Commission recommends approval for 300 East Mountain infill but flags material authenticity

The Fort Collins Historic Preservation Commission on Feb. 19 voted 7-1 to recommend approval to the decision maker of a proposed two-story, mixed commercial-office building at 300 East Mountain Avenue, while explicitly finding the project does not meet the land-use-code requirement for authentic, durable primary materials.

Staff framed the commission’s role as advisory under the land use code’s cultural-resource protections and compatibility rules for new construction within 200 feet of a landmark. "Your role tonight will be to provide a formal recommendation via motion, to the decision maker," said Jim Bertolini, senior historic preservation planner. He explained that the abutting Armory building at 314 East Mountain is a city landmark and the only historic resource within the 200-foot buffer.

The proposal calls for a roughly 31-foot, two-story building with commercial space at street level and support or tenant space above. Portions of the project are programmed to functionally support the Armory, including a ticket window, bar extension and green room. Applicant representatives said some suites could be leased to independent tenants in the future.

Architect Chris Aronson of VFLA Architects presented materials and massing, describing a primary palette of dark gray brick for the Mountain Avenue elevation with an accent rain-screen cladding in a metal-look copper tone. The accent material proposed is a high-pressure laminate product (Trespa/High-Pressure Laminate, HPL) the applicant emphasized as durable and sustainable. "It is a very durable product. We've done some hammer tests at the office with panels," Aronson said, and provided product literature noting a 70-percent wood-fiber backing and a Declare label with a 50-year product claim.

Planning and preservation staff raised concerns about whether the high-pressure laminate meets code language requiring "durable and authentic materials" and whether the new primary materials sufficiently reference the Armory’s dominant blonde brick. Staff also flagged design choices at the junction between the Armory and the new building — particularly the narrow, direct abutment and the visual treatment of the parapet — as areas needing clearer demonstration of subordination and compatibility.

A central procedural and substantive point of discussion was whether the proposal should be treated as an "addition" to the Armory (reviewed under rehabilitation standards) or as "new construction adjacent to a historic resource" (reviewed under the land use code compatibility requirements). Commissioners were split in views of the project’s functional relationship to the Armory but accepted staff’s path to analyze it as new construction under the land use code while noting that the practical relationship with the Armory is close.

After extended deliberation the commission’s motion recommended approval to the decision maker on the basis that the proposal meets compatibility criteria for width/massing (1), step-backs/height (2), references to dominant materials and pattern (4), fenestration/window proportion (5), and horizontal/vertical reference lines (6), but that it does not meet criterion (3) — "durable and authentic materials." The motion included an explicit amendment noting the commission’s concern about the authenticity and long-term durability of the proposed high-pressure laminate panels. The amended recommendation passed 7-1; Commissioner Carlock voted no.

The commission also advised that staff require careful review of the expansion joint and connection details at the Armory wall, and that any approval ensure the Armory’s character-defining features remain protected and visible where practicable.

Next steps

The commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the decision maker — the community development director for this basic development review — who will determine whether the code’s compatibility standards are satisfied and whether any permit may be issued. Staff noted the project remains in permit review and that the applicant may revise materials and details in response to city comments.

Votes at a glance

- Recommendation for approval of the 2-story commercial/office building at 300 East Mountain Avenue with a finding that code criteria 1,2,4,5 and 6 are met but criterion 3 is not met (material authenticity); motion passed 7-1.