Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2017 - 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 November 8, 2017 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • THE REGULAR MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 15TH HAS BEEN CANCELLED, SO THERE WILL BE NO REVIEW OF MEETING AGENDA ITEMS. • POLICY AND LEGISLATION o Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility The purpose of this item is to discuss the codes and processes related to areas of adjacency and compatibility criteria for the review of new construction abutting or adjacent to historic properties. • BOARD TOPICS o LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities The regular recurrence of this discussion item is intended to provide the Commission with the opportunity to measure ongoing progress and identify action items. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Landmark Preservation Commission DATE: STAFF: November 8, 2017 Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner WORK SESSION ITEM Landmark Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discuss the codes and processes related to areas of adjacency and compatibility criteria for the review of new construction abutting or adjacent to historic properties. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED At this Work Session, the LPC will be discussing Clarion, Associate’s analysis of the area of adjacency pertaining to the review of new construction, used for evaluating compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7. The Commission will also be asked to consider what criteria helps to ensure compatibility with historic buildings. 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: • What are the most significant compatibility criteria? • Which compatibility elements are most important for responding to abutting historic buildings? • Which compatibility elements are most important for responding to other nearby historic buildings/general character? • Is there a hierarchy of importance for compatibility strategies? • Is a standardized Area of Adjacency desirable, and if so, what should that look like? 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (DOCX) 2. CAC Nov 1, 2017 Meeting Draft Minutes (DOCX) 3. Staff Presentation - Area of Adjacency (PDF) 2.1 Packet Pg. 2 Planning | Zoning & Land Use | Real Estate | Sustainability & Resiliency Clarion Associates 303.830.2890 621 17th Street, Suite 2250 Denver, CO 80293 www.clarionassociates.com MEMORANDUM TO: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager, City of Fort Collins FROM: Matt Goebel, Clarion Associates DATE: November 1, 2016 RE: Defining “Adjacency” in the Preservation Ordinance The City of Fort Collins Department of Historic Preservation requested that Clarion Associates conduct research related to a relatively new provision in the Land Use Code that requires heightened review of projects in areas “adjacent” to a designated or individually eligible historic resource. The research assignment includes:  Research into best practices, specifically other communities that have addressed this issue;  Preparation of a memo summary of research findings, including a recommended approach and rationale for Fort Collins; and  A conference call with staff to present the research findings and recommendations. Background Sec 3-4-7 of the Land Use Code is part of a set of general development standards that apply to all development in Fort Collins. It is intended to ensure that, “to the maximum extent feasible,” both historic resources are preserved and incorporated into new development projects, and also that new construction respects established historic character of both the immediate development site and the “surrounding neighborhood.”  Subsection 3-4-7(B) states: “New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.”  Further, subsection (F)(6) states that, “In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been determined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district.” (italics added) 2.1.a Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.2  For purposes of applying both of these provisions, the term “adjacent” is defined in Section 5.1.2: “Adjacent shall mean nearby, but not necessarily touching. The determination of ‘nearby’ shall be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the context in which the term is used and the variables (such as but not limited to size, mass, scale, bulk, visibility, nature of use, intensity of use) that may be relevant to deciding what is ‘nearby’ in that particular context. Adjacency shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, or a public or private transportation right-of-way or area.” The operative term is “nearby,” which we understand has been administered to date on a case-by-case basis per the “adjacent” definition. We understand that staff typically suggests a geographic area to use for each project, but the staff recommendations are sometimes expanded by the preservation commission, which has reportedly led in some cases to unpredictability and create some frustration for applicants. We understand there is some frustration with the subjectivity and lack of objective parameters. To provide more consistency and predictability, the city is looking for a metric to supplement or replace the “nearby” term. The remainder of this memo first reviews approaches to defining “adjacency” in other communities, then suggests a recommended approach for Fort Collins. Tucson, Arizona: Unified Development Code (esp. Downtown Area Infill Incentive District) As background for this project, we first researched how other preservation ordinances address the issue of defining “nearby,” or “adjacent,” or set other triggers for heightened review of major projects that may impact historic character. We found a limited number of good examples right on point. Few preservation ordinances attempt to regulate new construction based on the potential impact to proximate historic resources. By far, the most common approach is to limit the review of projects to actual designated resources. However, by expanding our review to zoning ordinances generally—beyond the context of historic preservation—we identified a number of potential approaches for Fort Collins to consider. The Tucson Unified Development Code is a complex document with a relatively high number of districts and detailed overlays, but it provides one of the more comprehensive examples we found of elaborating on the “adjacency” concept. The term “adjacent” is defined generally as: “Two or more parcels or lots sharing a common boundary or separated by an alley or other right-of-way 20 feet or less in width. Parcels or lots having only a common corner are considered adjacent.”1 More detailed definitions apply in specialized areas of the city. The Infill Incentive District is a special optional district (with multiple subdistricts) intended to encourage sensitive redevelopment in the historic downtown. Within this district, “adjacent” means: 2 o Two or more parcels or lots sharing a common boundary or separated by an alley or a local or arterial street 30 feet or less in width. Parcels or lots having only a common corner are also considered adjacent. o Where the development parcel is an interior parcel, adjacent lots include all residential lots on either side of the development parcel, those lots fronting on the same street in the same block as the development parcel, and all those lots on the opposite of that street. 1 Tucson Unified Development Code Sec. 11.4.2. 2 Tucson Unified Development Code Sec. 5.12. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.3 o Where the development parcel is a corner lot, the term “adjacent” includes all the residential corner lots or developments diagonally opposite the development parcel, fronting on the same two streets in the same block, and on the opposite sides of those streets. o Where the development parcel is adjacent to a Historic Preservation Zone (HPZ), the term “adjacent” includes all lots across the street and diagonally across from the development parcel.” (see figure below) The Tucson approach illustrates one important feature in most of the ordinances we reviewed that is different from the Fort Collins current approach: the existence of a street often is used as a formal demarcation line for purposes of establishing adjacency. While the presence of a street should not always be a determining factor, the approach does help provide certainty and predictability. The Fort Collins approach, on the other hand, says that the presence of a street should not be a factor in determining adjacency. Tucson’s Downtown Area Infill Incentive District (Sec. 5.12) elaborates on the adjacency concept in the context of protecting historic resources. The district is intended to “provide for appropriate transitional design standards where the development or expansion of a use is adjacent to existing single-family residential development.” A particular goal is to “protect historic structures and historic neighborhoods and existing residential neighborhoods from potential negative impacts of new development.” The district applies specific development standards—including lot dimensions, building heights, permitted uses, design review procedures, and parking requirements—to properties within the four designated subdistricts within the IID. A noteworthy feature of the IID is that it distinguishes between major and minor design review based in part on the location of the project. Triggers for major design review include the following, in part:  Structures that are higher than o 4 stories or 49 feet, or o 2 stories or 25 feet if adjacent to single-family residential or duplex dwellings  The development is located at any one or more of the following locations: o At an intersection of one or more arterial streets o Adjacent to or across from:  A detached single-family residential or duplex dwelling, or  A historic or contributing structure o On a vacant Historic Preservation Zone (HPZ) or Neighborhood Preservation Zone (NPZ) parcel o On a multi-zone parcel o Within, or adjacent to an HPZ or NPZ, or a National Register Historic District, or any combination of the three. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.4 All projects that do not meet any of the above criteria are considered minor. Major projects are considered and given a recommendation by a Design Review Committee and decided by the Director; minor projects are decided by the Director with no committee evaluation or recommendation. Both categories of projects are required to hold a neighborhood meeting and are reviewed by the city’s Design Professional. Both types of projects are subject to the same development standards, which address site and building design. New development that is either adjacent to a preservation zone or adjacent to a listed or eligible structure is also reviewed by local historical commission plans review subcommittee for compliance with the design requirements of the applicable subdistrict and for general “design compatibility,” which requires:  “New development must be designed to complement and be compatible with the architecture of adjacent historic properties.  Compatibility with adjacent historic structures is to be achieved through architectural elements such as building setbacks, building step-backs, textures, materials, forms, and landscaping.” Defining Adjacency in Other Communities Beyond Tucson, we researched a number of other ordinances to see how the communities approach the issue of defining “adjacency” near historic areas. Many helpful examples can be found in ordinances that include “transitional design standards,” which are used to help manage the intersecting areas of different intensities or character, such as where mixed-use or nonresidential development abuts residential neighborhoods (which sometimes include historic resources). The tools used in such instances help illustrate techniques that may be used to manage land use impacts in transitional areas. Jacksonville, Florida: Urban Transition Design Standards3  Applicability: The code identifies character areas (including historic areas) within certain overlay districts. “Compatibility requirements” apply if new development is adjacent to a Historic Residential Character Area. (Plus, additional standards apply to development that lies solely within the Historic Residential Character Areas.)  “Adjacent” defined: Any non-residential development that has a rear or side yard adjacent to at least one single-family use. Also, abutting: “[A]djacent to or across the street from single family residential.” [in re: building width of attached residential units and complementary rooflines]  Standards: Specific development standards—including lot dimensions, building heights, permitted uses, design review procedures, and parking requirements—applicable to properties within designated character areas. “Compatibility requirements” (see 656.399.21) address: o Buffer. A buffer shall be utilized when any use other than a single family residential use abuts another single family residential use. (alley or landscape buffer) o Lighting. The proposed development shall also control the effects of lights from automobiles or other sources. o Building Design. The side of the building that is facing or backing up to any residential development must be treated with the same architectural design standards as the front of the building. o Historic Residential Character Area: Supplemental standards address mass and scale of new buildings, parking, rooflines, garage apartments, and interior apartments. 3 656.399.24 2.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.5 Breckenridge, Colorado: Conservation District4  Applicability: Conservation district includes Transition Character Areas, which are outside the Historic District and “serve as buffers from impacts of development in newer areas of the community.” Few historic buildings are located here, but “the Town does wish to direct development such that it will contribute to the traditional character of the core of the community.”  “Adjacent” definition. Not formally defined. Various standards use the term “adjacent” to refer to any properties that are immediately next door. Also, an overall theme of the standards is to consider impact on any boundary, or edge, of the historic district. There are no relative distance references to help define adjacency, though the overall boundary of the character area effectively sets the distances. (Example: “New buildings should step down in scale along the edges of properties that lie adjacent to smaller historic properties.”)  Standards address: o Lot dimensions, building heights, permitted uses, design review procedures, and parking requirements. o Standards designated “high-priority standards” must be met to be considered in “substantial compliance.” o There are seven different transition character areas with slightly tailored standards. o Some contextual standards (e.g., “use building setbacks that are similar to those in comparable neighborhoods.”) Biloxi, Mississippi5  Applicability: Manage the transition from more intense development (anything from duplexes to multi-story and multi-unit residential, plus nonresidential) to single-family detached development.  “Adjacent” definition. Not formally defined. Applied as “abutting or across a local street, driveway, or alley from an existing single-family detached dwelling or vacant land zoned RE, RER, S-, or AHO.”  Standards address: o Setbacks: New, more intensive development shall be consistent with those with other buildings on the block face and across the street. Building setbacks shall vary not more than 10 percent from those of adjacent buildings. o Height: New building height is based on relative distance references:  Building abutting a single-family detached dwelling: same height  Building within 150 feet of a single-family detached dwelling: 35 feet max  Building within 150 feet of vacant land in certain zone districts: 35 feet max  Any other building allowed to exceed 35 feet must be broken into “modules or wings,” with the smallest portions located nearest the abutting SF detached building. o Building design: exterior colors, architectural features, porch orientation, etc. o Roof forms o Use intensity: for multi-building development, continuum must be established, with least- intensive use located nearest to abutting single-family detached development. 4 Handbook of Design Standards for the Transition Character Areas of the Conservation District. 2012. 5 Sec. 11: Transitional Standards 2.1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.6 o Service and loading area location and screening o Parking and driveways location o Operational impacts: location of drive-throughs, outdoor activity areas, vending machine placement, hours of operation, etc. Dallas, Texas: Historic District Transition Area6  Applicability: The PD 877 is designed as a transition area to “recognize the area’s unique identity as a bridge” between the State Thomas Historic District and several other neighborhoods, including Uptown, Oak Lawn, and Downtown.  “Adjacent” definition. Not formally defined, and there are no specific distance references. The district boundaries set the area within which the transitional standards apply.  Standards address: Specific development standards—including lot dimensions, building heights, permitted uses, design review procedures, and parking requirements—applicable to properties within a designated PD. La Conner, Washington: Transitional Commercial Zone7  Applicability: The Transitional Commercial Zone District lies “at the intersection of commercial, residential, public and industrial uses and at the southern terminus of the National Historic Preservation District (HPD). “…the zone must respect and carry forth the design requirements of the HPD to avoid compromising the values of the HPD.”  “Adjacent” definition. Not formally defined. The district boundaries identify the area within which the transitional standards apply. (Elsewhere in the code, “adjacent” means within 100 feet of proposed project site boundaries for steep slopes; 25 feet of a nontidal wetland; and 300 feet of lands classified agricultural.)  Standards address: o Process: Any development proposal must undergo design review for compliance with the Historic Preservation District (HPD) guidelines by the planning commission. Design review purposes include “to ensure that new construction and additions are consistent with the scale, forms, and proportions of the adjacent Historic Preservation District.” o Uses: Uses must “take into account the transition from and to these diverse uses” o Design/development standards: Specific standards apply, including lot dimensions, building heights, and parking requirements. Some specifically require compliance with the HPD standards, including front setbacks on some streets, or require new development to “have the appearance of” buildings in the historic district. 6 PD 877 Sec. 51P-877-103(a). 7 UDC Sec. 15.36. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.7 Other Examples (Without Transitional Design Standards) Beyond the examples noted in detail above, we also reviewed other preservation ordinances and/or general land use codes that we thought might be useful based on the reputation of the community. Few of these other examples contained provisions especially relevant examples for this assignment. Most of these codes do define “adjacency,” most typically like Longmont, CO: “Adjacent means abutting or separated only by a public street, alley, or private drive…. Abutting means bordering or touching, such as sharing a common lot line.” 8 This approach allows the adjacency situation to cross a street, as is the case in Fort Collins. The Philadelphia approach is similar: “To touch or share a contiguous boundary or border, or to be separated by an alley, driveway, or street.”9 Denver is an outlier and takes a different approach in terms of the presence of a street, saying that a street negates adjacency: Adjacency means “sharing a zone lot line or being separated only by an alley. Named or numbered streets destroy adjacency, except where specifically allowed by this Code.”10 Other codes reviewed included Boulder, Glenwood Springs, Golden, and Greeley; we did not find provisions especially relevant or helpful to this assignment in these codes. Recommendations Moving forward, we understand that Fort Collins is looking to provide more consistency and predictability in its evaluation of new construction in areas near historic resources. Below are several recommendations for the city to consider. Each of these could considered independently (i.e., they do not all have to be embraced in order to improve the ordinance). Refine the Definition of “Adjacency.” The current Fort Collins definition of “adjacency” is actually better than many of the models we reviewed in that it captures various contextual considerations like size, mass, scale, etc. The main flaw is the lack of specific, objective parameters for “nearby” to identify specifically where those contextual issues should be considered. The quickest, simplest way to address this problem and improve the definition is to remove “nearby” and replace it with specific lot identifiers that frame the area within which adjacency applies. Specifically, we recommend adopting the Tucson definition of “adjacency” that appears earlier in this memo, which identifies specific lots that should be addressed. Or, the city could simply set a distance marker (e.g., defining any adjacent lot as one within 500 feet of the subject property). However, we recognize that both of these fixes could result in a smaller area than is currently being used by the LPC, so the below approach should be considered. Define a project’s “Radius of Impact.” Taking the idea to the next level, the idea of “adjacency” could be extended beyond the immediate lots through development of a “radius of impact” concept, which would be developed for each project based on relative project size and scale. If a designated or eligible historic resource falls within the radius of impact, the project would require LPC review. Projects with greater impacts should have a larger radius of impact; i.e., the city should cast a broader net around more significant projects when considering the potential impact on historic resources. 8 LDC Sec. 15.10.020 9 Zoning Code Sec. 14-203(4). 10 Zoning Code Sec. 13.3. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.8 Developing a radius of impact should be based on a list of objective criteria. A helpful model for such a list might be the list of thresholds for “major design review” in Tucson. The list below is a slightly tailored version of the Tucson list. New construction meeting any of the following criteria would be considered “adjacent” and require LPC review:  Height: Structures that are higher than o 4 stories or 49 feet and within 500 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource; or o 2 stories or 25 feet if within 1000 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource  Building Size/Massing: Structures that are o More than 5000 square feet gross floor area and within 500 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource; or o At least 1000 and no more than 5000 square feet gross floor area if within 1000 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource  Any development located at any one or more of the following locations: o Adjacent to a designated or eligible historic resource (based on the new definition of “adjacent” recommended above). The list is based primarily on height and building size as indicators of impact. Other potential criteria might be use type (e.g., any commercial use might have a greater radius than a residential use), and/or operational impacts (e.g., presence of drive-through). Staff may have additional suggestions for criteria that could bump a project above the threshold requiring LPC review. Tailor the Level of Project Review. One thing the Tucson example illustrates is a helpful distinction between major and minor projects, which offers a tailored review based on the perceived impacts of the project. We do not believe that this option is currently available in Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins ordinance. There is just a “LPC review” if new construction is “adjacent” to a historic resource. However, a tailored approach would offer some advantages. For an “intensive” or “major review,” the LPC might be authorized to conduct a more detailed review of the proposed development and its physical relationship to the historic resource. For a “minor project,” the review might be capped by the number of issues the LPC would be authorized to address, or by the time allowed for LPC review. Or, the review might be by the LPC (with a public hearing) for major projects and by the staff for minor projects. In our preliminary conversations, staff mentioned the idea of a matrix tool that would provide specific measurements to define “adjacency,” with, for example, taller and/or more massive buildings requiring more in-depth review. The matrix concept has merit and could be a tool to illustrate this type of calibrated review. It would build on the list of threshold criteria suggested above. The approach should account for a range of potential approaches based on project scale. Minor Review Major Review Height Above 2 stories or 25 feet Not adjacent but between 500 to 1000 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource Not adjacent but within 500 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource Up to 2 stories or 25 feet Not adjacent but between 200 and 1000 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource Not adjacent but within 200 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource Building Size/Massing More than 5000 square feet gross floor area Not adjacent but between 500 to 1000 feet of a designated or eligible Not adjacent but within 500 feet of a designated or eligible historic 2.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.9 Minor Review Major Review historic resource resource Up to 5000 square feet gross floor area Not adjacent but between 200 and 1000 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource Not adjacent but within 200 feet of a designated or eligible historic resource Other? Even if the city does not embrace the major/minor distinction at this time, the matrix approach could potentially be adapted to the list of threshold criteria above (e.g., by keeping height and building size in the X axis and putting distance from the resource in the Y axis.) Or, different columns could set different radii for designated versus eligible projects. We did not come across an exact approach like this in our research (or anything approaching it), but would be happy to brainstorm other variations with staff. Consider Alternative to “Maximum Extent Feasible.” The current 3-4-7 requires compliance to the “maximum extent feasible” for all projects. This term is defined in the code as “no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken.” While this is not uncommon, it is the only option in 3-4-7, and it is a relatively strict standard that provides little opportunity for more flexibility. Another way of calibrating the level of review (assigning different levels of review to different types of projects based on relative impacts) would be to introduce an alternative, slightly looser definition of compliance. For example, we have sometimes used the term “maximum extent practicable” as a stepped-down version of “maximum extent feasible.” This is defined as: “Under the circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.” This new, stepped-down standard could potentially be used to allow a little more flexibility for certain projects that are not quite as sensitive as others – perhaps because they are located farther from a historic resource, or because the resource itself is not as sensitive, or because compliance with the particular standard is not as important as compliance with other standards. Clarify Applicability. Regardless of how the city chooses to ultimately better define “adjacency,” we should emphasize that the overall applicability of the current Sec. 3.4.7 is unclear and should be tightened up – specifically, the provisions relating to new construction. The final sentence of 3.4.7(B) clearly is intended to apply to development projects that include designated resources or potentially eligible resources (as determined by the Director). We believe that the intent is to also apply this provision to development sites that do not contain designated or eligible resources, but are merely “adjacent” to such resources. However, the exact language is ambiguous. The title of subsection (B) is “General Standard,” implying that the section defines the overall applicability of 3.4.7. And the introductory sentence of (B) states that the section only applies to projects on the actual development site, not to adjacent sites. Reading 3.4.7(B) in conjunction with (F)(6) suggests the city’s intent is to regulate new construction on development sites that do not contain designated or eligible historic resources; but again, the language is ambiguous in our view and should be clarified. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Memo – Ft. Collins Research, Adjacency, p.10 Rather than implying applicability through the purpose statement and the “general standard,” we recommend that the city draft a new a new, clearer statement of applicability clearly for all of 3.4.7. It should include the city’s preferred approach to the “adjacency” issue, as discussed above. Define Other Key Terms. Beyond “adjacent” and “nearby,” it is worth highlighting other key terms in 3.4.7 that appear to be undefined and have the potential to lead to inconsistencies in interpretation and enforcement of these standards. In particular, “significant impact” in 3.4.7.(F)(6), which is the basis for the Director’s determination of whether development plans would affect a designated or eligible historic resource. And, some standards require new development features to be “in character” with those on surrounding historic resources, though this term appears to be undefined. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Clarion Draft Memorandum on Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) CAC November 1, 2017 – Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility I. Should we add more time to the discussions? Are you getting all the time you really need? Majority felt that we do need time. Majority felt that we should extend the meeting for thirty more minutes. 2. Review of Action Items to Date: Have we accurately captured your thoughts?  Karen: Overarching question—is this working for you? Do you feel that you are getting the opportunity to provide input? Do you feel your voice is being captured appropriately?  Matt: feels that we should review all of Clarion’s recommendations one by one with an informal vote.  Karen: Will highlight action items that relate to Clarion’s recommendations. We have a list for staff and LPC as well. We are organizing these into immediate, mid-term, and long-term  Meg: Would like the action items organized topically  Chris: Can we take the 100 items and categorize into our goals? For example, all that work toward streamlining or goals that we have already established.  Lucia: On the action items, they are a compilation of comments or something that the whole group has agreed upon?  Karen: These are captures of comments and then start addressing them. We want to make sure we’ve captured the comments accurately.  Lucia: So these are individual comments that will be reviewed as a group?  Tom: These are comments and not a fully agreed upon set of action items. We will have to review as a group.  Sherry: Clarification on timeline?  Karen: Discussed timeline and process, including LPC’s review and formal input later by both LPC and P&Z.  Jennifer: When it comes to P&Z, we should do a joint meeting with LPC  Karen: If I have missed any comments, please email me and make sure I have your comments so I have your voice while I craft the action items.  3. Spencer: Update on integration-team working on NCB/transition area codes and Downtown.  This is using Article 4 as a jumping off point. They are also using Downtown Plan as jumping off point. They are using character sub-districts to inform discussion—some re-zoning happening, much in line with structure plan. Objective is to be more streamlined and using a form-based idea—not wholly form-based, but using things like street typology. Critically looking at how NCB areas with compatibility and integration of new buildings. Making the conversation less vague, looking for resolution on compatibility with densification. Once they have some solid content for people to respond to, they will be doing outreach . They are working with Peter Park and Tryba.  Karen: AIA presentation, please come.  Per: Will change in code eventually inform the rest of the LUC?  Spencer: It has yet to be determined. There is probably a full code re-write in the near future. The work that we are doing, we are looking to do the best we can for the Downtown area—if our ideas relate to the rest of the City, that would be great, but we do not want to dilute the uniqueness of the character of Downtown. There could be elements that translate to the rest of the LUC. We are not doing a fully form based code. We are taking things that are applicable and using those. It is not a dogmatic, plug and play code. We are looking for street typology/frontage character as an organizing structure. A lot is still to be determined. 2.1.b Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: CAC Nov 1, 2017 Meeting Draft Minutes (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility)  Jennifer: So many pieces and players doing their own thing that we may be all going in all different directions. I am not feeling that we are coordinating very well—I don’t see it as a citizen, maybe you are doing it as staff, but I am worried we will come to different conclusions.  Karen: Next Thursday there is a joint P&Z/LPC meeting about these efforts. Part of the issue is that our section of the code has not been integrated into the rest of the code. It often comes as a surprise to the developer.  Spencer: A lot of the conversations we are having with our consultants is more fundamental . We have a limited budget so some is being done in-house ie modeling. We do imagine our consultants highlighting difficult spots in our Downtown to make sure it works. Overall compatibility is being addressed. It’s really challenging, but that’s the aim.  Karen: What I’m hearing is that you are looking for more coordination between the groups?  Lucia: Could we see the products Spencer’s team is working toward?  Spencer: We will have deliverables soon, looking at about a month out. We are hoping to have stuff to respond to then. We want to make sure this conversation doesn’t go too far into the rabbit hole. We want you to be looking at this through the lens of historic perseveration and compatibility.  Karen: Coordination of meetings? Would CAC like more meetings with different groups to do that?  Chris: No, data transfer. We just want their information.  Jennifer: There’s also DRAC happening. We have so many important, challenging projects going on and it feels a little separated. I want to make sure it is integrated.  Spencer: We are coordinating. We are making sure we’re all coming together. It’s an inter- related dance.  Tom: I think something else is that the transitional standards have been lagging—it’s just now starting to ramp up. So now the two are just now starting to merge. This is actually perfect timing. 4. Maren’s presentation: Area of Adjacency. What are some of our options for creating predictability? What are the compatibility elements? Understanding the spatial piece of area of adjacency requires looking at some elements of compatibility.  Karen: The Clarion report in front of you is one that was done a year ago. We have asked them to delve more deeply into the topic now. I consider this Area of Adjacency lite—this is a draft of what they will come up with next month.  Maren: To remind everyone, we are talking about development review. This is NOT design review of infill inside historic districts. Entire LUC informs compatibility. LPC makes a recommendation to the decision maker using 3.4.7—respect historic character in new construction. Adjacent means nearby, not necessarily touching. The area of adjacency is determined case-by-case. We are investigating ways to make that more predictable and transparent.  Maren: Which compatibility elements are more important? What are the special considerations? That’s what we need to talk about today. How is that review/comment process different than our general standards? The scope needs to be made more predictable. We also need to find a balance between prescription and flexibility. What needs to be specific and what needs to remain flexible? And consider proximity. Where do the criteria apply spatially? There are differences between abutting properties and nearby properties.  Chris: What’s the goal of area of adjacency? 2.1.b Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: CAC Nov 1, 2017 Meeting Draft Minutes (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility)  Maren: Identify the significant historic properties in the area—most are designated, but can also include those that are individually eligible. This identifies those resources that are going to remain, that will continue to provide context. We talk about new construction being a good neighbor, whether it’s historic or not. It’s about site design and how the buildings relate to each other. The idea there is that we are identifying important historic character and how new construction can be a good neighbor.  Chris: Clarion found that most communities don’t do this. Why are we?  Council implemented this process in 2014.  Maren: Is there a difference between abutting or nearby?  Sarah: It’s getting to the historic integrity question. I think it’s dangerous to set a specific boundary. For one property, a four story office building might work and some it won’t. I think there needs to be flexibility in defining area.  Per: Area of adjacency provides a context to the new construction. They don’t exist by themselves. They set up the setting of the new buildings. I agree with Sarah. To say it’s two blocks square isn’t feasible.  Matt: I’m intrigued by what Sarah said. You’re referring to Secretary of Interior definitions— aspects of integrity. I don’t think that’s what we do today. There’s no finding of impact to those aspects of integrity when LPC looks at infill projects. Is it the elements of integrity that we’re talking about? I think that is far more predictable for applicants.  Sarah: It’s about defining a process. What adversely affects a historic property? How can we use the aspects of integrity? Does it interrupt important view sheds? Affect setting? Affect association? Even though those characteristics would be different—here is a very clear process.  Lucia: You can’t have something completely open ended because it can cause arbitrary decisions. We need limits. I think we need to develop something that is based on proximity. What is it doing to things even though it isn’t immediately effect? What are those effects on each kind of property? We can’t have something entirely open.  Meg: Immediately important: horizontal alignment, windows for abutting properties. Further away it’s less about details, but mass and scale. How does it compare to the others?  Chris: But isn’t that already talked about in 3.4.7?  Meg: Not with abutting/nearby defined and proximity  Karen: Area of adjacency is meant to identify area of effect. It’s the starting place for assessment of properties.  Chris: Do we have examples of projects that used nearby rather than abutting?  Per: Example of park-like setback, LPC said to do that they would expand Area of Adjacency, applicant was unhappy  Matt: City’s area of adjacency goes past Webster definition. When you start to add additional meaning to a word, you enter risk zone of idioglossia-language only known to insider. It needs to be understood by outsider. Given that, if you have a property that fits under Webster definition of adjacency, if it doesn’t negatively affect those immediately adjacency?  Meg: Change words, use proximity and adjacency. Doesn’t change process.  Jennifer: What if we used area of notification? We could use the same logic to use bounds of area of adjacency? Neighborhood meeting notification area could be limit. The 800 ft would be area of proximity.  Lucia felt that was too wide of an area. That’s a lot more than what’s being done today.  Jennifer: People in notification area because city feels there is an impact and they have the right to comment. Logical to use same area – how can they be affected under one process but not under other. 2.1.b Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: CAC Nov 1, 2017 Meeting Draft Minutes (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility)  Maren: put a pin in the number question, it will come up later. Slide on Character of the “Area of Adjacency”—these are ideas that have already come up. These have come up over the course of the last five years. One of the things we want to establish is a set of criteria—what’s important for historic compatibility? Some of these things are for general compatibility, but what rises to the top for historic compatibility? Does anything jump to mind that you would think should be added or respond to?  Lucia: I think the one that has caused the most difficulty has been size/mass/bulk/height.  Developers can deal with setbacks/stepbacks. Are we supposed to be doing build out according to Downtown Plan or does historic go further? How do we build the downtown we want if we can’t go up higher/bigger? Uncommon. What is the City standard on this?  Jennifer: Would lay down in front of the bulldozer to retain criteria for size/mass/bulk/height. That’s the most important. That is the one that will make or break us for the historic downtown. It needs to be defined, but needs to be defined with the importance of historic downtown valued more than new construction. You can’t make it smaller by articulation. Sometimes the answer is that it’s just too big. Just because there’s enough space on lot doesn’t mean it should get the go ahead. Somehow we need to define it down and get a better direction for it. If people knew when they are building with historic buildings around it, they need to know transparently that is going to be an issue.  Lucia: We need better understanding of what we are trying to protect historic structures from. I’m not suggesting that developers shouldn’t scale back, but there’s a point where people say it’s too simplistic ie it’s bigger than the height of the historic so it can’t go up.  Maren: We will have basic standard for buildings, we would have other standards for buildings with historic area of adjacency.  Matt: Two-three years, the bank towers will be historic. Is height and scale—are we only talking about limiting height because the historic stock currently is all under 4 stories? In two years we will have buildings that are too short.  Maren: There’s a preponderance issue that Matt is indirectly bringing up - you have x number of 3 story and y number of 11 stories.  Per: Meg mentioned it earlier-there are ruling lines, setbacks, stepbacks. You can be taller.  Lucia: It’s not about a set height, but we need to articulate how you can be compatible despite height.  Sarah: What’s the effect of construction against EACH historic structure. Compatibility is not the same for each building.  Maren: Case study—Living Oaks. This is the map of their area of adjacency. You have a range of architectural style, typology, commercial and residential. It’s one of the best examples of one I can think of that has a mixed area of adjacency. You’ve got a little bit of everything. The way this works currently is that people come in with a design context, then we do area of adjacency, and then we look at compatibility.  Chris: How far is that area of adjacency?  Maren: It’s between 450-500 ft out.  Per: Those houses were defined as park-like, setbacks, etc.  Maren: In terms of referential design, it was not looking at each property the same. They did not reference the houses in design.  Per: LPC wasn’t talking about specific things with the blue buildings (Laurel School District)—it was more about general characteristics.  Maren: Setback on both block faces were important. There were things called out in the review: window proportion and orientation, pattern, and detailing. The flat roof relates to nearby 2.1.b Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: CAC Nov 1, 2017 Meeting Draft Minutes (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) commercial buildings. The materials were really interesting. In this example, they had terra cotta panels that were different in scale. We are looking for ways to integrate new, sustainable materials. We see our problems in this example: it would be hard for them to come in and know predictably what the area of adjacency is, but allowed us to have that flexibility.  Maren: We could have metric approach. 250 ft is close to what we currently do. 500 ft is about a full block out. This is a 1000 ft buffer. The area of notification would be a little smaller than that.  Jennifer: Could we use the character sub-districts to help with this?  Spencer: The beauty of the metric approach in my eyes is that we could address transitions—it would address sub-districts and transitions.  Karen: The circle does not mean that all buildings in that circle have importance and those that do may not have equal importance so I want to clarify that.  Spencer: Maybe there is a way to look at the different variables. Maybe abutting properties are looked at differently than nearby/adjacent? Maybe the scale influences the adjacency determination. Maybe it can be a more nuanced conversation.  Sarah: I like that approach. A taller building is going to have more affect more than smaller ones.  Matt: But which element of integrity is being affected by height?  Sarah: May affect one or all seven. We have to evaluate all aspects of integrity every time.  Maren: We are running out of time, we are providing a foundation for our conversation next month. Do we have any final thoughts? Does anyone fundamentally disagree that height relationship with area of adjacency.  Meg: I like that. Clarion did not address rural properties. Something about property line versus structure/building needed in the report. You don’t want to include an empty lot. They didn’t include any rural aspects to this. I think we have those situations. I think the conical idea works, but need to specify that we are looking at buildings.  Maren: Circling back, is there a difference between abutting and further away? Is that a general direction we should pursue?  Majority yes, Per: but there are always key buildings. Parks, view sheds, etc. that are critical to historic area that could go beyond area.  Lucia: You might have different things you look at the further away you are.  Per: That can be, but I don’t want to exclude that a key building could be outside of area.  Spencer: Living Oaks example, further out the broader the look.  Matt: irony that we are looking at eras of history Can stand on the 200 Linden Street and see National Bank Tower. To me, to acknowledge that both of those are working together and acknowledge that our history is not about one single era. We are acknowledging the best of the best of those eras.  Jennifer: You have to take historic district differently. There are some buildings that are outliers. They don’t contribute to the feel of the historic district the way that most of them do. There are two or three of them. I think we need to learn from our mistakes. If they proposed today, I don’t think they would be allowed. You can recognize them for what they are and recognize that they don’t feel right.  Matt: Mountain and College  Jennifer: Those buildings aren’t the same style, but the mass and scale fits.  Spencer: There is this debate everywhere about whether scale and height should be limited.  Jennifer: To me, what we’re talking about is historic downtown. We are not downtown Denver.  Lucia: What’s the right mix that doesn’t keep you locked in time, but allows you to make the bold buildings? Example of DC. 2.1.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: CAC Nov 1, 2017 Meeting Draft Minutes (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility)  Meg: What we’re saying is historic core is different than Canyon sub-area.  Chris: Don’t just apply one element from Old Town Square to other sub-areas.  Jennifer: What we’re trying to protect is keeping it from losing vibrancy and losing what’s there.  Matt: No, each stands as each and the diversity adds value.  Jennifer: We have different ideas of historic core and what should be protected. Outside of core different. 2.1.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: CAC Nov 1, 2017 Meeting Draft Minutes (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) TOPIC 3.1: AREA OF ADJACENCY 1 CAC November 1, 2017 Adjacency Adjacent: • Nearby, but not necessarily touching • Case by case basis • Context, project variables 2 2.1.c Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Area of Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Status Quo Example 3 Status Quo Example 4 2.1.c Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Area of Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Status Quo Example 5 Status Quo Example 6 2.1.c Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Area of Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) 3.4.7 Identified Issues: Area of Adjacency • Clarify which compatibility elements and/or standards are specific to resonating with historic buildings (area of adjacency) • Scope of area of adjacency needs to be predictable and justifiable • Compatibility standards should balance prescription and flexibility • How does proximity to infill parcel affect how each compatibility standard is applied? • Relating to abutting properties: key elements of compatibility • Relating to nearby properties: same elements or ? • Is there a natural hierarchy of importance for compatibility criteria? 7 Character of the “Area of Adjacency” • Historic buildings: Proximity, preponderance and level of significance • Dimensional qualities: Size, mass, bulk, height, scale, form, shape proportions, articulation • Building typology: Predominantly residential? Commercial? Civic? • Represented historical eras and patterns of development • Materiality, including type, scale and durability of materials • Rhythm and block pattern • Solid to void; window patterns; roof shape • Existing architectural styles, and character-defining features • What’s missing? What’s most important? 8 2.1.c Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Area of Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) Goals: Compatible New Construction • Good Neighbor: promotes viability of existing buildings • Good Design: creative, enduring response to existing character • Options for balancing predictability and flexibility: • Which compatibility elements are most important for responding to abutting historic buildings? • Which compatibility elements are most important for responding to other nearby historic buildings/general character? • Is there a hierarchy of importance for compatibility strategies? 9 Metric Approach 250 foot buffer 10 2.1.c Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Area of Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) 11 Metric Approach 500 foot buffer 12 Metric Approach 2.1.c Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Staff Presentation - Area of Adjacency (6113 : Discussion of Areas of Adjacency and Compatibility) DATE: STAFF: November 8, 2017 Maren Bzdek, Senior 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) 2.2 Packet Pg. 25 2.2.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6114 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities) 2.2.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6114 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities)