HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/2017 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Work SessionMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers
Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West
Doug Ernest 300 Laporte Avenue
Bud Frick Fort Collins, Colorado
Kristin Gensmer
Dave Lingle
Mollie Simpson
Alexandra Wallace
Belinda Zink
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.
An audio recording of the meeting is available upon request.
Work Session
October 11, 2017
5:30 PM
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• REVIEW OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD
ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2017 AT 5:30 P.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
DISCUSSION
1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2017
REGULAR MEETING.
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 20, 2017 regular meeting of
the Landmark Preservation Commission.
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
2. 227 WOOD STREET (THE HARDEN HOUSE) - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for conceptual design review of The Harden House at 227
Wood Street, designated as a Fort Collins landmark in 1999. The proposed
work includes demolition of an existing rear porch (undated, historic), rear
addition that steps in six inches on both sides, addition of a skylight, and
addition of a deck. The applicants have been before the LPC on August 16,
2017 and September 20, 2017. This a revised option based on feedback
received from the Commission at those meetings.
APPLICANT: Gordon Winner, property owner
Heidi Shuff, architect
• POLICY AND LEGISLATION
o Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes
The purpose of this item is to discuss the codes and processes related to the review of
designated Fort Collins Landmarks, including both individual properties and landmark
districts.
• BOARD TOPICS
o LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities
City Code requires all boards and commissions to file work plans on or before September 30
for the following year. According to the Boards and Commissions Manual, work plans should
set out major projects and issues for discussion for the following year. The LPC adopted the
attached 2018 work plan at its August 16, 2017 meeting. Beginning with the September 13,
2017 work session, consideration of pending priorities associated with the work plan will be a
regular discussion item. The regular recurrence of this discussion item is intended to provide
the Commission with the opportunity to measure ongoing progress and identify action items.
o Consent Agenda Informational Statement
The purpose of this item is to inform the Commission about an update to the agenda template
and associated procedure to ensure the public understands the consent agenda process.
o Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues
The purpose of this item is to provide information about preservation considerations for
landscaping, trees, and other site features based on requirements in the Fort Collins
Municipal Code and recommendations from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings.
Information about the City’s Notable Trees program and locations of trees is also included, as
requested by the Commission.
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Roll Call – Work Session
Landmark Preservation Commission
Date: 10/11/17
Dunn
Ernest
Frick
Gensmer
Hogestad
Lingle
Simpson
Wallace
Zink excused
DATE:
STAFF:
October 11, 2017
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
Landmark Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss the codes and processes related to the review of designated Fort Collins
Landmarks, including both individual properties and landmark districts.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
At this Work Session, the LPC will be discussing Clarion, Associate’s analysis of the codes and processes pertaining to the
review of changes to Landmark designated resources, both individual properties and districts. The Commission’s comments
will be provided to Clarion and used to help develop tailored solutions that best support Council’s policies.
Questions for discussion include:
Terminology: Certificates of Approval; Landmark Design Review
Decision matrices; guiding documents, including Secretary of Interior's Standards
Conceptual review: Keep current process? Make conceptual review optional? Add ability to design?
Add specific requirements to code for demolition, appeals, demolition by neglect
General compatibility standards for new construction within districts or to landmark resource; combine with
district-specific design standards & guidelines
Organizational refinements; consider vs must meet; standards vs guidelines; adopted city documents; references
to other codes and documents
Should individual properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and National and State
Register districts, qualify for Landmark status and the financial benefits?
Should other types of designations be used, such as Structures of Merit or Overlay Zones?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Building upon the comprehensive review of historic preservation policies completed in 2014, the Historic Preservation
Division has contracted with Clarion Associates to analyze the relevant codes and processes. This analysis, which will
conclude in early 2018, will examine traditional processes, such as landmark designation, design review of designated
buildings and districts, and the review of demolitions or alterations of buildings 50 years or older, as well as emerging issues
important to the community, such as identifying appropriate and compatible infill development.
1.1
Packet Pg. 3
October 11, 2017 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Clarion Report - Design Review (PDF)
2. Topic 2 PowerPoint (PPTX)
1.1
Packet Pg. 4
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................
2
Peer Cities ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
3
Summary of Recommendations................................................................................................................................................. 4
A. Design Review Generally ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
A.1. Commission Review........................................................................................................................................................... 8
A.2. Administrative Review ................................................................................................................................................... 11
B. Review Standards Generally ................................................................................................................................................ 15
B.1. Review Standards for Demolition .............................................................................................................................. 18
B.2. Review Standards for Compatible Infill ................................................................................................................... 20
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Introduction | Background
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 2
This report is part of a series of reports on the City of Fort Collins’ historic preservation codes and
processes, including the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code. All four reports will be compiled once
reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Committee, Landmark Preservation Commission, and City staff. The
reports focus on the following four topics:
This report includes a review of the City of Fort Collins’ codes and processes related to design review of
designated resources and compatible infill in historic districts. The documents reviewed for this report
include Chapter 14, Articles I and III, of the Municipal Code and the city’s adopted design guidelines. This
report assesses the program area’s current conditions and provides recommendations for proposed
improvements. A review of best practices in peer cities statewide and nationwide was completed to
compare the Fort Collins design review codes and processes to other cities. The report briefly summarizes
the current conditions of the Fort Collins design review process for designated resources and its
effectiveness in achieving compatible infill, discusses the main topics associated with design review,
highlights various approaches used throughout the county, and provides conclusions and
recommendations for improvements in Fort Collins.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Peer Cities | Background
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 3
The following table compares the basic characteristics of the cities we studied for this report. The peer
cities researched were determined based on similar characteristics to Fort Collins: a population size
between 90,000 and 300,000 people, the presence of a large university, a growing or stable population,
and a robust preservation program determined by number of historic districts and landmarks.
Fort Collins,
Colorado
164,000
33,000
Colorado State
University
Growing: 36%
248 landmarks, 3 historic
districts
Berkeley,
California
121,000
40,000
University of California,
Berkeley
Growing: 18%
281 landmarks, 4 historic
districts, and 39 structures
of merit
Boise, Idaho 223,000
22,000
Boise State University
Growing: 14%
30 landmarks, 9 historic
districts
Boulder,
Colorado
108,000
32,000
University of Colorado
Boulder
Growing: 14%
186 landmarks, 10 historic
districts, 75 structures of
merit
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
111,000
33,000
Harvard University &
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Growing/ stable:
9%
30 landmarks, 2 historic
districts, 4 conservation
districts, and 39 properties
with conservation
easements
Denton, Texas 134,000
53,000
University of North
Texas & Texas Woman’s
University
Summary of Recommendations | Background
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 4
The following sections of this report review six topics related to the processes and standards used to
review changes to designated resources in detail and provide conclusions and recommendations for each
topic based on peer city research. The recommendations are summarized below:
Rename the design review process as a “certificate of appropriateness” process.
Develop a decision matrix to increase predictability of required review processes.
Make conceptual review an optional step.
Consider establishing a time limit for final review.
Consider more specific requirements for appellants.
Adopt guiding document that identifies specific types of work that can be
delegated to staff for review.
Establish mandatory approval criteria rather than “considerations.”
Add specificity to the “standards of the City” reference in the criteria for approval.
Consider additional criteria for the approval of demolition.
Consider codifying general compatibility standards for new construction.
Clarify the role of the adopted design guidelines and standards.
Develop design guidelines for additional districts or general design guidelines.
As recommended in the Topic A report, we propose organizational improvements to Chapter 14 to
complement the substantive recommendations that are the principal focus of this report. The important
procedural steps in Section 14-46 should be better integrated with the criteria and additional procedural
requirements in 14-48. A better system of organization for Article III may be:
Applicability (including portions of 14-46 and 14-47);
Process (including portions of 14-46 and 14-47);
Administrative process (14-49);
Criteria to be applied (14-48); and
The assorted provisions in Section 14-50 through 14-55.
Simple organizational restructuring as well as incorporating subsections with subheaders, multi-level lists,
and nested information would greatly help to clarify the ordinance.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 5
In the previous report, we studied the designation of historic resources. This report looks at what happens
when designated resources are modified or altered, or as new structures are built within designated
historic districts. Design review is one of the main tools used to protect historic resources after they are
designated. A thoughtful and thorough review process allows historic resources to evolve and
accommodate new occupants and growing families while still respecting their historic significance.
In Fort Collins, the process of reviewing modifications or
demolitions of designated resources and new construction in
historic districts is referred to in practice as “design review,”
although that term does not appear in the ordinance. Article III of
Chapter 14 details the requirements for construction, alteration,
or demolition of designated historic resources. The first step is a
“determination of detriment.” If the proposal is found by the
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair and the Director
not to be detrimental to the designated resource, it may be
considered administratively (by staff) without a public hearing;
otherwise, it is considered by the commission following a public
hearing. The procedures for both administrative review and
commission-level review are described in more detail in the
following sections of this report. Whether the decision is made by
staff or by the commission, a final “report of acceptability” is issued to authorize proposed changes and to
authorize the issuance of a building permit if required.
In 2016, 17 design review applications were reviewed by the full LPC and approximately 20 design review
applications were reviewed by staff. (For comparison purposes, roughly 700 demolition/alteration reviews
of resources that are not designated are completed in Fort Collins per year.)
Unlike Fort Collins, most cities we reviewed (with a handful of exceptions) use the term “Certificate of
Appropriateness” to refer to the formal authorization for new construction in historic districts or
alterations to designated resources. This is a relatively common term in use throughout the country and is
recognized by many property owners, developers, and local staff and officials as a distinct process
associated with historic preservation.
Beyond the terminology, the actual design review processes are quite similar in most cities, with
applications heard before the preservation commission, decisions made based on a particular set of
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 6
criteria, and an opportunity to appeal the commission’s decision to the city council. Almost all cities also
allow for an administrative-level review (usually without a public hearing) for more straightforward
applications. These are projects that typically are more modest in scale and do not require a public
hearing because the impacts on other properties are expected to be minor.
A common feature in these ordinances is a clear, upfront identification of the types of projects that are
subject to full commission review (and public hearing), and thus will require more resources and time to
pursue than the relatively simpler projects decided by staff. For example, Madison authorizes
administrative review but requires its commission to formally adopt a list of the types of work that can be
approved administratively. Boise uses a helpful, user-friendly tool that we did not see in any other
communities called a “decision matrix” to identify the type of review required for different types of work,
as well as an enumerated list of items that do not require review.1 The ordinance references this decision
matrix. Portions of the matrix and the list of exempted work are shown below:
11-03-04(20): Certificate of Appropriateness Required for Alteration, Demolitions or Relocations, Changes in
Zoning Classification or Changes in Use in Historic Districts or Historic Districts-Residential
iv. The Commission may delegate to the Planning Director review of Certificates of Appropriateness that are listed
as “staff level” under the Certificate of Appropriateness Matrix adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission
and are in compliance with the design guidelines on file in the Planning and Development Services Department.
Decision Matrix for Certificate of Appropriateness
1 Madison 41.17(4); Boise 11-03-04
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 7
Similarly, Santa Barbara identifies thresholds for projects that qualify for administrative approval in a
separately adopted General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures document. Gainesville allows
projects to be administratively reviewed when restoring the original appearance or when the proposal
meets their Historic Preservation Rehabilitation and Design Guidelines. This separate document provides
helpful conditions that determine whether a proposal can be approved by staff, as shown below.2
30-122(D)(5) Historic Preservation/Conservation
b. Staff approval. The city manager or designee may issue a certificate of appropriateness if the work will
either result in the original appearance of the structure, as defined in this chapter, or will meet the city's
Historic Preservation Rehabilitation and Design Guidelines on file in the planning and development
services department.
Guidelines: Additions to Existing Buildings
These examples, and particularly the Boise decision matrix, are user-friendly tools that allow applicants to
predict the type of process their work will require. The use of a chart system like the decision matrix allows
applicants to quickly understand the process and manage their expectations from the outset of a project.
The substantive distinctions between the types of review will be explored in more detail in the following
sections of this report.
2 Gainesville 30-112(d)(5); Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 8
There are two steps that Fort Collins should consider to improve
the clarity, transparency, and user-friendliness of the design review
process.
First, we recommend that Fort Collins consider changing the name
of the process for reviewing alterations to designated historic
resources from “design review” to a more specific term that is
focused on preservation. “Design review” does not specify that it is
limited to the review of designated resources and may
unnecessarily confuse the process, as “design review” could encompass several different types of city
processes that may be unrelated to historic preservation. It also is confusingly similar to “development
review,” which will be discussed in the next research paper. We believe a different name, such as the
common “certificate of appropriateness,” would help to differentiate the preservation review process from
other city reviews.
We also recommend that the Fort Collins ordinance better define and clearly distinguish the types of
projects that require full commission review and a public hearing, versus less significant projects that may
be appproved by staff. The city should summarize the different levels of review in a user-friendly format,
such as Boise’s decision matrix.
Perhaps the most visible, and sometimes most controversial, of powers exercised by preservation
commissions is the review of applications for major alterations or demolition of historic resources, or for
new construction in historic areas. The procedural considerations in reviewing applications for these types
of projects are quite similar to those for designating historical resources. Basically, the historic property
owner must be given an opportunity to be heard, to present his or her case, and to rebut the opposing
case. Commissions can help ensure fair, orderly hearings by making clear beforehand the standards that
will govern their deliberations. It is particularly important that the reviewing body gives reasons (or
“findings of fact”) for its decision on these types of applications.
The LPC reviews major alterations and demolition proposals of designated resources and issues a decision
in the form of a “report of acceptability.” (Projects that are reviewed by staff are discussed in in the next
section of this report.) The process for obtaining a “report of acceptability” differs based on whether the
work requires a building permit.
If a building permit is required, the proposal is reviewed by the LPC in two phases: (1) conceptual
review and (2) final review. The conceptual review allows applicants and the LPC to discuss design
issues as well as the policies, requirements, and standards that apply to a proposal. Final review
requires more detailed plans and is the step at which the commission renders a decision on the
Recommendation
Rename the design review
process as a “certificate of
appropriateness” process.
Develop a decision matrix
to increase predictability of
required review processes.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 9
proposal. These reviews may occur at the same LPC meeting depending on the impact of the
proposal.
If no building permit is required, the ordinance does not specify any phasing to the review.
Although not reflected in the ordinance, Fort Collins also offers an optional Design Subcommittee review
for applicants. This allows applicants to meet with two members of the LPC to discuss a project prior to
their conceptual review to obtain information and feedback.
The LPC’s decision on a design review application is subject to appeal by any “party-in-interest” to the
City Council. A party-in-interest can be the applicant, the subject property owner, anyone who received
mailed notice of the hearing or provided written comment, anyone who appeared at the LPC hearing, or
the City Council.
Most cities list the types of projects that are subject to review by the preservation commission. An
example from Denton of typical ordinance language is shown below. One of the main differences
between the cities we studied was whether work that does not require a building permit needs to be
reviewed by the commission. Boulder, Boise, Denton, and Provo are examples that specify that any
changes, whether or not a building permit is required, must be reviewed at some level for preservation
issues. In these cities, the same process for obtaining the certificate of appropriateness approval is
required for either circumstance.3
35.7.6.8. Exterior alterations and changes; minor exterior alteration, ordinary maintenance; appeals.
A. Certificate of appropriateness. No person shall alter, change, construct, reconstruct, expand, restore, remove or
demolish any exterior architectural feature of a designated historic landmark or allow the results of such action
to be maintained unless application is made in compliance with this Section for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and such a certificate is granted. As used in this Subchapter, the term "exterior architectural feature" shall
include but not be limited to architectural style and general arrangement of such portion of the exterior of a
structure as is designed to be open to view from a public way. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained
prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, although the Certificate of Appropriateness review and Building
Permit and other required Permit review processes may be conducted simultaneously. A Certificate of
Appropriateness may also be required for work not otherwise requiring a Building Permit. The Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be required in addition to, and not in lieu of, any required Building Permit.
Clarifying the applicability of preservation review is important because many alterations to designated
resources may not require a typical building permit but may still greatly impact a resource, such as
changes to landscaping where a site’s landscape features are a vital part of the property’s historic
significance. The overall process for preservation approval should be generally the same regardless of
3 Boulder 9-11-12; Boise 11-03-04; Denton 35.7.6.8; Provo 16.05.050
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 10
whether a building permit is required. The only procedural difference should be the building permit
processes that take place after the preservation review.
Several cities establish maximum time limits for the review of certificates of appropriateness. For example:
Berkeley requires a public hearing to be held within 70 days of receipt of the application, and then
a decision is required within 30 days of that public hearing. The overall time limit for the process
is 180 days.
Boulder allows 14 days to determine whether a proposal is detrimental or will have a significant
impact. A public hearing must occur within 75 days of receipt of a complete application.
Cambridge requires a decision within 45 days of the filing of an application.
Denton requires commission review within 21 days of receiving a complete application.
Lincoln and Madison require public hearings within 60 days of receipt of a complete application.
Syracuse requires a public hearing within a “reasonable time after [an] application is filed.”4
There are a few benefits to establishing maximum time limits for review. Setting a maximum time limit
creates a predictable timeline for applicants and helps prevent multiple iterations of the same design
returning to the commission until it is finally approvable. However, if this is not an issue in Fort Collins and
projects are currently reviewed in relatively quick time (from both an applicant’s and staff’s perspective), a
maximum time limit may not be necessary.
All of the cities we studied allow for the preservation commission’s decision to be appealed. The majority
of appeals are heard by the city council, although in Syracuse, appeals are heard by the City Planning
Commission (these are heard de novo, which is also unique). The cities differ primarily in who is permitted
to submit an appeal to these decisions. In Boulder, the city council may “call-up” any decision of the
Landmarks Board, which is unique in the preservation ordinances we reviewed (although this type of
authority may have been described in other city ordinances that were not reviewed). In Denton, only the
applicant may submit an appeal, while Boise, Gainesville, Lincoln, Norman, Provo, and Santa Barbara allow
anyone to submit an appeal of the commission’s decision. Other cities require a specific number of people
that must submit an appeal if they are not the applicant: Berkeley requires 50 people to submit an appeal,
Cambridge requires ten, and Madison requires the owners of at least 20% of parcels within 200 feet of
subject property.5
4 Berkeley 3.24.240; Boulder 9-11-15; Cambridge 2.78.060; Denton 35.7.6.8; Lincoln 27.57.140; Madison 41.17(5); Syracuse VII-6-C
5 Syracuse VII-6-C; Boulder 9-11-16; Denton 35-219; Boise 11-03-04; Gainesville 30-112; Lincoln 27.57.180; Norman 22:429.3; Provo
16.03.040; Santa Barbara 22.22.090; Berkeley 3.24.300; Cambridge 2.78.240; Madison 41.20
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 11
Crafting more specific requirements for appellants may limit frivolous appeals to the City Council. Often, a
City Council is not trained in preservation issues, and the Council may not have the same expertise as a
preservation commission to review alterations to historic resources. Decisions made at the council level
may also be more subject to political considerations. However, if this is not an issue that has come up in
Fort Collins, using the current “party-in-interest” requirements for appellants may be sufficient.
The general process for obtaining commission approval in Fort
Collins is similar in many respects to the other communities we
studied. One unique feature of the Fort Collins process is the
difference between preservation review of projects requiring
building permits and those not requiring building permits. Fort
Collins should consider whether the distinction between the
processes is necessary.
Additionally, none of the other cities we studied required a
conceptual review in their ordinance (although this may be something that is done in practice in several
communities but is not codified). While there is potential value in conceptual review for some projects and
we do not recommend eliminating entirely the opportunity for conceptual feedback from the commission,
we do recommend considering making conceptual review an optional step. The onus would then be on
the applicant to decide whether to seek conceptual feedback prior to a formal application review or risk
unexpected issues at the final review stage. We believe that the blurred lines between conceptual review
and final review may invite commissioners and applicants to focus less on the specific criteria to consider
for a report of acceptability. In addition, if it is common for proposals to have both conceptual and final
review at the LPC meeting, the requirement for an independent conceptual review seems less important.
Other items to consider are setting a time limit for the overall process, as many cities do, and reevaluating
who can appeal the decision of the LPC, perhaps establishing a new list rather than cross-referencing the
“party-in-interest” language of Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code. These each have benefits and drawbacks,
as described in the respective subsections above.
Communities vary as to what extent, if any, responsibilities under the preservation ordinance are
delegated to full-time administrative staff, as opposed to the preservation commission. Nationwide, it is
extremely common for preservation commissions to delegate authority for minor decisions to
professional staff. This often is done to streamline the review process and free up the preservation
commission’s time to work on more long-range or complex issues. For example, staff might be given the
authority to approve minor alterations to designated buildings (e.g., screen door replacement or paint
colors).
Recommendation
Make conceptual review an
optional step.
Consider establishing a time
limit for final review.
Consider more specific
requirements for appellants.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 12
In some cities, delegation of review authority often is done in practice but is not codified in the ordinance.
The general rule for delegating authority from the commission to staff is that responsibilities should not
be delegated at random, but rather should be guided by detailed provisions included either in the
ordinance or in formally adopted rules and regulations that are referenced in the ordinance.
In Fort Collins, work that is considered not detrimental to historic, architectural, or cultural material may
be administratively reviewed by the Director, with the consent of the chair of the commission. Specific
types of work are authorized to be processed administratively such as color changes, signs, and
recovering of awnings. More generally, “minor exterior alterations” are also authorized for administrative
review.
Article I defines “minor alteration” as “work that has the potential to substantially affect no more than one
(1) aspect of exterior integrity.” However, exterior integrity is not defined in the definitions section of the
ordinance. The National Park Service’s seven standards for integrity are integrated into Section 14-5
(standards for determining eligibility), but no cross-reference is provided that would help a user
understand this link. Administrative design review is subject to the same criteria as a commission-level
design review and the Director’s decision may be appealed to the LPC.
Normal maintenance that does not change the exterior appearance or characteristics appears to be
exempted by Section 14-52. Normal maintenance is not a defined term, but “repair and maintenance” is
defined in Article I as “work done on a site, structure or object in order to correct any deterioration, decay
or damage to any part thereof in order to restore the same as nearly as practical to its condition prior to
such deterioration, decay or damage.”
Almost every city we studied uses an administrative design review process in addition to a public hearing
process before their preservation commission. Syracuse is the only city that does not have administrative-
level reviews; all changes are heard by the Landmark Preservation Board. On the other end of the
spectrum, all modifications of designated resources in Eugene are reviewed administratively. These
administrative decisions are typically appealable up to the preservation commission, such as in Eugene,
Boise, and Provo.6
Boulder has two different levels of review for Landmark Alteration Certificates that do not require a public
hearing: (1) administrative staff review, and (2) review by the Landmarks Design Review Committee, which
consists of two members of the Landmarks Board and one staff preservation planner. For comparison,
Boulder reviews approximately 200 Landmark Alteration Certificates per year (a much higher volume than
Fort Collins, perhaps due to larger and more numerous historic districts), with about half being reviewed
by staff, 45 percent reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee, and only about five percent
going to the full Landmarks Board for public hearing approval.7
6 Syracuse VII-6-C; Eugene 9.7200; Boise 11-03-04; Provo 16.03.050
7 Boulder 9-11-14
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 13
Many cities exempt ordinary maintenance from the review process altogether. Some cities, such as
Denton, have a separate review process for ordinary maintenance which is essentially the same as the
review of minor alterations but has a faster timeline. Cities often carefully define ordinary maintenance to
help differentiate it from a minor alteration, like Norman, which defines it as “Work meant to remedy
damage or deterioration of a structure or its appurtenances, and which will involve no change in materials,
dimensions, design, configuration, color, texture or visual appearance to the exterior of an historic
structure. Ordinary maintenance and repair shall include painting and reroofing.”8
Ongoing maintenance of historic properties is one of the best ways to preservation original and historic
features. For this reason, maintenance should be encouraged and regular maintenance should have either
expedited review processes or be exempted from review.
Only a few of the cities we researched specify a time limit for administrative approvals:
Denton requires reviews of ordinary maintenance to be completed within five days and reviews
of minor alterations to be completed within five working days.
Madison requires administrative reviews to be completed within 60 days of receiving a complete
application.
Provo limits administrative reviews to 10 days after receiving a complete application.9
Time limits increase the predictability of a process for applicants. Administrative reviews should be
completed quickly to encourage applicants to utilize the process. Long timeframes for relatively simple
reviews can sometimes have the unintended consequence of encouraging applicants to “ask for
forgiveness rather than permission,” and lead to unpermitted (and often inappropriate) work.
Fort Collins’ approach to administrative review is similar to many of
the communities we studied. However, the “determination of
detriment” process is somewhat unpredictable in that it does not
provide much upfront notice to property owners as to the level of
effort required to get a project approved. Fort Collins should
determine a clear distinction between what can be approved
administratively by adopting a new guiding document that
determines which decisions can be delegated to staff. In particular, the non-specificity of “minor exterior
alterations” that can be approved administratively should be clarified. This may result in the development
of a decision matrix or similar document as recommended earlier in this report, or a document laying out
specific conditions required for work to be reviewed administratively. This document should be referenced
in the ordinance.
8 Denton 35.7.6.8; Norman 22:429.3
9 Denton 35.7.6.8; Madison 41.17; Provo 16.03.050
Recommendation
Adopt guiding document
that identifies specific types
of work that can be
delegated to staff for review.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
A. Design Review Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 14
This will increase predictability for applicants and will improve the efficiency of processing applications, as
case-by-case analysis of whether something truly meets the definition of “minor alteration” can
unnecessarily consume significant staff time. While the ordinance currently references considerations of
integrity to make these determinations, more objective standards are warranted. Clarifying what can be
approved administratively also may guide applicants to propose work that is less intrusive on historic
resources. By clearly identifying the boundaries for what can be approved administratively, a city can
ensure that the type of work proposed (or conditions to allow it to be approved administratively) is in line
with typical recommended preservation treatments.
Some examples of work that is commonly approved administratively in other communities include:
window replacement with the same materials and design; alterations that are not visible from public right-
of-way; fences; reroofing with no change in materials; and installation of mechanical equipment.
Additionally, the distinction between normal maintenance and minor alterations should be better clarified
in the ordinance to identify what type of work is wholly exempted from the review process.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 15
Whether reviewed by the commission or by staff, alterations to designated properties and new
construction in historic districts are evaluated based on a set of standards set forth in the ordinance. The
process of setting standards is crucial not only from a legal standpoint, but also as a way for communities
to evaluate where their preservation program is leading. What kind of development, if any, do we really
want in the local historic area? How will we evaluate proposed changes? What is the most efficient and
fair method of administering proposed changes? What should be the relationship of our local standards
to other historic resource regulations, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards?
The typical preservation ordinance sets forth broad review standards for the development or demolition
of historic properties. Often preservation ordinances attempt to ensure that modifications will “not have
an adverse effect on the fabric of the district” or that new construction not be “incongruous,” but “in
harmony,” with the “character” and “significant features,” of the designated resource. These operative
terms in determining the impact of a development or demolition proposal are to a degree subjective and
need to be defined and limited in some fashion to give applicants reasonable notice of what is expected
of them. Communities can narrow broad review standards through the use of detailed criteria set forth in
the ordinance or in accompanying documents such as guidelines, surveys, or administrative manuals.
Review standards that are too broad often are criticized for being vague and unclear. Fairness and
regulatory efficiency dictate that local ordinances contain clear standards that result in predictable
decisions by staff and review commissions and limit administrative discretion. For this reason, the
standards that are used for review of alterations and new construction are extremely important.
In Fort Collins, the standards considered by both the LPC and the director in deciding upon the issuance
of a report of acceptability are as follows:
(b) In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission
shall consider the following criteria:
(1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark
or landmark district;
(2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their
relation to the landmark or the sites, structures and objects in the district;
(3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior characteristics
of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done;
(4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark
or landmark district;
(5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of
the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources.
These are relatively broad consideration statements that could be narrowed. Importantly, the ordinance
only requires that the standards are be considered by the commission, which may result in less predictable
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 16
decisions. As drafted, there are not mandatory standards to be met--only “considerations” that could be
evaluated along a wide spectrum of acceptability. In other words, Section 14-48(b) does not give an
applicant a clear idea of what may be an approvable modification or how new constructions may be
acceptable. At what point is the effect of a proposal unable to be approved?
Also, to what extent do proposals need to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) standards? The current
standards also place a heavy reliance on the SOI standards for guidance in reviewing alterations and new
construction. While the SOI standards are helpful for review and are used by communities all over the
country, they are somewhat vague and imprecise. We typically recommend that they are used as a
starting point for more tailored and precise standards specific to the community.
Many of the peer city ordinances we reviewed use similar language and address similar topics in their
criteria for reviewing alterations, new construction, and demolition of designated resources. Boulder’s
ordinance provides an example of typical review standards:
9-11-18. - Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications.
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a landmark alteration certificate unless it meets
the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior
architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or
aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials used on existing and
proposed structures are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic
district; and
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in a historic district, the proposed new construction to
replace the building meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
These conditions more clearly present the requirements of an application: Materials and architectural
styles must be compatible, historic character cannot be adversely affected, and exterior architectural
features cannot be damaged. While these are still somewhat broad, Boulder supplements these conditions
with adopted design guidelines for each historic district as well as general city-wide guidelines.
Like Fort Collins, most of the cities we studied either reference or incorporate the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI) in their requirements for the review of certificates of
appropriateness. (For reference, the standards can be found in the appendix of this report.) Eugene, which
grants approvals only administratively, uses seven of the SOI standards for rehabilitation for their review,
as well as two additional standards requiring compliance with other Eugene-specific development
standards or design guidelines. In Boise’s standards, an abundance of different documents are referenced
including the SOI standards, plans, design guidelines, and even architectural history books. Madison
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 17
notably uses the SOI standards only when reviewing applications for landmark properties, but uses
individually adopted standards & guidelines for applications in historic districts. Norman and Provo both
use the SOI standards as well as additional adopted design guidelines.10
Tying back to federal standards is useful to ensure consistency with federal and state reviews, such as for
properties that are being reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office for tax credit projects. While
the SOI standards are a valuable tool in reviewing alterations and demolitions of designated resources,
supplementing them with local guidelines or specific ordinance language is highly recommended. We
understand that recently the State Historic Preservation Office has identified some landmark modifications
(specifically additions) that have been approved by Fort Collins that have negatively impacted that
landmark’s eligibility.
Generally improving the Fort Collins standards to act as requirements rather than “considerations” could
better ensure that alterations are consistent with the SOI standards. Additionally, establishing additional
Fort Collins-specific standards to supplement the SOI standards would allow the review process to better
implement the SOI intent in a more tailored manner. For instance, if general residential design standards
were adopted, they could specify the appropriate size of an addition in relation to the existing structure,
how the addition should be attached, and how visible an addition may be from the public right-of-way.
A few of the communities we reviewed have additional findings or processes to follow when an applicant
can prove some level of “hardship” that would be caused by not granting the approval. For example, both
Berkeley and Provo allow their commissions to approve applications that do not meet their general
standards but where the applicants claim that there would be unreasonable hardship if the application is
not approved. Cambridge has a separate approval process called a “Certificate of Hardship” when failing
to approve an “otherwise inappropriate project would involve substantial hardship” and would not cause
“substantial detriment.”11 Lincoln’s commission can issue a “Certificate of exception on the ground of
insufficient return or hardship” using findings that are similar to typical zoning variance findings: if it finds
that a reasonable return cannot be made without the proposed work, that there are unique circumstances,
and that the hardship is the result of the application of the ordinance and not a result of the applicant.12
This hardship finding can provide some level of flexibility for applicants. However, the ordinance should
clearly state that the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove a hardship. Additionally, changes should
also still generally reflect the intent of the ordinance.
10 Eugene 9.8175; Boise 11-03-04; Madison 41.18; Norman 22:429.3; Provo 16.06.010
11 Cambridge Historical Commission, Application for Certificate
12 Berkeley 3.24.270; Provo 16.05.070; Cambridge 2.78.210; Lincoln 27.57.150
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 18
The general subjects of the Fort Collins criteria are typical of most
preservation ordinances we reviewed as they focus on the impact
of a project on historic character, architectural style, and important
exterior features. However, it is somewhat unique that the
language is phrased as “considerations,” which arguably allows for
much interpretation and can result in a less predictable process.
Fort Collins should redraft the list as mandatory approval criteria
rather than as considerations.
Fort Collins also references the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, as many cities do, which is helpful to keep reviews in line with federal and state standards.
However, additional Fort Collins-specific standards, either in the ordinance or in adopted guidelines,
would be useful to assist in reviews. These could be much more specific and may be more easily
understood by applicants than the more general SOI standards. While the current criteria reference “the
standards of the City,” it is not clear whether this means adopted design guidelines or standards. Greater
specificity should be added to this particular criterion to specify what the “standards of the City” might
include. Finally, as we recommend that all criteria become requirements rather than considerations, the
level of compliance that is required with those adopted design guidelines should then be made clear
either in the ordinance or in the adopted standards.
While most communities use a common list of procedures and criteria for both alterations and
demolitions, some use a heightened review for demolition proposals. This may include additional criteria
or considerations unique to demolition.
Fort Collins does not have specific standards for the review of demolitions of landmarked properties or
properties within designated historic districts. The general criteria for considering a report of acceptability
are used in these circumstances. (Note that the Topic D report will review the Demolition/Alteration
review process for non-designated resources in detail.)
Some cities, like Gainesville, will not release a demolition permit until a building permit for a replacement
building has been obtained. Boulder requires that new construction replacing whatever is demolished
must meet the criteria for approval as well.13 Madison has established particular standards for granting a
certificate of appropriateness for demolition as shown below.
13 Gainesville 30-112; Boulder 9-11-18
Recommendation
Establish mandatory
approval criteria rather than
“considerations.”
Add specificity to the
“standards of the City”
reference in the criteria for
approval.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 19
41.18 Standards for Granting a Certificate of Appropriateness.
(2) Demolition or Removal. In determining whether to approve a certificate of appropriateness for any demolition
or removal of any landmark or structure within a historic district, the Landmarks Commission shall consider all of
the following, and may give decisive weight to any or all of the following:
(a) Whether the structure is of such architectural or historic significance that its demolition or removal would be
detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City and the State.
(b) Whether a landmark’s designation has been rescinded.
(c) Whether the structure, although not itself a landmark structure, contributes to the distinctive architectural or
historic character of the historic district as a whole and therefore should be preserved for the benefit of the
people of the City and the State.
(d) Whether demolition or removal of the subject property would be contrary to the policy and purpose of this
ordinance and/or to the objectives of the historic preservation plan for the applicable historic district as duly
adopted by the Common Council.
(e) Whether the structure is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, method of construction, or material
that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty and/or expense.
(f) Whether retention of the structure would promote the general welfare of the people of the City and the State
by encouraging study of American history, architecture and design or by developing an understanding of
American culture and heritage.
(g) The condition of the property, provided that any deterioration of the property which is self-created or which
is the result of a failure to maintain the property as required by this chapter cannot qualify as a basis for the
issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or removal.
(h) Whether any new structure proposed to be constructed or change in use proposed to be made is
compatible with the historic resources of the historic district in which the subject property is located, or if
outside a historic district, compatible with the mass and scale of buildings within two hundred (200) feet of
the boundary of the landmark site.
Reviews of demolition are often greatly assisted by additional standards, as the general standards used
for the review of alterations or new construction may not sufficiently guide decisions. These additional
standards could consider whether the resource is the last example of a certain style or architect’s work,
assessments of the condition of the property, or the economic usefulness of the property. Review criteria
specific to demolition could also specify that documentation, a common mitigating condition of
demolition, is required.
Fort Collins may want to consider establishing supplemental
criteria for approving demolitions of designated properties, as it
appears that the existing criteria may be difficult to apply to cases
of demolition. Often demolition has a different range of
considerations that needs particular criteria as shown in some of
the peer city examples. The hardship findings that other cities have
used (cited above) could be adapted in crafting findings for demolition.
Recommendation
Consider additional criteria
for the approval of
demolition.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 20
The effectiveness of determining the compatibility of infill development also depends on the standards
used for review. The broad review standards must be sufficiently narrowed to allow for meaningful and
predictable review of infill development. Often, because a particular project might be compatible in one
historic district but wholly incompatible in another, cities use design guidelines to craft particular
standards for different districts, to assist in the design and review of infill development.
Drafting adequate review standards is much less difficult in historic areas that have a distinctive style or
character. Areas with strong identifying features provide examples of the features best used to define
compatible development and measure the impact of proposals for new development. In areas that are
less distinctive in style, review of infill can also be aided by design guidelines that explicitly direct some
flexibility to certain features. If a local ordinance does not contain narrowing criteria beyond the typical
broad criteria for review, the preservation commission would be well advised to adopt them by way of
regulation or guidelines.
Compatibility of infill development in Fort Collins’ historic districts is guided by the design review process.
The general standards noted above for all “reports of acceptability” are used to evaluate infill
development in historic districts. In the ordinance, there is no specific language regarding infill
development. In addition to the criteria for consideration of a report of acceptability, Section 14-48 also
generally requires that the LPC find that all proposed work is “compatible with the distinctive
characteristics of the landmark or landmark district and with the spirit and purpose of this chapter.” The
term “compatible” is defined in Article I:
Compatible shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be
located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height,
scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation,
access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping,
lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility
refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.
One of the LPC’s considerations for the report of acceptability is the “extent to which the proposed work
meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation,
reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources.” As noted earlier in this report,
presumably the “standards of the city” refers to the city’s adopted design guidelines, although this is not
clear. Two guideline or standards documents have been adopted for designated resources in Fort Collins
and are described below.
The Old Town Neighborhoods Design Guidelines were adopted in February 2017 concurrently with
the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. The document is intended to provide guidance for design
review but compliance is not required. Particularly relevant to this topic, however, are the
guidelines for new construction incorporated in the document. These guidelines cover a full range
of topics such as design, mass and scale, articulation, windows, and materials. The guidelines also
include overall impact and compatibility considerations.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 21
The Old Town Historic District Design Standards were updated and adopted in 2014. These are
used to determine the appropriateness of modifications or new construction in the Old Town
Historic District, as well as for eligible local landmark properties within Old Town and the River
District. The design standards clarify that the guidelines require compliance (when applicable) and
explain the difference between important terms used in the document such as “shall,” “should,”
and “may be considered.” The document also has specific design standards for new construction,
focusing on building placement, architectural character, mass, scale, height, roofs, entrances,
materials, and windows.
In other districts outside these two areas, and for individual landmarks without adopted standards, great
emphasis is placed on SOI standards for review of changes, as well as the general criteria for
consideration.
In reviewing staff reports for recent design review applications in the Old Town Historic District, we did
not find any analysis of the design standards included in the reports. It is not clear how, or when, the
standards are applied to the review of projects. We presume that a project’s compliance with the
standards are discussed in the LPC meeting. However, we recommend including staff-level analysis of
compliance with the design guidelines in staff reports to help guide the LPC’s discussion at public
hearings. As a larger point, staff reports could also include greater analysis of how a project meets the
Secretary of Interior’s standards and whether the property’s integrity is impacted by the proposal.
Almost every city we studied has either adopted design guidelines or integrated specific requirements
into their ordinance for evaluating compatibility. Boulder and Norman have both adopted design
guidelines for each of their historic districts, as well as general guidelines for all districts and landmarks.
All of the design guidelines documents from Boulder specify that the guidelines are intended to be an aid
for design, not a checklist for compliance. Lincoln has specific design guidelines for each landmark and
district that are adopted concurrently with their designations and guide future alterations. Several cities,
like Denton and Madison have actually codified design requirements for each particular district in their
ordinances.14
One issue that comes up in many cities is the difficulty in determining what standards of review are
advisory versus mandatory. For example, in Eugene, one of the criteria for approval is that the proposal is
consistent with the design guidelines, although the design guidelines are “Advisory Design Guidelines for
Historic Residential Properties.” Design guideline documents often also do not adequately distinguish
between guidelines that “should” be met versus those that “shall” be required. Another example is from
Provo, which has codified “Special Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts.” These guidelines
cover topics like height, scale, window proportion, roof shape, and architectural details. Per the ordinance,
the commission is required to use the guidelines to determine the appropriateness of applications for new
construction. However, each of these suggest that these features “should be compatible” with surrounding
14 Boulder Design Guidelines for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts; Norman Historic Preservation; Lincoln Historic
Preservation; Denton 35-275; Madison 41.22
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 22
structures. It is therefore not clear whether these are simply intended to guide the discussion or to what
degree a project must comply with the guidelines in order to be approved.15
Berkeley does not have adopted design guidelines for particular historic districts, although the city has
adopted general downtown design guidelines with specific guidelines for landmark buildings. Berkeley
has a fairly general additional finding for the review of new construction in historic districts that ensures
that work will not “adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the
relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and
surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the
special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district.”16
In addition to their Historic Preservation Rehabilitation and Design Guidelines mentioned earlier in this
report, Gainesville has codified “visual compatibility standards” to guide certificate of appropriateness
decisions. The use of “shall” makes them clearly mandatory, but they are general enough to be applicable
to different districts with many different architectural styles:
Sec. 30-112. - Historic preservation/conservation.
(6) Criteria.
a. Generally. The decision on all certificates of appropriateness, except those for demolition or relocation, shall
be guided by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings and the following visual compatibility standards:
1. Height. Height shall be visually compatible with adjacent buildings.
2. Proportion of building, structure or object's front facade. The width of building, structure or object to the
height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible to buildings and places to which it is visually
related.
3. Proportion of openings within the facility. The relationship of the width of the windows in a building, structure
or object shall be visually compatible with buildings and places to which the building, structure or object is
visually related.
4. Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade of a building,
structure or object shall be visually compatible with buildings and places to which it is visually related.
5. Rhythm of buildings, structures, objects or parking lots on streets. The relationship of the buildings, structures,
objects or parking lots to open space between it and adjoining buildings and places shall be visually
compatible to the buildings and places to which it is visually related.
6. Rhythm of entrance and porch projection. The relationship of entrances and projections to sidewalks of a
building, structure, object or parking lot shall be visually compatible to the buildings and places to which it is
visually related.
7. Relationship of materials, texture and color. The relationship of materials, texture and color of a parking lot or
of the facade of a building, structure or object shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials
used in the buildings to which it is visually related.
8. Roof shapes. The roof shape of the building, structure or object shall be visually compatible with the
buildings to which it is visually related.
9. Walls of continuity. Appurtenances of a building, structure, object or parking lot such as walls, fences and
landscape masses shall, if necessary, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual
compatibility of the building, structure, object or parking lot to the building and places to which it is visually
related.
15 Eugene Advisory Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Properties; Provo 16.06.020
16 Berkeley 3.24.260
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 23
10. Scale of building. The size of the building, structure, object or parking lot; the building mass of the building,
structure, object or parking lot in relation to open space; and the windows, door openings, porches and
balconies shall be visually compatible with the buildings and places to which it is visually related.
11. Directional expression of front elevation. A building, structure, object or parking lot shall be visually
compatible with the buildings and places to which it is visually related in its directional character.
The Santa Barbara ordinance includes a “Project Compatibility Analysis” which establishes additional
criteria for consideration by their Historic Landmarks Commission. Topics range from compliance with the
municipal code, adopted design guidelines, compatibility with the architectural character of the city and
neighborhood, appropriate height and scale, and sensitivity to adjacent landmarks. In addition, Santa
Barbara recently adopted Infill Design Guidelines in their General Design Guidelines and Meeting
Procedures document that are intended to “ensure that infill development complements existing
buildings, preserves neighborhood character, and is well integrated into the neighborhood with a
cohesive and well-thought out design.” The guidelines list possible design techniques and approaches to
achieve the objectives in the Project Compatibility criteria in the ordinance.17
Gainesville’s visual compatibility standards are an excellent example, as they are clear, relatively objective
standards that are codified. These standards are supplemented by design guidelines for some districts in
the city, where even more tailored standards are necessary to determine compatibility.
Although the term “compatible” is often used in preservation ordinances, very few of the ordinances we
reviewed (only Madison and Norman) defined this term.18 Some of the cities, like Santa Barbara below,
defined compatibility within a separate design guidelines document. These definitions provide some level
of specificity in determining compatibility by providing several examples of features to consider.
Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures
“For the purposes of design review, “compatibility” is defined as a project’s ability to integrate harmoniously with
the desirable architectural qualities and characteristics which are distinctive of Santa Barbara and the immediate
neighborhood. A study of the ten (10) closest properties, and additional properties as needed, can be used in
evaluating neighborhood compatibility.”
The following should be considered in achieving compatibility:
A. Contextual setting (streetscape, surrounding structures, street trees, parks)
B. Patterns of development in the particular area
C. Architectural style
D. Size, mass, bulk, height, and scale
E. Proximity to, and interface with, historic resources, historic districts, historic sites, or natural features
F. Design intent and overall concept of the project and land use designation of the site
17 Santa Barbara 22.22.145 and Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures
18 Madison 41.02; Norman 22:429.3
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
B. Review Standards Generally | Research Topics
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 24
Many cities struggle with clearly identifying what is advisory versus
mandatory in regards to design guidelines that assist in the review
of new development in historic districts. To account for varying
character between and within different districts, some degree of
flexibility is warranted. This flexibility should be clearly established
either in the ordinance or in separately adopted design guidelines.
In Fort Collins, it is not clear how enforceable or applicable the
adopted design guidelines are, or how they are incorporated into
the design review process. Are they intended to be a checklist for
compliance or simply guidance? The Old Town Historic District
Design Standards are clearer about the terminology used, but the ordinance does not clearly explain their
role in the design review process. If the standards are used as a checklist for compliance, some degree of
flexibility should be defined and integrated to allow for unique circumstances. The actual design
guidelines appear to be helpful and cover appropriate topics for reviewing compatibility of development.
Stronger design guidelines could greatly assist in the review in other designated areas of the city.
Developing general residential design guidelines in particular may be helpful, as Fort Collins has a
significant number of landmarked residential properties. Fort Collins should also consider codifying some
general compatibility standards into the ordinance, as Gainesville has done, and supplement those
general guidelines with the adopted design guidelines for particular areas. The ordinance should then
clearly reference those other adopted guidelines and clarify whether compliance is advisory or mandatory.
The existing definition of “compatibility” in the Fort Collins ordinance could easily be built upon to craft
standards for achieving compatibility in new construction in historic districts.
Recommendation
Consider codifying general
compatibility standards for
new construction.
Clarify the role of the
adopted design guidelines
and standards.
Develop design guidelines
for additional districts or
general design guidelines.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
PEER CITY ORDINANCES
Berkeley, California:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/Berkeley03/Berkeley0324/Berkeley0324.html#3.24
Boise, Idaho: http://cityclerk.cityofboise.org/media/262806/1100.pdf
Boulder, Colorado:
https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT9LAUSCO_CH11HIPR_9-11-
3INDEINLAHIDI
Cambridge, Massachusetts: http://code.cambridgema.gov/2.78.180/
Denton, Texas:
https://library.municode.com/tx/denton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=SPBLADECO_CH35ZO_ARTVHIL
APRHIDI
Eugene, Oregon: https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/Index/262
Gainesville, Florida:
https://library.municode.com/fl/gainesville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORGAFL_CH30LADECO_A
RTVIRESPREUS_S30-112HIPRCO
Lincoln, Nebraska: http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti27/ch2757.pdf ;
Madison, Wisconsin:
https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=Chapter%2033%20Boards%2C
%20Commissions%2C%20and%20Committees
Norman, Oklahoma:
http://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/WebFM/Norman/Planning%20and%20Development/Planning
%20and%20Zoning/5-22-14%20Complete%20Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf
Provo, Utah: http://www.codepublishing.com/UT/Provo/?Provo16/Provo16.html
Santa Barbara, California: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=12168
Syracuse, New York: http://www.syracuse.ny.us/pdfs/Zoning/Zoning%20Ordinance%20Part%20C.pdf
OTHER RELATED SITES
Cambridge Historical Commission, “Application for Certificate,”
https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/historicalcommission/pdf/chcapplication.pdf?la=en
City of Boulder, “Design Guidelines for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts,”
https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/historic-preservation-applications-design-guidelines
City of Eugene, “Advisory Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Properties,” https://www.eugene-
or.gov/830/Historic-Documents-and-Resources
City of Norman, “Historic Preservation,” http://www.normanok.gov/planning/historic-preservation
City of Lincoln, “Historic Preservation,” https://lincoln.ne.gov/city/plan/long/hp/hp.htm
City of Santa Barbara, “Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures,”
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17311
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Topic B: Designated Resources Review | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 26
1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the
defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or
alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false
sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other
buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right
shall be retained and preserved.
5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a
historic property shall be preserved.
6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration
requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and
other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be
used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that
characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed
in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
TOPIC 2: DESIGNATED RESOURCES 1
CAC October 4, 2017
1.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Topic 2 PowerPoint (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Design Review - The Process
Design Review Generally
• Recommendations:
– “Certificate of
Appropriateness”
– Decision matrix
– Organize code for clarity
2
1.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Topic 2 PowerPoint (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Design Review – The Process
Commission Review
Recommendations:
• Conceptual review optional?
• Add time limits
• Specific requirements for
appellants
3
1.1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Topic 2 PowerPoint (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Design Review – The Process
Administrative (Staff) Review
• Recommendations:
– Differentiate “maintenance”
and “minor alterations”
– Adopt guiding document
that specifies work to be
delegated to staff for
approval
4
1.1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Topic 2 PowerPoint (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Design Review – The Standards
Review Standards – General
• Recommendations:
– Must meet / must consider
– Clarify “adopted standards
of the city”
5
1.1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Topic 2 PowerPoint (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Design Review – The Standards
Review Standards - Demolition
• Recommendation:
– Adopt specific criteria for
demolition of designated
resources
– Also needed: Criteria to
prevent demolition by
neglect
6
1.1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Topic 2 PowerPoint (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
Design Review – The Standards
Review Standards - Compatible Infill
Recommendations:
• Adopt General Compatibility
Standards for New Construction
• District-Specific Design Standards
and Guidelines
• Clarify Standards vs Guidelines
7
1.1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Topic 2 PowerPoint (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 11, 2017
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
Landmark Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Code requires all boards and commissions to file work plans on or before September 30 for the following
year. According to the Boards and Commissions Manual, work plans should set out major projects and issues for
discussion for the following year. The LPC adopted the attached 2018 work plan at its August 16, 2017 meeting.
Beginning with the September 13, 2017 work session, consideration of pending priorities associated with the work
plan will be a regular discussion item. The regular recurrence of this discussion item is intended to provide the
Commission with the opportunity to measure ongoing progress and identify action items.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (PDF)
1.2
Packet Pg. 38
1.2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6015 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities)
1.2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6015 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 11, 2017
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner WORK SESSION ITEM
Landmark Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Consent Agenda Informational Statement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to inform the Commission about an update to the agenda template and associated
procedure to ensure the public understands the consent agenda process.
The following statement is provided on the LPC agenda as an introduction to the consent agenda items:
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
While members of the public have the opportunity to learn about consent agenda procedure by reading this
statement, some meeting attendees may not pick up a copy of the agenda and members of the public watching
the meeting via video may not understand why consent items are passed in a single motion without discussion.
Transparency can be improved with a supporting statement from the Chair before the Commission introduces a
motion regarding consent items.
Staff recommends a statement based on the practice recently introduced at Planning and Zoning Board meetings.
The Chair should read or paraphrase the above statement and add the following:
Any public hearing item approved on the Consent Agenda shall be considered to have been opened and closed.
The information furnished in connection with any such item and provided to this Board shall be considered as the
only evidence presented for consideration. Approval of any public hearing item as a part of the Consent Agenda
constitutes adoption by this Board of the staff recommendations, findings, and conditions of approval for those
items.
The following items are on tonight’s Consent Agenda…[list items]. Does any member of the public or
Commission wish to pull this item from Consent so that it can be discussed?
1.3
Packet Pg. 41
DATE:
STAFF:
October 11, 2017
Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
Landmark Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide information about preservation considerations for landscaping, trees, and
other site features based on requirements in the Fort Collins Municipal Code and recommendations from the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Illustrated Guidelines on
Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Information about the City’s Notable Trees program and locations of trees is also included, as requested by the
Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2017-10-10 Landscaping_Trees_ Preservation Considerations (PDF)
1.4
Packet Pg. 42
10/10/2017
1
1
Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues
Karen McWilliams
Landmark Preservation Commission, October 11, 2017
Fort Collins Municipal Code
ARTICLE III. - CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC
RESOURCES
Sec. 14-47. - Work not requiring building permit; application for approval.
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, no land surface within any real property designated as a
landmark or landmark district shall be changed and no improvements shall be erected,
removed, restored, demolished or altered, including alterations of color, without prior written
approval of the Commission. No addition shall be made to any real property designated as a
landmark or landmark district in such a manner or of such a character as to change the exterior
appearance or exterior characteristics which change shall be visible from any public street, park or
other public place, without prior written approval of the Commission.
2
1.4.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: 2017-10-10 Landscaping_Trees_ Preservation Considerations (6028 : Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues)
10/10/2017
2
Fort Collins Municipal Code
ARTICLE III. - CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION OF DESIGNATED HISTORIC
RESOURCES
Sec. 14-48. - Report of acceptability.
(b) In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the
Commission shall consider the following criteria:
(1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of
the landmark or landmark district;
(3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior
characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done;
(4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of
the landmark or landmark district;
(5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States
Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic
resources.
3
4
1.4.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: 2017-10-10 Landscaping_Trees_ Preservation Considerations (6028 : Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues)
10/10/2017
3
5
6
1.4.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: 2017-10-10 Landscaping_Trees_ Preservation Considerations (6028 : Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues)
10/10/2017
4
7
8
1.4.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: 2017-10-10 Landscaping_Trees_ Preservation Considerations (6028 : Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues)
10/10/2017
5
9
10
1.4.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: 2017-10-10 Landscaping_Trees_ Preservation Considerations (6028 : Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues)
10/10/2017
6
11
Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues
Karen McWilliams
Landmark Preservation Commission, October 11, 2017
1.4.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: 2017-10-10 Landscaping_Trees_ Preservation Considerations (6028 : Guidelines on Landscaping and Trees: Preservation Issues)
Growing: 60%
2 historic districts, 1
conservation district
Eugene,
Oregon
167,000
23,000
University of Oregon
Growing: 20%
60 landmarks and 2 historic
districts
Gainesville,
Florida
132,000
52,000
University of Florida
Growing: 16%
10 landmarks and 5 historic
districts
Lincoln,
Nebraska
280,000
25,000
University of Nebraska
Growing: 23%
160 landmarks, 18 historic
districts
Madison,
Wisconsin
253,000
43,000
University of Wisconsin
Growing: 20%
182 landmarks, 5 historic
districts
Norman,
Oklahoma
122,000
31,000
University of Oklahoma
Growing: 26% 3 historic districts
Provo, Utah 117,000
33,000
Brigham Young
University
Growing/ stable:
11%
150 landmarks, 2 historic
districts
Santa Barbara,
California
92,000
24,000
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Growing/ stable:
3%
124 landmarks, 3 historic
districts, 132 structures of
merit
Syracuse, New
York
143,000
21,000
Syracuse University
Stable: -2%
59 landmarks, 4 historic
districts
1.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Clarion Report - Design Review (6017 : Discussion of Landmark Designation Codes and Processes)