Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/16/2020 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular Meeting
Page 1 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair Meeting to be conducted remotely. Mollie Bredehoft, Co-Vice Chair See below for instructions on how Michael Bello to attend online or by phone. Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Staff Liaison: Anne Nelsen Karen McWilliams Jim Rose Historic Preservation Manager Regular Meeting December 16, 2020 5:30 PM Landmark Preservation Commission AGENDA Pursuant to City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the Chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. This remote Landmark Preservation Commission meeting will be available online via Zoom or by phone. No Commission members will attend in person. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:00 p.m. Participants should try to join at least 15 minutes prior to the 5:30 p.m. start time. ONLINE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: • You will need an internet connection on a laptop, computer, or smartphone, and may join the meeting through Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/92814828882. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). Keep yourself on muted status. • For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to comment. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY PHONE: • Please dial 253-215-8782 and enter Webinar ID 928 1482 8882. Keep yourself on muted status. • For public comments, when the Chair asks participants to click the “Raise Hand” button if they wish to speak, phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Commission. When you are called, hit *6 to unmute yourself. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE ONLINE OR BY PHONE: Individuals who are uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone may: 1) Email comments to gschiager@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. If your comments are specific to any of the discussion items on the agenda, please indicate that in the subject line of your email. Staff will ensure your comments are provided to the Commission. 2) Come in person to 281 N. College Avenue to utilize City technology to participate in the meeting. Please arrive 15 minutes prior to the meeting and ring the doorbell at the north entrance so that staff may escort you into the building. Masks and social distancing will be required. To participate this way, it is strongly recommended that you contact us at least 24 hours prior to the meeting so that arrangements for proper social distancing and appropriate technology can be put in place to protect the health and safety of the public and staff. Contact Gretchen Schiager at gschiager@fcgov.com or 224-6098. Documents to Share: Any document or presentation a member of the public wishes to provide to the Board for its consideration must be emailed to gschiager@fcgov.com at least 24 hours before the meeting. Packet Pg. 1 Page 2 Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 10:00 a.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items. Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Commission to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by Commission with one vote. The Consent Agenda consists of: ● Approval of Minutes ● Items of no perceived controversy ● Routine administrative actions Packet Pg. 2 Page 3 • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. REPORT ON STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS FOR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmark Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. 3. 126 S. WHITCOMB ST: APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION ON DESIGN REVIEW (CONTINUANCE FROM OCTOBER 2020) DESCRIPTION: This item is a continuance from October’s Regular Meeting. The item is to consider the appeal of a staff design review decision for 126. S. Whitcomb Street. The applicant is proposing demolition of the historic 1932 garage and replacement with a new 1.5 story garage on its location. Staff denied the request on August 25, 2020, and the owner filed an appeal on August 26, 2020. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Landmark Preservation Commission. APPLICANT: Tara Gaffney (Property Owner) 4. 140 N MCKINLEY AVENUE (ROBERT AND ORPHA BUXTON HOUSE AND ATTACHED GARAGE) – REAR ADDITION – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition to the City Landmark at 140 N. McKinley Avenue, the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the LPC. APPLICANT: Casey (Keith) Churchill (Property Owner) 5. 711 PETERSON, THE W.E. BOYD RESIDENCE (ADDITION) – DESIGN REVIEW DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to construct an addition to this contributing property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District (NCM Zone District). APPLICANT: Richard Sadowske, Kim Dickson (owners); Kim Morton (design representative) 6. CITY OF FORT COLLINS HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE The purpose of this item is for the Commission to provide input to the City’s Housing Strategic Plan Core Team on the plan update. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Packet Pg. 3 1 Gretchen Schiager From:meg dunn <barefootmeg@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 1, 2020 4:54 PM To:Karen McWilliams; Gretchen Schiager Subject:[EXTERNAL] Extending our virtual meeting period Hi Karen, Given our ongoing COVID‐19 “Safer at Home” recommendation from the State, I think it would be prudent for us to continue to hold meetings virtually for the foreseeable future. Why don’t we set June 2021 as a cut off point to revisit this, with the option to revisit the issue sooner if somehow a vaccine is found and quickly disseminated early next year, and the Safer at Home recommendation is lifted. I know that P&Z is holding a mixed meeting soon, so I think we should be open to that should the need arise. So, to summarize: Let’s plan to continue our virtual LPC meetings until June 2021 with the understanding that, should the need arise, we would be willing to consider an alternative option on a one‐off basis. Given that the members of the LPC seem to feel that our virtual meetings have been going well, I don’t foresee this happening. But I would like to be flexible should an applicant or appellant feel the need for an in‐person setting. Thanks! ‐ Meg Packet Pg. 4 Date: Roll Call Bello Bredehoft Knierim Michell Murray Nelsen Rose Wallace Dunn Vote 9 present 1 - November minutes (Consent)Wallace Knierim Nelsen Murray Rose Bello Michell Bredehoft Dunn Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9-0 3 - 126 S Whitcomb - Garage contributes to the District Knierim Nelsen Murray Rose Bello Michell Bredehoft Wallace Dunn Yes Yes RECUSED Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 7-1 3 - 126 S Whitcomb - Proposal Does Not Meet Standards Rose Bello Michell Bredehoft Wallace Knierim Nelsen Murray Dunn Yes Yes (abstain)Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes recused Yes 8-0 5 - 711 Peterson - Proposal Does Not Meet Standards Murray Rose Bello Michell Bredehoft Wallace Knierim Nelsen Dunn Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8-1 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 12/16/2020 LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION THIS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD Please contact Gretchen Schiager at 970-224-6098 or gschiager@fcgov.com if you inadvertently end up with it. Thank you! Visitor Log [This meeting was conducted remotely. The Secretary filled out the visitor log.] DATE: 12/16/20 Name Mailing Address Email and/or Phone Reason for Attendance Tara Gaffney Item 3, 126 S. Whitcomb (owner) Mary Humstone Item 3, 126 S. Whitcomb (City consultant) Keith Churchill & Shannon Altenhofen Item 4, 140 N McKinley (owners) Kim Morton Item 5, 711 Peterson (architect) Richard Sadowske and Kim Dickson Item 5, 711 Peterson (owners) Meaghan Overton Item 6, Housing Strategic Plan (City Planner) Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 12-16-20 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1.Draft Minutes for the LPC November Hearing 2.Staff Design Review Decisions Report DISCUSSION AGENDA: 3.126 S Whitcomb Appeal •Staff presentation updated to answer work session questions (updated 12/15/20) •Att 8 - LPC Minutes from October 26, 2016 regarding 113 S Whitcomb - (added 12/15/20) •Staff report attachment list updated on 12/15/20 4.140 S. McKinley Design Review •Staff presentation updated to answer work session questions and update the map (updated 12/15/20) •Att 6 - Applicant responses to work session questions - (added 12/15/20) •Staff report attachment list updated on 12/15/20 5.711 Peterson Design Review •Att 4 - Site & Floor Plans (added 12/14/20) •Att 5 - 1998 Recon Form (added 12/14/20) •Staff Presentation – updated right before hearing 6.Housing Strategic Plan None EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 5 A Photos presented by Applicant 6 A Staff Presentation 6 B Draft Evaluation Framework & Criteria 6 C Draft List of Strategies 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 126 S. Whitcomb St. Appeal of Staff Design Review 10/14/20 Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 16, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the November 18, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC November 18, 2020 Minutes – DRAFT Packet Pg. 5 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 1 November 18, 2020 Meg Dunn, Chair Location: Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair This meeting was held Michael Bello remotely via Zoom. Mollie Bredehoft Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Jim Rose Regular Meeting November 18, 2020 Minutes •CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. [Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home and not gather, all Commission members, staff, and citizens attended the meeting remotely, via teleconference.] •ROLL CALL PRESENT:Bello, Bredehoft, Dunn, Knierim, Nelsen,Wallace, Rose ABSENT:Murray, Michell STAFF:McWilliams,Bzdek, Bertolini, Yatabe,Schiager •THANKSGIVING Chair Dunn discussed the Commission's appreciation of the Cameron Peak Fire Fighters' efforts to save historic structures. She discussed some historic structures that were lost in the fire as well as the many that were saved in the Poudre Canyon area. She also noted the YMCA camp in Estes Park and the Bobcat Ridge buildings were saved. •AGENDA REVIEW There were no changes to the posted agenda. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 2 November 18, 2020 •CONSENT AGENDA REVIEW No items were pulled from the consent agenda. •STAFF REPORTS None. •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •CONSENT AGENDA 1.CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2020 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 21, 2020 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Bello moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Consent Agenda of the November 18, 2020 regular meeting as presented. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7-0. •DISCUSSION AGENDA 2.STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES DESCRIPTION: Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, with issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness or a SHPO report under Chapter 14, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code. This item is a report of all such review decisions since the last regular meeting of the Commission. Ms. Bzdek provided a brief explanation of the report. 3.ALPINE BANK (1608, 1610, 1618 S COLLEGE) – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DESCRIPTION: Proposed redevelopment of 1608, 1610, and 1618 S College for Alpine Bank project, requiring demolition of two non-historic resources and onsite relocation of one historic resource, which would require approval of a modification of standards in section 3.4.7 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. Development site is in the General Commercial (GC) zone district, and the decision maker for this Type 1 Review will be a hearing officer. APPLICANT: Zell Cantrell, Galloway Ms. Bredehoft recused herself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She reviewed the project location at the southeast corner of College and Prospect, noting it was originally developed as a residential block, and discussed surrounding properties at the intersection. She noted the properties at 1608 and 1618 South College are being proposed for demolition and the craftsman-style home at 1610 South College is being proposed to be moved to the south and adaptively reused as part of the development plan. Ms. Bzdek stated the applicant is proposing the construction of a 2-story, 7,800 square-foot bank building with an associated drive-up teller and ATM component. Additionally, improvements to the northbound deceleration lane will be required as will the installation of a tree lawn and detached sidewalk. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 3 November 18, 2020 Regarding the property at 1618, the intensive-level site survey completed by the independent professional surveyor did not show the property rose to the level of individual significance for a Fort Collins Landmark designation and expressed concern about the loss of integrity of the property. Ms. Bzdek stated the property at 1610 South College did receive a determination of eligibility and is being treated under the review process moving forward as a historic resource on the redevelopment site. She discussed the history of the structure and its features and alterations over time. Ms. Bzdek stated there are two primary areas for the Commission to consider for its conceptual review comments: the review following the Secretary of the Interior standards of the proposed treatment for historic resources, and the design compatibility analysis under the Land Use Code requirements in Section 3.4.7. She also noted the applicant has applied for a modification of standard to move the building on the site and discussed how modifications are considered. Applicant Presentation Zell Cantrell, Galloway, introduced the team members in attendance: Ben Van Hoose, Alpine Bank local branch president; Glen Davis, Alpine Bank Chief Retail Officer; and Todd Goulding, development consultant. Mr. Cantrell gave the Applicant presentation and detailed the proposed project and associated intersection and sidewalk improvements. He stated relocating the historic resource not only allows for the site to be redeveloped functionally, but also allows for some historical context to be created and for the formation of a proper foundation for the building. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Rose asked when the house was repainted to the existing colors. Ms. Bzdek replied she would investigate that detail. Mr. Rose commented on the more contemporary color choice. Ms. Nelsen noted the applicant had mentioned complementing the existing colors of the house with the proposed design. Mr. Cantrell replied they are currently working with materials that will both complement the house and work within the Midtown Plan. He asked if the Commission has a preference on materials and colors and whether they are meaningful in this situation. Mr. Rose replied it is significant and commented on the original painting of the structure likely being whitewashed. He stated it would not be inappropriate to revert to the original color scheme. Chair Dunn questioned whether the gable shingles were likely stained wood. Mr. Rose speculated they were likely painted at some point in order to preserve them. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed use of the building after its relocation. Mr. Cantrell replied they have yet to make a final determination on its use, but stated it could continue to be used commercially or be returned to a residential use, though that may not be feasible given the location. Ms. Nelsen asked how the grading will be managed for the relocation. Mr. Cantrell replied the grading across the site is similar from north to south; however, the fall from west to east is less than he originally thought. He stated the team is trying to determine whether the garage can be relocated or incorporated into a new foundation. Chair Dunn commented on the garage door not being original; therefore, a different door could be used, and it does not necessarily need to be operable. Mr. Rose agreed and stated the opening would be the most important part of preserving the garage. Mr. Knierim agreed that is a creative way to keep the integrity of the look and would meet the standards. Ms. Nelsen stated that while she likes the idea of showcasing the door, she is not sure it is essential to the overall building and its role in the community. She expressed concern with marked changes to the grading that would change the proportions of the door. Mr. Cantrell stated a non-operational door would be much more conducive to flood control and stated his team could determine a creative solution. Ms. Nelsen stated that is an acceptable solution as long as the proportions of the opening are maintained. Mr. Bello stated he does not see the opening as a character-defining feature and stated it could be eliminated altogether. Mr. Rose stated the interior layout may be critical in knowing if the garage was the original function. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 4 November 18, 2020 Mr. Van Hoose stated he has been inside the structure and he does not recall there being access from the garage structure to the home. Ms. Bzdek noted the intensive-level site form identifies the garage structure as an original feature with an altered opening, though it is not a typical craftsman feature. Ms. Nelsen noted the public is going to have much more interaction with the rear of the building given the proposed site plan, which would be another factor in considering the preservation of the opening. Chair Dunn stated the Commission would definitely want to know how it will be treated if moved. Chair Dunn asked if the brick foundation skirt is original noting it would be an important feature to preserve if so. She asked about the plans for reusing the sandstone at the Lewan and Vern's buildings. Mr. Cantrell replied there is not an option to incorporate it into the new building, however it could be incorporated into some site features such as the plaza to the south. He noted it could be made available for people to salvage to ensure it is not wasted. Chair Dunn requested Commission input regarding the applicant's rationale for the modification of standard that would allow moving the building. Mr. Rose stated there is rationale for moving it for several reasons, particularly as it would encourage rehabilitation by securing the foundation. He stated moving the house further to the south gives it a bit more of a residential setting given the required deceleration lane. Mr. Knierim agreed with Mr. Rose and noted the building would only be moved a short distance. Ms. Wallace commented on the points of integrity, noting the short move helps to maintain integrity. Chair Dunn stated that while it may not be nominal to move a building, it does end up being inconsequential in this case as the setting was already altered and the proposed changes help to retain the setting better than if it were left in the current location. Mr. Rose commented on the need to research how the back porch is configured relative to the house itself, noting it is not of the craftsman style. He also commented on saving the bricks as part of the building's foundation when relocated. Mr. Bello asked if salvaging the brick goes contrary to providing an indication of representing a true craftsman construction type. Mr. Rose replied there is no agreed-upon taxonomy of a craftsman style and stated, if the brick is original, it is a unique part of this structure making it all the more important to save. He stated there is no need to recreate a museum quality craftsman. Chair Dunn commented on the importance of landmarking properties that are uniquely Fort Collins. Chair Dunn stated the porch could remain as is. Ms. Nelsen encouraged replacement in-kind of any damaged stairs or railings. Chair Dunn requested Commission input on landscaping. Mr. Rose supported the placement of as much green space as possible around the relocated home, though stated it does not need to be lavish per the historic photos. Chair Dunn requested Commission input on the new construction. Ms. Nelsen asked about the proposed materials. Mr. Cantrell replied they are considering a primarily brick or stone base in concert with the Midtown Plan criteria. Chair Dunn noted the sandstone in the other two buildings could potentially be used and the local sandstone is quite hard. She supported the use of the brick, however. Ms. Nelsen supported the use of any sturdy material for the base. She commented on the modern interpretation of the craftsman approach for the new building and stated the porch is nice from a massing standpoint. Mr. Cantrell stated Alpine Bank has yet to build the same building twice and they have been excited about the craftsman style. Mr. Davis commented on the bank’s strong historical sensibility and appreciation for craftsman design. He stated Alpine Bank tries to reflect the communities it serves. He commented on the repurposing of buildings for its banks in Snowmass Village and Basalt. Mr. Rose noted the craftsman style is purely residential in America; however, he appreciated the scale, respect for materials, fenestration, window placement, and residential vocabulary. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 5 November 18, 2020 Ms. Bzdek explained the next steps in the process for the applicant noting they will be returning before the Commission for a recommendation. Mr. Cantrell stated this will be a Type I review and he is about two weeks from submitting an initial PDP application. He anticipated coming back before the Commission early in 2021. Chair Dunn stated the proposed design is definitely moving in the right direction and she commended the welcoming, pedestrian-friendly design. Mr. Van Hoose and Mr. Davis thanked the Commission for their time. Ms. Bredehoft returned to the meeting. [Secretary's Note: The Commission took a short break at this time. A roll call was conducted upon return to confirm all were present.] 4. HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT OF FORT COLLINS WATER WORKS-FORT COLLINS WATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 1 DESCRIPTION: Ashley Russell from RATIO Humphries Poli Architects will provide a short presentation on the highlights from the HSA report. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek briefly explained the project, noting a grant was received from the State Historical Fund in 2019 to conduct the historic structure assessment of the treatment plant, which was recently completed. Ms. Bzdek noted the Water Works is a complex of buildings that sits in what is now Gateway Natural Area and all buildings were constructed between 1910 and 1955. She noted the property is also home to a seasonal little brown bat population and explained it is not eligible to be a Fort Collins Landmark as it is outside the city's growth management area; however, it is eligible for listing on the National Register. Ms. Bzdek introduced the consultant, Ashley Russell, to summarize the results of the historic structure assessment, Mark McLean from Operations Services who is responsible for the management plan for the buildings, and Jenny Roberts from Natural Areas who oversees the bat research at the site. Consultant Report Ms. Russell discussed the site location and its history. She showed photos and detailed conditions of the buildings. She stated the treatment plant retains excellent integrity overall and has the ability to be repurposed for public use, though that would require a change in occupancy. Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Nelsen commended Ms. Russell’s work and presentation. She asked about the hazardous materials that were mentioned. Mr. McLean replied asbestos and lead paint were found in the buildings. Chair Dunn asked if hazardous materials need to be dealt with if a building is to be moth-balled or if that only needs to occur if a building is set to be reused. Mr. McLean replied some of the work would need to be done if the building is moth-balled as there is some asbestos on window glazing; however, the interior hazardous materials could be addressed if the building were to be repurposed. Chair Dunn asked about the bat colony. Ms. Roberts replied there are a number of research organizations interested in the bat roost and noted it is the largest know maternity roost for little brown bats, at least in Northern Colorado, though they hibernate elsewhere. The bats are at this location from mid-April through September. Chair Dunn asked if work would need to occur outside those months. Ms. Roberts replied that would be the best practice. She went on to detail the research being done on the bat population. Ms. Nelsen asked about the best way to proceed with the roost. Ms. Roberts replied the best option would be to secure the 1910 portion of the building for the bats as attempting to relocate them is risky as this species does not necessarily readily take to alternative structures. Chair Dunn asked how moth-balling would affect the building's environment for the bats. Ms. Roberts replied anything that affects air flow, temperature, humidity, or the ceiling structure could have negative impacts. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFTLandmark Preservation Commission Page 6 November 18, 2020 Chair Dunn asked about the future of the building and how priorities would be determined. Mr. McLean replied he would like to think that portion of the building could be reserved for the bats moving forward regardless of the future use of the property. Ms. Bzdek replied Historic Preservation staff has taken the stance of providing assistance from a technical and planning standpoint to consider potential solutions while ensuring no possibilities are ignored. She stated staff would like to see the most critical issues addressed per the assessment and would like the City to be able to leverage support from the State Historical Fund. She stated this assessment work has provided a good foundation for addressing the next phases. Chair Dunn commented on the need for the historical plan to match with the ecological plan. Ms. Russell commented on the need to research how moth-balling would impact air flow and temperature. Staff discussed funding constraints and possible paths forward for the buildings. • OTHER BUSINESS None. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on ___12/18/20_________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 16, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, NOVEMBER 5 TO DECEMBER 2, 2020 STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION Staff is tasked with reviewing projects and, in cases where the project can be approved without submitting to the Landmark 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 November 5 to December 2, 2020. There is no staff presentation this month. Property Address Description of Project Staff Decision Date of Decision 1645 Sheely Dr. Rooftop solar on rear (south) roof slope. Contributing property to Sheely Drive Landmark District. Reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Approved Nov. 9, 2020 308 E. Garfield St. Rear porch covering. Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District. Reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) Nov. 9, 2020 712 Peterson St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District. Reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) Nov. 10, 2020 614 Whedbee St. Revision of previously submitted plans; successful asbestos siding remediation and reveal of intact lapboard siding. Roof replacement (from asphalt shingle to standing seam metal). Roof treatment documented as not meeting Standards. Reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) Nov. 16, 2020 1205 Remington St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District. Reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) Nov. 17, 2020 Packet Pg. 12 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 2 335 Edwards St. In-kind roof replacement (asphalt shingle). Contributing property to Laurel School Historic District. Reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Approved (report issued) Nov. 17, 2020 225 Maple St. In-kind roof replacement (TPO membrane), flat- roofed garage buildings. City Landmark. Reviewed under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Approved Nov. 23, 2020 Packet Pg. 13 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 16, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 126 S. WHITCOMB ST: APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION ON DESIGN REVIEW (CONTINUANCE FROM OCTOBER 2020) STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION: This item is a continuance from October’s Regular Meeting. The item is to consider the appeal of a staff design review decision for 126. S. Whitcomb Street. The applicant is proposing demolition of the historic 1932 garage and replacement with a new 1.5 story garage on its location. Staff denied the request on August 25, 2020, and the owner filed an appeal on August 26, 2020. Staff decisions may be appealed to the Landmark Preservation Commission. APPELLANT: Tara Gaffney (Property Owner) LPC’S ROLE: Section 14-55 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code establishes that “staff denial of a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to Sec. 14-53 may be appealed to the Commission by the applicant.” In this hearing, the Commission shall consider an appeal of the staff decision for the proposed project at 126 S. Whitcomb St., based on the provided evidence from the 2013 Landmark District nomination, the applicant’s design review application, their request for an appeal, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the Municipal Code 14, Article IV and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for its decision. Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Section 14-9). BACKGROUND The primary Cunningham property dwelling was built in c.1904 as part of the 1873 Avery plat, the original townsite for Fort Collins. The property has remained in residential use since that time. The property has been modified since that time, including a 1927 remodel for room on the second floor and a porch, the 1932 construction of the frame garage, a 1940 re-roofing, and the 1946 enlargement of a chicken house that was on the property. Later projects include new roofs in 1973 and 2002. January-May 2020: The previous owner engaged staff and applied for Design Assistance Program (DAP) funds to scope a rear addition to the main house and rehabilitation/addition options for the garage. Staff engaged engineer Geoff Robinson to assess not only load-bearing issues for the main house, but also the feasibility of correcting the lean on the 1932 garage, stabilizing it from future deterioration, and constructing an addition on its rear/east elevation. Mr. Geoff Robinson provided that analysis in May of 2020 and determined the garage could be easily Packet Pg. 14 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 corrected, some shear strength added to prevent further deterioration, and an addition to the rear would help provide stability. July 2020: New owner (Ms. Gaffney) contacts the office with initial drawings for a new garage and demolition of the existing garage. Staff responds that there are alternatives, provides DAP materials, and guidance from Zoning about the dimensions of the new garage proposal. August 19, 2020: Ms. Gaffney submits a design review application pursuant to Municipal Code 14-53 to demolish the 1932 garage and construct the new garage on its location. August 25, 2020: Staff denies the application based on the findings that the garage is a contributing resource to the Landmark District, demolition of contributing resources does not meet the SOI Standards, and that a feasible alternative to achieve the desired program is likely available via the DAP product from May. August 26, 2020: Ms. Gaffney submits an appeal to Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Based on pandemic-related justification for the project in the appeal, staff requested an exception to Ordinance No. 079, 2020. On September 15, 2020, Council adopted an exception to Ordinance No. 079, 2020 that included explicit permission for an appeal of this staff decision to come forward to the LPC for consideration. October 7, 2020: The appeal of the determination of eligibility was publicly posted with historic review underway signs on the properties, in The Coloradoan, and on the City website. October 21, 2020: LPC voted to continue the item and tasked staff to engage a third-party historian to assess the status of secondary/accessory structures in relation to the Whitcomb Street Historic District. November 3, 2020: Staff engages Humstone Consulting (Mary Humstone) for research addressing the LPC’s questions from the October meeting. December 1, 2020: Ms. Humstone completes results for consideration at December LPC meeting. STAFF ANALYSIS AND DECISION The analysis and decision by staff is documented in the attached Denial for the Certificate of Appropriateness. RELEVANT CODES AND PROCESSES FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Sec. 14-54 (a)(3-4). – Commission design review and issuance of reports. (a)(3) Alterations to Fort Collins Landmarks Meeting the Standards. If the Commission determines that a proposed alteration to a Fort Collins landmark or resource(s) within a Fort Collins landmark district, contributing or non-contributing, meets the Standards, the Commission shall approve the application and issue a certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall include, but not be limited to, a statement that the requested alterations have been approved pursuant to this Article, the date of approval, a copy of the design review application and the plans and specifications being approved. a. The proposed alteration shall not commence until the Commission has issued the certificate of appropriateness and the applicant has obtained all applicable permits, subject to §14-52. Alterations shall conform to the plans and specifications that the Commission approved in connection with issuance of the certificate of appropriateness or the report and deviations from such plans and specifications shall not occur unless such changes are first submitted to and approved by the Commission in the same manner as the original application. If non- Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 conforming alterations are made, the City may issue a stop work order, refuse to finalize any issued permit, refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy, refuse to issue additional City permits, and take any other available action, or any combination of the aforementioned, until the applicant has applied for and received approval for the non-conforming alteration. If the non-conforming alteration is not approved, the applicant shall restore the site, structure, or object to conform with the approved plans and specifications or to the original condition of the site, structure, or object prior to any alteration occurring. b. A certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of issuance and, thereafter, may be extended for one (1) additional year provided the Commission determines that the proposed alteration continues to comply with the Standards. To be eligible for such extension, the Commission must receive an extension request on forms provided by staff accompanied by all required information at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the certificate of appropriateness. (4) Alterations to Local Landmarks Not Meeting the Standards. If the Commission determines that a proposed alteration to a Fort Collins landmark or resource(s) within a Fort Collins landmark district, contributing or non-contributing, does not meet the Standards, the Commission shall deny the application and inform the applicant in writing of the specific reasons for such denial. a. Upon denial of the application, the Director shall deny the application for a building or other permit associated with the proposed alterations and shall inform the applicant of such denial. b. No application shall be resubmitted pursuant to this Section under the original plans and specifications denied by the Commission except upon a showing of change circumstances sufficient to justify the resubmittal. SAMPLE MOTIONS If the Commission determines that the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project, according to the standards outlined in Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings on how the project meets the Standards]. If the Commission determines that the proposed project conditionally meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project, according to the standards outlined in Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings on how the project meets the Standards], subject to the following conditions: [insert conditions]. If the Commission determines that the proposed project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, it may propose a motion based on the following: “I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission denies a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project, according to the standards outlined in Section 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 Code, based on the following findings of fact: [insert findings on how the project does not meet the Standards]. Note: The Commission may propose other wording for the motion based on its evaluation of the application. ATTACHMENTS 1.Excerpt from 2013 Whitcomb Street Landmark District Nomination Form a.Full nomination is available online, here: https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/files/whitcomb-street-district- nomination-2013.pdf?1583529711 2.Staff Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness a.Includes Design Review application and supplemental information from applicant 3.Engineer’s Report from DAP program 4.Appeal memorandum 5.Report from Humstone Consulting regarding secondary/accessory structures in the District 6.Applicant Presentation from October hearing 7.Staff Presentation 8.LPC Minutes from October 26, 2016 (previous modification for 113 S. Whitcomb, for reference) (added 12/15/20) Packet Pg. 17 City of ktColli~ Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O . Box580 Fort Collins , CO 80522 .0580 Fort Collins Landmark District Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: District Name: Whitcomb Street Historic District, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Legal Description: See attached Boundary Discription and Exhibits for legal description of the proposed district. Boundary includes all residences and associated ancillary buildings described in this report, falling within the described boundary. CLASSIFICATION Category Designation D Building D Structure D Site D Object rg) District Ownership D Public rg) Private FORM PREPARED BY: Status rg) Occupied D Unoccupied Name and Title: Kevin Murray, Owner, Empire Surveys Address: PO Box 245, Bellvue, Colorado 80512 Phone: (970) 493-3499 Email: empire @verinet.com Present Use D Commercial D Educational D Religious rg) Residential D Entertainment D Government D Other Relationship to Owner: Neighbor and owner of 117 South Whitcomb DATE: August 8, 2012 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES D Individual Landmark Property Explanation of Boundaries: rg) Landmark District Existing D Nat'l Register D State Register The boundaries of the area being proposed as the Whitcomb Street Historic District correspond to the legal description attached to this document. This Fort Collins Landmark District will encompass fourteen properties, which together form a cohesive unit historically, architecturally, and developmentally associated with the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street. The proposed district is generally bound on the north by Mountain Avenue, on the south by Oak Street, and by alleys on the east and west sides. Revised 09-2004 Page 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 18 SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: [gl Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; [gl Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; [gl Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; D Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history . STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Whitcomb Street Historic District is historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 1, for its association with the development and social history of Fort Collins . Research into the property owners and tenants indicate that this block is particularly reflective of upper middle class domestic life in Fort Collins . This association with early prominent residents, such as Aaron Kitchel, Horace Garbutt, and Stewart C. Case, makes the district significant under Fort Collins Landmark Stnadard 2. Additionally, a prevalence of the residential dwellings within the district, as well as the individually designated Queen Anne residence at 601 West Mountain Avenue, are architecturally significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard 3. The proposed landmark district provides a representative collection of Late 19th and Early 20th Century one-and two-story residences, with an eclectic mix of Queen Anne and Crattsman architecture, as well as a few Minimal Traditional dwellings. The periord of significance dates from the oldest construction, in 1889, to the newest built in 1940 on the last subdivided lot. During this span of dates, especially between the period from 1900 to 1930, the city experienced unparalleled growth and prosperity, which necessitated a rapid expansion in land annexation and residential construction. The builders of the Whitcomb Street residences designed these homes for upper middle class families. Mmiy of these homes were ispired by the high-style architectural details of adjacent houses on Mountain Avenue, but they understood that modesty in size and style did not mean loss of comfort or individualistic details. The residents, too, as they moved in and out of the neighborhood, perhaps also looked at those houses and aspired to a corresponding higher socio-economic standard . The range of occupants is reflective of the social and demographic changes during the first decades of the 20tli century. Many of the early residents were locally prominent, including Aaron Kitchel, Horace Garbutt, and Stewart C. Case, while later residents were a mix of owners and renters who had a variety of occupations, such as salesmen, clerks, butchers, mechanics, and students. The changes continue today, as most of the original homes have now been restored to single-family, owner-occupied dwellings, prized once again for their historic character and their proximity to the traditional center of the city. The proposed district is an important example of a residential neighborhood in the core of Fort Collins that has evolved with the times, yet managed to retain, mostly intact, its historic character. Revised 09-2004 Page 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 126 South Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Legal Description: NORTH 1/2 OF LOT 8, LESS PART LY EAST OF DITCH, BLOCK 71, FORT COLLINS Property Name (historic and/or common): Cunningham Residence and garage OWNER INFORMATION: Name: John and Amy Volckens Phone: (919) 225-9881 Email: jv@volkens.com Address: 126 South Whitcomb St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 CLASSIFICATION Category Designation D Building D Structure D Site D Object ~ District Ownership D Public ~ Private HISTORICAL INFORMATION Status ~ Occupied D Unoccupied Present Use D Commercial D Educational D Religious ~ Residential D Entertainment D Government D Other Existing D Nat'l Register D State Register The first residents listed at 126 South Whitcomb are John and Rosanna Cunningham in 1904. In 1910, bookkeeper Clarence Moody was listed at the residence. J.E. and May Kircher were residents in 1913. By 1917, students of Colorado Agricultural College move in to the residence. In 1922, Professor William L. Burnett moves in with Eva, Raymond, Lois, and Grandma Rose. They stay until 1938. Burnett would become State Entomologist and the Curator of the Colorado Agricultural College Museum. He is responsible for a remodel in 1927 and a frame garage in 1932. In 1940, the Luggs are listed but a permit to reroof is filed by W. E. Schlect for the residence. Schlect was listed as the owner but may have simply been the contractor for the project. George, a carpenter, and Martha Earley are residents for 20 years. In 1946, George enlarged the chicken house. The Wallace family moves in from 1964 to 1966. From 1968 until 1980, Dorothy Jennings and her children are listed, and she reroofs the house in 1973. From 1980 until 1983, the house was used as an engineer's office. Primarily, students are residents until the current owners bought the house. At different times, there are apartments listed on the main floor, the second floor, and in the basement. In 2002, Marc L. and Mary E. Teets reroofed the house and replaced the furnace in 2005. Revised 09-2004 Page 36 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1893 Architect/Builder: Building Materials: Wood Frame, stone Architectural Style: Queen Anne Description: This Queen Anne;: residence is a roughly square, one and one half story, wood frame structure with an asphalt shingle, hipped roof. Roof features include intersecting cross gables, cornice returns on the gables, wide overhanging boxed eaves, and some guttering over the porch. It has a stone foundation, parged over, and asbestos siding. Wood fishscale shingles are found underneath the gable. The main fac;ade is broken into three bays and contains an entrance to the south. The one story, partial-width inset porch has overhanging eaves, two columns, and a wooden railing. The door is a modem aluminum door flanked by a non-historic hexagonal window, and there is a large fixed pane picture window to the north under the prominent front-facing gable. In the upper part of the gable is a single one-over-one double- hung window. The south elevation had two one-over-one double hung windows and a single one-over-one double-hung window in the cross gable, which is clad in wood fishscale shingles. The east elevation features two one- over-one double-hung windows, one with six lights and one with four lights. The back entryway has a pyramidal shed porch with two four-by-four support posts. There is a modem aluminum door with a fixed six-light window and two skylights in the roof. The north elevation has four one-over-one double- hung windows. A shed dormer is covered in wood fishscale siding and features two one-over-one double-hung windows. There are two chimneys present. A small front gabled one stall garage is situated to the rear of the northern elevation. It has lapped wood siding and hinged solid doors. The ornate Queen Anne, a subset of the Victorian period, was popular in Colorado between 1880 and 1910. This residence features typical hipped roof with cross gables, overhanging eaves, and pattern shingles. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES ofINFORMATION (attach a separate sheet if needed) Architectural Inventory Form, October 2005. Recorder: R Graham City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. Building Permit Files. 10/3/1927; permit #1826; owner: Burnett, W.L.; permit to remodel 10/8/1932; permit #3390; owner: Burnett, W.L.; permit to build frame garage 9/3/1940; permit #6325; owner: Schlect, W.E.; permit to reroof 6/14/1946; permit #9244; owner: Early, George; permit to enlarge chicken house 5/31/1973; permit #20067; owner: Dorothy Jennings; contractor: Frank Neckel; permit to reroof 9/16/2002; permit #B0205812; owner: Teets, Marc L/Mary E; subcontractor: R&T Roofing; permit to reroof 2/14/2005; permit #B0500664; owner: Teets, Marc L/Mary E; subcontractor: Yeti Mechanical; permit to replace furnace City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. City Directories: 1902 through 2004. History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Queen Anne." Accessed June 14, 2012. http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/queen-anne. Revised 09-2004 Page 37 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21 Revised 09-2004 Page 38 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 22 r ~ ~ l ~ ~ I I i ~ .c: s: 8 i1 i5 0 ·15 li I en i ,g ~ g> c C .. ii: ~ t f ::, i ! .. C. i ·c ATTACHMENT 2 E~HIBIT OF WHITCOMB STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT SHOWING ADDRESSES MOUNTAIN @) ~ @ I- (/) C) I\ @ *-I<\, m ~ c., ALLEY C) 0 " (@) ~ 0 I- @ - I I @ 3: @ (ffi) 0 A K JULY 23, 2012 1"=100' THIS EXHIBITS SOLE INTENT IS TO GRAPHICALLY REPRESENT PROPERTY ADDRESSES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED WHITCOMB STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY AS DEFINED IN C.R.S. 38-51-102. I @ @ @ @ @ ® S T . AV E . ._ " . \ *-c., <...: " ~ / @ INDICATES STREET ADDRESS i---------------------------------------0, ill di ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 23 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - DENIAL DENIED: August 25, 2020 APPEAL DEADLINE: September 8, 2020 (due to holiday on 9/7) Tara Berglund-Gaffney 126 S. Whitcomb Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ms. Berglund-Gaffney: This letter provides you with confirmation that the proposed changes to your property at 126 S. Whitcomb Street, a contributing property in the Whitcomb Street Landmark District, have been denied by the City’s Historic Preservation Division because the proposed work does not meet the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. 1) Demolition of the historic 1932 one-bay garage northeast of the main house. 2) Construction of a new 1.5 story garage northeast of the main house. The decision has been made based on the analysis contained in the table below. Property owners can appeal staff design review decisions by filing a written notice of appeal to the Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services within fourteen (14) days of this decision. If you have any questions regarding this denial, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at jbertolini@fcgov.com, or 970-416-4250. Sincerely, Jim Bertolini Historic Preservation Planner Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis (Rehabilitation) Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property would remain in residential use without substantial modifications to the primary historic residence. Y ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 24 -2- 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 Whitcomb Street Landmark District was designated in 2013 under Standards 1, 2, and 3 as an important concentration of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century residential development in Fort Collins. The District’s resources span the period from 1889 and 1940, including the Cunningham property at 126 S. Whitcomb constructed in c.1904 with the garage added in 1932. While not the primary resource on most historic properties, the addition of automobile garages to middle-class dwellings in the 1910s-1930s reflects the dramatic cultural and commercial shift from a primarily horse- and rail-driven transportation infrastructure to an automobile one over the first quarter of the twentieth century. Garages, especially when constructed during an historic district’s period of historical recognition, are considered significant alterations in their own right and help define the overall historic character of the property. They usually should be preserved and in this case, demolition does not meet this Standard. N 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. All proposed alterations would be clearly distinguishable as new. The proposed new garage includes modern window and door treatments and a slab foundation that avoid any false sense of history if it were to be constructed. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. As noted under Standard 2, the garage, constructed in 1932, is an historic alteration in its own right and should be preserved. Its proposed demolition does not meet this Standard. N SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. As noted under Standard 2, the 1932 garage is a distinctive, if less articulate, feature of the site and should be preserved to meet this Standard. N ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 25 -3- 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. As evidenced by the engineer’s report for this garage dated May 27, 2020, using Design Assistance Program funds, the garage does have some structural weaknesses. However, that report identified simple stabilization, correction, and reinforcement techniques that could keep the garage standing and facilitate an addition onto its rear to expand storage/work space. The proposed demolition and replacement garage does not meet this Standard. N SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The expected depth of excavation to clear and replace the existing concrete slab is not to a depth to reach undisturbed soils that may contain significant archaeological information. 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. The proposed new garage construction requires the demolition of the 1932 garage which is, as noted previously, a distinctive feature of the property. Because of that project element, it does not meet this Standard. But for the demolition of the historic garage, the new proposed garage does appear to be sufficiently compatible with, distinguishable from, and subordinate to, the historic residence. It uses similar cladding materials to the original house (shingles and lapboard), and is lower than the historic house, being secondary in massing and scale, establishing compatibility. It utilizes modern window and door treatments to help distinguish it as new construction. But for the demolition of the historic garage, the new garage would meet this Standard. N ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 26 -4- 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. As noted under Standard 9, because this project proposes the demolition/deconstruction of the historic 1932 garage, it does not meet this Standard. But for the demolition of the historic structure, the proposed new garage would be completely separate from the primary historic residence and would not affect the primary resource’s historic integrity. N ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 27 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 28 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 29 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 30 8383835555((((((6666(( 64)7 ; /,9,1*$5($*$5$*( 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&.VW)ORRU'+835555(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ ; *$5$*( 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&.VW)ORRU'+5555(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ 64)7/,9,1*$5($'(&.QG)ORRU6RXWK:KLWFRPE6W)RUW&ROOLQV&26+((7 6&$/( '5$:,1*63529,'('%< '(6&5,37,21'$7( %< '$7(12352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 6+((77,7/( *DUDJH$*$5$*(1766DYDQW+RPHV,QF &+ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 31 6RXWK:KLWFRPE6W)RUW&ROOLQV&26+((7 6&$/( '5$:,1*63529,'('%< '(6&5,37,21'$7( %< '$7(12352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 6+((77,7/( *DUDJH$1766DYDQW+RPHV,QF6&$/( 5($56&$/( /()76&$/( &20326,7('(&.,1*6,',1*;3267$63+$/76+,1*/(6ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 32 8383835555((((((6666(( 64)7 ; /,9,1*$5($*$5$*( 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&.VW)ORRU'+835555(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ ; *$5$*( 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&. 6(7%$&.VW)ORRU'+5555(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ66&URVV6HFWLRQ(((OHYDWLRQ 64)7/,9,1*$5($'(&.QG)ORRU6RXWK:KLWFRPE6W)RUW&ROOLQV&26+((7 6&$/( '5$:,1*63529,'('%< '(6&5,37,21'$7( %< '$7(12352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 6+((77,7/( *DUDJH$*$5$*(1766DYDQW+RPHV,QF &+ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 33 6RXWK:KLWFRPE6W)RUW&ROOLQV&26+((7 6&$/( '5$:,1*63529,'('%< '(6&5,37,21'$7( %< '$7(12352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 6+((77,7/( *DUDJH$1766DYDQW+RPHV,QF6&$/( 5($56&$/( /()76&$/( &20326,7('(&.,1*6,',1*;3267$63+$/76+,1*/(6ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 34 6RXWK:KLWFRPE6W)RUW&ROOLQV&26+((7 6&$/( '5$:,1*63529,'('%< '(6&5,37,21'$7( %< '$7(12352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 6+((77,7/( *DUDJH$1766DYDQW+RPHV,QF6&$/( ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 35 6RXWK:KLWFRPE6W)RUW&ROOLQV&26+((7 6&$/( '5$:,1*63529,'('%< '(6&5,37,21'$7( %< '$7(12352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 6+((77,7/( *DUDJH$6DYDQW+RPHV,QF176&52666(&7,216&$/( ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 36 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 37 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 38 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 39 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 40 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 41 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 42 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 43 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 44 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 45 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 46 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Pg. 47 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 48 Supplementary Historic Resource Survey for the Whitcomb Street Landmark District Submitted to Historic Preservation Services City of Fort Collins Mary M. Humstone December 1, 2020 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 49 1 Introduction This report is submitted in response to the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Services Scope of Work – Supplementary Historic Resource Survey for the Whitcomb Street Landmark District (October 27, 2020). The report documents garages and other secondary features in the Whitcomb Street Landmark District and provides criteria for determining how they contribute to the historic and architectural significance of the district. Methodology In preparation of this report, Consultant conducted a field survey of 13 properties in the Whitcomb Street Landmark District to 1) determine the location of and describe all garages and other outbuildings; 2) identify significant and character-defining landscape features; and 3) determine which secondary structures and landscape features contribute to the historic and architectural character of the district. The original 2013 Whitcomb Street Landmark District nomination form was examined, as well as pertinent information from other sources such as the Loomis Addition Historic Context. From the survey and supporting research, a methodology and basis for considering features contributing or non-contributing was developed, and character-defining features of contributing garages or other landscape features that support the areas of significance identified in the 2013 Landmark nomination were identified. Due to time constraints and insufficient property-owner contact information, the survey was conducted entirely from the public right-of-way. Background and Significance The 2013 nomination form for the Whitcomb Street Landmark District states that the district is: • historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 1, for its association with the development and social history of Fort Collins. The nomination states, “Research into the property owners and tenants indicate that this block is particularly reflective of upper middle-class domestic life in Fort Collins.” • significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 2 for its association with early prominent residents, “such as Aaron Kitchel, Horace Garbutt, and Stewart C. Case.” • architecturally significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 3 as “a representative collection of Late 19th and Early 20th Century one- and two-story residences, with an eclectic mix of Queen Anne and Craftsman architecture, as well as a few Minimal Traditional dwellings . . . These are not vernacular houses but planned structures with distinctive and careful architectural styling. Stylistic details such as the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 50 2 decorative brickwork, windows, and imbricated shingles show inspiration taken from the houses on Mountain Avenue, directly to the north of the Whitcomb neighborhood.” The statement of significance continues, “The proposed district is an important example of a residential neighborhood in the core of Fort Collins that has evolved with the times, yet managed to retain, mostly intact, its historic character.” The period of significance of the Whitcomb Street Landmark District “dates from the oldest construction, in 1889, to the newest built in 1940 on the last subdivided lot.”0F 1 Historical context for garages and other outbuildings Detailed information about garages and outbuildings in Fort Collins can be found in two reports on the Loomis Addition, a 16-block subdivision platted in 1887 which extends from Whitcomb to Washington and Laporte to Mulberry, thus encompassing the west side of the Whitcomb Street Landmark District. As noted in the Loomis Addition Historic Context (2015), while many houses in the neighborhood originally had barns, chicken coops and other accessory buildings on the alleys, the introduction of the automobile in the early 20th century made garages an almost necessary addition to the property. Automobile ownership nationwide and in Fort Collins increased exponentially in the first decades of the 20th century. At the same time, standardized house plans, such as those published in book form by the Gordon-Van Tine Company or in local newspapers by William Radford, began featuring houses with matching garages to appeal to automobile owners. As stated in the Loomis Addition Historic Context, “Many properties retain barns, sheds, and chicken coops, some of which match the house in overall design and materials . . . Garages range from small buildings designed to accommodate a Model T or Model A car to more modern, two-car structures.” The 1920s was a peak period for garage construction in the Loomis Addition, with 64 garages or barn-to-garage conversions during the decade. Garage construction continued through the 1940s. Garages were located behind the house, accessed either by the alley or via a narrow driveway from the road. 1F 2 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps began notating garages with an “A” for automobile in 1925. The 1943 Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows that almost every property in the Whitcomb Street Landmark District had an outbuilding, either on the alley or to the side and rear of the house. The Loomis Addition Survey (2017) of 282 properties in the Loomis Addition recorded 295 ancillary buildings, primarily garages but also barns, sheds and chicken houses. 1 Murray, Kevin. Whitcomb Street Historic District – Fort Collins Landmark District Nomination, 2013. 2 Humstone, Mary M. Loomis Addition Historic Context. Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program, 2015. Page 101. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 51 3 Significance of garages, outbuildings and secondary landscape features and criteria for determining contributing status While we tend to focus naturally on the house in a residential historic district, secondary features, including salient landscape features as well as secondary structures, greatly contribute to both the historic appearance of the neighborhood and its historic significance. Applying the standards by which the Whitcomb Street Landmark District was officially designated to these secondary features is the goal of this report. Secondary structures and landmark features are significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 1, association with the development and social history of Fort Collins, because they give a more complete picture of domestic life in the late 19th and 20th centuries, including changes such as the introduction of the automobile, and construction of garages and of curb cuts and driveways to supplement the original layout of alleys. Other ancillary buildings reflect a need for domestic or business-related storage or workshop space. Secondary buildings constructed during the period of significance (1889-1940) that have a historical association with the development and social history of Fort Collins, including broad changes such as the introduction of the automobile, are considered contributing to the District. Under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 2, association with early prominent residents, secondary structures constructed during the period of significance (1889-1940) by a prominent resident whose contributions to the community occurred while residing within the district, are considered contributing to the District. Under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 3, secondary structures constructed during the period of significance (1889-1940) that exhibit architectural features representative of late 19th and early 20th century domestic architecture, as designed by architects or pattern-book designers, are considered contributing to the District. Efforts to match the garage with the primary residence show design intent and contribute to significance. As noted under Standard 3 in the Historic District nomination, “The proposed district is an important example of a residential neighborhood in the core of Fort Collins that has evolved with the times, yet managed to retain, mostly intact, its historic character.” The fact that a secondary structure was added after the house was constructed does not preclude its being determined significant and contributing to the District. Secondary structures meeting the requirements above must also retain enough integrity (character-defining features) to contribute to the significance of the district. Character-defining features of garages and other outbuildings are: • A spatial and design relationship to the primary residence. • Overall form: early-to-mid-20th century garages are single bay or slightly larger, typically with a front-gable roof, with open or boxed eaves. • Materials: historic building materials may include wood, asphalt, and asbestos. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 52 4 • Doors and windows: doors are generally wood, and may be overhead or hinged, with or without lights. Windows are generally wood with a variety of light configurations. Survey Summary Fourteen secondary structures and landscape features on thirteen properties were surveyed on November 18,2020. Of these, seven secondary structures are considered contributing to the Whitcomb Street Landmark District. Address Type of Structure Date Contributing (Y/N) 105 S. Whitcomb None 108 S. Whitcomb Garage 1940 Y 112 S. Whitcomb Garage 1924 Y 113 S. Whitcomb Garage 2018 N 117 S. Whitcomb Ice House c. 1894 Y Shed Unknown N Storefront c. 1940 Y 118 S. Whitcomb Garage 2007 N Shed Unknown N 121 S. Whitcomb Garage 1947 N 125 S. Whitcomb Shed c. 1940 N 126 S. Whitcomb Garage 1932 Y 129 S. Whitcomb Garage 1928 Y 130 S. Whitcomb Garage 1920 Y 601 W. Mountain Garage 2011 N 612 W. Oak None General description and landscape features The Whitcomb Street Landmark District is a one-block long residential district, with most of the residences facing Whitcomb Street. The generous tree strip along both sides of the street is planted with mature trees and grass lawn, with a few exceptions. Most of the houses face Whitcomb Street, with front porches or stoops and with open front yards consisting of grass lawns or other plantings extending to the sidewalk. Front yards have various configurations of walkways and planting areas, with some use of river rock and other materials to outline planting beds, and some raised vegetable beds. Lots in the south portion of the block are approximately 50 feet wide and vary in length from 100 feet to 190 feet, while those in the north section are irregularly shaped. Most backyards are screened from adjoining yards and alleys by privacy fencing. Most properties have curb cuts and driveways directly off Whitcomb Street or Oak Street. The houses follow a similar setback from the street. While they vary in height from one to two stories (with most being one-and-a half stories), the scale of the houses, the uniform setback, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 53 5 the tree strips and sidewalks and the similarity in landscaping create a cohesive feel and appearance to the district. Character-defining landscape features are: • Concrete sidewalks • Front walks that extend to the curb (south section only) • Tree strips with mature trees (approximately 12’-wide) • Curb cuts and driveways • Open (unfenced) front yards • Uniform setback of houses Actual landscaping of front and back yards as well as backyard fencing are constantly changing and do not significantly impact the historic character of the district. Individual yardscapes are described below. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 54 6 Property Descriptions 105 S Whitcomb (1921): No garage exists on the property. Landscaping: A walk leads to the front stoop from the sidewalk. The front yard is grass lawn, with some foundation plantings. 108 S Whitcomb (1940) Garage (1940): A single-car garage measuring 20'x 12' is situated to the northeast of the house, facing west, accessed from Whitcomb Street by a concrete driveway. Its exterior matches the residence in both material and color. It has an asphalt-shingled, front-gabled roof with cropped eaves and a single wood garage door with twelve lights over six vertical panels. While the 1940 building permit for the house does not mention a garage, the appearance of both on the 1943 Sanborn map and the design of the garage suggest that it was built at the same time as the house. The garage complements the design of the house and is typical of a small garage of the pre-World War 2 period. Contributing. Landscaping consists of foundation plantings of shrubs and a grass front lawn. A low picket fence runs along the south property line. 112 S Whitcomb (1921) Note: The nomination form gives a date of 1921 for the house. However, the building permits for the house and garage are dated 1924, which is the date used in this report. Garage (1924): The single-car garage is located to the southeast of the residence, facing west, accessed by a concrete driveway. The front-gabled building is sheathed with wood drop siding, and has a medium-pitch, front-gabled roof sheathed with asphalt shingles, with exposed rafter tails. The west elevation features a wood overhead garage door. There are also two wood doors on the north and a small square window in the east elevation. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 55 7 Although the house and garage do not match completely (different siding and eaves), they are similar (horizontal wood siding, similar eave profile). Both the house and garage appear in the 1925 Sanborn map. The garage is typical of early one-car garages in the neighborhood and is original to the property. Contributing. Landscaping consists of a row of trees along the south property line, a grass front lawn and foundation plantings. The tree strip is planted with low shrubs as well as grass. A privacy fence runs between the house and garage. 113 S Whitcomb (c. 1902 with recent additions) Garage (2018): This garage replaced a 357 sf detached garage demolished in 2017. The garage sits to the north of the house connected to the house by an attached mudroom. It has a high- pitched gable roof with slightly overhanging boxed eaves. It is sheathed in drop siding to match the house. The overhead garage door has 16 square lights above vertical wood planks. There are shingles and a half-elliptical window in the gable end. Non-contributing. Landscaping: A concrete driveway leads from the curb to the garage. The front yard has several planting beds and other areas outlined and/or infilled with river rock. Flagstone walks leads from the sidewalk to the front porch and from the driveway to the front walk. On the west property line is a six-foot slatted wood privacy fence running south to the alley and east to the house, with a gate by the back door and shed. A row of tall shrubs runs between the south elevation of the house and the alley. 117 S Whitcomb (1894) Three outbuildings are located to the rear (west) of the residence. Ice House: This small (approx. dimensions 6’ x 9’) rectangular brick building faces east just south of the east-west alley that runs to the north of the house. The two wood-panel doors on the east elevation were used to remove the ice. There is a high window (in-filled with plywood) in ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 56 8 the north elevation. The drains are still noticeable in the lower west wall. Door and window openings have segmental arches consisting of a row of soldier brick topped by a row of header brick. Near the top of the walls is a row of bricks set at an angle to allow ventilation. The Whitcomb Street Landmark District nomination describes this building as “the original ice house.” Although its exact date is not known, the ice house appears to match the house in construction and detailing. Contributing due to historic association and architectural features. Shed: At the northwest corner of the lot, bounded by the east-west and north-south alleys, is a wooden shed approximately 27’ by 27’. The shed is composed of two sections. The western section is larger and slightly taller and is sheathed with board-and-batten siding. The west- sloping shed roof is sheathed with tin. Double-hinged wood-plank doors occupy the east bay of the north elevation of this section. The east section has a lower shed roof and vertical wood- plank siding and a sliding door. Sanborn maps from 1906 on show an outbuilding in the northwest corner of this lot. The 1943 map shows a different-shaped building in this location, a rectangular garage (marked “A” for auto) with a small extension to the east. The shed appears to be a vernacular construction that does not contribute architecturally to the district, and without more historical background, it cannot be evaluated as historically significant. Non- contributing. Storefront: A former storefront building occupies the southwest corner of the lot. The building has a metal-sheathed gable roof with an east-facing false front on which the lettering "WALLPAPERING AND PAINTING" is legible. The east elevation (false front) is sheathed with wood siding and has double wood-paneled doors flanked by paired wood windows. Plain wood trim frames the windows, doors, corners and roofline of the façade. The rest of the building is sheathed in sheet metal. A dormer extends from the south slope of the gable roof at the west end. There is a double-hinged wood-plank door in the west elevation. It is believed that the original location of the building was the 200 block of North College Avenue. The exact date of its move is unknown, but the storefront appears in the 1943 Sanborn map as a “Paint Shop” ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 57 9 with an address of 117 1/2. As noted in the Landmark District nomination (page 22), it is likely that George E. Graham, a painter who moved to the property in 1917 and resided there until the 1940s, moved his storefront from College Avenue to the property. The storefront has historic significance relating to an owner of the property and his Fort Collins painting business. Although the exact date of the moving of the building is unknown, it was moved before 1943, and so is likely within the period of significance, making it contributing to the district. Landscaping: the property has a grass lawn in the front and back and shrubs around the foundation. The west half of the backyard is protected from view by the buildings and privacy fences/gates on the west and north property lines. 118 S Whitcomb (1903) Storage shed (nd): a small (8’ x 12’) shed-roofed storage building sheathed in plywood is located southeast of the residence. There is a wood paneled door and a boarded-up window on the west elevation. Materials and style do not indicate a connection with the history and architecture of the District. Non-contributing. Garage (2007): A 27’ by 22’ one-and-a-half-story garage faces east on the alley to the rear of the house. The garage has a high-pitched gable roof with a window in the gable end, a double overheard garage door, and a door and two windows in the south elevation. Non-contributing. Landscaping: There is a gravel drive along the north side of the house. The yard and tree strip are planted with shrubs and perennials and mulched. There is no lawn. A low wire fence runs along the south property line. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 58 10 121 S Whitcomb (1894) Garage (1947): The single-car garage faces west at the northwest corner of the property, on the alley. The garage is stuccoed to match the house, and has a painted wood, paneled overhead door and a flat, parapeted roof. There are two doors and two small, square, 9-light windows on the south elevation. The garage was built by Spencer Farmer, a local businessman, who resided in this house from 1906 until 1962 and made a number of improvements to the property. It is also significant architecturally as a post-World War II example of a detached one-car garage. However, its construction after the period of significance makes it non-contributing. Landscaping: A concrete drive north of the house leads to an attached garage (1919). There is a flagstone walkway flanked by flower beds leading from the sidewalk to the house, and foundation plantings of shrubs, as well as grass front and back lawns. A painted wood picket fence encloses the back yard. A matching fence runs from the south elevation of the house to low wrought iron fence that marks the south border of the front yard. 125 S Whitcomb (1894) Storage shed (c. 1940): A gable-roofed wood storage shed lies directly west of the house, extending past the house to the north. According to the Landmark District nomination form, the shed has both horizontal and vertical wood planking, painted yellow. There are two fixed-pane windows on the west side, one with four lights and the other a single light. The gabled roof is sheathed with rolled asphalt and has overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. The shed is barely visible from the public right-of-way. The 1943 Sanborn map indicates a square accessory building in the approximate location of the shed. Since there are no distinguishing features visible from the public right-of way, this building is non-contributing. Landscape: Low, wrought iron fences run along the north and south property lines in the front yard. Stone planters flank the front stoop. A flagstone walk leads from the curb to the front stoop and around the south side of the house. The yard is mostly grass lawn with some raised vegetable beds and a few trees and shrubs. The backyard has a perimeter privacy fence. 126 S Whitcomb (1893) Garage (1932): A small front-gabled, one-car garage is situated to the northeast of the residence. The garage is sheathed in drop siding similar to that of the house, but slightly wider, and painted to match. The roof has shallow eaves like the house and is sheathed with metal sheet roofing. The garage is accessed by a double-hinged door constructed of vertical wood planks. Eaves, corners and doors are trimmed with painted wood boards. The garage was added to the property by Professor William L. Burnett who lived there from 1922 to 1938, and went on to become State Entomologist and the Curator of the Colorado Agricultural College Museum. The garage is typical of early 20th century, single-car garages, built to accommodate automobiles on properties that previously had a backyard barn or stable, or no outbuilding. It ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 59 11 lies well within the period of significance and along with the 2-strip concrete driveway mentioned below, contributes to the historic and architectural significance of the District. Landscape features: A concrete driveway runs from the curb to the garage, along the north side of the house. From the sidewalk east, the driveway consists of two concrete strips. A wood gate extends across the driveway near the rear of the house. There is a low hedge between the driveway and the property to the north. Low stone planters surround the front of the house. A paved walkway runs from the curb to the front porch and extends around the south side of the house to a low fence running north-south. The rest of the front yard is grass lawn with a few shrubs. 129 S Whitcomb (1896) Garage (1928): A square, one-and-a-half-stall garage to the west of the house faces south onto Oak Street, accessed by a concrete drive. The garage has a medium-pitched front-gable roof sheathed in asphalt shingles, and exposed rafter tails. The walls are sheathed in drop siding with cornerboards. The garage door, a double-hinged door of vertical wood planks, occupies the west bay of the south elevation. The east bay has a double 6-light casement window offset to the west. There is another window in the east elevation, as well as a small shed-roofed addition. The date of the garage is confirmed by a building permit. Although slightly larger than the typical 1920s garage, this structure has a historic and architectural association with the residence. Contributing. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 60 12 Landscaping: A concrete walk leads from the curb to the front steps. Foundation plantings and other beds are outlined in stone. There are raised vegetable beds in front of the house on the north side, and the rest of the yard is grass lawn. The tree strip is planted and mulched. 130 S Whitcomb (1889) Garage (1920): A small (8’ x 12’) garage lies to the northeast of the house. The building has a medium-pitch, front-gable roof sheathed with asphalt shingles and shallow boxed eaves. The walls are sheathed with drop siding with cornerboards. The double-hinged barn-style garage door is still partially visible, although windows were cut into it when the garage was converted to a secondary dwelling. The south side of the building has a wood door with a small awning supported by knee braces near the southwest corner and a large window comprised of 3 rows of 7 lights each. The former garage-dwelling is now used for storage. The garage appears on the 1925 and 1943 Sanborn maps as a garage. According to the owner, it was converted to a dwelling after World War II. Contributing. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 61 13 Landscape: The yard is mostly grass lawn with some foundation plantings of shrubs. The backyard (Oak Street) is enclosed with a chain-link fence and a wood fence with a gate extends across the driveway to the north of the house. There is a concrete curb cut for the driveway which has not been maintained. A narrow flagstone walk leads from Whitcomb Street to the front porch. 601 W Mountain (1890) Garage (2011): Noncontributing Landscaping: The front yard facing Mountain Avenue and Whitcomb Street is mostly grass lawn, with foundation and some walkway plantings of shrubs and small trees, interspersed with rocks. A stone walk leads from the sidewalk on Mountain Avenue to the corner-facing front porch. A concrete driveway to the south of the house leads to the garage. The backyard is screened by a wood privacy fence. 612 W Oak (1930) This property does not have any outbuildings. Landscape: A wide, concrete drive leads to a former 2-car garage, now incorporated into the house. A paved walk leads from the sidewalk to the front porch. The front yard is made up of gravel and groundcovers, with some foundation plantings. A wood privacy fences runs to the north of the house, along the alley. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 62 14 References Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Fort Collins, CO: 1906, 1909, 1917, 1925, 1943 accessed at: https://digitalsanbornmaps-proquest- com.libproxy.uwyo.edu/browse_maps/6/996/4260/4530/67984?accountid=2047 Fort Collins History Connection. Building Permit Records (online). Accessed at https://history.fcgov.com/. Gordon-Van Tine Co. 117 House Designs of the Twenties. The Athenaeum of Philadelphia, 1992. Reprint of Gordon-Van Tine Homes, 1923. Humstone, Mary M. Loomis Addition Historic Context. Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program, 2015. Humstone, Mary M. Loomis Addition Survey Report. Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program, 2017. Murray, Kevin. Whitcomb Street Historic District – Fort Collins Landmark District Nomination, 2013. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 63 118 S WHITCOMB ST 122 S WHITCOMB ST121 S WHITCOMB ST 117 S WHITCOMB ST 126 S WHITCOMB ST125 S WHITCOMB ST 612 W OAK ST 112 S WHITCOMB ST 129 S WHITCOMB ST 130 S WHITCOMB ST 611 W MOUNTAIN AVE 113 S WHITCOMB ST 601 W MOUNTAIN AVE 108 S WHITCOMB ST 105 S WHITCOMB ST 131 S SHERWOOD ST 629 W MOUNTAIN AVE W OAK ST W MOUNTAIN AVE S WHITCOMB STWhitcomb Street Landmark DistrictHistoric Properties & Building Footprints Printed: November 20, 2020 Legend Landmark District Boundary Property Status Designated/Contributing Historic Property Eligible to be Designated Historic Non-Historic/Non-Contributing Unknown-Undetermined-Unevaluated 0 3 6 9 12Meters 1:1,000Scale©CITY OF FORT COLLINSGEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the C ity of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only,and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING D ATA. Any user of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, w hether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 64 Garage Project –Appeal to CDNS 126 South Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 The following circumstances were considered in making the decision to proceed with this project (in specific reference to plans provided by previous home owners): 1.Need for larger garage space. 2.Need for home office & exercise space. 3.Assumed to be less expensive and less disruptive than home addition. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 65 Existing Garage Built in 1932 216 Sq Ft 12’4”W x 18’4”L x 12’H •Unsafe •Not secure •Small - cannot fit a car •Not aesthetically pleasing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 66 House -Vernacular Design Defining historical characteristics: •Wide & defining soffits •Roof pitch •Narrow wood siding •Overhanging eaves ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 67 Garage Location •No alley access will require removal of existing garage ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 68 Ditch on Property DITCH •Ditch further restricts location of garage ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 69 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation -relative to project - 1.A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment2.The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. a)There are no historically defining characteristics of this building as it relates to the house. 5.Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.a)The existing garage does not appear to have features that match the house or that characterize the property. The newly designed garage will add distinctive features to match the house. 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. a)The newly designed garage will meet all of these requirements. 10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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. a)The newly designed garage will be a detached structure and any future removal will not impair the house. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 70 New Garage Design •Design consistent with house •Aesthetically pleasing •Larger 14’W x 20’L x 20’H ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 71 Added Indoor Space •Home office space •Home schooling space •Exercise space ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 72 1 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, December 16, 2020 Appeal: 126 S. Whitcomb Street Landmark Design Review – Continuance from October 2 1 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 73 Role of the LPC • Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation •Is garage a contributing feature of property? •Does proposed project meet the Standards? • Provide a decision under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) 3 Current Review Timeline 4 • January 8, 2020: Previous owner approved for DAP engineering funds to assess garage • May 27, 2020: Engineer Geoff Robinson provides DAP product – engineering solution for garage plus addition • July 7, 2020: Initial contact by new property owner for garage proposal • July 13, 2020: Initial submittal of Garage drawings • July 16, 2020: Informed owner, based on email from Zoning, that new garage design did not comply with Zoning requirements • August 19, 2020: Owner submits Design Review application • August 25, 2020: Staff denies application • August 26, 2020: Applicant provided written notice of appeal (within 14 days) • September 15, 2020: Council adopted exception to Ordinance No. 079, 2020 • October 21, 2020: LPC appeal hearing; Continued to Dec. 16, 2020 3 4 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 74 Property Background • Contributing Property to Whitcomb Street Landmark District • Designated January 15, 2013 • Standards 1, 2, and 3 • Period of Significance 1889- 1940 • House constructed in c.1904 • Garage in 1932 5 Property Background - Treatment 6 • c.1904: House constructed • Oct 4, 1927: Remodel for room on second floor and porch • Oct 8, 1932: frame garage • Sept 3, 1940: re-roof • June 14, 1946: Enlarge chicken house • May 31, 1973: Re-roof • Sept 16, 2002: Re-roof •July 2013: Landmark Rehab Loan award ($7,500) – Removal of asbestos siding, rehabilitation of original wood lapsiding, siding and trim painting, and installation of insulation & vapor barrier in side-walls and attic • July 30, 2015: Re-roof 5 6 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 75 Proposed Project 7 1. Demolition of 1932 garage building northeast of main house 2. Construction of new 1.5 story garage northeast of main house Existing Conditions 8 7 8 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 76 Staff Analysis • Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation • All applicable Standards need to be met • Demolition of historic/contributing garage does not meet Standards 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 (not preserving character-defining features; not preserving history of garage, incl. previous alterations; not meeting standard to repair vs replace; not reversible; and new construction not compatible/distinguishable) • New garage likely meets Standards 1 (same/compatible use) and 3 (false sense of history) • Standards 7 (chemical & physical treatments) and 8 (archaeology) don’t apply 9 Staff Analysis: Basis for Decision • Existing 1932 garage is a contributing resource to the Whitcomb Street Landmark District • Based on DAP report from structural engineer, garage can be corrected, reinforced, and can receive a rear addition to add extra space • Demolition of a contributing resource to a Landmark District does not meet the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation (2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10) 10 9 10 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 77 Responses to LPC Questions • History of work on main house, including public incentives? • LRL Loan for $7,500 awarded in 2013 • Garage door info? • None available. Either not historic or not character-defining • Dimensions of garage? • Provided by applicant: 216 Sq Ft, 12’4”W x 18’4”L x 12’H • Ditch and constraints on property? • Applicant presentation includes map; irregular parcel line a result of undergrounded Arthur Ditch, which formerly ran behind property. 11 Responses to LPC Questions • Which secondary structures, including garages, contribute to the District? • Mary Humstone of Humstone Consulting (architectural historian) December 2, 2020 Report 12 Address Type of Structure Date Contributing (Y/N) 105 S. Whitcomb None 108 S. Whitcomb Garage 1940 Y 112 S. Whitcomb Garage 1924 Y 113 S. Whitcomb Garage 2018 N 117 S. Whitcomb Ice House c. 1894 Y Shed Unknown N Storefront c. 1940 Y 118 S. Whitcomb Garage 2007 N Shed Unknown N 121 S. Whitcomb Garage 1947 N 125 S. Whitcomb Shed c. 1940 N 126 S. Whitcomb Garage 1932 Y 129 S. Whitcomb Garage 1928 Y 130 S. Whitcomb Garage 1920 Y 601 W. Mountain Garage 2011 N 612 W. Oak None 11 12 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 78 Responses to LPC Questions • Humstone conclusions regarding status of garages/accessory structures •Standard 1 – more complete understanding of domestic life during the period of significance • Standard 2 – if associated with the residence of a prominent resident in the District • Standard 3 – if representative of architectural styles employed during the period of significance or matching style of house 13 Responses to LPC Questions • How was garage demo at 113 S. Whitcomb treated in 2016-2018 rehabilitation project? • 113 S. Whitcomb designated by Council as contributing under Standard 1 and Standard 2; property not eligible under Standard 3 • Alterations/additions to this property not considered for affect on property itself, but instead for affect on District as a whole • LPC determined alteration would not significantly affect eligibility of District 14 13 14 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 79 Role of the LPC • Consider evidence regarding proposed work and whether it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation •Is garage a contributing feature of property? •Does proposed project meet the Standards? • Provide a decision under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • Final decisions of the Commission shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Fort Collins City Council (Sec. 14-9) 15 15 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 7 updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 80 EXCERPTCity of Fort Collins Page 1 October 26, 2016 Doug Ernest, Acting Chair City Council Chambers Meg Dunn City Hall West Bud Frick 300 Laporte Avenue Kristin Gensmer Fort Collins, Colorado Per Hogestad Dave Lingle Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 and Alexandra Wallace 881 (HD) on the Comcast cable system Belinda Zink 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 October 26, 2016 Minutes –Excerpt for 113 S. Whitcomb •CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Ernest called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Zink, Hogestad, Gensmer, Lingle, Ernest, Frick ABSENT: Wallace STAFF: McWilliams,Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** 2.113 SOUTH WHITCOMB STREET - CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are seeking conceptual and final design review approval of an addition to their home at 113 South Whitcomb Street. The house is designated as a Fort Collins Landmark as a contributing element of the Whitcomb Street Historic District. The property is significant to the district for its history; it was determined at the time of designation that the property did not qualify for architectural significance due to previous alterations. APPLICANT: Catherine and Dylan Rogers, 113 South Whitcomb Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Staff Report Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Added 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 80-1 EXCERPTCity of Fort Collins Page 2 October 26, 2016 Ms. McWilliams presented the staff report noting the property is part of the Whitcomb Street Fort Collins Landmark District. The home has been significantly altered previously, most notably in 1994 with the addition of a full second story. The proposal is to remove the existing garage and add a two- story garage with living space on the north side of the house. Ms. McWilliams reviewed slides of the property and surrounding area. Applicant Presentation Ms. Rogers gave a presentation, providing additional details about the proposed project. She stated neighbors have been in support of the proposal. Public Input None Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. McWilliams added that the property was not designated based on its architecture, and explained the Commission’s purview is to consider not the impact of the addition on this house, but rather its impact on the architecture, history and significance of the district as a whole. Chair Ernest pointed out the standards to be used for this application in the staff report. He explained the procedural aspects of this item. Ms. Dunn asked about the setback on the north side. Ms. Rogers replied there is a considerable setback and noted the addition would not change the footage on the north side at all. Ms. Dunn asked about the setback on the east. Ms. Rogers replied the garage was moving forward slightly. Mr. Lingle asked about a variance being required for the rear setback encroachment. Ms. Rogers replied she has discussed that issue with Noah Beals who has indicated the LPC is the first step in the process. Mr. Lingle asked whether the addition is going to the side rather than the rear due to the positioning of the rear lot line. Ms. Rogers confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lingle asked about the review criteria, particularly the reference to “developmental significance”. Ms. McWilliams replied staff intended that phrase to relate to the broad patterns of development in Fort Collins as the criteria under which this area was designated. The question is whether or not this home can still convey its sense of history and feeling of being part of the district with the addition. Mr. Frick asked if there is a basement planned for under the garage. Ms. Rogers replied in the affirmative stating the plan is to excavate under the garage to create storage space. Chair Ernest discussed the formation of the district and noted this home was not found to be architecturally eligible because of its addition. He stated he does not believe this new addition will detract from the historic standards put in place for the district when it was established in 2013. He went on to elaborate on some of the historic details of the property contributing to its significance. Ms. Zink commented that she would like to see some differentiation between the old and new sections of the house, perhaps with color scheme. Mr. Frick made a suggestion to remove the gable end over the garage and half round window in order to allow the house to be more prominent and the addition to recede. Motion to move to final review Finding no significant adverse effect on the designated property or landmark district, and with all necessary information in place, Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission waive conceptual review and move to final review of the proposed work at 113 South Whitcomb Street. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Mr. Lingle stated he agrees with the six findings in the staff report, adding that the shape and depth of the property results in a physical hardship that is contributing to the applicant’s need to locate the addition to the side of the house as opposed to the rear, as they would typically expect to see. Ms. Zink and Chair Ernest agreed with Mr. Lingle and with the recommendations in the staff report. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Added 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 80-1 EXCERPTCity of Fort Collins Page 3 October 26, 2016 Mr. Hogestad noted the balcony above the garage creates essentially a three-story building in a predominantly single-story neighborhood. He asked if there has been any negative feedback from neighbors. Ms. Rogers replied that all the comments from the neighbors have been positive, and stated a significant amount of vegetation exists around the addition. Ms. Dunn stated the balcony, or patio, would have a significant impact on the house behind it if it were a designated property. Ms. Rogers stated she has talked with neighbors to the rear and next door and no concerns have been raised. Mr. Hogestad emphasized his concern about the relationship of this property to the other single-story homes. Chair Ernest recalled the extensive amount of participation during the district designation and noted there have been no comments regarding this addition to this point. Ms. McWilliams noted there is no posting notice for a designated property; however, the Commission’s agenda is posted as per Code requirements. Ms. Dunn would like to discuss the posting requirements at another time. Motion to Approve Mr. Lingle moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission provide a report of acceptability for the proposed work on the property located at 113 South Whitcomb Street, finding that it meets the criteria of Chapter 14, Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code, “Approval of Proposed Work,” for the reasons stated by staff in on Page 3 of the staff report under item number two. Ms. Dunn seconded. Ms. Zink asked if Mr. Lingle wanted to add his comment about hardship to the motion. Mr. Lingle replied in the affirmative and added the following statement to his motion: “and acknowledging the physical hardship created by the shape and the depth of the lot in its influence on the location and bulk and mass of the addition.” Ms. Dunn stated she did not wish to second the motion with that inclusion, adding that hardship isn’t usually considered by the Commission. Mr. Lingle explained that the shape and depth of the lot are what allow him to support the proposed location of the addition. Mr. Yatabe stated there is not necessarily an issue of hardship, but rather the effect of the potential changes on the district. He noted Ms. Dunn could withdraw her second. Ms. Dunn renewed her second. Ms. Zink made a friendly amendment to change the word hardship to circumstance. Mr. Lingle and Ms. Dunn accepted the friendly amendment. Chair Ernest requested each Commission member add a comment as to the reason or reasons for his or her vote. Mr. Frick supported the motion given the six bullet points outlined by staff. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern regarding the third story component, but stated he would grudgingly support the motion. Ms. Gensmer supported the motion based on the six findings they’ve discussed. Mr. Lingle supported the motion and stated he would agree with Mr. Hogestad’s concerns if the proposal included a roof structure or trellis, but since it is an open deck, he will support it. Ms. Dunn agreed with Mr. Lingle’s comments. Mr. Hogestad stated the deck is still an imposition on a single-story neighborhood. Ms. Zink supported the motion based on the previously stated reasons. Chair Ernest supported the motion stating the proposal is in compliance with the standards in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code. The motion passed 7:0. ***END EXCERPT*** ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 8 Added 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 80-1 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 16, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 140 N MCKINLEY AVENUE (ROBERT AND ORPHA BUXTON HOUSE AND ATTACHED GARAGE) – REAR ADDITION – CONCEPTUAL LANDMARK DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item is to provide a conceptual review of a proposed rear addition to the City Landmark at 140 N. McKinley Avenue, the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage. The owner is seeking initial feedback regarding their concept designs and their consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation prior to commissioning construction drawings and seeking final approval from the LPC. APPLICANT/OWNER: Casey (Keith) Churchill (Property Owner) RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed concept plans are generally consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. COMMISSION’S ROLE: Design review is governed by Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, and is the process by which the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) reviews proposed exterior alterations to a designated historic property for consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). In this hearing, the Commission shall conduct a conceptual review of, and provide preliminary feedback regarding, sketches and other information about the proposed project as established in 14- 54(a)(2)(a), based on the provided information from the 1998 Landmark nomination, the applicant’s design review application, and any new evidence presented at the hearing. The Commission must use the Municipal Code 14, Article IV and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards) for its conceptual review. The intent of the conceptual review is to allow the applicant to finalize their project and commission construction drawings for the project in a manner consistent with the Standards. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The property at 140 N. McKinley Avenue, the Robert and Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage, was designated as a City Landmark in 1998. It was built in 1945 as part of the 1910 Swetts Addition, one of several smaller neighborhoods platted along Mountain Avenue over the early- and mid-1900s. The owner is proposing a rear addition onto the building’s east elevation that would include two new bedrooms, a bathroom, utility room, and hall access between the historic house and the addition on the first floor, and a finished basement with a family room and storage. The property was Landmarked in 1998 for both its architectural importance (Standard 3) as an example of the Minimal Traditional house type common in the 1940s as a cheap option for young families buying new homes after the Second World War, and for its historical importance (Standard 1) as a “representative example of two Packet Pg. 81 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 significant American social trends, the first the development of affordable home ownership on a large scale, and the other the elevation of the status of the automobile as reflected in residential architecture.” The property’s character-defining features include it’s low-slung hipped roof, modest detailing limited to a boxed eave with a beaded cornice, simple lapboard siding, wood one-over-one sash windows or picture windows with three-light casement sidelights, enclosed hipped-roof entry and concrete stoop, and the attached side-gabled garage extension to the south. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Staff note: The original text has been modified to properly classify the building as the Minimal Traditional type, a common, simplified form used in the 1930s into the early 1950s to provide low-cost, quickly-built housing for working class families, and to respond to the housing shortage after the Second World War. Due to the comparatively early timing for nominating this post-war residence, classifications for this era of architectural history had not been well-defined. The 1998 nomination provides the following description: The Buxton Property’s architectural style can be characterized as a [Minimal Traditional-type cottage]. Overall, the interior and exterior of the house are in good condition. The home was constructed with an attached garage set back from the front of the house in the traditional style of homes built in [Old Town}. There is a gable over the garage. Original horizontal clapboard siding covers all sides of the house. Two 3' 5" x 4' windows adorn the front of the house. Each window is flanked by three 1' x 1'4" fixed pane windows. A mudroom is located at both the front and rear of the house. When doors were still mounted on the inner threshold of these rooms, they would have prevented heat loss when persons were entering or exiting the home. The home has two bedrooms, a kitchen, a living, dining, and laundry room, two mudrooms, a bathroom, and an attached garage. The total interior square footage (including garage) is 1,258 ft2. The interior of the house features recently refinished hardwood floors and original clear pine base trim for windows, doors and baseboards. The walls are untextured plaster. The house is currently heated with a gas-forced air system. Two 2' 6" x 2' original metal grates are inset in the floor in the space between the dining and living room, and the hallway joining the two bedrooms. These grates cover access holes to the crawl space beneath the house. They were once used as part of the original heating system. A Tudor style arch divides the living and dining room. Although the kitchen has been fully remodeled, it maintains the classic style of the rest of the house. ALTERATION HISTORY: The Fort Collins Museum of Discovery has two images from the Larimer County Assessor from their 1948 and 1968 city-wide assessments available and have been included here for reference: Left: 1948 image, 140McK48, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/7440; Right: 1968 image, 140McK68, https://fchc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ph/id/7441 Packet Pg. 82 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 3 The property has been modified slightly since that time, including an undated addition and removal of an awning over the front (west) door and the undated addition of an awning over the rear (east) entry. Other documented exterior modifications are as follows: • 1948 – Insulation added • 1949 – Fence added to property • 1997 – Roof replacement (asphalt shingle) • 2012 – Roof replacement (asphalt shingle) • 2020 – Repainted HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW: This property has undergone Design Review on several past occasions. The two primary alterations were both staff-level reviews, approving the 2012 roof and the 2020 repaint. HISTORY OF FUNDED WORK/USE OF INCENTIVES: The current owner began the development of the addition project in 2015, assisted with a $2,000 award from the City’s Design Assistance Program for historic properties in the Old Town area. Initial plans developed by Ms. Heidi Schuff were mostly in conformance with the Standards, but lacked a few key details, including no inset between the addition and the historic home, and little differentiation between the addition and the historic home. Those initial concepts were left unmodified until the current project after working with staff earlier in 2020. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a conceptual review for a proposed two- bedroom addition onto the rear of the property, to include a finished basement. REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Upon review of the original application, staff asked the applicant to provide the following items: • Additional photography of the rear of the property (asked for and received on 11-30-2020) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. STAFF EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: In general, staff found that most of the project elements for the proposed addition are consistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation. Of primary concern for additions and exterior alterations on historic properties are Standard 3 regarding distinguishability, and Standards 9 and 10 regarding compatibility, reversibility, and subordination. Staff analysis has focused there. 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 retaining its historic use. Y 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. Elements of the property that will be altered, obscured, or removed by the addition are on the rear of the property and are not considered character- defining to the property’s architectural and historical importance. Y Packet Pg. 83 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 4 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 addition will have sufficient differentiated materials and window patterning to make it distinguishable from the historic building via simplified window configurations and an altered width to the lapboard siding on the addition. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. There do not appear to be any character-defining features on the rear of the property, nor any later alterations that are historic in their own right. N/A SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. As noted above, the character-defining features of this property are predominantly clustered on the front and sides of the building. While historic materials will be removed as part of this project, including siding, three windows, a door, and a stoop, these rear-facing elements do not appear to be particularly character-defining in relation to the architectural and historical importance of the property. 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. N/A SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. While significant excavation is proposed to allow for a finished basement under the addition, based on the location of the site away from historical waterways, and based on the era in which the site was developed (after the use of outdoor privies was abandoned), the discovery of any significant archaeological materials is not expected. Y SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. As noted above, while historic materials will be removed to allow for the proposed addition, these materials and features are located on the rear and are not apparently character-defining in relation to the significance of the property. The new addition is expected to be differentiated via simplified window patterns, an inset on the north elevation, and a different lapboard dimension. In general, it appears compatible with the architectural features, scale, and massing of the property and its environment, being largely screened from view from McKinley Avenue by the historic portion of the house, the historic attached garage, and the historic-age property to the north. The project could improve its compatibility of size with reductions to the footprint. Y Packet Pg. 84 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. The addition will be located on the rear of the property and does not appear to be removing any character-defining features that would be difficult to reconstruct if the addition were reversed in the future. Those include five one-over-one wood sash windows of varying sizes, a door and portico cover, and the lapboard siding. Aside from reconfiguration of the current laundry room, the east wall is remaining generally intact in the proposed floorplan. Y INDEPENDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY N/A FINDINGS OF FACT: Because the request is for conceptual review of the proposed addition, staff has not provided findings of fact. As noted in the Standards analysis above, the project is generally consistent with the Standards, although improvements could be made via reduction in the overall footprint. RECOMMENDATION: Because the request is for a conceptual review, staff does not have a formal recommendation at this time, but is generally supportive of the concept design. As noted above, staff would encourage reductions in the footprint of the addition as it is larger than is typically recommended for smaller post-war homes. However, many of these post-war homes were built to be expanded at a later date via rear additions, enclosures of garages for bedrooms, etc., so there is historical precedent for expansions of homes like this as part of the property type’s architectural history. SAMPLE MOTIONS Upon receiving a request for a conceptual review, if the Commission finds that sufficient information is provided at the time of conceptual review to fully evaluate the project, and that no further substantive review is necessary, the Commission may elect to proceed to final review. In that event, the following sample motion has been provided. SAMPLE MOTION TO PROCEED TO FINAL REVIEW: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission move to Final Review of the proposed work at the Robert & Orpha Buxton House & Attached Garage at 140 North McKinley Avenue, and issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed work as it appears consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS: 1.1998 Landmark Nomination form 2.2020 Proposed drawings, concept plans and rear photographs 3.2015 DAP-produced drawings 4.City images of property (2019) 5.Staff Presentation (updated 12/15/20) 6.Applicant reponse to work session questions (added 12/15/20) Packet Pg. 85 City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Department LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 18, 1998 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Local Landmark Designation of the Robert and Orpha Buxton House and Attached Garage, 140 North McKinley Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Jordan K. Radin, Property Owner. BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present, for your consideration, the local landmark designation of the Robert and Orpha Buxton House and Attached Garage. The building is significant architecturally, as an interesting example of Post World War II architecture in Fort Collins. The home also has hi storical value as a representative example of two si gnificant American social trends, the first the development of affordable home ownership on a large scale, and the other the elevation of the statu s of the automobile as reflected in residential arc hitecture. History -The Robert and Orpha Buxton House and Attached Garage was constructed in 1945. A simple one story hipped box, it is one of several modest homes built between Mountain and Laporte A ven ue s in the ten year period following the end of World War II. With mass- production techniques and materials developed during the war, homes were being built cheaply and quickly to s upply the many soldiers returning from the war with affordable hou sing. At the same time, uniquely American architectural styles were evolving, reflecting the automobile's displacement of earlier modes of transportation. Residences featured larger, fixed pane windows (precursors of the picture window), little if any exterior decorative elements, and often attac hed single car garages or carports. The Robert and Orpha Buxton House and Attached Garage exhibits many of these modern elements. Two 3'5" x 4' fixed pane windows adorn the front of the house, each flanked by 1' x4' vertical three-light fixed pane windows, the whole creating the impress ion of a broad, hori zontal expanse of glass. Also of interes t is the attached garage, an early example in Fort Collins of this architectural modification which was to become the standard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving this request for Local Landmark designation of the Robert and Orpha Buxton House and Attached Garage, 140 North McKinley A venue, Fort Collins, Colorado, for its architectural and historical importance. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6376 FAX (970) 224-6111 • TDD (970) 224-6002 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 86 140 N. McKinley Ave Address: Prepared by: Date: APPLICATION FOR LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION 140 N. McKinley Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521-2320 Jordan K. Radin (Property Owner) November 11, 1998 ARCHITECTUAL AND HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Page lof2 The house at 140 N. McKinley Avenue was constructed in 1945. Its architectural style can be characterized as a simple one-story, hipped box bungalow. Overall, the interior and exterior of the house are in good condition. The home was constructed with an attached garage set back from the front of the house in the traditional style of homes built in old town. There is a gable over the garage. Original horizontal clapboard siding covers all sides of the house. Two 3 '5" x 4' windows adorn the front of the house. Each window is flanked by three l' x l '4" fixed pane windows. A mudroom is located at both the front and rear of the house. When doors were still mounted on the inner threshold of these rooms, they would have prevented heat loss when persons were entering or exiting the home. The home has two bedrooms, a kitchen, a living, dining, and laundry room, two mudrooms, a bathroom, and an attached garage. The total interior square footage (including garage) is 1,258 tt2. The interior of the house features recently refinished hardwood floors and original clear pine base trim for windows, doors and baseboards. The walls are untextured plaster. The house is currently heated with a gas-forced air system. Two 2' 6" x 2' original metal grates are inset in the floor in the space between the dining and living room, and the hallway joining the two bedrooms. These grates cover access holes to the crawl space beneath the house. They were once used as part of the original heating system. A Tudor style arch divides the living and dining room. Although the kitchen has been fully remodeled, it maintains the classic style of the rest of the house. The bathroom has also been upgraded. There have been some minor changes to the interior and exterior of the house. An awning was once constructed over the front door, but has since been removed. There is an existing awning over the door at the rear of the house, but it's originality is unknown. The roof has asphalt t-lock shingles, and a large television antenna is mounted to the outer wall on the south side of the garage. The exterior of the house was originally painted white, but is now painted cream with teal trim. As stated previously, both the kitchen and bathroom have been recently upgraded. Kitchen upgrades include cherry cabinetry and modem appliances. Vinyl has been laid in the bathroom, kitchen, laundry room, and rear mudroom. The vinyl does not overlay hardwood flooring. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 87 140 N. McKinley Ave Page 2 of2 PERSONS LIVING IN THE HOME (1945-1980) Year Name Occunation Buxton, Robert A Bookkee=r; Dent. of Public Service Co. of CO 1945-1950 Buxton, Omha Clerk?; Montgomerv Ward & Co. I child Martin, C.harles C C 0 =nter; Abraham & Son 1952-1956 Martin, Edith Homemaker I child 1956-1959 Bruce, Stella F* (widow) Salad Ladv, Rockwell Hall; Colorado State Universitv Stumnf, Donald A Pressman; Don-Art Printers (1810 Lanorte St) 1959-1962 Stumnf, MarPsret L Homemaker 2 children 1963 VACANT 1964-1980? Klein, Amalie No enmlovment listed * See attached obituary of Ms. Stella Bruce ATTACHMENTS Local Historic Lanmark Designation Nomination Form Real Estate Appraisal Card (1948) Real Estate Appraisal Card (1969) Survey Form-Historic Designation Office (1986) Obituary of Ms. Stella Bruce (1974) Photographs taken September, 1998 SOURCES Field Guide to American Homes Fort Collins City Directory Appraisal Reports (1948, 1969) Fort Collins Coloradoan ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 88 Historic Preservation Office P.O.Box580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 (303) 221-6597 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Determined 'Eligible' Ordinance# --------------- Application within last 12 months? Yes ___ No DateRecorded -------------- LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOMINATION FORM Date: _ _,_,I o'-</f-'2.:3=./r-"1..cB,,_ __ Please tyµelprint all entries tq¢AJ;Io:rg Address: 140 t-J. Mc.J;:,\'\le-y Ave.. f+. &llil'ls • C.O Bos2.1-2:;2.o Legal Description: Lob 10 <Wl l \ 1 B loci< 1 1 S We;±:1-s , :fur+ C'.o // i V\S • Le.s.5 .s so f± ~ '" Ghr! Less 1J 5~ k-of so kts Property Name (Historic and/or ccmmon): l1'PRM\lf8.El>.All:Etrll:£if Namefl'itle: "Jordco, Ra.di!'\ Address: 140 )J , Mc.I::=, ti ~ Phone:@j224-ci5J / Relationship to Owner: Ave-- ti»'.NExt,iNtommt6M1 Name: Jov-cA.cv, Rctcli I-'\. Phone: 6_10) 2.2~-'tS3) Address: ll/0 tJ · r'lc..tc,'I\ leer Ave.- l!011)SljAnn;sf1Wl{);ljp.l,l;D.ESIGN'A\l)(qN: / Landmark (improvement only) __ Landmark District (improvement+ site/surrounding enviromnent) Further explanation of boundary determination: C:IHISTPRESIHIST DES.FRM Local Historic Landmark Designation Fonn Page 1 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 89 Category: VBuilding __ Structure __ Site _Object __ District Architectural: Ownership: __ Public ...l!:'.'.'Private Status: V Occupied __ Unoccupied Existing Designation: __ National Register __ State Register __ Represents work ofnoteworthy architect __ Possesses high artistic value -lLR.epresents a type, period, or method of construction Historical: __ Associated with significant persons __ Associated with significant event or historic trend __ Contributes to the significance of an historic district Geographical: __ Related to or part of distinctive area __ Unique location Present Use: __ Commercial __ Educational __ Religious VResidential __ Entertainment __ Government _Other: Further Comments: -~=.11:l\'---'·1',.,_0\ __,_l"l,_4::c>.,_, ----'-~-=--k,c:..:.;IJ:.:::5t."--...1.i c,_S_:f:y!-+i'p"-'1=.=,I_..._., l=-,..__M"<ll:..=.,_,1,__..,+.J...:.,:."<,.,_+ _ _,l.,.lerL-=-'==- p.., \ \'r .,_;,,-+ke e~ oF ww:u.. (Add continuation sheet if needed) Please attach a narrative of the historical significance of the property. Include a title search if the property is important for its association with a significant person. Further Comments: ~ .._,\+q~, C:\lllS11'RESIHIST DES.FRM Local Historic Landmark Designation Fann Page2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 90 ;ti:tRtki!1i;tJTl.t&tIB$ll£'.$1W$:TuiiiEslt,Itrtj;ftbN Construction Date: {°145 Architect/Builder: ---------------------- Building Materials: ~ :,:J:~ 1 we:,,...\ t,; M Architectural Style: 2 1 MP It-&,,'.~"II"'-' I l -5-11'>~'{ h,ppe.l b:s11 Special Features/Surroundings: ..,l-b-""'~""'-1L<5--=o..."-"'5'"'l"'"'""P'.::::'-:......:N.,.'fipr-J,f=---'Clr,.._11:w_, _te,,,\u=--=·=-es,___,~,:O..,_V::..;VOW::.__h:..:.<>1"=•'2'>=~:tii.;.q,.,_l __,c.:.:.W.;,.b""'-,J.. (Add a continuation sheet if needed. Please include lack and white photos of each elevation of the property.) REFERENCJ1nm§rti-01t!SQl!RCESl:i:lEiNEORMAT1bN fie.\J Gv,~e..--1-n ~C<vl ~> (Add a continuation sheet, if needed) The undersigned owner(s) hereby agrees that the property described herein be considered for local historic landmark designation, pursuant to the Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. I understand that upon designation, I or my successors will be requested to notify the Secretary of the Landmark Preservation Commission at the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office prior to the occurrence of any of the following: I. Preparation of plans for reconstruction or alteration of the exterior of the improvements on the property, or; 2. Preparation of plans for construction of, addition to or demolition of improvements on the property. 3. I further understand that if! apply for a building permit for any one of the following: a. Alteration or reconstruction of or addition to the exterior of any improvement which constitutes all or C:\HISTPRESIHIST_DES.FRM Local Historic Landmark Designation Fonn Page3 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 91 part of a landmark structure or landmark district; b. Demolition or relocation of any improvement which constitutes all or part of a landmark structure or landmark district; c. Construction or erection of or addition to any improvement upon any land included in a landmark district; d. Or ifl proceed with any work not requiring a building permit as set forth in Section 14-47; the Building Inspector and the Landmark Preservation Commission shall be under the time constraints and other requirements as outlined in Chapter 14, Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. DA TED this q Pl day of M> J(JM bJy , 19 C/ tf Owner Name (please print) __ Property owner wishes to withhold consent to local historic designation . State of._--=.G_l:....o_~_~..:..cc:...t _o _____ -) L )ss. County of ___ tt...._V'....;.·l_trv_ef-=------') Subscribed and sworn to before me this O·Jh 19 q /3 Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires /!)-)/a -.2.CCJO 0k, ) f;. (h~~ N6tary Pubij C:IHISTPRESIHIST _DES.FRM Local Historic Landrnarlc Designation Form Page4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 92 REAL ESTATE ·APPRAISAL CARD---URBAN MASTER INDEX /( C.:;:>~::,·::'./Ln X OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: -)) .'. . ; ' J.._:,{__J.;. c,,( J / (t--) C-{ •'.I~· · !~-,--~/-· --fjr .,,. .! -~- 140 N. IICKINL&Y FT. COLLINS, COLO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 10 AND 11 BLK l FT. COLLINS SWETT'S SD 5 L&SS S 50 FT 6 INCIJ&S AND L&SS N 56 FT OF so· LOTS _53// q //oL/--~-) ;(. () i/ t LOT OR ACREAGE DESCRIPTION i./f_ v LAND VALUE CALCULATION STREET OR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TOPOGRAPH~Y UNIT OEPTH,CORNl':R,OTHER FRONT FOOT I TOTAL. D ~ -· SIZI! OH ACRE~ YALUI( I OR VALUE PAVED SIDEWALK---LEVE TMILI. !'ACTOR ACRE VALUE D = HI-$ ZONING RESIDENTIA rn APARTMENl'. _______ o HARD SURFACE'.__ ~ D DRIVEWAY---STEEP OILED D CITY WATER__ SOI GRAVELDRSTONE~ WELLD SPRING LOW D I I I UNIMPROVED __ D $EWE~ I SLOPING ___ D CONDITION: D ' ' ' D ELECTRICITY__ HILLY ___ _ GOOD REGULAR LOTt;O, I ~ GAS RQCV D NET ADDITION % MOUNT SIZE . X fl O AVERAGE..__ IRREGULAR LOT SIZE PAVED ALLEY __ D D NET DEDUCTIONS % '"MOUNT • • PnoR )le ·· D D SPECIAL LAND NOTES: COMMERCIA D LIGHT INDUSTRIA 0 HEAVY INDUSTRIA D _______ D _______ D TOTAL $•-------- ADD OR DEDUCT TOTAL LAND VALUE "5 "? fl_ ___________________________________ ,BeA=SslS~OcF~AcDcD=ITcloOeNaS~OcR~OcEcD=UoCcTalO~N·c•c• ___________________________ _ SUMMARY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF LAND AND BUILDING VALUES DESCRIPTION DATE AMOUNT YEAR % REASON LAND IMPROVE-TOTAL FULL APPRAISED CHANGE MENTS VALUE $ /_.!,,,_,_~, ~~-· {,_ $ . hs' ,_. $ $ BUILDING PERMIT 19 ,-'·(IJ/t "· , ~ .S'.!-) ('-.'J~_Q...... 1. f So LAND ORIGINAL COST(IMPROVEMENT~) ··--·· ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS ..!21,j_ dti( (/i/,,., ~ ") 0 '{,.),:JI/a ,;l. 5irJ., I BUILDINGS AND IMPltOVEMENTfal . ' (THIIJ CARDI OWNER'S ESTIMATE OF VALUE 19 ; 19 CAltD NO. PRIVATE APPRAISAL --- INSURANCE 19 CARD NO. MORTGAGE 19 TOTAL PUil.DiNGS A>m .... ~.2 ~Q__ MONTHLY RENTAL 19 IMPROV!a:MENTB---~------- ADVERTISED FOR SALE 19 TOTAL ASSESSED LAND, s TRANSFERRED 19 BUILDING!;! ANO IMPROVEMENTS (' ,...~.,.,., 1 · 7-"!· 1/f ' C"'HF'rKi:-n nv a.,,, nOT<r/sS- ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 93 BUILDING DESCRIPT!ON AND VALUE CALCULATION CARO OF CARDS CLASSIFICATION No._L 'l. 1t1N BUILDING DESCRIPTION BLDG.No. GROUND PLAN SKETCH AREA--MAIN BUILDING {INOtCATI!: NUMBl!:R STORlE:Sl TYPE AND USE ROOFING D ATTIC AR~ 1 -FAMILY DWELLING ___ ill PREPARED ROL" FINISHED STAIRS D ,' ' I I I I I, I . . ' . I ' '. .. /Y X )0 _],, ___ 2-FAMILY DWELLING-D BUILT-UP ASPHALT---D . PERCENT OF GROUND A~A: _rx~ So Row Hous"' D SHINGLE:(U D FINISHED % UNFIN. % . ..K__x___].ic__ --z:-WOOD-ASPHALT_ _j_) ___ APARTMENT BUILDING __ D AseEsTos_D SLATE....._..... 0 PORCHES i X ,. . $( 3--V-D TILE, D D NUMBER: 0PEN--CL0SEO __ D METAL CEMENT CLAY e .. X / -Y fK TIN D COPPED D UNFINISHEO __ FJNISl-11::0 ___ ~ -' UNITS AND ROOMS ,----;a 1~ X INSULATED B TERRACES 'I tc:mo OF t,!UMSER OF e ,s . X UNITS UNIT• IUlDMII KIND 1i f /JUL I ~ e h, X 1-0 (f ), /':) HEATING '~ . }': 1/& BASEMENT STov-D ' AREA· D. D . D e . TOTAL 100% 76% 60% WARM AIR: PIPELESS ___ D , FOUNDATION 2So/c, __ o NONE-~ PIPED D f--REPRODUCTION COST AND FINAL VALUE POSTS OR PIERS D (o 1:' No FLOOR FORCED C!RCULATION_o -; MAIN BUILDING WALLS {:_.,,4-l.'l (!:.: m PLASTERED D PLASTERED D e CEILING_ WALL$ __ HOT WATER OR VAPOR._ D . ITEM I AREA OR l UNIT I TOT L D WALLS: KIND e NO. QUANTITY COST A STEAM D FINISHED ROOMS: BASE I I I EXTERIOR WALLS GAS STEAM RADIATOR$ __ D 1.3.,41LL,a .. £tl..17§1 1f: NO, % AREA Wooo FRAM O ·gj GAS FLOOR FURNACES No._b ; ) ' I I I NO SHEATH• FLOORS f-- SHEATHING ~ ING ___ SUBFLOOR IST-~ 20 UPD AIR CONDITIONING D \ -L ... . . _I __ I ____ I .. " SOLID MASONRY i;=i No SUBFLOOR 1ST 20 upD :: .. ADDITIONS (PLUS) AUTOMATIC BURNER OR STOKER __ 2---/L._ l,_11_,_fJ, __ QZ [ INSULATION; L&O % AREA CONSTRUCTION: o,'--0 GAs O coAL 0 WOOD JOOSTS ;7,-,trx1'1[] ,/aP __ 11~ rr _I, o_371 SIDING, ; .. B WOODBOARD •' CONCRETE ON GRADE__ D PLUMBING ..3.:,S_:-___ Lh....if_j_..Qfll BOARD AND BATTEN ___ D NONE...._ D WATER ONLY_ D e . . . I I , . .L'..:2...E. L----.L_IQ, __ _I SHINGLE: WOOD D FINISH FLOO~: BA THROOMS__L. TILED---FRONT .. L I I ... ~sPHlt_T D ASBESTOS D HARDWOOD SOFTWOOD D NUMBER OF FIXTURES: _____ I _____ I~-' STUCCO D TILE: SQ.FT. WASHSTANDS __ ,_ Tuss_l_ DEPRECIATION AND OBSOLESCENCE DEDUCTIONS (MINU!: BRICK VENEER:o FACED -o. FT. 'NATERCLOSETS_i SHWRS,_ A. AGE {NORMAL DEPRECIATION) ::, t. ~-II,. ,i:'_1_ o3} ___;;z_ -·r~ COM. _J~_l_,,r7 I STONE VENEER:o CUTO INTERIOR FINISH SHOWER STALLS B. PHYSICAL CONDITION .. % NATIVE WALLBOARD OR EQUAL....._ D AUTOMATIC WATER HEATER C1t C. MODERNIZATION ; J~ F-I J.-:, a I /, .1'./'I BRICK SOLID: D FACED {MINUS) .. % COM. ~-KITCHEN$ LAUNDRY [fl D. TOTAL DEPRECIATION _______ I _____ I ____ I D PLASTERED SINK_ .. .. % Tues __ __ [_ I ____ I CONCRETE BLOC"' WOOD PANELING: E. NET CONDITION {100-D) .. .. % D KIND: OTHER ITEMS \l SQ . FT, NATURAL F•REPL~ L ____ l __ l • SPECIAL OBSOLESCENCE BASE REPRODUCTION \ 2.J~ ROOF TILE WALLS: SQ, FT. GAS FIREPLACES -COST .. .. s TY•«o ~ 0 OUTSIDE CHIMNEYS{ F. LOCATION {AREA NO, ) .. % FLAT PITCQID LOW TRIM: HARDWD, RMS. MEDIUM---STEEP: __ o SOFTWOOD / G. OTHER .. .. .. .. .. .. % FINAL NET CONDITION RMS. STATE OF REPAIRS FINAL VALUE-• -H. TOTAL SPECIAL OBSOLESCENCE % .:2 J FRAM>NG, rn·L-D LIGHTING EXCELLENT D Gooo __ lS{) J. FINAL NET CONDITION (100-HJ x~ % MAIN BUILDING S ---- AVERAGE..._ DIFFICULT D ELEC. ~ GAsD NoNED FAIR D PooR-0 SUMMARY OF BUILDING \I DATE OF CoNSTRUCTOON I MA,DR ALTERATOONS oR AooonoNs I M"oR ALTERATOONS OR Aoo,m~~--- MAIN BUILDING $ ___ -· .:;J ::,I '~ATJr. -1-.,_':::' -1--.,-~OURCI!; DATE l AGE l DESCRIPTION ]P•m cun ~1~1 ' OESCRJPTJON IPER Cli:t<T GARAGE l'l'.1/) _/7 ,,,~;,/" .. ___ _, _____ it ~ R z :.l1L GARAGE AND MINOR BUILDINGS MINOR BUILDINGS CL ... 88 NO. SIZE AREA WALLS FLOOII 20 FLOOR REPRODUCTION OTHER WJOTl1 X DE:PTl1 ROOF HE:ATING LIGIITING PLUMBING ... OE:PAE:ClATIOtl NET VALLIE IMPROVEMENTS ------------------------·-------...... u,..-. co•T ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------·------------------ -----1-----------·--~-. TOTAL Bu,Lo>NGS I ~ _j;., ,; 0 J AND ,. _.-----·-... ·-,--·.---.--IMPROVEMENTS SPECIAL BUILDING NOTES:-----------·---------·- ------· ----------------···----' --' -· - ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 94 AOURESS'._-===================================================-- 1 _P.ARCEL.NUMBER---------------------- KLEIN, 140 N. FT. AMALIE MCKINLEY COLLINS, COLO. 97104-03-011 LOTS 10 AND 11 FT. COLL INS BLK l SWETT'S 5~1 LESS S 50 FT 6 INCIIES 56 FT OF SD LOTS AND LESS N _/, SUBJECT PROPERTY J:J.-dJO -s;;; ~ NEIGHBORHOOD LAND tMPROVEM.ENTS I UTILITIES TOPOGRAPHY I USE J~ TOPOGRAPHY TREND I Paved sr,eel .f!J.LWOl(,r Level e S,ogle Fomdy _[~ 1-.::-;~-;l-----·=iL lmprovlog Bloc!< Topped SI reel X Well _________ ll,gh -----__ Two Fom,I)'. j~ H,91'....... Sto1,c Groveled Street UnifflffOVl!d ,.,:!OPl•C T~n~ ~w ____ _!:!:~,~-------__ ! Ow Bl1ohled I Se.,er Sreep ~Mull,Fom1ly _____ ~Sleep ____ Oecl,ninn I Double Owelhn9_1-- ll>h1llj Owe!!i!! S,de.,olk Cesspool Sloping Commcrc,ol S1op,ng I £.!!!b ond G,!!!_"-'--___ Norurol Gos X HIiiy 7ndusluol ---= ~--------IRes<dential Apr f Streu I Lin ht, LP Gos Floe~ Flock I-JI Alley Eleclricily -2{ Flctoining Woll ------•-!!------1-l-----__i- I -----I I f R ZONING I i Dore af 1mprovemen1s· JI Percenl Built Up. % _J _1__L1-L1J_1_Ld_1 ZONtNG LAND VALUE CALCULATION SUMMARY f '--UNIT ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FRo-riT FOOT TOTAL -1 -------AiruALVALuE _____ -ASSESSED VALUE YEAR SIZE DR ACRES SQUARE FOOT DATE APPRAISER -% VALUE BASE DEPTH DEPTH CORNER OTHER ACRE; _ _Y'~!::UE VALUE ,--LANO N~EMEN1: _TOTAL_ ----~~IMPROVEME~~ TOTAL 50)( J/0 fl__ , ""/f < n,,-, ,,,,)-,_, , __ --f/p, j.,._(_I ,,;.,,. I, .~ 1, I __ I "e._/!/r~,S J /'f"Jo ;; (, 1 1 ,• _:L!/j:_ ( :· ' ;u;·O _,-:z.o j{-70 E , ·(?.,""'-ta/ "".-d,;,;, ,_a.. i> •. " . • 1 {,"fi> "f(,'70 01JtJ ZJ /o Z"fto ,¥-70 ~ . . ' 117b 3100 7&90 /079tJ 93{) l,Jo/0 3;1¥0 s1-,; ,, --· ,, "f-T · 'P, 1/o'5o J482J:> l~fso _:,,;,-, 1210 1/1/Co Stbo ?77,\' ENTERED ,:?ALES CATA S REMAR_<_S ______________ , M<>osu,ed Bx_: Reviewed Bf SPECIAL NOTES: ----·------ -- _.,i'.!'l -Y :i-?c, ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 95 I ) . ;' BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND REPLACEMENT COST RECORD -RESIDENTIAL "RO " CARO$ I ICLASSlflCATION No -· I MAIN BUILDING DESCRIPTION • BLOO. No. -------I --r IMS I PHYSICAL CONOITJON GROUND PLAN SK~TCH r" -. I I I j I r-··1-1 Und•cote ffombe, s,o,,ui Scole ..-2;.0, ft RO< Ror;n9 tEAR P F A G E • ,C. Slnote O,u1Hn9 Frame ~x j M • Ouollly R -~· Double o .. euin9 Slone . __ --'-1 '' Multi o .. 1t11n9 Block A A Rnid•nf!ol A£!'l!~men1 Briel< Veneer . --1 G H-- Prelob E I E, -,~fl'U!!\ -- 1ero,;ie Good cellunt A I Conc,eu 11111 rotx,oAnoN IM j-.!'.L~J~ IE:/1s, FLOORS M ~±1~-~,o n PLUMBING -['r!T A Wd. Joi,! I I XI I A,j Bo,e ,o UNIT _{._ co~ 0 H- COST ' "o" ,. Soo "oo, ,-- ' 'o, '°" r I § I I c. Stone C. Soth•OO<I FlrQ c'ctc'~"-·-•coco_, ___ ~l--!--~l----1---- 0. Briel< D. Hord,.,ood Ffro :X __ 0 Lo,010,y ~ Pier~ E. Concrete E To1lel F. ~ SIiia f. ~-;,;;;;. ----F Sa!h1ub I "I '°"'0 "' I 1-1--l-+-l-'l '0 ' 00 ' G.I S1Jo1<ir Stotl _l:1J_l'\'.llchen SI,,• /'2) EXTERIOR W.1--j-ca-r- A! Fr Wd or% S 17,. I I I I I I I 1·.;1·::~.'~;''l±t::~=1+ ~0 ; 0 ';,o::: ~ p~~ ft~f ~ (l~boQe D,sp -, i) I I I I a! Fr A•Wstos s.1 • !f;, . : l<,~ r:'·· • . r; . // :'.:?,;, ' . . I ·~· in'~~~ er : .. )-·,-- . ~'-~ AREA-MAIN BUILDING AREA .:::'(; 2 ;j' __2_'/1 fjJ__ ,-____£2_ -; 52 ----'----______ ): ___ _ -'- -"- TOTAL ,·,.,1;; i I -- RATE ADJUSTMENT COMPUTATIONS ITEM AREA OR OUANTI TY " + ,,. + ~ -~: -; 1~11-1=1=1 . t-----1--1- -~-- ; ;: a::~:::ur It:= i-::-~:-:-1:r_d --L 0,5~ .. o.irn, 1E Bl~.1f"Poinled -= =-=-~ ~Ord-odfu->t:lt=LI_J=.tJr~AL ·-----1 ! I :rw=l I F Blk 8 .. Slucco _ _ _ £_ ~~ -1-H-+-+--t!l~I H~AT~~ ll COOL!NO G. Btk,B, Slk o, Ork II Lo~ ;:;:,;:H__ ··---~~-l ,9:·1_'.i.~~-f-~y~ ---------. ------1--1--,--,-- Stove -i-1---j~ 17) BATH FLOOR:! ~;;~~-; I L I Nolive Stone 1-1-1--A, tlose -~!~~": 1,d ln,ul Woll, I . H~I __ ~~(_!r _ _ _ ~-~~"~(_! -----r~·= . .. DOLLAR AOJUSTMENT COMPUTATIONS I ___ --1-_ !Bl BATH WALLS __ E_l!clric . Rodionr __ ---~, -~REA OR -----;:.~ Y~-== I A_jBooe '::l~l.!1:J!~~! __ .. __ 1.:' Cailin'!__ ---·· ITE QUANT!l'I UNIT~-~, ~'::: --=~== ;·::;0"':" ,-t--;~:·,:~::::·-~-,--: __ E:=_-~-~~~.--= .. . ',,0 ':..i~:--?1--==1: __ 1_ _ C Goble ,~ $. . Worts Stoker Booe Podmsler /. -" FRONT Acluol Pui,n<1l<1r~~s/s''=~~~ ::::::. .~:~ :·:::~ ~;; . ._,e ,;= :~;;;:,;:• ' ::::=:= • .~ ,ee,~-----=-·-----~~~ l--t-------4-·I-I-I-I ;,,_.(;, I'!) F1n1•h<1d Allie ~--------------------- 1 Orher Item• ana Remor~s 1~) Porchoo jc,41 ROOFING Half sror~ ---------- A! Wo,:,~.Shf 1-l----COMPUTATIONS µ!.~. Shoku -1--_ _ YEAR 19 19 I •~ , C A1nhe!I Shn Computed SL_______ • _. --·-___ , ___ _ _ ~-A,oo or . A,oo or . Areo o, o Asbutos Shg,. tTE'.M __ ~ITL ~ -~ .Qwmtii Un,, Toto! _ .!2,;om!!!J~, Totol l,Jl.ull!;~!.!.._j.. To101 : ::·:: ,-'"' '"" ""' __ j{J_; 3 0.L~-1~ ----· ----,-~-- : :~·:. :::.:"'"::.o· ---~-~--1==1--1-1-1=1 I I l Prenored Roll u-" ,, , __ J lnoul Collin~ " " Arco,,, 1 ~lit, Und I To101 / --<---j----j----j---t-----,f------< HOii .,,u,v r-._ ____ ............... _____ -:::~~":'.'~~~,,.."""""""""""" ____________ J:;i:~f\Qa C-oo-,,-",--~ 1-; J ~ I I ---I ,----r4---~El ~·:,'.;;·";",~" "" m-s·;:' ''.;:'.) :.:·,~:·::·:o::::::o,~-----_--=~=--·-.. -~=-~------___ --_ =-~-.I wm:_.i_,;Su_ac.w ___ --__ I 1-lllb Finlohed Artie ----· 1--1----1------1--t---•--- P.,ir~hos /Cf2:-fJDollo, Adj~•lmenl Z:Z: --<J~r,--;· '""""'" I i------t---1--1---1--t----t--1--t-1----1--1---1---_, v,or of Conoltuclle>n Yeor ol looprec,a1, No,mol Ob,ota.conce App,ol•ol I 'l,or I Aoo LIi• '-Good_ Cond,r,on Func1,ono1 Eco~om,c •• + JldJu•tod .,.-. \>cod jfioplocemon!_.f~I Now 715.IS AE_luol AdjuO!_!d RC N L 0 c..t.Lg_ lC ,. ,6,o P~~~~!'.! -·~~od ;OlhM lmpro,eme'!.f.~ r,nJ'l/ 7'16. 1 I TOT.Ill RCNt () 7'87 ?'/Of,•--•/ lhh7--. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 96 I I I I I I SURVEY FORM HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Project Name ----------- /, r rJ I I '--II . Address hr) t--'t 1u .. n! ,, , . Historic Name ----------- Bldg. No. "t>J.· S'-..::> "'-~~~--------- Style Original Location.?:{__ Moved Materials Grd. Floor LOood _;:;;a==='------- U pp er Floors Architectural Features 1--,; aced tz.?1-,fi~ an P1/p nr VJ r t1 Hd{c h2:'/ /] /J ~r:, "lit 0 ,J Comments (,'€,I') f Sirn;fa f:: -b 144 /-{ 'f ,n L1,, I I <l '' I Subdi v Addn Name ,\_! 1 le"' .1-1 5 M...cl I+ i'cr7,L Block No. I -------------/ I (11 n ,\ Lot Na. it> 7 / 13 6 r-f't)J_IL) Date of Const. _ _,_iC',~r_-11(.,_._.__· ____ _ Use Current: f-eS r°cJ.'l..rJ((!_ Hist or i c : it.:.: 0...'ll -:C'.2. Condi ti on: excel. X good fair --_deteriorating Extent of Alterations: minor mod. ---__ ..,;major Describe: Stories / Date(s) of move: Field Assessment _:1/(;_ Eligible ~ Not Eligible District Potential Yes Contributing ~No Non-Contri b. Associated Buildings Type Yes Surveyed By: MJJe11t:4. '-Q. ut 0 Date: le I IS" f&e , ' ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 97 ,~re·a_ti·,WeStel'rt trom a·.ao.cnubcr.rmc hclct-;,: ! ...... -,-, , -- , ',·;·;-: ·'"· .. ~.t _,-;_,.· __ -· ',.;·, .. -.-·-,_·,-.!by_· n; !rlcnd,t_'l'he-_gun np·-·· ,,-:.Pollcc_0 \:snlil ,/ they. , ;,:ding,_ n ·;wcekldng •strike· ,J·"'.uu """":-·· ,-:··-----_-~ _" ~~9Jl,f7.;r~~t~i.,§-~.:=~~~~~~;. ?n.'(!!_i.r)1~.·;:a ~+.h. --~.·-.. :.~:~.-lp~;cnt~.' .. 1~;~:;;~~:r~~~::~:::,.!fei~kr. ...•. ~.t~. ·.~.:.);:sp -profitS.1.b. _',.;"t :~ ' ,,to unloo,£1, il1r.lhe Sherl.IC':i::--. Sun"dny_:nlg~r·growihg -·-; 13'ut-wa\kouts·~on~1,nued n't':~::,i~t hHY\/ y,.., .. ::;-::0·:;l. . • . ~· ...... i ....... _ .. , .. 5)0S ..:--.;;:_-·._:.omcesara:~s.sz-::lt":i-:;;:~ -~und-the_~shn.1bbery_; -::;.o\her~copl)Oi:fC~~pan1c11::;Jt/lllff.WllSh1nitOii:\+h _;~' ~1i'.:NYJ!1i{_·~~~)'::"=X'132~The-youth·holdlrig.th'~;g\in7 ~Ltli~*d?~~tory.~...The~ :~-A,.nd ,,n~gotlators£;._r~~rt!:_d·n._!5.aUortal.f.F:00tball.;f.LeO:gtl __ J>e.r~C~nLbooStln.o 'rattn · -::~;'!fas·or1e.~! tw~.f:Jend.s _from:::. :1Plants.wote;:~~1yvc1y_ ""i.,.fe~VCkipmc~~· In __ offier{t.owners refused;~~even;tal ·,pfuflts. from ,:·oi ~\ g. :" Colornd. o -1:lprlngs~::Vls!tlng' .. : ::.t ti.en t}-tl e.!1·:«a. n. ~.: :,.Jabor:"./-.dlsp·u· te.s:l,lnv.?lv._ lng'1f.1wtlh.);the;¥strlklng4.Player , -~~sterrt-:-Suga~M:! :· Bales_11t:..the.:.um~th~· ~1i:i-i'.' ::. cle~~!:?*dj;_ttils.::::_ n;i~I:4 4-a~~~ln_~:'.l~mplor,e~;'~~:~~~4JA~~~fort·;,U.n_t~~8{unlo . ·resulted, In "subst8.n I . cldcntoccurred.:~·>: . .--:~,-._•;-;--•,'.' <·.nhig .... No:tlnE!:r)"!Ui'..1l~:; ,;..C:If1v~rs .. Pry5_foot~allpl_ayers.·~,re.v1hJe n r lmproVeine"nt" -1 . ta · :·,s: .Funeral 1 arrangements·. :_charged, said pollce,t,~ \\and .c1 • .Uio~sand~,:_;pf.1i_o_the~:;:fdqinait ._ .for ihe:'"J>are~t:~~"r n!s '::a1:e. pending .at _thc_Y-'.a'rnln·:;·: · · · · · .. , .. '""-'· '.:~':".°rkers;-.;,.,\i+}~(t:;,;t~£c:i:Xfr:d:\y/f£i,!JWith/t ~ Western· 'Unifod Co • ~ .t~_Funeral Chapel.'.·.'( .. ::·,.:.-,, .. ;·:··.'>;.:. ·1:, • '-:'\ .. ;.;/. , .. :-i•,x;<<:.::,,.,.,;:;.:_:;:; Kennccott.;satd;.t~ez.lastJ;;,7,Y;,;.NaU,on .•. the'·flsca1 y at .. d 1~ or_, , .. Bales-Wrui-bom~'.iu1Y·"9 ·.-.·:aerrttco ;Ciu1'1pti811 1!rernalnlng ;, locals'.,:,o(i\,thc:':.7:remalhed,:;gfu '.. 31.L ..,.::_.__ __ e_ i~ _ _e ~Jay i1m~n.n:Denver. He wrui·lh~-. : .. _···:-·:.,·' ,:1: ··-< .:.·,,1\ .. ,'>'_.: .. 1:}[ttn.~tedr\;~tCe(~o·!~<'W}::o.t=.Z,f.A\k)l\\';~0.pJ.t " .. ... ~ · ~ .. RO'b , t-' · G -~ · . ···~--' ,~ ·stePson·or M;r. a·nd Mrs. Pat::;,~:Bernlc·e:M.-caniPb1ill~:so:,~,f~n\.erlca-v,bted Sun1Ul'J'i'llgh.t,if~~hi.ng1:on.v';~etw.e~ll g . . ()resldee; of awiver,ett. D. Boyd. of 'Red· ·FeathCr: of 62:f'Monte,ylsta..:Averiuti_<to:+ratl.fyi~!l/kJent~ .. tJ'{e\~.a'-~lll].ep4ian.~,\,th~., e ··. .. . . \ .. • says·, In Lakes. ,,:·.. , , , •'.·died,,. Sunday_-· In> Poudre' •:agrcemc~t,,,.rench~d.\,Jas.tt .. rcp.rescnb~g,~i,;_,6001fS Ivie'"'. of s. In-soaring prices The· youth had com·Pieted, Vo.lley .. 1Memorlal .' Hospltai.\··.M. onday. 'Vlth···th.eflrro ... .'f<.·,\:\_-;,.'.'.:::mec.hanlcs .on.strike;!. _ ·---;r_rc.f~ne.d.sug~i:~~e_exp'ec.ts -.ninlli.,grade at-Clear ,,Lake,' a!lera.brle.f lllnes~: , .,,. ·.,.,-·. :.·:,> Rowe~er;capp.· roxlm.'aletY?i;')as. '.· . . lo :t~!;o~::~:~r:1;~~~~~~ :-t;tlor. ;fI.lgh S~h0o1 · ln<~s~rvl~es.:t~'Jt:1";~i~Jttn:?·:.-o-'·~e·~\-n·;;::,v>::-e"c;tr:::'.\/1'<a_{:_.;WJ'.;:q;,y;ffe;,Jr;~rfa··l.tp.,, ;;_,,,~;:; R' c-j ·. ·~e currc'nt'Cli-st ·uarter or~ .. , nvcr. , .•. ,, ..... ..;.,..·-:-·\. e nes ay_a ... c .• arren,, .. , . . -1,-}; . , -' -,;;.::,\ , . 1975 :------~---....... q~~-:--·-~!l.i:Y~~lfg-~e thh_l.L.:~ep_:_~~~r;~f!l~~~w~~<l th: :· >'.>.r,,,.:~·-',;h'.<r[(·;\'.·S~~.'.ti.tYJ..&~'.+';t[i~0t.t.;;,.;;?+· . -" "';"Si ~~J.1·~ ;we,t~cn :.un!Wa:_:::~:,.;.,::i°,: "'..~r.,:~""'.11,iatf~gr:;_\\. ' .... lioil;&."~ .. ',·.,ass .. 1sta. "· t.,.·.' a .... ,s .... r .. ·.'··c ;;/0 ome~;1""~,· ,"f;'}!,;'~·,,.;\_~,.,,c:. :, · ''l'ifpu e year-end earnings . Tau·nya. gTandparents Mr . cremated.' · · <' ' . ., ' • ,,, , ,._._, ,>,. • .. <>: ., ;:; -;.· · , -""" ..; .. ' , •. ,>·4· ~ ,. -lte,7.;··~'!! , .. • ?: , ,: , ".: pt just.ov~r $4 million, or· and M~. Elmer Moo~ oi."' She was boi'.n ·Dec.(i!i FninlCH,'Oldhain:.~26\R+wlth ... work 'In~ Larimer~ ~: '' -....~.',;-.. ,. \ ' ~l.95pers~are, compared to Deriver and Mrs. Bernice 1803. ln Belden · Ne~, ··she Denver , at.to_::icy, :and 5 County Court. V~le,vfren , ~ , / .... 1 ~ , Jt 1973 loss of $6 million, or · Boyd of Colorado.Springs: a·, was, married to ·JoeJ,. w. Colo~do }tate. yn.lverslty: said ...... ·'"_ '" .. /. . , . r.. ~ j, ".-· ..... , i · .-fl~88'Cn_shnrc._Sales-were:-:-great-grand!ather;:, .. Jake'···Campbell o.n.Feb ... 6, 1020 II} ,.graduate, A< has_:. ;b.cen;; af ;, .,"·,The:.!1.ew .. .,..deputy, district .. -, ";,,·. ':: .. :.;~·~,j~' ..... ,~.--OE 1 ~ mll_llon, 4P 14. percent. . Kissler of Greelej.,. and a , Calcutta .. India ... Het:1u . pointed, Larimer_ ·County s _-. attorney .. received ,his Jaw\·, \2C\ ; , ...... -.: ,_ I r. The ,sugar. subsldla!"Y'.:; great-1,tran·dmother.' Mr's, o viyes: , . -... ·. ,. . ·.: ew. deputy .assistant degree_.ln·.March.1973 !rt>m_;· i.'.::<·.:;I:'' · .1 Offer,.s a.FR\ ~es were up 19,pcr cent at Katy Stencel of areal Bend · • She wrui'a me.mber o.f the strict attorney ... _.. . .:· ,, · ....... u1e unlvers. lty of Denver. He.:. . •. · .... · . : •!L t .,, .. ·t f', ~19mllllonandprofltswere Kan, · First Unlted_Presbyter·!an:, Oldham fills,t_Rn opening: ea'.'"ed I!' bachelor's·degree·.,; -:-1· ·. :·:·-;:·::··, 19"0!"1 '.?CS, ljl · ~.5 ~lllion .. up from $11.8. h· 1 ·-.• Church and.had Hve·d In Fort ·.on~'.the .. Dls~r:_tct __ Altol_'Il_ey's.:,:.,ln.· ·.social.; sclen.ce·-f.,om .. :; ,. ·-.. ·:.-: •.. '~";'--'-::-:···r 1, .. ,.· •. -: ~:-.. < •. .- _-:::~llllc?!J. ;°J>O!teQayearago. Sc nau ber -__ : ·r Collins 1!i years.·. . .;·-'"Staff left by .. the •ap-·,, Colorndo Sfu.te University In ' i --,, '~ ' . 'Ib ' · :--GWl:l s ,land sales sub•.-... · -, ..... ---· Other survlvors--lnclude pofntmentJuly 11 of former_ 1970. . . ·. : : · · . · ·w\0-.,1 .. ffeildhiryhadnetsales.of$23.8 reportedly· .two daughters. Mrs. Sara• Chief Deputy District Atty: .. HehM'beellln-pi-lVafo"IO:w-.. -o '.;~···-~~~·, eu~July i :million, down $4.2 million, ., .. PedersenofEstcsParkand· Ronald.,.L .. -:Schulz-·as ·practlce~!pr·the·past six' ·-:. · •. 1 I · , :4Jld._ su!Ccred .. an operating h , o • I Mrs. Ai-line. C. 11"\Vln .. 0 f Larimer · County. Court 'months. and. prior to that 1 ~ 2000 SC \ ~?SS of $778,000 compared ._escapes osp1ta Glendale ,t\rlz.; two sisters judge, . . ·.he wns the deputy .director ILLOW LAl\ ~th a· 1973 loss of $5.2 · · Mrs, Eva Gravel of Brush District Atty. Stuart , ot. the. Colorado District 1 :mllllon,Everettsald. -,·· / Fort Collins youth and Mrs, Mnrle Tower of· ~an'Mcveren said Oldham ·".Attorneys' ;,Association-Jo , A.CROS c .1J..rn\!~_wJlit__m._4r.cter In thLI:.ll.ruel-Neb-.:-nnd-four...-wQu)d_potJucceed_Sc_hu_ltz~~n~er,_g . . -· ' i · • · Pl l .101STY.EAR, NO. 75 shooting death of his. l6• grand hlld . as the office's chief trial Oldharn[·has moved to -ease year-old brothc_r escaped c rcn. ' , deputy.' a post which Is still· Fort Collins wlth··hJs,wlfe. 1 • 49 Sunday from Be~hesda __ · __ ··-..... ..,;:·:_::.::::=open.-Oldham· will ~-beglri-mrw1nearn $12.oooafear. ·---·---·.·--_ __:__:_. - : .... \fjARo Hospllul ln Denver the.·,-' Stella Bruce . .. ' DEVE ,. Shoritr'sOtrlcocepo,lod. P,rison off'1c'1als se'ek, esc'a'·p· ees \ COlORADO , ,Denver pol.lc·c said Orlan ·Mrs. Stella Lee Brilcc. 70. HESS , Do of Clarksv!lle: Ark.. and CANON CIT C ' d to \ GENERAL uglns Schnnuber 16 of · Y, olo. appeare have been "well EXCP LENCE _ 234 MIiky Wiiy appurcn'tly rormcrly of Fort .Co\l!ns.' (AP)-Pollee ·were to .planned."_ . ,\ " walked away from the dledSlinday In Clnrksvllle.· Continue-their search.today · He said the prisoners had '1> 1973 ~ -private hospital Sunday Funeral services wlll be at. for four Inmates who a. homemade knife. scissors / l4'i:. nlghl. · • , 2 p.m. Wednesday at the_ escaped from the Colorado , nnd'o.sti-alght-edge razor: * . _ .. _ Schnnubcr was releri.sed Goodrich Chapel. wllh Rev. State Penl_tentlnry in On Sunday morning F" , ' under s10 ooo bond In the•' ,Delbert Paulson officiating. separate ·incidents over the guards discovered the ab· - ORT CC?LLINS custody of hls father. A Burial w\11 be In Grandview weekend. . sence of two men hOused in --i---CiQ_LbRADOAN ___ .. 12.~i:~g o"n n motion to Cemetery. · Two of the fugitives ·the medium security unit ·a A SPtlOEL NEWSPAPER rosc""ficdule a sanlfffrlii[SCt-:--She-was-born,~Sepl.-l4:--0VefpoW"er(l(fi\l\atnbulii.tlCC-PTIS0n spokesman said:--· ---- PUBLISHtO tV~lNGS July 29 In Larimer District 1804. In Missouri. On Oct. 7. driver and guard and The two were Identified as (EXCEPTSATUROf-Y) · Court. is set for Tuesday 1920. In Geneva. Neb .. she escaped Saturday night Robert Hubbard .. 20. and A No SUNDAY MORNINGS morning al9 a.m. was ma'rrled to Robert .R. while on·the way to the state Robert Cameron 22. The : Fort Collins Nr\\sl),lJH'i's In~·. Schnauber wnslcharged !n Bruce, who died In 1955· hospital here but prison spokesman said authorities • 1' P.0.1\ux 1571 \ U1e Dec. 28 shooting death of Sh~ lived In rort Col\lns officials snld there was no have "no leads" on how the : ~ 115 t:,1st .\lountaln ,\\rn'itr his brother Daniel 16 at the from 1939 to 1972 · then sign of how the other two got two fled the Institution. • Fort-Colhns,C0.80521 i family's home southwest of moved to Clarksv\lle. She away, Brucbaker wrui convicted : Trk1,ho11r llll·~H~-7ls!lll ~Fort Collins ......... •.. was a member of the First In ·El Paso County of : :'\lrinbrr _of_tht• Assoclatrd -~ Daniel Schna~ber. was United Methodist Church Deputy Warden John aggravated robbery and ,}'rr~s .. C'ol~1~ailo ]'r~:ss '.\ssu· \-:-s~ot four tlmes_wllh-:-a:22--and the o~derof the Eastern G rl ff In.-. sa Id·-Jam es·--sentcnced to 15 to.25 years*-'--- : rlallon, A1hht llurrau of( lrcn· ..!:. \callbcr'"' ·t"1tte, "Pol lee·· Star. . ... · · .. Bruebaker , 25. and Calv.In Fulmer _was .,CQnvlc;cd of,\ .· • ~ latlon~. reported. . , She , Is s,urvlved by n Fulmer. 24. tied up a guard .1 second-degree,· murder. and's;.,r,f<,1} "'-'Arian Schnauber has dau_ghter.-!Jrs, Betl:,_, .J. anddrlveraftcrtnk!ngovcr conspiracy to commit.. , " ~UtiSCRl~T)ONJ~-~rEs:::::::,.._~ded not 'guilty-by reason ___ SmlthofClarksvllle. . an ambulanc.e which '."as/ second-degree burglary In S3.00 per month by carrier. of lnlqln!ly In the death. be lng used to ..-,taKe 'Jefferson County.· He· was~-- y mall In I.a.rimer County He \was charged with . Brucbaker to .. .Jhe' h?spltal sentencedto55to65yearsln 0 tslde or carrier a*rea S:JO per murder\ under 'the state's SUBSTITUTES for treatment of severe _prison .. ; yea"r· Slate of Colorado m adult· felpny, laws. which Hc\lco tcrs a~d German ~t~mach?alns; Hubbard. Who ''."'llS con· ' per~ ar; Oulslde Colorado allow adult charge, against Shepher~s arc replaclng.Ule,...... . Fulmer was an Inmate vlcted in E) Paso was --·1·-...... , . anyone H ~ears or older If . .,, . nurse .and was ac-serving terms for sexual ,,.: • S_40. per ear. Sing\~ copy 15. ~the district llitorney moves St. Bemai:d resc\le--dogs 1!l companying _Brue baker to assaull. while camcron was ~ .... 1:cnts_dal\)' 2L~I!l~21!.'!!i!Y-· -the-case-loaduJ\court the Swiss Alps. the hospital Griffin said convicted ·In Denver of : '.Other rates upon request". "' . . a ofilg"1ffiutfie1nclclenf cr1mmartres15D:5~.,::, c;cc..__c: ___ 1-1--------- ---~~: Second Clas!fostage paid '\.,r1\.(1Vl\!'1'rNNl.V~J>,!"'lV.1~~!"~Vl\f,.j ,. · ' 1 •• atFortCo\llns,Colorado .• _ ,, -~N]~~~~-A~~!~!"N"-'~ Co~~/nf By Joc.k . Goodri£h• [ . SUMMER··' --r '":VAC,A TION ~ c:::._ lt h o cyrlous loc! !hot no! cilty ore obiocn oml distance~ great: 111111 er to lhe very young;-bul 1\mo -•. -----·---------- lt'iil!"is"IOl190T.ihis·1qfo*rl-o! l-------------- 1ho magic o ! I he -Ch i··l d ~S world. world . in . First,. know ------tion i Second, uSE phan ... i;,,_ ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 98 '10&.,1/(<$9(18((;,67,1*+286((;,67,1*$77$&+('*$5$*()5217<$5'6(7%$&.5($5<$5'6(7%$&.6,'(<$5'6(7%$&.6,'(<$5'6(7%$&. :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP(;,67,1*&21',7,216&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR (;,67,1*6,7(3/$1ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 99 :''1'1'1':/,9,1*5220',1,1*5220.,7&+(1%('5220%('5220(175<&2$76&/26(7&/2%$7+2)),&(/$81'5<*$5$*(/,1(1:KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP(;,67,1*&21',7,216&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR (;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$16)ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 100 :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP(;,67,1*&21',7,216&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR (;,67,1*1257+(/(9$7,21 (;,67,1*($67(/(9$7,21ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 101 :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP(;,67,1*&21',7,216&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR (;,67,1*6287+(/(9$7,21 (;,67,1*:(67(/(9$7,21ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 102 '10&.,1/(<$9(18((;,67,1*21(6725<+286((;,67,1*$77$&+('*$5$*()5217<$5'6(7%$&.5($5<$5'6(7%$&.6,'(<$5'6(7%$&.6,'(<$5'6(7%$&. 21(6725<$'',7,21:KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP352326('&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 352326('6,7(3/$1ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 103 '1'1:' /,9,1*5220',1,1*5220.,7&+(1%('5220%('52205<$76&/2%$7+*$5$*( &/2 0$67(5%('5220&/26(70$67(5%$7+ (;673$175<&$%,1(76(48$/ (48$/ :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP352326('&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 352326('0$,1/(9(/3/$1 6) 6)$'',7,21 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 104 :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP352326('&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 352326('($67(/(9$7,21 352326('1257+(/(9$7,21ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 105 :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP352326('&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 352326(':(67(/(9$7,21 352326('6287+(/(9$7,21ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 106 :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP352326('&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR'9,(: 1257+:(67'9,(: 6287+:(67'9,(: 1257+($67'9,(: 6287+($67ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 107 83(;,67,1*&5$:/63$&(6725$*( )$0,/<5220 :KLWQH\&KXUFKLOO$,$SKRQH HPDLO FKXUFKLOOZKLWQH\#JPDLOFRP352326('&KXUFKLOO$OWHQKRIHQ5HVLGHQFH10F.LQOH\$YHQXH)RUW&ROOLQV&RORUDGR 352326('%$6(0(173/$1237,21ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 108 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 109 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 110 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 111 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 112 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 113 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2Packet Pg. 114 1 Jim Bertolini From:Casey Churchill <cchurchill@libertycommon.org> Sent:Friday, December 4, 2020 8:39 AM To:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: Re: 140 North McKinley Ave Expansion - photos & check-in Hi Jim, Not sure if you need any of this for your report and I will be sure to recap during the meetings this month, but here are the current updates we have done to the house. I think it would be important to highlight the updates that we have done so far since our purchase of this property. I consider the house currently finished for all updates. New roof (took off the shake shingles and T-lock shingles and replaced with plywood and asphalt shingles) New water heater New furnace New gutters New landscaping in the front and the back New irrigation system in the front and back of the house New front and back door New concrete driveway Newly painted the house Took out the old ceramic tile sewer line and replaced with PVC Replaced fir flooring in the back and replaced with red and white oak flooring to match the rest of the house and refinished all the wood floors. Got rid of all the galvanized piping in the house and replaced with Pex pipes Replaced the water line from the city to the house Thanks, Keith (Casey) Churchill Liberty Common School Principal National Core Knowledge Consultant 970-482-9800 ext 1111 From: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 6:41 PM To: Keith Churchill <cchurchill@libertycommon.org> Subject: RE: Re: 140 North McKinley Ave Expansion - photos & check-in Thanks Keith! That should work. For preparing for the 16 th, you are welcome to provide a presentation then if you’d like although it’s not required (any presentation materials need to be received no later than Monday, December 14 at 5pm). I’ll be covering your application before the LPC and they’ll have received everything you’ve submitted up to that point. The agenda will be posted later this week here: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/landmark-preservation.php If you open the agenda for the Work Session (if you’re attending next week on the 9 th) and the Regular Meeting (on the 16th), the Zoom link is at the top. If you have other questions, please let me know. Cheers! ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 115 0 "U -; 0 z m !'> 01 ...... ...... ""O::.: :;a o,Q= ""OII Q...... (/) ,-m 9o (/) =im""O I SIDEI YARD!SET-I BACK I I I I I I MCKINLEY AVENUE 50' -O" 40' -O" 5' -0" ------' '---1 I SIDEI YARDSETBACK! I ,---------J I ------,--" I I I L __ J _T __ I -I� ::0 U} q (JO I=q q ' ' q q U} q � I: �::o� ()0::0 e -_ I_ - - - J __ ----+-_______ ______,___ 20' -O" 30' -O" I\) «;! ' "l Churchill/ Altenhofen Residence 140 N. McKinely Avenue s t u d i olllEI architecture- Fort Collins, Colorado 715 west moutain avenue fort colins, colorado 80521 phone: 970.231.1040 e-mail: heidishuff@gmail.com ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 116 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 117 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 118 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 119 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 120 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 3Packet Pg. 121 /.D,JOMFZ /PSUIXFTUDPSOFSMPPLJOHTPVUIFBTUITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 122 /.D,JOMFZ 4PVUIXFTUDPSOFSMPPLJOHOPSUIFBTUITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 123 /.D,JOMFZ QBJSFETBTIXJOEPXTPOTPVUI FMFWBUJPO MPPLJOHOPSUIFBTU ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Pg. 124 /.D,JOMFZ"WF (BSBHFMPPLJOHFBTUGSPN.D,JOMFZITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 125 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 126 /.D,JOMFZ"WF QJDUVSFXJOEPXMFGUOPSUIPGFOUSZ MPPLJOHFBTUITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 127 1 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission, December 16, 2020 140 N. McKinley Ave – Rear Addition Landmark Conceptual Review 2 1 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 128 Role of the LPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed addition •Do the project concepts meet the Standards? •Where could improvements be made for final review? •If elements are inconsistent with the Standards, how can they be corrected? • Provide informative feedback for owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • If project information is sufficient and Commission is confident it meets the Standards, can proceed to final review in this meeting. 3 Property Background • City Landmark • Designated December 15, 1998 • Standards 1 and 3 • Period of Significance undefined ( likely 1945) • House & Garage constructed in 1945 4 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 129 Proposed Project – Rear Addition 5 • Addition onto rear (east) elevation of house to provide two additional bedrooms & finished basement. Proposed Alterations - Footprint 6 Existing Proposed 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 130 Proposed Alterations - Floorplan 7 Existing Proposed Proposed Alterations – Basement Floorplan 8 Existing Proposed 7 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 131 Proposed Alterations – West Facade 9 Existing Proposed Proposed Alterations – North Elevation 10 Existing Proposed 9 10 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 132 Proposed Alterations – South Elevation 11 Existing Proposed Proposed Alterations – East (rear) Elevation 12 Existing Proposed 11 12 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 133 Proposed Alterations – Sketches 13 Staff Analysis • Project is generally consistent with SOI Standards for Rehab • Appears to be: • Compatible • Distinguishable • Generally reversible (related to character-defining features) • Subordinate • Could be improved with reductions to footprint 14 13 14 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 134 Responses to Work Session ?’s •Nelsen • Confirm FAR compliance • Zoning check • Corner treatment over siding? • Metal cap per applicant sketch (see Att 5) • Why gable rather than hipped at rear? • Garage gable end on south • Nelsen (cont) • Consultation with structural engineer • Yes; precautions being taken (see Att 5) • Dunn • How much of lot is covered/how close to rear? • See revised map on Slide 2 • Why farther back instead of wider? • For applicant discussion • History of parcel lines • See Att 5 15 Suggested Discussion ?’s • Is the size appropriate considering the historic context of the Minimal Traditional house type? • Is the addition adequately differentiated and screened from public views by non- vegetation features (i.e., historic building, neighboring buildings)? • What material treatments would be most consistent with the Standards (siding, windows, etc.)? • What design concerns are there regarding features such as basement egress window wells, window treatments, etc.? 16 15 16 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 135 Role of the LPC • Provide conceptual review of proposed addition •Do the project concepts meet the Standards? •Where could improvements be made for final review? •If elements are inconsistent with the Standards, how can they be corrected? •Provide informative feedback for owner for future approval under Municipal Code 14, Article IV • If project information is sufficient and Commission is confident it meets the Standards, can proceed to final review in this meeting. 17 17 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 5 Updated 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 135-1 1 Jim Bertolini From:Casey Churchill <cchurchill@libertycommon.org> Sent:Friday, December 11, 2020 4:10 PM To:Jim Bertolini Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: RE: RE: Re: 140 North McKinley Ave Expansion - photos & check-in Hi Jim, Here are the answers to the questions below. 1. Corner Treatments. The siding to the expanded part of the house will be different. We will need to fabricate metal protection similar to what we currently have on the house to match the current siding and a wider siding on the expanded part of the house. Something like this… Not quite sure on this one. I am still discussing with our architect. Do you have any suggestions on this? If the siding needs to be different, then what does one do in these situations? 2. Gable in the rear to match the gable in the south elevation of the house. No problem doing a hip roof there, however. Just thought it would match with the south side. 3. From our Engineer… “Placing the basement next to the existing will be a challenge no matter how deep you go. Not impossible, but a challenge. The contractor will just have to do the temporary shoring (piles or lagging) or shotcrete shoring as mentioned before during excavation. Something to consider during pricing to make sure that is included. For the foundation walls, we can design the wall to go deeper and take the pressure from the existing foundation wall system. This may increase the reinforcing in the wall, but not significantly.” 4. I purchased that 400 square foot chunk of land in the back a few years back from the neighbor to the south. I think that land used to be an old ally. All the folks in that area purchased the section of the ally and now it is gone. I bought it so that we had more land so we could possibly expand. Please let me know what else I can do to help move this along. Thanks for all your help so far, Jim. I am grateful. Sincerely, Keith (Casey) Churchill Liberty Common School Principal National Core Knowledge Consultant 970-482-9800 ext 1111 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 135-2 2 From: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 8:59 PM To: Casey Churchill <cchurchill@libertycommon.org> Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: 140 North McKinley Ave Expansion - photos & check-in Keith, Thanks for attending the LPC Work Session last night. I’ll be able to respond to most of the LPC’s requests for more information. Just so you have them on file, here’s the questions that would be best for you to respond to in your remarks: 1. What will corner treatments be over the siding? (Nelsen) 2. Why gable form on rear addition rather than a hipped form? (Nelsen) 3. Any consultation with a structural engineer about feasibility/requirements of excavated basement next to crawlspace? (Nelsen) 4. Could the owner provide some information about why the parcel boundary is irregular? (Dunn) Everything else regarding the floor-area requirements in your Zone District, showing lot coverage after the proposed addition is completed, etc., I should be able to respond to. If you have questions, feel free to call. Cheers! JIM BERTOLINI Pronouns: he/him/his Historic Preservation Planner Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue 970-416-4250 office jbertolini@fcgov.com Tell us about our service, we want to know! From: Casey Churchill <cchurchill@libertycommon.org> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 8:49 AM To: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: Re: 140 North McKinley Ave Expansion - photos & check-in OK sounds great. I don’t have a presentation nor do I think that is needed. I will just comment on improvements and rationale for expanding. Thanks, Keith (Casey) Churchill Liberty Common School Principal National Core Knowledge Consultant 970-482-9800 ext 1111 From: Jim Bertolini <jbertolini@fcgov.com> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 8:46 AM To: Casey Churchill <cchurchill@libertycommon.org> Subject: RE: RE: Re: 140 North McKinley Ave Expansion - photos & check-in ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 6 Added 12-15-20 Packet Pg. 135-3 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 16, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME 711 PETERSON, THE W.E. BOYD RESIDENCE (ADDITION) – DESIGN REVIEW STAFF Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The owner is seeking to construct an addition to this contributing property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District (NCM Zone District). APPLICANT/OWNER: Richard Sadowske, Kim Dickson (owners); Kim Morton (design representative) RECOMMENDATION: Proposal does not meet the Standards ROLE OF LPC: Design review in this case is required and governed by the City’s Municipal Code under Chapter 14.54(b). In cases where a property’s historic designation does not come from Fort Collins City Council (i.e., listings in the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic Places), a report must be prepared documenting whether the project meets or does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards). This report is typically issued by staff in most cases – currently staff forwards reports to the Landmark Preservation Commission when alterations do not meet the Standards to a degree that threatens the historic designation of the property. In these cases, the Commission’s role is to review the drafted report, provide additional comment regarding how the project does or does not meet the Standards and what effect the project will have on the historic status of the property, and issue the report. Reports, once issued, are not subject to appeal. Staff has drafted the report called for under Chapter 14, Article IV for the Commission’s review of exterior alterations. This is provided in place of an analysis in the staff report to avoid unnecessary duplication. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The W.E. Boyd Residence at 711 Peterson was constructed as a six-room cottage in 1904 for $2,500 and owned originally by Professor W.E. Boyd. It was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District. It is not a Fort Collins Landmark. The applicant is proposing an addition to the property on the northwest corner to provide a main floor bedroom and bath. Review by either staff or the Commission is required under Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV. Staff has forwarded this application for review to the Commission due to the extensive nature of the exterior modifications and the possibility that the property may no longer contribute to the Historic District after the project is completed. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Excerpt from 1980 NRHP Nomination: W.E. Boyd House (711 Peterson): 1904, Butler and McDaniels-builder, single, detached, one and a half stories, rectangular, clapboard, high hipped, plan cornice with sloped soffit, two bays. Packet Pg. 136 Agenda Item 5 Item 5, Page 2 ALTERATION HISTORY: The following is a record of known exterior alterations to the property: •1927 – Construction of 16 x 10 frame garage (extant) •1933 – Porch (presumably rear mudroom with shed roof, now a dining room) •1939 – Reroof •1953 – Addition to garage (on rear) •1953 - Reroof •2001 - Reroof •2005 – Rear porch converted to dining room; patio with pergola added •Date unknown – Replacement windows DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK: The applicant is seeking a report of acceptability for the following items: 1.Demolition of approximately 4’-7” of existing wall on the north elevation; wall portion currently includes one main story exterior door and window and one upper story window 2.Construction of a new one-story addition with vaulted ceiling (223 square feet; approximately 1/6 of existing house) on the northwest rear corner of the house, set back from front elevation by 19’-1”. New construction to be clad in smooth lap fiber cement siding (5.84-inch width), fiber cement “cedar” shakes, and vertical fiber cement panels; double-hung windows (Andersen, 400 Series or equivalent); and asphalt shingles (Timberline HDZ Shingles, color: “Shakewood”). The existing floor area of house and garage combined is 1,618 feet; the addition would add 223 s.f. for a total of 1,841 square feet. Allowable floor area for this 6,800 s.f. lot is 2,700 square feet. 3.Construction of new gravel walk on north side of new addition, connecting with the existing two-track gravel driveway (rear half of existing driveway running from Peterson to frame garage will be obscured by new addition) PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY No public comment about this project has been received at this time. EVALUATION OF APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff has provided an analysis of the applicable review criteria in the attached draft report. FINDINGS OF FACT: In evaluating the request for the alterations to 711 Peterson, staff makes the following findings of fact: •The property at 711 Peterson is not a City Landmark but is designated as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places. •Upon review, the overall project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission issue the attached draft report as final, documenting that the project’s effects on the historic property and its likely resulting status within the Laurel School Historic District. SAMPLE MOTION: I move that the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the proposed plans and specifications for the alterations to the W.E. Boyd Residence at 711 Peterson Street as presented, do not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, that our findings shall be conveyed to the owner, and shall be filed for potential transmittal to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the property’s historic status. ATTACHMENTS 1.Design review application 2.Draft SHPO report 3.Staff Presentation 4. Site & Floor Plans (added 12/14/20) 5. 1998 Recon Form (added 12/14/20) Packet Pg. 137 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 1 Design Review Application Historic Preservation Division Fill this form out for all applications regarding designated historic buildings within the city limits of the City of Fort Collins. Review is required for these properties under Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Applicant Information Applicant’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Property Information (put N/A if owner is applicant) Owner’s Name Daytime Phone Evening Phone Mailing Address (for receiving application-related correspondence) State Zip Code Email Project Description Provide an overview of your project. Summarize work elements, schedule of completion, and other information as necessary to explain your project. ZĞŵŝŶĚĞƌƐ͗ ŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƵůĚŶĞĞĚ ĂůůŽĨĐŚĞĐŬůŝƐƚŝƚĞŵƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐďŽƚŚ ƉĂŐĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ͘ ĞƚĂŝůĞĚƐĐŽƉĞŽĨǁŽƌŬƐŚŽƵůĚ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͘ The following attachments are REQUIRED: ƑComplete Application for Design Review ƑDetailed Scope of Work (and project plans, if available) ƑColor photos of existing conditions WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞ͗ŝĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƉĂƌƚŝĂůŽƌĨƵůůĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŶĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽƌƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͕ĂƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ĚĞŵŽůŝƚŝŽŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽďĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ͘ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŵĂLJďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞůLJĚĞƉŝĐƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐƉůĂŶƐ͕ĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ǁŝŶĚŽǁ ƐƚƵĚLJ͕ŽƌŵŽƌƚĂƌĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘/ĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŝŶƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŵĂLJďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂŶŝŶƚĞŶƐŝǀĞͲůĞǀĞůƐƵƌǀĞLJĨŽƌŵ;ĂƚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐĞdžƉĞŶƐĞͿ͘ Kim Morton 970-482-8267 918 Akin Avenue Fort Collins CO 80521 kimmorton@frii.com Richard Sadowske 970-213-4041 Same 711 Peterson Street Fort Collins CO 80524 sadowske@gmail.com See attached project description below in feature "a". ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 138 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 2 Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work (*Required) If your project includes multiple features (e.g. roof repair and foundation repair), you must describe each feature separately and provide photographs and other information on each feature. Feature A Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Feature B Name: Describe property feature and its condition: Describe proposed work on feature: Use Additional Worksheets as needed. No rehabilitation work is anticipated. A modest addition consisting of a bedroom and bath is to be constructed to the northwest side of the existing house and as far to the rear as possible. Currently all bedrooms and the home’s one full bath are on the upper floor. The owner is wanting to age in place and due to health concerns needs a bedroom and bath on the main level. The goal is to maintain as much of the existing structure as possible with a minimal amountof renovation inside to give access to the new addition. The location of the addition was selected because of the layout of the existing house. A rear porch with a shed roof was previously retrofitted by the current owner into a dining room space that looks out over the rear yard. The kitchen was remodeled in the early 2000’s to orient toward the dining space and provide much needed light. Directly behind the dining room is a patio with a pergola. There is a detached one car garage the owner uses as a shop. Given the constraints of the lot, the best choice for the addition was the northwest corner. The owner does want to be respectful historic aspect of the home and neighborhood; therefore, the footprint of the addition was kept to a minimum, and a minimal amount of demolition will be needed. The existing home has had all of the windows upgraded so are not original, butthey maintain the character typical in a home of this age. This thought will be continued in the addition. The siding will be similar but with an engineered wood material.On the front and rear cantilever, a board and batt siding will be used intentionally to complement but mark the new era of the addition. The roofing will be the same as on the existing home. There is no anticipated exterior rehabilitation work to the existing house other than the entire house will be repainted once the addition is complete. The owner wants to keep the existing color scheme. Construction is slated to begin in the spring of 2021. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 139 City of Fort Collins Design Review Application Page 3 Required Additional information The following items must be submitted with this completed application. Digital submittals preferred for photographs, and for other items where possible. At least one current photo for each side of the house. Photo files or prints shall be named/labeled with applicant name and elevation. For example, smitheast.jpg, smithwest.jpg, etc. If submitted as prints, photos shall be labeled Photos for each feature as described in the section “Detail of Proposed Rehabilitation Work”. Photo files or prints shall be named or labeled with applicant name and feature letter. For example, smitha1.jpg, smitha2.jpg, smithb.jpg, smithc.jpg, etc. Depending on the nature of the project, one or more of the following items shall be submitted. Your contractor should provide these items to you for attachment to this loan application. Drawing with dimensions. Product specification sheet(s). Description of materials included in the proposed work. Color sample(s) or chip(s) of all proposed paint colors. Ƒ Partial or full demolition is a part of this project. Partial demolition could include scopes such as taking off existing rear porches to create space for a new addition or removing an existing wall or demolishing a roof. If you are taking away pieces of the existing residence, you are likely undergoing some partial demolition. Signature of Applicant Date Kim Morton Digitally signed by Kim Morton DN: cn=Kim Morton, o=Speech & Language Stimulation Center Inc., ou, email=kimmorton@frii.com, c=US Date: 2020.11.20 08:50:27 -07'00'11.20.2020 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 140 711 Peterson Street Existing ElevationsF a c b a d 1. East Elevation 2. West Elevation 4. South Elevation 3. North Elevation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 141 711 Peterson Street Proposed ElevationsF a c b a d 1. East Elevation 2. West Elevation 3. North Elevation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 142 711 Peterson Existing Vs. New ViewsF a c b a d 1. Existing East View 2. New East View 4. New North Elevation 3. Existing North View ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 143 711 Peterson Existing Vs. New ViewsF a c b a d 1. Existing West View 2. New West View 3. New North West Elevation ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 144 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1Packet Pg. 145 20Metric units are rounded to the nearest millimeter. Smooth finish Smooth Lap 5.84 in., 7.84 in. or 11.84 in. (148 mm, 199 mm or 301 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 76 Series Smooth Lap (fiber) A Traditional, Subtle Look • Traditional look that accentuates the architectural features of any home • Smooth finish for a clean appearance • Pre-primed for exceptional paint adhesion • 16' length can result in faster installation and fewer seams • Treated engineered wood fiber substrate DESCRIPTION LENGTH ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL THICKNESS PID NUMBER 76 Series Smooth Lap (fiber) 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 5.84 in. (148 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 25919 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 7.84 in. (199 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 25920 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 11.84 in. (301 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 25921 x 711 Peterson Materials. Choices are marked with "x" or with red circle or box. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 146 16Metric units are rounded to the nearest millimeter. Cedar texture DESCRIPTION LENGTH ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL THICKNESS PID NUMBER Cedar Shakes (fiber) 47.94 in. (1218 mm) 11.69 in. (297 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm)28541 Cedar Shakes 47.94 in. (1218 mm) Full View 11.69 in. (297 mm) Cedar Shakes (fiber) 47.94 in. (1218 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 0.688 in. (17 mm) Top/Bottom Profile The Luxurious Appeal Of Cedar • The look of real cedar with easy installation and maintenance over time • Staggered edges offer a lively, textured effect • Can be used on all exterior walls or as a decorative accent with any substrate • Shiplap ends for seamless appearance • Treated engineered wood fiber substrate • Reversible staggered or straight edge offers exceptional design versatility Staggered Straight x ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 147 25 Specifications: LP® SmartSide® Panel Siding Fiber substrate products may have specific features and functional benefits. See LPSmartSide.com for product details. Cedar texture Cedar Texture Panel 48 in. (1219 mm) Measure to outside of bead 48.56 in. (1234 mm) 0.200 in. (5 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 0.200 in. (5 mm)0.315 in. (8 mm)0.200 in. 5 mm 8 in. OC (203 mm) 38 Series Cedar Panel 8" o.c. (strand) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 48.56 in. (1234 mm) 0.330 in. (8 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 0.330 in. (8 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 0.530 in. (13 mm) 190 Series Cedar Panel – No Groove (strand) 48 in. (1219 mm) Measure to outside of bead 48.56 in. (1234 mm) 0.330 in. (8 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 0.330 in. (8 mm)0.530 in. (13 mm) 8 in. OC (203 mm) 0.330 in. 8 mm 190 Series Cedar Panel 8" o.c. (strand) Rated For Structural Use By The Engineered Wood Association • Shiplap edges with advanced bead system for easier alignment • Pre-primed for exceptional paint adhesion • Significantly lighter than comparable fiber cement panel • Strong enough to be nailed directly to stud, making additional sheathing unnecessary in many applications • Eliminates need for additional bracing on load-bearing walls • Ideal exterior for homes in areas of high winds or seismic activity • Treated engineered wood strand substrate Also available in fiber substrate. • Not rated for structural use • Treated engineered wood fiber substrate 48 in. (1219 mm) 48.56 in. (1234 mm) 0.230 in. (6 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 0.230 in. (6 mm)0.375 in. (10 mm) 4 in. OC (102 mm) or 8 in. OC (203 mm) 0.280 in. 7 mm 76 Series Cedar Panel 4" & 8" o.c. (strand) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 48.56 in. (1234 mm) 0.200 in. (5 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 0.200 in. (5 mm)0.315 in. (8 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 38 Series Cedar Panel – No Groove (strand) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 48.56 in. (1234 mm) 0.230 in. (6 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 0.230 in. (6 mm)0.375 in. (9.5 mm) 0.813 in. (21 mm) 76 Series Cedar Panel – No Groove (strand) 48.56 in. (1234 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 0.688 in. (17 mm) 8 in. (203 mm)0.375 in. (10 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 76 Series Cedar Panel 8" o.c. (fiber) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 15.94 in. (405 mm), 47.94 in. (1218 mm) 76 Series Cedar Panel - Square Edge (fiber) x ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 148 3 Cedar texture Smooth finish Reversible Trim 2.7 in., 3.5 in., 5.5 in., 7.21 in., 9.21 in., 11.21 in. or 15.47in. (69 mm, 89 mm, 140 mm, 183 mm, 234 mm, 285 mm or 393mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 440 Series Reversible Trim (fiber) 3.5 in., 4.5 in., 5.5 in., 7.21 in., 9.21 in. or 11.21 in. (89 mm, 114 mm, 140 mm, 183 mm, 234 mm or 285 mm) 0.910 in. (23 mm) 540 Series Reversible Trim (fiber) Two Great Looks In One • The natural look of cedar on one side and smooth on the other • Interior or exterior use, including corner boards, windows and doors • Pre-primed for exceptional paint adhesion • 16' length can result in faster installation and fewer seams • Treated engineered wood fiber substrate DESCRIPTION LENGTH ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL THICKNESS PID NUMBER 440 Series Reversible Trim (fiber) 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 2.70 in. (69 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 25 940 * 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 3.50 in. (89 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 25941 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 5.50 in. (140 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 25942 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 7.21 in. (183 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 25943 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 9.21 in. (234 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 25944 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 11.21 in. (285 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 25945 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 15.47 in. (393 mm) 0.625 in. (16 mm) 38445 540 Series Reversible Trim (fiber) 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 3.50 in. (89 mm) 0.910 in. (23 mm) 25946 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 4.50 in. (114 mm) 0.910 in. (23 mm) 25947 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 5.50 in. (140 mm) 0.910 in. (23 mm) 25948 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 7.21 in. (183 mm) 0.910 in. (23 mm) 25949 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 9.21 in. (234 mm) 0.910 in. (23 mm) 25950 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 11.21 in. (285 mm) 0.910 in. (23 mm) 25951 *Special order item. Requires minimum quantity and extended lead times. Metric units are rounded to the nearest millimeter. ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 149 39 Cedar texture Cedar Texture Soffit 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 0.530 in. (13 mm) 190 Series 4'x8' Cedar Soffit (strand) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 76 Series 4'x8' Cedar Soffit (strand) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 0.315 in. (8 mm) 38 Series 4'x8' Cedar Soffit (strand) 11.94 in., 15.94 in. or 23.94 in. (303 mm, 405 mm or 608 mm) 0.315 in. (8 mm) 38 Series Cedar Soffit – Cut-to-Width (strand) The Finishing Touch • The perfect alternative to MDO and plywood soffits • Cut-to-width eliminates time spent ripping full sheets • 38 Series engineered for closed soffit applications • The 76 Series and 190 Series are ideal for use as the starter course for roofs with exposed eaves • Treated engineered wood strand substrate Also available in fiber substrate. • Not rated for exposed eave applications • Engineered for closed soffit applications • Treated engineered wood substrate Specifications: LP® SmartSide® Soffit DESCRIPTION LENGTH ACTUAL WIDTH ACTUAL THICKNESS PID NUMBER 38 Series 4'x8' Cedar Soffit (strand)8ft. (96 in.)(2438 mm) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 0.315 in. (8 mm)25813 76 Series 4'x8' Cedar Soffit (strand)8ft. (96 in.)(2438 mm) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm)25814 190 Series 4'x8' Cedar Soffit (strand)8ft. (96 in.)(2438 mm) 47.88 in. (1216 mm) 0.530 in. (13 mm)25816 38 Series Cedar Soffit – Cut-to-Width (strand)16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 11.94 in. (303 mm) 0.315 in. (8 mm)25805 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 15.94 in. (405 mm) 0.315 in. (8 mm)25806 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 23.94 in. (608 mm) 0.315 in. (8 mm)25807 76 Series Cedar Soffit – Cut-to-Width (strand)16ft. (192 in.)(4876 mm) 11.94 in. (303 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm)25808 76 Series Cedar Soffit (fiber)8ft. (96 in.)(2438 mm) 47.94 in. (1218 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm)25926 9ft. (108 in.)(2743 mm) 47.94 in. (1218 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm)25927 16ft. (192 in.)(4877 mm) 15.94 in. (405 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm)28756 Fiber substrate products may have specific features and functional benefits. See LPSmartSide.com for product details. 11.94 in. (303 mm) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 76 Series Cedar Soffit – Cut-to-Width (strand) 0.375 in. (10 mm) 15.94 in. (405 mm), 47.94 in. (1218 mm) 76 Series Cedar Soffit (fiber) ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 150 11/15/2020 Window & Door Design Tool | 400 Series Double-Hung Window https://www.andersenwindows.com/ideas-and-inspiration/design-tool/400-series-double-hung-window/?widIn=31.625&hgtIn=44.875&frameColor=Interi…1/2 400 Series Double-Hung Window Interior Exterior To purchase this product or customize it further, take this summary to your Andersen dealer. Product Name 400 Series Double-Hung Window Product ID#TW2636 Unit Width 31 5/8" Unit Height 44 7/8"ØFeedback or equal ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 151 We protect what matters most™ Product/System Specifics QFiberglass asphalt construction QDimensions (approx.): 13 1/4" x 39 3/8" (337 x 1,000 mm) QExposure: 5 5/8" (143 mm) QBundles/Square: 3 QPieces/Square: 64 QStainGuard® Algae Protection3 Q Hip/Ridge: TimberTex®; TimberCrest™; Seal-A-Ridge®; Z®Ridge; Ridglass® Q Starter: Pro-Start®; QuickStart®; WeatherBlocker™ Applicable Standards & Protocols: QUL Listed to ANSI/UL 790 Class A QState of Florida approved Q Classified by UL in accordance with ICC-ES AC438 QMeets ASTM D7158, Class H Q Meets ASTM D3161, Class F QMeets ASTM D3018, Type 1 QMeets ASTM D3462 5 Q ICC-ES Evaluation Reports ESR-1475 and ESR-3267 QMeets Texas Department of Insurance Requirements Q ENERGY STAR® Certified (White Only) (U.S. Only); Rated by the CRRC; Can be used to comply with Title 24 cool roof requirements 1 Results based on study conducted by Home Innovation Research Labs, an independent research lab, comparing installation of Timberline HD® Shingles to Timberline® HDZ™ Shingles on a 16-square roof deck using standard 4-nail nailing pattern under controlled laboratory conditions. Actual results may vary. 2 15 - y e a r W i n d P r o v e n ™ limited wind warranty on Timberline® HDZ™ Shingles requires the use of GAF starter strips, roof deck protection, ridge cap shingles, and leak barrier or attic ventilation. See GAF Roofing System Limited Warranty for complete coverage and restrictions. Visit gaf.com/LRS for qualifying GAF products. 3 StainGuard® algae protection is available only on shingles sold in packages bearing the StainGuard® logo. Products with StainGuard® algae protection are covered by a 10-year limited warranty against blue-green algae discoloration. See GAF Shingle & Accessory Limited Warranty for complete coverage and restrictions. 4 To be mixed on one roof, Timberline® HDZ™ Shingles and Timberline HD® Shingles must have matching 6-digit codes found on the end of the bundle. When mixed, always use Timberline HD® installation instructions. 5 Periodically tested by independent and internal labs to ensure compliance with ASTM D3462 at time of manufacture. 6 Lifetime refers to the length of warranty coverage provided and means as long as the original individual owner(s) of a single-family detached residence [or eligible second owner(s)] owns the property where the qualifying GAF products are installed. For other owners/structures, Lifetime coverage is not applicable. Lifetime coverage on shingles requires use of GAF Lifetime shingles only. See GAF Shingle & Accessory Limited Warranty for complete coverage and restrictions. Lifetime coverage on shingles and accessories requires use of any GAF Lifetime Shingle and any 3 qualifying GAF accessories. See GAF Roofing System Limited Warranty for complete coverage and restrictions. Visit gaf.com/LRS for qualifying GAF products. Note: It is difficult to reproduce the color clarity and actual color blends of these products. Before selecting your color, please ask to see several full-size shingles. Timberline ® HDZ™ Shingles Benefits: Colors & Availability: Product details:©2019 GAF 12/19 • #875 • RESGN467HDZ 369107-1219Barkwood Birchwood INFINITE WIND SPEED PROTECTION ROOFING SYSTEMLIMITED WARRANTYWINDPROVEN™ Biscayne Blue Charcoal Copper Canyon Driftwood Fox Hollow Gray Golden Amber Hickory Hunter Green Mission Brown Oyster Gray Patriot Red Pewter Gray Shakewood Slate Sunset Brick Weathered Wood White Williamsburg Slate Q LayerLock™ Technology — Proprietary technology mechanically fuses the common bond between overlapping shingle layers. Q Up to 99.9% nailing accuracy — The StrikeZone™ nailing area is so easy to hit that a roofer placed 999 out of 1,000 nails correctly in our test.1 Q WindProven™ Limited Wind Warranty — When installed with the required combination of GAF Accessories, Timberline® HDZ™ Shingles are eligible for an industry first: a wind warranty with no maximum wind speed limitation.2 Q Our legendary Dura Grip™ sealant pairs with the smooth microgranule surface of the StrikeZone™ nailing area for fast tack. Then, an asphalt-to- asphalt monolithic bond cures for durability, strength, and exceptional wind uplift performance. Q StainGuard® Algae Protection — Helps protect the beauty of your roof against unsightly blue-green algae discoloration.3 Q High Performance — Designed with Advanced Protection® Shingle Technology. Q Seamless compatibility — The new Timberline® HDZ™ Shingles are com- patible with traditional Timberline HD® Shingles for the same look and feel homeowners and contractors rely on for beauty and endurance.4 Q Perfect Finishing Touch — For the best look, use TimberTex ® Premium Ridge Cap Shingles or TimberCrest™ Premium SBS-Modified Ridge Cap Shingles. U.S. only 2 6 3 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 152 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.4250 preservation@fcgov.com fcgov.com/historicpreservation Historic Preservation Services REPORT OF ALTERATIONS TO DESIGNATED RESOURCE Site Number/Address: 711 Peterson St. Laurel School National Register Historic District ISSUED: DRAFT - PENDING Richard Sadowske 711 Peterson St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Naffziger: This report is to document the summary of effects from proposed alterations to the W.E. Boyd Residence at 711 Peterson Street, pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article IV, made by the Landmark Preservation Commission at their December 16 meeting. A copy of this report may be forwarded to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). More specifically, the Commission commented on the following work items: 1. Demolition of a portion of the original 1904 residence on the north wall; 2. Construction of a new addition on the north side of the residence; 3. Construction of new gravel path to replace obscured rear portion of original two-track driveway Applicable Code Standard Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis (Rehabilitation) Standard Met (Y/N) SOI #1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships; The property is remaining residential in use and will remain recognizable as a residential building. Y ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 153 -2 - SOI #2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 1.Demolition of a portion of the 1904 residence (north elevation) •Demolition will remove 4 to 5 feet of the north wall and two existing original window openings and one door opening. While the relative scale of the area of demolition is not significant, the proposed demolition does not meet this Standard. 2. Construction of new addition, obscuring rear portion of original two-track driveway. •The new addition, while set back 19 feet from the front elevation and only 1/6 the size of the existing residence, will be unavoidably visible from the street and will obscure and disrupt the existing spatial relationships of the garage and two-track driveway leading to the garage from the street, and therefore does not meet this Standard. N SOI #3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 1.Demolition of a portion of the 1904 residence (north elevation) •N/A 2. Construction of new addition, obscuring rear portion of original two-track driveway. •The position that disrupts the existing spatial relationships, as well as the modern fibercement cladding materials, will ensure that the addition does not create a false sense of historical development and therefore meets this Standard. Y SOI #4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. N/A ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 154 -3 - SOI #5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 1. Demolition of a portion of the 1904 residence (north elevation) •The proposed demolition to accommodate the new addition does not meet this Standard. N 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. N/A SOI #7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. N/A SOI #8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. N/A SOI #9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 1. Demolition of a portion of the 1904 residence (north elevation) •The proposed demolition to accommodate the new construction does not meet this standard. 2. Construction of new addition, obscuring rear portion of original two-track driveway. •The new addition is compatible in design, scale, and massing with the original residence, but site constraints and owner preferences result in a location that impacts the property’s historic integrity. While set back 19 feet from the front elevation and only 1/6 the size of the existing residence, will be unavoidably visibly from the street and will obscure and disrupt the existing spatial relationships of the garage and two-track driveway leading to the garage from the street, and therefore does not meet this Standard. N ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 155 -4 - SOI #10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 1. Demolition of a portion of the 1904 residence (north elevation) •N/A 2. Construction of new addition, obscuring rear portion of original two-track driveway. •The new addition will permanently remove a 4 to 5 foot wide portion of the north elevation as well as two original window openings and one door opening. However, those openings could be readily restored with the removal of the addition and the two track driveway pattern restored as well. Y The Commission found that the proposed work does not meet the criteria and standards in Chapter 14, Article IV of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Based on the degree of alterations it is expected that the property will/will not remain contributing to the district. That would also prohibit current and future owners from leveraging multiple financial incentives for historic preservation. Notice of the completion of this report has been forwarded to building and zoning staff to facilitate the processing of any permits that are needed for the work. Please note that all ensuing work must conform to the approved plans. Any non-conforming alterations are subject to stop- work orders, denial of Certificate of Occupancy, and restoration requirements and penalties. If you have any questions regarding the Commission’s report, or if we may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at preservation@fcgov.com or 970-416-4250. Sincerely, Meg Dunn Chair, Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 156 1 Design Review (NRHP) – Alterations to 711 Peterson Maren Bzdek, Sr. Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission December 16, 2020 Commission’s Role Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide additional comment: • Do alterations meet SOI Standards? • Will property likely remain contributing to the Laurel School Historic District? Staff issues report on behalf of LPC 2 1 2 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 updated 12-16-20 Packet Pg. 157 Background • 1904: main residence constructed • 1927: garage constructed • 1933: rear porch added • 1980: Property listed in National Register (contributing to Laurel School Historic District) • 2005: rear porch converted to dining room • Date unknown: replacement windows 3 Property Setting 4 3 4 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 updated 12-16-20 Packet Pg. 158 Existing Elevations 5 Proposed Alterations 1. Demolish 4’-7” rear section of north wall (including 2 windows and 1 door) 2. Construct new 223 s.f. addition on the north side 3. Construct new gravel walk on north side of addition (will obscure rear half of existing 2-track driveway) 6 5 6 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 updated 12-16-20 Packet Pg. 159 Proposed Site Plan 7 Proposed Elevations 8 7 8 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 updated 12-16-20 Packet Pg. 160 Comparative Views 9 Comparative Views 10 9 10 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 updated 12-16-20 Packet Pg. 161 Staff Findings of Fact • The property at 711 Peterson is not a City Landmark but is designated as a contributing property in the Laurel School Historic District, listed in the National Register of Historic Places • Project meets some of the standards, but overall does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 11 Reminder: Commission’s Role Review proposed alterations and draft report. Provide additional comment: • Do alterations meet SOI Standards? • Will property likely remain contributing to the Laurel School Historic District? Staff issues report on behalf of LPC 12 11 12 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 3 updated 12-16-20 Packet Pg. 162 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 4Packet Pg. 163 ITEM 5, ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 164 711 Peterson Street Existing Photos F a c b a d 1.View From Kitchen Sink Looking to Rear Ya rd 2.Looking into Kitchen from Dining Room 4.Garage and Drive3.View From Dining Looking to Rear Yard. ITEM 5, EXHIBIT A Applicant Photos Packet Pg. 164-1 Agenda Item 6 Item 6, Page 1 STAFF REPORT December 16, 2020 Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM NAME CITY OF FORT COLLINS HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE STAFF Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner INFORMATION The City of Fort Collins developed its first Affordable Housing Strategic Plan in 1999 to stimulate housing production for the City’s low-wage earners (under 80% of the area median income, or AMI). The City is currently engaged with an update to the Housing Strategic Plan. City Council has directed staff to address the entire spectrum of housing needs in our community in support of the following vision statement: “Everyone has stable, healthy housing they can afford.” The vision recognizes the gap between peoples’ incomes and the cost of housing continues to widen, and that current resources are insufficient to meet our adopted goals for affordable housing production. Staff expects to share the plan with Council for consideration of adoption on February 16, 2021. The graphic below outlines the progression of the Housing Strategic Plan process: For the Commission’s consideration at this meeting, City staff members currently serving on the Housing Strategic Plan Core Team will provide a presentation outlining progress to date, public engagement feedback, work with consultant Root Policy Research, and outcomes from Council’s Ad Hoc Housing Committee. In support of the strategies’ evaluation process underway in the month of December, the presentation will highlight potential strategies that could intersect with the historic built environment, for which staff will be seeking Commission input. Note: In order to provide timely and accurate information at the meeting, the presentation will be finalized just prior to December 16 and is not attached to this agenda item. Packet Pg. 165 1 Housing Strategic Plan Update Lindsay Ex, Meaghan Overton December 16, 2020 Step 8: Implement* (Spring +) Step 7: Consider Adoption* (Feb/Mar) Step 6: Prioritize Strategies* (Jan) Step 5: Evaluate Strategies(Dec) Step 4: ID Strategies, Criteria (Nov/Dec) Step 3: Engage Community (Oct/Nov) Step 2: Greatest Challenges (Sep) Step 1: Vision (Aug) Housing Strategic Plan Process Progress to Date 50+ Strategies Identified Thus Far Consultant Support Community Engagement, Priorities Peer Cities & Leading Authors 1 2 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-1 Step 1: Draft Vision 3 Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford Challenge #1:Price escalation impacts everyone & disproportionately impacts BIPOC* and low- income households. Challenge #2:There aren’t enough affordable places available for people to rent or purchase, or what is available and affordable isn’t the kind of housing people need. Challenge #3:The City does have some tools to encourage affordable housing, but the current amount of funding and incentives for affordable housing are not enough to meet our goals. Challenge #4:Housing is expensive to build, and the cost of building new housing will likely continue to increase over time. Challenge #5:It is difficult to predict the lasting effects of COVID-19 and the pandemic’s impacts. Challenge #6: Housing policies have not consistently addressed housing stability and healthy housing, especially for people who rent. 4 Step 2: Greatest Challenges *Black, Indigenous, and People of Color 3 4 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-2 Step 3: Community Engagement 5 “At your own pace” module Partner-led engagement (12) City-led virtual workshops + presentations (24) Previous City engagement efforts Community Guide Discussions Nearly 450 community members engaged in just over two months! Step 3: Community Engagement 6 What We've Heard: Overall support for draft vision Challenges accurately reflect people's knowledge and experience Key values – Equity, Choice, Collaboration Themes: o Revamp the housing we have o Increase the amount and type of new housing available o Ensure housing stability for renters and homeowners o Leverage funding for housing stability and sustainability 5 6 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-3 50+ Strategies Identified Thus Far Consultant Support Community Engagement, Priorities Peer Cities & Leading Authors Step 4: Identify Strategies & Draft Evaluation Criteria 7 Initial Strategy Categories: 1. Education, Communication & Information 2. Community Partnerships, Governance, and Equity-Centered Implementation 3. Dedicated Revenue Stream(s) for AH 4. Financing for New Construction & Preservation 5. Technical/Direct Assistance 6. Policies Preserve Existing Affordable Housing and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Support New Construction of Affordable Housing Incentivize Private Development to Create Affordable Housing and Other Community Benefits Increase Supply of Accessible Housing Allow the market to respond to a variety of housing preferences 7. Continue efforts to implement recommendations from current housing-related studies and other City efforts Impacted Players in the Housing System Proposed Strategy HOAs Landl ords Builders/ Develope rs Finc. Instituti ons Special Districts & Gov’t Entities Manufactured Housing Nhbds Home- owners Renters People Experiencing Home- lessness Residents vulnerable to dis- placement Historically dis- advantaged populations Other Partners Education, Communication, and Information 5 Assess displacement and gentrification risk. City staff can use the work other communities do in this space as a guide for building our own index for displacement and gentrification risk using readily available data (Census, American Community Survey, etc.). This information can be used to help promote and target anti-displacement resources/programs, pair such resources with major capital investments, and guide community partnerships. X X X 8 Overarching Category: Education, Communication, and Information Specific Action: Assess displacement and gentrification risk Who Is Impacted: Renters, residents vulnerable to displacement, historically disadvantaged populations Step 4: Identify Strategies & Draft Evaluation Criteria 7 8 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-4 9Note: Step 5 is individual strategy evaluation; Step 6 is strategy prioritization with community and Council in January (process in design)Note: Step 5 is individual strategy evaluation; Step 6 is strategy prioritization with community and Council in January (process in design) Step 4: Identify Strategies & Draft Evaluation Criteria Does the strategy help achieve the vision and support equity? Is the strategy feasible to implement? What level of impact will the strategy likely have? What level of resources will be required? Council Ad Hoc Housing Committee 10 Discussion Framework: • Quick(er) wins – before April • Transitional Strategies – next Council • Transformational – more than 2+ years Aug: Overall Focus & Prioritization Sept: Existing Conditions & Greatest Challenges Oct: Housing Types & Zoning Nov: Review Housing Types & Zoning; Explore anti-displacement Dec: Review anti-displacement Explore funding & financing; occupancy & rental regulations Quick(er) wins identified thus far • Evaluate opportunities to increase and recalibrate affordable housing incentives in the Land Use Code (existing resources) • Off-cycle appropriation to advance Land Use Code audit (additional resources required) Additional “quick(er) wins” may be brought forth at the January Work Session 9 10 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-5 Off-cycle appropriation to advance Phase One of the Land Use Code (LUC) Audit What: Housing specific LUC Changes (2021-2022) Responds to the greatest challenges by addressing the entire housing spectrum with new tools and processes Defines additional housing types; creates opportunity to increase overall supply Recalibrates incentives for affordable housing production, identifies opportunities to add to existing incentives Refines and simplifies development processes When:Could bring forward Q1 2021, begin work Q2 2021 Resources Required for Phase One: $250-350K for housing- specific changes, $50-$60k matching funds from Home2Health (analysis & engagement) 11 Step 8: Implement (Spring +) Step 7: Consider Adoption (Feb/Mar) Step 6: Prioritize Strategies (Jan) Step 5: Evaluate Strategies(Dec) Step 4: ID Strategies, Criteria (Nov) Step 3: Engage Community (Oct/Nov) Step 2: Greatest Challenges (Sep) Step 1: Vision (Aug) Next Steps & Implementation Key 2021 Dates: • January 7, 2021 - Draft Plan released • Jan 7 - Jan 21 - Community review • Jan 21 - Feb 3 - Staff Revisions • Jan 26 – Council Work Session – Strategy Prioritization, Plan Indicators, & Guiding Principles • Feb 16 – Adoption (1 st Reading) 2020 Next Steps: •Incorporate remaining strategies •Begin strategy evaluation • Design process for strategy prioritization • Draft plan for January release Next Steps 11 12 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-6 Questions for Consideration 13 What feedback do Commission Members have on the following: 1) Strategy 5: conduct displacement/gentrification analysis 2) Strategy 17e: demolition tax/fees as a revenue stream for affordable housing 3) Strategy 42: remove barriers to development of ADUs 4) Strategy 43: revise occupancy limits and family definitions (U+2) 5) Strategy 45/48: land use code changes in regarding height, lot coverage, variances 6) Strategy 27: enhancing programs that support rehabilitation of existing building stock. 14 BACKUP 13 14 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-7 Updates : Rental Market Gaps 15Source: Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis, 2020 (https://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/files/final-report-social-sustainability-gaps-analysis-6-8-2020.pdf?1593109731) Updates: Renter Purchase Gap 16Source: Social Sustainability Gaps Analysis, 2020 (https://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/files/final-report-social-sustainability-gaps-analysis-6-8-2020.pdf?1593109731) 15 16 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-8 CITY PLAN •Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices•Principle LIV 6: Improve access to housing …regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, age, ability, or background Strategic Alignment 17 COUNCIL PRIORITIES • Affordable and Achievable Housing Strategies • Equity and Inclusion • Reimagining Community Engagement STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES Neighborhood Livability & Social Health •NLSH 1.1 Improve and increase…housing… affordable to a broad range of income levels. Themes We Heard – Must Absolutely Do 18 Community- centered, remove barriers Partnerships Engage with targeted communities – break down barriers Equity in process and outcomes (clear commitment) Identify innovative and disruptive actions and approaches Clearly communicate to multiple audiences Be specific, quantifiable, and achievable Establish goals, timelines, and accountability tools – & be agile Establish specific, quantified housing priorities & financials Role definition for the City And… Recognize housing is interconnected with all systems/outcomes Align with community goals and plans – build off engagement Begin regional strategy 17 18 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-9 Everyone has stable and healthy housing they can afford 19 MO3LE17MO5 20 Housing Affordability Along the Income Spectrum AMI 0% Below 80% AMI is City’s Definition of Affordable Housing 80% $69.7K/yr 200%100% $87.2K/yr 120% $105K/yr $415K Market Housing $320KPurchase Price Goal is defined by AHSP (188-228 units/year) Fewer attainable options are available to Middle Income Earners Goal is harder to define & City influence may be outweighed by market forces 19 20 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-10 Slide 19 MO3 What do you think about including this? It's a good summary of the issues/connection between housing and health. Comes out of the H2H Health Impact Assessment. Meaghan Overton, 8/11/2020 LE17 what do you think about backup slide if they ask about the connection between housing and health? We've already got a fairly long slide deck... Lindsay Ex, 8/12/2020 MO5 Yep, that works! Meaghan Overton, 8/12/2020 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT A Staff Presentation Packet Pg. 174-11 MEMORANDUM To: Fort Collins HSP Team From: Mollie Fitzpatrick, Root Policy Research Re: Preliminary Strategy Review Date: November 19, 2020; Revised November 23, 2020 This memo describes the evaluation framework of preliminary strategies recommended for consideration as part of Fort Collins’ plan to address the full spectrum of housing needs. Criteria will continue to be refined through December and January in staff workshops, City Council feedback, and community engagement. Evaluation framework. A number of factors are important considerations in evaluating and prioritizing specific strategies for inclusion in the Housing Strategic Plan. Not only should strategies be effective and financially feasible, they should also directly contribute to progress on the city’s current affordability goal (10% of units affordable to 80% of AMI by 2040) and the city’s vision for housing, “Everyone has healthy, stable housing they can afford.” Root will be facilitating a staff evaluation of all preliminary strategies over a series of workshops in December and January. First, each strategy is evaluated across a series of questions to confirm feasibility and alignment with City vision: (response options are yes/no/maybe). Next, strategies are rated for efficacy and relative cost to the city (on a scale of 1 to 5). Root recommends that strategies be re-evaluated every 3 years in concert with evaluating outcomes (i.e., are the strategies working?). Figure 1, on the following page, illustrates the evaluation framework. ITEM 6, EXHIBIT B Draft Evaluation Framework & Criteria Packet Pg. 174-12 Page 2 Figure 1. Evaluation Framework Note: Additional criteria can be added to capture city priorities as desired and/or clarified (e.g., unit quantity vs depth of affordability, priority populations, housing balance across the spectrum vs targeted approach of city funds, etc.). Source: City of Fort Collins and Root Policy Research Evaluation Framework Ex. StrategyEx. StrategyDoes this strategy create/preserve housing affordable to 80% AM I or less (City- adopted goal for affordability)?yes Does this strategy enhance housing stability?maybe Does this strategy promote healthy neighborhoods/housing?yes Does this strategy increase equity in the following ways… Address housing disparities?yes Increase accessibility?no Increase access to areas of opportunity?maybe Promote investment in disadvantaged neighborhoods?yes Mitigate residential displacement?yes Does this strategy address highest priority needs (to be defined by sub-goal development)?maybe Does this strategy increase housing type and price-point diversity in the city?yes Does the city have necessary resources (financial and staff cap acity) to implement administer and monitor?yes Does this strategy have community support?yes Can the City lead implementation of this strategy (or does it r equire state/regional leadership and/or non-profit or partner action)?yes If no, are partnerships in place to lead implementation?n/a Does this strategy help advance other community goals (e.g., climate action, water efficiency, etc.)?yes How effective is this strategy in achieving the desired outcome (on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not at all effective is 5 is very effective)?4 How resource intensive is this strategy (on a scale of 1 to 5 w here 1 is no cost is 5 is very high cost)?2 Rating scales for efficacy and cost Respond to each question with yes, maybe, or no:Vision CriteriaFeasibility CriteriaITEM 6, EXHIBIT B Draft Evaluation Framework & Criteria Packet Pg. 174-13 1 MEMORANDUM To: Fort Collins HSP Team From: Mollie Fitzpatrick, Root Policy Research Re: Preliminary Strategy Review Date: November 19, 2020; Revised November 23, 2020 This memo describes the structure of preliminary strategies recommended for consideration as part of Fort Collins’ plan to address the full spectrum of housing needs. Strategies will continue to be refined through December and January in staff workshops, City Council feedback, and community engagement. Strategy toolkit. The following toolkit of strategies reflects preliminary recommendations for consideration as part of the Fort Collins Housing Strategic Plan. Preliminary strategies are based on findings and recommendations in previous City reports,1 best practices in peer and leading communities, stakeholder and resident outreach, as well as the research and expertise of city staff. Additional details regarding implementation (specific action steps, beneficiaries, financial resources, responsible parties, etc.) will be incorporated after initial evaluation of each strategy. Strategy “buckets.” Housing policy is first and foremost a community issue and as such, the city’s strategies are organized around community participants in the housing system: builders/developers, landlords, homeowners associations, special districts and government entities, financial institutions, manufactured housing neighborhoods, homeowners, renters, people experiencing homelessness, residents vulnerable to displacement, historically disadvantaged populations, and other community partners. This identification metric fosters broad access to the plan by allowing all participants, businesses, and residents to see where they “fit” in the city’s approach to housing. A secondary categorization is also used to describe the type of strategy being used: education/information, revenue generation, financing, direct assistance, or policy (preservation, new construction, incentives, accessibility, housing diversity). Figure 1 (beginning on the following page) shows the organizational structure, along with the preliminary strategies proposed for evaluation. . 1 2020 Land Use Code Audit, 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Homeward 2020 ITEM 6, EXHIBIT C Draft List of Strategies Packet Pg. 174-14 2 Figure 1. Preliminary Strategy Recommendations Impacted Players in the Housing System Proposed Strategy HOAs Land lords Builders/ Develop ers Finc. Institut ions Special Districts & Gov’t Entities Manufactured Housing Nhbds Home- owners Renters People Experiencing Home- lessness Residents vulnerable to dis- placement Historically dis- advantaged populations Other Partners Education, Communication, and Information 1 Refine local affordable housing goal. The City has already adopted a broad goal of 10% affordable at 80% AMI. Consider formal adoption of subgoals (e.g., 10% of rental units affordable to 60% AMI; 5% of owner units deed restricted and affordable to 100% AMI) to help set expectations for developers as they negotiate agreements with the city and establish more specific targets for the city to monitor progress. X X X X X X X X X X X X 2 Improve resident access to housing information and resources. Language access plan; tenant rights/responsibilities; fair housing rights and complaint process; affordable housing goal/policy tracker; housing equity; resource/program information; affordable housing database and/or search engine; partner agencies housing services. X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 Promote inclusivity, housing diversity, and affordability as community values. PR campaign and/or communications related to density, structural racism, need for affordable housing, myths about affordable housing, etc. Could also use "tactical urbanism" strategies as part of this effort. X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 Support community organizing efforts in manufactured home communities and access to resident rights information. X X X X X X X 5 Assess displacement and gentrification risk. City staff can use the work other communities do in this space as a guide for building our own index for displacement and gentrification risk using readily available data (Census, American Community Survey, etc.). This information can be used to help promote and target anti-displacement resources/programs, pair such resources with major capital investments, and guide community partnerships. X X X 6 Conduct a condition review and ownership survey of existing, aging multi- family housing stock. Identify building rehab needs, rental trends, which buildings have opportunities to leverage historic property funding, etc. X X X 7 Conduct economic productivity analysis of selective case study neighborhoods based on date of development (e.g. Old Town North with Harvest Park and an example from the lower end of LMN density spectrum) X Community Partnerships, Governance, Equity-Centered Implementation 8 Regularly assess existing housing policies and programs to ensure they are effective, equitable, and aligned with vision. Begin with a comprehensive review of current programs/policies using the Government Alliance on Race & Equity Racial Equity Toolkit. All strategies proposed in this Housing Strategic Plan will also be evaluated through an equity and efficacy lens. X X X X X X X X X X X X 9 Consider extending the city’s affordability term. The City’s current affordability term for projects receiving City funding or incentives is 20 years but many cities use longer terms, commonly 30 up to 60 years. (Affordability term refers to the period over which affordable housing is income restricted, after which its deed restriction expires and it can convert to market-rate). X X X X ITEM 6, EXHIBIT C Draft List of Strategies Packet Pg. 174-15 3 10 Conduct a formal Disparity Study to evaluate the prevalence of inequities in the housing system in Fort Collins. In collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, this study could research current and historic documents, e.g., deeds, subdivision plats, policies and programs, to understand the root cause s of inequities and disparities in Fort Collins. X X X X X X X X X X X X 11 Provide staff and those involved in the housing process with uncon scious bias training to ensure all community members are treated equally in processes. X X 12 Create an anti-displacement committee, which would review opportunities to pair anti-displacement strategies with major public investments to mitigate the unintended consequences of such investments on residential displacement. X X X X 13 Improve access to interpreters/translators and City programs, especially in Spanish and consider other languages X X X X X X 14 Embed partnerships and associated funding into all housing strategies to adequately compensate for expertise X 15 Identify opportunities for communities to be decision makers, e.g., participatory budgeting X X X X X Dedicated Revenue Stream(s) for Affordable Housing 16 Extend sales tax dedicated to Affordable Housing Capital Fund (due to sunset in 2025). X X X X X X X X 17 Create a new dedicated revenue stream to fund the Affordable Housing Fund. Trust funds have grown immensely in popularity with reductions in federal funding for housing coupled with rising needs across communities. Local funds can support a variety of affordable housing activities, have fewer restrictions and are easier to deploy than federal or state dollars. Revenue sources are varied and include: X X X X X X X X X X X X 17a Linkage fees (commercial and/or residential) or impact fees (paid by new development). A linkage fee policy was reviewed by City Council in 2020 and was suggested to move forward in the next fee review and update (est. 2021). X 17b General Obligation Bonds X X 17c Cash in Lieu fees from inclusionary housing buyouts (if implement IH) X 17d Dedicated property or sales tax X X X X 17e Demolition tax X X 18 Consider affordable housing requirements/funding as part of metro districts. The city is already working on a specific recommendation for this strategy. X X 19 Consider affordable housing requirements/funding as part of TIF districts in Urban Renewal Areas. X X 20 Explore funding options through linked, but non -traditional sources, such as health agencies/foundations and/or social impact bonds. These innovative financing strategies are becoming more common and aim to leverage the savings created by stable, affordable housing but realized in other sectors (lower medical, social service, and justice costs). X Financing for New Construction and Preservation 21 Partner with local Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) to offer gap financing and low cost loan pool for affordable housing development. X 22 Continue to pursue public-private partnerships and consider a dedicated staff member who would focus on cultivating such opportunities. X X X X ITEM 6, EXHIBIT C Draft List of Strategies Packet Pg. 174-16 4 23 Work with developers to better understand the financing barriers to missing middle projects and consider partnerships with financial institutions (CDFI, credit unions, and banks) to address such barriers. X X 24 Consider formation or partnership opportunities for a socially conscious Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) to fund projects aligned with the city's housing vision and goals. X X Technical/Direct Assistance 25 Increase funding for financial literacy, credit building, and homebuyer education for residents. Some CDBG funding is allocated to supporting nonprofits that are providing this service but additional funding would increase capacity. Opportunities should be available in both English and Spanish and should be affirmatively marketed to historically disadvantaged populations and demographic groups with disproportionately low rates of homeownership. X X X X X X X 26 Foreclosure and eviction prevention and legal representation. Housing Counseling generally takes the form of providing assistance with mortgage debt restructuring and mortgage and/or utilities payments to avoid foreclosure; short- term emergency rent and utilities assistance for renters. Cities often partner with local nonprofits experienced in foreclosure counseling. Landlord-tenant mediation is similar but generally conducted by local Legal Aid for more involved disputes between the landlord and tenant. CARES Act funding is currently dedicated to a legal defense fund for renters but additional resources are necessary to carry this strategy beyond the duration that CARES resources allow. X X X X X X X 27 Home rehabilitation. Grants or loans to assist low income homeowners and (less common) multifamily property owners with needed repairs. Can be emergency repairs or maintenance needed to preserve homes. X X 28 Consider a mandated rental license program for long-term rentals and pair with best practice rental regulations. Having a rental registration or license program (a program in which landlords are required to obtain a license from the city) makes it easier to implement and enforce a variety of renter protections, promote best practices to landlords, and identify problem landlords. Specific efforts promoted through such programs include landlord education (fair housing or other), standardized lease agreements in English and Spanish, application fee reasonableness requirements, "just cause" evictions, source of income protection enforcement, housing quality standards, etc. Can include a modest fee to cover program cost, e.g., recent research suggests these fees range from approximately $0 to $110/unit, though fee frequency, determination, etc. varies by jurisdiction. X X X X X X Policies Preserve Existing Affordable Housing and Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing 29 Public Sector Right of First Refusal for Affordable Developments. Typically requires owners of affordable housing notify the public sector of intent to sell or redevelop property and allow period of potential purchase by public sector or non- profit partner. X X X X ITEM 6, EXHIBIT C Draft List of Strategies Packet Pg. 174-17 5 30 Tenant right of first refusal for cooperative ownership of multifamily or manufactured housing community. Laws that give tenants the right to purchase a rental unit or complex (including a manufactured housing community) before the owner puts it on the market or accepts an offer from another potential buyer. Laws typically allow residents to assign their “right of first refusal” to other entities, such as nonprofit partners that help the residents form a limited equity cooperative, or affordable housing providers that agree to maintain the property as affordable rental housing for a set period of time. Note that this provision already exists for manufactured housing communities under the Colorado Mobile Home Park Residents Opportunity to Purchase (HB20-1201 passed in June 2020). X X X 31 Acquisition/ rehabilitation of naturally occurring affordable housing. In this strategy nonprofits or for-profit affordable housing developers purchase privately-owned but low-priced housing options, or subsidized units with affordability periods ending (“at risk” affordable housing). Owners make needed improvements and institute long- term affordability. At-risk housing stock may include private rentals with rising rents, manufactured housing parks, or lower-cost single- family homes and real estate owned (REO) properties. Rental properties can be maintained as rental or convert to cooperative ownership. Ownership properties can be resold to lower-income families or leased as affordable rentals. City role in this strategy could include acquisition, capital to subsidize non-profit purchase, or rehabilitation loans. X X X X X 32 Small landlord incentives. Public sector incentives that encourage small landlords to keep units affordable for a period of time in exchange for subsidized rehabilitation or tax or fee waivers. Requires identification of properties through rental registration. Could also be applied to current vacation rentals for conversion to longer term permanent rentals. X X X Support New Construction of Affordable Housing 33 Bolster city land bank activity by allocating additional funding to the program (contingent on adopting additional revenue stream policy). Begin with inventory and feasibility of publicly owned land in city limits and growth management area. Also consider underutilized commercial properties that could be used for affordable housing. Continue effective disposition of existing parcels to affordable housing developers and land trust partners. X 34 Inclusionary Housing. Policies that require or incentivize the creation of affordable housing when new development occurs, either within same the development or off-site. Some inclusionary housing ordinances allow the developer to pay fees "in lieu" of developing the affordable units. Colorado state law currently prohibits Inclusionary Housing for rental but it is an option for owner-occupied developments; and the state will be considering repealing the prohibition on inclusionary rental ordinances in the 2021 session. X 35 Evaluate opportunities for affordable housing components in Capital Improvement Projects. Could be achieved through land donations, development agreements, and/or partnerships with affordable housing developers. If adopt an anti-displacement committee (see #10 above), involve that committee in this process. X X X Incentivize Private Development to Create Affordable Housing and Other Community Benefits 36 Community Benefit Agreements. Agreements negotiated among community groups, a municipality and a developer that require specific terms in ex change for local support and/or planning approvals. CBAs aim to mitigate impacts of the X X X X X ITEM 6, EXHIBIT C Draft List of Strategies Packet Pg. 174-18 6 project through local benefits like workforce training, local hiring targets and affordable housing investment. 37 Incentivize energy efficiency, water conservation, and other green building practices in alignment with Our Climate Future Big and Next Moves Incentives can include fee waivers, variances, density bonuses, etc. X 38 Recalibrate existing incentives to reflect current market conditions (existing incentives include fee waivers, fee deferral, height bonus, density bonus, reduced landscaping, priority processing). Conduct a detailed review of the current financial benefit of existing incentives relative to their r equirements and evaluate applicability by income level and geography. Based on that analysis, recommend changes to incentive structure and applicability to increase efficacy. X 39 Create additional development incentives for afford able housing. Development incentives are tied to a commitment to produce an agreed -upon share of affordable units (can be rental or owner). Most policies mandate set asides of between 10 and 30 percent, depending on the market, and set affordability periods between 15 and 99 years. Incentives can take many forms; see below: X 39a Expand density bonus program to apply in other zone districts (currently limited to LMN zone). Program would need to be calibrated for a variety of zones. X 39b Annexation approval tied to development of affordable housing. X 39c Building variances (can apply to setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, design standards, open space dedication, etc.) X Increase Supply of Accessible Housing 40 Buydown of ADA/accessible units. Provide subsidies to persons with disabilities who cannot afford market-rate accessible rentals, most of which are in multifamily developments built after 1990 (post Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA). X X 41 Visitability policy. Require or incentive developers to make a portion of developments "visitable," meeting design standards that allow easy visitation by mobility impaired residents (one zero step entrance, 32-inch doorways, and bathroom on the main floor that is wheelchair accessible). Visitable design has been shown to add no additional cost to developers; it can be incentivized using a variety of incentives similar to affordability incentives (e.g., fee waivers/deferrals, priority processing, density bonuses, variances, etc.). X Allow the market to respond to a variety of housing preferences 42 Remove barriers to the development of Accessory Dwelling Units. Allow by right in all residential zone districts (in process per the 2020 LUC audit); reduced (or waived) tap fees and other development fees; consider development of a grant program for low and moderate income owners; evaluate feasibility of ADUs by lot to determine if there are overly burdensome standards related to lot coverage, setbacks, alley access, etc. and address those barriers as necessary. X 43 Revise occupancy limits and family definitions. Occupancy limits and narrow family definitions often create unintended constraints on housing choice and options, including cooperative housing opportunities for seniors and people with disabilities desiring to live with unrelated adults in a single family home setting. Occupancy limits can also pose fair housing liabilities to the extent that they have a disparate impact on people with disabilities. Current best practices are to allow up to 8 unrelated or to base occupancy on building code requirements instead of family definitions. X X X X X ITEM 6, EXHIBIT C Draft List of Strategies Packet Pg. 174-19 7 44 Calibrate tap fees and other development fees to encourage product diversity and the production of smaller footprint homes (which are more likely to carry market-rate affordability). Per unit and per tap fees incentivize large and/or luxury development so that developers can recover fee costs through higher market prices. Fees can be scaled in tiers and/or by square footage, making it easier for developers to recover the cost of the lower fees of smaller homes with lower market prices. The city currently scales fees by bedroom and lot size and consideration of additional granularity is currently in process. X 45 Remove barriers to allowed densities through code revisions. As noted in the 2020 LUC Audit, barriers to fully realizing allowed densities include multifamily unit number maximums, square footage thresholds for secondary or non-residential buildings, and height limitations that restrict the ability to maximize compact sites using tuck-under parking. Such requirements should be recalibrated or removed entirely. X 46 Assess how metering and tap requirements may impact housing type diversity. Reasonableness considerations for ADUs, missing middle, manufactured housing communities, etc. X X X 47 Increase awareness & opportunities for collaboration across water districts and other regional partners around the challenges with water costs and housing. X X Continue the City's ongoing efforts to implement recommendations from current housing-related studies and other City efforts: 48 2020 Land Use Code Audit Recommendations. Create more opportunities for a range of housing choices2. Define a range of options between two-family and multi-family housing3. Clarify definition of and opportunities for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)4. Remove barriers to allowed densities5. Incentivize affordable housing projects6. Clarify and simplify development standards7. Consolidate like standards and definitions and make them more broadly applicable 8. Increase flexibility9. Recalibrate incentives to reflect current market conditions 10. Align Design Manual with updated development standards X X X 49 2020 Analysis of Fair Housing Choice Action Steps 1. Strengthen fair housing information, educational and training opportunities. 2. Improve the housing environment for people with disabilities 3. Support efforts to improve residents’ establishment and building of credit. 4. Support programs, projects, and organizations that improve housing access and affordability. 5. Continue to pursue infrastructure and public amenity equity. 6. Pursue public engagement activities to inform Land Use Code and policy updates through Home 2 Health. X X X 50 Homeward 2020 (TBD upon release of report, intent is to align the strategies from the 10-year Homeward 2020 effort within the Housing Strategic Plan ) X X X 51 Continue to align housing work with other departmental plans and programs to leverage more funding resources and achieve citywide goals. X X Source: City of Fort Collins and Root Policy Research. ITEM 6, EXHIBIT C Draft List of Strategies Packet Pg. 174-20