Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/13/2017 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Work SessionMeg Dunn, Chair 281 N. College Ave. Per Hogestad, Vice Chair Conference Room A Doug Ernest Fort Collins, Colorado Bud Frick (Ring doorbell marked “MEETINGS” Kristin Gensmer for access after 5:00 p.m.) 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 December 13, 2017 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • REVIEW OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2017 AT 5:30 P.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONSENT 1. Minutes of October 18, 2017 2. 627 Maple St. – Final Demolition/Alteration Review DISCUSSION 3. Loomis Addition Historic Survey – Final Report 4. 227 Wood Street (The Harden House) – Conceptual/Final Design Review 5. Avery Duplex Cottages – State Tax Credit for Historic Preservation Landmark Preservation Commission • POLICY AND LEGISLATION o Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources The purpose of this item is to discuss the codes and processes related to development review affecting historic resources, specifically 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. o Downtown Alley Enhancements The purpose of this item is to request feedback on the working designs for the upcoming Downtown alley improvement projects managed by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The projects are in the City right-of-way and fall under the City’s Capital Project Review process. • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Roll Call – Work Session Landmark Preservation Commission Date: 12/13/17 Dunn  Ernest  Frick  Gensmer  Hogestad  Lingle absent Simpson  Wallace  Zink  DATE: STAFF: December 13, 2017 Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner WORK SESSION ITEM Landmark Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Discussion of Areas of Development Review and Historic Resources EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discuss the codes and processes related to development review affecting historic resources, specifically 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 development review codes and processes pertaining to historic resources, including the area of adjacency used for evaluating compliance with LUC Section 3.4.7. 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: • Is the conical-radius approach best for defining the Area of Adjacency, and if so, are the radius/height distances appropriate? • Within the Area of Adjacency, should integrity review apply only to designated buildings, or to both designated and individually eligible buildings? • Within the Area of Adjacency, should compatibility review apply only to abutting historic buildings, or to both abutting and adjacent historic buildings? • Which compatibility elements are most important? 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 Report - Development Review (PDF) 2. LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (PPTX) 2.1 Packet Pg. 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Recommendations................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. Development Review Process ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Overview of the Development Review Process and Historic Resources in Fort Collins .................................. 4 Similar Review Processes in Peer Cities .............................................................................................................................. 6 Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 10 B. Applicability of Review ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Applicability of Review in Fort Collins .............................................................................................................................. 11 Applicability of Review in Peer Cities ............................................................................................................................... 12 Discussion and Recommendations: Geographic Extent ........................................................................................... 13 Discussion and Recommendations: Review of Eligible Resources ...................................................................... 16 C. Clarity and Organization ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Clarity and Organization in Fort Collins .......................................................................................................................... 19 Clarity and Organization in Peer Cities ............................................................................................................................ 19 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) Introduction | Background Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 2 This document is part of a series of reports examining the City of Fort Collins‟ historic preservation codes and processes, including provisions from both the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code. All four reports will be compiled once they are reviewed and commented upon 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 “Development Review,” specifically that portion of the Development Review process that involves review by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) of proposed commercial development on identified historic resources. The documents reviewed for this report include Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and Article 3 of the Land Use Code, particularly Section 3.4.7 related to Historic and Cultural Resources. This report assesses the program area‟s current conditions and provides recommendations for proposed improvements. A review of peer cities was completed to compare the Fort Collins program to similar efforts in other communities. The report summarizes the current component of the Fort Collins Development Review process that considers the effect of new development on historic resources and its effectiveness in achieving compatible infill, discusses main topics associated with Development Review, highlights relevant approaches used throughout the country, and provides conclusions and recommendations for improvements in Fort Collins. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) Summary of Recommendations | Background Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 3 The following sections of this report review three topics related to the processes and standards used for the historic preservation component of Development Review and provide conclusions and recommendations for each topic based on peer city research. The recommendations are summarized below:  Clarify the purpose and intent of the historic resources component of the Development Review process.  Clarify the procedural requirements to obtain a recommendation from the LPC.  Use new terminology, such as “Historic Resource Compatibility Review,” instead of “Development Review.”  Establish a consistent and predictable geographic limit for the review, such as a Historic Resource Compatibility Review matrix.  Develop context-based standards that are not based on eligibility to ensure compatibility in certain areas of the city.  Consider reviewing impact on eligible resources only if they are on-site or abutting a development project.  Focus on survey work to develop an inventory of eligible historic resources.  Redraft Section 3.4.7 for clarity and to improve the organization, clarifying the purpose, applicability, and standards of the process. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) A. Development Review Process | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 4 Generally across the country, most historic preservation programs limit their review of new development to projects that directly impact designated historic resources—that is, alterations to designated landmarks or alterations or new construction within historic districts. However, a handful of communities, like Fort Collins, extend the scope of their preservation-related review to infill outside of historic districts, including considerations of compatibility with nearby designated properties as well as those eligible properties that have not been formally designated. In Fort Collins, this process also provides an opportunity for the Landmark Preservation Commission to submit a recommendation to the decision maker for the Development Review application. This is separate from the Design Review process discussed in the previous Topic B report, which focuses solely on designated resources. The Development Review process in Fort Collins is intended to ensure that all new development meets the city‟s adopted policies and regulations. The process includes review for compliance with a wide range of standards, including the General Development Standards in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. The process is required for all building permit applications (except those applying to single-family residential and extra-occupancy rental houses) and all development applications. From a historic preservation perspective, the component of the Development Review process that is especially important is a review of the impact of new development on adjacent designated and eligible historic resources. This process requires staff review and, if there is an effect on historic resources, a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission on how well the proposed development meets the code. This process is established in Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources. The Fort Collins Development Review process includes an evaluation of a project‟s impact on nearby historic and cultural resources whenever:  A local, state, or nationally designated landmark is on the site of proposed development or adjacent to the site; or  A property that is eligible or potentially eligible for local, state, or national landmark designation is on the site or adjacent to the site;  The development site is located in or adjacent to a local, state, or national historic district. To the maximum extent feasible, the preservation and adaptive reuse of any onsite historic structure is required. Also, development plans and designs must protect and enhance the historical and architectural 2.1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) A. Development Review Process | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 5 value of any historic property located adjacent to the development site. New structures are required to be compatible with the historic character of the historic property, whether on the site or adjacent to it. While the Historic and Cultural Resources standards section of the Fort Collins Land Use Code has been in place since 1998, section F(6) requiring a written recommendation from the LPC was added in 2014, based on a request from the Planning & Zoning Board to receive additional input based on the LPC‟s their preservation expertise. Unlike the Design Review process for alterations to designated resources, the LPC is just a recommending body and is not the final decision-maker for Development Review. The decision-maker is the Planning & Zoning Board, a hearing officer, or the Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services, depending on the scale of the project. Not all Development Review applications that are adjacent to historic resources are reviewed by the LPC. The Director may administratively issue a written recommendation for projects that “would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object, or district.” Projects that are determined by the Director to have a significant impact typically involve a two-step review by the LPC. The first step is a conceptual public hearing, during which the project‟s “Area of Adjacency” is established by the LPC. The identification of “adjacent” designated and eligible resources is key to this process because it ultimately dictates whether the standards in 3.4.7 apply. The term “adjacent” is defined in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code as: 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. Therefore, identification of adjacent resources is considered on a case-by-case basis to establish the Area of Adjacency. The Area of Adjacency determination requirements are not fully described in the ordinance, but the city‟s website explains the process in more detail. All designated landmarks are included in the initial Area of Adjacency, and all nearby properties 50 years or older are then evaluated for their potential 2.1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) A. Development Review Process | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 6 eligibility (although this determination may be non-binding and is for decision-making purposes if the property owner is not the applicant for the determination request). There is no set distance that defines the extent of this study of eligibility. The eligible properties and the designated properties ultimately compose the final Area of Adjacency. A final review of the project based on the standards in Section 3.4.7 is then held either at a subsequent final hearing, or at the same meeting as the conceptual review. City staff notes that, in order for the LPC to complete their review and make a recommendation, staff must provide assurance that the overall review of the development proposal has progressed sufficiently to the point that no other substantive building or site design changes are likely to occur. This requirement stems from the fact that the historic resources review component of Development Review is most helpful in the initial round of application review, rather than as a final step in the process. The LPC reviews projects based on the standards in Section 3.4.7 related to new construction, demolition, reuse, renovation, alterations, and additions. The new construction standards are intended to guide compatible infill and cover the following topics: 1. Height, Setback, and Width of New Structures 2. Design Characteristics (horizontal elements, window patterns, and entrance patterns) 3. Building Materials 4. Visual and Pedestrian Connections 5. Landscaping After the LPC makes their advisory recommendation, the decision-maker considers that recommendation in their subsequent review of the project. The majority of cities we studied do not have a process for reviewing the compatibility of new infill development with nearby historic resources. We reached out to preservation and planning staff from each of the peer cities to confirm whether they have this type of process, and if so, how it has been working. Of the peer cities listed at the end of this report, both Madison and Santa Barbara have programs similar to Fort Collins‟ Development Review process and are discussed immediately below. A few of the other communities also have processes with some similarities and are noted at the end of this section. In both Santa Barbara and Madison, a city board reviews projects for compatibility when a project is adjacent to a historic resource and the board provides an advisory recommendation to a further decision-maker, much like Fort Collins.1 Madison has been reviewing all development “adjacent to a landmark” since 1996 based on the section of their zoning code excerpted below. The city‟s Landmark Commission completes an advisory review of projects adjacent to landmarks prior to the project‟s review by the city‟s Plan Commission or Urban Design 1 Madison 28.144; Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures and Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures 2.1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) A. Development Review Process | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 7 Commission. The city unfortunately did not return requests to learn more about the efficacy of the process, but did not mention major issues in our brief initial discussion. 28.144. Development Adjacent to a Landmark or Landmark Site. Any development on a zoning lot adjoining a landmark or landmark site for which Plan Commission or Urban Design Commission review is required shall be reviewed by the Landmark Commission to determine whether the proposed development is so large or visually intrusive as to adversely affect the historic character and integrity of the adjoining landmark or landmark site. Landmark Commission review shall be advisory to the Plan Commission and the Urban Design Commission. In 2008, Santa Barbara adopted a compatibility analysis tool in their zoning code that included a general requirement of “sensitivity to adjacent landmarks and historic resources.” The full project compatibility analysis is excerpted below. 22.22.145 Project Compatibility Analysis B. Project Compatibility Considerations. In addition to any other considerations and requirements specified in this Code, the following criteria shall be considered by the Architectural Board of Review when it reviews and approves or disapproves the design of a proposed development project in a noticed public hearing pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 22.68: 1. Compliance with City Charter and Municipal Code; Consistency with Design Guidelines. Does the project fully comply with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements? Is the project‟s design consistent with design guidelines applicable to the location of the project within the City? 2. Compatible with Architectural Character of City and Neighborhood. Is the design of the project compatible with the desirable architectural qualities and characteristics which are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project? 3. Appropriate size, mass, bulk, height, and scale. Is the size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project appropriate for its location and its neighborhood? 4. Sensitivity to Adjacent Landmarks and Historic Resources. Is the design of the project appropriately sensitive to adjacent Federal, State, and City Landmarks and other nearby designated historic resources, including City structures of merit, sites, or natural features? 5. Public Views of the Ocean and Mountains. Does the design of the project respond appropriately to established scenic public vistas? 6. Use of Open Space and Landscaping. Does the project include an appropriate amount of open space and landscaping? 2.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) A. Development Review Process | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 8 In our discussions with Santa Barbara staff, they noted that the criteria in the project compatibility analysis alone did not provide the boards with enough guidance and that incompatible development was still being approved by both commissions. Approved adjacent development was particularly incompatible. To help address these concerns and provide more specific guidance, the city recently adopted new infill design guidelines to guide decisions by both their Historic Landmark Commission and Architectural Review Board regarding infill development adjacent to historic resources. These design guidelines have been incorporated in each commission‟s adopted General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures documents. The city‟s Architectural Review Board (not their Historic Landmark Commission) reviews projects that are adjacent to historic resources. However, the infill design guidelines for the Architectural Review Board are identical to those for the Historic Landmark Commission. The following excerpt from the General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures document shows the applicability of the infill design guidelines and the standards that are used to evaluate the compatibility of infill projects: 1.2.3 Infill Projects. Infill development projects involving historic resources shall preserve, protect, and enhance those resources. Projects on sites adjacent to historic resources shall respect and be compatible with the adjacent resources. A. Project Sites Containing Historic Resources: If a project parcel contains potentially historic or designated historic resources the project shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). The Urban Historian can assist the HLC by identifying particular issue areas where the proposed development must show consideration and sensitivity to historic resources on the site. B. Projects Adjacent to Historic Resources: The HLC is the review body for all projects within El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District or another landmark district. In all other areas of the City, the ABR is the review body for projects adjacent to historic resources, and will follow this section of guidelines. This section of guidelines helps to ensure that infill development is appropriately sensitive to adjacent historic resources, is compatible, and maintains a balance between historic resources and new construction. It is recognized that not all techniques or approaches are appropriate or practical for every development project. Consultation with the City Urban Historian is required to determine which of the design techniques and approaches listed below should be followed to demonstrate sensitivity to historic resources: 1. Architectural styles of new or remodeled buildings should be compatible and fit with the character of adjacent structures. 2. Special consideration shall be given to setbacks for projects adjacent to historic resources and/or historic patterns of development to be compatible with other historic resources on the street. 3. Design interior setbacks to maintain an appropriate distance to provide views to the resource, appropriate light and air, and avoid impacts such as crowding or looming over adjacent historic resources. 4. Location of parking and garages should be sensitive to adjacent historic resources. 5. Orient the front entrance of the building to the street and clearly identify the front entrance unless this is not the predominant pattern on the street. 6. Larger buildings should be stepped down in height as they approach smaller adjacent historic 2.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) A. Development Review Process | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 9 resources. 7. Design the front façade to appear similar in scale with adjacent historic resources. 8. Align foundation and floor-to-ceiling heights to be sensitive to adjacent historic structures. 9. Align eaves, cornices, and ridge lines to be compatible with those of the neighboring historic structures. 10. Design the front of buildings to have a similar rhythm and pattern of window and door openings as those of the existing streetscape. 11. Incorporate materials and colors similar to those traditionally used in neighboring historic structures. In interviews, the staff stated that the new adopted guidelines are working well thus far, but that most projects are not able to meet each guideline, so they have found that flexibility in the application of the guidelines is necessary. Other cities similarly seek advisory reviews from their preservation commissions when development occurs near historic resources for circumstances that require their expertise. Syracuse does not have a specific process described in their zoning code, but we learned from city staff that the Zoning Administrator will refer zoning applications to the Landmark Preservation Board if a project is in close proximity to a sensitive property or district. Somewhat similarly, Lincoln‟s Historic Preservation Commission advises the city on public projects that are in close proximity to designated historic districts or National Register properties.2 We also found a few other relevant approaches taken by cities that were not in our initial peer-city review. For instance, some cities regulate properties that are within a specific distance of a designated resource. The city of Brownsville, Texas, designates “secondary historic sites,” which function similarly to Structures of Merit.3 One of the criteria for a secondary historic site is location within 300 feet of a local, state, or federal historic resource that positively contributes to the historic value of the designated resource. This extends a certain level of protection to these nearby sites as well and is clear as the properties are given their own particular designation. A similar geographically focused method is currently used in Albuquerque, New Mexico. All exterior changes to properties within 300 feet of the historic overlay district are reviewed through a Certificate of Appropriateness process identical to that required for a designated resource. However, it is important to note that Albuquerque is in the process of rewriting their zoning code and officials are proposing to eliminate this process. They have found that the process is unpredictable for property owners because they do not have a map or tracking system that identifies which properties are subject to this review and that permits are issued accidentally without going through this review as a result.4 2 Lincoln 4.36.030 3 Structures of Merit are discussed in the Topic A report. 4 Brownsville 348-1513; Albuquerque 14-16-2-25(E) 2.1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) A. Development Review Process | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 10 Fort Collins‟ Development Review process for new infill near historic resources is fairly unique in comparison to the peer cities we researched. Most cities do not extend preservation review to properties that are not designated, or review development for impact on nearby historic (or eligible to be historic) resources. However, in a variety of ways, several other communities are attempting to address compatibility issues with projects located near or adjacent to historic resources. The particular features of the Fort Collins process will be further compared to other city‟s processes in the following sections of this report. Moving forward, we recommend that Fort Collins clarify the overall purpose of the Development Review process in order to provide more certainty to applicants, and to better tailor the extent of the review, both geographically and by resource type (designated and eligible properties). These issues are discussed later in this report with more specific recommendations. The process should also be examined for potential efficiency improvements, particularly the staff time and resources devoted to the case-by-case review of non-designated resources that do not already have established determinations of eligibility. In addition, it is important to evaluate which of the current standards have proven most important for ensuring the compatibility of infill. This analysis will help determine the priorities for modifying the process. Additionally, the procedural requirements of the process are not currently well-described in the ordinance. The description of the LPC recommendation process is somewhat buried in paragraph 6 of subsection (F). Because this is within subsection (F), it is not clear whether the LPC would review properties with changes that relate to subsection (D) or (E) as well. Further, it is not evident what differentiates a director-level review from a commission-level review. These procedural requirements should be clarified. In addition, we found the use of “eligible” and “potentially eligible” as two separate processes to be very confusing and recommend clarifying that aspect of the review. Similar to a recommendation we made in the previous topic report, we believe that using the term “Development Review” for this process is confusing, as it could mean either the entire development review process or this one step. We recommend establishing a new terminology for this particular point in the review, whether that is a “Historic Resource Compatibility Review” or something similar. It should be clearer that this is simply a subset of the overall Development Review process. Recommendations  Clarify the purpose and intent of the historic resources component of the Development Review process.  Clarify the procedural requirements to obtain a recommendation from the LPC.  Use new terminology, such as “Historic Resource Compatibility Review,” instead of Development Review. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 11 Of the few communities that require preservation review for infill development near historic resources, most identify geographic boundaries to limit the scope of that review. In addition, some communities consider impacts to designated resources only, and do not analyze impacts to resources that are merely eligible for designation. In Fort Collins, the Development Review process in Section 3.4.7 applies to any project with an on-site designated or eligible resource or any project that is adjacent to a designated or eligible resource. As described above, a project-specific “area of adjacency” is determined to establish which properties the project will be reviewed against for compatibility. The LPC determines the area of adjacency at their first hearing. We understand that staff typically suggests a geographic area to use for each project based on nearby proximity to the development site and the scale of the proposed development, but the staff recommendations are sometimes expanded or reduced by the LPC, which can lead to unpredictability for applicants. There is a desire to provide more consistency and predictability so that applicants can be reasonably sure of what will constitute an area of adjacency in the early stages of their project development. It is also worth noting that the code differentiates “adjacent” from “abutting.” The current definition of “adjacent” has been in the code since 2004, when an amendment was adopted to distinguish between the two terms. At the time, staff noted that flexibility was needed in defining what “nearby” means, so the case-by-case nature of determining adjacency was intentionally placed in the code. The policy direction in Fort Collins is to extend the Development Review process beyond impact on designated historic resources; review also extends to consider the impact of new development on any property that is eligible for local, state, or national landmark or district designation. Staff notes that the intention for this policy, which has been part of the Land Use Code since 1998, is a reflection of eligible resources‟ equal contribution to the character of the vicinity of the development site. Although the LPC‟s recommendation is only advisory, this process extends the typical preservation protection of local landmarks and historic districts to state and national landmarks and districts that do not otherwise have local regulatory protection (even advisory). It also extends advisory protection to properties that are merely eligible to be landmarks or districts.5 This is relatively rare in our experience and creates some additional challenges, particularly regarding uncertainty as to when and how eligible properties will factor into the analysis. 5 The Demolition/Alteration Review Process would also protect on-site modification of eligible resources and will be discussed in the Topic D report. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 12 It is certainly true that other cities develop context-based standards to help protect neighborhood character, and sometimes definitions of “character” are based at least in part on the surrounding historic resources. In fact, Fort Collins is currently engaged in a project to develop more context-sensitive and form-based standards for the downtown area to help ensure the compatibility of infill development. However, in most cities the application of these types of character-protection standards is not necessarily tied to determinations of eligibility, or historic preservation at all. The reviews in both Madison and Santa Barbara are limited to properties that directly abut a historic resource. In Madison, the advisory review only applies when a development is on a lot that directly “adjoins” a landmark. While “adjoining” is not defined in the code, staff reports that the review is limited to only properties directly next to an individual landmark. This process does not apply to properties that are adjacent to historic districts. Similarly, in Santa Barbara the process is limited to properties that are directly adjacent to the historic resource (both landmarks and districts). City staff believed extending this review any further would be too administratively difficult in terms of the time it would take and the number of properties that would then be subject to this review.6 Madison‟s process is more limited than Fort Collins in that only properties near designated landmarks (not properties that are merely eligible) are subject to review.7 On the other end of the spectrum, Santa Barbara‟s process is applicable to both designated and “potentially historic” resources as well as properties that are adjacent to designated and potentially historic resources. Santa Barbara has an extensive inventory of potentially historic resources that are mapped and included in the city‟s permitting property information database, so that property owners are aware from the outset of a project that their property either includes or is adjacent to a potential historic resource (this system also ensures that building permits are not issued accidentally).8 Staff noted that the inventory includes nearly 600 properties and was assembled based on historic surveys completed in 1978 and 1986. Additional resources were added in 2013 based on another survey and other resources have been added over time in a piecemeal fashion. 6 Madison 28.144; Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.2.3 and Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.4.3 7 Madison 28.144 8 Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.2.3 and Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.4.3 2.1.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 13 Fort Collins is unique in extending the geographic area of preservation review beyond immediately abutting properties. While this benefits the city‟s overall character protection goals by extending the reach of compatibility considerations, it does create some unpredictability and potential for inconsistency. For instance, the current case-by-case determination of adjacency could be problematic. It could be larger or smaller depending on the particular factors of each case, but an applicant may not know that initially. While it is understandable for the LPC to want flexibility to calibrate the area of adjacency based on a project‟s perceived impacts, this should be balanced with the applicant‟s need for predictability and consistency—especially since this is a review of a resource that is not designated. Moving forward, we recommend the city consider establishing a more consistent and predictable geographic limit for the historic resource component of Development Review. A better-defined area of adjacency would give applicants advance notice of the need to integrate certain compatible design features, rather than having to guess whether or not they are close enough to a historic property, or whether that property is significant or sensitive enough to warrant heightened review. Applicants would also likely be less resistant to design modifications that are more compatible with nearby properties if they were aware of these limitations at the outset of their design process. In Clarion‟s March 2017 memo “Defining „Adjacency‟ in the Preservation Ordinance,” we made several recommendations for balancing predictability with the flexibility to base adjacency on a project‟s impact. Some of these recommendations are summarized below:  Define a project‟s radius of impact, which would determine whether a project is considered “adjacent” to historic resources and therefore LPC review is required. The radius of impact should be based on a list of objective criteria such as height or massing indicating impact.  Remove the term “nearby” from the definition of adjacency and instead use more specific lot identifiers or specific distance limits.  Tailor the level of review, allowing projects with lesser impacts (using indicators such as height, massing, or others) to be reviewed by the LPC based on a limited number of issues or within a certain amount of time, or to simply be reviewed by staff instead of the LPC. A matrix tool could be developed to illustrate this type of calibrated review. Building upon these recommendations and based on further research, we propose the following matrix for discussion purposes. The goal is to better tailor the level and type of review based on a project‟s impact. In this matrix, more characteristics of compatibility should be considered by the LPC for projects that are most likely to impact a historic resource, while fewer features must be reviewed for projects that are less likely to impact a historic resource. The matrix defines a radius of impact that determines the properties included in the review based on the height of the proposed structure. We also propose Recommendations: Geographic Extent  Establish a consistent and predictable geographic limit for the review, such as the Historic Resource Compatibility Review matrix. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 14 reviewing impacts on eligible resources only if they abut the proposed development site; this recommendation is described in more detail in the next section of this report. HISTORIC RESOURCE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW PROPOSAL IS …. OPTIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS Abutting a… Designated Resource Height Setbacks Massing Stepbacks Floor-to-ceiling height Materials Windows & doors Eligible Resource Height Setbacks Massing Stepbacks Within 200 feet of a… Designated Resource: Proposed building is 3 stories in height or more Height Setbacks Massing Stepbacks Designated Resource: Proposed building is less than 3 stories in height Height Massing More than 200 feet but less than 500 feet from a… Designated Resource: Proposed building is 3 stories in height or more Setbacks Massing Designated Resource: Proposed building is less than 3 stories in height No compatibility review required. Abutting = Touching. An abutting condition shall not be affected by the parcelization or division of land that results in an incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel. Designated Resource = A local, state, or nationally designated landmark or a property within a local, state, or national historic district. Eligible Resource = A property that is potentially eligible for local, state, or national landmark designation or as part of an eligible local, state, or national historic district. For example, a proposed four-story building that would be within 500 feet of a designated landmark would be reviewed for compatibility with only the setbacks and massing of the designated landmark. A project of any size that abuts a designated landmark would be reviewed for compatibility with all of the listed considerations of the historic building. A two-story project that would be within 500 feet of a designated landmark would not require a review. B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 15 listed would need to be supplemented by detailed guidelines. The following are some examples of compatibility guidelines, with “historic buildings” meaning the applicable eligible or designated resources based on the matrix above. Additional recommendations for clarifying the standards can be found in the final section of this report.  Height: The height of the proposed structure is visually compatible [or within X amount of deviation] with historic buildings and does not diminish the exterior integrity of the historic buildings.  Setbacks: The proposed setbacks of the proposed structure are similar to historic buildings and do not impact the exterior integrity of the historic buildings.  Massing: The massing of the proposed building is designed to minimize the visual impact on historic buildings, including creation of shadows and loss of sunlight, and does not impact the integrity of the historic buildings.  Stepbacks: Height that is taller than historic buildings is stepped back to reduce visibility and reduce impact on the integrity of the historic buildings.  Floor-to-ceiling height: Floor-to-ceiling heights are similar to historic buildings to minimize visual impact on historic buildings.  Materials: The proposed materials are visually similar to the predominant materials of the historic buildings and do not diminish the exterior integrity of the historic buildings.  Windows & doors: In order to minimize negative impact on the integrity of the historic buildings, the proposed structure has a similar relationship of solids to voids in the historic buildings, window styles are similar, fenestration patterns are similar, and the location of pedestrian entrances are similar to those on historic buildings. For discussion purposes, we propose 200 and 500 feet as radii of impact for the review of projects that are not abutting but are near designated resources. These were chosen because 500 feet is the approximate length of a typical east-west block in downtown and 200 feet is the length of about four typically sized parcels. We recommend measuring these distances from parcel line to parcel line. This is both for ease of mapping and also so that larger-scale projects (with a larger lot size) that will likely be more impactful will capture more properties within their buffer areas. This concept is illustrated in the samples below, which are displayed at the same scale. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 16 Doing some additional mapping could be very useful in finalizing the radius of impact limits. We recommend completing a thorough analysis of how large the areas of adjacency used in the past have been. In practice, we understand that the city typically recommends an area of adjacency that has been similar to the limits that are recommended, but additional mapping could help confirm that. In addition, mapping the locations of designated landmarks and known eligible resources would be very helpful in determining a realistic geographic limit. In summary, the geographic limits should be made more consistent and predictable and these limits could be better tailored to a project‟s impacts. We recommend an approach similar to the proposed historic resource compatibility review matrix, which calibrates the level of review to the radius of impact based on proximity to a historic resource. Fort Collins‟ historic resources component of Development Review applies to many different kinds of properties, ranging from nationally designated to potentially eligible resources (and the non-designated properties that are near those resources). The purpose of the review, per Section 3.4.7, is to protect the integrity and significance of both on-site and off-site designated and eligible historic resources. However, in our view it appears that the extension of the review to eligible resources serves a dual purpose, which is to generally ensure compatible infill while also specifically protecting the integrity and significance of the eligible resource. The multiple objectives of this review perhaps make it more challenging for applicants to understand the process. Generally, we believe that the further an infill project is from an eligible resource, the less likely it is to impact the resource‟s integrity and therefore the resource‟s potential for future designation. This follows a similar logic to the tiered level of review recommended above for limiting the geographic extent. We recommend tailoring the review of impacts to eligible properties to only development that directly abuts an eligible property. To meet the broader purpose of promoting compatible infill development in areas with historic resources, we recommend exploring other options that might take the place of the LPC review process, or supplement it. For instance, context-based zoning standards that are based not on a nearby property‟s eligibility but rather on the area‟s overall character may better serve this purpose. Linking the desire for compatible development to determinations of eligibility requires staff time and resources to make case- by-case determinations of eligibility (and area of adjacency) needed to evaluate each project. A more efficient approach could be to adopt design guidelines or standards for certain areas of the city and ensure that infill development meets those standards, regardless of nearby historic eligibility. There could be general compatibility guidelines for these areas and supplementary standards for properties that abut eligible resources or are nearby designated landmarks or districts. Recommendations: Review of Eligible Resources  Develop context-based standards that are not based on eligibility to ensure compatibility in certain areas of the city.  Consider reviewing impact on eligible resources only if they are on-site or abutting a development project.  Focus on survey work to develop an inventory of eligible historic resources. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 17 Protecting the integrity of eligible resources is an important goal of this process that is integral to the purpose of the review overall. However, the process should be better tailored to focus on the impacts of new development that can cause a nearby property to lose its eligibility. Preventing or mitigating those impacts should determine the standards used in the process or the compatibility features that are considered. Conversations with the State Historic Preservation Office may help assist in determining what types of impacts would most harm a resource‟s eligibility for designation. In our opinion, nearby (but not abutting) development may impact the integrity of either the setting or the feeling of an eligible resource, but is unlikely to impact location, design, materials, workmanship, or association. (These italicized terms are from the National Park Service and are defined below.) It is also unlikely that nearby development could eliminate an eligible property‟s significance according to Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. Abutting development is more likely to impact additional aspects of integrity as it may obscure materials or important aspects of the historic resource‟s design and has a higher probability of impacting the general setting, feeling, or association of the resource. While infill development on properties that do not abut historic resources may change the surrounding area, such development is unlikely to negatively impact a resource‟s integrity to the point where the resource cannot be designated. Therefore, we recommend only considering the impact of new infill projects that directly abut eligible resources and not reviewing properties that are nearby but not necessarily abutting. 1. Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 2. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. 3. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 4. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. 5. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. 6. Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. 7. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. In general, it should be a top priority of the city to establish a comprehensive inventory of eligible historic resources. The case-by-case determination of what is “adjacent” (and then what is eligible in that area) that is essential to the current process may be challenging to sustain based on the level of staff time and resources required. The ambiguity of whether or not a property is “eligible” creates another level of uncertainty behind the current Development Review process. Additional mapping, more comprehensive 2.1.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 18 survey work, and/or database updates may be necessary to clearly identify eligible properties and thus provide applicants with upfront notice that they are near eligible resources prior to designing their project. While coordinating and managing a survey process would also take staff time and city resources, the work done upfront to compile this in a holistic manner is sure to pay dividends in the time saved over case-by- case determinations. Currently, the city is, in a sense, creating a piecemeal historic resources list through both this process and the Demolition/Alteration Review process. Greater emphasis should be placed on proactively studying and inventorying eligible historic resources rather than relying on these incremental efforts. The time and resources spent determining adjacency and completing reviews of eligibility in reaction to development proposals would be better spent towards compiling or updating an inventory of eligible sites or designating eligible resources. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) C. Clarity and Organization | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 19 Communities should use clear standards or guidelines that are organized in a user-friendly way for all types of land use reviews. Since the LPC‟s recommendation regarding Development Review is currently advisory only Fort Collins, flexible guidelines may be more appropriate than strict standards. Guidelines should be objective but leave room for creativity and flexibility. Section 3.4.7 lists the standards for this review. The organization of the section is confusing (probably due at least in part to multiple revisions made to this section over time), with the following general standards for review scattered throughout subsection (B):  “To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure.”  “The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is [subject to this section.]”  “New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” Subsection (D) describes reuse, renovation, alterations, and additions. These standards are similar to design review for landmarked properties. It appears that these standards would only apply to properties with eligible resources (or state/national designated but not local) on site, but it is not clear. If a designated resource was on-site, the LPC Design Review process would be required. Subsection (E) describes the standards for demolition. It is not clear how this would serve a different purpose than the Demolition/Alteration Review process. Subsection (F) is related to New Construction and forms the standards for compatible infill. The applicability of this section is confusing and the paragraphs are randomly organized. The subsections should be titled. Also, the “building patterns” graphic should be updated or replaced to more clearly reflect the standards. The two peer cities that have the most similar types of processes offer two very different examples of language and organization. Madison‟s approach is simple and merely states that the Landmark Commission shall review each project “to determine whether the proposed development is so large or visually intrusive as to adversely affect the historic character and integrity of the adjoining landmark.” Santa Barbara uses 11 guidelines for the review of infill projects (listed earlier in this report) that cover architectural style, setbacks, parking, entrances, height, scale, floor-to-ceiling heights, architectural features, window patterns, and materials. The guidelines for each of these topics are fairly general, and seek “sensitive,” “compatible,” and “similar” features. Because the guidelines are applicable to all areas of 2.1.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) C. Clarity and Organization | Research Topics Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 20 the city, they do not precisely identify the features necessary to be compatible, as they would be able to do in a fairly cohesive area.9 Several other cities we studied provide other examples of criteria to determine compatibility. We included an excerpt of the Gainesville‟s criteria for visual compatibility in the Topic B Report. These types of compatibility standards could be extrapolated to serve as standards for the review of compatible infill on properties that are not designated. The standards in Section 3.4.7 are poorly worded and so their applicability is unclear. The “general standard” in subsection (B) appears to be a mix of a purpose statement, criteria, and statements of applicability. 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 Section 3.4.7. It should include the city‟s preferred approach to the “adjacency” issue, as discussed above and should integrate the Historic Resource Compatibility Analysis as the primary standard for approval. This section needs to be redrafted to improve clarity. The provisions should be reevaluated in light of the earlier recommendations in this report and should be more clearly tied to the protection of integrity and significance that is stated to be the purpose of this review. Similar to the previous reports, we propose organizational improvements to Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code to complement the substantive recommendations that are the principal focus of this report. Overall, the information in Section 3.4.7 is not well organized and we believe it would likely be confusing to new code users who are not familiar with the Fort Collins system. The applicability of the provisions is particularly difficult to discern. Importantly, this challenging organization contributes to a sense of general ambiguity about the purpose and extent of the process. When redrafting this section, discrete blocks of information should all be given clear headings and subheadings. Multi-level lists should be used to help break apart dense blocks of text, rather than burying important information in lengthy paragraphs. In general, the section should more clearly identify and distinguish purpose, applicability, process, and standards. Additional graphics would also be useful (e.g., in describing what qualifies as “adjacent,” or to display examples of compatible development alongside the standards). 9 Madison 28.144; Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.2.3 and Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.4.3 Recommendations  Redraft Section 3.4.7 for clarity and to improve organization, clarifying the purpose, applicability, and standards of the process. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) 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 Growing: 60% 2 historic districts, 1 C. Clarity and Organization | Links Topic C: Development Review and Historic Resources | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 22 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 City of Albuquerque Comprehensive City Zoning Code http://documents.cabq.gov/planning/UDD/ZoningCode/CodeEnf-ZoningCode-FullText-2017.pdf City of Brownsville Code of Ordinances https://library.municode.com/tx/brownsville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH348ZO_ARTIX HIPRURDE_DIV3HIPRAD_S348-1513CRDESELOSI City of Santa Barbara, “Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures,” https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17311 City of Santa Barbara, “Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures,” https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17281 2.1.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) TOPIC 3. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 1 CAC December 6, 2017 2.1.b Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Two Goals Goal of Protecting Integrity • Historic resource’s eligibility • 7 Aspects of Integrity Abutting: design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling • Not affect association and location Nearby: setting and feeling • Not affect design, materials, workmanship, location and association 2 2.1.b Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Two Goals Goal of Goal of Compatible Infill Development • Respect established historic character Context-sensitive zoning standards for all infill • General compatibility standards for each character area • Specific compatibility standards for projects abutting/ nearby historic resources 3 2.1.b Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Adjacency Area of Adjacency: Adopt Defined Radius • Abutting (touching) • Within 200 feet • Between 200 and 500 feet • More than 500 feet 4 2.1.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Clarion’s Recommendation Abutting a Designated Resource: • Height • Massing • Setbacks, stepbacks • Floor to ceiling Height • Materials • Windows & doors 5 2.1.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Clarion’s Recommendation Abutting an Eligible Resource: • Height • Massing • Setbacks • Stepbacks 6 2.1.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Clarion’s Recommendation Within 200 feet of a Designated Resource New project 3 or more stories in height: • Height • Massing • Setbacks & Stepbacks New project less than 3 stories in height: • Height • Massing 7 2.1.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Clarion’s Recommendation Within 200 feet of a Eligible Resource • No review 8 2.1.b Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Clarion’s Recommendation Between 200 and 500 feet of a Designated Resource New project 3 or more stories in height: • Massing • Setbacks New project less than 3 stories in height • No compatibility Review Eligible resources: No compatibility review 9 2.1.b Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Questions • Area of Adjacency: Is the conical-radius approach best? • Are the radius/height distances appropriate? • Within the Area of Adjacency, should integrity review apply only to designated buildings, or to both designated and individually eligible buildings? • No difference in historic significance or integrity between designated and individually eligible resource 10 2.1.b Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Questions • Within the Area of Adjacency, should compatibility review apply only to abutting historic buildings, or to both abutting and adjacent historic buildings? • Which compatibility elements are most important? 11 2.1.b Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: LPC Topic 3 - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic DATE: STAFF: December 13, 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) 2.2 Packet Pg. 37 2.2.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6288 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities) 2.2.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6288 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities) DATE: STAFF: December 13, 2017 Maren Bzdek, Historic Preservation Planner WORK SESSION ITEM Landmark Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Downtown Alley Enhancements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to request feedback on the working designs for the upcoming Downtown alley improvement projects managed by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The projects are in the City right-of-way and fall under the City’s Capital Project Review process. Comments gathered at this work session will be available for consideration as the plans are refined in the remainder of the design development phase. The work is currently scheduled to begin in spring 2018 and will include improvements to enhanced alleyways at Old Firehouse Alley East, Seckner Alley, and West Mountain Avenue. The team of Russell+Mills Studios and JVA Consulting Engineers are providing design and engineering services. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED DDA staff is requesting feedback comments regarding the current draft of alley improvement designs in respect to their impact on historic resources in the Downtown and compliance with relevant Fort Collins code. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Seckner Alley and Old Firehouse Alley East in the Old Town Historic District The proposed improvements to the Old Firehouse Alley East and Seckner Alley are within the Old Town Historic District and thus the proposed work is subject to compliance with the Old Town Design Standards. Ultimately, the applicant will need to return to the LPC to seek final approval through the Design Review process for these improvements. LPC comments on the current round of designs are advisory only until the designs are finalized and submitted for design review. Comments should consider overall impact of the proposed changes on the character of the district, and any specific standards regarding lighting design, light projection, and other proposed features, and proposed attachment options to buildings for planting structures and lights. The Old Town Design Standards are attached for reference. West Mountain Avenue Alley The West Mountain Avenue enhanced alleyway will not be subject to design review by the Commission because it is not within the Old Town Historic District. The alley improvements abut several properties on College Avenue, Mountain Avenue, and Mason that have been determined eligible for designation in the past, including 101 S College, 107 S College, 125 S College, 143 Mountain, 151 Mountain, 159 Mountain, and 130 S Mason. LPC comments are advisory only, in order to assist the applicant with a design that supports the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. Alterations to Bank Teller Building The former Poudre Valley National Bank property (1960) at 125 W Mountain, has lost exterior integrity due to significant non-historic alterations to the primary structure that is now occupied by Walrus Ice Cream. The associated bank teller building at the rear of the property retains greater integrity and the alley improvements include several proposed alterations to that structure, while noting that retention and reuse of the building is a 2.3 Packet Pg. 40 December 13, 2017 Page 2 positive component of the proposed alley design. As above, the LPC may wish to comment in an advisory capacity on best practices regarding the proposed mural. The LPC may also wish to note that one component of the historic preservation code review process currently underway includes discussion with the associated Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding improvement of the historic review of murals and paint colors. The discussion recognized the need to develop a review decision matrix for applications involving murals and paint that will be based generally on degree of reversibility and material preservation and will clarify and expand upon existing policy. Specifics will likely include 1) how much of the building would be covered by a mural, 2) the location/elevation of the mural, 3) whether or not it minimizes or obscures character-defining features, 3) the existing condition of the surface (unpainted, painted, or stuccoed), and 4) the application method (painting directly on a surface requires consideration of impact on building materials, versus use of an attached canvas/surface that could be removed if needed). ATTACHMENTS 1. DDA-LPC Staff Report FINAL 12.4 (PDF) 2. 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (PDF) 3. 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (PDF) 4. OldTown District Standards_Final (PDF) 2.3 Packet Pg. 41 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO TO: Landmark Preservation Commission FROM: Matt Robenalt/Todd Dangerfield THROUGH: Karen McWilliams/Maren Bzdek DATE: December 4, 2017 RE: Landmark Preservation Commission Work Session, December 13, 2017 West Mountain Avenue-Old Firehouse Alley Projects Executive Overview Background In 1981, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Plan of Development identified the alleys in the downtown area as an untapped opportunity for enhanced pedestrian connections. In 2006, the DDA initiated a pilot project which included improving the pedestrian-only Trimble Court (connecting College Avenue and Old Town Square) and Tenney Court (connecting Mountain Avenue with the Civic Center Parking Structure). The DDA’s goal in initiating this project was to enhance the alleys aesthetically and to stimulate increased economic vitality and use of these spaces. In 2008, the DDA engaged local design firm Russell+Mills Studios to create a master plan of the alleys between CSU, Downtown and the River District. Beginning in 2010, the first phase of alley enhancements began with the construction of two alleys: Montezuma Fuller and Old Firehouse Alleys. These two installations were followed in 2011 by the construction of the Dalzell Alley enhancements. The master plan prioritizes the order of alleys to be enhanced. In 2015 the DDA Board established a finance plan for an additional two square blocks of enhanced alleyways at Old Firehouse Alley East and West Mountain Avenue. In early 2017, the DDA conducted a competitive process for design and engineering services related to the project. The team of Russell+Mills Studios/JVA Consulting Engineers was formally approved for the project by the DDA Board in April 2017. The DDA Board has appropriated approximately $2.8 million for the alley projects, which are scheduled to begin construction in spring 2018. The City Manager’s recommended budget identifies $350,000 from the General Improvement District No. 1 for the same purpose. Progress Designs Beginning in May 2017, the design team embarked on a programmatic and schematic design process that so far has engaged the City through the capital project review approval process, public and individual stakeholders in two open houses, and numerous individual coordination meetings with property owners and businesses adjacent to the two alleys. Through this engagement process a final schematic (conceptual) design was developed and approved by the DDA Board of Directors in September 2017. The attached images represent the progress of designs since the approved schematics and prior to the construction drawing milestone anticipated in early February 2018. Architectural goals include encouraging additional outdoor uses, inspiring redevelopment on adjacent private land, creating festive spaces using special lighting and artistic installations, ensuring emergency access where applicable, creating shared trash and recycling strategies as needed, and implementing a shared street model to allow vehicular access, including business deliveries and access to internal private parking lots in a controlled and integrated manner. 2.3.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: DDA-LPC Staff Report FINAL 12.4 (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Also attached is a draft copy of the Alley Projects Plan of Protection describing the construction activities involved in the project, methods of protection that will be implemented when working adjacent to historic structures and methods for connection of design amenities to historic facades. DDA staff members Matt Robenalt and Todd Dangerfield will present an overview of the progress designs at the work session. DDA staff is asking for comments and feedback in anticipation of further refinement of the designs during the remainder of the design development phase. 2.3.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: DDA-LPC Staff Report FINAL 12.4 (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Mason Street Mountain Avenue Oak Street MATCH B MATCH A MATCH C MATCH B Reconﬁgured DDA Parking Lot Existing loading/ parking area Existing teller building Proposed light pole w/ tivoli light attachment Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Proposed light pole Proposed planting bed Proposed entry bulb-out Proposed entry bulb-out Proposed patio expansion Proposed tivoli lighting to extend over sidewalk Proposed tivoli lighting to extend over sidewalk Existing patio Existing patio Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Herringbone paving pattern Tivoli lighting at entries Art installation (52) Ex Parking (34) Proposed Parking 1 1 1 7 2 2 2 4 2 7 6 5 3 LED lighting Proposed bike parking structure 3 7 6 4 Overhead planting structure Proposed (2) additional Parking spaces, sidewalk improvements Existing wall sconce lighting to remain. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan running bond pattern, typ. Proposed raised planters, typ. Proposed planting bed, w/ curb, typ. Cable art installation See example photos to the right Proposed concrete header, typ. Existing parking lot Example images of cable art installation Existing loading/ parking lot Existing parking lot Existing trash enclosure Existing parking lot Existing Teller Building Proposed Seatwall improvements and updated planting Proposed light pole, typ. Proposed planting bed w/ curb, typ. Proposed tivoli lights Proposed raised planters, typ. Existing transformer to remain. Vine trellis, typ. Proposed bike parking structure Proposed trash enclosure Proposed planting bed w/ curb, typ. Mason Street MATCH C MATCH B MATCH B MATCH A Reconﬁgured DDA Parking Lot A A’ (52) Ex Parking (34) Proposed Parking (2) Proposed On Street West Mountain Mountain Avenue Oak Street MATCH B MATCH A MATCH C MATCH B Existing Teller Building Proposed patio expansion Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing patio Proposed light pole, typ. Proposed vine trellis, typ. Proposed entry bulb-out w/ planting Proposed entry bulb-out w/ planting Proposed drainage chase Proposed drainage chase Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Existing wall sconce lighting, typ. Proposed raised planters, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan running bond pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan running bond pattern, typ. Proposed concrete header, typ. Proposed concrete header, typ. Proposed light pole, typ. Proposed raised planters, typ. Proposed trash enclosure Proposed bike parking structure Existing loading/ parking lot DDA parking lot Planting area Paver ﬁeld Conc band Conc Section A-A’ curb Section B-B’ Section C-C’ Paver ﬁeld Overhead trellis feature Precast concrete planter, typ. Proposed future patio extension Walrus Ice Cream Hanging basket, typ. Planting area adjacent to reconﬁgured parking lot Reconﬁgured DDA parking lot Conc band Conc band Paver ﬁeld Conc band Conc band Adjacent parking area ROW-Limits of Work ROW-Limits of Work ROW-Limits of Work Pedestrian pole light with hanging basket 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sections - West Mountain Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley Reconﬁgured DDA Parking Lot Existing Parking Lot Cable art installation Proposed trash enclosure Walrus Ice Cream Teller Building Mainline Rio Back Patio View looking north looking towards Walrus Ice Cream View looking south looking towards teller building View looking east looking towards Mainline alley entrance Layout view Cable attachment details Example Images of cable art installation Alley out to Mason Street Alley out to Oak Street Alley out to Mountain Avenue 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Cable Art Concept - West Mountain Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Teller Building Concept - West Mountain Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley Walnut Street Jefferson Street Linden Street Chestnut Street Elizabeth Hotel Parking Garage Access, Drainage, Utility Easement Existing beer garden Existing parking lot Proposed trash enclosure Proposed plating bed Proposed Limits of Work Proposed planters, typ. Proposed wall sconce light, typ. Proposed bollards Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, typ. (To match Hotel Alley) Proposed tivoli lights w/ building attachments, typ. Existing parking lot Access, Drainage, Utility Easement Vertical precast concrete planters Bench seating 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 Raised planting/screen adjacent to patio Hotel Alley (under construction) Overhead planting structure Light projection 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Overall Site Plan - Old Firehouse Alley 0 20 40 80’ 2.3.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley 1 Vertical precast concrete planters, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed trash enclosure, typ. Access and drainage easement Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan Proposed wall sconce running bond pattern, typ. light, typ. Proposed vine trellis, typ. Proposed tivoli lights, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, to match hotel alley, typ. Proposed planting bed, w/ curb, typ. Proposed planters, typ. Proposed planters, typ. Proposed light pole w/ tivoli light attachments, typ. Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Proposed concrete header, typ. Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing beer garden Linden Street Walnut Street B B’ A A’ 2 Bench seating, typ. 4 Overhead planting structure Light projection - ground plane 5 Wall projection 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Site Plan Enlargement - Old Firehouse Alley 0 8 16 32’ 2.3.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley Section B-B’ Section A-A’ Paver ﬁeld Conc band Conc band Precast concrete planter Overhead trellis with vine plantings Overhead tivoli lighting Min. 14’ above surface Pedestrian pole light with hanging basket Precast concrete planter Hanging basket with vine plantings - both sides Paver ﬁeld Pedestrian zone Conc band Conc band ROW-Limits of Work 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sections - Old Firehouse Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sketch - Old Firehouse Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley View towards Seckner Alley View towards Seckner Alley View down Seckner Alley towards Walnut Street 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Vine Trellis - Old Firehouse Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sketch - West Mountain Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley Birds eye view of trellis structure adjacent to Walrus Ice Cream View toward West Mountain Ave View down West Mountain Ave alley 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Vine Trellis - West Mountain Alley 2.3.b Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley 2018 DDA Downtown Alley Enhancements Plan of Protection_DRAFT Page 1 of 4 1.0 Introduction Project location: Fort Collins Downtown Alley Enhancements 2018 (See attached maps) General description of work to be performed: 2018 Alley Enhancements will be conducted within the City owned right-of-way. The renovation will generally consist of the following: • Underground utilities will be upgraded and or relocated as necessary. • Re-grading and installation of a new concrete paver system to replace the existing concrete and asphalt pavement and improve drainage away from buildings. • Installation of new pedestrian and decorative lighting. • Installation of site amenities such as benches, bike racks, art and landscaping. 2.0 Scope of Work The proposed Tivoli Festoon lighting attachments (Detail 1), alley wall sconces, and post connections from the proposed vine trellis as detailed below and included as attachments at the end of this report is the proposed work that would affect historic buildings. The building attachment hardware shall only be attached through mortar and not brick. These details are similar to those which have been used at other downtown alleys such as Montezuma-Fuller and Old Fire House alleys. One additional potential connection that may affect historic buildings are wall mounted planter baskets that were used in past alley projects. These are not currently included in the 30% design, but may be added in as the design progresses. The detail that was utilized on Montezuma-Fuller alley has been included at the end of this document. Detail 1- Tivoli Light Building Attachment 2.3.c Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2018 DDA Downtown Alley Enhancements Plan of Protection_DRAFT Page 2 of 4 Although no other work is being proposed on historic buildings, installation of the new paver system will require work directly adjacent to historic buildings. Here, concrete bands will be placed along buildings to create a uniform edge that can provide containment to the paver system and seal against sandstone foundations to ensure waterproofing. Demolition work adjacent to historic structures will be done through selective demolition methods using small equipment and hand tools. The building facades will be protected with 8-12 mil construction grade plastic sheeting applied vertically to the building or with plywood sheathing as needed. The plan detail for paver installation adjacent to buildings is included below. Detail 2 - Paver Installation Adjacent to Building 3.0 Coordination of Project Activities The general contractor has not been selected for the project. The site superintendent for the general contractor will be onsite to oversee the demolition and/or construction activities. He/she will be on-site when all work is occurring. Jenna Beairsto with Ditesco will also be overseeing quality control and construction activities. Jenna Beairsto – (970) 904-0490 4.0 Deconstruction, Salvaging & Recycling Materials No historic materials are planned to be affected. 5.0 Protection of Existing Historic Property 2.3.c Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2018 DDA Downtown Alley Enhancements Plan of Protection_DRAFT Page 3 of 4 5.1 Site Conservation. Demolition adjacent to historic structures will be done with small equipment and use of hand tools. The building facades will be protected with 8-12 mil construction grade plastic sheeting applied vertically to the building or with plywood as needed. 5.2 Demolition of Building. There is no historic building demolition on this project 5.3 Foundation Stability. Small equipment will be used during excavating and demolition in the alleys. Shoring near historic building foundations will be accomplished with traditional trench box installations. 5.4 Structural. There is no structural construction to historic buildings on this project. 5.5 New Construction. The Contractor will use 8-12 mil construction grade plastic sheeting applied vertically to existing brick walls and storefronts when performing any demolition and/or placing concrete near buildings. Plywood can also be implemented as a protection devise if needed. Through use of selective demolition techniques flying debris is not anticipated. 5.6 Historic Openings & Materials. The Contractor will use plastic applied vertically to protect adjacent facades. If necessary, plywood barriers will be built to further protect facades from debris. 5.7 New Openings. New openings to historic structures are not planned as part of this project. 5.8 Floor Framing. There is no floor framing of historic structures planned for this project. 5.9 Roof Structure and Roof Framing. There is no roof framing of historic structures planned for this project. 5.10 Structural Loads. There are no structural load changes to historic structures planned for this project. 5.11 Supporting and Bracing of Existing Structure; Under-Pinning. There is no special support or underpinning of historic structures planned for this project. 5.12 Excavation and Shoring of Existing Structure. Excavation will occur adjacent to historic structures for upgrades to existing utilities. Shoring of the trench locations will be through tradition means of trench boxes or sheet pile. We cannot provide an installation detail as this time. Contractor means and methods are dependent upon soil type encountered and trench stability. 6.0 Documentation for Record Ditesco personnel will provide photographic documentation of pre and post construction conditions of all interior and exterior of buildings adjacent to the Alley Enhancements. This will be done for historic and newer buildings throughout the alleys. 2.3.c Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2018 DDA Downtown Alley Enhancements Plan of Protection_DRAFT Page 4 of 4 7.0 Archeology The project does not anticipate any archeological investigations or finds associated with the project. One of the alley’s included in the enhancement project, Old Firehouse Alley, was recently disturbed and renovated as part of the Elizabeth Hotel and Parking Structure Construction. Attachments Appendix A: Vicinity Maps of Old Firehouse Alley and West Mountain Alley Layout/Callout Plan Old Firehouse Alley Sheet LS401 Overall Site Plan West Mountain Alley LS101 Appendix B: Wall Sconce, Wall Mounted Basket, and Trellis Vine Connection Details 2.3.c Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Firehouse Alley East (1/2) Old Firehouse Alley East (DDA 2018) Old Firehouse Alley East (Completed by Hotel Developer 2017) 5,075 sf 4,525 sf Hotel/City Parking Garage Site Hotel Site APPENDIX A 2.3.c Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown West Mountain Ave Alley (1/2) West Mountain Ave Alley (DDA 2018) 13,003 sf DDA Owned Property 2 2.3.c Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown X 2 3 5 3 SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT OHT 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS 6'' SS E E E E G G G G G G G G GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS 4'' SS UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE T T T T T T T T T T SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS 8'' SS EB CC CC U U U RD RD RD EB EB S S RD RD S EB E S MASON STREET BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 30 31 32 33 34 35 BLOCK 111 FORT COLLINS BLOCK 111 FORT COLLINS SEE SHEET 402A SEE SHEET 401B SEE SHEET 401A SEE SHEET 401B SEE SHEET 402A SEE SHEET 401A 4 4 2 3 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 APPENDIX B Alley Wall Sconce Detail from 30% Design Drawings 2.3.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Alley Wall Mounted Basket Detail from Montezuma Fuller Alley Construction Drawings 2.3.c Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Vine Trellis Detail 1/3 2.3.c Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Vine Trellis Detail 2/3 2.3.c Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Vine Trellis Detail 3/3 2.3.c Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS FORT COLLINS, COLORADO State2014 Historical Fund, History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society. Project #2013-M2-032 July 2.3.d Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) page left intentionally blank 2.3.d Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Credits This project was paid for in part by a State Historical Fund Grant from History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society. Project # 2013-M2-032 City Council Karen Weitkunat – Mayor Gerry Horak – Mayor Pro Tem Bob Overbeck Lisa Poppaw Gino Campana Wade Troxell Ross Cunniff Landmark Preservation Commission Ron Sladek Doug Ernest Pat Tvede Dave Lingle Belinda Zink Alexandra Wallace Maren Bzdek Meg Dunn Kristin Gensmer Prepared by: Winter & Company 1265 Yellow Pine Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 303.440.8445 www.winterandcompany.net Planning and Zoning Board Jennifer Carpenter Jeffrey Schneider Kristin Kirkpatrick Gerald Hart Emily Heinz Jeff Hanson Michael Hobbs Historic Preservation Staff Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg Downtown Development Authority Staff Matt Robenalt Todd Dangerfield Derek Getto 2.3.d Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) TABLE OF CONTENTS III. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Architectural Details 43 Materials and Finishes 47 Windows 50 Doors and Entries 55 Commercial Storefronts 57 Historic Roofs 59 Exposed Historic Foundations 59 Loading Docks 60 Color 60 Existing Additions 62 New Additions and Accessory Structures 62 Planning for Energy Efficiency 64 Accessibility 68 Phasing Preservation Improvements 68 Temporary Stabilization Treatments 69 Existing Historic Alterations 69 IV. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL PROPERTIES Awnings and Canopies 73 Street Layout 74 Outdoor Use Areas 74 Handrails and Enclosures 75 Art and Historic Properties 76 Site Lighting 76 Building Lighting 77 Service Areas 78 Surface Parking 78 Buffers 79 Building Equipment 79 Security Devices 80 Color 82 Archeological Resources 82 INTRODUCTION Overview 3 About This Document 4 What are Design Standards 4 Policies Underlying the Design Standards 5 Sustainability - Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits of Historic Preservation 7 The Development of Old Town Fort Collins 9 1. USING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES Design Review System 15 Where the Design Standards Apply 16 Design Standards Organization 17 II.. PLANNING A PRESERVATION PROJECT What Does Historic Preservation Mean 23 Planning a Preservation Project 24 Case Studies 29 Designing in Context 38 Historic Architectural Styles 39 Overarching Preservation Principles 40 2.3.d Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) C 2013 Noré Winter (sketch material content) V. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION Overview 85 Building Placement and Orientation 86 Architectural Character and Detail 87 Building Mass, Scale and Height 89 Building and Roof Forms 92 Entrances 93 Materials 94 Windows 95 Energy Efficiency in New Designs 97 Energy Efficiency in Building Massing 99 Environmental Performance in Building Elements 100 Solar and Wind Energy Devices 100 VI. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SIGNS Overview 103 Treatment of Historic Signs 104 Sign Installation on a Historic Building 105 Design of New and Modified Signs 106 Design of Specific Sign Types 107 Awning Sign 107 Interpretive Sign 107 Murals 108 Tenant Panel or Directory Sign 109 Projecting/Under-Canopy Sign 109 Flush Wall Sign 110 Window and Door Sign 111 Kiosks 112 Other Sign Types 112 Illumination 112 APPENDIX Historic Architectural Styles A-3 2.3.d Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) INTRODUCTION 2.3.d Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 3 Overview Fort Collins is recognized for its rich collection of his- toric resources. They are enjoyed by residents, business owners and visitors as links to the city’s heritage while also setting the stage for a vibrant future. Preserving these assets is essential to Fort Collins’ well being. A key collection of these historic resources is found in the Old Town Historic District which is a place with special meaning for Fort Collins. Once the core of business activity, the brick and stone fa- cades provide a link with the past. The ornamental cornices, brackets, and lintels are records of the skilled craftsmen who worked to build Fort Collins at the turn of the century. The community recognized the significance of the Old Town Historic District as an important cultural resource. They wished to preserve the inherent historic elements of buildings as a cultural record for future generations and to maintain the sense of place that existed. Responding to this sentiment the City Council designated the area an official locally designated historic district in 1979. Previ- ously, in 1978, the Secretary of the Interior also entered a somewhat larger Old Town Fort Collins Historic District into the National Register of Historic Places. The Landmark Preservation Commission and city staff have the responsibility to review the proposed changes in the area and determine their compliance with the design standards. The design standards are to be used by the Landmark Preservation Com- mission and city staff to review any changes to the exterior of buildings within the Old Town Historic District. They are also for designers and owners who are planning projects within the district. Today, many of the historic resources found within the Old Town Historic District have been reha- bilitated and the district is thriving. The document highlights the success stories of past projects and the positive impact they have had. While rehabilita- tion will continue in the district, additions and infill construction are also anticipated. The standards are intended to promote designs that respect the heritage of the area. They therefore encour- age projects that contribute to the quality of the district. The historic preservation design standards promote the community’s vision for sustainable preservation. The standards also provide direction for rehabilitation, alteration, expansion and new construction projects in- volving locally-designated individual historic landmarks and properties in locally-designated historic districts elsewhere in Fort Collins. They also guide city staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission’s evaluation of such projects, helping the city and property owners maintain the special qualities of Fort Collins’ history. Financial Assistance See the following web site links for financial as- sistance programs that may be available for the 4 Introduction About this Document Why Do We Preserve Historic Resources? We preserve historic resources for these reasons: » To honor our diverse heritage » To support sound community planning and development » To maintain community character and support livability » To support economic, social and environmen- tal sustainability in our community The design standards also provide a basis for making consistent decisions about the treatment of historic resources and new infill within the district. Designing a new building or addition to fit within the historic char- acter of Old Town requires careful thought. Preserva- tion in a historic district context does not mean that the area must be “frozen” in time, but it does mean that, when new construction occurs, it shall be in a manner that reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the historic district. In addition, the standards serve as educational and planning tools for property owners and their design professionals who seek to make improvements. While the design standards are written for use by the layperson to plan improvements, property own- ers are strongly encouraged to enlist the assistance of qualified design and planning professionals, including architects and preservation consultants. Note In this document, “Old Town” refers to the area officially designated as the local historic district, in contrast to a more general reference to a larger portion of the downtown. See map on page 16. Background The Old Town Historic District Design Standards are an update to the Design Guidelines for Historic Old Town Fort Collins, 1981. WHAT ARE DESIGN STANDARDS? Design standards are regulatory provisions that pro- mote historic preservation best practices. They seek to manage change so the historic character of the district is respected while accommodating compatible improvements. They reflect the city’s goals to promote economic and sustainable development, enhance the image of the city and reuse historic resources. An essential idea is to protect historic resources in the district from alteration or demolition that might dam- age the unique fabric created by buildings and sites that make up the Old Town Historic District. The standards also promote key principles of urban design which focus on maintaining an attractive human- scaled pedestrian-oriented environment. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 5 Background POLICIES UNDERLYING THE DESIGN STANDARDS Several regulations and policy documents establish the foundation for the standards, including: City Plan Fort Collins, Historic Preservation Principle LIV 16: The quality of life in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the preservation of historic resources and inclusion of heritage in the daily life and development of the community. Policy LIV 16.1 – Survey, Identify, and Prioritize Historic Re- sources. Determine what historic resources are within the Growth Management Area, how significant these resources are, the nature and degree of threat to their preservation, and methods for their protection. Policy LIV 16.2 – Increase Awareness. Increase awareness, understanding of, and appreciation for the value of historic preservation in contributing to the quality of life in Fort Collins. Policy LIV 16.3 – Utilize Incentives. Use incentives to encourage private sector preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources. Policy LIV 16.4 – Utilize Planning and Regulations. Recog- nize the contribution of historic resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins through ongoing planning efforts and enforcement regulations. Policy LIV 16.5 – Encourage Landmark Designation. Actively encourage property owners to designate their properties as historic landmarks. Policy LIV 16.6 – Integrate Historic Structures. Explore opportunities to incorporate existing structures of historic value into new development and redevelopment activities. Principle LIV 17: Historically and architecturally significant buildings Downtown and throughout the community will be valued and preserved. Policy LIV 17.1 – Preserve Historic Buildings. Preserve his- torically significant buildings, sites and structures throughout Downtown and the community. Ensure that new building design respects the existing historic and architectural character of the surrounding district by using compatible building materials, colors, scale, mass, and design detailing of structures. Policy LIV 17.2 – Encourage Adaptive Reuse. In order to capture the resources and energy embodied in existing buildings, support and encourage the reuse, and adapta- tion of historically significant and architecturally important structures, including but not limited to Downtown buildings, historic homes, etc. Policy LIV 17.3– Ensure Congruent Energy Efficiency. Ensure that energy efficient upgrades contribute to or do not lessen the integrity of historic structures. Consider attractive means of achieving efficiency such as installing storm windows. Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cul- tural Resources Section 3.4.7 provides standards for preservation and treatment of historic properties and their incorpora- tion into new developments. It provides a good basis for design standards and guidelines as it sets the broad 6 Introduction THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The City of Fort Collins requires rehabilitation projects to be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Build- ings. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are general standards established by the National Park Service for historic properties. It is the intent of this document to be compatible with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards while expanding on the basic rehabilitation principles as they apply in Fort Collins. Standards for Rehabilitation: “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. For More Information For more information on national treatments underlying the preservation standards, see The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilita- tion: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/ rehab/rehab_index.htm For More Information: See the following web links to National Park Ser- vice Preservation Briefs and Tech Notes: http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs. htm http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech- notes.htm 5. Distinctive features, finishes, materials 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 feasible, 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. Archeological resources affected by a project shall be pro- tected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 7 Historic Preservation and Sustainability SUSTAINABILITY - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Preserving and enhancing historic places promotes the three basic components of sustainability. These are: (1) Cultural/Social Sustainability, (2) Environmental Sustainability and (3) Economic Sustainability. Each of the components is described in greater detail in the following pages. Preserving historic places promotes the three basic categories of sustainability. Environmental Sustainability Economic Sustainability Cultural/Social Sustainability SUSTAINABILITY Cultural/Social Component of Sustainability This component relates to the maintenance of the community’s cultural traditions and social fabric. Pre- serving historic places and patterns promotes cultural and social sustainability by supporting everyday con- nections between residents and the cultural heritage of the community. These connections are reinforced by the physical characteristics of historic places, which often directly support environmental sustainability. Historic properties in the district provide direct links to the past. These links convey information about earlier ways of life that help build an ongoing sense of identity within the community. Residents anchored in this sense of identity may be more involved in civic activities and overall community sustainability efforts. The historic development pattern of the district pro- motes social interaction that supports a high quality of life and helps build a sense of community. The area is compact and walkable, providing for impromptu mix- ing of different cultural and economic groups. Direct connections to the public realm provide opportunities for community interaction. This physical pattern, com- bined with the inherent cultural connections, provides significant support for the community’s overall sustain- ability effort. Environmental Component of Sustainability This is the most often cited component of sustainability. It relates to maintenance of the natural environment and the systems that support human development. Re- habilitation of historic resources is an important part of environmental sustainability and green building initia- tives. It directly supports environmental sustainability through conservation of embodied energy, adaptability, and other factors that keep historic buildings in use over long periods of time. Inherent Energy Typically historic buildings were built with energy efficiency in mind. Construction methods focused on durability and maintenance, resulting in individual build- ing features that can be repaired if damaged, thus mini- 8 Introduction tion takes three decades or more to recoup, even with the reduced operating energy costs in a replacement building. Building Materials Many of the historic building materials used in the dis- trict contribute to environmental sustainability though local sourcing and long life cycles. Buildings constructed with wood and masonry were built for longevity and ongoing repair. Today, new structures utilize a signifi- cant percentage of manufactured materials. These ma- terials are often less sustainable and require extraction of raw, non-renewable materials. High levels of energy are involved in production, and the new materials may also have an inherently short lifespan. The sustainable nature of historic building materials is best illustrated by a window: older windows were built with well seasoned wood from durable, weather resistant old growth forests. A historic window can be repaired by re-glazing as well as patching and splicing the wood elements. Many contemporary windows cannot be repaired and must be replaced entirely. Repairing, weather-stripping and insulating an original window is generally as energy efficient and much less expensive than replacement. Landfill Impacts According to the Environmental Protection Agency, building debris constitutes around a third of all waste generated in the country. The amount of waste is reduced significantly when historic structures are retained rather than demolished. Economic Component of Sustainability This component of sustainability relates to the economic balance and health of the community. The economic benefits of protecting historic resources are well documented across the nation. These include higher property values, job creation in rehabilitation industries, and increased heritage tourism. Quality of life improvements associated with living in historic districts may also help communities recruit desirable businesses. Historic Rehabilitation Projects Historic rehabilitation projects generate both direct and indirect economic benefits. Direct benefits result from the actual purchases of labor and materials, while material manufacture and transport results in indirect benefits. Preservation projects are generally more labor intensive, with up to 70% of the total project budget being spent on labor, as opposed to 50% when compared to new construction. Expenditure on local labor and materials benefits the community’s economy. Historic Preservation and Sustainability By preserving existing buildings and guiding compatible redevelopment, the Design Stan- dards promote the three key elements of com- munity sustainability: » Cultural/Social Sustainability. Preserv- ing historic places and patterns promotes cultural and social sustainability by supporting everyday connections between residents and Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 9 The Development of Old Town Fort Collins HISTORY The opening of the Overland Stage Line between Denver and Wyoming, in the early 1860s, necessitated the construction of military forts to protect coaches and immigrant trains from the threat of Indian attacks. Entering the Cache La Poudre River Valley in 1862, the 9th Kansas Volunteer Cavalry set up camp in the vicinity of Laporte, Colorado. In 1864, due to severe flooding of the Cache La Poudre and a series of military command changes, the outpost, known as Camp Col- lins, was moved to the area just southeast of the old Fort Collins Power Plant. The founding of the military post attracted citizens wishing to open mercantile establishments and thereby capitalize on trading with the nearby soldiers. Joseph Mason was the first to obtain permission from the War Department to build a store on the four-mile-square military reservation. His structure was erected in 1865 on land that later became the Linden/Jefferson inter- section. Called “Old Grout,” it served as a settler’s store, church, post office, community center, and later as the county offices and courthouse. Old Town claims the site as the foundation for the City of Fort Collins. Two other notable structures built in the area include Auntie Stone’s cabin/hotel and a flour mill. The establishment of this commercial district neces- sitated the platting of the town’s first streets. In 1867- 1868, Jack Dow and Norman H. Meldrum surveyed the area and set up streets that ran parallel to the major environmental landmark, the Cache La Poudre River. However, the influx of proprietors to Fort Collins, and specifically the Old Town area, was certainly not a stampede because when the fort closed in 1866, there were scarcely a dozen civilians in town. The subsequent departure of the soldiers put the town’s future in ques- tion. The town and its business district languished until the mid-1870s. In retrospect, the prosperity of the town was assured in an incident, called by Ansel Watrous in his History of Larimer County, “perhaps the most notable event in the early history of Fort Collins.” In the fall of 1872 the agricultural colony was established. General R. A. Cameron, originator of the Union Colo- ny in Greeley, spearheaded the drive for Fort Collins’s Agricultural Colony. The purpose of the new commune was for it to be the crop-raising group for the settlers at the Union Colony. Working with the earlier settlers of Fort Collins, the officers of the new colony organized the Larimer County Land Improvement Company. The goal of the company was to encourage settlement of the Fort Collins area. Within two months of their arrival, the company had acquired enough land for their surveyor to come in and plat new city streets. For this job they chose a young New Yorker, Franklin C. Avery, who had also platted the Union Colony. Mr. Avery, utilizing the latest techniques in city planning, laid the streets according to the cardinal points of the compass, rather than along the environmental dictates 10 Introduction The decades of the 1880s and nineties saw the addition of ornately decorated buildings like the Miller Block and the Linden Hotel. Other distinctive buildings, like the City Hall /Fire Station, added uniqueness to this area. In 1887 electric lights and the town’s first telephone enhanced Old Town’s status as the mercantile center for Fort Collins. In 1897 the Avery Building provided the link between Old Town and New Town. An early competition developed between the business people in Old Town and those with businesses near the intersec- tion of College and Mountain. The new Avery Building was a bridge that joined these two shopping areas together. But the competition between the two areas was to remain strong throughout the next century. The new century, however, brought other problems to Old Town. The Post Office, with its accompanying pedestrian traffic and long an institution in one building or another in the triangle, moved to the corner of Oak and College. Mr. Avery crossed Mountain Avenue to build yet another structure for his rapidly expanding First National Bank. By the 1900s Fort Collins was the well-settled home of Colorado’s first land-grant college, the possessor of a notable in-town railway transit system, and a very popular spot in northern Colorado for urbanite and farmer alike. On the direct railroad line between Den- ver and Cheyenne, the passenger depot on Jefferson Street in Old Town welcomed contented old-timers of the community and diverse newcomers: academic, agricultural, and financial. Fort Collins’ residents were served well by Old Town, whose offerings ranged from commodities and services found in eastern cities to items more commonly located in agricultural com- munities. These ranged from hotel accommodations, banks and restaurants to hardware stores, feed, coal and hay shops. 1889 Bird’s Eye view of Old Town Miller Block (1889) Linden Hotel (1908) Old Town (1900) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 11 The major retail businesses left the interior of the triangle to locate along College Avenue frontage in the early 1920s in response to the advent of an auto- oriented population. Other, smaller businesses soon thought it was more advantageous to move along College Avenue. After World War II the area was beginning to show signs of aging and decay. During the 1950s and 1960s, Old Town became home to social services organiza- tions, automobile maintenance facilities, and some limited retail. It also housed a collection of taverns and some low-cost housing. Revitalization began in the 1980s, with individual inves- tors who saw opportunities in rehabilitating the historic structures in the area. The Secretary of the Interior listed the Old Town Historic District in the National Register in 1978. This included all of the land area that was later (1979) designated as the local historic district, but also extended farther north to include the original fort site. This made federal income tax credits available for the certified rehabilitation of historic structures in the area. With the city’s designation of the local historic district in 1979, a formal design review process was established to assure that historic buildings would be preserved and that new construction would be compatible with the historic context. Individual investment efforts attracted more invest- ment, and in 1985 Old Town Associates proposed a redevelopment plan that included rehabilitation of several historic buildings, erection of new infill build- ings and construction of a pedestrian area for a portion of Linden Street. Revitalization continued through the turn of the twenty-first century, with substantial participation of the City of Fort Collins and the Down- town Development Authority. By 2013, the Old Town Historic District was well-established as a center for dining, retail and entertainment as well as housing and professional offices. Fort Collins’ Old Town is a reminder of its early pioneer settlement. It was established by people who purchased lands from a real estate company in order to ward off the loneliness of the prairies, to profit by the experience and expertise of their new neighbors, and to furnish their families with social amenities that were long in coming to communities situated farther east on the Great Plains. Old Town demonstrates how these people settled a new area and used local materials to decorate it with styles current in the East, creating a substantial, as well as unique, latter nineteenth-century American community. Historic Development Patterns Old Town retains many framework elements from its early history; other features have changed over time. The fact that it has remained dynamic is a part of its heritage. For this reason, remaining resources which help to interpret that span of human occupation and use are valued. While a row of historic buildings may be easily un- derstood as defining a particular span of time, other 12 Introduction Circa 1920’s image of Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. Streets that run at an angle to the standard grid pattern of the rest of town give the Old Town Historic District a distinct triangular shape that is clearly visible. The River District is visible in this image as well. (Aerial image looking south east.) Jefferson ST Linden ST Mountain AVE Walnut ST North College AVE Pine ST 2.3.d Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 1 USING THE DESIGN STANDARDS 2.3.d Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 15 Design Review System The Landmarks Preservation Commission and City staff shall take these factors into consideration when reviewing proposed work: › The significance of the property › The context, with respect to other historic properties › The location of any key, character-defining features › The condition of those features › The landmark status › Eligibility status of the property In addition, there are many cases in which the stan- dards state that one particular solution is preferred, such as for the replacement of a damaged or missing feature, but the text further notes that some alterna- tives may be considered if the preferred approach is not feasible. In determining such feasibility, the city will also consider: › The reasonable availability of the preferred material › The skill required to execute the preferred approach › The quality, appearance and character of alternative solutions, such as new materials. TERMS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE When applying design standards, the City has the abil- ity to balance a combination of objectives and intent statements that appear throughout the document, in the interest of helping to achieve the most appropriate design for each project. Because of this, and the fact that the design standards are also written to serve an educational role as well as a regulatory one, the language sometimes appears more conversational than that in the body of the City Code. To clarify how some terms are used, these definitions shall apply: Standard In this document the term “standard” is a criterion with which the City will require compliance when it is found applicable to the specific land-use activity. Shall Where the term “shall” is used, compliance is specifi- cally required, when the statement is applicable to the proposed project. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 16Standards Using the Design Where the Design Standards Apply The design standards apply to all properties within the Old Town Historic District. They also apply as guidelines to eligible and designated properties within the River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District. These areas and properties are identified on the map below. North NTS Map Key National Register District Old Town Historic District River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District 2.3.d Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 17 Design Standards Organization DESIGN REVIEW TRACKS The design standards chapters are grouped into three “tracks” for purposes of design review. Staff will deter- mine which track a project will follow. (See the chart on the following page.) These are: › Preservation Track › New Building Track › Other Improvements Track Follow these steps to get started: Step 1 What Type of Improvement? Determine the nature of the improvements that are planned. There are three categories: Existing Building If improvements are planned to an existing building, determine if it has historic significance or not. This will influence which review track applies. New Building Will the planned improvements include construction of a new building? If so, then the “New Construction Track” applies. This includes a new structure to be erected on a vacant lot; adding a new structure to a lot with an existing building on it; or providing an addi- tion to an existing noncontributing building where one already exists. Other Work Site improvements, signs and other miscellaneous projects follow this third track. Step 2 What Type of Existing Building? All existing structures in the Old Town Historic District are classified with respect to their historic significance, using criteria established by the National Park Service. The City will work with the property owner to confirm the status of historic significance. Two classifications are used: Contributing Property A “contributing” property is one determined to be historically significant. It is so because it was present during the period of significance and possesses suf- ficient integrity to convey its history, or is capable of yielding important information about that period. Note that some properties may have experienced some degree of alteration from their historic designs. These alterations may include window replacement, cornice removal, a porch enclosure or covering of a building’s historic materials. Nonetheless, these altered properties retain sufficient building fabric to still be considered contributors. For all contributing properties, the Preservation Track shall apply. Noncontributing Property The classification of “noncontributing” applies to exist- ing buildings that do not possess sufficient significance and/or exterior integrity necessary for designation, and are considered noncontributing to a district. The New Construction Track applies to these properties, except as noted below. Noncontributing, but Restorable In some cases, an older noncontributing property which has been substantially altered could be restored 18Standards Using the Design WHICH TRACK APPLIES? The standards are organized into groups of chapters that represent “tracks” for different types of improvements. This chart defines the track that will apply to a specific proposal. New Building Existing Building Step 1 Restorable Non- Applicable Step 2 Noncontributing Other Other Track New Bldg. Track Contributing Preservation Track WHICH CHAPTERS APPLY? Use this chart to determine which chapters of the design standards apply to a proposed improvement project. Some projects will include work in more than one track; in this case a combination of chapters will apply. TYPE OF WORK SECTION TO USE: Introduction I. Using the Design Standards II. Planning a Preservation Project III. Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources IV. Design Standards for All Properties V. Design Standards for New Construction VI. Design Standards for Signs Preservation Track Rehabilitate a contributing property 4 4 4 4 4 (1) (1) Restore a noncontributing property 4 4 4 4 4 (1) (1) New Building Track Improve a noncontributing property 4 4 4 4 (1) Construct a new building 4 4 4 4 (1) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 19 Permitted and Prohibited Solutions In many cases, images and dia- grams in the historic preservation standards are marked to indicate whether they represent permitted or prohibited solutions 4 A check mark indicates permitted solutions. 8 An X mark indicates solutions that are prohibited. DESIGN STANDARDS FORMAT The historic preservation standards are presented in a standardized format as illustrated below. A Windows Key A Design Topic Heading B Intent Statement: This explains the desired outcome for the specific design element and provides a basis for the design standards that follow. C Design Standard: This describes a desired outcome related to the intent statement. D Additional Information: This provides a bullet list of examples of how, or how not to, comply with the standard. E Illustration(s): These provide photos and/or diagrams to illustrate related conditions or possible ap- proaches. They may illustrate per- mitted or prohibited solutions as described at right. B Historic windows help convey the significance of historic structures, and shall be preserved. They can be repaired by re-glazing and patching and splicing elements such as muntins, the frame, sill and casing. Repair and weatherization also is more energy efficient, and less expensive than replacement. If an original window cannot be repaired, new replacement windows shall be in character with the historic building. C 1.1 Maintain and repair historic windows. D » Preserve historic window features including the frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. » Repair and maintain windows regularly, including trim, glazing putty and glass panes. » Repair, rather than replace, frames and sashes. » Restore altered window openings to their historic configuration. E Sidebars These provide additional infor- 20Standards Using the Design 2.3.d Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) II PLANNING A PRESERVATION PROJECT 2.3.d Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 23 What Does Historic Preservation Mean? Historic preservation means keeping historic proper- ties and places in active use while accommodating appropriate improvements to sustain their viability and character. It also means keeping historic resources for the benefit of future generations. That is, while maintaining properties in active use is the immediate objective, this is in part a means of assuring that these resources will be available for others to enjoy in the future. Historic preservation does not mean necessarily freez- ing properties or districts in time. Historic preserva- tion seeks to manage change to preserve authenticity and historic craftsmanship while adapting to existing and future needs. This section summarizes important steps and ap- proaches to consider when planning a preservation project › Planning a Preservation Project › Case Studies › Designing in Context › Historic Building Styles When planning a preservation project, it is important to determine historic significance, assess integrity and determine program requirements prior to outlining a treatment strategy that will inform the overall project scope. ACCEPTED TREATMENTS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES The following list describes permitted treatments for historic resources that may be considered when planning a preservation project. Much of the language addresses buildings; however, sites, objects and struc- tures are also relevant. Preservation “Preservation” is the act of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity and material of a building. Work focuses on keeping a property in good work- ing condition with proactive maintenance. While the term “preservation” is used broadly to mean keeping a historic property’s significant features, it is also used in this more specific, technical form in this document. Restoration “Restoration” is the act or process of accurately de- picting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared in a particular time period. Features from later periods must be removed for an accurate restoration and to use the Restoration Treatment. This may apply to an entire building, or to restoring a particular missing feature. Reconstruction “Reconstruction” is the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific time and in its historic location. This has limited application, in terms of an entire build- ing, but may apply to a missing feature on a building. Rehabilitation 24Project Planning a Preservation STEPS TO CONSIDER FOR A SUCCESSFUL PRESERVATION PROJECT. Follow the steps below when planning a preservation project. Step 1. Review reasons for significance: The reasons for significance will influence the degree of rigor with which the standards are applied, because it affects which features will be determined to be key to preserve. Identifying the building’s period of significance is an important first step. Step 2. Identify key features: A historic property has integrity. It has a suf- ficient percentage of key character-defining features and characteristics from its period of significance which remain intact. Step 3. Identify program requirements for the desired project: The functional requirements for the property drive the work to be considered. If the existing use will be maintained, then preservation will be the focus. If changes in use are planned, then some degree of compatible alterations may be needed. Step 4. Implement a treatment strategy: A permitted treatment strategy will emerge once historic significance, integrity and program requirements have been determined. A preservation project may include a range of activities, such as maintenance of existing historic elements, repair of deteriorated materials, the replacement of missing features and construction of a new addition. Planning a Preservation Project A successful preservation project shall consider the significance of the historic resources, its key features, and the project’s program requirements. The tables and diagrams presented here and on the following pages provide overall guidance for planning a preserva- tion project. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 25 PREFERRED SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS Selecting an appropriate treatment for a character-defining feature is important. The method that requires the least intervention is always preferred. By following this tenet, the highest degree of integrity will be maintained. The following treat- ment options appear in order of preference. When making a selection, follow this sequence: Step 1. Preserve: If a feature is intact and in good condition, maintain it as such. Step 2. Repair: If the feature is deteriorated or damaged, repair it to its historic condition. Step 3. Replace: If it is not feasible to repair the feature, then replace it in kind, (e.g., materials, detail, finish). Replace only that portion which is beyond repair. Step 4. Reconstruct: If the feature is missing entirely, reconstruct it from ap- propriate evidence. If a portion of a feature is missing, it can also be reconstructed. Step 5. Compatible Alterations: If a new feature (one that did not exist previ- ously) or an addition is necessary, design it in such a way as to minimize the impact on historic features. It is also important to distinguish a new feature on a historic building from the historic features, in subtle ways. For More Information For more information regarding the treat- ments for a historic resource please visit the National Park Service web site: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/index. htm If a feature is deteriorated or damaged, repair it to its his- toric condition. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 26Project Planning a Preservation A C B or D E WHICH AREAS ARE THE MOST SENSITIVE TO PRESERVE? For most historic resources in the Old Town Historic District, the front wall is the most important to preserve intact. Alterations are rarely permitted. Many side walls are also important to preserve where they are highly visible from the street. By contrast, portions of a side wall not as visible may be less sensitive to change. The rear wall is sometimes the least important (excepting free-standing landmarks, those along improved alleys or certain civic and industrial buildings), and alterations can occur more easily without causing negative effects to the historic significance of the property. Location A. Primary Façade: Preservation and repair of features in place is the priority. This is especially important at the street level and in locations where the feature is highly visible. Location B. Second- ary Wall, Which Is Highly Visible: Some flexibility in treatment may be considered with a compatible replacement or alteration. Location C. Secondary Wall, Which Is Not Highly Visible: Preserva- tion is still preferred; however, a compatible replacement or alteration may be acceptable when it is not visible to the public. More flexibility in treat- ment may be considered. Location D. Highly Visible Rear Wall: This applies to many cultural buildings of historic significance, such as civic buildings, improved alleys and other landmarks that are viewed “in the round” or border a public space such as a park. Preservation and repair in place is the priority. Location E. Rear Wall That Is Not Highly Visible: A compatible replacement or alteration may be acceptable when it is not visible to the public. A higher level of flexibility in treatment may be considered. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 27 ALTERED HISTORIC COMMERCIAL FACADE The starting condition. Missing Cornice Historic Windows Altered Storefront DEVELOPING A PRESERVATION STRATEGY The standards discuss a range of preservation options, including reconstruction and replacement of features in various ways. When applied to a building that is al- ready altered, which would be the best approach? This diagram outlines the approaches to consider in making that decision. When should I use this treatment? » There is substantial alteration, making other options difficult. » There is less information about the historic design. » The context (the block lacks a substantial number of historic structures that retain integrity) has more variety. » Financial assistance is not a priority. When should I use this treatment? » The building is part of the fabric of the district. » There is less information available about the historic design. » A phased project is planned. » To receive some financial assistance. When should I use this treatment? » The building is highly significant. » There is good historical information about the design. » The needed materials and craftsmen are available. » The context has many intact historic buildings. » To receive the most financial assistance. Approach 3: Rehabilitation (contemporary interpretation) Approach 1: Accurate Restoration 4 Approach 2: 28Project Planning a Preservation Historic building remodel. Interim improvements to the building included removing the canopy, providing a new sign and painting the stucco covering. A later rehabilitation effort included remov- ing the stucco, reconstructing the cornice and installing a new storefront system. 4 4 PHASING PRESERVATION PROJECTS In some cases, a property owner may wish to make interim improvements, rather than execute a complete rehabilitation of a historic property. This work shall be planned such that it establishes a foundation for future improvements that will further assure continued use of the property and retain its historic significance. For example, a simplified cornice element may be installed on a commercial storefront, in lieu of reconstructing the historic design, with the intent that an accurate reconstruction would occur later. Plan interim improvements to retain opportunities for future rehabilitation work that will enhance the integrity of a historic property. › Preserve key character-defining features while making interim improvements. › Interim improvements that would foreclose op- portunities for more extensive rehabilitation in the future are not permitted. BEALS & REED BLOCK Address: 160 North College Avenue 2.3.d Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 29 Case Studies CASE STUDIES Numerous rehabilitation projects have been suc- cessfully completed since the adoption of the design standards. Some examples appear in this section. They include “before and after” pairings. Some of these in- clude photographs from the early years when this was the center of commerce. Then, images from the 1970s and 1980s document interim conditions, when many buildings had been altered. Finally, more recent photo- graphs, generally from 2013, illustrate the progressive rehabilitation and continuing revitalization of the area. These case studies demonstrate the benefits of the on-going stewardship of the historic resources in the district, and of the positive effects that local historic district designation has had. They further demonstrate successful solutions for many of the design topics ad- dressed in this standards document. WALNUT STREET BLOCK Address: 200 block of Walnut Street, north side In the upper photos (ca. 1981), storefronts have been altered, upper story windows have been reduced in size and new materials obscure historic masonry. In the lower photo, windows and storefronts are restored, and historic brick facades are revealed. 4 8 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 30Project Planning a Preservation AVERY BLOCK Address: 100 block of North College, 100 block of Linden Street An early image of the Avery Block exhibits a distinctive line of ground level storefronts. In 1981, storefronts had been altered, and the distinctive mid-belt cornice line was obscured. In 2013, a reconstructed cornice reestablished a distinctive hori- zontal feature, and awning once more reflect the dimensions of each storefront bay. 4 4 4 4 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 31 ANTLERS BLOCK Address: 200 block of Linden Street, east side An early view of the Antlers hotel and associated buildings in its block demonstrates a variety in building heights, but a sense of continuity is established by the horizontal alignment of storefront level moldings and second story cornices. In 1981, many historic features remain, but minor alterations have occurred, and some details are obscured by monochromatic paint schemes. One of the buildings has been rehabilitated in this image and modifica- tions have occurred on other buildings. After rehabilitation (photo: 2013), buildings have been adapted to new uses while the key, character-defining features that contribute to their historic significance have been preserved. 4 4 8 4 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 32Project Planning a Preservation LINDEN STREET Address: 200 block of Linden Street, west side The northern end of the Linden Street block in 1980 appears with several storefronts missing, and a mono- chromatic paint scheme diminishes one’s perception of the distinctive architectural details. A close-up view of the storefront at 252 Linden, in 1980 shows the miss- ing storefront. After rehabilitation in the mid-1980s, many storefronts have been reconstructed. Architectural details are highlighted with contrasting color schemes. The left-most storefront remains altered, but other features on this facade have been pre- served. In 2013, awnings and signs have been added, and color schemes have changed. This demonstrates the ongoing adaptive use of these properties, while preserving their historic significance. In the mid-1980s, after the store- front has been reconstructed. 4 4 4 8 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 33 THE MCPHERSON BLOCK Address: 100 block of Linden Street, west side Ca. 1980, Black’s Glass, with a missing mid-belt molding, and historic storefront altered. The transom also is covered, changing the proportions of the ground level. In 2013, storefronts and the midbelt molding are recon- structed. 4 8 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 34Project Planning a Preservation OLD FIRE STATION AND CITY HALL Address: 200 block Walnut Street, north side The old city hall and fire station occupied two buildings side- by-side on Walnut Street. A distinctive arch identified the door for fire engines. In 1980, the two buildings appear as one metal clad facade. The storefront for city hall has been removed, and the doorway for fire engines has been widened. At the beginning of rehabilitation in the early 1980s, damage to the historic masonry is vis- ible. The hose tower also is missing. Lower left: Shortly after rehabilitation, reconstructed cornices and storefront are visible. A more contemporary storefront, using dark metal components, is used in the historic fire engine entry, to signify that this is a later alteration. The tower also is reconstructed. Lower right: In 2012, awnings and signs have changed, but the key features of the building remain intact, demonstrating the continuing use of this historic resource. 4 4 8 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 35 J.L.HOHNSTEIN BLOCK Address: 220 East Mountain Avenue An early view of the Hohnstein block documents the tall first floor and the distinctive masonry arch details on the upper floor. In 1980, metal cladding obscures most of the key character-defining features of the building front. In the early 1980s, the initial reha- bilitation revealed key features of the facade. Almost 30 years later, in 2013, the building continues to be in active service. An outdoor dining area reflects a new use, but is designed to remain visually subordinate to the historic building. Note the historic sign on the side wall. 4 8 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 36Project Planning a Preservation MILLER BLOCK Address: 11 Old Town Square In 1979, wood paneling obscures historic storefronts. Shortly after construction of the plaza in Old Town Square, (ca. 1985), new awnings define the dimensions of individual storefront bays. In 2013, key features remain preserved. Different awning colors distinguish individual businesses while retaining the overall visual continuity of the building. In this early photo, the Miller building stands as a signature building at Linden and Walnut streets; diagonally from the Linden Hotel. 4 4 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 37 In this early photo, the Linden Hotel stands as the signature building at the corner of Linden and Walnut Streets In 1980s, historic masonry is covered with a cementatious plaster and the storefronts have been altered. Some upper story windows have been blocked up. Again in the early 1980s, the Linden in an altered state. The Sal- vation Army and Reed and Dauth buildings are to the right. In 2013, the Linden is once more the icon for Old Town Fort Collins. THE LINDEN HOTEL Address: 201 Linden Street 4 8 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 38Project Planning a Preservation Designing in Context District-wide Block Immediate Surroundings A fundamental principle of the design standards is that projects shall be planned to be compatible with the context. This is especially relevant to the design of an addition or new building. Levels of Context Consideration Context shall be considered at these levels: › District-wide – in terms of the qualitative features, such as the orientation of the street, alley, street wall, buildings and features › The block – which focuses on the collection of buildings, sites and structures in the area › Immediate surroundings – properties adjacent to, facing or overlooking a specific site Note: The contexts are highlighted in white and the mock project area is identified with a heavy black line. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 39 Historic Architectural Styles The Architectural Style descriptions will assist the City in determining which features are key to a property’s significance. Note that styles are rarely “pure” in form, and a wide range exists within individual styles. Please see the Appendix for a description of the Architectural Styles found in the Old Town Historic District. The majority of the buildings styles found in the Old Town Historic District are shown here. Nineteenth-Century Commercial, Richardsonian Romanesque Early Twentieth - Century Commercial, single storefront. architectural style Nineteenth-Century Commercial, Italianate architectural style that is fifty feet or more with multiple entrances. Historic Architectural Styles Information about Fort Collins’s historic architec- tural styles is available from a number of sources, including: › The City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Division › City of Fort Collins, Central Business District Development and Residential Architecture, Historic Contexts, November 1992 › A Cultural Resources Inventory of The Old Fort Site, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 2002 › See History Colorado web link at: http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/ colorados-historic-architecture-engineering-web- guide See also the following reference book: › What Style is it? A Guide to American Architec- ture. John C. Poppeliers, S. Allen Chambers, Jr., Nancy B Schwartz. Historic Building Survey, National Park Service, US Depart- ment of the Interior. 1983 › Visual Dictionary of Architecture. Francis D.K. Ching. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1995 › A Field Guide to American Houses. Virginia & Lee McAlester. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. 1984 4 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 40Project Planning a Preservation Overarching Preservation Principles The following design principles apply to all historic properties and will be used when evaluating the appropriateness of related work: 2 .1 Respect the historic character of a property. › The basic form and materials of a building, as well as architectural details, are a part of the historic character. › Don’t try to change the style of a historic re- source or make it look older than its actual age. › Confusing the character by mixing elements of different styles or periods can adversely affect the historic significance of the property. 2.2 Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the property. › Converting a building to a new use different from the historic use is considered to be an “adaptive reuse,” and is a sound strategy for keeping an old building in service. For example, converting a residential structure to offices is an adaptive use. A good adaptive use project retains the historic character of the building while accommodating a new function. › Every effort shall be made to provide a compat- ible use for the building that will require minimal alteration to the building and its site. Protect and maintain significant features and stylistic elements. › Changes in use requiring the least alteration to significant elements are preferred. In most cases designs can be developed that respect the historic integrity of the building while also accommodating new functions. 2.3 Protect and maintain significant features and stylistic elements. › Distinctive stylistic features and other examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be preserved. The best preservation procedure is to maintain historic features from the outset to prevent the need for repair later. Appropriate maintenance includes rust removal, caulking and repainting. › These features shall not be removed. 2.4 Repair deteriorated historic features and replace only those elements that cannot be repaired. › When necessary, upgrade existing materials, using recognized preservation methods. If disas- sembly is necessary for repair or restoration, use methods that minimize damage to historic materials and facilitate reassembly. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES III 2.3.d Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 43 Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources Architectural details help convey the significance of historic properties, and shall be preserved. The method of preservation that requires the least intervention is expected. For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character - Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Character. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to- preserve/briefs/17-architectural- character.htm The City seeks to preserve the historic integrity of properties of historic significance in the Old Town Historic District. This means employing best practices in property stewardship to maintain the key character- defining features of individual historic resources, as well as maintaining the context in which they exist. This section provides standards for the treatment of historic properties in Old Town. It focuses on the rehabilitation and maintenance of character-defining features of each individual contributing property as well as the district as a whole. The standards in this section do not apply to new construction. The standards translate the general principles for historic preservation outlined in the preceding chapter to the treatment of individual building features and components that are found typically in the district. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS Architectural details help convey the historic and architectural significance of historic properties, and shall be preserved. The method of preservation that requires the least intervention is expected. 3.1 Maintain significant architectural details. › Retain and treat exterior stylistic features and examples of skilled craftsmanship with sensitiv- ity. › Employ preventive maintenance measures such as rust removal, caulking and repainting. 4 4 4 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 44Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic Historic Architectural Details Typical historic architectural details to preserve include: › Cornices and eaves › Moldings and brackets › Windows and doors and surrounds › Modillions and other surface ornamenta- tion › Columns › Storefronts › Please see the Architectural Styles section in the Appendix. 3.2 Repair , rather than replace, significant architectural details if they are damaged. › Do not remove or alter distinctive architec- tural details that are in good condition or that can be repaired. › Document the location of a historic feature that must be removed to be repaired so it may be repositioned accurately. › Patch, piece-in, splice, consolidate or otherwise upgrade deteriorated features using recognized preservation methods. › Minimize damage to historic architectural de- tails when repairs are necessary. › Protect significant features that are adjacent to the area being worked on. Retain and treat exterior stylistic features and examples of skilled craftsmanship with sensitivity. Maintain significant architectural details, including: projecting cornices, masonry patterns, decorative moldings, double-hung wood windows and other decorative fea- tures. 4 4 Document the location of a historic feature that must be removed and repaired so it may be repositioned accu- rately. 4 Patch, piece-in, splice, con- solidate or otherwise upgrade deteriorated features using recognized preservation meth- ods. 4 For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 27: The Mainte- nance and Repair of Architectural Cast Iron http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/27-cast-iron.htm and Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 45 3.3 Reconstruct an architectural feature accurately if it cannot be repaired. › Use a design that is substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a misrepre- sentation of the building’s history. › Use the same kind of material as the historic detail. However, an alternative material may be considered if it: › Has proven durability › Has a size, shape, texture and finish that conveys the visual appearance of the his- toric feature. › Is located in a place that is remote from view or direct physical contact › Do not add architectural details that were not part of the historic structure. For example, decorative millwork shall not be added to a building if it was not a historic feature as doing so would convey a false history. The rehabilitation of the Reed and Dauth building included reconstruction of missing features. Using historic photographs, a cornice was constructed to match the historic in character. An alter- native material (wood) was used instead of the historic metal. Before rehabilitation (ca. 1980) During rehabilitation (ca. 1982) The rehabilitated Reed and Dauth building, 223 Linden Street (2013) During rehabilitation (ca. 1982) 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 46Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic These buildings demonstrate a successful reconstruction of a missing cornice. See the image above for the historic condition. Loomis Building, 213-217 Linden Street 4 Use historic photos as a source for reconstructing a missing detail. Interim image of missing cornice. 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 47 MATERIALS AND FINISHES Historic materials shall be preserved in place. If the material is damaged, limited replacement to match the historic should be considered. Historic building materials shall never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments. Preserving historic building mate- rials and limiting replacement to only pieces which are deteriorated beyond repair also reduces the demand for, and environmental impacts from, the production of new materials and therefore supports the city’s sustainability objectives. 3.4 Maintain historic building materials. › Protect historic building materials from dete- rioration (see “Maintaining Historic Materials” at right for information on treating different types of materials). › Do not remove historic materials that are in good condition. › Use a low pressure water wash if cleaning is permitted. Chemical cleaning may be consid- ered if a test patch does not have a negative effect on the historic fabric (test patch shall be reviewed by City preservation department). › Do not use harsh cleaning methods, which can inhibit the function and/or appearance of the historic material, (such as sandblasting, which can damage its protective coating.) Maintaining Historic Materials Primary historic building materials include masonry (brick, mortar, stone, and concrete), wood and metal. These shall be preserved and repaired. 4 Appropriate treatments to protect specific materi- als from deterioration include: Masonry › Maintain the natural water-protective layer (patina). › Do not paint, unless it was painted historically (this can seal in moisture, which may cause extensive damage over time). › Re-point deteriorated masonry mortar joints with mortar that matches the strength, com- position, color and texture of the historic material. Wood › Maintain paint and other protective coatings to retard deterioration and ultraviolet dam- age. › Provide proper drainage and ventilation. Metal › Maintain protective coatings, such as paint, on exposed metals. › Provide proper drainage. Do not use harsh cleaning methods, such as sandblasting, which can damage his- toric materials. 48Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic 3.5 Repair historic building materials when needed. › Repair deteriorated building materials by patch- ing, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the material. › Replace only those materials that are deterio- rated, and beyond reasonable repair. 3.6 Replace historic building materials in kind. › Use the same material as the historic material to replace damaged building materials. › Also use historic materials to replace damaged building materials on a non-primary façade. › Replace only the amount of material that is beyond repair. › Use only replacement materials that are similar in scale, finish and character to the historic material. › Use only replacement materials with proven durability. › Do not replace building materials, such as masonry and wood siding, with alternative or imitation materials, unless no other option is available. Repair deteriorated building materials, when needed. 4 Alternative or replacement materi- als shall match the style and detail of the historic fabric and be durable in the local climate, such as these cast concrete details that replace missing stone features. 4 For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 16: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/16-substitute-materials.htm Typical Materials Typical historic building materials used in Old Town Fort Collins include: » Masonry › Brick › Stone › Terra Cotta › Poured Concrete › Pre-cast Concrete » Wood » Metal › Cast iron, › Copper › Sheet metal Understanding the character of these materials and the patterns they create is essential to their Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 49 3.7 Preserve the visibility of historic materials. › Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. › Once a non-historic material is removed, repair the historic, underlying material. › Do not cover or obscure historic building ma- terials. › Do not add another layer of new material if a property already has a non-historic building material covering the historic material. Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance (left) to reveal the underlying historic materials (right). 8 4 For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 1: Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1- cleaning-water-repellent.htm See web link to Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2- repoint-mortar-joints.htm 2.3.d Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 50Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic WINDOWS Historic windows help convey the significance of historic structures, and shall be preserved. They can be repaired by re-glazing and patching and splicing elements such as muntins, the frame, sill and casing. Repair and weatherization also is often more energy efficient, and less expensive, than replacement. If a his- toric window cannot be repaired, a new replacement window shall be in character with the historic building. 3.8 Maintain and repair historic windows. › Preserve historic window features including the frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and group- ings of windows. › Repair and maintain windows regularly, includ- ing trim, glazing putty and glass panes. › Repair, rather than replace, frames and sashes. › Restore altered window openings to their his- toric configuration. Historic Window Components Window components include: › Sash › Frame › Number of lights (panes) › Shutters › Security Devices (bars and screens) › Insect screens › Storm windows 4 4 4 Before rehabilitation: upper story windows in need of repair. After rehabilitation: repaired windows. 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 51 3.9 Replace a historic window with a matching design if repair is not possible. › Replace with the same material. › Match the appearance of the historic window design (i.e., if the historic is double-hung, use a double-hung replacement window). › Maintain the historic size, shape and number of panes. › Match the profile of the sash, muntin and its components to the historic window, including the depth of the sash, which may step back to the plane of the glass in several increments. › Use clear window glazing that conveys the vi- sual appearance of historic glazing (transparent low-e glass is preferred). › Do not use vinyl and unfinished metals as win- dow replacement materials. › Do not use metallic or reflective window glaz- ing. › Do not reduce a historic opening to accom- modate a smaller window or increase it to accommodate a larger window. 4 Before rehabilitation: historic windows are missing. After rehabilitation: historic openings are restored. 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 52Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic Alternative Window Material If it is not possible to match the historic design and materials of a window, then an alternative design may be considered in the following locations: › On a non-primary façade, accessory build- ing or addition › On a primary façade if no other option is available Alternative window designs shall: › Match the general profile and details of the historic window. › Use materials that match the historic ap- pearance in dimension, profile and finish. Match the appearance of a historic window design (i.e., if the historic is double-hung, use a double-hung replacement window). Replace historic windows (top) with a matching design (bottom), if repair is not possible. 4 Do not reduce a historic opening to accommodate a smaller win- dow or increase it to accommodate a larger window. 8 4 8 2.3.d Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 53 3.10 Use special care when replacing a window on a primary façade. › Give special attention to matching the historic design and materials of windows located on the façade. › Also, match the historic design when replacing a window located on a secondary wall. 3.11 Design a storm window to minimize its visual impacts. › If a window did not historically have a storm window, place a new storm window internally to avoid exterior visual impacts. › Use storm windows designed to match the historic window frame if placed externally. › Use insect screens with painted wooden frames where wood windows exist. 3.12 Restore a historic window opening that has been altered. › Restore a historic window opening that previ- ously existed. › Place a new window to fit within the historic opening. Place storm windows internally to avoid exterior visual impacts (right). Use storm window inserts designed to match the historic frame if placed externally (left). 4 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 8 4 For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9- wooden-windows.htm See web link to Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/13-steel-windows.htm See web link to window retrofit article from the National Trust for Historic Preservation web site http://www.preservationnation.org/who-we-are/ press-center/press-releases/2012/new-windows- study.html Web link to window treatments National Park Service Tech Notes. Scroll down page to window to secure links http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/tech- notes.htm 2.3.d Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 54Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic 3.13 When necessary, locate and design a new window opening to preserve the overall rhythm and arrangement of windows on a secondary building wall. › Locate a new window opening to match the general arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. › Design a new window opening to match historic window proportions on the same façade. 3.14 Enhance the energy efficiency of historic windows and doors. › Make the best use of historic windows; keep them in good repair and seal all the leaks. › Maintain the glazing compound regularly. Remove old putty with care. › Place a storm window internally to avoid the impact upon external appearance. › Use storm windows designed to match the historic window frame if placed externally. Double-hung windows found in many historic structures allow for transferring cool air in and warm air out during the summer months. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 55 DOORS AND ENTRIES The design, materials and location of historic doors and entries help establish the significance of a historic structure and shall be preserved. When a new door is needed, it shall be in character with the building. 3.15 Maintain a historic primary entrance. › Preserve historic and decorative features, including door frames, sills, heads, jambs, mold- ings, detailing, transoms and flanking sidelights. › Do not alter the historic size and shape of a historic door opening. › Do not change the historic locations of door openings on primary façades. › Do not add a new door opening on a primary façade. › Do not enclose transoms or sidelights. 3.16 Repair or replace a damaged door to maintain its general historic appearance. › Use materials that are similar to that of the historic door. › When replacing a historic door on a primary façade, use a design that is similar to the historic door. › When replacing a historic door on a non- primary façade, use a design that is in character. Historic Door and Entry Components Historic door and entry features include: › Door Detailing › Sills › Surround › Transoms › Heads › Threshold › Moldings › Jambs › Landing (i.e., mosaic tiles) › Flanking sidelights › Hardware Maintain a historic primary entrance design. The design, materi- als and location of historic doors and entries help establish the significance of a historic structure and shall be preserved. 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 56Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic 3.17 Locate and design a new door and entry to preserve the historic composition. › Locate a new door to be consistent with the historic architectural style of the structure. › Design a new door or entry to match historic door proportions. Design a new door or entry to match historic door proportions. 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 57 COMMERCIAL STOREFRONTS A historic commercial storefront is a key defining feature of a historic commercial building and shall be preserved. A historic storefront is usually framed by masonry side walls and a horizontal cornice or lintel above the storefront windows. The space within is highly transparent, including large transom windows over the display windows. A store entrance is usually recessed behind the plane of the façade and the cornice or lintel separates the storefront from upper floors. Preserving significant historic storefronts and recon- structing altered or missing storefront features is a key goal. Researching archival materials such as historic photos and building plans can be helpful in understand- ing the role of the storefront and its relationship to the street. 3.18 Maintain and repair a historic commercial storefront. › Maintain interest for pedestrians by maintaining an active street level storefront. › Preserve the storefront glass if it is intact. › Repair historic storefront elements by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the historic materials. › Do not alter the size and shape of a storefront opening. › Do not use reflective, opaque or tinted glass. › Do not remove or enclose a transom. › Retain the relationship of the storefront to the sidewalk. 3.19 Replace storefront features to match historic features if necessary. › Use traditional materials such as masonry and wood. › If using traditional materials is not possible, use compatible substitute materials that are similar in scale, finish and character to the historic material, and have proven durability in the local climate. › Use historical documentation to guide the design of replacement features, or design simplified versions of similar elements seen on nearby historic properties, if no documentation is available. › Expose historic storefront elements that have been covered by modern siding or other ma- terials. 4 Before rehabilitation: historic storefront components survive. (ca. 1980) After the initial rehabilitation storefront components are retained. (ca. 1982) Storefront components continue to be pre- served. (2013) For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 11: Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ 58Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic 3.20 Reconstruct a missing storefront to match the character, scale and materials of the historic. › Use historical documentation to guide the design of the reconstruction. Traditional Commercial Storefront Features Historic commercial storefronts typically feature a tall ground floor level while upper stories have shorter floor-to-floor heights. The key character-defining features of a commercial storefront are: Molding or Lintel Transom Display Window Bulkhead/Kickplate Recessed Entry Engaged Column or Pilaster Contemporary Storefront Designs When a historic storefront is largely missing, it may be appropriate to design a replacement that is a contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. A contemporary replacement design shall: › Promote pedestrian interest and an active street-level façade › Use high-quality, durable materials that are similar in type and scale to traditional materials › Be located within the historic structural frame of sidewalls and lintel or cornice that spaces the storefront opening › Convey the characteristics of typical his- toric storefronts › Include traditional storefront elements such as a bulkhead and transom › Maintain the transparent character of the display windows › Provide a recessed entry › Use a simple and relatively undecorated design › Relate to traditional elements of the façade above › Preserve early storefront alterations that have become historically significant 3.21 A simplified or contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront may be considered where the historic storefront is missing and no evidence of it exists. › Where the historic is missing and no evidence of the historic storefront exists, a new design that uses traditional features of a storefront is permitted. › The new design shall continue to convey the design character and materials of typical com- mercial storefronts. This includes the transpar- ent character of the glass. › Use simple color combinations (see “Permitted Color Combinations for a Commercial Store- front” on page 61 for more information). 4 Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 59 HISTORIC ROOFS Many roofs in the Old Town Historic District are flat and are concealed from view, where changes may not affect the integrity of the structure. For those that are visible, the form, shape and significant materials of a historic roof help define the character of a historic structure as it is perceived from the public way and shall be preserved. 3.22 Preserve the historic roofline on a historic structure. › Maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. 3.23 Maintain and repair historic roof materials. › Preserve decorative elements, including crests and chimneys. › Retain and repair roof detailing, including gut- ters and downspouts. EXPOSED HISTORIC FOUNDATIONS A historic building foundation contributes to the charac- ter of a historic structure and shall be preserved. Altering or replacing historic foundation walls is discour- aged. However, it may be necessary to replace historic foundation walls with compatible new materials where the historic foundation is deteriorated beyond repair. 3.24 Maintain and repair a historic foundation. › Re-point historic masonry foundations to match the historic design. › Design landscaping and other site features to keep water from collecting near the foundation. › Do not cover a historic foundation with newer siding material. › Do not install windows, window wells or an access door on the front façade of a historic foundation. Historic Roof Features Historic roof features to maintain include: › Parapet profile › Historic height and profile. › Historic materials › Historic skylights › Parapet crests Maintenance Tips: › Look for breaks or holes in the roof surface and check the flashing for open seams. › Watch for vegetation, such as moss and grass, which indicates accumulated dirt and retained moisture. › Patch and replace areas with damaged roof material (often, repairing a roof can be much less expensive than complete replacement). 2.3.d Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 60Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic 3.25 Replace a foundation wall using new material that is similar in character to the historic foundation. › For example, if a stone foundation must be replaced, a material that conveys the scale and texture of the historic fabric may be considered. › Use materials and details that resemble those used in foundations on similar nearby historic properties. › Do not increase the height of the structure when replacing a foundation wall as it will alter the alignment of historic façades along the block and its relationship to other details on the build- ing. LOADING DOCKS Historic loading docks are important character- defining features of some commercial and industrial buildings and shall be preserved. These features also influence the perceived scale of the structure. Altering, enclosing, or removing a historic loading dock is not allowed. Loading docks on the rear of a building are important to the character of a property. 3.26 Maintain and repair a historic loading dock. › Maintain the historic location and form of a loading dock. › Maintain and repair loading dock components and details, such as a canopy or railing. COLOR Choosing the right combination of colors for a historic rehabilitation project can unify building elements with the façade and highlight important architectural detail- ing. Paint color selection shall be appropriate to the architectural style and complement the building and its surroundings. Using the historic color scheme is an option, but new schemes that are compatible are also permitted. 3.27 Retain historic colors. › Retain the historic or early color and texture of masonry surfaces. › Retain historic coatings such as paint that help protect exterior materials from moisture and ultraviolet light. › Do not strip paint or other coatings to reveal bare wood. › Do not paint unpainted masonry and architec- tural metals. › Do not use destructive paint removal methods such as propane or butane torches, sandblasting or water blasting which can irreversibly damage historic materials. Preserve traditional loading docks. 4 For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/10-paint-problems.htm 2.3.d Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 61 3.28 Use a color scheme that is compatible with the historic character of the structure. › Restore historic paint colors and finishes to the extent reasonable to highlight the structure’s historic appearance. › Repaint with colors that are appropriate to the period of historic significance of the building and district. Color selection shall be based on historic paint analysis of the historic layers of paint or appropriate historic research. › Use color schemes that are simple in character (generally one to three accent colors for trim elements). › Seek professional advice and properly prepare surfaces before painting. Permitted Color Combinations for a Commercial Storefront Three colors are generally sufficient to highlight a commercial storefront. Base Color. This appears on the upper wall and frames the storefront. The major expanses on a storefront will be painted this color. Major Trim. This defines the decorative elements of the building and ties the upper façade trim with the storefront. Elements include: › Building and storefront cornice › Window frames, sills and hoods › Storefront frames, columns, bulk-heads and canopies. Minor Trim. This is intended to enhance the color scheme established by the base and major trim colors and may be used for window sashes, doors and selective details. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 62Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic EXISTING ADDITIONS Some existing additions may have become historically significant in their own right. Unless the building is being accurately restored to an earlier period of sig- nificance, additions that have taken on significance shall be preserved. However, more recent additions may detract from the character of the building and could be considered for modification or removal. 3.29 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic signif icance in its own right. › Respect character-defining building components of a historically-significant addition. › Do not demolish a historically-significant addi- tion. 3.30 Consider removing an addition that is not historically significant. › Ensure that the historic fabric of the primary structure is not damaged when removing these features. NEW ADDITIONS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A new addition or accessory structure that is compat- ible with the historic building and surrounding historic context may be permitted. It is important to consider its design and placement, as well as its relationship to the surrounding historic context. The design standards for new construction also apply to the design of a new addition or accessory structure. 3.31 Design an addition or accessory structure to be compatible with the historic structure. › Design an addition or accessory structure to be visually subordinate to the historic building (It shall not replicate the design of the historic building.) › Use materials that are of a similar color, tex- ture, and scale to materials in the surrounding historic context. › Design an addition or accessory structure to be compatible with the scale, massing and rhythm of the surrounding historic context. › Incorporate windows, doors and other open- ings at a consistent solid-to-void ratio to those found on nearby historic buildings. › Use simplified versions of building components and details found in the surrounding historic context. This may include: a cornice; a distinc- tive storefront or main door surround; window sills or other features. › Do not use replicas of historic building components and details that would convey a false history or that would draw undue attention to the addition. 4 For More Information: See web link to Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 63 3. 32 Design an addition or secondary structure to be subordinate to the historic building. › Place an addition or secondary structure to the side or the rear of the historic structure. › Place a rooftop or upper-story addition to the rear to minimize visual impacts from public streets. › Do not locate an addition on a primary façade. 3. 33 Differentiate an addition from the historic structure. › Use changes in material, color and/or wall plane. › Use a lower-scale connecting element to join an addition to a historic structure. › Use contemporary architectural styles or mate- rials in an addition or a simplified version of the architectural style. 3. 34 Do not try to make an addition or secondary structure appear older than it is. › Do not replicate historic details; use simplified versions. 3.35 Do not damage the historic fabric of the historic building when adding an addition. › Do not damage or obscure significant architec- tural features of the historic building. Locating an Addition to a Historic Commercial Structure An addition to a historic commercial structure shall be subordinate to, and differentiated from, the historic structure as illustrated below. Historic Structure The one and two- story commercial building illustrated at right are historic. Historic Structures Rear Addition The rear addition illustrated at right is appropriate. Rear Addition 4 Rooftop Addition The rooftop addition illustrated at right is appropri- ate because it is set back from the front façade. Rooftop Addition 4 Appropriate addition to the rear of a contrib- uting structure. This building addition is 64Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic Planning for Energy Efficiency PLANNING FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY These standards address maintaining and improving resource and energy efficiency in a historic building, as well as methods for approaching energy conservation and generation technologies. The standards in this section apply to projects involving historic buildings. Other sustainability standards throughout this docu- ment will also apply. Objectives for historic preservation and community sustainability are often in alignment. Follow these basic steps when considering a rehabilitation project for energy efficiency: Step 1: Establish Project Goals. Develop an overall strategy and project goals for energy efficiency to maximize the effectiveness of a project. This will establish a broad view that can help place individual actions into context. Focus on minimizing use of resources and energy, minimizing negative environmental impacts, and retaining the his- toric integrity of a property. Strategies shall maximize the inherent value of the historic resource prior to considering alterations or retrofitting with new energy generation technology. Step 2: Maintain Building Components in Sound Condition. Maintaining existing building fabric reduces negative environmental impacts. Re-using a building preserves the energy and resources invested in its construction, and removes the need for producing new construction materials. Step 3: Maximize Inherent Sustainable Qualities. Typically, historic buildings in the Old Town Historic District were built with resources and energy efficiency in mind. Construction methods focused on durability and maintenance, resulting in individual building fea- tures that can be repaired if damaged, thus minimizing the use of materials throughout the building’s life cycle. Buildings were also built to respond to local climate conditions, integrating passive and active strategies for year-round interior climate control, which increase energy efficiency. Passive strategies typically include building orientation and features such as roof over- hangs and windows to provide both natural day lighting as well as management of solar heat gain. Active strate- gies typically include operable building features such as awnings and double-hung and transom windows. Identify a building’s inherent sustainable features and operating systems and maintain them in good operat- ing condition. In some cases these features may be covered, damaged or missing; repair or restore them where necessary. Step 4: Enhance Building Performance. A historic building’s inherent energy efficiency shall be augmented using techniques which improve energy efficiency without negatively impacting historic building elements. Noninvasive strategies such as increased in- sulation, weatherization improvements and landscaping Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 65 ENHANCING ENERGY PERFORMANCE Improvements to enhance energy efficiency shall complement the historic building. The structure, form and materials shall be sensitively improved in energy efficiency terms to preserve the building’s character. 3.36 Use noninvasive strategies when applying weatherization improvements. › Use cost-effective weather-stripping, insulation and storm windows to improve energy ef- ficiency while preserving historic character. › Install additional insulation in an attic, basement or crawl space as a simple method to make a significant difference in a building’s energy ef- ficiency. Provide sufficient ventilation to prevent moisture build-up in the wall cavity. › Install weatherization strategies in a way that does not alter or damage significant materials and their finishes. › Use materials which are environmentally friendly and that will not interact negatively with historic building materials. › When a roof must be replaced, consider install- ing a radiant barrier. › Maintain historic windows; keep them in good repair and seal all leaks. › Retain historic glass, taking special care in putty replacement. › Maintain the glazing compound regularly. Re- move old putty with care. › Use operable systems such as storm windows, insulated coverings, curtains and awnings to enhance performance of historic windows. MAINTAINING ENERGY EFFICIENCY The historic sustainable building features and systems of a historic building shall be maintained in good oper- ating condition. 3.37 Preserve the inherent energy efficient features of the historic building in operable condition. › Identify a building’s inherent sustainable features and operating systems and maintain them in good condition. › Retain historic shutters, awnings, canopies and transoms. Operable features such as these will increase the range of conditions in which a building is comfortable without mechanical climate controls. Energy Audit To inform an energy efficiency project strategy, conduct an energy audit. Energy audits can give a comprehensive view of how energy is currently managed, in the daily and seasonal cycles of use, and can also provide perspective on the payback of investment for potential work on the building. For example, an energy audit, when examined based on an overall strategy, may demonstrate that priorities shall be on increasing insulation in walls, ceilings and foundations, rather than replac- 66Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic Commercial Building Energy Efficiency Diagram This diagram summarizes the principal direction in the standards for a rehabilitation project for energy efficiency on a commercial building. These measures can enhance energy efficiency while retaining the integrity of the historic structure. Upper-story WindoWs » Maintain historic windows » Weather-strip and caulk » Add storm windows (preferably interior) transoms » Retain operable transom to circulate air solar panels » Set back from primary façade to minimize visibility from street attic » Insulate internally or roof Green roof » Place below parapet line to minimize visibility from street roof material » Retain & repair aWninGs/canopies » Use operable awnings to control solar access and heat gain » Use fixed canopies to provide year-round shade and shelter doors » Maintain/weather-strip historic doors » Consider interior air lock area storefront WindoWs » Maintain and caulk historic windows 2.3.d Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 67 3. 39 Install solar collectors to minimize potential adverse effects on the character of a historic property. › Place collectors to avoid obscuring significant features or adversely affecting the perception of the overall character of the property. › Size collector arrays to remain subordinate to the historic structure. › Install collectors on an addition or secondary structure. › Minimize visual impacts by locating collectors back from the front façade. › Ensure that exposed hardware, frames and pip- ing have a matte finish, and are consistent with the color scheme of the primary structure. › Use the least invasive method to attach solar collectors to a historic roof. USING ENERGY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES Integrate modern energy technology into a historic structure while maintaining its historic integrity. Use of energy-generating technologies should be the final op- tion considered in an efficiency rehabilitation project. Utilize strategies to reduce energy consumption prior to undertaking an energy generation project. Consider the overall project goals and energy strategies when determining if a specific technology is right for the project. As new technologies are tried and tested, it is impor- tant that they leave no permanent negative impacts to historic structures. The reversibility (returning the building fabric to its historic condition) of their applica- tion will be a key consideration when determining if it shall be permitted. 3.38 Locate energy-generating technology to minimize impacts to the historic character of the site and structure. › Locate technology where it will not damage, obscure or cause removal of significant features or materials. › Maintain the historic character of the building. › Install technology in such a way that it can be readily removed and the historic character eas- ily restored. › Use materials which are environmentally friendly and that will not interact negatively with historic building materials. 3.40 Install wind turbines to minimize potential adverse effects on the character of a historic property. › Use turbines and any exposed hardware with a matte finish that is consistent with the color scheme of the primary structure. › Do not obscure significant features or impair the building’s historic significance. › Attach turbines in a manner that avoids damage to significant features. › Install turbines to allow restoration of affected 68Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic ACCESSIBILITY In 1990, the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated that all places of public accom- modation be accessible to everyone. This includes his- toric structures that are used for commercial, rental, multi-family and public uses. Note that the law provides that alternative measures may be considered when the integrity of a historic resource may be threatened. In most cases, property owners can comply without compromising the historic resource. Owners of his- toric properties should comply to the fullest extent feasible with accessibility laws, while also preserving the integrity of the character-defining features of their building or site. These standards shall not prevent or inhibit compliance with accessibility laws. 3.41 Accessibility improvements shall be designed to preserve the integrity of a historic property. › Retain the key features of the historic structure in any design. › Ensure that accessibility improvements are “reversible.” PHASING PRESERVATION IMPROVEMENTS In some cases, a property owner may wish to make in- terim preservation improvements, rather than execute a complete rehabilitation of a historic property. This work shall be planned such that it establishes a founda- tion for future improvements that will further assure continued use of the property and retain its historic significance. For example, a simplified cornice element may be installed on a commercial storefront, in lieu of reconstructing the historic design, with the intent that an accurate reconstruction would occur later. 3.42 Plan interim preservation improvements to retain opportunities for future rehabilitation work that will enhance the integrity of a historic property. › Preserve key character-defining features while making interim preservation improvements. › Interim preservation improvements that would foreclose opportunities for more extensive rehabilitation in the future are inappropriate. › See photo sequence on page 28. Accessibility improvements shall be designed to preserve the integrity of a historic property to the fullest. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 69 TEMPORARY STABILIZATION TREATMENTS When a building is to be unoccupied for an extended period of time, it shall be secured in a way in which to preserve historically significant features and prevent deterioration from weathering or vandalism. Often termed “mothballing,” such procedures are particularly relevant to properties that have been vacant for a long time. Stabilization shall be planned such that the integ- rity of the property will be maintained. 3.43 If a building is unoccupied, secure it in a way that protects its historic character. › Maintain a weather-tight roof. Temporary roof- ing may be installed if needed. › Structurally stabilize the building, if needed. › When enclosing a window or door opening, do not damage frame and sash components. Mount any panel to cover the opening on the interior. Also, paint the panels to match the building color. › Provide adequate ventilation to the interior of the building. EXISTING HISTORIC ALTERATIONS Many historic structures experience changes over time as design tastes change or need for additional space occurs. Many of these occurred while retaining the characteristics that are key historic features. Some of these alterations now may be historically significant themselves. An addition constructed in a manner compatible with the historic building and as- sociated with the period of significance is an example, and it too may merit preservation in its own right. In contrast, more recent alterations usually have no historic significance and may even detract from the character of the building and obscure significant fea- tures. Removing such an alteration may be considered in a rehabilitation project. Historic features that have been modified can also be restored. 3.44 Consider the significance of early alterations and additions. Consider these options: › Preserve an older addition or alteration that has achieved historic significance in its own right, when it is key to understanding the history of the property. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 70Resources Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic 2.3.d Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) IV DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL PROPERTIES 2.3.d Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 73 AWNINGS AND CANOPIES Traditionally, awnings and canopies were noteworthy features of buildings in the Old Town Historic District, and their continued use is encouraged. These elements are simple in detail, and they reflect the character of the buildings to which they are attached. 4.1 Preserve traditional canopies. › Retain historic hardware. 4.2 Install an awning or canopy to f it the opening and be in character with the building. › A fabric awning is permitted. › A fixed metal canopy may be considered when it would be in character. › Mount an awning or canopy to accentuate character-defining features. The awning or canopy shall fit in the openings of the buildings. › Simple sloping awnings and flat canopies are permitted. Odd shapes, bullnose awnings and bubble awnings are prohibited. 4.3 Design an awning or canopy with colors and materials that are durable and compatible with the structure. › Use canvas or a similar woven material (pre- ferred approach) for an awning. › Do not use a material without proven durability or that has a gloss finish. › Contemporary awnings may be considered. Design Standards for All Properties › Post supported canopies are prohibited on the front facade of a commercial building. However, they may be considered on a rear facade that faces an alley. Design an awning or canopy with colors and materials that are durable and compatible with the structure. Traditionally, awnings were noteworthy features of commercial buildings, and their continued use is encouraged. Awnings and canopies can help define windows, entry areas and the pedestrian level of buildings. For More Information See web link to Preservation Brief 44: The Use of Awnings on Historic Buildings, Repair, Replacement and New Design http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/44-awnings.htm 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 74 Design Standards for All Projects STREET LAYOUT Established vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access shall be preserved. 4.4 Retain the historic network of streets and alleys. › The network of streets and alleys shall be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. › Streets and alleys shall not be enclosed or closed to public access. › Link a new walkway to an existing public right- of-way. OUTDOOR USE AREAS Outdoor use areas occur as accents. These include outdoor dining areas and small public plazas. These shall be integrated with the design of the site and the building. Small Public Plazas and Courtyards A small public plaza or courtyard may be considered. However, within the heart of the Old Town Historic District, where the greatest concentration of historic storefronts align, creating a gap in the street wall is not allowed, because it disrupts the street wall. 4.5 A small public plaza or courtyard shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. › It must be: directly accessible to the public way; level with the public way; › It may have one or all of the following: street furniture; public art; historical/interpretive marker. A small public plaza or courtyard is permitted at the rear of the structure to help to enliven the alley set- ting. 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 75 Terraces, Patios and Deck Space Improvements that provide areas for active outdoor use (i.e., dining) are welcomed amenities, but they must be in character with the historic fabric in the Old Town Historic District. There are typically two types: raised and at-grade. 4.6 Locate a raised dining area (deck) to minimize visual impacts to the street. › Placing it to the rear of a property is preferred. › Rooftop decks shall be set back from the build- ing facade. › Projecting or cantilevered decks are prohibited. › Dining support service areas, such as wait sta- tions and dish areas, shall be located away from public view. 4.7 Locate an at-grade dining area to minimize impacts on the streetscape. › Locate an at-grade dining area to the side or rear of a property. › It is permissible to locate an at-grade dining area in the public ROW in a street wall context, sub- ject to any necessary permits or encroachment agreements which may be required. The dining area shall be clearly defined in this setting. HANDRAILS AND ENCLOSURES In some circumstances it may be necessary to add handrails or an enclosure to a property to accommo- date an outdoor dining area, accessibility or to enhance safety. If so, it must have minimal impact on the urban setting and/or the historic resource. 4.8 A railing shall be simple in design. › Simple metal work is permitted. › Very ornate metal, plastic or wood designs are prohibited. › The railing shall be transparent in its overall appearance. One shall be able to see through to the building. Railings shall be mostly transparent and simple in design. 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 76 Design Standards for All Projects SITE LIGHTING The light level at the property line is a key design con- sideration. This is affected by the number of fixtures, their mounting height, and the lumens emitted per fixture. It is also affected by the screening and design of the fixture. Light spill onto adjacent properties and into the night sky shall be minimized and the design shall be compatible with the district. 4.11 Shield lighting to prevent off-site glare. › A light fixture shall incorporate a cut-off shield to direct light downward. › A luminaire (lamp) shall not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. › Shield a fixture to minimize light spill onto adjacent properties and into the night sky. 4.12 A light fixture must be in character with the setting. › A fixture shall be compatible with the historic context. ART AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES Public art is welcomed as an amenity in Fort Collins’ historic districts. It shall be planned as an integral component of the urban environment and shall be strategically located to serve as an accent to public areas. An installation on private property that is visible from the public way also shall be planned to retain the historic significance of a property. 4.9 Public art shall be compatible with the historic context. › An art installation shall not impede one’s abil- ity to interpret the historic character of the district. › Locate public art such that the ability to per- ceive the character of historic buildings nearby is maintained. 4.10 An art installation on a historic property shall be compatible with the resource. It shall: › Maintain one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the resource. › Preserve key features that contribute to the property’s significance. › Be reversible in a way that the key features of the property remain intact. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 77 BUILDING LIGHTING The character and level of lighting that is used on a building is of special concern. Traditionally, exterior lights were simple in character and were used to high- light signs and building entrances. Most fixtures had incandescent lamps that cast a color similar to daylight, were relatively low intensity and were shielded with simple shade devices. Although new lamp types may be considered, the overall effect of modest, focused, building light shall be continued. When installing lighting on a historic building, use exist- ing documentation as a basis for the new design. If no documentation exists, use a contemporary light fixture that is simple in design. Building lighting shall be installed in a manner so as not to damage the historic fabric of the building and shall be reversible. Most historic light- ing was subdued and directed at signs, entrances, and in a few cases, building features. 4.13 Use lighting to accent: › Building entrances, signs and to illuminate walk- ways. 4.14 Minimize the visual impacts of architectural lighting. › Use exterior light sources with a low level of luminescence. › Use lights that cast a similar color to daylight. › Do not wash an entire building facade in light. › Use lighting fixtures that are appropriate to the building and its surroundings in terms of style, finish, scale and intensity of illumination. › Mount exterior fixtures in an inconspicuous manner. › Do not damage or obscure historic building components and fabric when mounting exterior fixtures. 4.15 Use shielded and focused light sources to prevent glare. › Provide shielded and focused light sources that direct light downward. › Do not use high intensity light sources or cast light directly upward. › Do not allow excessive light spill from buildings. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 78 Design Standards for All Projects SURFACE PARKING The visual impact of surface parking shall be mini- mized. On-site parking must be subordinate to other uses and the front of the lot shall not appear to be a parking area. 4.18 Minimize the visual impact of surface parking. › Locate a parking area at the rear or to the side of a site or to the interior of the block. This is especially important on corner properties. Corner properties are generally more visible than interior lots, serve as landmarks and pro- vide a sense of enclosure to an intersection. 4.19 Site a surface lot so it will minimize gaps in the continuous building wall of a commercial block. › Where a parking lot shares a site with a build- ing, place the parking at the rear of the site. 4.20 Provide a visual buffer where a parking lot abuts a public way. › A landscaped strip or planter using a combina- tion of trees and shrubs is permitted. › A low, decorative wall as a screen for the edge of the lot is also permitted. Materials must be compatible with those of nearby buildings. SERVICE AREAS Service areas shall be visually unobtrusive and must be integrated with the design of the site and the building. 4.16 Minimize the visual impacts of a service area. › Orient a service entrance, waste/compost disposal area or other service area toward service lanes and away from public streets. › Screen a service area with a wall, fence or planting, in a manner that is in character with the building and its site. 4.17 Position a service area to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses. › Minimize noise impacts by locating sources of offensive sounds away from other uses. › Use an alley. Orient a service area towards service lanes and away from public streets. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 79 BUFFERS Parking, storage and equipment areas shall be visually buffered with landscaping or a screen wall. The design must complement the context. 4.21 Provide a visual buffer along the edge of a parking lot or service area. › Use a landscape strip or screen wall at the edge of a parking lot. › Provide a landscape buffer or screen wall by ground mounted mechanical equipment, service and/or storage areas. BUILDING EQUIPMENT Junction boxes, external fire connections, telecom- munication devices, cables, conduits, satellite dishes, HVAC equipment and fans may affect the character of a property. These and similar devices shall be screened from public view to avoid negative effects. 4.22 Minimize the visual impacts of building equipment on the public way and the district as a whole. › Screen equipment from view. › Do not locate equipment on a primary facade. › Use low-profile or recessed mechanical units on rooftops. › Locate satellite dishes and mechanical equip- ment out of public view. › Locate utility lines and junction boxes on sec- ondary and tertiary walls, and group them. › Group utility lines in conduit, and paint these elements, to match the existing background color. › Locate a utility pedestal (ground mounted) to the rear of a building. Parking Buffers Consider the use of a landscaped strip or planter to provide a visual buffer where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 80 Design Standards for All Projects 4.23 Install mechanical equipment to minimize impacts on historic fabric. › Install mechanical equipment in areas and spaces that require the least amount of altera- tion to the historic building. › Do not damage or cut holes in important architectural features, such as cornices, deco- rative ceilings and paneling. › Do not install mechanical equipment on a primary façade. SECURITY DEVICES It may sometimes be necessary to provide a security device on a building. It shall be designed to be as inconspicuous as possible, and must not alter signifi- cant architectural features of the building. The use of interior, operable, transparent devices is preferred. 4.24 Minimize the visual impact of security devices. › Locate a security device inside a storefront. › Use operable and transparent (simple bars with spacing so one can view through to display) security devices on ground floor storefronts. › Opaque, roll-down metal screens are pro- hibited, because these obscure products on display and thereby weaken the interest of the street to pedestrians when in a closed posi- tion. › Decorative security devices are permitted when they complement the architectural style. › Security devices are prohibited above the sec- ond floor, unless unique security conditions are indicated. Install roof-mounted mechanical equipment, such as air conditioners, to be inconspicuous when viewed from pub- lic streets. Back side of building. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 81 4.25 Do not damage the character of the historic building when installing a security device. › Do not damage or obscure significant architec- tural features of the historic building. › The installation shall be reversible. Once re- moved the historic building must remain intact and the integrity of historic materials shall not be compromised. 4 4 4 Decorative secu- rity devices are permitted when they complement the architectural style. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 82 Design Standards for All Projects 4.27 Base or background colors shall be muted. › Building features shall be muted, while trim accents can be either a contrasting color or a harmonizing color. › An accent color shall not contrast so strongly as to not read as part of the composition. › Bright high-intensity colors are not permitted. › Use matte or low luster finishes instead of glossy ones. › Non-reflective, muted finishes on all features is preferred. 4.28 Building elements shall be f inished in a manner similar to that seen traditionally. The following are recommended treatments: › Brick and stone: unpainted, natural color un- less painted historically › Window frames and sash, doors and frame and storefronts: wood - painted; metal - anodized or baked color › Highly reflective materials, weathered wood and clear finishes are prohibited on large surfaces. A clear finish is permitted on a wood entry door. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Negative impacts on archeological resources shall be avoided. 4.29 Leave archeological resources in place, to the maximum extent feasible. › Avoid disturbing known archeological re- sources. › If archeological materials are discovered con- tact the City of Fort Collins Historic Preserva- tion office. COLOR Traditionally, color schemes in the Old Town Historic District were relatively muted. A single base color was applied to the primary wall plane. Then, one or two accent colors were used to highlight ornamental features, as well as trim around doors and windows. Since many of the commercial structures were unpainted brick, the natural color of the masonry became the background color. Sometimes a contrast- ing masonry was used for window sills and moldings. As a result, the contrast between the base color and trim was relatively subtle. These traditions of using limited numbers of colors, and muted ones, shall be continued. These standards do not specify which colors should be selected, but rather how they shall be used. 4.26 The facade shall “read” as a single composition. › Employ color schemes that are simple in character. › Using one base color for the building walls and another for the roof is preferred. › Using one to three accent colors for trim ele- V DESIGN STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION 2.3.d Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 85 Overview Designing a new building to fit within the historic char- acter of the Old Town Historic District requires careful thought. Preservation in a historic district context does not mean that the area must be “frozen” in time, but it does mean that, when new building occurs, it shall be in a manner that reinforces the visual characteristics of the district. This does not imply, however, that a new building must look old. In fact, imitating historic styles is discouraged. Rather than imitating older styles, a new design shall relate to the fundamental characteristics of the his- toric context while also conveying the design trends of today. It may do so by drawing upon basic ways of building that make up a part of the character of the district. Such features include the way in which a build- ing is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form and materials. When these design variables are arranged in a new building to be similar to those seen traditionally, visual compatibility results. This section provides design standards for new infill construction and improvements to buildings that con- tribute to the fabric in the Old Town Historic District. › Building Placement and Orientation › Architectural Character and Detail › Building Mass, Scale and Height › Building and Roof Forms › Primary Entrances › Materials › Windows New Additions A new addition to an existing building in the historic district shall follow the standards for new construction provided in this section. See also the Design Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources section, for additional standards that apply to additions to a historic structure. The general alignment of storefronts, moldings and upper story windows contributes to the visual continuity of many commercial blocks in Old Town Fort Collins. A variation in the height of cornices exists, within a range of one to three stories. Facade widths also vary, but within a relatively narrow range. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 86 Design Standards for New Construction Considering Context Compatibility with the Old Town context is a key principle for the design of new construction. This typically focuses on buildings in the same block, on both sides of the street, and also across an alley. In some cases, a structure that is not historic may also be found in the immediate vicinity, but this does not influence considerations of compatibility. BUILDING PLACEMENT AND ORIENTATION Traditionally, buildings in Old Town were arranged in consistent development patterns, in terms of their site plan and orientation. Most commercial buildings aligned uniformly along a street. This created a con- sistent “street wall” that is now a key feature of the historic district. Reinforcing traditional development patterns is paramount in designing a new building to fit within the historic district. New infill shall reflect traditional development patterns, including facade alignment and uniform building orientation. 5.1 Maintain the alignment of building fronts along the street. › Locate a new building to reflect established alignment patterns along the block. › Where historic buildings are positioned at the sidewalk edge, creating a uniform street wall, then a new building shall conform to this align- ment. 5.2 Maintain the traditional pattern of buildings facing the street. › Locate a primary entrance to face the street and design it to be clearly identifiable. › For a commercial storefront, use a recessed entry. Locate a primary entrance to face the street and be clearly iden- tifiable. 4 New Commercial Building Design Maintain the alignment of building fronts along the street. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 87 4 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER AND DETAIL In order to assure that historic resources are appreci- ated as authentic contributors in the historic district, it is important that a new building be distinguishable from them while also remaining compatible with the context. New construction shall appear as a product of its own time while also being compatible with the historically significant resources of the area. 5.3 Design a new building to express its own time while remaining compatible with the historic district. › See the standards that follow for information about basic elements of compatibility. 5.4 An interpretation of a historic style that is authentic to the district will be considered if it is subtly distinguishable as being new. › Exact imitation of a historic style that would blur the distinction between old and new build- ings and make it more difficult to understand the architectural evolution of the district are not permitted. 4 New construction should appear as a product of its own time while also being compatible with the historically significant resources of the area. Exact imitation of a historic style that would blur the distinc- tion between old and new buildings and make it more difficult to understand the architectural evolution of the district are not permitted. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 88 Design Standards for New Construction 4 Design a new building to reflect its time while respecting key features of its context. 5.5 Incorporate traditional facade articulation techniques in a new design. Use these methods: › a tall first floor › vertically proportioned upper story windows › window sills and frames that provide detail › horizontal expression elements, such as cano- pies, belt courses, moldings and cornices › vertical expression features, such as columns and pilasters › a similar ratio of solid wall to window area › a base, middle and a cap 4 Incorporate traditional facade articulation techniques in a new design. Incorporate a kickplate into a storefront design. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 89 4 BUILDING MASS, SCALE AND HEIGHT Each historic building in the district exhibits distinct characteristics of mass, height and a degree of wall articulation that contributes to its sense of scale. As groupings, these structures establish a definitive sense of scale. A new building shall express these traditions of mass and scale, and it shall be compatible in height, mass and scale with its context, including the specific block and the historic district as a whole. 5.6 Convey the traditional size of historic buildings in new construction as it is perceived at the street level. › The height of a new building shall appear to be within the height range established in the con- text, especially at the street frontage. › Floor-to-floor heights shall appear similar to those of traditional buildings. › If an additional floor is permitted, place it (or sufficient portions of it) back from the street front to maintain the traditional range of heights at the street edge. 5.7 The overall height of a new building shall be compatible with the historic district. A building height that exceeds the height range established in the context will be considered only when: › It is demonstrated that the additional height will be compatible with adjacent properties and for the historic district at large. › Taller portions are set back from the street. › Access to light and air of surrounding properties is respected. The overall height of a new building shall be compatible with the historic district. A building height that exceeds the height range established in the context will be considered only when it is demonstrated that the additional height will be compatible with adjacent properties and for the historic district at large. Note the additional height on the building in the background steps back from the front and side. The height of a new building shall appear to be within the height range established in the context, especially at the street front- age. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 90 Design Standards for New Construction Mass, Scale and Height at Different Levels Building mass, scale and height shall be considered in these ways: (1) As experienced at the street level immediately adjacent to the building. › At this level of perception, the actual height of the building wall at the street edge is a key factor. The scale of windows and doors, the modular characteristics of building ma- terials, and the expression of floor heights also contribute to perceived scale. (2) As viewed along a block, in perspective with others in the immediate area. › The degree of similarity (or diversity) of building heights along a block, and the repetition of similar features, including openings, materials and horizontal expres- sion lines, combine to establish an overall sense of scale at this level of experiencing context. (3) As seen from key public viewpoints inside and outside of the historic district. › In groups, historic buildings and compatible newer structures establish a sense of scale for the entire district and define the skyline. 5.8 Provide variation in building height when a new building is substantially wider than historic buildings in the district. › In order to reduce the perceived mass of a larger building, divide it into subordinate modules that reflect traditional building sizes in the context. › Vary the height of building modules in a larger structure. The variation in height should reflect historic building heights found in the district. › A street wall should provide some variation in building heights, otherwise it can read as one large static mass. › Excessive modulation of a building mass is not permitted, since this would be out of character with simpler historic building forms in the area. 5.9 Maintain the scale of traditional building widths in the context. › Design a new building to reflect the traditional building widths of adjacent buildings. › Where a building must exceed this width, use changes in design features so the building reads as separate building modules reflecting tradi- tional building widths and massing. Changes in the expression and details of materials, window design, facade heights or materials shall be used. › Where these articulation techniques are used, they shall be expressed consistently throughout the structure, such that the composition ap- pears as several authentic building modules. New Building 4 Changes in cornice lines combined with varia- tions in wall planes can help a new, larger Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 91 4 This single, new infill building is divided into modules to reflect the scale of the historic context. The height of a new building shall appear to be within the height range of historic buildings, especially at street frontage. 5.10 Establish a sense of human scale in a building design. › Use vertical and horizontal articulation tech- niques to reduce the apparent mass of a larger building and to create visual interest. › Express the position of each floor in the exter- nal skin of a building to establish a scale similar to historic buildings in the district. › Use materials that convey scale in their propor- tion, detail and form. › Design architectural details to be in scale with the building. Windows, doors, and storefronts (in commercial buildings) that are similar in scale to those seen traditionally shall be used. This single infill building successfully employs building articulation methods to break up the mass of the building. Note the height of the storefront, depth of openings and variation in parapet heights. The building also reads as separate masses with the ver- tical circulation offsets that have been employed. 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 92 Design Standards for New Construction BUILDING AND ROOF FORMS A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity. In order to maintain this feature, a new building shall have a basic form that is similar to that seen traditionally. 5.11 Use simple, rectangular building forms. › Use building forms that are similar to traditional forms. › Use roof forms similar to those seen tradition- ally in the district. Floor to floor heights shall appear similar to those of traditional buildings. 4 Use a tall first floor and vertically proportioned upper story win- dows. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 93 ENTRANCES Traditionally in the historic district, most primary en- trances were oriented to the street and were recessed. They provide visual interest and a sense of scale to each building. A primary entrance shall be clearly identifiable in a new building and it must be in character with the building and its context. The entrance shall include fea- tures to signify it as such, and convey a sense of scale. 5.12 Orient a primary entrance towards the street. › Design an entrance to a commercial building to convey a sense of scale and provide visual interest. 5.13 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entryways. › Set the door back an adequate amount from the front facade to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. › Where an entry is to be recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge shall be maintained by the upper floor(s). › Use a transom over a doorway to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. › Oversized and undersized entrances are prohib- ited. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 94 Design Standards for New Construction MATERIALS Traditional building materials in the historic district include various types of masonry, primarily brick, stone and concrete. Today, these materials are key to the character of the district. Building materials shall reflect the range of textures, modularity and finish of those employed traditionally. They also shall contribute to the visual continuity of the specific historic district. They shall be of proven durability in similar applications. 5.14 Use building materials that appear similar in scale, color, texture and f inish to those seen historically in the district. › Use materials that are proven to be durable in the local climate. › Use materials that will maintain an intended finish over time, or acquire a patina. › Use masonry with a modular dimension similar to typical masonry materials. › When an alternative material is permitted, use a durable material. (See “Using New Materials” to the left for more information.) › On the ground level, use materials that will withstand on-going contact with the public, sustaining impacts without compromising their appearance. Typical Materials Typical historic building materials used in Old Town Fort Collins include: » Masonry › Brick › Stone › Terra Cotta › Poured Concrete › Pre-cast Concrete » Wood » Metal › Cast iron, › Copper › Sheet metal Understanding the character of these materials and the patterns they create is essential to developing new interpretations. Using New Materials Compatibility with historic materials can be achieved without purely replicating their traditional use. A new building material that conveys the es- sence of modularity and the texture and finish of historic materials, and that has proven durability in the local climate, is often compatible. The degree to which an alternative material may be used successfully on a new building also will be influenced by the degree of consistency or variety in materials that already exists in the block. Use building materials that appear similar in scale, color, texture and finish to those seen historically in the district. 4 2.3.d Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 95 WINDOWS The manner in which windows are used to articulate a new building wall is an important consideration in establishing a sense of scale and visual continuity. Tradi- tionally in Old Town, a storefront system was installed on the ground floor and upper story windows often appeared as punched openings. These features often align with others in the block, and establish a rhythm or pattern of solid and void that vi- sually links buildings along the street. These traditional arrangements may also be interpreted in contempo- rary designs that complement the established patterns within the historic district. Window design and placement shall establish a sense of scale and provide pedestrian interest. Established solid to void patterns shall be maintained. Contemporary and creative design interpretations of window rhythms and patterns that reference, but do not duplicate his- toric designs, may be considered. 5.15 A contemporary storefront design is permitted if it reinforces the visual characteristics of the district. › Design a building to incorporate a ground floor storefront. › Basic design features found in traditional storefronts, such as a kickplate, display window, transom and a primary entrance shall be incor- porated. › In storefront details, use elements similar in profile and depth of detailing seen historically. Design a building to incorporate a ground floor storefront. 4 4 Incorporate the basic design features found in traditional store- fronts, such as a kickplate, display window, transom and a pri- mary entrance. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 96 Design Standards for New Construction 5.16 Arrange windows to reflect the traditional rhythm and general alignment of others in the district. › Use window rhythms and alignments similar to traditional buildings, such as: vertically propor- tioned, single or sets of windows, “punched” into a more solid wall surface, and evenly spaced along upper floors; window sills or headers that align; and rows of windows or storefront sys- tems of similar dimensions, aligned horizontally along a wall surface › Creative interpretations of traditional window arrangement may be considered. 5.17 Use durable window materials. › Permitted window materials include metal and wood frame. › Prohibited window materials include synthetic materials that do not have a proven durability, such as plastic snap-in muntins. Arrange windows to reflect the traditional rhythm and general alignment of others in the area. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 97 New Construction and Sustainability ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN NEW DESIGNS The conservation of energy is a key objective in site design, building design and building orientation. The site design process shall include an evaluation of the physical assets of the site to maximize energy efficiency and conservation in the placement and design of a build- ing. Designs shall consider seasonal changes in natural lighting and ventilation conditions. A design shall also take into account the potential effect on an adjoining property, in terms of its solar ac- cess and ability to implement the same environmental design principles. Careful consideration shall also be given to balancing sustainable design principles with those related to maintaining the traditional character of the area. 5.18 Locate a new building, or an addition, to take advantage of microclimatic opportunities for energy conservation, while avoiding negative impacts to the historic context. › Orient a building to be consistent with historic development patterns. › Maximize energy efficiency and conservation opportunities. 5.19 Design a building, or an addition, to take advantage of energy saving and generating opportunities. › Design windows to maximize daylighting into interior spaces. › Use exterior shading devices to manage solar gain in summer months. For example, use cano- pies or awnings on storefronts similar to how they were used traditionally. › Energy-generating devices, including solar col- lectors and wind turbines, are permitted where they also remain visually subordinate. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 98 Design Standards for New Construction COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY DIAGRAM A Wind Devices: Set back from primary facade to minimize visibility from the street. B Operable Transoms: Allows for natural air circulation. C Green Roofs: Set back from primary facade and hide behind parapets to minimize visibility from the street. D Shading Devices: Operable canopies located above display windows. E Solar Panels: Set back from primary facade and hide behind parapets to minimize visibility from the street. A B C D E These sustainability designs should be considered in the context of an overall strategy. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Guidelines | July 2014 99 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDING MASSING A building mass shall maximize the potential for natural daylighting as well as solar energy collection, while avoiding negative impacts to the historic context. 5.20 Shape a building’s mass to maximize solar energy potential. Use the following strategies: › Design a building to allow natural daylighting to the interior. › Articulate wall planes as a way to provide shade or increase solar access to interiors. › Use thermal storage walls on a portion of the south facing building exposure, where appropri- ate. 5.21 Orient a building to maximize green principles while ensuring compatibility with adjacent, lower-scale structures. Permitted strategies include: › Position the taller portion of a building along a north-south axis to minimize shading on lower scale structures to the north. › Design a building mass to minimize shading south-facing facades of adjacent buildings during winter months. Articulate building mass to take advantage of solar energy. The image above shows a plaza to the left. It is shaded during peak winter hours, therefore the plaza location should be considered on the opposite side of the building. Below, the plaza is to the right; it is enhanced by solar rays during peak winter hours. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 100 Design Standards for New Construction ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE IN BUILDING ELEMENTS The elements that make up a new building, including windows, mechanical systems and materials, can signifi- cantly impact environmental performance. These shall be designed to maximize the building’s efficiency, while promoting compatibility with surrounding sites and structures. New materials that improve environmental performance are permitted if they have been proven effective in this climate and are compatible with the historic context. 5.22 Use green building materials whenever possible. Such materials are: › locally manufactured › low maintenance › materials with long life spans › recycled materials 5.23 Incorporate building elements that allow for natural environmental control. Consider the following: › operable windows for natural ventilation › low infiltration fenestration products › interior or exterior light shelves/solar screens above south facing windows › green roofs SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY DEVICES Solar and wind energy devices (i.e., solar panels, wind turbines) shall be positioned to have a minimal effect on the character of Old Town. 5.24 Minimize the visual impacts of energy devices on the character of Old Town. › Equipment shall be mounted where it has the least visual impact. › Exposed hardware, frames and piping shall have a matte finish, and be consistent with the color scheme of the primary structure. Green Roofs Green roofs provide the following benefits: › Increase energy efficiency › Moderate waste diversion › Stormwater management › Reduce heat island effect › Improve air quality › Provide amenity space for building users 2.3.d Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) VI DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SIGNS 2.3.d Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old103 Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 Overview Signs are important elements of Old Town and balanc- ing their functional requirements with the objectives for the overall character of the district is a key con- sideration. Their placement, relationship to historic features and general character are key considerations. This section provides standards that address the qualitative aspects of sign design, in terms of how signs contribute to the character of a historic district and to individual properties. Topics include: › Treatment of Historic Signs › Sign Installation on a Historic Building › Design of New and Modified Signs › Design of Specific Sign Types › Sign Illumination Common signs types found in the district include: › Projecting signs › Flush wall signs › Awning signs › Interpretive signs › Window and door signs Signs are important elements of Old Town and balanc- ing their functional requirements with the objectives for the overall charac- ter of the district is a key consideration. 4 4 4 Sign Code In addition to these standards, also see the Fort Collins Land Use Code, Division 3.8 Supplementary Regulations, 3.8.7 Signs. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 104 Design Standards for Signs All historic signs shall be retained. Historic signs that represent the district’s evolution are also important. 6.1 Consider history , context and design when determining whether to retain a sign. A sign shall be retained when the sign is: › Associated with historic figures, events or places. › Significant as evidence of the history of the product, business or service advertised. › A significant part of the history of the building or the historic district. › Characteristic of a specific historic period. › Integral to the building’s design or physical fabric. › Integrated into the design of a building such that removal could harm the integrity of a historic property’s design or cause significant damage to its materials. › An outstanding example of the sign maker’s art because of its craftsmanship, use of materials, or design. › A historically significant type of sign Flush wall signs and individual letter signs are signs that are mounted on a building wall. They do not project significantly from the surface to which they are mounted. 6.2 Leave a historic wall sign visible. › Do not paint over a historic sign. › There are times when some alterations to a historic wall sign may be permitted; these are: › If the sign is substantially deteriorated, patching and repairing is permitted. › If the sign serves a continuing use, i.e., there are older signs that still have an active business and they need to change information such as the hours of operation 6.3 Do not over restore a historic wall sign. › Do not restore a historic wall sign to the point that all evidence of its age is lost. › Do not significantly re-paint a historic wall sign even if its appearance and form is recaptured. 4 Leave historic wall signs visible. Treatment of Historic Signs See Also: Web link to Preservation Brief 25: The Preserva- tion of Historic Signs http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/25-signs.htm 2.3.d Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old105 Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 Sign Installation on a Historic Building When installing a new sign on a historic building, it is important to maintain the key architectural features of and minimize potential damage to the building. 6.4 Do not damage or obscure architectural details or other building features when installing a sign. › No sign or sign structure or support shall be placed onto or obscure or damage any significant architectural feature of a building, including but not limited to a window or a door frame, cornice, molding, ornamental feature, or unusual or fragile material. 6.5 A sign shall not obscure character- defining features of a historic building. › A sign shall be designed to integrate with the architectural features of a building, not distract from them. › No sign shall be painted onto any significant architectural feature, including but not limited to a wall, window or door frame, cornice, molding, ornamental feature, or unusual or fragile material. › No support for a sign shall extend above the cornice line of a building to which the sign is attached. A sign shall be designed to integrate with the architectural fea- tures of a building, not distract from them. This sign remains subordinate to the architectural feature since much of the mold- ing is still visible. Do not damage or obscure architectural details or features when installing signs. 4 4 Mount a sign to fit within existing architectural features using the shape of the sign to help reinforce the horizontal lines of the building. 8 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 106 Design Standards for Signs Whether it is attached to a historic building or as- sociated with new development, a new or modified sign shall exhibit qualities of style, permanence and compatibility with the natural and built environment. It shall also reflect the overall context of the building and surrounding area. 6.6 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building composition. › Design a sign to be simple in character. › Locate a sign to emphasize design elements of the facade itself. › Mount a sign to fit within existing architectural features using the shape of the sign to help reinforce the horizontal lines of the building. › All sign types shall be subordinate to the building and to the street. 6.7 Sign materials shall be compatible with the architectural character and materials of the building. › Do not use reflective materials. › Use permanent, durable materials. 6.8 Use simple typeface design. › Do not use hard-to-read or overly intricate typefaces. › Use no more than two or three distinct typefaces on a sign. 6.9 Use colors that contribute to legibility and design integrity. › Limit the number of colors used on a sign. Generally, do not use more than three colors. › Vibrant colors are discouraged. 6.10 Using a symbol for a sign is permitted. › A symbol sign adds interest, can be read quickly and is remembered better than written words. Use sign materials that are compatible with the architectural character and materials of the building. Design of New and Modified Signs Using a symbol for a sign is permitted. 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old107 Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 A variety of sign types may be permitted if each sign contributes to a sense of visual continuity and does not overwhelm the context. AWNING SIGN An awning/canopy sign occurs flat against the surface of the awning material. 6.11 An awning sign shall be compatible with the building. › Use colors and materials that are compatible with the overall color scheme of the facade. › See page 73 for additional awning standards. INTERPRETIVE SIGN An interpretive sign refers to a sign or group of signs that provide information to visitors on natural, cultural and historic resources or other pertinent information. An interpretive sign is usually erected by a non-profit organization or by a national, state or local govern- ment agency. Interpretive signs shall comply with the design stan- dards for the sign type that is the closest match. The standards below apply to a common freestanding sign type. 6.12 Design an interpretive sign to be simple in character. › The sign face shall be easily read and viewed by pedestrians. › An interpretive sign shall remain subordinate to its context. 4 Although these interpretive signs are outside of the Old Town district they’re good examples of permitted interpretive signs. The signs are simple in character. Design of Specific Sign Types 4 An awning sign shall be compatible with the building. 4 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 108 Design Standards for Signs MURALS A mural is a sign located on the side of the building whose content, reflects a cultural, historic or environ- mental event(s) or subject matter from the district. 6.13 Mural content shall be appropriate to the district and its environs. › The mural may not depict a commercial product brand name or symbolic logo that is currently available. 6.14 When used, a mural shall be incorporated as an element of the overall building design. › The mural shall complement the wall on which it is placed. › It shall not obscure key features of a historic building. 6.15 The application of a mural shall not damage historic materials. › The use of a mural that can be removed at a later date is permitted. › The application of a mural shall not damage the original building fabric. Generally, the hanging and/or anchoring of a mural should be reversible. › If a masonry wall is already painted, it may be acceptable to provide a painted mural with the approval of the review authority. Mural content shall be appropriate to the district and its envi- rons. 4 4 A mural shall complement the wall on which it is placed. 4 Design of Specific Sign Types 2.3.d Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old109 Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 TENANT PANEL OR DIRECTORY SIGN A tenant panel or directory sign displays the tenant name and location for a building containing multiple tenants. 6.16 Use a tenant panel or directory sign to consolidate small individual signs on a larger building. › Use a consolidated tenant panel or directory sign to help users find building tenants. › Locate a consolidated tenant panel or direc- tory sign near a primary entrance on the first floor wall of a building. PROJECTING / UNDER-CANOPY SIGN A projecting/under-canopy sign is attached perpen- dicular to the wall of a building or structure. 6.17 Design a bracket for a projecting/ under-canopy sign to complement the sign composition. 6.18 Locate a projecting/under-canopy sign to relate to the building facade and entries. › Locate a small projecting/under-canopy sign near the business entrance, just above or to the side of the door. › Mount a larger projecting sign higher on the building, centered on the facade or positioned at the corner. Design a bracket for a pro- jecting sign to complement the sign composition. The combination of the simple painted wall sign and the pro- jecting sign are complementary to each other and permitted for this building type. Locate a small projecting sign near the business entrance, just above or to the side of the door. 4 4 4 Design of Specific Sign Types 4 Use a consolidated tenant panel or directory sign to help users find building tenants. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 110 Design Standards for Signs FLUSH WALL SIGN A flush wall sign is any sign attached parallel to the wall or surface of a building. 6.19 Place a f lush wall sign to promote design compatibility among buildings. › Place a wall sign to align with other signs on nearby buildings. 6.20 Place a f lush wall sign close to the building wall. › Design a wall sign to minimize the depth of a sign panel or letters. › Design a wall sign to fit within, rather than forward of, the fascia or other architectural details of a building. Design of Specific Sign Types Place a wall sign to promote design compatibility among build- ings. Design a wall sign to minimize the depth of a sign panel or let- ters. 4 4 A wall sign is any sign attached parallel to the wall or surface of a building. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 111 4 Design a door sign to minimize the amount of window covered. Design a window sign to minimize the amount of window covered. 4 4 WINDOW AND DOOR SIGN A window sign is any sign, picture, symbol, or combi- nation thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale or service that is placed inside within one foot of the inside window pane or upon the windowpanes or glass and which is visible from the exterior of the window. 6.21 Design a window sign to minimize the amount of window covered. › Scale and position a window sign to preserve transparency at the sidewalk edge. Design of Specific Sign Types 2.3.d Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 112 Design Standards for Signs KIOSKS A sign kiosk is typically a series of configured sign panels. 6.22 A sign kiosk is prohibited within the district. › Unless used by the city for wayfinding or for interpretive information. OTHER SIGN TYPES All sign types that are not mentioned here, but which are permitted in the district, shall adhere to the stan- dards in “Design of New and Modified Signs” in this chapter. ILLUMINATION 6.23 Include a compatible, shielded light source to illuminate a sign. › Direct lighting towards a sign from an exter- nal, shielded lamp. › Do not overpower the building or street edge with lighting. › Use a warm light, similar to daylight. › If halo lighting is used to accentuate a sign or building, locate the light source so that it is not visible. › A sign shall be illuminated from an indirect light source. 6.24 If internal illumination is used, it shall be designed to be subordinate to the overall building composition. › Internal illumination of an entire sign panel is prohibited. If internal illumination is used, a system that backlights text only is permitted. › Internal illumination of an awning is prohibited; however, lights may be concealed in the underside of a canopy. Illumination 4 Direct lighting towards a sign from an external, shielded lamp. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) APPENDIX 2.3.d Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 2.3.d Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 A - 115 Historic Architectural Styles Nineteenth-Century Commercial Most nineteenth-century commercial structures are usually considered Italianate in style. However, many buildings contain a variety of detailing not associated with Italianate. These commercial buildings have been divided into four categories: the single storefront, generally twenty-five-feet wide with one entrance; the double storefront, with a width of fifty feet or more and two or three entrances; the corner building which may have entrances on two sides and sometimes a diagonal corner entrance; and the commercial block which generally covers a large area with multiple en- trances. Most nineteenth-century commercial buildings are two or three stories in height, with a flat roof and a variety of ornamental detailing. The “textbook” storefront has a recessed central entrance flanked by large display windows with kickplates, window and door transoms. The primary or roofline cornice is often bracketed with parapets, finials, or simple decorative panels. There is sometimes a secondary cornice separating the first two stories, which sometimes repeat the pattern of the upper cornice. Windows on the upper stories are generally smaller than the display windows on the street level and are usually decorated with molded sur- rounds, radiating voussoirs, or plain stone lintels. Some of the most ornate nineteenth-century com- mercial structures feature cast iron façades. These had Italianate features particularly at the cornice. Rich- ardsonian elements are also evident on some of these structures. The key to distinguishing a nineteenth-cen- tury building is the predominately glass storefront and smaller windows on the upper stories. These buildings are usually retail, offices, and hotel space. Common elements: » cast iron façade » kickplate » window transom » lintel » radiating voussoirs » bracketed cornice » secondary cornice » door transom » recessed entry Note: These style descriptions are taken from the His- tory Colorado web link at: http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/ colorados-historic-architecture-engineering-web- guide 2.3.d Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) A - 116 Appendix Early Twentieth-Century Commercial Early Twentieth-Century Commercial structures are generally one to five stories, with flat or slightly pitched roofs. Often constructed of blond or light colored brick, these buildings have very little ornamen- tation other than some decorative brickwork along the cornice or parapet. In some of the smaller towns, 20th century commercial structures retain some elements of 19th century commercial structures. The clear glass transoms of the nineteenth century has largely been replaced by translucent prismatic glass. Some storefront entrances of this period are flush with the façade. Others, particularly in retail establish- ments, feature deep, nearly façade-wide recesses that allow shoppers to examine window displays out of the sidewalk traffic. Common elements: » recessed or flush entrance » translucent window transom » door transom » corbelled cornice » decorative brickwork » parapet 2.3.d Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 A - 117 Classical Revival Classical Revival signaled a return to the classical forms of Greece and Rome following the elaborately decorated and picturesque styles of the Victorian period. Dating from the late 1890s through 1920, Clas- sical Revival represents a more subdued expression than the ostentatious or grandiose Beaux Arts style and is evident mainly on large institutional buildings in Colorado. Characteristics of Classical Revival include colossal porticos, large columns, pilasters, pedimented win- dows, and domes. The buildings are generally masonry structures of monumental proportions, using terra cotta, brick, and stone materials. Often, classical details such as large column porticos are combined with Colonial Revival elements on resi- dences, leading to some confusion as to the style. To avoid this problem, residences with classical elements are considered examples of Colonial Revival and only large institutional buildings with classical details are classified as Classical Revival. Common elements: » large columns » dome » portico » pediments » pilasters » Ionic columns » attic story » dentils » classical frieze 2.3.d Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) A - 118 Appendix Richardsonian Romanesque The chief characteristic of the Romanesque Revival style is the semicircular arch, used for window and door openings as well as a decorative element along the corbel table. Other characteristics include an archivolt of compound arches and square towers of different heights and various roof shapes. A crenellated tower parapet is common. Richardsonian Romanesque, named after architect Henry Hobson Richardson (1838-1886), is charac- terized by heavy, rock-faced stone, round masonry arches, contrasting colors, transom windows arranged in ribbon-like patterns, square towers, and sparse fenestration. Most of the Richardsonian Romanesque structures are variations of the style, employing se- lected Richardsonian elements. Common elements: » semicircular arch » corbel table » archivolt » compound arch » square tower » rock-faced stone » round masonry arches » contrasting colors » transom windows in ribbon pattern 2.3.d Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Town Fort Collins Design Standards | July 2014 A - 119 Art Deco Art Deco is characterized by an angular, linear compo- sition, stepped or set-back facade, and polychromatic materials. Popular during the 1930s and 1940s, apart- ment buildings, school, and commercial buildings all over Colorado exhibit elements of this style. Geomet- ric forms are the most common stylistic expressions. Broken cornice lines, low relief geometrical designs, spandrel panels, architectural sculptures, polychro- matic materials and a vertical emphasis are also charac- teristic. Decorative façade elements include chevrons, zigzags, stylized floral and geometric motifs. Common elements: » linear composition » polychromatic material » stepped fronts » broken cornice line » geometric forms Moderne Moderne, also called Art Moderne or Streamline Moderne, saw popularity in the 1930s and early 1940s. Restrained Moderne bridged the gap between the flamboyant Art Deco and the functional International Style of the 1940s and 1950s. Smooth stucco exteriors, rounded corners, and curved metal canopies all gave the impression of a sleek and modern building. Port- holes, taken directly from the luxury liners of the time period, found their way onto buildings, most often applied to garages, bus terminals, and airports. Construction slowed down significantly with the onset of World War II and the restrictions placed on various materials. As Moderne faded, simple and stark build- ings in the International Style emerged, reflecting the sparse times in which they were constructed. Common elements: » stucco exterior » flat roof » horizontal emphasis » rounded corners » smooth surfaces » glass block » speed lines » little ornamentation » curved metal hoods » porthole opening » vertical emphasis This structure, originally an Italianate commercial building, was remodeled in 1936 in the Art Deco Style. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) A - 120 Appendix Factory/Warehouse Warehouse buildings are often composed of large, rectangular masses. The primary material is brick with accents of stone masonry, wood or metal. Detailing was usually simple with decorative features including door surrounds, window hoods, modillions, keystones and elaborate cornices. Flat roofs are most common; however, gable roofs screened by parapet walls are also seen. Double-hung windows with 1/1, 2/2 and 4/4 patterns are characteristic. Raised loading docks for handling goods are common; some project from the facade while others are inset behind the building plane. Loading bay doors and openings were typically rectan- gular. Metal or wood canopies sheltering the loading dock are also typical. Common elements: » simple form » flat roof » loading docks at rear » aligned windows 2.3.d Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Old Firehouse and West Mountain Alley Enhancements Fort Collins, CO DDA Board Meeting Presentation Design Progress Drawings Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-1 Mason Street Mountain Avenue Oak Street MATCH B MATCH A MATCH C MATCH B Reconﬁgured DDA Parking Lot Existing loading/ parking area Existing teller building Proposed light pole w/ tivoli light attachment Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Proposed light pole Proposed planting bed Proposed entry bulb-out Proposed entry bulb-out Proposed patio expansion Proposed tivoli lighting to extend over sidewalk Proposed tivoli lighting to extend over sidewalk Existing patio Existing patio Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Herringbone paving pattern Tivoli lighting at entries Art installation (52) Ex Parking (34) Proposed Parking 1 1 1 7 2 2 2 4 2 7 6 5 3 LED lighting Proposed bike parking structure 3 7 6 4 Overhead planting structure Proposed (2) additional Parking spaces, sidewalk improvements Existing wall sconce lighting to remain. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan running bond pattern, typ. Proposed raised planters, typ. Proposed planting bed, w/ curb, typ. Cable art installation See example photos to the right Proposed concrete header, typ. Existing parking lot Example images of cable art installation Existing loading/ parking lot Existing parking lot Existing trash enclosure Existing parking lot Existing Teller Building Proposed Seatwall improvements and updated planting Proposed light pole, typ. Proposed planting bed w/ curb, typ. Proposed tivoli lights Proposed raised planters, typ. Existing transformer to remain. Vine trellis, typ. Proposed bike parking structure Proposed trash enclosure Proposed planting bed w/ curb, typ. Mason Street MATCH C MATCH B MATCH B MATCH A Reconﬁgured DDA Parking Lot A A’ (52) Ex Parking (34) Proposed Parking (2) Proposed On Street West Mountain Mountain Avenue Oak Street MATCH B MATCH A MATCH C MATCH B Existing Teller Building Proposed patio expansion Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing patio Proposed light pole, typ. Proposed vine trellis, typ. Proposed entry bulb-out w/ planting Proposed entry bulb-out w/ planting Proposed drainage chase Proposed drainage chase Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Existing wall sconce lighting, typ. Proposed raised planters, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan running bond pattern, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan running bond pattern, typ. Proposed concrete header, typ. Proposed concrete header, typ. Proposed light pole, typ. Proposed raised planters, typ. Proposed trash enclosure Proposed bike parking structure Existing loading/ parking lot DDA parking lot Planting area Paver ﬁeld Conc band Conc Section A-A’ curb Section B-B’ Section C-C’ Paver ﬁeld Overhead trellis feature Precast concrete planter, typ. Proposed future patio extension Walrus Ice Cream Hanging basket, typ. Planting area adjacent to reconﬁgured parking lot Reconﬁgured DDA parking lot Conc band Conc band Paver ﬁeld Conc band Conc band Adjacent parking area ROW-Limits of Work ROW-Limits of Work ROW-Limits of Work Pedestrian pole light with hanging basket 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sections - West Mountain Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-5 Reconﬁgured DDA Parking Lot Existing Parking Lot Cable art installation Proposed trash enclosure Walrus Ice Cream Teller Building Mainline Rio Back Patio View looking east looking towards Mainline alley entrance View looking south looking towards teller building View looking north looking towards Walrus Ice Cream Layout view Cable attachment details Example Images of cable art installation Alley out to Mason Street Alley out to Oak Street Alley out to Mountain Avenue 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Cable Art Concept - West Mountain Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-6 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Teller Building Concept - West Mountain Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-7 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sketch - West Mountain Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-8 Birds eye view of trellis structure adjacent to Walrus Ice Cream View toward West Mountain Ave View down West Mountain Ave alley 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Vine Trellis - West Mountain Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-9 Birds eye view of trellis structure adjacent to Walrus Ice Cream View toward West Mountain Ave View down West Mountain Ave alley 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Vine Trellis - West Mountain Alley - Evening Images Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-10 Walnut Street Jefferson Street Linden Street Chestnut Street Elizabeth Hotel Parking Garage Access, Drainage, Utility Easement Existing beer garden Existing parking lot Proposed trash enclosure Proposed plating bed Proposed Limits of Work Proposed planters, typ. Proposed wall sconce light, typ. Proposed bollards Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, typ. (To match Hotel Alley) Proposed tivoli lights w/ building attachments, typ. Existing parking lot Access, Drainage, Utility Easement Vertical precast concrete planters Bench seating 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 Raised planting/screen adjacent to patio Hotel Alley (under construction) Overhead planting structure Light projection 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Overall Site Plan - Old Firehouse Alley 0 20 40 80’ Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-11 1 Vertical precast concrete planters, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, herringbone pattern, typ. Proposed trash enclosure, typ. Access and drainage easement Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, drain pan Proposed wall sconce running bond pattern, typ. light, typ. Proposed vine trellis, typ. Proposed tivoli lights, typ. Proposed pre-cast concrete pavers, to match hotel alley, typ. Proposed planting bed, w/ curb, typ. Proposed planters, typ. Proposed planters, typ. Proposed light pole w/ tivoli light attachments, typ. Proposed tivoli lighting, typ. Proposed concrete header, typ. Existing parking lot Existing parking lot Existing beer garden Linden Street Walnut Street B B’ A A’ 2 Bench seating, typ. 4 Overhead planting structure Light projection - ground plane 5 Wall projection 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Site Plan Enlargement - Old Firehouse Alley 0 8 16 32’ Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-12 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Projector Precedence - Old Firehouse Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-13 Section B-B’ Section A-A’ Paver ﬁeld Conc band Conc band Precast concrete planter Overhead trellis with vine plantings Overhead tivoli lighting Min. 14’ above surface Pedestrian pole light with hanging basket Precast concrete planter Hanging basket with vine plantings - both sides Paver ﬁeld Pedestrian zone Conc band Conc band ROW-Limits of Work 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sections - Old Firehouse Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-14 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Sketch - Old Firehouse Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-15 View towards Seckner Alley View towards Seckner Alley View down Seckner Alley towards Walnut Street 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Vine Trellis - Old Firehouse Alley Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-16 Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-17 Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-18 West Mountain Alley - South West Mountain Alley - North West Mountain Alley - North West Mountain Alley - South B B’ C C’ Mountain Ave Oak Street Mason Street 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Site Plan Enlargement - West Mountain Alley 0 8 16 32’ Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-4 Alley - West Mountain Ave Oak Street Mason Street West Mountain Alley - West 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Site Plan Enlargement - West Mountain Alley 0 8 16 32’ Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-3 Proposed light pole with planters, typ. Proposed trash enclosure 7 Vertical precast concrete planters 2017.12.14 - DDA BOARD MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Overall Site Plan - West Mountain Alley 0 20 40 80’ Exhibit 3-1: DDA Presentation Item 3, Exhibit 1 DDA Presentation Submitted at Work Session Packet Pg. 195-2 Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) building appear consistent with traditional development patterns. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) ments is also preferred. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) building areas. › Minimize structural impacts when installing turbines. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) ing windows. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) should be employed. Step 5: Add Energy-Generating Technologies Sensitively. The flexibility of many historic structures allows for the respectful integration of energy efficient technolo- gies, i.e., solar panels, geo-thermal systems and thermal walls etc. Energy-generating technologies are the most commonly known strategies. However, the efficiency of a historic structure will often be great enough that generation technologies aren’t the most practical solu- tions. Utilize strategies to reduce energy consumption prior to undertaking an energy generation project. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) located on an improved alley. Appropriate addition to the front of a one-story non-contributing structure. 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 4 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Design an addition or secondary structure to be subordinate to the historic building. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) briefs/11-storefronts.htm 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) preservation, and, when appropriate, the use of alternative materials. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 8 Re-point mortar joints where there is evi- dence of deterioration. This shall match the historic design. 4 Historic building materials are key features of historic buildings and shall be preserved. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) See web link to Preservation Brief 47: Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/47-maintaining-exteriors.htm 2.3.d Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Rehabilitation (simplified historic interpretation) 4 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) “Rehabilitation” is the process of returning a property to a state that makes a contemporary use possible while still preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, archi- tectural and cultural values. Rehabilitation may include a change in use of the building or the construction of an addition. This term is the broadest of the permit- ted treatments and applies to most work on historic properties. Combining Treatments For many projects a “rehabilitation” approach will be the overall strategy, because this term reflects the broadest, most flexible of the approaches. Within that, however, there may be a combination of treatments used as they relate to specific building components. For example, a surviving cornice may be preserved, a storefront base that has been altered may be restored, and a missing kickplate may be reconstructed. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) mation that will be helpful in understanding the standard. In some cases a sidebar includes links that direct the user to additional material; this may be technical information about a rehabilitation procedure or other helpful infor- mation. 4 2.3.d Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) Other Track Signs 4 4 (1) (1) (1) 4 Site Work 4 4 (1) (1) (1) 4 Miscellaneous 4 4 4 (1) Standards may apply to some projects in this category. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) with a sufficient degree of care, such that it may be re-classified as a contributing property once improve- ments are completed. An owner may elect to take such an approach; the city will work with the owner to determine if this is appropriate. For this special condi- tion, the Preservation Track will apply. This option is not mandatory and is up to the building owner. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) features are more subtle but still continue to influence patterns of development. The aerial image shown on the next page underscores the value of the features that sill survive because they provide a hint to the early character. To preserve the historic building fabric and to provide din- ing, retail and entertainment uses was a goal of the 1985 redevelopment plan. Illustrative plan from the 1985 redevelopment plan set a vision for Old Town. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) that guided Dow and Meldrum. By including most of the original surveyed area of Fort Collins, Avery cre- ated the distinct triangular shaped lots and streets that characterize Old Town. Spring of 1873 saw an influx of population, and many new business buildings were erected in Old Town. Dur- ing that year 68 frame buildings were constructed in Fort Collins, with a majority in the Old Town area, but gusty autumn winds blew several down. The ones that remained were later removed to build the more sturdy brick buildings that stand today. Near harvest time of the same year a plague of grasshoppers descended upon the crops and devoured them. The businesses of the community suffered along with the farmers, as the grasshoppers made repeat performances in 1874 and 1875. Many families and businesses in Old Town left, Ansel Watrous wrote, “Building was practically at a standstill and business of all kinds was in the dumps.” The arrival of the Colorado Central Railroad in 1877 began a new era of prosperity for Fort Collins, and in particular for Old Town, as the Terminal was in close proximity to the business district. Investments in housing and business buildings rose, as did the spirit of the people who lived and worked in Old Town. The following year saw the building of some substantial brick business blocks in Old Town, and a promise of more to come. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) the cultural heritage of the community. It also enhances livability in the community. » Environmental Sustainability. Rehabilita- tion of historic resources conserves energy that is embodied in the construction of existing structures. It also reduces impacts on landfill from demolition and reduces the need to fabricate new materials. » Economic Sustainability. The economic benefits of protecting historic resources include higher property values, job creation and increased heritage tourism. For More Information: See web link to National Park Service Sustainabil- ity information: http://www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability.htm For More Information: See the following web link to Preservation Brief 3: Improving Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings: http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/3- improve-energy-efficiency.htm 2.3.d Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) mizing the need for replacement materials. Buildings were also built to respond to local climate conditions, integrating passive and active strategies for year-round interior climate control, which further increase energy efficiency. Passive strategies typically include building orientation for sun and breezes. Active strategies typi- cally include operable awnings, and double-hung and transom windows. Embodied Energy Embodied energy is defined as the amount of energy used to create and maintain the original building and its components. Preserving a historic structure retains this energy. Re-using a building also preserves the energy and resources invested in its construction, and reduces the need for producing new construction ma- terials, which require more energy to produce. Studies confirm that the loss of embodied energy by demoli- 2.3.d Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new con- struction shall not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials 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.” PRESERVATION BRIEFS & TECH NOTES The Cultural Resources Department of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, pub- lishes a series of technical reports regarding proper preservation techniques. This series, Preservation Briefs and Tech Notes, is a mainstay for many preservationists in the field. When considering a preservation project, these resources should be consulted. 2.3.d Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) principles for the treatment of historic resources, but gives only very limited guidance or direction for rehabilitation of historic properties themselves. Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapter 14 Landmark Preservation This section of the code sets forth the following dec- laration of policy for Historic Preservation within the City: (a) It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historical, architectural or geographic significance, located within the City, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people. (b) It is the opinion of the city council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be main- tained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architec- tural and geographical heritage of the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets. It also identifies: › standards for determining eligibility, › designation procedures, › construction, alteration and demolition activity, and a › landmark rehabilitation program 2.3.d Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) rehabilitation of a historic resource: • City of Fort Collins, Historic Preservation web site: http://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/ • History Colorado web site to assist in rehabilita- tion projects: http://www.historycolorado.org • National Park Service web site for tax credit information to assist in rehabilitation projects: http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm 2.3.d Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: OldTown District Standards_Final (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 20' 0 10' 20' 40' N O R T H 506 south college ave, unit A fort collins, colorado 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios WEST MOUNTAIN ALLEY OVERALL SITE PLAN LS101 2.3.c Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) RD U RD EB RD U U S S CC B S W O RD RD RD S S S ET ET FO ET RD 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 4 3 2 506 south college ave, unit A fort collins, colorado 80524 p: 970.484.8855 www.russellmillsstudios.com russell + mills studios OLD FIREHOUSE ALLEY LAYOUT/CALLOUT PLAN 10' 05' 10' 20' N O R T H LS401 2.3.c Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 2018_COFC_Downtown_Alley_Enhancements_Plan of Protection for LPC_DRAFT (6277 : Downtown Alley Enhancements) West Mountain Alley - South West Mountain Alley - North West Mountain Alley - North West Mountain Alley - South B B’ C C’ Mountain Ave Oak Street Mason Street 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Site Plan Enlargement - West Mountain Alley 0 8 16 32’ 2.3.b Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley Alley - West Mountain Ave Oak Street Mason Street West Mountain Alley - West 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Site Plan Enlargement - West Mountain Alley 0 8 16 32’ 2.3.b Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley Proposed light pole with planters, typ. Proposed trash enclosure 7 Vertical precast concrete planters 2017.12.13 - LPC MEETING DDA Alley Enhancements Overall Site Plan - West Mountain Alley 0 20 40 80’ 2.3.b Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 20171130-DDA_Alley_LPC_meeting - formatted for packet (6277 : Downtown Alley 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 2.1.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources) The compatibility considerations listed in the draft matrix are for discussion purposes only and may be modified based on the city‟s preservation priorities. Whatever compatibility considerations are ultimately 2.1.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Clarion Report - Development Review (6281 : Discussion of Development Review and Historic Resources)