Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2020 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Work SessionMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers Alexandra Wallace, Co-Vice Chair City Hall West Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue Mollie Bredehoft Fort Collins, Colorado Kurt Knierim Elizabeth Michell Kevin Murray Anne Nelsen Anna Simpkins 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 February 12, 2020 5:30 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • REVIEW OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2020 AT 5:30 P.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONSENT 1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 15TH MEETING 2. STAFF DESIGN REVIEW DECISIONS ON DESIGNATED PROPERTIES DISCUSSION 3. 129 N MCKINLEY LANDMARK DESIGNATION 4. 720 W PROSPECT (EMMA BROWN/SUSAN WINTER HOUSE) – DESIGN REVIEW 5. HAVEN APARTMENTS (PDP190017) – DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OTHER BUSINESS o DISCUSSION WITH ERICA DUVIC, HISTORY COLORADO CLG o COORDINATORELECTION OF THE CHAIR/VICE CHAIR • BOARD TOPICS 1. Sustainability Workshop – Solar 2. Landmarking Process 101 3. LPC Work Plan – Progress and Priorities • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Landmark Preservation Commission AGENDA Packet Pg. 1 Board Topic 1, Page 1 DATE: STAFF: February 12, 2020 Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner WORK SESSION ITEM 1 Landmark Preservation Commission SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Sustainability & Historic Preservation Workshop Series – Solar EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a brief informational presentation and discussion (as part of an ongoing series requested by the Commission) regarding the intersection of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and the “Triple Bottom Line” approach to sustainability that has been adopted by the City (as well as other government and preservation organizations). The presentation will provide a refresher on the framework of sustainability and historic preservation, and will provide an introduction to solar installations on historic preservation, their challenges and questions, and the general approaches recommended by the National Park Service. Staff is seeking input from the Commission regarding this topic regarding future design review decisions under Chapter 14 of Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation 2. Interpreting the Standards (ITS) Brief 52, Solar Panels Packet Pg. 2 1 Historic Preservation & Sustainability Section 4 – Solar Jim Bertolini, Historic Preservation Planner Landmark Preservation Commission Work Session, January 8, 2020 Goals of Sustainability Workshop - Solar • In General • Staff introduction to topic and preliminary questions • LPC encouraged to discuss, ask questions, and provide expertise on the subject • Topic-specific goals: • Explain current regulatory framework for solar installations on historic buildings in Fort Collins • Capture information from LPC members about best practices and concerns on solar installations on historic buildings. 2 1 2 BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 3 Sustainability - Definitions • “Triple bottom line” approach •Social • Connect people with history • Consider owner/resident needs (rehabilitation) • Consider local knowledge & craftsmanship • Economic • Boosts to local job growth • Small business incubation • Financial solvency for local governments in pedestrian-focused environments • Environmental • Embodied energy • Reduce, reuse, recycle (in that order) 3 Society Environment Economy Embodied Energy • Buildings have two significant energy costs 1. Construction 2. Operations (lighting, heating, etc.) • Embodied energy includes full supply chain • Costs of raw material extraction • Costs of material manufacture/processing • Costs of transportation • Costs of physical construction • Best practice to consider demolition energy costs as well • Many historic buildings, especially masonry buildings, can meet LEED requirements for operational energy efficiency. 4 Materials - Architectural 50% Materials - Utilities 20% Fuel & Transport 17% Business Services 11% Furnishings 1% Machinery 1% Typical Embodied Energy Distribution U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Use for Building Construction. 3 4 BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 Planning Concepts & Strategies • Conduct an energy audit first (solve problems a building actually has) • Consider inherent energy efficiency of the building • Reuse of existing materials is generally more energy-efficient than replacement due to: • environmental costs of manufacture • durability of historic materials (especially pre-1950) • No such thing as “maintenance free” 5 Where Air Escapes From a House (by percentage) – Image based on data from Energy Savers, U.S. Department of Energy. Illustration: Blank Space LLC. Preservation Approaches - Solar •NPS • Guidelines for Rehabilitation • “Solar Panels on Historic Properties” (web) • ITS Bulletin 52 • Generally • Consider off-site solar • Avoid primary elevations or high-profile installations • Minimize visibility 6 National Park Service 5 6 BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 Solar – Design Review • Design Review – Fort Collins HPS • Similar to most alterations under Chapter 14, Article IV of Municipal Code. • Typically handled by staff • Very few requests on Fort Collins historic buildings but many on older building stock (no solar water heating systems yet) • Generally recommend sides and rear and reduced visibility 7 Solar – City Code Requirements • Modern Fort Collins code requires: •Permit • Licensed solar contractor w/ Master Electrician • Electrical diagram • Plans (showing size & location) • Must have rooftop access • Spacing requirements from eave and ridge 8 City of Fort Collins 7 8 BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 Solar & Historic – Fort Collins Challenges • Sustainability goals • 2019 MSAP – Goal for Carbon Neutrality (City govt) • 2019 City Plan – Principle ENV 3: Transition from fossil to renewable energy • Rehab • Zero-energy solutions require larger solar installations • (around 20 panels and a battery per home but data is hard to track down) • New tech like solar shingles unclear on effects • Some historic properties not good candidates • Corner lots • South-facing lots w/ side-gabled or hipped roofs 9 Regional Approaches to Solar • Denver – Similar to Fort Collins – generally follow SOI Guidelines and emphasize reduced visibility • Garages & secondary structures encouraged. • Greeley – same as above; suggests screening • Brighton – same as above 10 • Boulder (City) – same; focus on roof as character- defining element of historic properties • Colorado Springs – same; flush with roof rather than stand-off support racking; discourage additional framing for optimal aspect • Golden – same as above; placement recommendations for flush installation or inconspicuous location. In general, substitutes are allowed in other northern Colorado preservation programs, but reasons and limitations vary 9 10 BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 7 Discussion & Questions • Should the City adjust treatment regarding solar on historic buildings? • Should emphasis be placed on energy efficiency (inherent and new)? • Should staff adjust guidance/denial process for historic properties that are not good candidates for solar? • Should the LPC’s role change regarding review of solar installations on historic buildings? 11 11 BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Interpreting NUMBER ITS 52 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Issue: Enhancing the energy efficiency of a historic building is important. To that end, it is often possible to install features such as solar panels and photovoltaic cells provided they are installed in a sensitive manner. Because these elements must be positioned to take advantage of unobstructed sunlight, the roof of a historic structure is an obvious location. The roofline of a historic building is often a distinctive feature. Therefore, the installation of solar panels should conform to guidance regarding rooftop additions, i.e. that they be minimally visible, to avoid altering the historic character of the building. Historic buildings with a flat roof or parapet can usually accommodate solar panels because the panels will be hidden, while properties with a hipped or gabled roof are generally not good candidates for a rooftop solar installation. Solar panels on historic buildings should not be visible from the public right of way such as nearby streets, sidewalks or other public spaces. In circumstances where solar collectors are not placed on rooftops, they should only be positioned in limited or no-visibility locations in secondary areas of the property. Vegetation or a compatible screen may also be an option to further reduce the impact of these features on a historic property. For some historic buildings, it may not be possible to incorporate solar panels and meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Application 1 (Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this mid-nineteenth century mill incorporated a large, roof- mounted photovoltaic installation. Although the historic building does not have a parapet wall at the roofline, the height of the building and the arrangement of the panels render the entire installation invisible from the ground. It is important to note that the panels are placed horizontally. Had the panels been installed with a vertical tilt, the angle required to maximize efficiency would have caused the panels to extend significantly higher above the roof. Simply changing the direction in which the panels are tilted can affect their visibility and reduce their impact on the character of the historic property. Solar panels installed on the flat roof. Because of the size of this historic mill, a large array of solar panels could be installed on the flat roof without being seen from the ground. Subject: Incorporating Solar Panels in a Rehabilitation Project Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character 9. Compatible Additions/Exterior Alterations By placing the panels horizontally, the overall height of the installation and its visibility is reduced. solar panels BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 9 These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. Jenny Parker, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service Application 3 (Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this historic post office incorporated solar panels as dual-function features: generation of electricity and shading for south-facing windows. In this instance, the southern elevation of the building is also a secondary elevation with limited visibility from the public right of way. Additionally, because this area of the building is immediately next to the post office’s loading dock, it has a more utilitarian character than the primary facades and, therefore, can better accommodate solar panels. Because the panels are in a suitable location at the rear of the property and are appropriately sized to serve as awnings, they do not affect the overall historic character of the property. Additionally, a screen of tall plantings shields the solar panels from view from the front of the building, further limiting their visibility. August 2009, ITS Number 52 Application 2 (Incompatible treatment): During the rehabilitation of this late-nineteenth century commercial building, a conspicuous rooftop monitor with prominent solar panels and skylights was constructed on the one-story structure. The size and finish of this rooftop addition are incompatible with the historic character of the building. However, the building could have accommodated both skylights and solar panels if they had been installed differently. An alternative design that could have met the Standards would have included low-profile skylights and solar panels concealed behind the parapet wall. Above: Shown from the rear of the property, these solar panels serve a secondary function as awnings to shade south-facing windows. Because of their location at the back of the building immediately adjacent to a loading dock, the installation of these panels does not affect the historic character of the property. Left: The solar panels are not visible from the front of the building. Additionally, even if the vegetation were removed, the installation would only be minimally visible along an alley at the rear of a secondary side elevation. The addition of a large rooftop monitor featuring skylights on the front slope and solar panels on the rear slope is not compatible with the historic character of this small, one-story commercial building. Tall plantings shield solar panels from view from the front of the building. BOARD TOPIC 1, ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 10 Landmark Designation LPC February 8, 2020 2 Neighborhood Livability & Social Health Economic Health Environmental Health 1 2 BOARD TOPIC 2 Packet Pg. 11 Benefits Property Owners • Pride and stability • Financial programs • Tax credits • Preservation grants • No‐interest construction loans • Free professional design assistance 3 Benefits the Community • Sense of Place • Compatible growth & infill • Economic growth • Sustainability • Housing & work options • Social & physical health 4 3 4 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 Landmark Designation Application • Nomination vetted by staff: completion and eligibility • Comprehensive description of each resource • Detail how each resource meets eligibility criteria • Logical boundary explanation • District: 50% of properties must be contributing • Staff shall reject incomplete/insufficient applications • Corrected and resubmitted w/in 14 days • May be appealed to LPC • Survey may be required, paid by applicant 5 Voluntary Landmark Designation • Voluntary Landmark Designation • Consent of all owner(s) • Application complete; resources eligible • Designate lot/parcel; may have non-contributing resources • 1 LPC Hearing • 2 Criteria: Eligibility and Advances Policies & Purposes • Recommendation • Council Action • 2 Months 6 5 6 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 Involuntary Landmark Designation • Councilmember, LPC, Owner(s) or 3+ residents • Nomination vetted by staff: • Application complete, resource eligible • If district, 50% of properties eligible (contribute) • Denial may be appealed to LPC • Neighborhood outreach/mailings • Survey may be required • 2 LPC Hearings – 4 Months 7 Involuntary Landmark Designation 1st LPC Hearing: • Purpose: Confirm Eligibility • If district, 50% eligible (contribute) • Boundaries may be modified (made smaller) • Requires affirmative vote of majority • LPC adopts resolution on eligibility with findings • Denial may be appealed to Council 8 7 8 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 Involuntary Landmark Designation 2nd LPC Hearing: • Purpose: Advances Policies and Purposes • Chapter 14-1 and Chapter 14-2 • In manner sufficient to justify w/o consent of owner • LPC may modify boundaries • Affirmative vote of 6+ LPC (4+ if conflicts of interest) • LPC adopts resolution making recommending to Council 9 Involuntary Landmark Designation Council Hearing: • Council action within 75 days, unless extended • Quasi-judicial; may consider new evidence • Criteria: • Eligibility & Advances Policies and Purposes • Due consideration of owners’ views and LPC findings • Appealable to Courts 10 9 10 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 Landmark Designation • Interim control • Delays issuance of building permits • Work must be approved by LPC or Council • 180 days max, unless extended by Director • Begins upon receipt of application • Limits on Resubmission • 1 year, if substantially the same • May be waived with changed circumstances • Rescission or amending designation: same process as listing 11 Involuntary Designations 12 W Prospect Rd Park Street District 11 12 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Involuntary Designations Whitcomb Street 13 Sheely Drive Involuntary Designations Old Post Office 14 Old Town District 13 14 BOARD TOPIC 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 17 Board Topic 2, Page 1 DATE: STAFF: February 12, 2020 Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager WORK SESSION ITEM 3 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 2020 work plan at its October 16, 2019 meeting. Consideration of pending priorities associated with the work plan will be a regular work session 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 2020 Work Plan Packet Pg. 18 City of ktColli� Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue DATE: TO: CC: P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM October 16, 2019 Susan Gutowsky, Council Liaison Darin Atteberry, City Manager Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk n,rfL,{>- FROM: Meg Dunn, Chair, Landmark Preservation Commission RE: Landmark Preservation Commission 2020 Work Plan Overview of the Landmark Preservation Commission (Est 1968): • Federally authorized Certified Local Government (CLG} since 1991. CLG status: o Authorizes LPC to administer state and federal preservation regulations, notably Section 106 Review and Compliance for all projects with federal licensing, permitting, or funding. Ex: MAX bus system, Linden Street improvements, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG}, flood mitigation, telecommunications. o Enables residents to participate in the 20% Colorado State Tax Credit program. o Provides a dedicated pool of grant funding: Fort Collins has received over $200,000 in CLG grants for training, surveys, building preservation, and community education and outreach. o Requires enforcement of appropriate state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties, consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. o Requires on-going survey of historic resources. • Nine-member board, at least 40% of whom must have professional expertise in the fields of historic preservation, architectural history, architecture, archaeology, or closely related fields: o Commission professional expertise includes: Architecture (Nelson, Paecklar, Simpkins); Landscape Architecture (Bredehoft); Archeology (Gensmer); Finance (Bello); Historic Preservation (Murray, Wallace); and Education (Dunn). • Final decision-maker on: o Requests for alterations to properties designated on the National Register, Colorado State Register, and as Fort Collins Landmarks o Determinations of eligibility for Fort Collins Landmark designation o Allocation of Landmark Rehabilitation Loan funds • Makes recommendations: o To Council on Fort Collins Landmark designations; o To the Colorado State Review Board on nominations to the National and State Register o To Decision Makers on compatibility of developments adjacent to historic properties • Advises Council on the identification and significance of historic resources, threats to their preservation, and methods for their protection • Advises Council and staff about policies, incentives and regulations for historic preservation. BOARD TOPIC 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 19 BOARD TOPIC 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 20 BOARD TOPIC 3, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 21