, so the mural would appear to be subordinate to the original building. The Applicant asked whether changing the stone work in the mural to brick would be better. It was suggested that he look at the sidewalls of some of the other buildings downtown to see how they are different from the fagades in terms of the stone or brick work. The sidewalls tend to be much simpler than the fagades. The Applicant also raised the question of removability, since it is just paint, and it is on a newer surface rather than the brick. Chair Sladek stated that it would likely be there for many years, so it is important to get it right. City of Fort Collins Page 3 LO 0 N >, w 0 m _ LO W M M El Packet Pg. 6 1.a The Commission revisited the idea of adding a figure of some sort that is appropriate to the district, or changing the design so that it doesn't attempt to reproduce the historic building. The Commission deemed this a preliminary review, and Chair Sladek said they would like to see the Applicant rethink the design and come back. The Applicant summarized what he understood to be the Commission's feedback, stating that the mural should not replicate the architecture, and should be differentiated from the original fagade. Chair Sladek acknowledged that was accurate, adding that it shouldn't compete with or mimic the original. [Timestamp: 6:20 p.m.] 5. FIRST BANK MURAL, 100 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This request is for a mural to be painted on two walls behind the 1 St Bank Building, at the corner of College and Mountain Avenues. The walls are associated with two historically designated buildings. APPLICANT: Don Bernholtz, Architecture Plus Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Dawn Davis of 1st Bank addressed the Commission explaining that the existing walls were an eyesore, and that they want to retain the drive-thru and make it an outdoor space with a more "alley feel". She pointed out that neither of the walls are part of the historic buildings. In order to stay true to the mid-century modern architecture of the bank building, they specifically chose art for the mural to fit that era. The bank is seeking a final review, if possible. Mr. Bernholtz gave a presentation on behalf of the Applicant. He said the wall was a "classic party wall", with each party owning half. An additional furring wall had been attached as part of the original in the early 60's. He pointed out that they will not be altering the structure, just painting and adding minor accessories. The brick piers are currently being constructed. Gale Whitman, the artist selected to paint the mural, spoke about the colors and style chosen, stating they were in keeping with the mid-century modern era of the building. The colors will stand out, but fit in, helping to integrate 1st Bank as the only building from that era with the rest of Old Town. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Members discussed that the furred walls are discreet and distinct from the historic building. A concern was expressed that the scale and proportion were at odds to the adjacent historic building. The Commission discussed how Section 14.48 of the City Code, and Rehabilitation Standard 9, might apply to this situation. They also discussed whether the mural would impact a potential designation of either building. In response to a Commission question, Ms. McWilliams said the City Attorney had reviewed the ownership documents and had agreed that the common wall was jointly owned. A Member further questioned whether the Commission actually had any purview over this project, given that it was not in the Historic District, and the historic buildings were adjacent to the bank. Ms. McWilliams suggested tabling this item until a legal interpretation can be obtained from the City Attorney. Commission Deliberation Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission table until its regular meeting on August 12 the request for a mural to be painted on two walls behind the 1s' Bank Building, at the corner of College and Mountain Avenues. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Motion passed 7=0. [Timestamp: 6:53 p.m.] City of Fort Collins LO 0 N w 0 m _ LO W M M El Packet Pg. 7 1.a 6. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - DOWNTOWN HOTEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a Preliminary LPC Review of the Development Proposal for a 5 story, 162 room hotel/mixed-use building abutting the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. APPLICANT: Cole Evans, McWhinney; Stu McMillan, Bohemian Companies Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Lou Bieker with 4240 Architecture gave the Applicant presentation. He talked about the changes to the design since the Commission last saw the project. He talked about the character of Old Firehouse Alley and also of Walnut Street as a pedestrianized edge. He spoke of the importance of the corner of Walnut and Chestnut as a gateway into the community, and the vision for the first floor with a focus on food and beverage. n 0 He discussed the materials in the design, from the masonry, to patterns of glass and metal, and the N perforated metal screens. Openness and transparency are incorporated into the design, as they want to create indoor/outdoor connectivity. They seek to bring nature, the Historic District & the River District together. The Applicant presentation included numerous illustrations, providing a feel for the w design as it currently stands. The design will continue to evolve as they progress. The Applicant also 0 talked about the proposed parking garage as a transition from Old Town to the River District and stated that he will discuss more of the details of that at a future meeting. Public Input None c"'o M Commission Questions and Discussion The Commission expressed very positive reactions to the design. Members liked the treatment of the corner of Walnut and Chestnut. A Member commented that the layering and step back of the building c were important, and said he liked the transparency of the design. LO Members did not express any concerns about the project with respect to Land Use Code 3.4.7 or the c Old Town Historic District Design Guidelines. N 0 The Applicant asked for some guidance from the Commission with regard to the garage acting as a 2S transition from Old Town to the River District. He asked whether there were any other recent projects that confronted that issue. Members were unable to point to any such projects, but commented that a the districts could blur into each other. Historically, north of Jefferson has been more industrial, largely affected by the train, while south of Jefferson has been more retail -oriented. The Applicant emphasized the idea of experiential boundaries rather than hard boundaries. o Chair Sladek thanked the Applicant, and said the general sense of the Commission is that they are on a great track. E [Timestamp: 7:47 p.m.] v 7. POLICY ON NAMING CITY -OWNED FACILITIES Q PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Landmark Preservation Commission is being asked for its recommendation to City Council on the City's proposed naming policies pertaining to City -owned facilities, including streets, parks, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, trails and civic buildings. APPLICANT: Dan Weinheimer, Policy & Projects Manager, City of Fort Collins Staff Report Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report. Applicant Presentation Mr. Weinheimer gave a presentation. Since last before the Commission, changes have been made to the proposed policy to provide a broader historic review, and a deeper public engagement process. City of Fort Collins Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 1.a Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Sladek asked what the community input process would look like, and if it would include boards and commissions. Mr. Weinheimer said that is what he envisioned. Commission Feedback Chair Sladek said they had done a great job incorporating the Commission's input into the policy, and that they were on the right track. [Timestamp: 8:00 p.m.] • OTHER BUSINESS Ms. McWilliams talked about the upcoming Preserve America Youth Summit and mock commission meeting next Thursday, July 16th. Chair Sladek told the Commission his plans for a tour and scavenger hunt with the group in the morning, followed by lunch and tours at the Avery House, and a tour of the River District. Chair Sladek stated that at the next work session he would like to do an update on the CLG training that he, Ms. McWilliams and Ms. Bzdek attended recently. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Sladek adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. City of Fort Collins Page 6 0 0 N w 0 m _ 0 W M M El Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 2 PROJECT NAME 808 WEST PROSPECT ROAD, REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO DECISION MAKER STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are asking the Commission to review their plans for a multifamily project at 808 West Prospect Road. Located in the Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MMN) Zone District, the project, as currently proposed, contains 59 units and 70 bedrooms in a three-story building. A multifamily project with 50 or more units is subject to Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) review. APPLICANT: Ian Shuff, alm2s Architects; Craig Russell, Russell + Mills Studios EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff Analysis: This project is located adjacent to 720 West Prospect Road, which is a designated Fort Collins Landmark. Additionally, it is located adjacent to 730 West Prospect Road, which has been determined to be individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. Thus, particular attention should focus on the interface and compatibility between the proposed building and the existing historic buildings in terms of massing, character, setbacks, materials, design, etc. The current development proposal is only for the 808 West Prospect site and not the properties at 720 and 730 West Prospect. Codes and Guidelines: In its consideration of the approval of plans that contain or are adjacent to designated or individually eligible properties, LUC 3.4.7(F)(6) states that the Decision Maker shall consider the written recommendation of the Landmark Preservation Commission. For the proposed development at 808 West Prospect Road, useful codes and guidelines include the City's Land Use Code, especially Section 3.4.7. Commission Action: The Commission held a preliminary review of this project at its May 27, 2015 Work Session. The applicants feel that they have addressed any concerns, and are requesting that the Commission adopt a motion making Findings of Fact and a Recommendation on the plans for consideration by the Decision Maker (Planning and Zoning Board). Item # 2 Page 1 Packet Pg, 10 Agenda Item 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. 7.31.15 The Slab LPC (PDF) 2. 5.26.15 Previous Power Point Presentation (PDF) 3. 2015.05.18- draft site plan (PDF) 4. 808 W Prospect Rd Street View (PDF) 5. 808 W Prospect Rd 1 Street View (PDF) 6. 808 W Prospect Rd 2 Street View (PDF) 7. 808 W Prospect Rd 3 Street View (PDF) 8. 3i - Context 808 W Prospect Development 2008 9. 3k - 720 W Prospect P1010040 (1) (JPG) 10. 730 W Prospect Photo (DOCX) (PDF) Item # 2 Page 2 Packet Pg. 11 2.a c M �a Cn 0 CL 0 a c a� E CL 0 a@ w 0 0 3 0 a� �a 0 U d Q N O L a y d Co O Go T M U a J N O L H LO T El Packet Pg. 12 PROPOSED � WIF ' ❑ I II I ! ' lll��lll�' TIIII I' :IIIIIIII01com PROPOSED F Illg IJIII 11 ■ PROPOSED E A LLI MINE I ■ ■ I: ANN :1111111111com PROPOSED 1 F � Fl I I :- LJ-I I _I _L r 0 ki JI 17 I IT,.�it i in ■ a[u- _ Il ill 11 11__.0_��_0 u 01No DAL" b PROPOSED r- I 1 1 lrt k L . ■i 9P ti1Ijl_� ..� ti _ Y_r �hL a Li IF �• 1 A. —7 r_� I - P. ' r IRV Wm'- �1 a � Ak yy 1#J f 1 :r•'1 •f k I 2.a SITE PERSPECTIVES: M MFU Cn 0 CL 0 a c a� E CL 0 a@ w 0 0 3 0 a� �a 0 U d Q N O L a M 0 00 O Go T M U a J N O L H LO T 2 Packet Pg. 18 2.b fl ' dot • _,�' I _MEN J�•• ' •fir �+ 0 rp * I r t 1 ' F ' 1 Y I • • T 11 i TTr TTT! EE 1 m • - • O O W a N O a N Co O 00 TOM qq qe M Packet Pg. 19 CONTEXT ' 1 '(`� 1-i►.ww7M11w►lil�'I'!•lA9flk1•-`1°11'"7R:, i :�'•'r— ,.y°•rJsrJl,.a.•r�rrl• 1; .r,-r,,.,,r F. 1' ��..)i r cn W Lake St i zTI �WiI a Blue Ridge Apartments ♦ v (D \ n y 1 r St Z, >! I �. W Prospect4Rd=.wAN = N Hobbit%Sti a cn 808 W Prospect Rd• < r 0� - _A -� -W Prospect Rd I • 00 r �'�� QAggie Village Apartments -TI�Balsam Ln- .n. Ir >' • . fD r Hilton Fort Collins- •� t N q " Juniper Ln - 0 --r Birky PI C T ' j, I _ 1 I onaitivns ana iveignournvva Lc CONTEXT b t� 1 _ � 1 Ic Bank ` - AW OIL _ gas -,.s W�rosPeet Rd W Prospect Rd ....�. t. Was ' wl Iwo 16 eo � u a LL . • I Una('•. -� :.r :Y • 1. aAm 04 2.b ZONING SITE DATA O M Zoning • HMN - High Density Mixed Use o a • Density —min. of 20 d.u./acre Cn • Building Height — maximum 5 stories 0 Im • Allowed uses — multi family, mixed -use, frat/sorority houses, places ofTOM worship, restaurants, retail, personal and business services • The site is in the TOD Overlay District Packet Pg. 22 CONTEXT T gnournva -�- 1 Existing Conditions and Neighborhood Context South side of Prospect - east of site South side of Prospect - west of site 808 W. Prospect: The Slab 2.b Previously Approved Project ORIGINAL APPROVED WEST ELEVATION PRUPUSED ELEVATION EAST+ WEST ELEVATIONS 401 W. MOUNTAIN AVENUE SUITE 100 1 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1 970.224.1191 1 www.VFLA.com .TV" ]me a �SLAL 03.06,14 O 3 a� a� O u aD a N O L a N N W O O qT M L a 'o a L 3 O a O m L a LID r C6 N L6 i E t u ii Packet Pg. 25 2.b Previously Approved Project o. o Mamma am n am PROPOSED ELEVATIc NORTH ELEVATION 0 SLAB 03.06.14 O 0 CL Cn O L a N 00 O 00 qqt TOM v Packet Pg. 26 2.b Comparison of Previous and Proposed Projects mi Previously Approved Project • 61 Total units consisting of (7) 1 bedroom & (54) 2 bedrooms units • 115 Total beds • 92 Parking spaces = .83 spaces per bed • 4 Stories Iw Proposed Project 59 Total units consisting of (26) Studios, bedrooms units 70 Total beds 83 Parking spaces = 1.2 spaces per bed 3 Stories 1 bedroom & (11) 2 0 0 0 CL Cn 0 a. Cn 00 0 00 44* TOM v Packet Pg. 27 2.b SITE DESIGN "C 1 r----- /O %1Y44v17-~- P�.`7�i' - 808 W. Prospect: The Sl" Packet Pg. 28 :i11i111101com • PROPOSED I ■ :i11i111101com • PROPOSED I W All III 11-ti :i11i111101com • PROPOSED I ■ 1 iL :i11i111101col • PROPOSED !- a I TM on 0 I'Volloll�i:1!! 12':i�CICIICIall� 1 lool I.,II:ICI is via_llia 'M E 1 :i11i111101com • PROPOSED I m f� is IL11 It:f P ..I m. s:i:9p II d I I :i11i111101com • PROPOSED 1 01NoDlrb PROPOSED w toI r r a y� pp r' .! ...°'t rj. c 1 oil ae4- 14V dr �tM�a lft ty r b •I oil rNl 62 1 9]"olr 9 PROPOSED 2.b Compatibility with the Historic Properties O PROPOSED The Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (6) Historic and Cultural Resources state that: CL Cn O L a "New structures must be compatible with the historic character ofCn any such historic property, whether on the development site or o 00 adjacent thereto." TOM M v The proposed project incorporates the following elements to 0 W a, address compatibility: L • The use of traditional 'Craftsman Style' materials such as lap siding, stucco and brick/stone masonry a. • The top treatment of the building utilizes gable and hip roof forms with use of dormers and other secondary roof forms to complement the adjacent historic properties and reduce the overall scale • The primary window proportions and fenestration are consistent with the historic properties 808 W. Prospect: The Sl-m M Packet Pg. 37 z.� 0 •. r � ° 1; i - - i 'IV o T�17 IN ------------ a fill IL i i 1 ' ,fit-t9— G�p_ r > /7. o a 'I %P a u E a N qr: an /h9yON��J �l Rs LC; Sri %— R.O 0 12.5' 25' 41 � U 808 Prospect Ro aI Concel p.ketpg. 38 u i;�on. n,llh studios • IS Lim M s - �I. OF Street View - Sep I14 I fo I Arm .) �• ! w IVA hK Oil Z ')ARA"o' .. • • . r +'' �r L j r Olt ''Y y ' �pry ,. OIL Wit OIL ti Z 41 i" JA do F' 41 1 .. ._,.\ ON 1 BSERVAJORY PARI( - PIHASI II 28 West Prospect Road Fort Collins CO g , IN 1;• t N 19Wi taps�ari a9� +, of 'fig a c 1K ^' ♦ " .✓♦ram" i �. y /l MARCH 10. 2008 Km I r.V'7`�N� 7. if sy. I.y4 .fkfil' 1 i AVVAUGHT•FRYE ARCHITECTS 7 3 0 OBSERVATORY PARK - NAS1 II 728 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 'mil' ri lilar� �il:_;�-1 �rlli ;�f I� �a� �il�� ®, I ...., ism P3i_I, 728 PROSPECT ROAD ELEVATIONS MARCH 10, 2008 L:m 720 A'T VAUBUI • FAN ARCHITECTS OBSBRVAJORY PARK - PHASE II 728 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO MARCH 10. 2008 W A. VAUGHT•FRYE A7nKL I 1 1 1 G I „ iy % L 1 _ tip• L til s 069 - C •-Jr 06 r 2.i I� f •S 1 •} 1 r ' Y rr _ r - ' % . % r k L iT &.' V 1 r+ F r O ti �' •, - M!W 'L *rm OM %mm i 1 t _ 1 I mr i r L r _ l ,.51 _ 1 1 7 1 . r 1 . 1 � - 1 i • r 1 ti NJ ON 0 1op�_ w f Packet Pg. 46 No Text