Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/26/2012 - PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEMOLITION/ALTERATIDATE: June 26, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich Karen McWilliams Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Proposed Historic Preservation Demolition/Alteration Review Process Improvements: Phase I and II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At Council’s direction, the Community Development Neighborhood Services Department (CDNS) is undertaking a two-phase project to consider changes to the City’s Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Section 14-72 of the City Code), which determines the historic eligibility of properties in the City and defines the process for reviewing alterations or demolition. Phase l, to be discussed at this Council work session, proposes changes to Chapter 14 to addresses Council’s immediate concerns with the review process: (1) to ensure timely public notice to citizens (usually neighbors) early in the process about determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic structures; and (2) to provide a method for appealing historic eligibility status. If the Phase I proposed changes are implemented, other parts of Chapter 14 of the City Code will need to be modified in order to ensure an efficient public notice, eligibility, demolition and appeal process. Those housekeeping changes are included in this proposal. An additional modification is recommended for Chapter 2 of the City Code in order to ensure compliance of Landmark Preservation Board member appointments with Certified Local Government Standards. Phase II of the project, to be completed later this year, will involve a more comprehensive review of the Demolition/Alteration Review Process. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Is this item ready for formal Council consideration? If so, is the following time frame appropriate? • Consideration of First Reading of Ordinances making Phase I changes - July 17, 2012 • Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinances - August 21, 2012 2. Does Council have any general questions or feedback about the proposed changes? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City Council recently reviewed two appeals of the Planning and Zoning Board’s denial of requests for modifications. The owners of the properties objected to the determination of eligibility June 26, 2012 Page 2 made by the CDNS Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) chair; however, there was not a method available to them to appeal the eligibility decision directly. The changes proposed would allow for an appeal to the LPC and ultimately to the City Council. Concerns have also been expressed by citizens that they are not aware early enough in the process that owners or developers of historically significant properties are requesting major alterations, including demolition. To enhance citizen notification, staff proposes that Chapter 14 of the City Code be changed to require that public notice be sent whenever a major alteration hearing was set by the LPC. It would also require public notice to be made in the newspaper each week listing the structures that the CDNS Director and LPC chair have determined to be eligible or not. Notification of determinations of eligibility and of major alterations will also be added to the appropriate planning and historic preservation web pages, with links to the City webpage, and advertised through the weekly Development Review Listserve. In addition to the electronic and newspaper listings, for those projects affecting a principal structure involving a major alteration or demolition, a sign (similar to the development review sign) would be placed on the property, making the request for a determination of eligibility clearly visible to the neighbors and public. Once public notice is provided, a 14-day period for appeal of any of all of those decisions would be in effect. These changes are consistent with process improvements identified in the 2010 Historic Preservation Program Assessment document and with comments provided to staff by the Landmark Preservation Commission. SUMMARY OF CHANGES 1. Changes proposed to ensure timely public notice to citizens early in the process about determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic structures: • Provide definitions for major and minor alterations, and principal structure. • Provide for neighborhood and community notice. • Add the proper Building Code sections for exempting properties from compliance. The Code currently references the Uniform Building Code (UBC), rather than the International Property Maintenance Code which the City has adopted. 2. Changes proposed to provide a method for appealing historic eligibility status: • Adding a process for appeals of historic eligibility status. • Adding an independent reviewer section if the eligibility determination is appealed. This would allow for preparation of a Colorado Historical Society Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and report, by an outside reviewer with expertise in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant. The survey form and report would take an estimated two weeks to complete, and cost the appellant $400 to $600. 3. Proposed housekeeping changes: • Remove the use of different titles for the CDNS Director. • Modify time frames and other processes to be consistent with each other. • Provide more specificity to Commission member experience requirements, to ensure compliance of Landmark Preservation Commission member appointments with June 26, 2012 Page 3 Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. While CLG regulations require that at least 4 Commission members meet standards of professional expertise, this is not reflected in Division 19, Section 2-277, “Membership.” Phase II of the review of the Demolition/Alteration Review Process will entail a more comprehensive assessment of the review process to identify process improvements. Phase II will consist of public engagement, the study of best practices, consideration of the interface of the City’s Code requirements with those of the federal Certified Local Government program, and an overall assessment of process improvement and Code changes. A Council work session on Phase II will be scheduled for late fall, with Code adoption anticipated in early spring 2013. LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission will formally review the proposal during a special hearing on June 20, 2012. The public is invited to speak at this special hearing. In addition, those affected by the recent appeals were provided copies of the proposed changes. The minutes from this hearing will be provided in the “Read-Before” packet prior to the June 26 work session. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report - “Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process” dated April 26, 2012 2. Powerpoint presentation Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Policy, Planning & Transportation Services MEMORANDUM Date: April 26, 2012 To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers Thru: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Policy, Planning and Transportation Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director From: Laurie Kadrich, Interim Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process Executive Summary Fort Collins has been a leader in the historic preservation movement. The City’s preservation program began in 1968 with the Landmark Ordinance in the Fort Collins Municipal Code and the establishment of the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC). Revitalization of the City’s downtown began in the late 1970s with the Local, State, and National Register designation of the Fort Collins Old Town Historic District (the first in the state). The result is one of the most vibrant, successful historic downtowns in the country. The Laurel School National Register District, containing over 600 properties, was designated in 1980. Today there are over 1,800 historically designated properties in Fort Collins, including the first 1950s-era local landmark residential district designated in Colorado (Sheely Drive). In 1994, the City adopted the Historic Resources Preservation Program Plan (HRPPP). On April 13, 2010 the Winter and Company Plan (Historic Preservation Program Assessment) was presented and approved by the City Council for implementation. Fort Collins has received over 70 historic preservation grants, translating into over $21,000,000. in direct and indirect revenue as well as numerous State and National awards. Even with the City’s Historic Preservation Program successes, there still remain questions about how extensive the program should be, how it should fit within other community planning initiatives, and how the program may be improved. Opportunity Statement: 1. Immediate Needs: Improving the Eligibility Determination Process. Some property owners expressed concern that it is unclear as to which requirements will apply; how eligibility is determined, whether they can demolish a structure if they choose to, and what redress measures are available to them. Conversely, neighbors expressed concerns that they are not notified soon enough in the process to influence any decisions and/or help provide options to the owner. City Council members also expressed concern and asked for prompt action to address process issues related to eligibility determination and opportunity for appeals of eligibility status. They also expressed concern ATTACHMENT 1 Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process April 26, 2012 Page 2 - 2 - about how residents learn about historic designation and whether their input is part of the review process early enough. Recommendation: Modify the current code/process as soon as practical and adopt the following measures:  Allow for an appeal of the initial eligibility status, first to the LPC and then to City Council.  Allow for any party to request an eligibility hearing before the board in addition to/or instead of the determination review by the CDNS director and the LPC chair.  Provide public notice to neighbors prior to an eligibility hearing before the LPC.  Provide public notice to neighbors prior to any demolition of a primary building, structure or site. Timeframe and Process: Ready for City Council review within 3-4 months. A collaborative effort between City Legal Staff, LPC, City Council and a small number of citizens will develop the immediate solutions to the current eligibility process. Taking immediate steps that can be completed more quickly than a broader review will strengthen the current eligibility process and allow for an eligibility determination appeal without debating what should be eligible or identifying the more systemic changes necessary. Those processes require more citizen, council and board member discussion as suggested in Part 2. 2. Broader Review of the Overall Historic Preservation Program Some owners of locally landmarked properties 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 the development review and permitting, when dealing with a property that is 50 years or older. Within the context of these general concerns more specific questions will be addressed:  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? Conversely, is it too permissive in others?  Should the program offer flexibility in treatment to property owners? And if so, how?  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? (e.g. is the 50-year building review criteria relevant today?) Recommendation: Improve predictability and effectiveness in the Historic Preservation Program by implementing the code and processes strategies identified in December 2010, by Winter & Company in their assessment of the Historic Preservation Program from 2015 to 2012. They identified several “key issues” for the program:  Providing more information to property owners in advance.  Determining in advance if a property has historic significance. Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process April 26, 2012 Page 3 - 3 -  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. City Council members and others also expressed concern about the effectiveness of a 50-year criterion on all properties, sites, and structure and analyze whether other methods such as a tier-approach would be appropriate for the community today. Timeframe and Process: A core team of staff and interested citizens will be formed this summer to begin process planning, as well as develop a project time line and implementation steps and strategies to “kick off” in the fall. Their initial work includes a review of the Landmark Preservation Code and the Historic Preservation Program Assessment. During the fall, the team will conduct public outreach including a survey, open houses and board and commission members’ input on the strategies developed. The project team will schedule a workshop with the City Council to review information developed and seek further direction on process, timeline to move forward with recommendations. Attachments 1. Historic Preservation Program Assessment 2. Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan 3. Flow Chart; How Historic Properties are Reviewed (available on our web-site) City of Fort Collins HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT WINTER & COMPANY DECEMBER, 2010 On the Cover: Images of buildings in Old Town Fort Collins illustrate the benefits of the protection that historic district designation had provided. “Before” images, c.1980, are paired with “after” images c.1995. I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. The Benefits of a Preservation Program 1 B. Key Issues for the Preservation Program 2 C. Recent Questions 2 D. Scope of this Report 3 E. Balancing Interests 3 II. MODEL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS 5 A. Characteristics of an Effective Preservation Program 5 B. Preservation System Components 6 C. Recent Trends Related to Preservation Programs 14 III. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS 19 A. Policy Directives 19 B. Ordinances 22 C. Operating Procedures 31 D. Resource Surveys 33 E. Design Guidelines and Standards 34 F. Compliance Process 35 G. Incentives and Benefits 36 H. Training, Education and Outreach 36 IV. IMPLEMENTATION PHASING TABLE 37 APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE TABLES 41 1. Interim Controls Example 42 2. Resource Types Example Table 43 APPENDIX B: INTEGRATED REVIEW 45 APPENDIX C: GUIDELINE FLEXIBILITY AND EASE OF USE 47 APPENDIX D: PEER COMMUNITIES REVIEW 51 Part One: Peer Communities List 51 Part Two: Peer Communities Review 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 I. INTRODUCTION This report assesses 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 an- ticipates current trends in historic preservation that the city is beginning to experience. Note: This report reflects recent updates to the organization of the city’s preservation department. The preservation department is moving from the Advance Planning Depart- ment 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 report. Old Town also receives recognition for its role in promoting business development and corporate recruitment citywide. Many businesses choose to locate in Fort Col- lins 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 re- cent 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. Ma- ture, close-in neighborhoods receive ac- knowledgement as attractive, livable plac- es, although most of these are not officially designated as historic districts under city ordinance. A. The Benefits of a Preservation Program Fort Collins has been a pioneer in the his- toric preservation movement. It designat- ed the Old Town Historic District, centered at the intersection of Linden and Walnut Streets, and then adopted design guide- lines and standards 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 communi- ties in Colorado that now have noteworthy downtown historic districts. The success of the Old Town Historic Dis- trict is well known. It is cited by many peo- ple as a key cultural amenity as well as a dynamic economic development driver for the city. Today, the term “Old Town” ex- tends to a broader part of the downtown, reflecting the power of association with the historic district. 2 City of Fort Collins B. Key Issues for the Preservation Program Even though historic preservation is val- ued in Fort Collins, there are questions about how extensive the program should be, how it should fit within other commu- nity planning initiatives, and whether there are ways to improve it. Some owners of locally landmarked prop- erties have expressed concerns that they are not clear about the requirements that will apply; others are worried that the re- quirements will be strict and that there will be no flexibility in treatment of their prop- erties. Other preservation-related concerns arise in the course of the city’s project devel- opment 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 pro- cess 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. Second- ly, 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 con- cerns, 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 func- tion? • Is it too restrictive in some areas? And, conversely, is it too permissive in oth- ers? • Should the program offer flexibility in treatment to property owners? And if so, how would it offer such flexibility? • Can determinations of historic signifi- cance 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 bal- anced with other community develop- ment objectives? • How will the city address new, emerg- ing trends and issues in preservation, sustainability and neighborhood con- servation? 3 Historic Preservation Program Assessment D. Scope of this Report This report considers those questions in an assessment of the city’s review processes and policies involving historic resources, and then provides recommendations for improvement. Appendix D, Peer Com- munities Review, addresses preservation programs in peer communities across the country that helped identify and evaluate strategies for future consideration in Fort Collins. This assessment draws upon information collected in the following ways: • Interviews with city staff • Review of the city’s published materi- als related to permitting, its ordinanc- es, review procedures and web site • Review of peer community preserva- tion programs • Review of data related to projects re- viewed by the city and in its annual Certified Local Government reports • Interviews with approximately twenty individuals, who are representative of property owners, developers and pres- ervation advocates, in a series of “fo- cus 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 • Cost effectiveness and life cycle costs • Property owners Aerial view of Old Town Fort Collins 5 II. MODEL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS Nationally, effective preservation programs exhibit several qualities that define their op- erations and some of their essential components. These are described in this section. 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 in- formation that helps property owners bet- ter understand the implications of reha- bilitation and replacement; some are even providing technical support for energy ret- rofits. (The city’s web site does provide basic information about energy conserv- ing 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 proper- ties of similar type are treated the same. Owners should have confidence in the pro- cess such that they can predict the likely outcome following published criteria and guidelines. 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 reusing buildings conserves resources. Historic buildings also can accommodate compat- ible 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 proac- tively to promote energy conservation as- sociated with existing buildings. Unfortu- nately, 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. 6 City of Fort Collins While the city’s program does apply stan- dards and guidelines consistently, and in consistent procedural decision-making steps, these criteria and processes are not made clear, in terms of having easily ac- cessible information on the web or in print form. 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 ef- forts of others should be coordinated to ac- complish mutual objectives. Focus should be on delivering the “products” of expedi- ent decisions and technical assistance, as well as in developing tools that enable us- ers to make informed decisions about their properties. Some inefficiency does exist in the cur- rent program, especially in the review of 50-year old 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 pro- gram 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. In Fort Collins 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 state- ments supporting preservation are woven throughout the City Plan, especially in top- ics related to community appearance and design. Under principle CAD-5 there are directives for survey and identification of resources, education and awareness, in- centives, 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 com- munity.” “Policy CAD-5.4 Planning and Regula- tions. The City will formally recognize 7 Historic Preservation Program Assessment A separate Historic Resources Preserva- tion Plan also exists, which was adopted as part of the city’s comprehensive plan in 1994, that sets forth more specific poli- cies for preservation and actions for their implementation. “II.A.4.4 – Prepare short, informative brochures or “factsheets” on critical preservation issues targeted to se- lected interest groups, such as realtors and homeowners. Some possible top- ics include a description of the benefits of preservation, including the economy and tourism; a description of regula- tions that apply to landmark structures and districts; histories of neighbor- hoods, etc.” 2. Ordinances Ordinances establish the basic operations of a preservation program. The preserva- tion ordinance defines the mechanisms for identifying and protecting historic resourc- es. In addition, the basic zoning ordinance establishes certain land use expectations that influence the climate for preservation. The building code also influences preser- vation. 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 ordi- nance and includes the bulk of regu- lation on historic properties, including provisions for demolition that apply to non-listed structures. • Adopted building codes include special sections for existing buildings and his- toric structures. (Residential Building Code: 2003 International Residential Code with local Amendments and Com- mercial 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 his- toric resources are specified in operating procedures. Some of these are embedded in the land use code. Others are refer- enced in that document, but exist as sepa- rate stand-alone papers such that they can be updated more frequently. 8 City of Fort Collins 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. How- ever, the city’s master development review flow chart fails to reference this potential step, and does not indicate how the pro- cess may be affected if a 50-year old prop- erty 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 pres- ervation staff, the timing when that should occur is not documented in a formal de- velopment 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 Com- mission, it can be perceived as an unex- pected delay by a property owner. Once it is determined that a review to con- sider the significance of a property and its potential treatment should occur, the process is not clear. The operating proce- dures 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 poten- tial 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 limi- tations and what are the benefits? • What is the process for reviewing work proposed? Predictability can be improved in these ar- 9 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Providing Flexibility Preservation programs are structured to strive to be objective and treat all similar resources equally. That is to say, after two properties are found to be historically sig- nificant, they are to be treated equally, if all other conditions are the same. “Flex- ibility” is a bit different in that context; it is different from a policy-making situation, such as developing a sub-area plan. How- ever, there are ways to build in some flex- ibility that everyone can understand and predict. Structured ways to provide for flexibility in- clude: • Defining key features of property types Preservation programs focus on pre- serving 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 “individu- ally eligible.” This may be expanded on in combination with other strategies. • Designation levels Establish different categories of desig- nation, 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, guide- lines with increasing levels of flexibility may be crafted for properties at lower levels of significance. This could also provide more flexibility for incorporat- ing a historic structure into a new de- velopment. Surveys identify resources that have his- toric significance. They are conducted us- ing adopted criteria for determining sig- nificance and can cover both districts and individual resources. Surveys should in- clude a listing of all of the properties sur- veyed, indicating the significance of each of the historic resources and, where appli- cable, 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 or 10 City of Fort Collins 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 re- cent 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 re- development, or where substantial demoli- tion 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 oppor- tunity 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 pro- vide information that the city and property owners can use at the outset of consid- ering an improvement project, in order to determine if a property has historic signifi- cance. In an efficient program, a property owner should be able to pull up informa- tion on the web that identifies any historic significance. Survey information should be readily avail- able 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 sig- nificance requires objective application of criteria that are understood by profession- als 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 pre- liminary 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 an- ticipate the development review process. With this information provided by the own- er, it could also reduce staff time in basic research about the property, and thereby 11 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Effective guidelines provide clear ex- amples of appropriate and inappropriate design treatments using local properties. They also define the range of flexibility that may be available for alterations and additions. They can help to identify which features are significant that should be pre- served, 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 guide- lines and standards 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 Stan- dards and Guidelines for Treatment of His- toric Properties. These serve as the basis for most locally-written guidelines across the country, and are based on principles that are widely accepted nationally. How- ever, 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 Dis- trict, while the guidelines have been effec- tive, they need to be updated to enhance clarity and predictability for owners. The range of flexibility they may have in deal- ing with the properties is not clearly under- stood, and in the absence of good guide- lines, owners often fear the worst. Citywide Preservation Guidelines Clear, well-illustrated design guidelines and standards that apply citywide to his- toric resources are needed. They should address treatment of officially designated properties, and also should indicate how they apply to properties in the other devel- opment review tracks that are identified as having historic significance. These guide- lines would help orient property owners in the appropriate direction at the outset of their improvement planning, and would help make the criteria for determining ap- propriateness more transparent. 6. Compliance Process An effective program must have mecha- nisms to assure compliance with permits and other program requirements. Enforce- ment for non-compliance is defined as a part of this component. As in many communities, enforcement and compliance are on-going issues in Fort Col- 12 City of Fort Collins 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 refer- enced in Fort Collins are the federal and state income tax credits that are available for certified properties. Some design as- sistance 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 re- bate on the local sales tax of construction materials that are purchased for an ap- proved 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 set- backs and other code-related regulations are other incentives that may be offered. Expanding the Incentive Package Fort Collins should strive to expand its in- centives and benefits for preservation of historic structures. This should include op- tions for incorporating a historic property into a new development, which is an issue likely to arise in some of the targeted rede- velopment 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 suc- cessful preservation program. Many prop- erty owners willingly comply with appropri- ate rehabilitation procedures and develop compatible designs for new construction when they are well informed about preser- vation objectives. Workshops that provide helpful information about rehabilitation techniques and publications that build an understanding of historic significance are examples of education and outreach strat- egies. Well-written design guidelines and standards that provide useful information, as well as literal standards, can also serve an educational role. Education and outreach is often a func- tion of a partner organization, a non-profit group that promotes preservation and his- 13 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 9. Program Activity Reporting A key question is how Fort Collins com- pares in the volume of design review ac- tivity 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 thresh- old. 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 are not clearly summa- rized 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 de- velopment approvals under the land use code. It is reported anecdotally that only a small percentage of the projects that pass through development review actually involve historic resources. A standard for- mat for reporting to the Colorado Histori- cal 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 sig- nificance with the total number of permits issued annually. This would be a supple- ment to the reporting requirements of the CLG program. This would put the “preser- vation filter” aspect of design review into perspective. 10. Level of Historic Significance The city’s 1994 preservation plan recom- mends adopting a system in which differ- ing 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 de- sign guidelines and standards 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. See Appendix D: Peer Communities Review for more informa- tion. 14 City of Fort Collins Developing a Tiered System The city should consider adopting a tiered system of ratings. This would identify dif- ferent levels of significance, based on clear criteria, and then would indicate the basic approach anticipated for their treat- ment. 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 preserva- tion 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 re- flects 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 improve- ments 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 de- sign review and to limit some forms of per- mitting. Delegating more decision making to staff, and defining some minimum stan- dards that can be approved “at the counter” are operational methods some communi- ties are using. This, however, requires a survey system that supports administra- tive review, and also requires clear guide- lines and standards to expedite review. The city’s existing design guidelines and standards would not be sufficient for this type of streamlined review. 2. Integrated Systems Cities are seeking ways to assure that preservation is more deliberately integrat- ed into planning in general. In this way, historic resources are more directly con- sidered 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 pres- 15 Historic Preservation Program Assessment One example of a successful integration of preservation is the West Side Neigh- borhood Plan. It gives a description of the types and extent of historic buildings found in the area, and sets goals for future devel- opment to preserve both these resources and the existing character of these areas. Although there are examples of adequately addressing preservation in sub-area plans, some critical sub-area plans in Fort Collins are inadequate in the policy guidance that they provide related to historic preserva- tion. This means that decisions involving historic properties will be made using the provisions in the land use code that pro- vide for considerations of significance for any properties more than 50 years old, re- gardless of their location in the city. If a property is potentially individually eli- gible 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 fac- tors, such as the fit with other community objectives, and it does not permit them to treat properties differently, based on vary- ing degrees of significance and integrity. This oversight contributes to the percep- tion 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 oppor- tunity to further integrate preservation with other aspects of land use planning and de- velopment policies. In Fort Collins, sustainability also is emerg- ing as a high priority concern. This relates to preservation in these ways: • Keeping older buildings in use con- serves the energy already expended to create them. • Maintaining older buildings reduces im- pacts on landfills. • Historic buildings often have inherent 16 City of Fort Collins The role that preservation will play in the city’s sustainability program should be a topic of discussion in any future plan- ning activity. This will only grow in impor- tance 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 impor- tant 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. Including Preservation in Sustainability Initiatives The city should include preservation con- siderations 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 neighbor- hoods seek historic district status to ad- dress more basic issues related to new construction. They seek the historic dis- trict designation because it is the only tool available that in any way addresses the issue. In response, some communities have added other options to their charac- ter-management toolkit. They do so recog- nizing that the tool should fit the objective, and that the historic district tool should be used strategically for its originally intend- ed purpose. These new options include the use of conservation districts and form- based codes. Conservation districts focus on maintain- ing the traditional building scale and char- acter of a neighborhood. They use special zoning standards, and sometimes design review guidelines, that focus on new con- struction and additions. The emphasis is on retaining the appearance of the charac- ter of a neighborhood in terms of building alignment, scale and open space as seen from the street. Alterations to the exterior of existing buildings that do not expand the usable floor area typically are not re- viewed. This may be addressed by a de- sign 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 admin- istered at the permitting counter. Form-based codes are similar, but are pre- scriptive, defining the mass and scale of 17 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 5. Refined Survey Methods Many communities are implementing sur- vey systems that are management orient- ed, based on their preservation objectives. This means using a tiered survey that indi- cates varying levels of integrity for historic structures. Such a survey may also iden- tify new buildings that are compatible with their context. In its Preservation Program Plan, Fort Col- lins outlined a concept of tiered levels of significance that were then linked to dif- ferent levels of protection, incentives and design review. However, this was not im- plemented in the revised Land Use Code. The system suggested in that plan may be more complex than is needed, but the con- cept is one that merits consideration. It is also important that when a historic survey is conducted, the information in- cluded 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 improve- ment to the system, refinements to the sur- vey form should occur. One concern that arises related to these custom-tailored surveys is how they can also conform with the Secretary of the In- terior’s Standards and the state’s require- ments. In some communities, they have accomplished this by creating a supple- ment sheet that accompanies the standard state survey form. In this way, the infor- mation 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-go- ing property management mode. That is, the survey should include information that identifies key features to help owners make informed decisions about their properties. (An illustration in Appendix C indicates a process for identifying key features of a structure. It suggests, in that example that most of the key features are on the front of the building. This indicates that more flex- ibility would be available to the side and The Linden Hotel is the focal point of the Old Town Historic District. 19 A. Policy Directives Policies are crafted by appointed boards and commissions and formalized by city council. Staff’s role is to administer poli- cy. 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 de- velopment 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 pres- ervation staff that there are other priorities which must be taken into consideration. (Note that City Council always has the abil- ity to insert other policy considerations into any specific development review through a public hearing on the property. Howev- er, the objective is to provide more policy guidance formally in advance such that the burden of a council hearing is avoided.) III. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS This section provides recommendations for improving the preservation system in Fort Collins. The recommendations are organized around the preservation system compo- nents introduced in Section II. With limited resources to address the recommendations in this report, it is important to establish priorities for action. A summary table of the recommended system improve- ments is provided at the end of this section which establishes a proposed phasing schedule. These phases were determined by prioritizing actions that will have the great- est or most immediate impact, as well as with consideration for the relative ease of their implementation. 20 City of Fort Collins 2. Develop a preservation and sustainability initiative. Sustainability is a broad concept that con- tinues to evolve and in which older build- ings 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 re- sponse, the city should: • Establish policy that recognizes the role of conserving existing buildings as sustainable and that this should be considered when determining best ap- proaches; in this respect, the preserva- tion program should be seen as a part- ner in sustainability. • Establish a technical assistance pro- gram for property owners to accomplish energy-saving retrofits. (Include work- shops, informational handouts, and perhaps organize a tech-school retrofit program. This may be an opportunity to partner with the university.) • Related to technical assistance, estab- lish a process for determining repair and replacement strategies for win- dows, materials and roofing that take sustainability into consideration. 3. Develop policies for the treatment of recent past resources. Younger properties that may now be con- sidered for historic significance may re- quire somewhat different treatment in per- mitting and review. In response, the city should develop specific design guidelines and standards 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 reha- bilitate using conventional guidelines than earlier “Victorian” construction. Guidelines for treatment of Recent Past properties may offer more flexibility in using replace- ment 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 21 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 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 ob- jectives 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 illustra- tive purposes. *There is always a consideration of infeasibility (economic hardship) in expecting pres- ervation of a resource. 22 City of Fort Collins Actions • Develop a preservation and sustainability initiative. • Include preservation goals and preser- vation’s role in sustainability in the up- date of the City Plan. • Update existing sub-area plans to in- clude preservation objectives. • Review options for policies for the treat- ment of recent past resources. • Evaluate options for the adoption of al- ternative neighborhood character man- agement tools. • Review options for adopting a tiered system of historic designation and re- view. B. Ordinances Recommended ordinance improvements found throughout this section include these basic components: • Basic Clean-ups Some improvements focus on clarifying existing provisions in the code that are appropriate, but have technical flaws. • Modifications to Reflect Policy These improvements focus on clarify- ing how city policies relate to the pres- ervation ordinance. • New Provisions These recommendations address new elements that should be added in re- sponse to national trends in the best practices for historic preservation. • Format These recommendations focus on the organization and formatting of the codes. These different types of strategies are identified throughout this section. 1. Land Use Code Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.4.7 provides standards for pres- ervation and treatment of historic proper- ties and their incorporation into new de- velopments. It provides a good basis for design guidelines and standards as it sets the broad principles for the treatment of his- toric resources, but gives only very limited guidance or direction for rehabilitation of historic properties themselves. It provides more specific criteria for the design of new construction in a Historic District or adja- cent to a listed resource. However, these criteria are written primarily for a commer- cial context, and may not be as applicable for infill within or adjacent to a residential context. While this section of the code 23 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Strategy Add language defining the criteria for treat- ment 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. 2. 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 hav- ing a sufficient degree of integrity for the exterior of the property. The level of integ- rity required is not specified; however, in the definition of “exterior integrity,” it is im- plied 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 integ- rity. 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 acknowledg- es different levels of significance. Also, clarify the definition of “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 crite- ria 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 des- ignating 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 Pres- ervation 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 24 City of Fort Collins 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” nomi- nations, 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 appli- cation. This application is required to give basic information on the historic signifi- cance of the district; however, it does not require sufficient justification of the bound- aries 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 Pres- ervation Commission and the Director of Community Development and Neigh- borhood Services would have standing to initiate a nomination. 2. An organization with an established in- terest in preservation. This would be clearly defined and can include groups such as a non-profit with preservation in their mission statement etc. Inclu- sion 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 prop- erty) 4. A defined percentage of properties in a proposed district Also, clarify the preliminary level of infor- mation that is needed to indicate that a po- tential district exists and that further con- sideration is merited. This should include requirements for the justification of district boundaries and for the area to be docu- mented well enough that the LPC would be able to determine if a nomination has merit and should proceed. Sec. 14-23. Community Development and Neighborhood Services review This section instructs staff in reviewing a proposed designation to consider the Zon- ing Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, and the effect on the neighborhood, as well as any other planning consideration 25 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 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 prop- erty 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 de- sirable. 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 ob- jectives to the LPC as background infor- mation only, and to the City Council as part of their report and recommendation. The LPC should continue to consider designa- tion 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 des- ignation and treatment might interact with historic properties and citywide planning objectives. 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 consid- ered for landmarking. During the hold, per- mits 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 pro- posed 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 ini- tiation of landmarking procedures, places a nominated property (or property within a nominated district) at the same level of control as an officially designated one. Also establish procedures/criteria for the LPC to have the authority to grant certain pre-defined exceptions. This should be ex- plained in both text and inserted as a table in the code for ease of use and clarity of policy. See Appendix A for an example of such a table. (Note that a separate section of the code also provides exceptions for addressing dangerous conditions.) 26 City of Fort Collins Article III. Construction, Alterations, Demolitions and Relocations Sec. 14-46. Work requiring a building permit Any action on a designated resource re- quiring 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 pro- vides an applicant with an understanding of how their project will be reviewed and what will be required of it early in the de- sign 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. Recom- mendations for public outreach and educa- tion materials that relate to review proce- dures are addressed in the Draft Process and Policy Improvement Report. Also consider permitting the LPC to des- ignate an advisory design review subcom- mittee of its body to provide early consul- tations 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 mak- ing their determination of the appropriate- ness of work that is proposed on a land- mark structure, including the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. However, it does not explain what the desired outcome is, other than maintaining the resource’s in- tegrity and that the proposed work should be compatible with the resource. Strategy Clarify the criteria for determining appro- priateness. The existing criteria are writ- ten 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 appro- priate. Sec. 14-48.5. Work not detrimental to historic, architectural or cultural material; administrative process 27 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Administrative review of minor projects can minimize the use of commission time, ex- pedite 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 ex- pansion of the administrative review pro- cess should be considered. Strategy Expand staff’s ability to approve applica- tions 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 dan- gerous or unsafe buildings. Since the time that this was written, the city has adopted new building codes, which cause this sec- tion 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 lev- els 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 Commis- sion Chair in order to determine the level of eligibility of the property. (Note that this process is different for buildings that are a safety hazard, which is addressed in a separate section of the code.) If they feel the property may have signifi- cance 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. 28 City of Fort Collins The summary of the City’s Review Process- es 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 un- der Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the Demolition/Alteration Review Process.” This implies that every permit application must go through this re- view application. However, this section re- quires the LPC to review applications only for demolition, partial demolition or reloca- tion of a structure that is 50 years of age or older and which meets one or more of the designation criteria. Other applications for properties 50 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 re- source. “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 of 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 recommenda- tions throughout this report. For example, if different levels of designation are es- tablished, 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 Commis- sion to act for them in the preliminary anal- ysis of potential significance. The Director of Community Development and Neighbor- hood Services should also be given the authority to appoint another member of the preservation planning staff to represent them in the preliminary analysis of poten- tial significance. Article V. Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program 29 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 3. Other Code Observations and Issues This section provides a summary of key observations and issues that are not di- rectly 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 helps 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 crite- ria throughout the code. Strategy In addition to referencing the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards it is important to have the ability to adopt design guidelines or standards, including those for specific resource types found in Fort Collins. Pro- vide language stating that the city may adopt design guidelines and standards 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 con- sidered to have a lower level of signifi- cance, but their treatment is not clear. The definition of “eligibility” lists “contributing to a district” as a separate level of eligi- bility for designation. These two concepts should not be combined. It confuses the definition. In most communities, “contrib- uting” properties are those that gain their significance from being part of a set of re- sources 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. 30 City of Fort Collins Demolition Land Use Code 3.4.7(E) Relocation or De- molition 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 Eligi- bility also occurs; however, the conflict is minimized as 3.4.7(C) references the cri- teria 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 sec- tions 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 in- dicate that emerging preservation trends should also be addressed in the ordi- nance. Strategy Provide new code language to address trends in best practices in preservation in- cluding; • Language referencing the role that his- toric resources play in sustainability, resource conservation and energy ef- ficiency. Establish as a role of the LPC to advise the city on preservation’s role in citywide sustainability objectives. • Language providing for a conservation district option. Conservation districts focus on maintaining the traditional building scale and character of a neigh- borhood. They use special zoning stan- dards, and sometimes design review guidelines, that focus on new construc- tion 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 dis- trict. Organization Simple formatting updates should be made to increase the ease of use and under- 31 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Definitions Some of the definitions found in the Munic- ipal Code contain circular references with other definitions. Others reference or im- ply a requirement not clearly conveyed in the code language. These include the defi- nitions of contributing to a district, eligibil- ity and landmark or landmark district, as well as possible confusion between altera- tions and partial demolitions. The defini- tion of exterior integrity implies that a cer- tain level of integrity is required in order to landmark a resource based on its level of significance. This is not clarified in the eli- gibility criteria section of the code. The in- tegrity 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 recom- mendations in this report including; • Clarify levels of designation in defini- tions, 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. C. Operating Procedures 1. Clarify the preservation review process. Preservation review should be more close- ly coordinated with other development re- views. • Establish provisions to include preser- vation staff’s comments early in devel- opment review. • Incorporate preservation and 50-year reviews in the city’s development re- view chart and process. (It does not appear there at present.) • Diagram the landmarks designation and design review processes. (This ex- ists in text form, but is not easy to un- derstand.) 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 proper- ty owners can be “surprised” to learn that 32 City of Fort Collins 3. Coordinate Section 106 reviews. The city has no designated official to man- age 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 cer- tain historic properties. Public works proj- ects may often fall under this provision. For example, if a road improvement proj- ect involves widening the street and prop- erties 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 pres- ent, 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 involved, and delays can occur. In many communities, a single con- tact 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. This would document the number and types of projects reviewed, as well as their outcomes and the length of time they were in the process. 5. Expand administrative review procedures. Project types that can be reviewed by the Director of Advance 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 applica- tion 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- 33 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 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 comprehen- sively to identify properties that are histori- cally significant. That information is then made readily available to property own- ers. However, Fort Collins, as with most cities, has not committed the resources needed to conduct a citywide survey. Funding typi- cally occurs in small increments, and then selected areas are surveyed as the funds become available. (See the Peer Commu- nities Review in Appendix D for examples of the status of surveys in other communi- ties.) 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 be- fore evaluating a property for significance. As time progresses, other properties reach this threshold. While doing so does not au- tomatically bestow historic significance, it does mean that the need to survey is on- going. 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 cri- teria. 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. In- clude 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 redevelop- ment pressures exist. 3. Refine the city’s survey form to include more information useful to property owners. A key concept in historic preservation is 34 City of Fort Collins 4. Develop more context statements. As a prelude to surveying, the city uses brief historic overviews related to a partic- ular theme of development or a geograph- ic 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. 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 sur- vey 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 in- formation 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 web- site. • Conduct additional surveys, place em- phasis on areas targeted for redevel- opment or where substantial demolition is occurring or anticipated. • Review options for implementing an up- dated survey system including informa- tion 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 mod- el for property owners to make their own initial determination of the historic significance of their property. E. Design Guidelines and Standards 1. Publish design guidelines and standards for the treatment of historic properties. “Fear of the unknown” is a key concern. 35 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Clearly written, well-illustrated design guidelines and standards can help remove some of the mystery associated with the treatment of historic properties. With ad- vance guidance, an owner can develop an appropriate approach for the treatment of their historic property. These guidelines should provide information about altera- tions 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 treat- ment of certain properties. Guidelines will provide clarity and help people make decisions early. The guide- lines should address new, emerging issues such as energy conservation and “recent past” resources. Guidelines should also address how de- velopment 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 and Standards 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 sig- nal 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 commis- sion. Actions • Adopt city-wide preservation design guidelines and standards. • Adopt city-wide design guidelines and standards for areas abutting historic districts. • Update the Old Town Design Guide- lines. F. Compliance Process A clear working relationship should be es- tablished between preservation planning staff and code enforcement staff. Clear documentation of what has been approved should be provided to enforcement staff to be used in conjunction with site inspec- tions. A documentation format for succinct- 36 City of Fort Collins G. Incentives and Benefits The city’s existing incentives are very lim- ited and, in general, fall short of those of- fered by similar communities. Actions • Expand the city’s historic preservation incentive program. H. Training, Education and Outreach In the absence of other supporting organi- zations, 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, pres- ervation staff should be engaged in an ori- entation program directed at how they can participate in sub-area planning effectively and how to take other planning objectives into consideration when developing poli- cies 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 preser- vation policies and review system as well as best practices in preservation plan- ning. 3. Publish all preservation- related information on the web. This should include surveys of individual properties, historic contexts, maps and design guidelines and standards. Educa- tional materials such as brochures should be made available. Case studies illustrat- ing 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 avail- able on the city’s website. • Publish informational brochure on pres- ervation’s role in sustainability practic- es. 37 IV. IMPLEMENTATION PHASING TABLE The following table summarizes the recommended system improvements and proposes a phasing schedule for their implementation. The phases are roughly based on the num- ber of years it will take to implement an action. Phases for each action were determined by prioritizing those that will have the greatest or most immediate impact, as well as by considering the relative ease of their implementation. 38 City of Fort Collins 39 40 41 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 be integrated into the code itself or published separately as part of a companion document to the code. These tables are illustrative examples only. 42 City of Fort Collins 1. Interim Controls Example Actions Permitted During Consideration for Designation as a Local Historic Resource: 43 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 2. Resource Types Example Table 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 proper- ty ratings are in general terms to provide a clear distinction of significance. Should such a system be adopted more information should be provided relating to local designations in addition to the National Register designations shown. 45 APPENDIX B INTEGRATED REVIEW The following is an example from Pasadena, CA of how preservation review and design review can be integrated. Pasadena uses one application form for both types of review, and the form includes a section for staff to provide information about the historic signifi- cance of the property. 46 City of Fort Collins PASADENA PERMIT CENTER www.cityofpasadena.net/permitcenter Design and Historic Preservation Section MASTER APPLICATION FORM DHPMasterApp.doc Rev: 3/26/08 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT // 175 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE T 626-744-4009 DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION PASADENA, CA 91101 F 626-744-4785 Design Review (Ch. 17.61.030 P.M.C.) Certificate of Appropriateness (Ch. 17.62.090 P.M.C.) Project Address Project Name Project Description Applicant Architect Contractor Developer Other name: phone: address: fax: city: state: zip code: email: Applicant Signature: Date: (note: if the applicant is other than the property owner, separate signed owner authorization is required) Architect or Designer (for design review projects) name: phone: address: fax: city: state: zip code: email: Property Owner name: phone: address: fax: city: state zip code: email: Primary Contact Person: Applicant Architect Property Owner Proposed Work new construction demolition relocation restoration/rehabilitation addition/alteration sign/awning Project Information (for staff use only) PLN Review Authority Historic Preservation Review Type of Design Review PRJ staff Category 1 (designated) concept design review staff initials: Design Commission Category 2 (eligible) final design review date accepted: Historic Preservation Comm. consolidated design review date submittals rec’d: fee: $ CEQA Review Landmark/Historic District Tree Removal Public Art notification: $ Exempt yes yes 3% records fee: $ Pending district name no no TOTAL: $ Completed completed 47 APPENDIX C GUIDELINE FLEXIBILITY AND EASE OF USE The following illustrations from the draft Historic Design Guidelines and Standards for Deadwood, SD are examples of how guidelines can be made user friendly and identify a range of flexibility in applying them. 48 City of Fort Collins 49 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 50 City of Fort Collins 51 APPENDIX D PEER COMMUNITIES REVIEW As part of the Preservation Systems Improvement Project several peer community pres- ervation programs were reviewed in 2009 for comparable and innovative program ele- ments. This review took place in two parts. Part One provides an overview of the pres- ervation codes and programs for a list of 21 identified peer communities. Based on the results of this information, Part Two selected several communities for more thorough review of key areas of their preservation programs. Aspen, CO (pop. 5,804) • Recently adopted a list of, and regula- tions for, potential historic resources. • Has preservation design guidelines. • Has three classifications of historic re- view: exempt, minor and significant. • Publishes an HPC fact sheet describ- ing what projects are reviewed. • Has taken steps to address recent past resources. Athens, GA (pop. 112,434). • Has developed downtown guidelines that extend beyond the historic district/ core. • City Code requires design guidelines to be adopted or identified concurrent with or immediately following designa- tion of a district or landmark. Part One: Peer Communities List This list identifies peer communities whose codes and preservation systems were considered for review in Part Two, in order to gain an understanding of how their programs are structured with respect to historic preservation and development review. Alamo Heights, TX (pop. 7,319) • Has demolition delay, but not preven- tion. Ann Arbor, MI (pop. 115,092) • Recently adopted urban design stan- dards and guidelines for the greater downtown area, portions of which are historic districts. • Historic district commission reviews yard, open space features, and the en- tirety of the exterior of a building. • City has adopted, or is promoting green building policies. 52 City of Fort Collins Boulder, CO (pop. 91,685) • Has general historic design guidelines and guidelines for each historic dis- trict. • Has adopted criteria for significance for individual properties and districts. • Code identifies standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications. • City manager and two members of the Landmarks Board review all Landmark Alteration projects; any one may refer to full board if project may have im- pacts. • The Design Review Committee of the Landmarks Board reviews all demoli- tion permit applications for buildings over 50 years old. Durango, CO (pop. 13,922) • Council can designate without owners consent only for buildings with a high level of significance. • Staff reviews all applications on listed properties, and if there are possible im- pacts refers them to the board for re- view. • Review criteria established in the code. Eugene, OR (pop. 154,620) • Uses special zoning designation to al- low flexibility in historic resources treat- ment. • Published advisory design guidelines for historic residential properties and for infill development in historic neigh- borhoods. • Publishes Preservation Strategies Re- ports. • Has taken steps to address recent past resources and sustainability. Evanston, IL (pop. 74,239) • Historic Preservation Commission re- view required for all landmark buildings and buildings within historic districts. • Districts established as zoning overlay with Historic Preservation Ordinance. • The city has no preservation guide- lines. Fort Worth, TX (pop. 681,818) • Uses an established list of 10 criteria for designation of individual proper- ties. • Uses overlay zoning for historic districts requiring consent of > 50% of property owners representing > 50% of the land area. • Uses zoning overlay designation of ‘demolition delay’, with no limits on the use or alteration of a property, but will 53 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Lexington, KY (pop. 279,044) • Has an old core of commercial and res- idential neighborhoods, ring of “recent past” neighborhoods, and an estab- lished preservation program. • No demolition prevention, only a 30- day delay for documentation. • Has summary chart of when historic re- view is required. • Recently surveyed 34 downtown blocks using specific preservation criteria. Madison, WI (pop. 223,389) • Uses a combination of Historic Districts, Neighborhood Conservation Areas and Historic Landmarks. • Publishes a best practices guide for development. Minneapolis, MN (pop. 377,392) • Reviews all projects involving desig- nated resources or within districts • Recently proposed ordinance amend- ments to clarify the code, introduce conservation districts, and update sec- tions on demolition, designation, and demolition delays. Monterey, CA (pop. 30,641) • Minor reviews done by staff, major by commission. • Two levels of designation based on lev- el of significance. • Uses zoning incentives for designated properties. • Uses separate regulations for surveyed properties found to be potentially his- toric. Pasadena, CA (pop. 143,400) • City places Preservation and Urban Design in same division. • Preservation Program includes façade easement and historic interior policies. • Preservation information prominent on city website. • Published a 2007 report on recent past resources. Phoenix, AZ (pop. 1,552,259) • City Historic Preservation Office staff makes all decisions on applications for Certificates of No Effect or Appropriate- ness, and can deny demolition applica- tions (except in cases of hardship). • The Historic Preservation Commission reviews designation of landmarks, dis- tricts and historic zoning overlays and proposed preservation planning poli- cies. Portland, OR (pop. 550,396) • The City uses both Historic and Conser- vation Districts, with separate design 54 City of Fort Collins Sacramento, CA (pop. 460,2420) • Extensive development review system, well-established preservation program. • Uses “hearing officer” format for many design review decisions. • A COA may be required even when a building permit is not; building permit applications are prevented from pro- ceeding until the COA process is com- plete. Tacoma, WA (pop. 196,520) • Undertaking a preservation plan that considers interface with economic de- velopment. • Has individual design standards for de- sign review in separate districts. Tulsa, OK (pop 393,049) • In process of updating strategic preser- vation plan. • Has automatic demolition delay for des- ignated properties or properties within a district, but cannot deny demolition after the delay. • Code defines design guidelines to be used by commission in COA review. Part Two: Peer Communities Review The peer communities reviewed in this section include: Ann Arbor, MI, Aspen, CO, Monterey, CA, and Pasadena, CA. The preservation programs for these cit- ies were examined based on a list of ten key topics, as well as for any unique ele- ments relevant to possible improvements to the Fort Collins program. The key topics include: 1. Development Review Process How does the permitting process work for officially listed historic resources? How does it interface with other development reviews in the city? 2. Delegated Decision-Making How is decision-making authority as- signed? Can some projects be approved administratively or by a sub-committee? 3. Consideration of Unlisted Properties 50 Years Old Does the city review work on properties that are of an established age, but which are not listed formally as historic resourc- es? 4. Demolition Review How is demolition review conducted for properties that are not officially listed as local landmarks? 5. Structures of Merit Does the City have a category that recog- nizes properties of historic significance, 55 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 6. Surveys Does the city use a survey system that in- dicates different levels of significance? If so, how is this linked to design review and permitting? Are there any innovative ways in which surveys are being applied? 7. Incentives Does the city offer incentives or provide special benefits for properties that are listed as historic resources? If so, what are they? Which are most successful? Are other incentives being considered? 8. Sustainability In what ways is sustainability a factor in the preservation program? Does it appear in the design guidelines? In other policies? 9. Economic Development Is economic development a part of the preservation program? How does the pres- ervation program interact with other eco- nomic development initiatives? 10. Recent Past Resources How is the city addressing recent past re- sources? Are they listed and reviewed the same as older properties, or are there spe- cial categories of listing or different guide- lines? 11. Other Program Components Are there any unique elements or strate- gies in the preservation program? I. Ann Arbor, Michigan The City of Ann Arbor (population 115,092) has recently developed urban design stan- dards and guidelines for the greater down- town area, portions of which are historic districts. The seven member historic dis- trict commission reviews all projects in his- toric districts, including the entirety of the exterior of a building as well as yard and open space features. The city’s preserva- tion ordinance includes protection from demolition by neglect, and provisions for ‘Undue Financial Hardship’ for alterations in addition to demolitions. The city is also promoting green building policies. 1. Development Review Process Ann Arbor only designates historic districts, and not individual resources, although there are several districts that have only one property in them. When an applica- tion for work on a property within a historic district is received it is referred directly to preservation staff. Prior to application for Historic District Commission (HDC) Re- view, the Historic Preservation Officer may meet with applicants to review proposed projects. Roughly 75% of applications take advantage of this prior to submitting their 56 City of Fort Collins The code prescribes the same treatment for contributing and non-contributing prop- erties; however, there are certain allow- ances for more flexibility in the review cri- teria for non-contributing properties, such as with review of alteration to details and more actions that qualify for administrative approval. Treatment for contributing and non-contributing resources is also differ- ent in the proposed design guidelines. 2. Delegated Decision-Making Ann Arbor’s code allows for administra- tive approval for specified minor classes of work. Currently the HPC has listed 30 actions approvable by the City Historic Preservation Officer. All other work on properties within a historic district must be reviewed by the HDC, whose opinion is fi- nal, and appealable to the State Historic Preservation Review Board. 3. Consideration of Unlisted Properties 50 Years Old Age is one factor considered in determin- ing the level of significance of a property within a Historic District, but Ann Arbor does not use it as a criterion in any other preservation regulations. 4. Demolition Review There is no demolition review for projects outside of a historic district. 5. Structures of Merit The city does not have a list of structures of merit. However, they had a district made up of individual properties of significance for which designation was repealed. The list of these properties formerly in the dis- trict is awaiting appropriate action for in- clusion in any future districts. 6. Surveys Surveys are only conducted on historic districts to determine which properties within the district are contributing and non- contributing. When considering adopting a new district, the HDC will appoint a study committee who will do a basic study of the proposed area. This is not a formal sur- vey. 7. Incentives Ann Arbor does not have an incentive pro- gram. This is partially due to a lower level of necessity for such program elements, as the city does not designate an individu- al property, only a district. 8. Sustainability The City of Ann Arbor has talked a lot about sustainability; however, little action has been taken. The most likely future ac- tion will be to include sustainability in the 57 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 9. Economic Development There is no organized economic devel- opment plan for the city; it is divided into pieces in several different city depart- ments. The current preservation officer as- sists with the brownfields program. 10. Recent Past Resources Ann Arbor has numerous mid-century mod- ern buildings that many citizens would like to see preserved. However, the city has not taken action toward a historic district including such properties. 11. Other Program Components Demolition of Properties within a District: Within a district only properties determined not significant, or to have lost their integ- rity, may be demolished. Demolition may also be allowed in the case of undue finan- cial hardship, or if retaining the structure is found to be a hazard to public safety or will deter a major improvement project of significant benefit to the public. Very few applications for demolition have been sub- mitted for approval based on the interest of the community, and very few of these have been approved. II. Aspen, Colorado The City of Aspen (population 5,914) has preservation design guidelines and three classifications of historic review. Aspen has also integrated the protection of recent past resources into its preservation pro- gram. The city publishes a historic preser- vation fact sheet describing what projects are reviewed, and has identified design objectives for historic districts. Aspen has also recently adopted a list of, and regula- tions for, potential historic resources. 1. Development Review Process Historic development review in Aspen is only applicable to designated properties. There are three classifications of review on historic properties: (1) exempt, (2) mi- nor and (3) significant. The Community Development Director may approve a proj- ect on an exempt property. These proper- ties are identified according to criteria in the Land Use Code. A minor development approval is needed for development on a historic property that doesn’t qualify as ex- empt. This level of review requires a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission. A Significant Development approval is required for a major alteration, addition, or demolition of an existing his- toric property. A Significant Development Approval requires two public hearings be- fore the Historical Preservation Commis- 58 City of Fort Collins 2. Delegated Decision-Making The lowest of the three review levels de- fined in the code is a staff-only review. The city’s historic preservation staff does its best to keep review at the staff level, and most people seem satisfied with the system. 3. Consideration of Unlisted Properties 50 Years Old Aspen does not use a 50-year mark in their designation criteria. The city did not pre- viously have an age criterion; however, once they began designating recent past resources they initiated two, one at 30 years and one at 100 years. These rep- resent two distinct periods of significance in Aspen’s development, between which there was very little development. The 30- year mark represents the post-war build- ing boom, and is also near the median age of the buildings proposed for demolition. Buildings determined significant under ei- ther age criterion are currently treated the same. However, Aspen is considering a tiered system which would no longer use age as a criterion, and bases designation on three levels of significance which are determined based on a point system. 4. Demolition Review Aspen can deny demolition of designated properties only, including non-contributing properties within a historic district. In gen- eral, there are no special provisions for non-designated properties. However, there is a list of potentially historic resources. Properties on this list may be subject to a 90-day demolition hold. (See Structures of Merit discussion.) 5. Structures of Merit The City of Aspen has adopted by ordi- nance a List of Potentially Historic Re- sources. These properties are subject to a 90-day hold on development applications in order to determine their historic signif- icance. This list is a temporary measure while a citizen task force examines the city’s preservation system, and updates are considered. While the ordinance is in effect, only voluntary designation of the listed potential historic resources may oc- cur. There is no specific date at which the ordinance and its list will expire. 6. Surveys The city’s code previously required a sur- vey every five years, but this was repealed in 2002. Completed surveys have identi- fied the majority of the Victorian era re- sources, as well as many of the city’s 20th 59 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 8. Sustainability Aspen has green building standards that apply to all construction projects, includ- ing historic properties. These standards are applied with more flexibility for historic properties. 9. Economic Development Aspen does not have an economic devel- opment program. 10. Recent Past Resources Aspen has fully integrated recent past re- sources with their preservation program. Their criteria for designation are specifi- cally tailored to both their Victorian era resources and their recent past (20th cen- tury) resources. 11. Other Program Components Program Maintenance: Since the most recent preservation ordi- nance update, the Community Develop- ment Department and members of the HPC have met with City Council annually to dis- cuss unprotected 20th century era proper- ties and the successes and challenges of the preservation program. Potential Updates: Aspen is considering a three-tier system to replace the existing program which would assign a point rating to a property based on its level of significance and integrity. In this system only the highest rated proper- ties would be able to be designated without owner consent, but would also qualify for additional incentive programs. The lowest tier would have more flexibility in require- ments for design review. III. Monterey, California The City of Monterey (population 30,641) has both a historic master plan and a his- toric preservation ordinance as well as an ongoing survey program. Monterey uses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) development review process, which includes consideration of effects of proposed projects on historically eligible properties. 1. Development Review Process Monterey has two levels of historic zon- ing designation based on significance: H- 1 and H-2. The H-1 zoning designation is applied to properties of the highest level of significance, and may be designated without owner consent. H-2 designation requires owner consent. All designated properties are subject to preservation re- view based on the Secretary of the Inte- rior’s Standards. For projects other than minor repairs, a Historic Preservation Re- 60 City of Fort Collins 3. Consideration of Unlisted Properties 50 Years Old Age is only used as a criterion for historic designation. However, potentially historic, non-designated properties can be subject to preservation review. Properties which are listed in a survey, or which are deter- mined to potentially meet the criteria for Historic Zoning by the Deputy City Man- ager of Plans and Public Works, are sub- ject to historic review based on a separate code section for than designated proper- ties. Staff reviews alterations based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. If staff determines the standards have not been met, a further level of review is re- quired. These properties are also subject to CEQA review. 4. Demolition Review Properties which are listed in a survey, or which are determined to potentially meet the criteria for Historic Zoning by the Deputy City Manager of Plans and Public Works, are subject to a demolition delay and CEQA review. After the demolition de- lay a permit for demolition may be granted only if it is concurrent with approval of a replacement structure. 5. Structures of Merit The city has two levels of official desig- nation; however, there is no official des- ignation below landmarking for properties of merit. (See development review process discussion.) 6. Surveys Monterey uses two levels of surveys: (1) reconnaissance and (2) intensive. All prop- erties identified in a reconnaissance sur- vey are included on the Reconnaissance Survey List and all properties identified by an intensive survey with potential to meet criteria for historic zoning are included in the Adopted Survey List. These lists are used to help determine which non-desig- nated properties are subject to historic re- view. (See consideration of unlisted prop- erties discussion.) 7. Incentives Monterey offers a use-permit based zon- ing incentive for designated properties that can include modification to under- lying zoning requirements for setbacks, parking standards, and/or floor area ratio. Additional uses are allowed by permit for designated properties as well. Designated properties are also eligible for the State Historical Building Code, the State’s Mills Act Property Tax Reduction Program, as 61 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 10. Recent Past Resources To qualify for historic designation, proper- ties in Monterey must be at least 50 years old. Most preservation support in Monterey is for the oldest resources, such as the mission era adobes. However, staff has re- cently begun to make efforts to expand the public perception to other eras and types of resources. 11. Other Program Components Conservation District In 2004, Monterey established the Can- nery Row Conservation District and its associated design guidelines. The conser- vation district was adopted as a tool to es- tablish a framework for allowing Cannery Row to grow and change while retaining its ambiance and historical context. While respecting the traditional character of the area is emphasized, change is anticipated and alterations and new construction are required to respect the traditional design context. Regulations for the district ap- ply to improvement projects including new buildings and alterations to existing struc- tures. Historic District Upon designation of a historic district a District Preservation Plan is also adopted. This plan includes goals and objectives for the district as well as specific development regulations for construction within the dis- trict. The underlying zoning may be modi- fied by the plan to be more or less restric- tive including design, mass, bulk, height, walls, lighting, driveway locations, parking standards, landscaping, signs, public im- provements on the property, and eligibility for incentives. IV. Pasadena, California The City of Pasadena (population 143,400) places Preservation and Urban Design in the same division within the Planning De- partment. Pasadena uses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) devel- opment review process that includes con- sideration of effects of proposed projects on historically eligible properties. The city publishes thorough handouts on its historic preservation program and review, includ- ing a handout on the thresholds for design review and demolition review within his- toric districts. The city’s website also has a high level of prominence and content of preservation information available includ- ing links to green tips for historic homes. Pasadena also published a report on re- cent past resources in 2007. 62 City of Fort Collins 2. Delegated Decision-Making Pasadena has two categories of Historic Preservation Review, one by the Historic Preservation Commission and one at the staff level. The code specifies the division of review between the HPC and staff based on the type of historic resource (desig- nated or eligible and potentially eligible properties) and the type of work proposed. This division is also clearly explained in a Historic Preservation Review information packet. 3. Consideration of Unlisted Properties 50 Years Old The City of Pasadena does not use age as a criterion for designation. As part of its preservation incentives program Pasa- dena conditionally permits an office use in buildings over 50 years old as a non-con- forming use. 4. Demolition Review Demolition applications for any prima- ry structure may not be approved until a building permit for a replacement building is obtained. The HPC or staff may grant exceptions to this requirement if the struc- ture is not designated or eligible as a his- toric resource or contributor to a historic district. 5. Structures of Merit Pasadena does not have a structure of merit or similar designation. 6. Surveys Surveys include a preliminary determina- tion of historic integrity for each property within the survey boundaries. Survey in- formation is made available online and searchable through the California His- torical Resources Inventory Database (CHRID). Design review for a demolition or alteration follows the same procedures for both surveyed properties and potentially significant properties that have not been surveyed. 7. Incentives In addition to financial benefits available on the state and national levels, Pasadena provides several incentives for designated and eligible historic properties. Financial incentives include reduced permit fees and a façade easement program. Technical as- sistance is available both in the form of meetings with professionals and city publi- cations. The city also provides flexibility in zoning requirements for historic properties to encourage adaptive reuse over demo- lition. These include parking waivers and other requirements that may create spa- 63 Historic Preservation Program Assessment 9. Economic Development Pasadena’s goals for economic develop- ment include one brief reference to preser- vation: “To further aid economic develop- ment, encourage the highest level of urban design and architectural preservation con- sistent with reasonable use and economic feasibility considerations.” 10. Recent Past Resources Pasadena has conducted several surveys of recent past resources. The city has also published a booklet on local recent past re- sources. The city does not currently specify the inclusion of recent past resources in its preservation policies; however, it is being considered for future program updates. V. Summary Observations 1. Development Review Process Many communities define multiple levels of review, based upon the level of signifi- cance of a property. Most peer communi- ties review projects based on the Secre- tary of the Interior’s Standards and local design guidelines. Guidelines can be for both individual districts and/or for all his- toric properties. 2. Delegated Decision-Making The majority of peer communities include provisions for staff level review and ap- proval of minor projects. Typically, there is a clearly defined method for determining which projects qualify for this level of re- view. 3. Consideration of Unlisted Properties 50 Years Old Many peer communities require preserva- tion review of properties that are poten- tially significant. Within these communi- ties, potentially significant properties are identified either by staff at the time of ap- plication, or based upon an established list of properties identified through surveys. When used, age is typically considered by staff to help identify potentially signifi- cant properties when an application is re- ceived. 4. Demolition Review The majority of peer communities require some form of demolition delay and pres- ervation review for non-designated prop- erties. These policies typically require the delay in order to determine the significance of the property and, if significant, to review alternatives to demolition. 5. Structures of Merit A list of structures of merit is not typically used in most peer communities. When it is used, the list is typically tied to survey 64 City of Fort Collins 7. Incentives Most successful incentive programs in peer communities include exemptions for development regulations that may create spatial requirements on a site with which a renovation project is not able to comply. Parking requirements are the most com- mon example of such an exemption. 8. Sustainability Though currently only a few peer commu- nities include sustainability in preservation policies, all are discussing it and plan for its integration with future preservation pro- gram updates. 9. Economic Development Most peer communities recognize econom- ic development as an important aspect of preservation efforts and support. Howev- er, few communities have integrated it into their preservation program. 10. Recent Past Resources Currently only a few peer communities have integrated recent past resources into their preservation programs; however, the majority of cities recognize this as an im- portant issue to be included in future sys- tem updates. Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Operational Procedures Establish a system to provide more information to all property owners in advance, including which properties are significant XX Develop predictive model for property owners X Create a simple, user friendly guide (web based publication as well) that clearly explains the process for determining significance of a property and it's potential treatements X Add questions on building and planning application forms related to building age X Create an annual reporting form that compares the number of properties considered for historic significance with the total number of permits processed XXXXX Tools craft user‐friendly “self‐test” that could be available over the internet X evaluate tools for recent past resources ‐ address the fifty year question X update development review flow chart to include 50 year considerations X Clearly explain each point where preservation staffs review is required and formally document in development review guide X add link to flow chart that illustrates what happens if a building is 50 years or older X Publish a preservation review/designation flow chart X Section 106 Designate a Section 106 review coordinator X Train designated Review Coordinator in Section 106 compliance procedures XX Develop documentation system for Section 106 reviews XXXX Establish procedures for Section 106 compliance responsibilities X Compliance provide enforcement staff with clear documentation of approved items to be used in conjunction with site inspections X Develop compliance‐tracking form for preservation projects X develop a form, with designated sign‐off points, and attach to the building permit X Education and Outreach Sustainability develop a preservation and sustainability initiative XXXXX hold informational workshops on how preservation is sustainable X Create and publish informational handouts about the "sustainable" aspects of historic preservation XX provide technical support for energy retrofits XX establish an assistance program for property owners to accomplish historic preservation appropriate energy‐saving retrofits X Publish information and hold workshops for repair and replacement strategies for windows, materials and roofing that take sustainability into consideration X Historic Preservation publish educational materials such as brochures on historic preservation in Fort Collins X create easy to understand manuel for historic property types and make readily available X publish case studies illustrating successful “solutions” regarding historic preservation issues X establish training program for planning staff including orientation to the preservation system and the principles involved X Additional LPC training X Ordinances Land Use Code Add language defining the criteria for treatment of historic properties in general,such that they will apply to all potential propery types, including single family. X Add language to 3.4.7(E) that references Municipal Code 14‐72 to clarify applicable procedures for demolition review X create clear guidelines and standards in order to expand staff’s ability to approve minor applications X Municipal Code Add language that limits those who may initiate designation of a historic district or landmark to: City Council, LPC, Director of CDNS, the property owner, properties in the district, Municipal Code: organizations that are preservation oriented X Update the designation procedures for districts ‐ include clear steps X Indicate point where a neighborhood meeting will be a part of the district designation process X Clarify the definition of “integrity,” including the discussion of the different “aspects” of integrity as used by the Secretary of the Interior X Clarify the preliminary level of information that is needed to indicate that a potential district exists and that further consideration is merited X Include requirements for the justification of district boundaries and for the area to be documented well enough that the LPC would be abe to determine if a nomination has merit and should proceed. X Resource Surveys Publish surveys of individual properties via internet X Update survey system with key architectural features X Refine the historic property survey instrument with the objective of recording information that will be useful in an on‐ going property management mode (Address the "50 year +" question) X Perform additional historic and cultural resource surveys X Publish existing surveys on the city’s web site and link them to GIS data systems (Acella) X Make lists and maps of all currently listed properties and all properties over 50 years old readily available X Directives for future surveys and identification of resources X Identify different levels of significance ‐ Tiered Surveys X Policy Directives Evaluate neighborhood character management tools X Explore the benefits of a tiered rating system X Include preservation policies in Plan Fort Collins update X Revise sub‐area plans to include preservation X Involve preservation staff in the development of sub‐area and specific plans X identify role of historic resources in city plans and policies X Design Guidelines and Standards evaluate neighborhood character management tools XX address additions, mass and scale to existing buildings X adopt City wide preservation design guidelines X Publish on the internet preservation design guidelines X Update Old Town Design Guidelines X Preservation Incentives Expand incentives program X Establish an incentive program that provides flexibility in permitted uses, parking requirements, building setbacks and other code‐related regulations X Establish a local sales tax rebate program for construction materials that are purchased for an approved preservation project X Establish design assistance grant programs to historic property owners to help them plan an appropriate design in advance X Eastablish an incentive program to waive or reduce local permit fees X City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Pg. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Operational Procedures provide more information to all property owners in advance XX CR/EM develop predictive model for property owners X KM/CR pg.8 Create a simple, user friendly guide (web based publication as well) that clearly explains the process for determining significance of a property and it's potential treatements X CR/ EM pg. 8 add questions on application forms related to building age X CR pg. 7 determine in advance which properties have historic significance XXXXX KM/CR Annual Reporting ‐ adopt a reporting form that helps compare the magnitude of properties considered for historic significance with total number of permits (annually) XXXXX KM/CR pg. 13 Tools Craft user‐friendly “self‐test” that could be available over the internet (need city wide survey first) X KM/CR pg. 10 evaluate tools for recent past resources ‐ address the fifty year question X KM pg. 20 update development review flow chart to include 50 year considerations X CR pg. 32 Clearly explain each point where preservation staffs review is required and formally document in development review guide X CR pg. 14, 31 add link to flow chart that illustrates what happens if a building is 50 years or older X CR/ BH pg. 32 Publish a preservation review/designation flow chart X CR / BH pg 32 Section 106 designate a Section 106 review coordinator X KM pg. 36 document and review city’s undertakings in regard to Section 106 XXXX KM / SJ pg. 36 train designated Review Coordinator in Section 106 compliance procedures XX KM /SJ pg. 36 write procedures for Section 106 compliance responsibilities X KM pg. 36 Compliance provide enforcement staff with clear documentation of approved items to be used in conjunction with site inspections X CR pg.11 develop compliance‐tracking form for preservation projects X CR pg. 11, 35 develop a form, with designated sign‐ off points, and attach to the building permit X CR pg. 11 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg. Education and Outreach Sustainability Develop a preservation and sustainability initiative ‐ this includes stablishing a policy that recognizes the role of conserving buildings as sustainable X CR / Utilities pg. 20, pg. 22 Hold informational workshops on how preservation is sustainable XXXX KM / CR pg. 12, pg. 20 Create and publish information about the "sustainable" aspects of historic preservation XXXXX CR / EM pg. 20, pg. 36 Establish an assistance program for property owners to accomplish historic preservation appropriate energy‐saving retrofits and provide technical support for these retrofits. X KM / CR / Utilities pg. 5, 20 Publish information and hold workshops for repair and replacement strategies for windows, materials and roofing that take sustainability into consideration X KM / CR / Utilities pg. 20 Partner with CSU (or other organizations) on educational programs as well as on demonstration projects that test the energy‐conserving opportunities of historic resources X KM / CR / Utilities pg. 16 Historic Preservation Publish educational materials such as brochures on historic preservation in Fort Collins ‐ make available on website XX CR / EM pg.36 Create easy to understand guidelines for the treatment of historic property types and make information readily available in print and on the internet Additional LPC training ‐ this includes city's preservation policies and review system as well as best practices in preservation planning XXXXKM pg. 36 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg. Ordinances Land Use Code Add language defining the criteria for treatment of historic properties in general,such that they will apply to all potential propery types, including single family. TS/ PB/KM Pg. 23 Add language to 3.4.7(E) that references Municipal Code 14‐72 to clarify applicable procedures for demolition review X TS/ PB Pg. 23 Create clear guidelines and standards in order to expand staff’s ability to approve minor applications X TS/PB pg.14, 23 Implement a survey system that supports administrative review in order to expand staff’s ability to approve minor applications X TS/PB pg. 14 Municipal Code Add language that more clearly defines criteria for eligibility, and acknowledges different levels of significance X Pg. 23 Add language that limits those who may initiate designation of a historic district or landmark to: City Council, LPC, Director of CDNS, the property owner, properties in the district, Municipal Code: organizations that are preservation oriented X Pg. 24 Update the designation procedures for districts ‐ include clear steps X Pg. 23 Indicate point where a neighborhood meeting will be a part of the district designation process X Pg. 23 Clarify the definition of “integrity,” including the discussion of the different “aspects” of integrity as used by the Secretary of the Interior X Pg. 23 Clarify the preliminary level of information that is needed to indicate that a potential district exists and that further consideration is merited X Pg. 24 Include requirements for the justification of district boundaries and for the area to be documented well enough that the LPC would be abe to determine if a nomination has merit and should proceed. X Pg. 24 Building Code include special sections for existing buildings and historic structures. This includes both Residential Building Code 2003 and Commercial and Multi‐ family Building Code 2006 X MG /KM City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg. Resource Surveys Publish surveys of individual properties via internet X BH pg. 34 Update survey system with key architectural features X KM pg.9 Refine the historic property survey instrument with the objective of recording information that will be useful in an on‐going property management mode (Address the "50 year +" question) X KM pg. 33 Perform additional historic and cultural resource surveys X KM pg. 10 Publish existing surveys on the city’s web site and link them to GIS data systems (Acella) X EM / CR pg. 10 Make lists and maps of all currently listed properties and all properties over 50 years old readily available X EM / CR pg. 33 Directives for future surveys and identification of resources X KM pg. 34 Identify different levels of significance ‐ Tiered Surveys X KM pg. 9, 13, 14, 41 City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg. evaluate neighborhood character management tools XX KM/ AP adopt a tiered rating system KM/ LPC pg. 14, 41 include historic preservation components in East Side‐ West Side design standards XX KM/ MB pg. 15 include preservation policies in Plan Fort Collins update XX KM/ AP update sub‐area plans to include preservation XXXXX KM/ AP pg. 15, 19 preservation staff should be involved in development of sub‐ area and specific plans XXXXX KM/ AP pg. 19 revisit all sub‐area plans and add more discussion about historic preservation XXXXX KM/ AP pg.15 identify role of historic resources in city plans and policies XXXXX KM/ AP Design Guidelines and Standards evaluate neighborhood character management tools ‐ consider conservation districts XX KM/ MB pg. 16 address additions, mass and scale to existing buildings XX KM / MB adopt city wide preservation design guidelines XX KM/ MB pg. 11 Publish on the internet preservation design guidelines XX KM / MB City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg. Preservation Incentives Expand incentives program X SD pg. 12, pg. 36 Establish an incentive program that provides flexibility in permitted uses, parking requirements, building setbacks and other code‐related regulations X PB/TS pg. 12, pg. 36 Establish a local sales tax rebate program for construction materials that are purchased for an approved preservation project X SD pg. 12, pg. 36 Establish design assistance grant programs to historic property owners to help them plan an appropriate design in advance X SD pg. 12, pg. 36 Eastablish an incentive program to waive or reduce local permit fees X SD pg. 12, pg. 36              -        ( #   #   1 1 Laurie Kadrich, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner City Council Work Session June 26, 2012 Historic Preservation Process Improvements 2 Feedback Sought From City Council: • Is this item ready for formal Council consideration? – Proposed Schedule: • July 17th: 1st Readings • August 21st: 2nd Readings • General questions or feedback? ATTACHMENT 2 2 3 Historic Preservation Process Improvements –– Phase 1 Improving the Eligibility Determination Process: • Earlier notice to neighbors & community • Method to appeal initial decision by CDNS Director and Landmark Preservation Chair • Independent survey for eligibility if appeal is sought 4 Historic Preservation Process Improvements –– Phase 2 Questions/issues to be addressed: • Why was the Demolition/Alteration Review Process established? Is it still needed? • How are properties evaluated? – Is 50 year threshold appropriate? – Criteria for determining eligibility • How should contributing resources be treated? • How are we upholding/deviating from national standards and Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements? 3 5 Historic Preservation Process Improvements –– Phase 2 (cont) • Public engagement/outreach • Best practices • Compliance with Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements • Identify and implement further improvements to process • Council work session fall 2012 • Council adoption of changes spring 2013 6 Historic Preservation Process Improvements –– Phase 1 Staff Recommendation: – Amend Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code – Amend Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code 4 7 Earlier Notice to Neighbors & Community • Define major and minor alterations • Define principle structure • Publish eligibility decisions • Publish major alteration/demolition decisions – Newspaper – CDNS Listserve – Links on City’s Website • Allow 14 days for written appeals to be filed • Publish notice of appeals • Signs posted on property 8 Appeals Provisions • Method for appeal to the LPC for all eligibility determinations made by Director and LPC Chair • LPC decisions can be appealed to City Council • Provides notice and signage requirements • Clarify Council action as it relates to Landmark designation: – if no designation is received property may be altered or demolished • Independent evaluation of eligibility if appeal is sought 5 9 New: Independent Review of Eligibility if Appeal is Sought • Add: “A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and report, prepared by an independent reviewer with expertise in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant.” 10 ““HHoouusseekkeeeeppiinngg”” Provisions: Chapters 2 &14 • Consistent titles: “Director” • Eliminate inconsistent time frames • Provide current building code references • Update membership definition to meet Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements 6 11 Recommended Process Eligibility Public Notice Appeal LPC City Council 12 Feedback Sought From City Council: • Is this item ready for formal Council Consideration? – Proposed Schedule: • July 17th: 1st Readings • August 21st: 2nd Readings • General questions or feedback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publish case studies illustrating successful “solutions” regarding historic preservation issues XX KM / CR Training Establish training program for planning staff including orientation to the preservation system and the principles involved XXXXKM pg. 14, 36 lists for initial identification of potentially significant properties. 6. Surveys Many peer communities use surveys to identify a preliminary level of significance for a property. Typically, this is later used to help identify non-designated properties that are potentially significant and subject to preservation review. tial demands on a site that a renovation project cannot meet. Historic signs listed in the historic sign inventory are also ex- empt from the sign regulations in the zon- ing code for height, area, location, etc. 8. Sustainability Pasadena’s preservation program does not include policies for sustainability. The city has a green building ordinance, though it is not tied directly to historic preservation. 1. Development Review Process Design and Historic Preservation review in Pasadena is applied for under one master permit application. Work on both desig- nated resources and resources eligible for designation is reviewed. The Historic Pres- ervation Commission (HPC) does most preservation review for major projects; however, in the Central District a separate Design Commission conducts the review. Both the Design Commission and the HPC are trained in historic preservation. well as city grants and other programs. 8. Sustainability Monterey’s preservation program does not include policies for sustainability. 9. Economic Development Monterey’s preservation program does not include specific policies relating to eco- nomic development. However, staff con- siders heritage tourism as an important aspect to the preservation program and its continued community support. port and hearing before the Historic Pres- ervation Commission are required. The Historic Preservation Report is adopted by the commission and includes information about the significance of a property and a program for its preservation. 2. Delegated Decision-Making Staff can review minor repairs and the his- toric preservation commission reviews ma- jor projects. century resources. The small size of the city means that the majority of its resourc- es have been surveyed and identified. 7. Incentives The city has a strong incentive program that many have taken advantage of. The most prominent incentives are a floor area ratio bonus and a historic lot split, allowing subdivision of a property, which staff feels are the primary reasons for many volun- tary designations. Other incentives include financial and development benefits as well as technical assistance and preservation recognition programs. sion, one for the conceptual development plan and one for the final development plan. planned revision of its master plans. The yet to be adopted historic design guidelines include policies for sustainable design in new construction in historic districts. The city expects that as their master plans are updated, sustainability objectives will be written into the plan’s policies. Staff is in the process of publishing a brochure on energy efficiency in historic buildings. formal application for HDC review. HDC review is based primarily on criteria in the code and on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. However, the city has prepared historic design guidelines that are expected to be adopted. These guide- lines are currently being used for illustra- tive purposes during the optional meeting with staff, similar to how voluntary design guidelines may be used. but stops short of official landmarking? guidelines for most Historic Districts. • Review system includes staff level for minor projects and commission level for major projects. • Has a three-tier demolition review pro- cess based on level of significance. • City has taken steps towards address- ing sustainability. delay demolition for 180 days. Lawrence, KS (pop. 89,852) • Publishes a design review flowchart for the COA process. • Review split between staff (minor proj- ects) and commission (major projects). • Has demolition protection (prevention) for designated historic properties and properties within a district. • In process of adopting updated (histor- ic) downtown design guidelines. ly listing the conditions of approval should be developed as a joint effort of preserva- tion staff and enforcement personnel. This will make it easier for staff in the field to confirm compliance with the terms of the certificate of appropriateness. Actions • Create and implement the use of a compliance-tracking form to aid en- forcement staff in site inspections for preservation-related projects. 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. 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 por- tions of the property may be less impor- tant, thereby indicating where flexibility may be appropriate. year review. • Publish a simplified description (flow chart) of the preservation review and landmark/district designation process- es. • 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. their project has an extra review step. Furthermore, the city’s application forms for development review lack questions re- lated to building age. This means owners are not alerted to the fact that this may be an issue, and it means staff must conduct additional research to determine building age. The forms also should include infor- mation 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. standing 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 ap- propriate to increase legibility. • Move Sec. 14-5, Standards for deter- mining the eligibility for designation of sites, structures, objects and districts for preservation, to Article II: Designa- tion Procedure. Strategy If the city is to have different levels of sig- nificance, they should be more logically named and more clearly defined. A system for tiered designations should be clearly established, with definitions of each des- ignation included. The link to the degree of review that occurs for each level of signifi- cance also should be made clear. This program is the only historic preserva- tion incentive in the code. The code does not mention that other incentives may be made available. Strategy Generally, specific incentives are not iden- tified in the code, since they may change over time. However, there should be lan- guage that indicates the city’s intent to of- fer incentives and benefits when feasible. A new section of the code should be added with language noting that the City Coun- cil may offer incentives, from time to time, which may include financial and technical assistance, as well as expedited permit- ting, as feasible. This language would not commit the city to providing such incen- tives but would signal the intent to promote preservation through assistance when it is possible, through grants or other means. 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 condi- tions) 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. This section includes provisions for admin- istrative review by the Director of Commu- nity Development and Neighborhood Ser- vices 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 sig- nificant features. that may be relevant. This leaves room for staff to recommend the denial of a land- mark designation application for an eligible property, based on factors other than his- toric 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 de- cision-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 plan- ning objectives to be considered. For ex- ample, 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. that a preliminary neighborhood meeting will be a part of the district designation process. 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 state- ment that summarizes these policies but not the complete standards, nor does it reference the Municipal Code as the ap- plicable standards. less comprehensive than historic district designation. They would address mass and scale, and additions, but not altera- tions 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 integ- rity to different levels of review, and the de- gree of rigor with which design guidelines and standards would be applied. Proper- ties 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 in- centives available and the alternatives for mitigation would be assigned to the other levels. rear, where fewer key features are found.) building that is permitted. They can apply as the underlying zoning for designated zoning districts, or they can apply to spe- cific building types that are permitted. They may set the maximum size of a build- ing, related to forms traditionally seen in an area. Expanded Character-management Tools Additional tools such as form-based codes and conservation districts should be con- sidered 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. energy saving features, which some- times have been “forgotten.” • Historic buildings can be adapted with new energy-saving technologies, often more easily than expected. ervation. 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 direc- tives that would otherwise be presented in a sub-area plan. 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 histor- ic properties, and that therefore formally designating different tiers is not neces- sary. In some cases, tiers have been criti- cized, because it is felt that they create a “lower” class of properties that are more vulnerable to loss or inappropriate altera- tion. Nonetheless, because the city has already established a review of older prop- erties in its development review process, it has implied that different levels of sig- nificance exist. But, it has not provided the tools in the surveys, review processes or guidelines that would make this approach work efficiently. tory. For a time, Historic Fort Collins as- pired to this role. However, it has not been active in recent years. Expanded Outreach and Education In the absence of other supporting orga- nizations, the city preservation program needs to engage in more outreach and training. This will help the program oper- ate more smoothly. Providing information about effective energy conservation meth- ods that are appropriate for historic prop- erties is an example. lins. 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 ap- proved. This requires a supportive working relationship between preservation plan- ning 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 conjunc- tion with other normal site inspections on a property that has received approval for preservation-related work. reduce the review time required. 5. Design Guidelines and Standards Design guidelines and standards provide objective criteria for determining the ap- propriateness 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. significance 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 incen- tives and benefits. For example, proper- ties of a high level of significance may be subject to review by the preservation com- mission, whereas those of a lesser level may be handled by staff. (See also later discussion on tiered designation systems on pages 14, 17 and 20.) eas: • Providing more information to property owners in advance • Determining in advance if a property has historic significance • Identifying the role of historic resourc- es in city plans and policies • Understanding the guidelines for treat- ment of historic properties and the flex- ibility that may be available in design review • Clarifying the steps in the review pro- cesses for different property types 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 informa- tion that could help facilitate review of older buildings. The development review form, for example, does not ask if a struc- ture that is fifty years old or more is as- sociated with the proposed project. This means that a property owner may not re- ceive an alert that their proposed project is subject to preservation review. the contribution of historic resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins through planning and regulations.”