Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2018 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Regular MeetingMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Mollie Simpson Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting November 14, 2018 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • AGENDA REVIEW o Staff Review of Agenda o Consent Agenda Review This Review provides an opportunity for the Commission and citizens to pull items from the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda and considered separately.  Commission-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered before Discussion Items.  Citizen-pulled Consent Agenda items will be considered after Discussion Items. • STAFF REPORTS • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Landmark Preservation Commission Packet Pg. 1 • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 19, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 2. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2018 The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 17, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. • CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Commission members to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. • PULLED FROM CONSENT Any agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a Commission member, or member of the public, will be discussed at this time. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 3. Downtown and Transition Areas - Land Use Code Changes DESCRIPTION: Revisions to Land Use Code Divisions 4.16 (Downtown) and 4.9 (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) as they relate to development standards governing these two zone districts. STAFF: Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Pete Wray, Senior City Planner 4. Historic Preservation Codes and Process Review DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Planning & Zoning Board consideration of a recommendation to City Council to adopt revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (Historic and Cultural Resources). These codes direct the review and approval processes for developments affecting historic resources. STAFF: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT 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 Date: Roll Call Bello Dorn Gensmer Hogestad Murray Nelsen Simpson Wallace Dunn Vote  absent  absent  absent 6 present CONSENT - Sept. Minutes Hogestad Simpson Bello Murray Dorn Wallace YYYY Y Y6:0 PULLED FROM CONSENT - Oct. Minutes Hogestad Simpson Bello Murray Dorn Wallace YYYY Y Y6:0 3 - Downtown Transition Codes - Recommend with noted concerns Simpson Bello Murray Dorn Hogestad Wallace YNY Y YY5:1 Roll Call & Voting Record Landmark Preservation Commission 11/14/2018 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Date: 11/14/18 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the LPC September Hearing 2. Draft Minutes for the LPC October Hearing DISCUSSION AGENDA: 3. Downtown and Transition Areas - Land Use Code Changes • Citizen emails/letters: o • Staff Presentation (will be added to final post-hearing packet) 4. Historic Preservation Codes and Process Review • Citizen emails/letters: o • Attachment 2, Draft LUC Section 3.4.7 for Public Review - added to packet online GENERAL CITIZEN EMAILS/LETTERS: • X EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 14, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 19, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC September 19, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Pg. 3 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 19, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Mollie Simpson The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting September 19, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Hogestad, Gensmer, Simpson, Dorn, Murray, Nelson ABSENT: Bello, Wallace STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Bumgarner, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW Ms. Bzdek indicated that there are no changes to the posted agenda. Mr. Murray recused himself from Item #2, 125 S. Sherwood, and moved to the gallery. Mr. Murray, acting as a private citizen, pulled Item #2 from consent for discussion. • STAFF REPORTS None. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 19, 2018 • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 16, 2018 REGULAR MEETING. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the August 16, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. 3. 512 WEST MAGNOLIA STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, 1 and a half-story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Thomas Knebel, contractor Ms. Simpson moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve items 1 & 3 of the Consent Agenda. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 6-0. • PULLED FROM CONSENT 2. 125 SOUTH SHERWOOD STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal demolish the existing residence and outbuildings for new, single family construction. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. APPLICANT: Keira Harkin, contractor Staff Report Ms. Bumgarner presented the staff report. She provided some background, history and photos of the property, and reviewed the role of the Commission and its three options for a decision. She stated that Staff recommends approval of the project. Applicant Presentation Keira Harkin, the contractor, addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. She said the owner had just recently purchased the property and at that time made her plans known, but neither the realtor nor the previous owner disclosed the eligibility of the property for landmark designation. She said they had professionally documented the property through a consultant who deemed the property not eligible. Chair Dunn asked for clarification about the determination of eligibility made by the last chair. Ms. Bumgarner explained there had been an addition, but the previous chair determined that the property was still eligible. Public Input Nancy York, who resides at the corner of West Oak and Whitcomb, reported that a neighbor had shown her that the interior of this property had already been demolished. She did not believe the interior demolition could be in compliance with City Code. She said the Code should be changed to prohibit a perfectly good house from being demolished, and there should be consequences for doing so. She noted that a similar demolition had happened in her neighborhood. Kevin Murray expressed concern that the public hadn’t had time to learn about the project and respond. He was also concerned that some of the demolition was done without a permit. He suggested the Commission exercise the option of a 45-day delay. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 19, 2018 Staff Response to Public Input Mr. Yatabe clarified that while Mr. Murray is a Commission member he has recused himself from this item and was speaking as a private citizen in this matter. Chair Dunn asked Staff to clarify whether interior demolition requires a permit. Ms. McWilliams said some interior work does require a permit, but she did not have specific information as to any interior demolition of this property. Applicant Response to Public Input Ms. Harkin stated that she has not broken any rules. She explained why certain materials were removed from the home and emphasized that the work that had been done does not require a permit. Mr. Yatabe shared Code Section14-71(b), noting the last sentence, which specifies that it doesn’t apply to interior demolition. Commission Questions and Discussion Chair Dunn clarified that the Commission’s role is not to judge whether the home should be demolished or not, or whether the new proposed building is appropriate. The Commission is to determine whether the Applicant has complied with the Code requirements for demolition. She stated the Commission can either approve the demolition, postpone the decision, or approve it with conditions. Ms. Gensmer stated she didn’t attend the work session but had reviewed the recording and is prepared to participate. Ms. Simpson asked for and received confirmation on the date the APO letters was went out, which was September 5th. Commission Deliberation Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the demolition/alteration of 125 South Sherwood without conditions, finding that the Applicant has complied with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 14-72. Ms. Nelson seconded. Chair Dunn explained for the public that the only way to prevent the demolition would be through a non-consensual designation. However, the consultant, the Director, and Chair Dunn now agree that the property is not individually eligible for designation. Ms. Simpson asked what a neighbor concerned with the height of the new building could do. Ms. Bumgarner stated that those concerns could be directed to Zoning. Chair Dunn mentioned the solar access requirement in the code. She noted that concerned neighbors could speak to Council or to Zoning. The motion passed 6-0. Mr. Murray rejoined the Commission. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 4. 223 WILLOW (WILLOW STREET RESIDENCES – PDP180006) - FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed 5-story, multi-family apartment project at 223 Willow in the River District. The current use of this 2.04-acre lot is industrial, storage, and truck parking. It is bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad on the south. APPLICANT: Katy Candau, Oz Architecture ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 September 19, 2018 Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She began with a project summary and reviewed the properties included in the proposed area of adjacency the Commission had previously discussed. She discussed the items the Commission had requested at the work session. Ms. Bzdek presented the Staff Findings of Fact, recommending approval. She also reviewed the role of the Commission and noted the project will be going before the Planning and Zoning Board tomorrow evening. Applicant Presentation Mr. Illanes gave the Applicant presentation, focusing on new information. He discussed incorporating the Commission’s input and suggestions from the previous meeting. He reviewed the changes to the design since that time, displaying slides comparing the previous and current designs. Mr. Illanes discussed the window details and mentioned a concern he heard the Commission express at the work session about lap siding. He stated manufacturer's instructions will be followed for installation to ensure the product is warrantied. Public Input None. Area of Adjacency Deliberation Ms. Nelson disclosed she had not been on the Commission at the time of the previous discussion, but she feels she is properly informed to make a decision at this time. Ms. Gensmer moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission adopt 401 Pine Street, 200 Jefferson Street, and 359 Linden Street as the area of adjacency for the proposed development at 223 Willow Street. Ms. Dorn seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Commission Questions and Discussion Mr. Hogestad asked the Applicant to speak in more detail about the decision to use lap siding in the River District. Mr. Illanes replied lap siding was used in several other buildings in the area and it speaks to a residential use. He noted other materials are used as well. Mr. Hogestad asked if lap siding is used on any historic buildings within the area of adjacency. Mr. Illanes replied it is used on buildings on Linden and on houses next to Confluence. Chair Dunn asked if lap siding was used on the Pine Street homes. Ms. Bzdek replied they are brick and are also not eligible; however, the Linden Street residence next to Confluence is eligible. Mr. Hogestad asked if a substrate will be used to take up imperfections in framing. Mr. Illanes replied it is a rain screen that will be installed as required by the manufacturer. Chair Dunn asked how the siding is attached to the rain screen. Mr. Illanes replied different manufacturers have different systems, therefore he is unsure how this specific system will be attached. Mr. Hogestad asked about the exposure on the siding. Mr. Illanes replied it will be six inches. The Applicant provided material samples which were passed around. [Secretary’s note: Photos of the samples have been provided by the Applicant for the record.] Mr. Hogestad stated the design is much more effective and commended the changes. He asked about the distance of the brick return. Mr. Illanes replied it is seven feet and could go up to nine feet in some places. Mr. Murray stated he appreciated the presentation and the explanation of changes was helpful. Mr. Hogestad acknowledged the changes in massing and attention to historic scale, adding that it was very effective. Ms. Gensmer appreciated the material samples. She stated she had been concerned the building looked monolithic, but the step backs and material changes helped relieve that and made the massing more compatible. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 September 19, 2018 Ms. Nelsen said this is a sensitive project and the materials were handled elegantly. Ms. Dorn appreciated the detail in the packet and the material samples. Chair Dunn appreciated the responses to the Commission members' comments. She stated the proportions fit better with the historic context and the step backs and material changes are helpful. She also commended moving the building entrance to the front. Mr. Hogestad stated he is still concerned about the Hardie siding and stated he hopes the detailing and specification will eliminate that issue. Commission Deliberation Ms. Nelsen moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision Maker approval of the proposal for 223 Willow Street (PDP180006), finding it complies with the standards contained in Land Use Code section 3.4.7 in regard to compatibility with the character of the project’s area of adjacency for the following reasons: • The project design uses mass mitigation strategies that achieve the basic goals of the code regarding similarity of height, setback, and width. • The project includes building materials and detailing that reflect or are visually compatible with the dominant materials of adjacent historic properties. • The project uses window patterning and material techniques to create the appearance of proportions that reflect the window character of adjacent historic buildings. • The proposed design improves visual and pedestrian connections to the adjacent neighborhood focal points. Mr. Murray seconded. The motion passed 7:0. 5. 221 EAST MOUNTAIN - FINAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed four-story, mixed-use development of office, retail and residential uses with a single-level parking structure below grade. The 0.449-acre lot is at 221 East Mountain Avenue on Block 131, lots 1-6, at the former location of the Goodyear Tire Shop. The project fronts both East Mountain Avenue and Mathews Street on the southwest corner of the intersection, and also fronts alleys to the south and west. The approximate square footage total, including the garage, is 90,172 square feet. The project is within the Downtown (D) District. APPLICANT: Bob Hosanna, Neenan Archistruction Ms. Simpson recused herself from Item #5 due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Ms. Bzdek presented the staff report. She discussed the proposed project and area of adjacency and detailed changes made since the last Commission hearing. She reviewed the Commission’s request from the work session and stated staff concludes the project satisfies the requirements of the Land Use Code. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hosanna gave the Applicant presentation. He discussed the material changes since the previous meeting and passed samples of the new materials to Commission members. He discussed the ways the project meets the Land Use Code and stated no historic structures are being compromised by the project and its design. He discussed the building height and noted part of the charm of downtown is its variety. Mr. Hosanna stated he appreciated the constructive criticism provided previously from the Commission. Public Input None. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 6 September 19, 2018 Commission Questions of Applicant or Staff Mr. Hogestad asked if the relationship of the materials has changed to create shadow lines. Mr. Hosanna replied in the affirmative and discussed the ways in which he is adding texture within the material itself. Mr. Hogestad asked about the window glazing. Mr. Hosanna replied he will be using center glazing. Commission Discussion Mr. Murray commended Mr. Hosanna's presentation and stated he appreciates the changes made to the project. He expressed concern about the 4th floor not being recessed, noting it is not similar to building heights of area existing historic structures. Mr. Hogestad agreed that is a problem and stated he does not see an equal to or better than condition for that modification and state the massing resulting from the 4th story does not match that of buildings in the area of adjacency. He supported other changes that have been made to the project. Ms. Gensmer supported the change in materials, stating they are more compatible with buildings in the area of adjacency. She also appreciated the use of the glass block around the trash area. Mr. Murray stated the material issue is satisfied in his opinion and suggested the formation of a motion that would help support staff's negotiations on the step back. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern about the lack of step back for the 4th floor from a preservation standpoint. Ms. Bzdek discussed Staff's rationale for supporting the height modification. Clark Mapes, City Planner, commented on the building mass noting its similarity to other buildings in the area. Mr. Hogestad stated he does not believe the materials articulate the building. Ms. Dorn stated an analysis of the ratio or proportion of step backs on the 4th floors could be helpful. Chair Dunn noted that would require the continuation of the meeting. Commission Deliberation Mr. Murray moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed building at 221 East Mountain Avenue as presented with the condition that the 4th floor step backs be similar in depth to those found on the Mitchell Block to the north. Ms. Gensmer seconded. Mr. Murray stated the idea behind his motion is to not force the removal of the 4th floor but to make it fit with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Hogestad expressed concern this building does not relate to the historic buildings within the area of adjacency. He stated he would have a hard time supporting the motion. Ms. Nelsen agreed she too would have a difficult time supporting the motion. Mr. Murray asked if the Commission agrees the proposed building is acceptable in terms of materials. Chair Dunn replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hogestad replied the building meets the criteria in Section 3.4.7 except for mitigating the mass and bulk of the building. Chair Dunn stated the proposed building does not match the historic parapet lines in the area. Mr. Hogestad discussed the use of more transparent materials. Ms. Nelsen agreed the balconies could be the key to achieving the needed step back. Ms. Dorn noted the objective of the LPC is to consider the historic buildings in the area of adjacency and stated contemporary buildings should not be referenced in the motion. Ms. Gensmer and Mr. Hogestad agreed. Ms. Nelsen stated she would not support the motion and stated she would like to look at this in the context of the historic properties in the area of adjacency. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 7 September 19, 2018 Chair Dunn requested a clearer motion related to step backs. Mr. Murray withdrew his motion. He added that the Mitchell Block went through a similar issue in its review which resulted in a workable solution. Ms. Nelsen asked about the step back requirement. Mr. Mapes replied the requirement is that the entire 4th floor be stepped back at a 35-degree angle. If the balconies did not have covers, there would be some step back. Mr. Hogestad moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend to the Decision maker approval of the project at 221 East Mountain Avenue (BDR180012), with the condition that the balconies be modified to provide step backs that would help the building maintain historic articulation. Mr. Murray seconded. Mr. Murray stated that motion makes him feel better about the project's compliance with Section 3.4.7. Ms. Nelsen stated this may address the massing issue. Ms. Dorn asked if there is a true reference to massing and scale in the motion. Mr. Hogestad replied there is a reference to articulation in the motion. Members indicated support of the motion. The motion passed 6-0. [Secretary’s Note: The Commission took a short break from 8:14 – 8:21.] 6. ADOPTION OF THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S 2019 WORK PLAN The purpose of this item is to discuss and adopt the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Work Plan for 2019. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams reminded the Commission of the changes the members requested at the work session and noted those changes have been made and staff recommends adoption of the Work Plan. Commission Deliberation Ms. Dorn moved to adopt the Landmark Preservation Commission’s Work Plan for 2019. Ms. Nelsen seconded. The motion passed 7:0. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Dunn reminded the Commission about the changes to its November meeting dates. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Minutes prepared by Tara Lehman, Tripoint Data, and respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 2 Item 2, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 14, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2018 REGULAR MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the October 17, 2018 regular meeting of the Landmark Preservation Commission. ATTACHMENTS 1. LPC October 17, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Pg. 11 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 October 17, 2018 Meg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado Kristin Gensmer Per Hogestad Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Mollie Simpson The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Video of the meeting will be broadcast at 1:30 p.m. the following day through the Comcast cable system on Channel 14 or 881 (HD). Please visit http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/ for the daily cable schedule. The video will also be available for later viewing on demand here: http://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php. Regular Meeting October 17, 2018 Minutes • CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunn called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunn, Wallace, Gensmer, Simpson, Bello, Murray, Nelson ABSENT: Dorn, Hogestad STAFF: McWilliams, Bzdek, Yatabe, Schiager • AGENDA REVIEW No changes to posted agenda. • STAFF REPORTS Ms. McWilliams reported that the Ross Proving-Up House has been moved to its permanent location at Lee Martinez Farm. There will be a ribbon-cutting ceremony on November 15th at 3:00 pm. Chair Dunn asked if one must pay the entrance fee for the Farm to attend the ribbon-cutting. Ms. McWilliams said she was sure that would not be the case. Landmark Preservation Commission ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 October 17, 2018 PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • CONSENT AGENDA 1. 225 SOUTH LOOMIS AVENUE - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to add a rear, 2-story addition to the residence. The property was determined to be individually eligible as a Fort Collins Landmark. OWNER/APPLICANT: Karin Boes Mr. Murray recused himself from the first item due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Simpson asked if the Applicant had participated in the design assistance program. Ms. McWilliams said the Applicant had been made aware of the program but had not participated. Ms. Wallace moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the application for final demolition/alteration review for 225 South Loomis Avenue as presented, finding that the applicant has complied with the requirements and purpose of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code. Ms. Gensmer seconded. The motion passed 7:0. Mr. Murray rejoined the Commission. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE DISCUSSION ITEM DESCRIPTION: This item is to discuss the historic preservation Codes and processes related to the review of Single-Family Dwellings, and the benchmarks that trigger review. Additionally, the LPC will continue its discussion of the criteria for compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 pertaining to the review of development and new construction. Staff Report Ms. McWilliams began her presentation by providing a detailed review of the proposed Code changes, focusing especially on the Non-Consensual Designation process and the Design Review Process. Ms. Bzdek discussed changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 using a chart to explain the proposed requirements for new construction near historic buildings. Ms. McWilliams reviewed the proposed changes to the Code relating to Demolition, Neglect and Dangerous Buildings. She talked about improvements to the process for making determinations of eligibility. She emphasized a significant change that eliminate Demolition/Alteration Reviews of non- designated Single-Family Dwellings. She also noted that the role of the Design Review Subcommittee would be re-evaluated and strengthened. Regarding Demolition by Neglect, Ms. McWilliams noted the maintenance requirements would be extended to include eligible structures. She noted the need for further study on this topic. She explained that the concept of “Imminent Danger” has also been more clearly defined. Ms. McWilliams reviewed some benchmarks that could be used in identifying historic properties. She stated that the consultant, Clarion, recommended against using benchmarks and the Code Advisory Committee agreed with that position. Ms. McWilliams posed several questions for the Commission to consider and requested any additional comments. Public Input None ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 October 17, 2018 Commission Questions and Discussion Ms. Nelson asked if there was a list of professionals who are qualified to fill out the Colorado Inventory Form. Ms. McWilliams said there is a list of 4-5 in Fort Collins who are recognized as qualified by History Colorado. Chair Dunn asked if Council could initiate a non-consensual designation. Mr. Yatabe said there is currently no provision for that, but it could be explored. Chair Dunn asked if there was an option for the Commission to skip the second meeting and make a decision at the first meeting. She explained that having two meetings allows the public the opportunity to participate and allow information to be gathered. Mr. Murray asked whether there would be an effort by Staff to help property owners more fully understand what work can be done on a designated property. Ms. McWilliams explained that Staff would explain to a homeowner what the process would be to obtain approval. Chair Dunn suggested a flowchart to assist homeowners. Chair Dunn asked if Conceptual Reviews could be specified in the Code as optional but encouraged. Ms. McWilliams said the benefits of the Conceptual Review would be stressed in handouts, but it would not be prudent to codify. Chair Dunn asked about how abutting historic properties would be handled differently than other properties in the area of adjacency with regard to new construction near historic buildings. Ms. Bzdek said the standards for compatibility with abutting historic properties were more stringent. Chair Dunn asked how to handle an eclectic mix of styles within the 200-foot boundary. Ms. Bzdek said the design needs to acknowledge a relationship, even subtle, to the existing buildings. Mr. Murray asked about expanding an area of adjacency to include buildings beyond the 200 feet. Ms. Bzdek explained that would no longer be allowed. Additionally, the Commission would not be deciding the area of adjacency anymore, but rather Staff would make that determination based on the specified guidelines. She added that this makes the process more predicable for Applicants and noted that the historic surveys would be helpful with this. Mr. Bello asked about 3-dimentionality of materials. Ms. Bzdek explained that has to do with relief and shadow lines. Ms. Simpson asked about protecting visible historic architecture. Ms. Bzdek said the intent is not to obscure major character-defining features of the building. Mr. Bello expressed concern about setback requirements that may render a small lot unbuildable, particularly of the side of a historic building cannot be obscured. Ms. Dunn suggested it would be rare to have a major character-defining feature on the side of a building, but if there was, a modification might resolve that. Ms. McWilliams said the Decision Maker should take that into consideration. She pointed out that the Commission would have to agree that it was a defining feature. Chair Dunn used the jail cell bars on the window in the back of Happy Lucky as an example of an important feature not on the front of a building that should not be obscured. Ms. Nelson stated that Staff had done a great job with the Codes, particularly the standards for abutting properties. She asked about how the use of quality materials would be addressed. Ms. Bzdek explained that there would be different materials standards in different zone districts. Chair Dunn said she believed the Poudre Garage is diminished by the material next to it, and she would like the new Code to require quality materials to be used when there are abutting historic buildings. This should also apply to historic buildings outside of Downtown. Mr. Murray agreed about the quality of materials, explaining that was the rationale for wanting to see more brick and less big sheets of metal on the Mountain project. Ms. Gensmer said the chart is a useful and helpful document, especially the purpose statement for each item. Ms. Wallace asked whether new construction would only have to be compatible with landmarked properties, or all properties that are 50+ years of age. Ms. Bzdek said it would apply to any designated or eligible property. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 October 17, 2018 Ms. Wallace asked for clarification of what constitutes an abutting property and whether it is just the façade that is relevant. Ms. McWilliams explained that an abutting property would have a shared property line without an alley or other separation, other than a side alley. Chair Dunn asked about a scenario where the same side alley to one property could be the back alley to another, referring to a building at Meldrum and Oak as an example. Chair Dunn suggested changing the language to address these situations. Ms. McWilliams clarified that the historic building is the subject property that determines the side alley. There was a discussion about what sort of features might be on the side of a building that would need to be preserved. Side entrances were mentioned. Chair Dunn encouraged everyone to be observant about potentially historic buildings that are outside the norm and consider whether this code will work for those in the future. The Commission discussed whether Demolition/Alteration reviews for non-designated single-family dwellings should be done. Ms. McWilliams said communities that don’t have review of single-family dwellings often wish they did, while communities that have had them find that the return on investment of staff time and resources doesn’t warrant it. Of the very few communities nationwide that did these reviews at one time, most found it was more beneficial to focus their efforts on education and outreach. Those communities who do these reviews have regulations to back it up. Mr. Murray expressed concern about discontinuing non-designated single-family dwelling reviews. He commented that the Historic Preservation Department was understaffed and wondered if there are alternative ways to address single-family reviews. Ms. McWilliams said they would continue to look at this and encouraged the Commission to think about it and provide any suggestions. Chair Dunn suggested that districts are the answer, adding that discontinuing these reviews could free up staff to focus on outreach regarding districts. Mr. Murray agreed, and would like to find new tools, such as overlay districts. Chair Dunn liked the idea of overlay districts since they have less regulation which tends to appeal to homeowners. Ms. Simpson agreed. In a discussion about Demolition by Neglect, Chair Dunn asked whether homeowners who receive a maintenance notice receive documents about design assistance and other programs. Ms. McWilliams said they have not had staff capacity to develop such documents but hope to in the future. Mr. Murray suggested some maintenance and neglect issues could be reported during the survey process. Chair Dunn asked the members to weigh in about eliminating non-designated single-family reviews. Mr. Murray acknowledged that the current system doesn’t work, but he would like to see a hybrid solution of some kind. Ms. Simpson, Ms. Wallace and Ms. Gensmer agreed that eliminating the single-family dwelling reviews made sense because there are better uses of Staff time. Ms. Nelson said she was conflicted but thinks improving relationships with community and exploring districts would be better use of Staff time than the reviews. Chair Dunn agrees with eliminating the review and would like to see more emphasis on developing new tools and education. The members were all in agreement with the Code Advisory Committee that benchmarks do not make sense. Mr. Murray expressed concern that some people are not aware of the landmark status of a property at the time of purchase. He questioned the lack of full disclosure and thought this should be discovered in a title search. Ms. McWilliams explained that local landmarked properties are recorded and should be noted on the title, although national or state registered properties are not required to be recorded. She also said that the real estate community does not want additional paperwork to be required at closing. Chair Dunn suggested reaching out to owners of national & state registered properties every 5-10 years about local landmark designation. Ms. McWilliams said they would like to do that if they had sufficient Staff resources. Ms. Simpson asked whether districts are noted on the title as well. Ms. McWilliams indicated that they were. ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 5 October 17, 2018 Ms. Simpson mentioned that Spradley Barr was not included in the Midtown Plan and wondered whether some level of historic survey should be included in those types of documents. Ms. McWilliams said the new plans do take historic properties into account but explained that including a list of historic properties could be too limiting. Ms. Gensmer recommended adding language about architectural finds, citing an example of a recent find in Boulder. Ms. McWilliams said most communities recognize all four of the National Register areas of significance, including architectural, historical, archeological, and people and events. While our City Codes acknowledge that properties can be designated under all four, the Demolition/Alteration Code exempts archeological artifacts. Ms. Gensmer indicated she would support changing that part of the Code. Ms. Simpson agreed. Mr. Murray suggested that Historic Preservation request additional Staff to specialize in education and surveys. Ms. McWilliams briefly explained the BFO (Budgeting for Outcomes) process, and the challenges of getting additional Staff approved. She added that the latest proposed budget might include an additional contractual employee. • OTHER BUSINESS The Commission did not have any comments about the Work Plan which was listed on the agenda. Mr. Murray mentioned he would be doing a window workshop in Parker. Chair Dunn gave an update about the various themes under consideration for the “2019 PastForward Conference” in Denver. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Dunn adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on __________________. _____________________________________ Meg Dunn, Chair ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 14, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME DOWNTOWN AND TRANSITION AREAS - LAND USE CODE CHANGES STAFF Cameron Gloss, Long Range Planning Manager Pete Wray, Senior City Planner PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisions to Land Use Code Divisions 4.16 (Downtown) and 4.9 (Neighborhood Conservation Buffer) as they relate to development standards governing these two zone districts. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request for a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation to City Council on two interrelated Land Use Code amendment projects that together address design standards for Downtown and within Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) transition areas that interface between Downtown and the predominantly single-family housing within the Old Town Neighborhoods. Background/Discussion Purpose and Objectives Staff has been working closely with area property owners, businesses and design professionals to develop Land Use Code amendment concepts necessary to implement policies within the recently adopted (2017) - Downtown Plan and the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. Land Use Code amendments were identified as high- priority, near-term action items in the two Plans. The project objective has been to provide greater predictability in the Land Use Code regulations pertaining to Downtown and its interface areas by clarifying standards that apply to new infill and redevelopment projects. The Code changes provide form- and performance-based metrics that augment existing design standards. The new standards need to be predictable yet allow for creative building forms and site design options. This joint code improvement effort also aligns with the goals and implementation efforts of the Historic Preservation code review project that is being developed on a parallel schedule. The Code changes address the following major themes that emerged during the Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods planning processes and that are embodied in the two Plans: Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 2 Downtown Plan – Related Themes • Preserve and Enhance Downtown’s Sense of Place Residents and visitors alike cherish Downtown’s in part because of its historic buildings, exciting arts and culture scene, and unique resources like the Poudre River. As Downtown’s activity extends beyond the historic core area, the buildings, culture, and resources that make Downtown special must be preserved and enhanced. Downtown Fort Collins should remain a place with a unique identity. The policies in this plan provide direction about the desired future character for all of Downtown’s character subdistricts, as well as guidance that ensures a balance of recreation and preservation of the Poudre River Corridor. • Put Pedestrians First Regardless of their mode of travel –car, bike, longboard, bus, on foot, or using a mobility device – everyone who comes Downtown is a pedestrian when they arrive. Downtown is already one of the most pedestrian-oriented places in our entire community. However, the experience of walking around Downtown is not always as enjoyable or safe as it could be. The policies in this plan aim to put pedestrians first in all parts of Downtown. More transportation options, safer crossings, more pleasant streetscapes and public spaces, and buildings designed to feel comfortable at the pedestrian scale are all emphasized throughout the plan. Old Town Neighborhoods Plan – Related Themes • Buffer and Transition Areas As Downtown and CSU continue to grow and evolve, maintaining a clear edge and transition between the residential character of the Old Town Neighborhoods and Downtown is important to residents. Many of the blocks in these transition areas are already zoned as part of the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district, which attempts to achieve transitional land-uses, building heights, and design between Downtown and the neighborhoods. Stakeholders indicated the types of land-uses found in the buffer zone district, such as larger homes, professional and medical offices, and multifamily dwellings, are appropriate. However, specific issues related to site layout, building design, and activities or nuisances in rear parking areas are crucial to ensure a smooth and functional transition to the smaller structures and homes found in the neighborhoods. Downtown Code Amendments Proposed amendments to Division 4.16 – Downtown District of the Land Use Code are based on the following outline and are summarized below. 1. Establishment of 9 Downtown Subdistricts 2. Street Frontage Types as a Defining Element 3. Development Standards -Site Design -Building Design -Building Height and Mass Reduction 4. Special Subdistrict Provisions 5. Permitted Uses 1. Establishment of 9 Downtown Subdistricts The Downtown Plan boundary encompasses substantially more than the historic core of “Old Town", and incorporates areas planned and zoned for commercial activities, stretching from Vine Drive south to the Colorado State University campus and from Canyon Avenue eastward to Lemay Avenue. The boundary has Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 3 evolved since the 1989 Downtown Plan to include additional commercial areas and correspond to zoning boundaries. The proposed Code amendment includes the zoning of all land within the Downtown Plan area boundary into one expanded Downtown (D) zone district. This expanded Downtown district includes parcels located within the River Redevelopment (R-D-R), Industrial (I), Community Commercial (C-C), Community Commercial North College (C-C-N), Community Commercial River (C-C-R), Limited Commercial (C-L) and Low-Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone districts. Due to the variety of design characteristics present throughout Downtown, the Downtown Plan area was divided into distinct character subdistricts. These nine subdistricts each have attributes that create unique identities in terms of building patterns, streetscapes and outdoor space configurations. Each subdistrict's desired future character is distinct, but all subdistricts are unified by the principles of urban design. These nine Subdistricts are:  Historic Core Subdistrict (same boundary/formerly named Old City Center)  Civic Subdistrict  Canyon Avenue Subdistrict  River Subdistrict (formerly River Redevelopment (RDR) zone district)  River Corridor Subdistrict (formerly in the POL zone district)  Entryway Corridor (formerly CL zone district)  Innovation Subdistrict (formerly a combination of I, CCN and CCR zone districts)  North Mason Subdistrict (formerly CC zone district)  Campus North Subdistrict (portions formerly LMN zone district) The last six of the subdistricts listed lie beyond the boundaries of the current Downtown zone district. The goal of identifying the character defining traits for each Subdistrict is to promote and enhance them through public and private development projects. The Code update includes language to help guide the character of these areas like the current River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR) Zone. Some examples of elements considered are historical context, landscape setting, contextual building form, and predominant materials. 2. Street Frontage Types as a Defining Element Three types of street frontages have evolved Downtown shaping the public realm and building placement. The Downtown Plan and current Code update have illuminated the need to protect and enhance these three conditions. • Storefront – Found primarily within the Historic Core, and also along Laurel Street, buildings abut a wide sidewalk. Retail and commercial uses predominate the ground floor with a high degree of visual interest and transparency into shops and restaurants. • Mixed Use – Found adjacent the Historic Core Subdistrict on streets such as Mason, this street character is a hybrid and transition between the Storefront and Green Edge frontage types. Buildings are set a little farther back from the street than along Storefront streets, often with small landscape beds separating the building from the sidewalk. There is significantly less ground floor retail space, but buildings still address the sidewalk in a similar way. • Green Edge – Found primarily in the subdistricts away from the Historic Core, this frontage type is best recognized for generous parkway widths and landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and the building. Ground floor uses comprise mostly residential and office, with a scattering of other commercial uses, often in much larger buildings than are found in the Historic Core Subdistrict. Many of Downtown’s streets have multiple frontage types along their length. Mountain Avenue, for example, is characterized by a Storefront condition from Mason Street to Jefferson Street, but quickly changes to a Green Edge Street west of Mason Street. Packet Pg. 19 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 4 3. Development Standards Site Design The principal site design requirements are Building Placement Standards that are determined by street frontage type. Standards include minimum building setbacks from property lines, but also ‘build-to’ requirements for street fronting facades, that describe a building envelope zone relative to the back of the curb. Specific setback distances help with building mass mitigation and strengthen the pedestrian experience appropriate for the specific area of Downtown. Building Design The proposed building design standards are intended to provide basic requirements that enhance the pedestrian experience, but not be overly prescriptive with respect to building style. The two most significant of these standards relate to building materials and the degree of transparency at the ground level. Under this provision, lower building facades must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials. Ground floor building transparency through windows, storefront display windows, glass doors, transoms and other glazing, is required up to 60% on the highest pedestrian volume streets. Building Height and Mass Reduction The Downtown skyline is expected to continue to evolve with a limited number of additional buildings that will rise above the tree canopy, in the 7-12 story range, mainly to the west and south of the Historic Core. Current standards provide for a height range from 2.5 stories to 12 stories. Maximum building heights are on a block- by-block basis, with the tallest portion of a building limited to these maximum heights. Existing Land Use Code regulations set maximum allowable heights on a given site, but other factors associated with Code requirements and development project needs often ultimately determine the height of a specific building. During the review process, a lower limit can be placed on a building based on design standards for compatibility. The approach with the proposed height revisions shifts to a more clearly stated regulatory framework to facilitate more efficient review of proposed development projects. Ultimately, these revised regulations are intended to provide more predictable outcomes in the development review process Proposed building height allowances slightly increase the Downtown’s height capacity. The latest iteration of the height standards collectively adds the equivalent of 10 ½ stories of additional volume to the Downtown. Most of the additional stories are gained within the Canyon Avenue Subdistrict. Coupled with the height limits are mass mitigation requirements that help to maintain Downtown’s pedestrian scale. The primary mass mitigation technique is the stepping-back of upper building stories. Under the revised standards, buildings within areas that have a height limit of four or more stories must step back the upper stories an average of at least 10 feet along all street frontages and such step-back can happen at the 2nd through the 5th stories. If a building is directly across the street from a height allowance of three stories, the stepback must occur at the 2nd or 3rd story. Also, in all cases where there is a dissimilar height allowance between block faces, buildings must provide a contextual stepback. 4. Special Subdistrict Provisions Design Aspects of the Canyon Avenue, Civic, Innovation and River have subdistrict-specific design standards that range from site, landscape and building design aspects- all that reflect unique attributes to each subdistrict’s identify and character. Of these special provisions, the redeveloping River Subdistrict reflects the most extensive list of unique design standards given the complexity of its location abutting the Poudre River and the rich historical context as Fort Collins’ birthplace. Packet Pg. 20 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 5 5. Permitted Uses The revised Land Use Code section includes a table listing all permitted uses within the Downtown District, based on each character subdistrict. The information was formatted as a table rather than the separate listing customarily provided since the district includes many potential uses and subdistricts. The applicable review process, i.e.- Basic Development Review, Minor Amendment, Type 1 (Administrative) or Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board, has been denoted for each use. Uses not listed in this section are prohibited. Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Code Amendments The Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Zone provides a transition between the intensity of Downtown and the single-family character of the Old Town Neighborhoods. Currently, the NCB Zone allows for commercial and multi-family buildings up to three stories. Through the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan process, the need to provide greater clarity for how these larger buildings are to develop was identified. This Code update to Division 4.9 was designed to generate regulations that strengthen block-face contextual response of new construction and additions, and to ensure new buildings don’t have adverse impacts on their neighbors such as significant shading. Improving building roof form requirements and massing to protect solar access are the primary methods to aid in compatible new development. The most significant Land Use Code amendments within the NCB district principally include three components: 1. Solar Access Stepback Requirements. In order to reduce shading impacts to adjacent south facing roof and wall area, building upper stories must be either stepped back or provide a pitched roof. 2. Building Design Standards for Multi-family and non-residential buildings. Under these new provisions, new development must incorporate at least three architectural features that will ensure design compatibility within the blockface. 3. Removal of 5,000 square foot minimum floor area provision per unit. With this change, “carriage houses” behind street-facing principal buildings could be built on platted lots with less than 10,000 square feet in area. Note: this Code change is limited solely to the NCB district and has no impact on NCL/NCM-zoned properties. Community Engagement Major Policy direction was developed during the Downtown Plan and Old Town Neighborhoods Plan public engagement processes. Engagement activities for these two plans were varied, from traditional open houses and workshops, listening sessions and surveys, to more interactive events like subdistrict walking and bike tours, online wiki-mapping, and events at festivals. In total, the Downtown Plan outreach included 38 workshops, open houses, or general events, 36 working group meetings, 2 working group roundtables, 57 presentations to 17 City Boards and Commissions, numerous coffee discussion get-togethers, and thousands of individual interactions, survey responses, and comments. A key component of Plan engagement included an email newsletter with over 900 subscribers. Staff held three Land Use Code open house events, multiple one-on-one and small group meetings with property owners and designers, and presented draft code concepts to the DDA, DBA, Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, members of the Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods Plan efforts, and several advisory boards and commissions. The first open house was held on February 28th at The Elizabeth Hotel, and was well-attended by members of the design and development community. A second open house was an all-day event on April 18th. The last open house was held on July 25th. Over the last three months, staff has continued to meet with area property owners to understand any issues or concerns with the proposed regulations. All these events and meetings have helped to inform staff on the level of support for the proposed code elements. Packet Pg. 21 Agenda Item 3 Item 3, Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. DRAFT Land Use Code Division 4.9 Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (NCB) 2. DRAFT Land Use Code Division 4.16 Downtown District (D) Packet Pg. 22 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 1 DRAFT DIVISION 4.9 - NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER DISTRICT (N-C-B) (A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District is intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial- use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance with an adopted subarea plan. (B) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to basic development review, provided that such uses are located on lots that are part of an approved site-specific development plan: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings, but not to include carriage houses. 2. Two-family dwellings when there is only one (1) principal building on the lot. 3. Multi-family dwellings up to four (4) units per building, provided that no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing building, or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel which did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991. 4. Extra occupancy rental houses with five (5) or fewer tenants. 5. Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use permitted subject to administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review, provided that no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing building, or the dwellings are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel which did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991. 6. Shelters for victims of domestic violence. 7. Short term primary rentals. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Places of worship or assembly. 2. Minor public facilities. 3. Neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 23 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 2 4. Seasonal overflow shelters. (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Child care centers. 2. Medical and dental clinics, professional offices and personal business and service shops, provided that no structural additions or exterior alterations are made to the existing building, or the uses are constructed on a vacant lot or a parcel which did not contain a structure on October 25, 1991. 3. Bed and breakfast establishments. 4. Adult day/respite care centers. (d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses: 1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no habitable space. 2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space. 3. Accessory uses. 4. Urban agriculture. 5. Off-site construction staging. 6. Wireless telecommunication equipment. (e) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (f) Any use which is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but which was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and which physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 24 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 3 (2) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to administrative review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings when there is more than one (1) principal building on the lot and/or when the lot has only alley frontage. 2. Two-family dwellings when there is more than one (1) principal building on the lot, provided that such two-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal building. 3. Multi-family dwellings up to four (4) units which propose structural additions or exterior alterations to the existing building, or the dwellings are to be constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a structure on October 25, 1991, provided that such multi-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal building. 4. Multi-family dwellings containing more than four (4) dwelling units per building at a density of up to twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre, provided that such multi-family building is located within a street-fronting principal building. 5. Mixed-use dwellings which are not combined with a use permitted subject to basic development review or Planning and Zoning Board review and which propose structural additions or exterior alterations to the existing building, or the dwellings are to be constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a structure on October 25, 1991. 6. Group homes. 7. Extra occupancy rental houses with more than five (5) tenants. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Community facilities. 2. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Parking lots and parking garages. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 25 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 4 (3) The following uses are permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review: (a) Residential Uses: 1. Fraternity and sorority houses, provided that such fraternity or sorority house is located within a street-fronting principal building. 2. Single-family attached dwellings. 3. Multi-family dwellings containing more than four (4) dwelling units per building at a density of more than twenty-four (24) dwelling units per net acre, provided that such multi-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal building. 4. Mixed-use dwellings which are combined with any other use subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. (b) Institutional/Civic/Public Uses: 1. Public and private schools for preschool, elementary, intermediate, high school, college, university and vocational and technical education. (c) Commercial/Retail Uses: 1. Medical and dental clinics, professional offices and personal and business service shops which propose structural additions or exterior alterations to the existing building, or the uses are to be constructed on a lot or parcel which contained a structure at the time of adoption on October 25, 1991, provided that such use is located within a street-fronting principal building. 2. Funeral homes, provided that such funeral home is located within a street-fronting principal building. (d) Industrial Uses: 1. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems. (C) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in this Section or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Code shall be prohibited. (D) Land Use Standards. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 26 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 5 (1) DensityAllowable Floor Area. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating densityallowable floor area, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). (2) Residential. Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and first floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. A new single-family dwelling may be located in any area of the rear portion of such lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. (3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum six hundred (600) square feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures. All accessory buildings with habitable space shall comply with the requirements contained in Chapter 26 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code or the requirements of the applicable non-City provider of water or sewer service. (4) Accessory Building without Habitable Space. Any accessory building without water and/or sewer service, which has not been declared to contain habitable ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 27 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 6 space by the applicant, shall not exceed a total floor area of six hundred (600) square feet. Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. (5) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot. (6) Dimensional Standards. (a) Minimum lot width shall be forty (40) feet for each single-family and two-family dwelling and fifty (50) feet for each other use. The minimum lot width for lands located within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Subarea and south of University Avenue shall be eighty-five (85) feet. If more than one (1) principal building is proposed to be constructed side-by-side on the same lot, then each such principal building must have at least forty (40) feet of street frontage for single-family and two- family dwellings, and at least fifty (50) feet of street frontage for each other use. (b) Minimum front yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall not be less than twenty (20) feet, except that the minimum front and side yard setbacks for lands located within the West Central Neighborhood Plan Subarea and south of University Avenue and abutting Shields Street shall be sixty (60) feet, and the minimum setback from garage doors to the backs of public walks shall be sixty-five (65) feet. (c) Minimum rear yard setback shall be five (5) feet from existing alley and fifteen (15) feet in all other conditions. (d) Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). (e) Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1½) stories. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 28 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 7 (E) Development Standards. (1) Single-Family Dwellings. (1)(a) Building Design. (a)1. All exterior walls of a building that are greater than six (6) feet in length shall be constructed parallel to or at right angles to the side lot lines of the lot whenever the lot is rectilinear in shape. (b)2. The primary entrance to a dwelling shall be located along the front wall of the building, unless otherwise required for handicap access. Such entrance shall include an architectural feature such as a porch, landing or portico. (c)3. Accessory buildings and attached garages shall have a front yard setback that is at least ten (10) feet greater than the front setback of the principal building that is located on the front portion of the lot. (d)4. A second floor shall not overhang the lower front or side exterior walls of a new or existing building. (e)5. Front porches shall be limited to one (1) story, and the front facades of all single- and two-family dwellings shall be no higher than two (2) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one- half (1½) stories. (f)6. In the event that a new dwelling is proposed to be constructed on the rear portion of a lot which has frontage on two (2) streets and an alley, the front of such new dwelling shall face the street. (g)7. The minimum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 2:12 and the maximum pitch of the roof of any building shall be 12:12, except that new, detached accessory buildings and additions to existing dwelling units may be constructed with a pitch that matches any roof pitch of the existing dwelling unit. Additionally, the roof pitch of a dormer, turret or similar architectural feature may not exceed 24:12 and the roof pitch of a covered porch may be flat whenever the roof of such a porch is also considered to be the floor of a second-story deck. (2)(b) Bulk and Massing. (a)1. Building Height. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 29 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 8 1.a. Maximum building height shall be three (3) stories, except for carriage houses and accessory buildings containing habitable space, which shall be limited to one and one-half (1½) stories. 2.b. The height of a detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot or an accessory building containing habitable space shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet. 3.c. The height of an accessory building containing no habitable space shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. (b)2. Eave Height. 1.a. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable space. 2.b. The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed ten (10) feet from grade for an accessory building containing no habitable space. 3.c. If a second story has an exterior wall that is set back from the lower story's exterior wall, the eave height shall be the point of an imaginary line at which the upper story's roofline (if extended horizontally) would intersect with the lower story's exterior wall (if extended vertically). (See illustration contained in Division 4.7Figure ___ below). ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 30 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 9 Figure XX Building Roofline and Eave Heights (2) Multi-Family Dwellings, Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Buildings. Multi-family and mixed-use dwellings and non-residential buildings shall comply with the standards set forth in Figure _____. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 31 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 10 Figure XX Multi-Family, Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Design Standards ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 32 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 11 Figure _ Building Shading Stepback Standard (3) Carriage Houses and Habitable Accessory Buildings. (a) Carriage Houses. 1. Subject to the requirements set forth in in Chapter 26 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code or the requirements of the applicable non- City provider of water or sewer service, wWater and sewer lines may be extended from the principal building on the lot to the carriage house. 2. A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space must be provided for every bedroom contained within a carriage house. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 33 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 12 (b) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space. An accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be considered as containing habitable space. "Habitable space" does not necessarily mean a dwelling unit, but is space that is intended to eventually serve as indoor, habitable space for human occupancy. Accessory building applications must include the applicant's declaration as to whether or not the space is habitable. If water and/or sewer services are provided to the building, it shall be considered as containing habitable space. If an applicant declares that a space is not intended to be habitable, no water and/or sewer connections will be allowed to the building, and less restrictive bulk and massing requirements are allowed as provided below. (c) Additional Review Criteria for Carriage Houses and Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space. The following additional standards are intended to ensure that the design and operating characteristics of the carriage house or other accessory building with habitable space are compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and shall apply to the review of all applications for approval of a carriage house or accessory building containing habitable space: 1. The site plan shall provide a separate yard area containing at least one hundred twenty (120) square feet to serve both the carriage house and the existing principal dwelling. Such yard area shall be at least ten (10) feet in its smallest dimension, and must provide privacy and screening for abutting properties. 2. To the extent reasonably feasible, decks, entry doors, major entry access stairs or major windows shall face the existing principal building or the alley (if the lots front the alley). To the extent reasonably feasible, windows that overlook an abutting side or rear yard shall be minimized. 3. Buildings, structures, open spaces and other features of the site plan shall be oriented and located such that they maintain natural resources, including existing significant trees and shrubs, to the extent reasonably feasible. (4) Landscape/Hardscape Material. A maximum of forty (40) percent of the front yard of a lot may be covered with inorganic material such as asphalt or cement concrete, paving stone, flagstone, rock or gravel. (5) Site Design. In the N-C-B Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District, permanent open off-street parking areas shall not be located any closer to a public street right-of-way than the distance by which the principal building is set back from the street right-of-way. This provision shall not be construed to preclude temporary parking in driveways. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 33-1 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.9, Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) Page 13 (6) Access. Whenever a lot has frontage along an alley, any new off-street parking area located on such lot must obtain access from such adjoining alley; provided, however, that such alley access shall not be required when a new detached garage is proposed to be accessed from an existing driveway that has a curbcut along a public street, or when alley access is determined by the City Engineer to be a hazard to persons or vehicles. (7) Subdividing of Existing Lots. No existing lot may be further subdivided in such manner as to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. This regulation shall not apply to corner lots. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 33-2 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 1 DIVISION 4.16 - DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (D) (A) Purpose. The Downtown District is intended to provide a concentration of retail, civic, employment and cultural uses in addition to complementary uses such as hotels, entertainment and housing, located along the backdrop of the Poudre River Corridor. It is divided into nine (9) subdistricts as depicted on Figure _. The development standards for the Downtown District are intended to encourage a mix of activity in the area while providing for high quality development that maintains a sense of history, human scale and pedestrian-oriented character. Figure _ Downtown District Subdistricts ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 34 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 2 (B) Street Frontage Types Three types of street frontages have evolved in the Downtown District shaping public space and building placement. Applicable street frontage types are depicted on Figure ____. 1. Storefront – Found primarily within the Historic Core, and along Laurel Street, buildings abut a wide sidewalk. Retail and commercial uses predominate the ground floor with a high degree of visual interest and transparency into shops and restaurants. 2. Mixed Use – Found adjacent the Historic Core Subdistrict on streets such as Mason, this street character is a hybrid and transition between the Storefront and Green Edge frontage types. Buildings are set a little farther back from the street than along Storefront streets, often with small landscape beds separating the building from the sidewalk. There is significantly less ground floor retail space, but buildings still address the sidewalk in a similar way. 3. Green Edge – Found primarily in the subdistricts away from the Historic Core, this frontage type is best recognized for generous parkway widths and landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and the building. Ground floor uses comprise mostly residential and office, with a scattering of other commercial uses, often in much larger buildings than are found in the Historic Core Subdistrict. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 35 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 3 Figure _ Downtown District Street Frontage Types ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 36 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 4 (1) Street Frontage and Building Placement Requirements. The following standards shall apply to the Downtown District: Figure _ Building Design based on Street Frontage ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 37 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 5 Figure _ Street Frontage Build-To Range Figure _ Building Base Materials ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 38 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 6 Figure _ Ground Floor Transparency Calculation (C) Building Heights and Mass Reduction. The following standards shall apply to the Downtown District: ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 39 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 7 (1) Building Height Limits. The maximum height of buildings within the Downtown District shall be as shown on the Building Heights Map (Figure _). Figure _ Building Heights Map (2) Measurement of Height Limits. The maximum height limits are intended to convey a scale of building rather than an exact point or line. In the case of sloped roofs, building height shall be measured to the mean height between the ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 40 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 8 eave and ridge. The maximum height limits are not intended to hinder architectural roof features such as sloped roofs with dormers, penthouses, chimneys, towers, shaped cornices or parapets, or other design features that exceed the numerical limits but do not substantially increase bulk and mass. Lofts or penthouses projecting above the limits shall not exceed one-third (1/3) of the floor area of the floor below and shall be set back from any roof edge along a street, by a distance equal to or greater than the height of the loft or penthouse structure. See Figure _. Figure _ Measurement of Height Limits (3) Upper Story Stepbacks. (a) Historic Core, Innovation and North Mason Stepbacks: The fourth story of a building shall be set back an average of at least ten feet along all street frontages. Stepbacks may be continuous or may vary with up to 20 feet counting towards the calculation of the required ten foot average. (b) Canyon Avenue, Civic and Campus North Stepbacks: The fifth story of a building shall be set back an average of at least ten feet along all street frontages. Stepbacks may be continuous or may vary with up to 20 feet calculating towards the calculation of the required ten foot average. Stepbacks may occur at the 2 nd to 5 th stories. (4) Contextual Height Stepback. To provide an appropriate scale transition between opposing block faces with dissimilar height allowances, buildings shall provide a contextual height stepback. Upper floors shall be set back a minimum of three feet at the equivalent height limit on the opposing block face. See Figure _. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 41 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 9 Figure _ Contextual Height Stepbacks (5) Planning and Zoning Board Review of Large Buildings. Development plans with new buildings (or building additions) greater than twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet in floor area per story, or that exceed either six (6) stories or eight-five (85) feet in height, shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. (D) Site Design. The following standards shall apply to the Downtown District: (1) Parking lots, garage entries and service locations. Parking lots, garage entries and service locations shall be located on alleys. If no alley is present, they may be located on a Green Edge street. If a Green Edge street is not present, they may be located on a Mixed-Use street. To the maximum extent feasible, parking lots and garage entries shall not be located on Storefront streets. Auto entrances shall be located to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts. (2) Parking structures. To the extent reasonably feasible, all parking structures shall meet the following design criteria: (a) Where parking structures abut streets, retail and other uses shall be required along the ground level frontage to minimize interruptions in ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 42 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 10 pedestrian interest and activity. The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard for all or part of the ground level frontage on streets with low pedestrian interest or activity. (b) Parking and awnings, signage and other architectural elements shall be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street-facing level. (c) Architectural elements, such as openings, sill details, emphasis on vertical proportions such as posts, recessed horizontal panels and other architectural features shall be used to establish human scale at the street- facing level (3) Outdoor activity. To the extent reasonably feasible, outdoor spaces shall be placed next to activity that generates the users (such as street corners, offices, day care, shops and dwellings). Outdoor spaces shall be linked to and made visible from streets and sidewalks to the extent reasonably feasible. Buildings shall promote and accommodate outdoor activity with balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and courtyards for residents' and workers' use and interaction, to the extent reasonably feasible (E) Special Subdistrict Provisions. See Figure ___. (1) Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts: Plazas. For buildings located within the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center Subdistricts that are four (4) stories or taller, ground floor open space shall be provided that is organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the public. Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public and must include features that express and promote a comfortable human sense of proportionality between the individual and the environment, whether natural or man-made. (2) Civic Subdistrict (a) Purpose. The Civic Subdistrict will serve as an important element of the Downtown District and as the primary location for new civic uses and buildings. (b) Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all development in the Civic Subdistrict: (1) Civic Spine. All development shall incorporate the concept of the "Civic Spine" as described in the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan, allowing for continuous north-south and east-west pedestrian connections. The Civic Spine will serve to connect various buildings to unify parks and plazas. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 43 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 11 (2) Building materials. The use of local sandstone is required in all civic buildings to establish a visual continuity and a local sense of place. (3) Civic buildings. New major civic buildings, such as a library, government offices, courthouses, performing arts facilities and transit centers, shall be located within the Civic Subdistrict and placed in central locations as highly visible focal points. To the extent reasonably feasible, they shall be close to a transit stop. (4) Incorporation of new buildings. New buildings shall be designed in a manner that establishes continuity and a visual connection between new and existing buildings within and adjacent to the Civic Subdistrict. The height, mass and materials of major public buildings shall convey a sense of permanence and importance. (3) Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. Buildings located within the locally designated Old Town Fort Collins Historic District shall also comply with the Old Town Historic District Design Standards adopted by Ordinance 094, 2014, Chapter 14 of the City Code, and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. See Old Town Fort Collins Historic District, Figure 19. Figure 19 Old Town Fort Collins Historic District (4) Innovation Subdistrict (a) Purpose. The Innovation Subdistrict is intended to recognize continuing ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 44 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 12 redevelopment in this former industrial area. promoting employment and innovation. Redevelopment projects will continue to build up a fitting identity and character related to the Downtown District edge setting with contemporary semi-industrial building styles and materials. Streetscapes and sites will reinforce the area’s identity and character with design features that reflect an industrial character and the river landscape corridor. (b) Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to all development in the Innovation Subdistrict: (1) Site Design (a) Landscaping/Vegetation Protection. Naturalistic characteristics of the river landscape shall be maintained and enhanced using plants and landscape materials native to the river corridor in the design of site and landscape improvements. (b) Outdoor Spaces. Development shall incorporate outdoor spaces such as patios, courtyards, terraces and plazas to add interest and facilitate interaction. (c) Color/Materials. Heavy, durable, locally fabricated components, with materials such as metal and stone, will be used creatively to complement building design. (2) Buildings. (a) Height/Mass. Multi-story buildings shall be designed to step down to one (1) story directly abutting any natural habitat or feature protection buffer. (b) Parking lots. Buildings shall be sited so that any new parking lots and vehicle use areas are located in either: 1) interior block locations between buildings that face the street and buildings that face the river, or 2) side yards. (5) River Subdistrict (a) Purpose. The River Subdistrict is intended to reestablish the linkage between the Historic Core and the Cache la Poudre River (the "River") through redevelopment in the corridor. This Subdistrict offers opportunities for more intensive redevelopment of housing, businesses and workplaces to complement the Historic Core Subdistrict. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 45 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 13 Improvements should highlight the historic origin of Fort Collins and the unique relationship of the waterway and railways to the urban environment as well as expand cultural opportunities in the Downtown area. Redevelopment will extend the positive characteristics of Downtown such as the pattern of blocks, pedestrian-oriented street fronts and lively outdoor spaces. (b) Development Standards. (1) Transition between the River and Development. (a) River Landscape Buffer. In substitution for the provisions contained in subsection 3.4.1(E) (Establishment of Buffer Zones) requiring the establishment of "natural area buffer zones," the applicant shall establish, preserve or improve a continuous landscape buffer along the river as an integral part of a transition between development and the river. To the maximum extent feasible, the landscape buffer shall consist predominantly of native tree and shrub cover. (See Figure _.) The landscape buffer shall be designed to prevent bank erosion and to stabilize the river bank in a manner adequate to withstand the hydraulic force of a 100-year flood event. The bank stabilization shall comply with the following criteria: Figure _ Landscape Buffer 1. Any bank stabilization improvements shall consist of native plants and stone, to the extent reasonably feasible. If any structural materials such as concrete are required, such ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 46 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 14 materials shall be designed to emphasize characteristics of the native landscape such as color, texture, patterns and proportions, to minimize contrast with the river landscape. 2. The predominant visual elements in any bank stabilization improvements shall be native vegetation and stone, notwithstanding the use of any integrated structural elements. Blank walls shall not be used to retain the slope of the river bank. (b) Outdoor spaces. On sites that have river frontage between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue, buildings or clusters of buildings shall be located and designed to form outdoor spaces (such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards) on the river side of the buildings and/or between buildings, as integral parts of a transition between development and the River. A continuous connecting walkway (or walkway system) linking such spaces shall be developed, including coordinated linkages between separate development projects. (2) Streets and Walkways. (a) Streets. Redevelopment shall maintain the existing block grid system of streets and alleys. To the extent reasonably feasible, the system shall be augmented with additional connections, such as new streets, alleys, walkway spines, mid-block passages, courtyards and plazas, to promote a fine-grained pedestrian circulation network that supplements public sidewalks. (b) Driveways. To the extent reasonably feasible, driveways and curb cuts must be minimized to avoid disruption to the sidewalk network, by using shared driveways between properties. The width of driveways and turning radii must be minimized except where truck access is required. (c) Jefferson Streetscape. Redevelopment activity along the Jefferson Street frontage shall provide formal streetscape improvements including street trees in sidewalk cutouts with tree grates and planters to screen parking. Planters to screen parking shall be designed and constructed to appear as integral extensions of the building design. Materials used shall not be inferior to those used in the construction of the principal building. (3) Buildings. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 47 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 15 (a) Industrial Buildings. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (3), all new nonresidential buildings, including industrial buildings, shall comply with the standards for Mixed-use and Commercial Buildings contained in Section 3.5.3. (b) Programming, Massing and Placement. 1. Height/Mass. Multiple story buildings are permitted, provided that massing of multiple story buildings shall be terraced back from the river and from streets so that multiple story buildings are stepped down to one (1) story abutting the River landscape frontage and are stepped down to three (3) stories or less abutting any street frontage. Such terraced massing shall be a significant and integral aspect of the building design. 2. Parking lots. Buildings shall be sited so that any new parking lots and vehicle use areas are in either: (1) interior block locations between buildings that face the street and buildings that face the river, or (2) side yards. 3. Frequent view/access. No building wall abutting the landscape corridor along the River shall exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet on the axis along the River. 4. Outdoor spaces and amenities. To the extent reasonably feasible, all development shall provide on-site outdoor space such as courtyard, plaza, patio or other pedestrian- oriented outdoor space. To the extent reasonably feasible, outdoor spaces shall be visible from the street and shall be visually or physically connected with any outdoor spaces on adjacent properties. (c) Character and Image. New buildings shall be designed to demonstrate compatibility with the historical agricultural/industrial characteristics of the Subdistrict to promote visual cohesiveness and emphasize positive historical attributes. Such characteristics include simple rectilinear building shapes, simple rooflines, juxtaposed building masses that directly express interior volumes/functions, visible structural components and joinery, details formed by brickwork, sandstone, sills, lintels, headers and foundations and details formed by joinery of structural materials. 1. Outdoor spaces. Buildings and extensions of buildings shall be designed to form architectural outdoor spaces such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 48 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 16 2. Windows. Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as frames, sills and lintels, and placed to visually establish and define the building stories and establish human scale and proportion. Windows shall be placed in a symmetrical pattern relative to the wall and massing. Glass curtain walls and spandrel-glass strip windows shall not be used as the predominant style of fenestration for buildings in this Subdistrict. This requirement shall not serve to restrict the use of atrium, lobby or greenhouse-type accent features used as embellishments to the principal building. 3. Roof forms. Flat, shed and gable roof forms corresponding to massing and interior volumes/functions shall be the dominant roof forms. Flat-roofed masonry buildings shall feature three-dimensional cornice treatment integral with masonry on all walls facing streets, the River or connecting walkways. Additional decorative shaped cornices in wood (or other material indistinguishable from wood) shall be permitted in addition to the top masonry cornice treatment. Sloped metal roofs are allowed. Barrel roofs may be used as an accent feature but must be subordinate to the dominant roof. Specialized or unusual roof forms, including mansards and A-frames, are prohibited. A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings except as part of a design style that emulates nearby landmarks (or structures eligible for landmark designation). 4. Materials. Building materials shall contribute to visual continuity within the Subdistrict. Textured materials with native and historic characteristics, such as brick, stone, wood, architectural cast stone and synthetic stone in historically compatible sandstone patterns only, architectural metals and materials with similar characteristics and proportions shall be used in a repeating pattern as integral parts of the exterior building fabric. Masonry units must wrap around the corners of walls to not appear as an applied surface treatment. Other exterior materials, if any, shall be used as integral parts of the overall building fabric, in repeating modules, proportioned both horizontally and vertically to relate to human scale, and with enough depth at joints between architectural elements to cast shadows, to better ensure that the character and image of new buildings are visually related to the Downtown and River context. Lapped aluminum siding, vinyl siding, smooth-face concrete masonry units, ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 49 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 17 synthetic stucco coatings and imitation brick are prohibited. 5. Primary entrance. The primary entrance must be clearly identified and must be oriented to a major street, pedestrian way, place, courtyard and/or other key public space. The primary entrance must feature a sheltering element such as a canopy or be defined by a recess or a simple surround. 6. Accent features. Accent features, where used, must complement and not dominate the overall composition and design of the building and may include secondary entrances, loading docks, garage bays, balconies, canopies, cupolas, vertical elevator/stair shafts and other similar features. 7. Awnings and canopies. Awnings and canopies must complement the character of the building and must be subordinate to the facade. Colors must be solid or two (2) color stripes for simplicity. (4) Site Design. (a) River Landscape. The natural qualities of the River landscape shall be maintained and enhanced, using plants and landscape materials native to the River corridor in the design of site and landscape improvements. (b) Walls, Fences and Planters. Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to match or be consistent with the quality of materials, the style and colors of nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other masonry may be required for walls or fence columns. (c) Street Edge. A well-defined street edge must be established and shall be compatible with the streetscape in the public realm. Components may include any of the following: planted areas, decorative paving, public art, street furnishing with ornamental lighting and iron and metal work that reflect on the agricultural/industrial heritage of the Subdistrict. (d) Corner Lots. For sites located at public street corners, parking lots and vehicular use areas shall not abut more than one (1) street frontage. (e) Parking. Where parking lots are highly visible from streets or pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces, a visual buffer must be provided. Such buffering may consist of any of the following singularly or in combination: a low solid screen wall, a semi- opaque screen or a living green wall consisting of plant ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 50 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 18 material sufficient to provide a minimum of seventy-five- percent opacity year-round or other screening device that is sensitive to pedestrian activity. (f) Interim Parking. Interim parking lots as a principal use may be approved with a gravel surface and without lighting and landscape improvements and shall be restricted to a period of use not to exceed three (3) years. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Board upon a finding that the use is compatible with the context of the area and is a beneficial use which supports the purpose of the River Subdistrict. (g) Service Areas and Outside Storage Areas. Service areas and outside storage areas that are not used for trash and recycling containers, dumpsters and mechanical equipment must, to the maximum extent feasible, be located to the side or rear of the building and be screened from public view. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where industrial processes and outdoor mechanical activities are functionally integral to the principal use, such areas must, to the extent reasonably feasible, be located to the side or rear of the building and not impact pedestrian areas. Partial screening must be provided with design and materials consistent with the building and/or the agricultural/industrial character of the area. (5) Design Guidelines. See also the Fort Collins River District Design Guidelines, which are intended to assist applicants in the preparation of development plans within the Subdistrict. (F) Permitted Uses. (1) The following uses are permitted in the D District subject to basic development review: (a) Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific development plan that was processed and approved either in compliance with the Zoning Code in effect on March 27, 1997, or in compliance with this Code (other than a final subdivision plat, or minor subdivision plat, approved pursuant to Section 29-643 or 29-644 of prior law, for any nonresidential development or any multi-family dwelling containing more than four [4] dwelling units), provided that such use shall be subject to all of the use and density requirements and conditions of said site specific development plan. (b) Any use that is not hereafter listed as a permitted use in this zone district but that was permitted for a specific parcel of property pursuant to the zone district regulations in effect for such parcel on March 27, 1997; and ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 51 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 19 which physically existed upon such parcel on March 27, 1997; provided, however, that such existing use shall constitute a permitted use only on such parcel of property. (2) The following uses are permitted in the subdistricts of the Downtown District, subject to Basic Development Review (BDR), Minor Amendment (MA), administrative (Type 1) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) Review as specifically identified on the chart below: Land Use Historic Core Canyon Avenue/Civic/ North Mason Innovation/ River River Corridor Campus North Entryway Corridor Accessory Buildings BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Adult Day/Respite Care Center Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Agricultural Activities Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Artisan: Photography Galleries & Studios BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Bar/Tavern BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Bed and Breakfast Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Child Care Center Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Clubs and Lodges BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Community Facilities Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Type 1 Type 1 Composting Facilities Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Conference/Convention Center BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Convenience Store (w/o fuel sales) Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Convenience Store (w/ fuel sales) Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Day Shelters <10,000sf (w/in 1/4 mi of Transfort) Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Dog Day Care Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 52 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 20 Domestic Violence Shelters BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Drive-In Facilities Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Entertainment Facilities & Theatres BDR/MA Type 2 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 EOR Houses <5 tenants BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA EOR Houses >5 tenants Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Exhibit Halls BDR/MA Type 2 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 2 BDR/MA Land Use Historic Core Canyon Avenue/Civic/ North Mason Innovation/ River River Corridor Campus North Entryway Corridor Fast Food Restaurant (without Drive Thru) BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Food Truck Rally Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type I Type 1 Gas Station Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 1 Grocery Store (5,000-45,000sf) Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Group homes Type 1 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Health & Membership Clubs BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Homeless Shelters Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Large Retail Establishments Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Limited Indoor Recreation BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Lodging Establishments Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Long-term Care Facilities Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Medical Marijuana Center BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Medical Marijuana-infused product manufacturers Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Medical Marijuana Optional premises operations Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Microbrewery/Distillery/Winery BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Minor Public Facilities BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 53 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 21 Mixed-Use Dwellings BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Mixed-Use above non-residential uses BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Multi-family <50 du/ <75 bedrooms BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 2 Multi-family >50 du/>75 bedrooms Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Music Facility, Multi-Purpose Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Music Studios Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Land Use Historic Core Canyon Avenue/Civic/ North Mason Innovation/ River River Corridor Campus North Entryway Corridor Neighborhood Parks BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Night Club BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Non-Primary STR BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Offices: Financial Services, and Clinics BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Off-Site Construction Staging Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Open-Air Farmers Market Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Outdoor Amphitheatre Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Outdoor Vendor (Stationary) BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Outdoor Vendor (excluding Stationary) BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Parking Lots/Garage (as principle use) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Parks/Open Lands Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Personal & Business Service Shops BDR/MA BDR/MA Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 BDR/MA Place of Worship/Assembly Type 1 Type 1 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Primary STR BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Print Shops Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 54 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 22 Public/Private school(college/vocational) BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Public/Private School (elem./int/high) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Research Laboratories Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Resource Recovery Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Retail Establishment BDR/MA Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Retail Marijuana Store BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Land Use Historic Core Canyon Avenue/Civic/ North Mason Innovation/ River River Corridor Campus North Entryway Corridor Satellite Dishes more than 39" in Diameter BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Seasonal Overflow Shelters Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 SFD previously business back to SFD BDR/MA BDR/MA BDR/MA Not Permitted BDR/MA BDR/MA Single Family Detached dwellings Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Single-family attached dwellings Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 BDR/MA Single-family detached dwellings with no more 800 sq. ft., constructed on lots w/ existing dwellings Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Small Scale Reception Center Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Small/Medium-Scale Solar Energy Systems Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Standard Restaurant BDR/MA Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Supermarkets Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Transit Facilities (w/o repair or storage) Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Two-Family Dwellings Not Permitted Type 1 Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 1 BDR/MA Unlimited indoor recreational uses and facilities Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Urban Agriculture Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Division 4.16, Downtown District (D) Division 4.16 23 Vehicle Minor Repair (indoor) Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Type 1 Vehicle Major Repair Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Vehicle Sales Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Vet Facility/Small Animal Clinic Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Vet Hospital Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted BDR/MA Wildlife rescue and education centers Not Permitted Not Permitted Not Permitted Type 2 Not Permitted Not Permitted Land Use Historic Core Canyon Avenue/Civic/ North Mason Innovation/ River River Corridor Campus North Entryway Corridor Wireless Telecommunication Equipment Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Not Permitted Type 2 Type 2 Workshops & Small Custom Industry Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 Not Permitted Type 1 Type 1 (G) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not (1) expressly allowed as permitted uses in above Subsection (F) or (2) determined to be permitted by the Director or the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to Section 1.3.4 of this Land Use Code shall be prohibited. ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-1 1 Downtown and Transitions Code Cameron Gloss & Pete Wray November 7, 2018 2 Downtown Key Code Concepts –Key Points • Protect and enhance the pedestrian experience • Recognize the unique characteristics of different parts of Downtown • Provide an overall framework for Urban Design, not a style manual • Increase clarity and predictability for designers and developers • Enhance and build upon existing standards • Respect existing property rights ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-1 3 Downtown Zone Boundary New Downtown Zone district established under the 2017 Downtown Plan. Downtown Subdistricts 4 ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-2 Downtown Subdistricts 5 Street Frontage Types 6 ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-3 Street Frontage Types 7 Frontage Type Requirements 8 ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-4 Build‐To Range 9 Window Transparency 10 Storefront Green Edge ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-5 Building Base Materials 11 “Lower Story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high‐quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), poured concrete, precast concrete, wood, cast iron, copper, architectural metal) or other similar modular materials) installed to industry standards” 12 Current Height Limits ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-6 13 Proposed Height Limits +1 ‐3 ‐3 Nominal Changes 14 Oxbow Site ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-7 15 Oxbow Site Building Form 16 ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-8 Contextual Stepbacks 17 To provide an appropriate scale transition between opposing block faces with dissimilar height allowances, buildings shall provide a contextual height stepback. Upper floors shall be set back a minimum of three feet at the equivalent height limit on the opposing block face. Old Town Neighborhoods Plan – NCB Transition Standards ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-9 19 OTNP Framework Map Areas NCB Transition Areas 20 OTNP Policy Direction Neighborhood Character & Compatibility Land Use & Transition Areas NCC-1: Preserve character of the neighborhoods NCC-2: Protect historic resources within the neighborhoods NCC-3: Support compatible building design for new construction and remodels LUT-2: Improve transitions between neighborhoods/ Downtown/CSU ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-10 21 NCB Buildings 22 NCB Buildings ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-11 23 Proposed NCB Standards  Remove minimum lot area requirement  New multi-family/non-residential design standards  Building Shading Stepback for larger buildings 24 NCB – Minimum Lot Size NCB Standards for SF Dwelling behind Principal Building:  Max. 1,000 SF floor area  Max. 600 feet building footprint  Allowable floor area on rear half of lot not to exceed 33% area of rear 50% of lot  Separate yard area of 120 SF for carriage house  Site plan design to maintain natural resources, existing trees, open spaces and other features ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-12 25 NCB – Minimum Lot Size Remove Minimum Lot Area Requirement of 5,000 SF 26 NCB – Minimum Lot Size ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-13 27 Multi-family/Non-residential Standards 28 Building Shading Stepback ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-14 29 Building Shading Stepback ITEM 3, Staff Presentation Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 55-15 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT November 14, 2018 Landmark Preservation Commission PROJECT NAME HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODES AND PROCESS REVIEW STAFF Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Landmark Preservation Commission consideration of a recommendation to City Council to adopt revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (Historic and Cultural Resources). These codes direct the review and approval processes for developments affecting historic resources. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Landmark Preservation Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the revisions to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A series of amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 14 and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 are necessary to implement staff and consultant recommendations for improvements to standards that apply to historic resources and infill and redevelopment projects. The objective of this code and process review is to provide greater clarity, effectiveness and predictability in all regulations governing older and designated historic properties, and to better ensure the compatibility of new construction with existing context. The Historic Preservation Division code and process review is being conducted with the assistance of Clarion, Associates. The review builds upon extensive work undertaken in 2012 - 2014 to align the City’s historic preservation programs with Council’s policies and strategic outcomes. During the nearly two-year review, Clarion examined best practices in historic preservation statewide and nationally and conducted a comparative analysis of the Fort Collins codes and processes with those in over a dozen peer communities. Standard processes, such as historic designation and design review were studied, as well as emerging issues important to the Fort Collins, such as compatibility and appropriate infill development. Clarion then prepared a series of reports that summarized the current conditions related to the section topic, discussed the main issues associated with this topic, highlighted various approaches used throughout the country, and provided conclusions and recommendation for improvements. Each report was then reviewed by a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC), and city staff. The sixteen-member CAC, who convened for twenty meetings was comprised stakeholders representing historic preservationists, architects, real estate developers and realtors, local land attorneys, property owners, history group members and others. Packet Pg. 56 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 2 KEY CHANGES PROPOSED: Following are key changes staff is proposing to the Historic Preservation codes and processes: Landmark Designation: • Improve and shorten the non-consensual designation process by reducing the number of required meetings to two, rather than three. • LPC may approve design review applications during the designation process. • Interactive map that provides information on eligibility status, enabling property owners, developers and residents to easily locate individually eligible and designated properties. Ultimately, the map will be linked to CityDocs, providing access to documentation, photographs, and building permit records. Review of Designated Resources: • Design review of National Register, State Register and Fort Collins Landmarks • More options for quick approval: LPC conceptual reviews optional, offer multiple conceptual reviews if desired rather than one. • Two-part review, which can occur at same hearing: Mass, Form & Context, followed by Design Details. • Decision matrix of work that can be approved without review, and work that can be approved administratively. Review of Developments Abutting and Adjacent to Historic Resources • Establish at Conceptual Review a consistent and predictable 200-foot limit for the review of development near historic properties. • Design standards promoting compatibility with existing character that support design flexibility rather than replication. • Professional historic property survey: properties that are undergoing major work and are likely to be individually eligible. Demolition by Neglect and Dangerous Buildings • Building Code Updates: code language to address imminently dangerous buildings, and to clarify the requirement to fix dangerous conditions when deemed repairable by the Chief Building Official FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION The revisions to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, Landmark Preservation and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, Historic and Cultural Resources support Council’s adopted policies: That the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historical, architectural or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people; and That the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Landmark Preservation Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the recommended revisions to Municipal Code Chapter 14 and Land Use Code 3.4.7. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff presentation 2. LUC Section 3.4.7 - DRAFT Packet Pg. 57 Landmark Preservation Commission 11.14.18 Land Use Code 3.4.7 – Historic & Cultural Resources Goals Historic Preservation and Development Review: Goal # 1: Protect historic resource’s integrity & viability Goal #2: Compatible infill development that respects established character Goal #3: Predictable, transparent and effective codes and processes 2 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 58 Eligibility Defined Area of Adjacency – 200 feet Historic Property Survey • Any building on development site • Any building within 200 feet – architectural survey Inventory of Eligible Resources –FC Maps 5‐Year Period of Validity 3 4 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 59 Landmark Preservation Commission Review Changes to historic resources on development site: • Secretary of Interior’s Standards New Development (on site or within 200 feet): • 3.4.7 standards and chart 5 6 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 60 7 LAND USE CODE: 3.4.7 Historic Resources EXISTING CODE: CHALLENGES REVISED CODE: IMPROVEMENTS Limiting good design: Replication, imitation Inviting design excellence: Unique, harmonious new buildings Rigidity: Prescriptive standards Flexibility: Multiple options Unclear priorities: Historic context buildings undifferentiated Logical hierarchy: Emphasizes abutting historic buildings Unpredictable process - area of adjacency: Decided by LPC at final hearing (late in application review) Timeliness and certainty - area of adjacency: Decided by staff at pre-application stage (following 3rd party survey) Findings & Recommendation Revisions to LUC Section 3.4.7 support Council’s policies and objectives by providing for: • the protection and preservation of historic and cultural resources; • compatible infill development that enhances the community while respecting established character; and • a high‐quality built environment, supporting quality, diverse neighborhoods and fostering the social health of citizens 8 ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 61 Outside of Downtown District 9 Stepback Width Materials 3.4.7 In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of abutting historic resources. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of abutting historic resources and those located on the development site. Lower story facades until any stepbacks must be constructed of authentic, durable, high- quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, copper, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. Use at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any stepbacks: 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) 3- dimensionality; 5) pattern TOD At 3rd story and above. “Adequacy” defined by: (a) pedestrian scale along sidewalks (b) enhancing compatibility with the scale/massing of nearby buildings; (c) preserving key sunshine patterns in adjacent spaces; and c) preserving views. “Subdivided and proportioned to human scale, using projections, overhangs, and recesses . . .” “Predominant exterior building materials shall be high quality, including but not limited to brick, sandstone, other native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, stucco systems, or treated tilt-up concrete systems.” No smooth-faced concrete block, untreated or unpainted tilt-up concrete panels or prefab steel panels. No high-intensity, black, or fluorescent colors except on trim and accent areas. Outside of Downtown District 10 Stepback Width Materials 3.4.7 In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create gradual massing DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW 3.4.7 - Historic and Cultural Resources Proposed Repeal and Reenact (A) Purpose. (1) The purpose of this Section is to ensure that proposed development is compatible with and protects historic resources by ensuring that: (a) Historic resources on a development site are preserved, adaptively reused, and incorporated into the proposed development; (b) Development does not adversely affect the integrity of historic resources on nearby property within the area of adjacency surrounding a development site; and (c) The design of new structures and site plans are compatible with and protect the physical integrity of historic resources located within a development site and within the area of adjacency surrounding a development site. (2) To accomplish its purpose, this Section provides: (a) The requirements for the treatment of historic resources located on a development site; and (b) The standards for design compatibility between proposed development and historic resources on a development site and within the delineated area of adjacency surrounding a development site. (c) This Section is intended to work in conjunction with the standards for the treatment of historic resources set forth in Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code and any relevant adopted standards for Fort Collins landmarks and landmark districts. (B) Area of Adjacency. The area of adjacency is the area surrounding a development site within which historic resources may be identified for application of the standards contained in below Subsection (E), Development Design Requirements. For all development subject to review under this Section, the outer boundary for the area of adjacency shall be established at 200 feet from the property line of the development site in all directions. All lots or areas of property, other than the development site, that are wholly within the 200 foot boundary shall be considered within the area of adjacency. Any lot or area of property whose property line is overlapped to any extent by, or is partially within, the 200 foot boundary is deemed to be entirely within the area of adjacency. City Historic Preservation staff shall be responsible for determining which historic resources within the area of adjacency will be utilized as the basis for applying Subsection (E). ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 63 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW (C) Determination of Eligibility for Designation as Fort Collins Landmark. The review of proposed development pursuant to this Section may require the determination of the individual eligibility of buildings, sites, structures, and objects located both on the development site and in the area of adjacency for designation as Fort Collins landmarks. The determination of individual eligibility for designation as a Fort Collins landmark shall be made pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Sections 14-5 and 14-6 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code except as varied in below Subsection (C)(2). (1) Buildings, Sites, Structure, and Objects On a Development Site. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects on a development site are 50 years of age or older and lack an official determination of individual eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation made within the last five years, the developer must request an official eligibility determination for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to Sections 14-5 and 14-6 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. An intensive-level property survey performed within five years of the date of application for an eligibility determination is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the developer is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. (2) Buildings, Sites, Structures, and Objects Within the Area of Adjacency. If any buildings, sites, structures, or objects outside of a development site but within the area of adjacency are 50 years of age or older and lack an official determination of individual eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation established within the last five years, the developer must request a non-binding determination of eligibility for each such building, site, structure, or object pursuant to Sections 14- 5 and 14-6 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. Notwithstanding Section 14-5 and 14-6, any such eligibility determination shall be made by City Historic Preservation staff who meet the professional qualification standards provided in Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, shall not be appealable pursuant to Section 14-6, and shall not be valid for any purpose other than the evaluation of the proposed development pursuant to this Section. An architectural-level property survey performed within five years of the date of application for a non- binding eligibility determination is required for each building, site, structure, and object and the developer is responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of having such a property survey generated by a third-party expert selected by the City. Based upon the developer’s written request, the Director may waive the required eligibility determination for any building, site, structure, or object if the Director determines that such eligibility determination would be unnecessarily duplicative or would not provide relevant information. (D) Treatment of Historic Resources on Development Sites – Design Review. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 64 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW Proposed alterations, as such alterations are described in Fort Collins Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III, to any historic resource, including any historic resource individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, on a development site must comply with the design review requirements in Chapter 14, Article III of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. The developer must obtain approval for all proposed alterations before receiving a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation pursuant to below Subsection (F). This requirement applies to all historic resources located on development sites including, but not limited to, applications for commercial and multi-family building permits. (E) Proposed Development Design Requirements. (1) Design Compatibility. Proposed development may represent the architecture and construction standards of its own time but must also convey a standard of quality and durability appropriate for infill in a historic context and protect and complement the historic character of historic resources both on the development site and within the area of adjacency. The design of development on lots containing historic resources or with historic resources located within the area of adjacency shall meet the following requirements in addition to applicable Land Use Code requirements: REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION NEAR HISTORIC RESOURCES Purpose Standards for Compatibility with Historic Resources on the Development Site, Abutting, Or Across a Side Alley Standards for Compatibility with Historic Properties Within the Area of Adjacency but Not on or Abutting the Development Site or Across A Side Alley Massing and Building Articulation Integrate new construction into existing context and use massing options that respect historic resources. 1. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of abutting historic resources and those located on the development site. Review the identified historic properties within the area of adjacency and identify any predominate typologies and primary character-defining design and architectural features. DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW 2. The widest portions of stepbacks required by the Downtown district stepback standard shall be on building portions closest to historic resources. In all zone districts, stepbacks must be located on new building(s) to create gradual massing transitions at the same height or one story above the height of abutting historic resources and those located on the development site. features, or patterns in mind, apply at least two of the Standards for Compatibility with Historic Resources on the Development Site, Abutting, Or Across a Side Alley (those numbered 1 to 6). Building Materials Create visual connection between modern building materials and historic building materials. 3. The lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise) must be constructed of authentic, durable, high-quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, copper, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. 4. To reference one or more of the predominate material(s) on abutting historic resources or those on the development site, use at least two of ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 66 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any stepbacks (required or otherwise): 1) type 2) scale 3) color 4) 3-dimensionality 5) pattern Facade Details Create visual connection between modern building design and historic building design. 5. Use at least one of the following: 1) Similar window pattern 2) Similar window proportion of height to width 3) Similar solid-to- void pattern as found on abutting historic resources or those on the development site. 6. Use select horizontal or vertical reference lines or elements (such as rooflines, cornices, and belt courses) to relate the new construction to abutting historic resources or those on the development site. Visibility of Historic Features Protect visibility of historic architecture and New construction shall not cover or obscure character-defining None ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 67 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW details. architectural elements, such as windows or primary design features, of abutting historic resources or those on the development site. (2) Old Town Historic District. Proposed development within the Old Town Historic District shall comply with the Old Town Historic District Standards adopted by Ordinance 094, 2014, Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in lieu of the requirements set forth in this Section except Subsections (D) and (F). (3) Plan of Protection. A plan of protection shall be submitted prior to the Landmark Preservation Commission providing a recommendation pursuant to below Subsection (F) that details the particular considerations and protective measures that will be employed to prevent short-term and long-term material damage and avoidable impact to identified historic resources on the development site and within the area of adjacency from demolition, new construction, and operational activities. (F) Landmark Preservation Commission Recommendation. Recommendation to Decision Maker for Development Proposal. The Landmark Preservation Commission shall provide a written recommendation to the decision maker for development sites containing or adjacent to historic resources, or both. The written recommendation shall address compliance of the proposed development with this Section and applicable Municipal Code Chapter 14, Article III requirements and the decision maker shall consider such recommendation in making its final decision. Notwithstanding, a Landmark Preservation Commission recommendation shall not be required if the Director, after considering the recommendation of City Historic Preservation staff who meet the professional qualification standards provided in Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, has issued a written determination that the development plan would not have an adverse effect on any historic resource on the development site or within the proposed development’s area of adjacency and that the development plan is compatible with the existing character of such historic resources. A recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 68 DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FURTHER REVIEW LUC 5.1.2 – Definitions Adverse effect, for purposes of Section 3.4.7 only, shall mean that a project or undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualify a property for designation, either individually or as a contributing element of a district, in a manner that would diminish the property's exterior integrity. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be removed in distance, or be cumulative. Designated resource shall mean a building, site, structure, or object that is located on a lot, lots, or area of property and is (1) individually designated as a Fort Collins landmark; (2) designated on the Colorado State Register of Historic Places and the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) contributing or non-contributing to a designated Fort Collins or Colorado State or National historic district. Historic resource shall mean the definition of designated resource and a building, site, structure, or object that is located on a lot, lots, or area of property and is determined to be individually eligible for designation as a Fort Collins landmark either through a binding or non-binding determination pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(C). Massing shall refer to the perception of the overall shape, form, and size of a building. Object, for purposes of Section 3.4.7 only, shall mean a material thing of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical or scientific value that may be, by nature or design, movable. Site, for purposes of Section 3.4.7 only, shall mean the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a structure or object whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Solid-to-void pattern shall mean the area of the façade covered by openings divided by the area of the solid wall, as a measure of the proportion of the area of fenestrations to that of the wall. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 69 With those key buildings, ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Rec'd 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 65 transitions at the same height or one story above the height of abutting historic resources. New construction shall be similar in width or, if larger, be articulated into massing reflective of the mass and scale of abutting historic resources and those located on the development site. Lower story facades until any stepbacks must be constructed of authentic, durable, high- quality materials (brick, stone, glass, terra cotta, stucco (non EFIS), precast concrete, wood, cast iron, copper, architectural metal) installed to industry standards. Use at least two of the following to select the primary material(s) for any one to three story building or the lower story facades until any stepbacks: 1) type; 2) scale; 3) color; 4) 3- dimensionality; 5) pattern HMN Walls over 35 feet set back addt’l 1 foot for each 2 feet of wall exceeding 35 feet Articulated with projections, recesses, etc., dividing large facades into human- scaled proportions that reflect single family dwellings nearby and avoid repetitive, undifferentiated wall planes. 3.5.1 - Shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure compatibility. ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 Updated 11-14-18 Packet Pg. 62