Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/27/2009 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DATE: October 27, 2009 STAFF: Steve Dush Joe Frank WORK SESSION ITEM Nore Winter, Consultant, FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Winter & Company Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/c/erk/agendas.php SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Historic Preservation System Improvement Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Last spring, City staff initiated a study to review the policies, regulations and'processes and make recommendations for improvement of the City's historic preservation programs and statutory language as they relate to development review. A variety of different viewpoints were sought for this study, including current customers of the historic preservation program, boards and commissions, City Council, and City staff. Following input from Council at its October 27 Work Session, the staff and the consultants will finalize a report for presentation to the public and the Landmark Preservation Commission review on November 18, 2009. City staff will then proceed to implement the study's recommendation over time and as resources permit. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have any questions or concerns about the information and/or recommendations presented in the attached memos? 2. Is Council comfortable with the next steps and the implementation phasing table? BACKGROUND Winter&Company,based in Boulder,Colorado,was selected to assist City staff in the preparation of the study. Winter&Company is one of the country's leading consulting firms in the preparation of preservation plans,renovation feasibility studies,as well as creation,review and implementation of historic preservation regulations. A "Core Project Staff' team led the process that included members from various City departments including, but not limited to, Advance Planning, Current Planning, and the City Attorney's Office. The study process was organized around two phases. The first phase focused on improvements to the review process and related components of the Fort Collins' preservation system. The process for the first phase included: October 27, 2009 Page 2 • Seeking customer input on the City's historic preservation processes and policies by conducting meetings and focus groups with representatives from builders, architects, engineers,homeowners,City boards and commissions,and owners/developers of residential, commercial and mixed-use projects that have had previous experience with the historic preservation process. • Seeking policy maker input by conducting meetings with the City Council, City Manager, Deputy City Manager,Planning and Zoning Board and Landmark Preservation Commission members. • Seeking staff input by conducting meetings with the Director of Planning, Development& Transportation, Chief Financial Officer, City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney, Current Planning Staff, Advance Planning Staff, and other City staff. • Researching current planning documents, files and literature related to the City's historic preservation processes and policies. • Observing a Landmark Preservation Commission meeting. The product of the first phase is a memo entitled Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report (Attachment 1). This memo provides an assessment of the operations of the City of Fort Collins' historic preservation program. It recommends actions that will improve predictability in the program and enhance its effectiveness. The memo focuses on the ways in which the City identifies and officially designates historic resources. It also considers how the review of proposed work occurs on properties that are recognized as having historic significance. Finally,it describes current trends in historic preservation that the City is beginning to experience. A few key recommendations for improving the policy and review process base for the City's historic preservation system include: Policy Recommendations` • Preservation concerns need to be fully addressed in all new and existing subarea plans, and in the update of City Plan. It should be a required component, and it should be addressed early in the plan development. An initial step would be to re-visit some of the City's key subarea plans and add more discussion about historic resources. (See page 17 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report,[Attachment 1]). • As the City's policies and regulations for sustainability are more fully developed in the future, the role that historic preservation plays in the City's sustainability should be a topic of discussion. For example, the City's energy policies and programs need to consider that keeping older buildings in use conserves the energy already expended to create them; the City's waste reduction policies and programs needs to consider that maintaining older buildings reduces impacts on landfills; and, the City's green building strategies needs to consider new energy-saving technologies for historic buildings. (See pages 14-15 and page 17 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). • Develop policies for the treatment of recent past resources,e.g.,buildings constructed in the post World War II era. These buildings may require somewhat different treatment in permitting and review. For example,the City should develop specific design guidelines for October 27, 2009 Page 3 the treatment of recent past buildings. These properties require some special consideration, because some have materials that may be more difficult to treat than those in traditional historic properties. As an example,some commercial buildings constructed during the 1950s and 1960s used materials and technologies that are no longer available. This can make them more difficult to rehabilitate using conventional guidelines than earlier "Victorian" construction. Guidelines for treatment of recent past properties may offer more flexibility in using replacement materials and even in altering some features. (See pages 17— 18 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). Process Recommendations • Consider creating a neighborhood conservation district tool. Conservation districts can be a more flexible option than historic district designation; for instance, they could address mass and scale, and additions, not just alterations to existing buildings. Conservation districts could also address new buildings. (See pages 15-16 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). • Consider a tiered system of designation and treatment of historic properties. For example, "Most Important Structures" (i.e.,National Register) could get the highest levels of review and incentives, and, buildings of"Least Importance" (i.e., contributing to a district) could get the least review and little incentives. There may be multiple tiers of importance and preservation strategies. (See page 16 and pages 18-19 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). • Expand, improve, target and refine surveys of historic buildings. Surveys are critically important. This information needs to be published in an easily accessible form for use by property owners and developers. (See pages 21-22 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). • Preservation review needs to be more closely coordinated with other development review processes. For example, a preservation review needs to be included in the City's development review charts. (See page 20 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). • Provide a "predictive model" to enable owners to gain a preliminary indication of the potential historic significance of any un-surveyed property. A suggestion is that this be web based so a property owner or developer can do their own preliminary assessment at home or in their office. (See page 23 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). • Prepare and publish design guidelines for the treatment of historic properties. This can help remove some of the mystery associated with the treatment of historic properties. (See pages 9-10 and 23-24 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). • The City needs to expand its incentive programs, and engage in more outreach and training programs. All planning staff should receive a basic orientation to the preservation system and the principles involved. The ongoing training of members ofthe Landmark Preservation Commission should include the City's review system. All preservation-related information should be published on the web. (See pages 24-25 of the Process and Policy Improvement Report). October 27, 2009 Page 4 The second phase of the study effort focused on updates to the portions of the City Codes related to historic preservation. The process for the second phase included: • Reviewing City Code and Land Use Code language for consistency and appropriateness in relation to feedback collected as part of process improvement review. • Comparing City of Fort Collins Code language to historic preservation codes and standards adopted by other governmental entities. • Analyzing consistency and appropriateness of City staff application of standards,Codes and other criteria. The major product of the second phase of the study effort is a memo (Attachment 2) entitled Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper. This memo provides an outline of the strategy for recommended updates to the City of Fort Collins' Municipal and Land Use Codes as they relate to historic preservation. The memo includes an overall strategy for addressing Code updates, as well as specific recommendations for additions and changes throughout the codes. The memo provides a review of selected Code sections that includes identification of several areas where there is a lack of clarity or potential conflict with City policies. Also provided is a summary of key observations and issues that are not directly related to specific code sections. A few key recommendations for improving the Code include: Code Recommendations • Add language that limits those who may initiate designation of a historic district or landmark; possible options include but are not limited to City Council, Landmark Preservation Commission, City staff, an established organization that has standing as a "preservation organization,a property owner(if a single property)and,a defined percentage of owners of properties (if a district). According to the current code, anyone can initiate local landmark designation.(See pages 4-5 of the Preservation Code Update Strategy Report [Attachment 2]). • Modify the language in regard to "holds" on building permits as it applies to the initiation of landmarking procedures, including different levels of"holds" for individual or district landmarks; and,provide the LPC with authority to grant pre-defined exceptions. (See pages 5-6 of the Preservation Code Update Strategy Report). • Consider adding language that would include other planning objectives as part of the landmark designation discussion by City Council, such as subarea plans, neighborhood character and city-wide redevelopment policies. (See pages 5-6 of the Preservation Code Update Strategy Report). • Expand administrative review procedures. This can increase the efficiency of preservation review. (See pages 6-7 of the Preservation Code Update Strategy Report). October 27, 2009 Page 5 NEXT STEPS Following input from City Council during its October 27 Work Session, staff and the consultants will finalize,polish and consolidate the memos into a final study report for presentation to the public and the Landmark Preservation Commission review on November 18, 2009. City'staff then will proceed to implement the study's recommendation over time and as resources permit. Some of the recommendations include changes to City Codes which require review and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board and/or Landmark Preservation Commission,and Council adoption. Attached is a draft"implementation phasing table" (Attachment 3). ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report 2. Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper 3. Implementation Phasing Table 4. PowerPoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Processrand Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Fort Collins Preservation System Improvement Project The City of Fort Collins is engaged in an evaluation of its development review process and policies as-they relate to the treatment of historic resources. This memo is a draft report on the process and policy base of the city's preservation system. Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report I. INTRODUCTION This report provides an assessment of the operations of the City of Fort Collins' historic preservation program. It then recommends actions that will improve predictability in the program and enhance its effectiveness. The report focuses on the ways in which the city identifies and officially designates historic resources. It then considers how review of proposed work occurs on properties that are recognized as having historic significance. It also anticipates current trends in historic preservation that the city is beginning to experience. A. The Benefits of a Preservation Program Fort Collins has been a pioneer in the historic preservation movement. It designated the Old Town Historic District, centered at the intersection of Linden and Walnut Streets, and then adopted design guidelines for it in the late 1970s. This provided for protection of its historic buildings and review of alterations and new construction. This action preceded local designations of historic districts in Aspen, Boulder, Denver and many other communities in Colorado that now have noteworthy downtown historic districts. The success of the Old Town Historic District is well known. The district is cited by many people as a key cultural amenity as well as a dynamic economic development driver. Today, the term "Old Town" extends to a broader part of the downtown, reflecting the power of association with the historic district. Old Town also receives recognition for its role in promoting business development and recruitment citywide. Many businesses have chosen to locate in Fort Collins in part due to the quality of life that Old Town represents, even though they may actually locate their facilities in other parts of the city. This is reflected in the city's recent branding study, based on a survey in which many respondents listed Old Town as one of the city's key assets. Citizens also recognize the benefits of preserving other individual, key landmarks that exist throughout the community. Mature, close-in neighborhoods receive acknowledgement as attractive, livable places, although most of these are not officially designated as historic districts under city ordinance. Winter&Company Page 1 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 B. Key Issues for the Preservation Program Even though historic preservation is valued in Fort Collins, there are questions about how extensive the program should be, how it should fit within other community planning initiatives, and whether there are ways to improve it. Some owners of locally landmarked properties have expressed concerns that they are not clear about the requirements that will apply; others are worried that the requirements will be strict and that there will be no flexibility in treatment of their properties. Other preservation-related concerns arise in the course of project development review and permitting when a property that is 50 years old is involved. This occurs in two ways: First, if a project is subject to the development review process set forth in the Land Use Code and the property includes a structure that is 50 years or older, then it will be evaluated for its potential historic significance. Secondly, if demolition or relocation is proposed for a building more than 50 years old, then a similar evaluation occurs. C. Recent Questions Within the context of these general concerns, some more specific questions arise: • Does the preservation program operate efficiently? • Does it reflect best practices that are recognized nationally? • Are there ways to improve its function? • Is it too restrictive in some areas? And, conversely, is it too permissive in others? • Should the program offer flexibility in treatment to property owners? And if so, how would it offer such flexibility? • Can determinations of historic significance and appropriateness of proposed work be made more predictable? • How can the program be more effective in achieving its objectives? • Is the city doing enough, in terms of historic preservation? • How can preservation interests be balanced with other community development objectives? • How will the city address new, emerging trends and issues in preservation, sustainability and neighborhood conservation? Winter& Company Page 2 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 D. Scope of this Paper This paper considers those questions in an assessment of the city's review processes and policies involving historic resources, and then provides recommendations for improvement. It is a part of a series of working papers evaluating the preservation system. A separate paper, Preservation Code Update Strategy, evaluates the city's preservation ordinance, and recommends improvements to it. Another paper, Peer Community Review, addresses preservation programs in peer communities across the country. This assessment draws upon information collected in the following ways: • Interviews with city staff • Review of the city's published materials related to permitting, its ordinances, review procedures and web site • Review of peer community preservation programs • Review of data related to projects reviewed by the city and in its annual Certified Local Government reports • Interviews with approximately twenty individuals, who are representative of property owners, developers and preservation advocates, in a series of "focus groups" E. Balancing Interests In considering these recommendations for process improvements, balancing, several interests are key considerations: • Preservation of heritage • Sense of community • Sustainability • Livability • Political interests • Economic development • Ease of administration Winter & Company Page 3 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 II. MODEL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS Nationally, effective preservation programs exhibit several qualities that define their operations and some essential components. These are described in this section. A. Characteristics of an Effective Preservation Program What is the profile of an effective local preservation program? Today, a city's preservation program should have these three qualities: 1. A Preservation Program should be Green. Preservation inherently reinforces sustainability objectives, because re-using buildings conserves resources. Historic buildings also can accommodate compatible new energy saving technologies. An effective program is one that educates owners and policy makers about the ways in which preservation supports the city's sustainability initiatives, and works proactively to promote energy conserving measures associated with existing buildings. Unfortunately, there is a significant knowledge gap in the community about the "greenness" of historic buildings. Many assume that older buildings are inefficient, when that is not necessarily the case. For example, some people are unaware of recent research, which demonstrates that rehabilitating an original window is usually more energy conserving than replacing it. Preservation programs that are remaining current in their outreach are providing information that helps property owners better understand the implications of rehabilitation and replacement; some are even providing technical support for energy retrofits. (The city's web site does provide basic information about energy conserving measures for existing homes, and it is meritorious in that it recommends other options to window replacement.) 2. A Preservation Program should be Clean. The preservation program should be seen as operating objectively, applying the same standards consistently and with a degree of predictability in the process. It should be seen as being fair, in that all properties of similar type are treated the same. Owners should have confidence in the process such that they can predict the likely outcome following published criteria and guidelines. While the city's program does apply standards and guidelines consistently, and in consistent procedural decision-making steps, these criteria and processes are not made clear, in terms of easily accessible information on the web or in print form. Winter& Company Page 4 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 3. A Preservation Program should be Lean. The program should operate efficiently, with decisions made in a timely manner. Time should be used wisely, and work efforts of others should be coordinated to accomplish mutual objectives. Focus should be on delivering the "products" of expedient decisions and technical assistance, as well as in developing tools that enable users to make informed decisions about their properties. Some inefficiency does exist in the current program, especially in the review of 50-year properties, where the steps in the process may not be clearly defined, and general development review may be well-advanced when preservation issues are raised. B. Preservation System Components A Green, Clean and Lean preservation program is most effective when it includes a range of components that work together in a coordinated manner. The basic tools of an effective preservation program include: 1. Policy Directives Preservation programs operate within the framework of broader community policies. These begin with policies in the City Plan: "Historic buildings and districts will.be preserved and protected." This is of course a broad statement, but it sets a clear direction. Other statements supporting preservation are woven throughout the City Plan, especially in topics related to community appearance and design. Under principle CAD-5 there are directives for survey and identification of resources,,education and awareness, incentives, planning and regulations for preservation and landmark designation. "PRINCIPLE CAD-5: 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 City and community." "Policy CAD-5.4 Planning and Regulations. The City will formally recognize the contribution of historic resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins through planning and regulations." There is also a separate Historic Resources Preservation Plan, which was adopted as part of the city's comprehensive plan in 1994, that sets forth more specific policies for preservation and actions for their implementation. `YI.A.4.4 — Prepare short, informative brochures or "factsheets" on critical preservation issues targeted to selected interest groups, such as realtors and homeowners. Some possible topics include a description of the benefits of preservation, including the economy and tourism; a description Winter&Company Page 5 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 of regulations that apply to landmark structures and districts, histories of neighborhoods, etc." 2. Ordinances Ordinances establish the basic operations of a preservation program. The preservation ordinance defines the mechanisms for identifying and protecting historic resources. In addition, the basic zoning ordinance established certain land use expectations that influence the climate for"preservation. The building code also influences preservation. In Fort Collins, key ordinances include: • Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.4.7 provides standards for preservation and treatment of historic properties and their incorporation into new developments. • Municipal Code: Chapter 14 Landmark Preservation Chapter 14 is the preservation ordinance and includes the bulk of regulation on historic properties, including provisions for demolition that apply to non- listed structures. • Adopted building codes include special sections for existing buildings and historic structures. (Residential Building Code: 2003 International Residential Code with local Amendments and Commercial and multi-family Building Code: 2006 International Building Code with local amendments.) 3. Operating Procedures The details of the steps that are followed to identify, designate, and then protect historic resources are specified in operating procedures. Some of these are embedded in the land use code. Others are referenced in that document, but exist as separate stand-alone papers such that they can be updated more frequently. Development Application Form The steps in a permitting process are a key part of operating procedures, and in the case of historic preservation, should be coordinated with other permitting and decision-making steps of the city. In that regard, existing permit application forms that the city uses do not request information that could help facilitate review of older buildings. The development review form, for example, does not ask if a structure that is fifty years old or more is associated with the proposed project. This means that a property owner may not yet receive an alert that their proposed project is subject to preservation review. Winter & Company Page 6 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Development Review Process Chart The Land Use Code requires consideration of the potential historic significance of a property that is at least 50 years old. However, the city's master development review flow chart fails to reference this potential step, and does not indicate how the process may be affected if a 50-year old property is involved. It also fails to reference a potential review of any officially listed historic resource. Internally, the points at which preservation staff are to review a property also are not clearly charted. While staff of other city departments understand that they should include a review by preservation staff, the timing when that should occur is not documented in a formal development process checklist. As a result, it is possible to overlook this step until quite far into the permitting process; if, at a late stage, a concern is raised by preservation staff or the Landmark Preservation Commission, it can be perceived as an unexpected delay by a property owner. Once it is determined that a review to consider the significance of a property and its potential treatment should occur, the process is not clear. The operating procedures are not stated in a way that is easy to interpret. Owners may have difficulty in understanding how, and when, a decision .related to a project that involves a potential or designed historic resource will be made. A simple, user- friendly guide is needed. This should be a web-based publication. It should include simple check lists and flow charts that describe how the process will operate, and which criteria will be used. In essence, a property owner should be able to reasonably predict the steps involved and the approximate amount of time that will elapse, based on simple information provided by the city. Improving Predictability People need information about the potential historic significance of their properties in advance to help them make informed decisions about improvements that they may contemplate. This includes those who are considering purchase of a property and those who already own it. They wish to know these things: • Is my property historically significant? • If so, what are the requirements or limitations and what are the benefits? • What is the process for reviewing work proposed? Predictability can be improved in these areas: • Providing more information to property owners in advance • Determining in advance if a property has historic significance • Identifying the role of historic resources in city plans and policies • Understanding the guidelines for treatment of historic properties and the flexibility that may be available in design review • Clarifying the steps in the review processes for different property types Winter &Company Page 7 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Providing Flexibility Preservation programs are structured to be objective and treat all similar resources equally. "Flexibility" is a bit different in that context; it is different from a policy-making situation, such as developing a sub-area plan. However, there are ways to build in some flexibility that everyone can understand and predict. Structured ways to provide for flexibility include: • Defining key features of property types Preservation programs focus on preserving the key features of a property. By defining the limits of these other portions of the property as being less important, they are therefore open to more flexibility in alterations. • Different survey levels In the survey process, differing levels of significance may be identified. The city already distinguishes "contributing" resources from those that are "individually eligible." This may be expanded on in combination with other strategies. • Designation levels Establish different categories of designation, such as Individual Landmarks, Contributing Resources and Structures of Merit. This can be integrated.with survey levels as well as guidelines and other standards for treatment. • Different guidelines Related to designation levels, guidelines with increasing levels of flexibility may be crafted for properties at lower levels of significance. This could also provide more flexibility for incorporating a historic structure into a new development. 4. Resource Surveys Surveys identify resources that have historic significance. They are conducted using adopted criteria for determining significance and can cover both districts and individual resources. Surveys should include a listing.of all of the properties surveyed, indicating the significance of each of the historic resources and, where applicable, should also include a description of the general character of the district. Tiered Surveys Some communities use a tiered survey that indicates varying levels of integrity for historic structures. Such a survey may also identify new buildings that are compatible with their context. A tiered survey can then be linked to differing types of review and permitting, as well as incentives and benefits. For example, properties of a high level of significance may be subject to review by the preservation commission, whereas ,those of a lesser level may be handled by staff. (See also a later discussion about tiered designation systems.) Winter & Company Page 8 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 The Need for More Surveys Ideally, the entire city would already be surveyed, but it is not. Fort Collins has undertaken some survey updates in recent years, but like many communities, it is substantially behind. From time to time, the city is able to fund surveys of small areas, usually with grants. Priority should be given to this program, with emphasis placed upon areas that are targeted for redevelopment, or where substantial demolition is occurring or is anticipated. Because many areas are not surveyed, determinations of significance must be made on a case-by-case basis as projects come in for permitting. This is one purpose of the 50-year "filter," to. provide an opportunity to conduct an initial determination of significance. However, if this occurs well into a development submittal, it can lead to surprises for the property.owner. Access to Survey Information A key role of the historic survey is to provide information that the city and property owners can use at the outset of considering an improvement project, in order to determine if a property has historic significance. In an efficient program, a property owner should be able to pull up information on the web that identifies any historic significance. Survey information should be readily available to users. Even for those properties that have been surveyed, the information is not digitized and posted on the internet. It also is not linked to the city's GIS system. This means that, when a query is made about a property, its potential historic significance is not made known. Owner-determinations of Significance An official determination of historic significance requires objective application of . criteria that are understood by professionals in the field. However, in the absence of comprehensive, city-wide surveys, it may be possible to craft a "predictive model" for owners to use that would give them a preliminary indication of the potential historic significance of their property. This might take the form of a web- based, interactive set of questions. The city should explore the potential to develop this type of self-test, as a means of helping owners anticipate the development review process. With this information provided by the owner, it could also reduce staff time in basic research about the property, and thereby reduce the review time required. 5. Design Guidelines Design guidelines provide objective criteria for determining the appropriateness of proposed work affecting historic resources. Guidelines help inform a property owner in advance of the criteria on which their designs will be judged, and are later applied by city staff and boards in permitting. Effective guidelines provide clear examples of appropriate and inappropriate design treatments using local properties. They also define the range of flexibility Winter & Company Page 9 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 that may be available for alterations and additions. They can help to identify which features are significant that should be preserved, and conversely, which features are less critical to the integrity of a historic resource, thereby indicating where greater flexibility may be afforded. Such guidelines are especially important for administrative reviews related to 50 year old properties. At present, custom-tailored design guidelines exist only for Old Town, and these are out of date. In lieu of local guidelines, the City of Fort Collins uses the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Treatment of Historic Properties. These serve as the basis for most locally-written guidelines across the country, and are based on principles that are widely accepted nationally. However, they can be difficult for lay people to interpret. While they should continue to be the basis for design guidance, additional guidance, which is custom-tailored to Fort Collins, is needed. With respect to the Old Town Historic District, while the guidelines have been effective, they need to be updated to enhance clarity and predictability for owners. The range of flexibility they may have in dealing with the properties is not clearly understood, and in the absence of good guidelines, owners often fear the worst. Citywide Preservation Guidelines Clear, well-illustrated design guidelines that apply citywide to historic resources are needed. They should address treatment of officially designated properties, and also should. indicate how they apply to properties in the other development review tracks that are identified as having historic significance. These guidelines would help orient property owners in the appropriate direction at the outset of their improvement planning, and would help make the criteria for determining appropriateness more transparent. 6. Compliance Process An effective program must have mechanisms to assure compliance with permits and other program requirements. Enforcement for non-compliance is defined as a part of this component. Enforcement and compliance are on-going issues in Fort Collins, as in many communities. For example, some work is executed without the required approval, even when it is required. In other cases, an approval has been issued, but the work executed in the field deviates from that which was approved. This requires a supportive working relationship between preservation planning staff and code enforcement staff. It also requires clear documentation of what has been approved. Compliance Tracking A simple form, with designated sign-off points, should be attached to the building permit, and should be used in conjunction with other normal site inspections on a property that has received approval for preservation-related work. Winter& Company Page 10 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 7. Incentives & Benefits An effective program also offers some special benefits to stimulate investment in historic properties, encourages property owners to follow appropriate rehabilitation procedures, and even assists those with limited budgets. This may include financial assistance, tax relief, technical assistance or regulatory relief such as streamlined review processes and special flexibility in building codes. The incentives most frequently referenced in Fort Collins are the federal and state income tax credits that are available for certified properties. Some design assistance has been offered in the past as well. In general, the incentives available fall short of those that many communities offer. Boulder, for example, offers a rebate on the local sales tax of construction materials that are purchased for an approved preservation project. Others offer small design assistance grants to property owners to help them plan an appropriate design, while some waive or reduce local permit fees. Offering flexibility in permitted uses, parking requirements, building setbacks and other code-related regulations are other incentives that may be offered. Expanding the Incentive Package Fort Collins should strive to-expand its incentives and benefits for preservation of historic structures. This should include options for incorporating a historic property into a new development, which is an issue likely to arise in some of the targeted redevelopment areas of the city. 8. Education & Outreach Helping property owners learn how to maintain their historic properties as active, viable assets is also a key part of a successful preservation program. Many property owners willingly comply with appropriate rehabilitation procedures and develop compatible designs for new construction when they are well informed about preservation objectives. Workshops that provide helpful information about rehabilitation techniques and publications that build an understanding of historic significance are examples of education and outreach strategies. Well-written design guidelines that provide useful information, as well as literal standards, can also serve an educational role. Education and outreach is often a function of a partner organization, a non-profit group that promotes preservation and history. For a time, Historic Fort Collins aspired to this role. It has not been active in recent years. Expanded Outreach and Education In the absence of other supporting organizations, the city preservation program needs to engage in more outreach and training. This will help the program operate more smoothly. Providing information about effective energy conservation methods that are appropriate for historic properties is an example. Winter & Company Page 11 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 9. Program Activity Reporting A key question is how Fort Collins compares in the volume of design review activity that it conducts, both for properties formally listed in its historic districts and as individual landmarks, as well as for properties that reach the 50-year threshold. Substantial amounts of data related to historic properties are provided in the preservation office's annual reports to the city and to the Colorado Historical Society as part of its Certified Local Government requirements. However, the data is not clearly summarized in a way that facilitates comparison with other communities, and it is difficult to place the volume of 50-year reviews in the broader context of the total number of projects that are reviewed by the city each year for building permits or for development approvals under the land use code. A standard format for reporting to the Colorado Historical Society is required for Certified Local Governments, which Fort Collins uses, but this format does not request some of the information that would be useful in annual evaluations by city administrations. Annual Reporting The city should adopt a simple reporting form that helps to compare the magnitude of properties considered for historic significance with the total number of permits issued annually. This would be a supplement to the reporting requirements of the CLG program. 10. Level of Historic Significance The city's 1994 preservation plan. recommends adopting a system in which differing levels of historic significance are used. These different levels of significance were to be linked to different levels of review, and even the degree of rigor in which design guidelines were to be applied. The general approach is that, for properties of lesser significance, more flexibility in treatment may be afforded. Several communities have experience working with this type of system. Some of these are reported in a separate survey of peer communities; please see the Peer Community Review paper for more information. Note that some preservation advocates argue tiered ratings are not necessary, in that this degree of flexibility is built into the Secretary of the Interior's standards for identifying historic resources and also in their guidelines for treatment of historic properties, and that therefore formally designating different tiers is not necessary. In some cases, tiers have been criticized, because it is felt that they create a "lower" class of properties that are more vulnerable to loss or inappropriate alteration. Nonetheless, because the city has already established a review of older properties in its development review process, it has implied that different levels of significance exist. But, it has not provided the tools in the surveys, review processes or guidelines that would make this approach work efficiently. Winter& Company Page 12 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Developing a Tiered System The city should consider adopting a tiered system of ratings. This would identify different levels of significance, based on clear criteria, and then would indicate the basic approach anticipated for their treatment. This will require careful thought, but would enhance predictability for all parties involved. It should remain clear that the city's objective continues to be preservation of cultural resources, but that there are, in some cases, options to consider. C. Recent Trends Related to Preservation Programs With these typical system components in mind, preservation programs continue to evolve across the country. This in part reflects broader trends in society that are affecting community planning in general as well as preservation planning. Some of these trends are introducing new issues to historic preservation that may not be fully apparent in the current program, but which are likely to become more obvious in time. The following trends should be taken into account when crafting system improvements for Fort Collins. 1. Program Operations Communities continue to seek ways to streamline programs and accomplish core objectives in the most efficient ways. This includes devising methods to simplify design review and to limit some forms of permitting. Delegating more decision making to staff, and defining some minimum standards that can be approved "at the counter" are operational methods some communities are using. This, however, requires a survey system that supports administrative review, and also requires clear guidelines and standards to expedite review. The city's existing design guidelines would not be sufficient for this type of streamlined review. 2. Integrated Systems Cities are seeking ways to assure that preservation is more deliberately integrated into planning in general. In this way, historic resources are more directly considered in other planning activities, and there is a heightened awareness of the preservation program. Including preservation staff in development review at the outset of a project application is an example. Also engaging preservation issues in sub-area plans is an effective means of more closely integrating preservation. In the absence of this integrated planning, preservation issues often arise on a case-by-case basis, and staff must make decisions without clear policy directives that would otherwise be presented in a sub-area plan. One example of a successful integration of preservation is the West Side Neighborhood Plan. It gives a description of the types and extent of historic buildings found in the area, and sets goals for future development to preserve both these resources and the existing character of these areas. Winter& Company Page 13 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Although there are examples of adequately addressing preservation in a sub- area plan, it appears that some critical sub-area plans in Fort Collins are inadequate in the policy guidance that they provide related to historic preservation. This means that decisions involving historic properties will be made using the provisions in the' land use code that provide for considerations of significance for any properties more than 50 years old, regardless of their location in the city. If a property is potentially individually eligible,for local listing, then preservation staff are obligated to pursue preservation of the resource. The ordinance does not give them the ability to consider other factors, such as the fit with other community objectives, and it does not permit them to treat properties differently, based on varying degrees of significance and integrity. This oversight contributes to the perception that historic preservation appears as a last-minute obstacle in the development review process. Clarifying Preservation Objectives in Sub-area Plans The city should more formally address preservation in its sub-area plans. It should be a required component, and should be addressed early in the plan development. An initial step would be to re-visit some of the city's key sub-area plans and add more discussion about historic resources. 3. Sustainability A major shift in public policy towards sustainability is influencing all land use planning across the country. Preservation plays an integral role in any sustainability policy and this may be used as an opportunity to further integrate preservation with other aspects of land use planning and development policies. In Fort Collins, sustainability also is emerging as a high priority concern. This relates to preservation in these ways: • Keeping older buildings in use conserves the energy already expended to create them. • Maintaining older buildings reduces impacts on landfills. • Historic buildings often have inherent energy saving features, which sometimes have been "forgotten." • Historic buildings can be adapted with new energy-saving technologies, often more easily than expected. The role that preservation will.play in the city's sustainability program should be a topic of discussion in any future planning activity. This will only grow in importance in the coming years, and if it is not addressed, more perceived conflicts are likely to arise. The resources of Colorado State University in this field are also important assets to consider. It may be possible to collaborate on educational programs as well as on demonstration projects that test the energy- conserving opportunities of historic resources. Winter& Company Page 14 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Including Preservation in Sustainability Initiatives The city should include preservation considerations as it develops new sustainability policies and regulations. 4. Alternative Protection Tools Many communities are using alternative tools to preserve the historic character of their neighborhoods: Sometimes, neighborhoods seek historic district status to address more basic issues related to new construction. They seek the historic district designation because it is the only tool available that in any way addresses the issue. In response, some communities have added other options to the character-management toolkit. They do so recognizing that the tool should fit the objective, and that the historic district tool should be used strategically for its originally intended purpose. These new options include the use of conservation districts and form-based codes. Conservation districts focus on maintaining the traditional building scale and character of a neighborhood. They use special zoning standards, and sometimes design review guidelines, that focus on new construction and additions. The emphasis is on retaining the appearance of the character of a neighborhood in terms of building alignment, scale and open space as seen from the street. Alterations to existing buildings are not reviewed. This may be addressed by a design review process that is similar to that for historic districts, but with more limited criteria and scope of approval. It also may be implemented as a prescriptive set of standards that apply as an overlay for a specified area. These can then be administered at the permitting counter. Form-based codes are similar, but are.prescriptive, defining the mass and scale of building that is permitted. They can apply as the underlying zoning for designated zoning districts, or they can apply to specific building types that are permitted. They may set the maximum size of a building, related to forms traditionally seen in an area. Winter & Company Page 15 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Expanded Character-management Tools Additional tools should be considered to complement the preservation system in Fort Collins. In some cases, these alternative"tools would more directly address the community's objectives for a specific area. They can also be easier to administer, thus improving overall program efficiency. 5. Refined Survey Methods Many communities are implementing survey systems that are management oriented, based on their preservation objectives. This means using a tiered survey that indicates varying levels of integrity for historic structures. Such a survey may also identify new buildings that are compatible with their context. In its Preservation Program Plan, Fort Collins outlined a concept of tiered levels of significance that were then linked to different levels of protection, incentives and design review. However, this was not implemented in the revised Land Use Code. The system suggested in that plan may be more complex than is needed, but the concept is one that merits consideration. It is also important that when a historic survey is conducted, the information included be helpful to property owners in identifying those features that are key to its significance. By noting.those features, a survey can help provide guidance to property owners and also help to indicate those areas of the property which are less sensitive, and where greater flexibility for alterations is appropriate. As an improvement to the system, refinements to the survey form should occur. One concern that arises related to these custom-tailored surveys is how they can also conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the state's requirements. In some communities, they have accomplished this by creating a supplement sheet that accompanies the standard state survey form. In this way, the information that is required for entry into the state's system is provided as stipulated, but additional information is available for local review and planning processes. Improving the Survey Tool for Fort Collins As it continues its survey program, the city should refine the historic property survey instrument with the objective of recording information that will be useful in an on-going property management mode. That is, the survey should include information that identifies key features to help owners make informed decisions about their properties. Winter& Company Page 16 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 III. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS This section provides recommendations for improving the preservation system in Fort Collins. They are organized around the preservation system components introduced earlier. With limited resources to address the recommendations in this report, it is important to establish priorities for action. A summary table of the following recommended system improvements is provided at the end of this section which provides a proposed phasing schedule. These phases were determined by prioritizing actions that will have the greatest or most immediate impact, as well as with consideration for the relative ease of their implementation. A. Policy Directives Policies are crafted by appointed boards and commissions and formalized by city council. Staff's role is to administer policy. That said, there are important ways in which staff can more effectively convey policy in their actions: 1. Include preservation concerns when developing sub-area plans. Preservation staff should be involved in development of sub-area and specific plans. The balance between other goals can be established at this time. Policy directives in sub-area plans can also signal to preservation staff that there are other priorities which must be taken into consideration. (Note that City Council always has the ability to insert other policy considerations into any specific development review through a public hearing on the property. However, the objective is to provide more policy guidance formally in advance such that the burden of a council hearing is avoided.) 2. Develop a preservation and sustainability initiative. Sustainability is a broad concept that is continuing to evolve. Older buildings can play an important role. In many respects, they are more energy efficient, or can be retrofitted easily. But, in many cases, the information and techniques are not available or readily understood. In response, the city should: • Establish policy that recognizes the role of conserving existing buildings as sustainable and that this should be considered when determining best approaches; in this respect, the preservation program should be seen as a partner in sustainability. • Establish a technical assistance program for property owners to accomplish energy-saving retrofits. (Include workshops, informational handouts, and perhaps organize a tech-school retrofit program. This may be an opportunity to partner with the university.) • Related to technical assistance, establish a process for determining repair and replacement strategies for windows, materials and roofing that take sustainability into consideration. 3. Develop policies for the treatment of recent past resources. Winter& Company Page 17 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Younger properties that may now be considered for historic significance may require somewhat different treatment in permitting and review. In response, the city should develop specific design guidelines for the treatment of recent past buildings. These properties require some special consideration, because some have materials that may be more difficult to treat than those in traditional historic properties. As an example, some commercial buildings constructed during the 1950s and 1960s used materials and technologies that are no longer available. This can make them more difficult to rehabilitate using conventional guidelines than earlier "Victorian" construction. Guidelines for treatment of Recent Past properties may offer more flexibility in using replacement materials and even in altering some features. 4. Consider a neighborhood conservation tool. A growing issue is promoting conservation in older neighborhoods. Consider options for neighborhood conservation that are less comprehensive than historic district designation. They would address mass and scale, and additions, but not alterations to existing buildings. 5. Consider a tiered system. Consider a tiered system of designation and treatment of historic properties. This would link levels of significance and integrity to different levels of review, and the degree of rigor with which design guidelines would be applied. Properties that are National Register eligible would be expected to be preserved "to the greatest extent feasible," as the ordinance now provides. Some greater flexibility in preservation expectations, the range of incentives available and the alternatives for mitigation would be assigned to the other levels. Review would include consideration for: • The level of significance and level of preservation that is expected based on the tiered system • The context of the property • The relationship to other planning objectives for the area The following table outlines an example of potential levels of significance and links them to treatment policies. Note that this is only a preliminary example for illustrative purposes. Winter & Company Page 18 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Property Rating Tteltment Objectives Notes,` Type Highest level of significance, Require preservation to High priority for individually eligible for National maximum extent assistance and Register listing. feasible'. incentives. Landmark proceedings may be contemplated if necessary. Type 2 High level of significance, Require preservation to High priority for eligible as a contributor for maximum extent assistance and National Register listing. feasible*. incentives. Landmark proceedings may be contemplated if necessary. Type 3 Moderate level of significance. Encourage preservation Provide incentives, but when feasible. may consider mitigation alternatives when other compelling city objectives exist. Type 4 Non-contributor, but retrievable Encourage restoration. Provide some incentives. as a historic resource, as owner's option. Type 5 y f;y Non-contributor, with no No preservation Demolition or alteration potential significance. (New expected. permitted after 50-year building or one substantially consideration. altered.) *There is always a consideration of infeasibility (economic hardship) in expecting preservation of a resource. Actions: • Develop a preservation and sustainability initiative. • Include preservation goals and preservation's role in sustainability in the update of the City Plan. • Update existing sub-area plans to include preservation objectives. • Review options for policies for the treatment of recent past resources. • Evaluate options for the adoption of alternative neighborhood character management tools. • Review options for adopting a tiered system of historic designation and review. B. Ordinances Winter& Company Page 19 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Recommendations for improvements to the zoning ordinance are provided in a separate report. These include general updates to the existing ordinance and consideration for adoption of a new preservation ordinance, neighborhood conservation tools and a tiered designation system. Please, refer to the Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper for further information. C. Operating Procedures 1. Clarify the preservation review process. Preservation review should be more closely coordinated with other development reviews. • Establish provisions to include preservation staff's comments early in development review. • Incorporate preservation and 50-year reviews in the city's development review chart and process. (It does not appear there at present.) • Diagram the landmarks designation and design review processes. (This exists in text form, but is not easy to understand.) 2. Update development review documents to reflect the 50-year question. At present, the city's Development Review Flowchart omits any reference to historic preservation review, or to properties that are 50 years old. This means that property owners can be "surprised" to learn that their project has an extra review step. Furthermore, the city's application forms for development review lack any questions related to building age. This means that owners are not alerted to the fact that this may be an issue, and it means that staff must conduct more research to determine building age. The forms also should include information that makes it easier to locate the property in other city records. The address should be identified by street address, and also by lot and block number. 3. Coordinate Section 106 reviews. The city has no designated official to manage Section 106 reviews. This is a part of the National Historic Preservation Act that requires consideration of the effects that any federal undertaking may have on certain historic properties. Public works projects may often fall under this provision. For example, if a road improvement project involves widening the street and properties on or eligible for National Register listing may be affected, then those effects must be considered. Typically the project can be permitted and executed, but the evaluation must consider ways to protect the resources and mitigate any potential negative impacts. The Section 106 review occurs with the State Historic Preservation Officer. At present, if any project involving federal funds is proposed, the department responsible for the project is assumed to be the party that must coordinate this review for the city. This means that staff. unfamiliar with the process may be Winter & Company Page 20 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 involved, and delays can occur. In many communities, a single contact point is established to assure timely review and compliance with the regulation. The city should identify the preservation office as the coordinator for Section 106 reviews. 4. Monitor preservation review and permitting. An annual tracking/reporting system is needed, as a supplement to the annual CLG reports, to track the efficiency and predictability of the preservation review system. 5. Expand administrative review procedures. Project types that can be reviewed by the Director of Long Range Planning are specified in the code. Clarification and expansion of the administrative review process should be considered to increase the efficiency of preservation review. Actions: • Update development review application form to include questions relative to preservation including the age of the building and its existing historic status (if any). • Update development review flow chart to include' preservation review and 50-year review. • Publish a simplified description (flow chart) of the preservation review and landmark/district designation processes. • Designate the preservation office as the official coordinator for Section 106 reviews. • Establish an annual report form for preservation review and permits as a supplement to the existing CLG report. • Expand staff's ability to approve minor applications. D. Resource Surveys The historic significance of a property is typically determined by professionals trained in architectural history who apply consistent criteria. Ideally, older portions of the city would be surveyed comprehensively to identify properties that are historically significant. That information is then made readily available to property owners. However, Fort Collins, as with most cities, has not committed the resources needed to conduct a citywide survey. Funding typically occurs in small increments, and then selected areas are surveyed as the funds become available. (See the Peer Community Review paper for examples of the status of surveys in some other communities.) Note that the time period during which properties may be considered to have the potential for historic significance continues to move forward. The 50-year threshold that the city uses for demolition review is one that is often applied as a first filter before evaluating a property for significance. As time progresses, other Winter & Company Page 21 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 properties reach this threshold. While doing so does not automatically bestow historic significance, it does mean that the need to survey is ongoing. When survey information is not available, determinations of significance are made on a case-by-case basis, again using adopted criteria. This is the process that planning staff employ when a property older than 50 years is proposed for demolition. They evaluate the property using adopted criteria. This can appear mysterious to lay people, and can lead to frustration when the professional's finding contradicts the owner's expectations. 1. Improve the availability of existing survey information. Publish existing surveys on the city's web site and link them to GIS data systems. Include lists and maps of all currently listed properties and all properties over 50 years of age. 2. Expand the city's survey program to cover most of the older portions of the city. Give priority to areas where redevelopment pressures exist. 3. Refine the city's survey form to include more information useful to property owners. A key concept in historic preservation is to retain the "key features" of a property that give it significance. This information should be included in the survey form to help property owners understand which features need protection and which portions of the property may be less important, thereby indicating where flexibility may be appropriate. 4. Develop more context statements. As a prelude to surveying, the city uses brief historic overviews related to a particular theme of development or a geographic area. This describes the relationship of built resources to the social and cultural history of the community, identifies the typical property types that are likely to be involved, and suggests areas where these resources are most likely to occur. These help serve as a basis for planning, in terms of predicting where historic resources are likely to be found, and in setting priorities for historic surveys. Winter& Company Page 22 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 5. Provide a "predictive model" to enable owners to gain a preliminary indication of the potential historic significance of any un=surveyed property. While it is desirable to have a formal survey already on hand, it may be possible to craft some user-friendly "self-test" that could be available over the internet which would enable property owners to gain a preview of the potential significance of their property. The city should provide information on the web that will help people develop their own preliminary estimate of the potential significance of a property. This may take the form of a checklist that includes some of the basic criteria that are typically used in determining significance, with explanations that facilitate use by lay people. Actions: • Publicize all surveys on the city's website. • Conduct additional surveys, place emphasis on areas targeted for. redevelopment or where substantial demolition is occurring or anticipated. • Review options for implementing an updated survey system including information on key character-defining features of a building and relating to a proposed tiered system for designation. • Develop additional context statements. • Establish a web-based predictive model for property owners to make their own initial determination of the historic significance of their property. E. Design Guidelines 1. Publish design guidelines for the treatment of historic properties. "Fear of the unknown" is a key concern. That is, property owners and developers who are considering acquiring property may resist a finding that their property has historic significance, because they believe that the requirements for treatment of a historic resource will be too restrictive. Clearly written, well-illustrated design guidelines can help remove some of the mystery associated with the treatment of historic properties. With advance guidance, an owner can develop an appropriate approach for the treatment of their historic property. These. guidelines should provide information about alterations for historic buildings that are officially designated as such under city ordinances. They also should outline options for design that will help users understand the range of flexibility that may be available for treatment of certain properties. Guidelines will provide clarity and help people make decisions early. The guidelines should address new, emerging issues such as energy conservation and "recent past" resources. Winter & Company Page 23 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Guidelines should also address how development review occurs on properties abutting historic districts. This is required in the land use code, but the criteria for review are not defined. 2. Update the Design Guidelines for the Old Town Historic District. The existing guidelines are very brief, primarily setting forth basic principles for treatment of historic commercial buildings and compatible new construction. While brevity can imply flexibility, it can also signal lack of predictability. More detail can in fact clarify areas of flexibility, as well as defining more specifically appropriate and inappropriate design actions. An update would help to streamline review of projects within the district. By providing more clarity, additional design actions may also be approved administratively, thereby reducing meeting agendas for the commission. Actions: • Adopt city-wide preservation design guidelines. • Adopt city-wide design guidelines for areas abutting historic districts. • Update the Old Town Design Guidelines. F. Compliance Process A clear working relationship should be established between preservation planning staff and code enforcement staff. Clear documentation of what has been approved should be proved to enforcement staff to be used in conjunction with site inspections. Actions: • Create and implement the use of a compliance-tracking form to aid enforcement staff in site inspections for preservation-related projects. G. Incentives and Benefits The city's existing incentives are very limited and, in general, fall short of those offered by similar communities. Actions: • Expand the city's historic preservation'incentive program. H. Training, Education and Outreach In the absence of other supporting organizations, the city needs to engage in more outreach and training programs. 1. Provide staff training. All planning staff should receive a basic orientation to the preservation system and the principles involved, such that they can better understand the program and advise applicants on their options. Similarly, preservation staff should be engaged in an orientation program directed at how they can participate in sub- Winter& Company Page 24 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 area planning effectively and how to take other planning objectives into consideration when developing policies for those areas. 2. Provide training to the Landmark Preservation Commission. Establish an on-going program to train the LPC. This should include the city's preservation policies and review system as well as best practices in preservation planning. 3. Publish all preservation-related information on the web. This should include surveys of individual properties, historic contexts, maps and design guidelines. Educational materials such as brochures should be made available. Case studies illustrating successful solutions should also be provided. Actions: • Establish a preservation planning and review training program for planning staff. • Establish a training program for the LPC. • Make all preservation information available on the city's website. • Publish informational brochure on preservation's role in sustainability practices. Winter & Company Page 25 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 IV. IMPLEMENTATION PHASING TABLE The following table is a summary of the recommended system improvements including a proposed phasing schedule for their implementation. The phases are roughly based on the number of years it will take to implement an action. Phases for each action have been determined by prioritizing those that will have the greatest or most immediate impact, as well as by considering the relative ease of their implementation. City�of Fort Colhns�Pi-eservation�System�.Enhancernents � � � "� Recominended�tm Ierrientatrion�Phasin � ,-, , � ���� � �� ACTION Year 1-2* Year 2-3* Year 3-4* Year 4-5* ! Develop a preservation and sustainability On-going On-going On-going On-going initiative _ Include preservation in City Plan update Draft Adopt Update sub-area plans to include Review Amend preservation Evaluate tools for recent past resources Strategy Adopt Evaluate neighborhood character management tools Strategy Implement Adopt a tiered rating system Draft Adopt , �. Ordinances F es , � - �... ;.-' .�-�_ 4�w.��a ,tea -x a .. �»L® a Update existing------ ----.. Adopt _ _..._... _. Develo new Strategy Adopt O eratin Procedures,.- a� � ��� �.��.m w .��� • £.�- ��.�.�.fe���«�� .=;'a �����'° Update development review application Amend form Update development review flow chart Amend _ Publish a preservation review/designation Publish flow chart --- - ........ Designate 106 review coordinator Adopt -- — ---- —----- -- --------- ---- - Establish an annual preservation review report form Adopt On-going On-going On-going _ Expand staff's ability to approve minor Adopt applications 5.. '�,ag �.�I+,s n,q„� a^�s`.� R ,w�v.. u+as�re�p�ygy�'a? � �EB #.k•:- Resoufce Surve s,� .�� . a:� _ � � .. Publicize all surveys on the city's website Digitize Publish Conduct additional surveys — Survey A Survey B Survey C Survey D -- . Update survey system with key features Update Develop additional context statements Topic A Topic B Topic C Topic D - -- — . .._- .... Develop predictive model for property Draft Implement owners Desiuidelines v=° �• � � ,.�T .,��� . -�� Adopt city-wide preservation design Funding Draft Adopt guidelines _— _ Adopt city-wide design guidelines for edges Funding Draft Adopt of districts .._........... _._.. p ,Update Old Town design guidelines Funding Draft Adopt Comaliance Process. e � M a rp •: "n ' '. Winter& Company Page 26 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 Develop compliance-tracking form for Adopt On-going On-going On-going reservation projects Am . $(nCerttVBS $ Bel6f6 ..a.�s Cgy ImplementEx and incentives program Strate Edl7Cati0(i &OUtreaCh" <,. b.; Establish training_program for planning staff Part 1 Part 2 Establish training_program for the LPC _ Part 1_ Part 2____ Publish all preservation information on city Digitize Publish website Publish preservation and sustainability Develop Publish brochure 'Improvements will be implemented as resources permit. Winter& Company Page 27 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 V. APPENDICES A. Integrated Review The following is an example from Pasadena, CA of how preservation review and design review are integrated. Pasadena uses one application form for both types of review, and the form includes a section for staff to provide information on the historic significance of the property. `tom✓ w�p4� \ PASADENA PERMIT CENTER Design and Historic Preservation Section MASTER APPLICATION FORM %j Design Review(Ca.17.61.030 a71 Certificate of Appropriateness(Ch.1Z!2G90 P.ht.C.} t Projoc� Mt Address 3 Project Name___ Protect Description 1 # Applicant �Archltect (aContraetor L'DeveloperOther € namr. phone: # adcr es5: tax: # --- — ( slate: tip cads: email: _ppiicant Signature: Date: i ! :W ttro r.KCu,;.:t�!'%tr lAi::..^C➢Y%'rL+M •rp..rx,a.ci�M4 Mlr s.,t,'n-:v tm.rrtq..rr) Architeclor U Designer (tardesign review projects) } name: ------- -- ---phone----- --- adc:ens fax )city: ;42tc zw wdC cr tail = 3 Property Omer I name: phone: adc c s: fax: city: state zip a.Jc c nail: } # Primary Contact Person: App€leant tJ Architect Property Owner ; t Proposed work .._,. __ ' :new corsTjs-.i : cemsl iu �_relc a a cs o- prtM bti am: t lee on al er c tsor a 7 Project information{for staff use only)_____ PLN Review Authority Historic Preservation Review Type of Design Review I PRJ iv=_tad t ICa:qcy t teesi na:ec) Ej �,-ept design mvicn�.. t sta{Lm.l als': Q D-z ign Corr mission Q Cetegory•2 iebp'eie) n r 'oesgr re led {date B=coted. L F's..;t I'mser;a5on'-.Omm. ❑ w;solica:ec design dale submittals coed: 1 !cu' CEQA Review Landmark,'Historic District Troe Removal Public Art l nplh bnn: $ D Lxemat Dyes yes. . 3:1—mcods ke: 5 ❑ Ptitdimg distr:d rime. I]au no TOTAL" S Comcieled. CI c:nplr`ur. DHPMasterApp.doc Row..3P26JOe ti.1Vr.`:cir`tt:„r.��:it��L':i iaauz.�.-0v::: 'n...,::T�t:wt.!'::r.':i.::i<: i 1.e..•:�.WP Winter& Company Page 28 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 B. Guideline Flexibility and Ease of Use The following is an example from Deadwood, SD of their draft Historic Design Guidelines. These sheets are examples of how guidelines can be made user friendly and identify a range of flexibility. ALTERED BUILDING, RECOVERABLE COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT: I have an altered historic commercial building front, but it is recoverable, what can I do? LIE xisting Condition Option 1 Option 2 - f.Option 3 When shnuld I usgthis When shnald Utisa this ' -When should 1 rnea this € approach? i, approa6h7� , i'o The building is:highly srgnrfi ( •TKe,butldrng'Isa'cor,nbu.or-o # �ShpreIssubs;ant, nora=i i cant a distrn tion making*Optio i ICUIL g i There is deed historical Iniortna-;_ ' '•Thrrr.L4 IpRS hWnrir"I irk „ t •Thrra ie lrt:c nr•.h,ctn intnrma-t Icon about the desrgft ` fnrmatinn avm1phip.1hnut M t lldfl about Cho original destgn i•Thnnrndof matpnatsindnrift.. orginal d rqn context has"to variety s`man are available _ •The 6udtjat ii rn6re hnitE,d v The projec!budgat permits ( '•The'work Will bd'phaserJ_ i The convex. has manv-intact �` S historic buildings i i 3 t xh I Winter &Company Page 29 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 ALTERED BUILDING, RECOVERABLE RESIDENTIAL PORCH: I have an altered historic residential building that is recoverable, what can I do? ILI Ilia -� I1T� '�..•L,..3' A e _ When should I use this i Whon should I use this When should I use this ,. . i approach? approach? �aDPToach? -Very sipnificani C C ntrhi i;o^rn yh tiictna°°. Zut ,iannat do rraagn.''. Good historical background Less his oncal backgrounds Less historic had ground information informaiion ? ;in`arination Craftsman are available. •Limited budcat F,itc nn crt: . •Budge[Permits .•Cm3Axt i¢inlari - t �< `� �-s s ^ b.� gym, rig. Winter&,Company Page 30 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 _ . EVALUATING KEY FEATURES- WINDOWS: ' My windows need work, what should do? Ii The building feature should be evaluated in he foiirnvinq sequence: I �)I •Preserve tt �•_� iI I' IJI Ropaii li±:I Replace i Location A:Windows on Primary Wall •Preservation and repair in place is the priority ---------- PRIMARY FACADE Location B:Highly visible Secondary Wall Preservation and repair in place is he priority Location C:Not highly visible Secondary Wall , 3t I ' Preservation is oreferred 1_ _ •Replacement or alteration is acceptable i ' ICI c: .__._......_.....__.._.._........__._ SECONDARY FACADE — — Location D:Tertiary Wall •Replacement or alteration is acceptable 1 d I TF.RTIARY FACADE Winter&Company Page 31 Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report September 16, 2009 - --- - - - _ SOLAR PANELS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS: I have a historic residential building and I would like to add some solar panels,what should I do? Existing Condition: •Gable facing Street . •Side is South facing EASTING CONDITION Preferred: i � ',, •PannLC srthark frnm thn mnf t •Panr,Ls nrn fmnh with the mot i OPTI04 A:PREFERRED Acceptable: Panels setback from cave.but closer co the front Parn.L�nrr,fiilsn with the,mot - -- i Aj 4 ri 4 `i OPTIDY B:ACCF.PTARLF. Winter& Company Page 32 ATTACHMENT Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 Fort Collins Preservation System Improvement Project The City of Fort Collins is engaged in an evaluation of its development review process as it relates to the treatment of historic resources. This paper provides a review of preservation in the City Code and outlines a strategy for updating relevant sections of the code. This strategy is based on the review of the Code provided in the previous Historic Preservation Code Review memo. Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper The following paper provides an outline of the strategy for recommended updates to the City of Fort Collins' Municipal and Land Use Codes as they relate to historic preservation. The paper includes an overall strategy for addressing code updates, as well as specific recommendations for additions and changes throughout the codes. The paper provides a review of selected code sections that includes identification of several areas where there is a lack of clarity or potential conflict with City policies. Also provided is a summary of key observations and issues that are not directly related to specific code sections. The recommended updates are part of a comprehensive review of the Fort Collins preservation system, and will work with other process recommendations provided in a separate paper, Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report. Note: This paper reflects recent updates to the organization of the City's preservation department. The preservation ,department is moving from the Advance Planning Department to the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. Sections of the codes are currently being updated based on the change of departments and this is reflected in the paper. Winter& Company Page 1 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 STRATEGY Several issues identified in this report are also addressed in the Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report. To view the full scope of the preservation system improvement recommendations, this report should be reviewed in combination with the draft process report. The overall strategy for the code improvements found throughout this report includes these basic components: 1. Basic Clean-ups Some improvements focus on clarifying existing provisions in the code that are appropriate, but have technical flaws. 2. Modifications to Reflect Policy These improvements focus on clarifying how City policies relate to the preservation ordinance. 3. New Provisions These recommendations address new elements that should be added in response to national trends in the best practices for historic preservation. 4. Format These recommendations focus on the organization and formatting of the codes. These different types of strategies are identified throughout the body of this paper. Further specific recommendations based on these will be provided in the forthcoming Preservation Code Improvement Report, which will also incorporate feedback received from Council at their scheduled October 27th work session. The Preservation Code Improvement Report will also prioritize actions identified in this paper based on .several phases of implementation. The first phases will include the initial update to address the most urgent issues. The later phases will include actions which are also important to address, but which may occur over a slightly longer time frame. Winter& Company Page 2 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 LAND USE CODE: Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.4.7 provides standards for preservation and treatment of historic properties and their incorporation into new developments. It provides a good basis for design guidelines as it sets the broad principles for the treatment of historic resources, but gives only very limited guidance or direction for rehabilitation. It provides more specific criteria for the design of new construction in a Historic District or adjacent to a listed resource. However, these criteria are written primarily for a commercial context, and may not be as applicable for infill within or adjacent to a residential context. While this section does not currently apply to single-family homes, as residential historic districts are established, it will need to apply to areas adjacent to these residential contexts. The policies in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) Relocation or Demolition overlap with those for demolition and relocation in Municipal Code 14-72. The Municipal Code states the specific criteria and regulations for demolition and relocation review. The Land Use Code provides a general statement that summarizes these policies but not the complete standards, nor does it reference the Municipal Code as the applicable standards. Strategy: Add language defining the criteria for treatment of historic properties in general, such that they will apply to all potential property types, including single- family. Add language to 3.4.7(E) that references Municipal Code 14-72 to clarify applicable procedures for demolition review. MUNICIPAL CODE: CHAPTER 14 LANDMARK PRESERVATION Article I. In General Sec. 14-5. Standards for determining the eligibility for designation of sites, structures, objects and districts for preservation This section of the code lists four criteria for eligibility to be designated as a historic landmark. The resource must meet one or more of these criteria, in addition to having a sufficient degree of integrity for the exterior of the property. The level of integrity required is not specified; however, in the definition of "exterior integrity," it is implied that the level required is relative to its level of significance. That is, a property of a lower degree of significance may be expected to have a higher degree of integrity. This need not .be the case. The level of integrity should be separated from the definition of significance. Strategy: Add language that more clearly defines criteria for eligibility, and that acknowledges different levels of significance. Also, clarify the definition of Winter& Company Page 3 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 "integrity," including the discussion of the different "aspects" of integrity as used by the Secretary of the Interior. (See the City's Preservation Plan, adopted in 1994, for suggestions of criteria for integrity.) Article II. Designation Procedures This article defines the steps to follow in designating historic resources. While it lays out general steps for designation, it does not give clear guidance on the full procedure to be used by staff when designating a district. Clear policy is lacking for steps such as neighborhood meetings and the initiation of the district designation procedures. This neighborhood meeting is typically held before the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) "designation hearing," though it is not mentioned in the Code. Strategy: Update the designation procedures for districts. A clear process of steps should be laid out, including language stipulating that a preliminary neighborhood meeting will be a part of the district designation process. Sec. 14-21. Initiation of procedure Owner consent is not required to designate a landmark. However, when an owner does not concur with the nomination, a further level of public review is required above and beyond that stipulated for designation when the owner concurs. In addition, the code provides that any city resident may file a nomination for a historic district. This leaves the possibility of "frivolous" nominations, or of ones that may not be well thought out. The initiation of designation procedures for a district is typically a decision of the LPC to proceed after a review of the application. This application is required to give basic information on the historic significance of the district, however, it does not require sufficient justification of the boundaries of a district. Strategy: Add language that limits those who may initiate designation of a historic district or landmark to: 1. The City Council, the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services would have standing to initiate a nomination. 2. An organization with an established interest in preservation. This would be clearly defined and can include groups such as a non-profit with preservation in their mission statement etc. Inclusion of such groups on a list of parties with standing is a common practice, and can help build community support and preservation partnership ties. 3. The property owner (if a single property). 4. A defined percentage of properties in a proposed district. Winter& Company Page 4 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 Also, clarify the preliminary level of information that is needed to indicate that a potential district exists and that further consideration is merited. This should include requirements for the justification of district boundaries and for the area to be documented well enough that the LPC would be able to determine if a nomination has merit and should proceed. Sec. 14-24. Interim controls This section includes a provision to place an immediate "hold" on building permits while a property or district is being considered for landmarking. During the hold, permits may only be sought with approval of the City Council. This can cause an undue burden because staff have no discretion in waiving the hold. Strategy: Modify the language as it applies to proposed landmarks and historic districts to allow for flexibility. Rather than limiting permit applications all together, establish a base level of holds that, at the time of initiation of landmarking procedures, places a nominated property (or property within a nominated district) at the same level of control as an officially designated. Also establish procedures/criteria for the LPC to have the authority to grant certain pre-defined exceptions. This should be explained in both text and inserted as a table in the code for ease of use and clarity of policy. See the appendix of this paper for an example of such a table. Sec. 14-23. Community Development and Neighborhood Services review This section instructs staff in reviewing a proposed designation to consider the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, and the effect on the neighborhood, as well as any other planning consideration that may be relevant. This leaves room for staff to recommend the denial of a landmark designation application for an eligible property, based on factors other than historic significance and integrity. That is to say, if the Comprehensive Plan or a sub-area plan calls for other redevelopment that does not consider including historic resources, this fact can be a part of the decision-making for staff's recommendation. However, this ability can also provide for a degree of flexibility in the preservation system to allow for a combination of planning objectives to be considered. For example, the vision for a neighborhood from a specific plan that calls for maintaining traditional character may be considered when determining preservation priorities for that area. Strategy: As it exists, the City could choose to avoid designation because of potential conflicts with other policies. However, there may be times in which recognizing the property as historic would enable benefits that would make preservation feasible, even in the face of other planning policies, and the owner may wish to retain the building. Or, it may be appropriate to designate the property, but signal that more flexibility in alteration, addition, or removal is desirable. Consider adding language that would include other planning objectives as part of the designation discussion by City Council. Include provisions that staff will provide information on other planning objectives to the LPC as background Winter& Company Page 5 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 information only, and to the City Council as part of their report and recommendation. The LPC should continue to consider designation based on merit only. The discussion of other planning objectives should continue to be done only at the City Council level. Also consider how different levels of designation and treatment might interact with historic properties and citywide planning objectives. Article III. Construction, Alterations, Demolitions and Relocations Sec. 1446. Work requiring a building permit Any action on a designated resource requiring a building permit must first receive a report of acceptability from the LPC. The review of such applications is divided into two parts: (1) a conceptual review and (2) a final review. The conceptual review provides an applicant with an understanding of how their project will be reviewed and what will be required of it early in the design process, prior to the full project (final) review. This level of review provides the applicant with information that may not be readily available otherwise, such as how review criteria apply to their property. Strategy: This provision needs to be more broadly communicated to property owners. Recommendations for public outreach and education materials that relate to review procedures are addressed in the Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report. Also consider permitting the LPC to designate an advisory design review subcommittee of its body to provide early consultations to: applicants and property owners. These review steps should be illustrated in a chart or diagram in the ordinance as well as posted on the web and included in other print materials that explain the process. Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed work This section provides a list of criteria for the Commission to consider when making their determination of the appropriateness of work that is proposed on a landmark structure, including the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. However, it does not explain what the desired outcome of these criteria is, other than maintaining the resource's integrity and that the proposed work should be compatible with the resource. Strategy: Clarify the criteria for determining appropriateness. The existing criteria are written as topics to be considered, and not standards-to be met. The updated criteria should continue to draw on the Secretary of the Interiors Standards but provide more specific direction relating to what is appropriate. Sec. 14-48.5. Work not detrimental to historic, architectural or cultural material; administrative process Winter& Company Page 6 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 This section includes provisions for administrative review by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services on a select number of minor project types that would not have negative effects on historic resources. Project types that can be reviewed by the Director include applications for color selection, awning re-coverings and minor changes which would not remove, alter, cover or destroy any significant features. Administrative review of minor projects can minimize the use of commission time, expedite minor project reviews and provide a degree of clarity to applicants. Currently administrative review is done at the option of the applicant only. Clarification and expansion of the administrative review process should be considered. Strategy: Expand staff's ability to approve applications in conjunction with providing clear criteria for review. Establish an expanded base list of actions approvable at the staff level, and include a provision allowing the LPC to delegate additional actions to staff for approval. Illustrate this list of actions that can be permitted by staff in a chart or table as part of a companion document to the code to provide additional clarity to the public. Article IV. Demolitions or Relocation of Historic Structures Not Designated as Fort Collins Landmarks or Located in a Fort Collins Landmark District Sec. 14-71. General 14-71 refers to section 203 of the Uniform Building Code and in 1994, applied to. dangerous or unsafe buildings. The City has adopted new building codes, which cause this section to no longer be accurate. Strategy: Update references in both the Land Use Code and the Municipal Code to match building code updates, including special provisions for historic buildings. Sec. 14-72. Procedures for review of applications for demolition or relocation Section 14-72 provides for several levels of review in order to explore options for protecting potential historic resources (properties 50 years of age or older) from demolition. The first level is a review by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Commission Chair in order to determine the level of eligibility of the property. If they feel the property may have significance that could be adversely affected by the proposed work, then Commission review is required. Commission review is conducted in two steps: (1) a preliminary hearing and (2) a final hearing. Winter& Company Page 7 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 At the preliminary hearing for demolition, the commission will consider the effects of the proposed work as well as any feasible alternatives for protecting the resource. Once at a final hearing, the commission must either approve (with or without conditions) the application, or may delay their decision in order to consider landmarking the property. Designation as a landmark is the only way the commission may deny, in its entirety, an application for demolition or relocation of a property. The summary of the City's Review Processes for Historic Buildings and Structures on the City's website contradicts the process as described in the code. The website summary states that "Whenever a permit or development application is sought for a building or structure that is 50 years old or older, the application is reviewed under Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the Demolition/Alteration Review Process." This implies that every permit application must go through this review application. However, this section requires the LPC to review applications only for demolition, partial demolition or relocation of a structure that is fifty years of age or older and which meets one or more of the designation criteria. Other applications for properties fifty years of age or older are reviewed by staff under Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. However, applications for alterations on properties of age may be considered 'partial demolitions,' based on the definition of a demolition in the code, if they destroy any part of an eligible resource. "Demolition shall mean any act or process that destroys in part or in whole an eligible or designated site, structure or object, or a site, structure or object within an eligible or designated district." Strategy: Update Section 14-72 the Municipal Code to specify that it applies to alterations as well as demolitions, partial demolitions and relocations. Update the supplemental policy summary to clarify which element of which code is applicable.based on various project types. Include a diagram to aid in clarification of the review process. Further updates to this section may be required based on other recommendations throughout this report. For example, if different levels of designation are established, the demolition review process should be tailored based on those levels of significance. Currently the LPC Chair has the authority to appoint another member of the Commission to act for them in the preliminary analysis of potential significance. The Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services should also be given the authority to appoint another member of the preservation planning staff to represent them in the preliminary analysis of potential significance. Article V. Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program Winter& Company Page 8 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 This program is the only historic preservation incentive in the code. The code does not mention that other incentives may be made available. Strategy: Generally, specific incentives are not specified in the code, since they may change over time. However, there should be language that indicates the City's intent to offer incentives and benefits when feasible. A new section of the code should be added with language noting that the City Council may offer incentives, from time to time, which may include financial and technical assistance, as well as expedited permitting, as feasible. This language would not commit the City to providing such incentives, but would signal the intent to promote preservation through assistance when it is possible, through grants or other means. OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND ISSUES This section provides a summary of key observations and issues that are not directly related to specific code sections. Levels of Preservation Review Several different levels and types of review on historic properties occur. While these are clearly defined in the various sections of the codes, it is not readily apparent which kind of review is applicable to a certain project type. For example, administrative review can happen in two ways: by just the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, or by the Director and the Chair of the Commission. Strategy: Clarification of the preservation review process should be provided as part of a companion guide to the code that help the public understand the process. Include simple flow charts and other visual aids. Design Standards and Guidelines The signs section of the Municipal Code references the City's Design Guidelines for Old Town as part of the application review criteria; however, these guidelines are not referenced in any of the other review criteria throughout the code. Strategy: In addition to referencing the Secretary of the Interiors Standards it is important to have the ability to adopt design guidelines or standards, including those for specific resource types found in Fort Collins. Provide language stating that the City may adopt design guidelines to aid in interpreting the criteria set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 14: Landmark Preservation. Contributing Resources The code refers to contributing resources several times. In practice, these are considered to have a lower level of significance, but their treatment is not clear. The definition of "eligibility" lists "contributing to a district" as a separate level of eligibility for designation. These two concepts should not be combined. It Winter& Company Page 9 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 confuses the definition. In most communities, "contributing" properties are those that gain their significance from being part of a set of resources that tell a story. A row of houses in a block is an example. They may all have a high degree of integrity, but they are not individually significant. However, the code lacks clear policies for the treatment or designation of a contributing resource. Strategy: If the City is to have different levels of significance, they should be more logically named and more clearly defined. A system for tiered designations should be clearly established, with definitions of each designation included. The link to the degree of review that occurs for each level of significance also should be made clear. See the Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report for more information on recommended strategies for tiered designations. Demolition Land Use Code 3.4.7(E) Relocation or Demolition overlaps with Municipal Code 14-72. An overlap between Land Use Code 3.4.7(C) and Municipal Code Section 14-5 for the determination of Landmark Eligibility also occurs; however, the conflict is minimized as 3.4.7(C) references the criteria in Section 14-5. Strategy: Add.a reference in Land Use Code 3.4.7(E) to the Municipal Code 14- 72 policies for relocations and demolitions. Regulations on Non-designated Properties Two sections of the code require review of unlisted, individually eligible properties, Municipal Code 14-72 and Land Use Code 3.4.7. This is potentially confusing. Strategy: Clarify the difference between the two sections of the code and make clear which is required and how each section is applied. Where possible, tables should be used to visually clarify regulations. New Provisions In addition to the improvements described above, best practices in preservation indicate that emerging preservation trends should also be addressed in the ordinance. Strategy: Provide new code language to address trends in best practices in preservation including; • Language referencing the role that historic resources play in sustainability, resource conservation and energy efficiency. Establish as a role of the LPC to advise the City on preservation's role in citywide sustainability objectives. See the Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report for further recommendations on preservation and sustainability initiatives. • Language providing for a Conservation District option. Conservation districts focus on maintaining the traditional building scale and character of a neighborhood. They use special zoning standards, and sometimes design Winter& Company Page 10 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 review guidelines, that focus on new construction and additions. These can often be administered at the permitting counter. Conservation district language should include clearly defined differences in the levels of review for a conservation district as compared to a historic district. See the Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report for more information on conservation districts. Organization Simple formatting updates should be made to increase the ease of use and understanding of the code. Strategy: • Include tables and other graphics to clarify requirements (see the appendix for an example table). • Format text in bulleted lists where appropriate to increase legibility. • Move Sec. 14-5, Standards for determining the eligibility for designation of sites, structures, objects and districts for preservation, to Article II: Designation Procedure. Definitions Some of the definitions found in the Municipal Code contain circular references with other definitions. Others reference or imply a requirement not clearly conveyed in the code language. These include the definitions of contributing to a district, eligibility and landmark or landmark district, as well as possible confusion between alterations and partial demolitions. The definition of exterior integrity implies that a certain level of integrity is required in order to landmark a resource based on its level of significance. This is not clarified in the eligibility criteria section of the code. The integrity of a resource is also not listed as a criterion for review of proposed alterations, demolitions, etc. The definitions should be updated to reflect desired policies. Strategy: Update the definitions to match recommendations in this report including; • Clarify levels of designation in definitions, including national, state and all levels of local designation. • Update the definitions of 'eligibility' and 'eligible resource' to match designation levels. • Clarify the definition of integrity and its use in the eligibility criteria section of the code, and add it as a criterion for review of proposed alterations. Winter& Company Page 11 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE TABLES The following are examples of how tables can be used to provide increased ease of use and clarity of policies in the code. Such tables can either be integrated into the code itself or published separately as part of a companion document to the code. These tables are illustrative examples only. Example Table 1: Interim Controls Actions Permitted During Consideration for Designation as a Local Historic Resource: - I Permit Required? Permitted By: Type of Action No 1 Yes 2) LPC• Director Demolition-Complete Potential Individual Landmark X X Potential Contributor X X Potential Non-contributor X X Demolition-Partial Remove Non-contributing X X Other Partial Demo X X Addition Rear X X Roof X X Side X X Front X X Alteration-Minor Replace window in kind X Replace siding in kind X All other minor alterations X X Alteration-Major Wall surface X X Roof X X Porch X X Replace window-new type X X Cover original siding X X All other major alterations X X Repair Patch or repaint X Replace in kind X Repair window X All other repairs X X Maintenance Painting in same color X Cleaning X Resecuring X All other maintenance X X Other Actions All other actions X X Example Table 2: Resource Types Winter& Company Page 12 Preservation Code Update Strategy Paper September 18, 2009 This type of table would be used as part of a tiered system, of significance and review. It outlines potential levels of significance and links them to treatment policies. The property ratings are in general terms to provide a clear distinction of significance. However, should such a system be adopted more information should be provided relating to local designations in additional to the National Register designations shown. Property Rating Treatment Objectives Notes . Type I Highest level of significance, Require preservation, to High priority for individually eligible for National maximum extent feasible. assistance and incentives. Register listing. Type 2 High level of significance, eligible Require preservation, to High priority for as a contributor for National maximum extent feasible. assistance and incentives. Register listing. Type 3 Moderate level of significance. Encourage preservation Provide incentives, but when feasible. may consider mitigation alternatives when other compelling city objectives exist. Type 4 Non-contributor, but retrievable as Encourage restoration. Provide some incentives. a historic resource, as owner's option. Type 5 Non-contributor, with no potential No preservation expected. Demolition or alteration significance. (New building or one permitted after 50-year substantially altered.) consideration. Winter& Company Page 13 ATTACHMENT 3 IV. IMPLEMENTATION PHASING TABLE The following table is a summary of the recommended system improvements including a proposed phasing schedule for their implementation. The phases are roughly based on the number of years it will take to implement an action. Phases for each action have been determined by prioritizing those that will have the greatest or most immediate impact, as well as by considering the relative ease of their implementation. City of Fort Collins Preservation,System Enhancement's Recommended Implementation Phasing ACTION Year 1-2* Year 2-3* Year 3-4* Year 4-5* Policy Directives Develop a preservation and sustainability initiative On-going On-going On-going On-going Include preservation in City Plan update Draft Adopt Update sub-area plans to include Review Amend preservation Evaluate tools for recent past resources Strategy Adopt Evaluate neighborhood character Strategy Implement management tools Adopt a tiered rating system Draft Adopt Ordinances Update existing Adopt Develop new Strategy Adopt Opeiating Procedures Update development review application Amend form Update development review flow chart Amend Publish a preservation review/designation publish flow chart Designate 106 review coordinator Adopt Establish an annual preservation review Adopt On-going On-going On-going report form Expand staffs ability to approve minor Adopt applications Resource Surveys Publicize all surveys on the city's website Digitize Publish Conduct additional surveys Survey A Survey B Survey C Survey D Update survey system with key features Update Develop additional context statements Topic A Topic B Topic C Topic D Develop predictive model for property Draft Implement owners Design Guidelines Adopt city-wide preservation design Funding Draft Adopt guidelines Adopt city-wide design guidelines for edges Funding Draft Adopt of districts Update Old Town design guidelines Funding Draft Adopt 1 ACTION Year 1-2* Year 2-3* Year 3-4* Year 4-5* Comp'fiance Process Develop compliance-tracking form for Adopt On-going On-going On-going reservation projects Incentives& Benefits Expand incentives program Strategy Implement Education'&'.Outreach Establish training_program for planning staff Part 1 Part 2 Establish training_program for the LPC Part 1 Part 2 Publish all preservation information on city Digitize Publish website Publish preservation and sustainability Develop Publish brochure 'Improvements will be implemented as resources permit. b 2 City of Fort Collins Preservation System Improvement Strategy October, 2009 'tea rt-- i 1 1111 N V I•---�C r` . 1950s 1982 1983 1984 General Direction Sought �+ 1 . Does Council have any questions or concerns about the information and recommendations presented? 2. Is Council comfortable with the next steps and the implementation phasing table? i L Agenda Project Background Project Objectives Project Scope Preservation & Development Review Project Approach Recommendations Ri 1982 2009 31 Winter&Company Project Background Established preservation program Well-known success stories Recent questions about the process Opportunity to optimize the program /IBLO� 1982 2009 Winter&Company C vidence of Success p� FM Collins.COIm!•tl0 -q OeIN. Project .elwra aun..e_r C Scope ProcessPart 1: • • MunicipalPart 11: • Land Use CodeReview C' Company 3 Approach — Balancing Interests Preservation of the Political Interests community's Economic heritage Development Maintaining a sense Ease of of community Administration identity Community . Sustainability Development 7 1 Winter&Company Project Objectives Procedural improvements • Better integrate into community planning Anticipate new 1982 trends in preservation 2009 3 1 Winter&Company What does "Preservation" mean? Using historic properties Accommodating change pk. that is appropriate Maintaining key character- defining features Question: ', How well is this concept , conveyed to the public? 1 Winter&Company Preservation in the 21s' Century Integrated into A Strategy for Planning & Livability Development An Economic A Key Element in Development Tool Sustainability Solution-oriented Question: How well is the Fort Collins program positioned to address these concepts? '0 I Winter&Company An Effective Program Is: • Green Reusing buildings saves embodied energy • Retrofitting enhances performance - Sustainability policies recognize historic resources • Clean Objective criteria and review process Predictable rules • Lean • Efficient use of time and resources Solution-oriented 11 I Wlnter&Company Issue: Development Review Information 01 Review Flowchart Development review chart does not reference historic resources, or 50 year threshold. WinterBCompany Issue: How to be flexible and yet consistent? Staff needs to be objective Flexibility is best established in the planning structure: Different levels of significance Options shown in guidelines Other considerations "balanced" at the P&Z or City Council level Established at time of designation Signaled in sub-area plans i 3 1 Winter&Company Issue: 3 "Tracks" for Historic Resources Formal LPC Process Officially designated landmarks LUC Development Review Projects subject to LUC review, with older structures Building Permit Application Projects with properties 50 years old, Section 14-72 Municipal Code -1 Winter&Company Issue: Lack of Clear Design Guidance How can I get ideas in advance? What criteria will staff and the Commission use? What are the types of guidance needed? 151 Winter&Company Issue: 00Are we doing enough in the preservation program?" Focus on "Victorian" >" commercial buildingsr1k 0, Neighborhoods are changing ;: w Few recent ' designations as landmarks Potential resources being lost 16.1 Winter&Company Issue: The LUC Interface Is Not Clear to All No "advance notice" When do I discover that my property may have significance? How is significance determined? Can an owner "predict' significance? When may I contact Preservation Staff? What if I disagree? 171 Winter&Company Issue: Limited Web Presence for Preservation Information Missing: GIS Information Property Survey Data Preservation Case 1982 Studies Design Guidelines Technical Resources 2008 '8 1 Winter&Company Issue: Changing, Values about Significance Evolving awareness about what is historically significant Reuse of old commercial corridors —: 191 Winter&Company Issue: Incorporating Historic Resources in Developing, Corridors • Structure meets 50 year threshold • Has a moderate level of significance • "Conservation" approach • Flexible w` considerations Sarni Jbse;,CA.' Os6giirr�il�y/a r gek,70lbumDk og,comte edf on GGre. z I Winter&Company Issue: Examples of Reusing Historic Resources in Developing Corridors Original building New building Relocated building ryc `` ° l' Before 1f� San Jose, CA: A "Recent Past' Building in a Redevelopment Project. 211 Winter&Company Issue: Incorporating Historic Resourcesll in Developing Corridors Adaptive Reuse: New building Relocated building San Jose, CA: A "Recent Past" Building in a Redevelopment Project. "I Winter&Company Historic Preservation Recommendations Policy Directives Incentives & 2 Ordinances Benefits Operating Public Education & Procedures Outreach Historic Resource Activity Reporting Surveys Designation Design Guidelines Categories Compliance Process 231 Winter&Company - 1. Policy Directives Objectives: Key Actions Provide clearer Include preservation in policies for historic sustainability initiatives resources Include preservation in Provide more City Plan update information about Update sub-area plans levels of significance to include preservation Adopt a tiered rating system 241 Winter&Company 2. Ordinances Objectives: Key Actions: • Improve consistency Update code elements • Enhance user- Charts and graphics friendliness Clearer definitions Address new trends Address new issues 25 Winter&Company Ordinance Improvements: Use charts to clarify rules SamNoontide.-Complete ple chart for review process_ ©©� ©©� © © Remove N.n.ecoarilottio, ® © Other P.,oW Dome © © Addition ©�® M. ©®Replace window in kind � Side Front ©®� ®���� ©��� All other=rar alienations I© ® Wall ,fee. a© Roof ©©� P—h y xa� 3. Operating Procedures Objectives: Key Actions: Clarify process Update review Improve predictability application form Provide flexibility Update development review chart Publish preservation flow chart Designate 106 coordinator 271 Winter&Company 4. Historic Resource Surveys Objectives: Key Actions: Provide more Adopt tiered survey advance information Expand surveyed Provide information areas owners can use Post information on Improve access to the web information Provide owner `self- test" for significance Winter&Company 5. Design Guidelines Objectives: Key Actions: Improve predictability Develop guidelines Clarify range of for preservation flexibility Update guidelines for Help owners make Old Town informed decisions 3 Include recent past properties 29 1 Winter&Company New Guidelines: Add dia rams and charts Steps for Planning a Preservation Project: Historic Building 1 Why is the What are What building the its hey condition significant features? are they in? j Determine Treatment Strategy I Winter&Company Guidelines: I "Decision Helpers" a • •• • •w • • •• • ALTERED BUILDING,REcovlmgu COMMEK1 L STOREROW: I have an budded historic commercial building front,but it is recoverable,vOul bn,I do' rt olio - 00— —2 IL r.wn�. wpY tlsYCIrN New WrsMl xepeaeM �p•IVWI ry IrWnY c MgeY c9rxM xxAlrynxwrrnWbrlo llr�ww®tlnY4wMw ww nwaq�o^`'nNM �iMnrypml MlerruliMmnw �iMenlaelnblrcaln LMpb Nxfilbblr,M,rw. IM r4uY� brwlm wYYde xMw lM MMWtl'evbrW MNI, .rre...ls „ywe.gr, ilwueeIY�M•YwlYly .m.Meawl. m.�er.w�l wrrww .m..w»wuu Mww Design Guidelines: Help owners plan theirproject 9dw Puna dx Noma 81ao.P1: IM•a Fw•NCIwMo11 WI • � wWlwrerernr NgylMt 'J a I` 7. Incentives & Benefits Objectives: Key Actions: Strengthen Expand incentives advantages of package preserving buildings Sales tax rebate? for owners Land use flexibility? Technical assistance? Other? 331 Winter&Company 8. Public Education & Outreach Objectives: Key Actions: Help property owners Provide technical preserve their how-to workshops properties Sponsor rehab tech training programs I Winter&Company 10. Designation Categories Significant: Not Significant: Type 1: Highest is Type IV: Restorable Priority • option) is .- 11: High Priority Type No Preservation •- Moderate Priority Potential Tiered System Property Radng Treatment Oblacdves Notes Type 7 Highest level of elgnlllcance, Regtnre preservation to High pnoray for individually eligible for Na'I. I maximum extent assistance am Register listing feasible'. incentives.Landmark proceedings may be contemplated If necessary. Type 2 High level of significance, Require preservation to Hlgh pdoray for eligible as a contributor for maximum ezlant assistance and National Register listing. feasible'. Incentives.Landmark proceedings may be contemplated if necessary.. T 3 Moderate level of signthmniae. Enecurage preservation I provide incentives.but when feasible- may consider mitigation alternatives when other compelling city ObIective exist. 18 C Implementation Phasing ANY aFM.C•IBm N••iiiII •.ByWro.•nIM•Ip•e•nb .•mmwn•tllYrtlMn•m•I•• ACTION t2 Yea 9-] era+ Yee,aS 10•vNapapeewnron ma nusamebrritY rnmarwe Pngumy ,)rvyorny p.gyng Onyor,y Ir,[IWe peMYtlWnm CUY Pyn uyutn 'Jmn Monr U�.ile 9r0.fMpWn9 rmnn,ge p,a5e,vatnn Rerpw gmpnp Ererwre;sdelw rKenr pasr,asovrcn5 $aBle9y gEryf Evduale rerplOwMtN manna manngemml;mrs 94 Pl Inglmwrl Ma,lalyneU,4n a qM Mpt Ulbere angrM gUcp; Onv Svx gUopr Up9ale Uevabpmem nvruw noplWalron Mm Am 4ptle)e awbpmem mrmw pow<nen A. Puolien a preXnrvellon ravrawrUadpretlwr IIM Cn PWIIM Oenpnere to9,evraw tnorUlnbro, Mopt Eweblrsn an annual txaegrvmravavlew reppn loan Mopt Ongprnp On yamJ On gnrng Err nb gtatl'n odor r qU Pudew ellwrveyemtne crM's wabwla Urynrra Vuorlan CgdIG MMgnprewnyn RrrrtwYA 9urteyB 9urvayO SurvsyD UpW wmy eytlmr wrM May Iptivee UpUme 0.ralep•iEXgryl mnleq geten,entp TuprcA Tppr[8 Tope C_ Ta D-- tMe Iw Oron mUYgwnt ACop cry w00 preesvellm paflpn yutlenres Furgr,y Orart 4 AU tlly wqe ae,n•.rdermea 1p ebges ul rlLSlMfa Funarnq O,nn A.= u *r n:.=con :+^- nrrrnrn o,an Ww Derda c rmaralgn , A." on.r om CI Ja.. Implementation Priority Actions: Ease of '• Rating Implementation Essential for •• • Surveys DesignSuccess • Website Information Amend Existing _ r. Ordinance Company I/ Conclusion For Enhanced $ Effectiveness: The program requires a clear and balanced vision 1982 Strategic and efficient use of resources ^ 2009 39 1 Winter&Company General Direction Sought 1 . Does Council have any questions or concerns about the information and recommendations presented? 2. Is Council comfortable with the next steps and the implementation phasing table?