Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHNSON PROPERTY REZONE - 32-01 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCESUMMARY OF COSTS Part One Services $ 1,570.00 Part Two Services $ 1,340.00 Part Three Services $ 4,720.00 Total Professional Fees $ 7,630.00 REIMBURSABLE COSTS Photography $ 100.00 Reproduction $ 150.00 In house Scanning/Imagery $ 150.00 Travel $ 60.00 Meals $ 160.00 Long Distance $ 100.00 Deliveries $ 45.00 Estimate of Reimbursable Expenses $ 765.00 Winter, Kramer Jessu p Johnson Farm Fee Proposal June 5, 2001 2.2 Review Initial Observations NVW with applicant RB< NE JH TLT/KG BK AS BS Part Two Services Subtotal • Part Three: Comparative Analysis and Development Options 3.1 Prepare Draft Development Options NVW RB< WS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS 3.2 Review Draft w/city staff 3.2 Revise Draft Draft w/applicant Part Three Services Subtotal NVW REK NlS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS NVW REK NS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS NVW REK NS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 0 $ 3 $ 300.00 0 $ 0 $ 3 $ 150.00 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ $ 450.00 $ 1,340.00 1 $ 100.00 8 $ 800.00 0 $ 8 $ 480.00 12 $ 600.00 0 $ 4 $ 180.00 1 $ 45.00 $ 2,205.00 0 $ 3 $ 300.00 0 $ 0 $ 3 $ 150.00 0 $ 0 $' - 0 $ $ 450.00 1 $ 100.00 4 $ 400.00 0 $ 4 $ 240.00 4 $ 200.00 0 $ 2 $ 90.00 1 $ 45.00 $ 1,075.00 0 $ 6 $ 600.00 0 $ 0 $ 6 $ 300.00 0 $ 2 $ 90.00 0 $ $ 990.00 $ 4,720.00 Winter, Kramer Jessu p Johnson Farm Fee Proposal June 5, 2001 Proposal for Professional Planning and Preservation Services WINTER, KRAMER & JESSUP Hourly Rates The following hourly rates for personnel that could be assigned to this project are provided. Nore Winter Principal $100 Ray E. Kramer $100 Principal/Project Manager Michael Sherman $ 75 Job Captain Julie Husband $ 60 Senior Designer Brian Koening-berg $ 55 Preservation Planner Karen Good $ 50 Planner/Landscape Designer Tamara Lewis Thompson $ 50 Planner Alex Schenkar Intem $ 45 Betsy Shears $ 40 Office Manager Winter, Kramer & Jessup LLC Page 4 Proposal for Professional Planning and Preservation Services Task 3.2 Review Draft Development Options with City Staf WKJ will attend a meeting with the city staff to review the Draft Development Options. Task 3.3 Revise Development Options Based upon comments from city staff, WKJ will revise the Draft Development Options. Task 3.24 Review Development Options with Applicant WKJ will attend a meeting between the city staff and the applicant for review of the Developed Options. Part Three Products: *Preparation of Draft Development Options *Review with city staff *Refinements to Development Options • Review of Development Options with Applicant Time Frame/Part Three: (3 weeks) • Part Four: "As Needed Services" WKJ will assist the city staff in additional meetings and/or presentation as to the findings of the work generated either on an hourly fee basis or on a defined Scope of Work. PROPOSED FEES AND SCHEDULE Part One: Fees (Hourly not to exceed) $1,500 Range of Expenses $100 -150 Time Frame (2 weeks) Part Two: Fees (Hourly not to exceed) $1,300 Range of Expenses $ 250 - 350 Time Frame (2 - 3 weeks) Part Three: Fees (Hourly not to exceed) $4,700 Range of Expenses $ 200 - 300 Time'Frame (3 -4 weeks) Part Four: To Be Determined Total: Fees (Hourly not to exceed) $7,500 Range of Expenses $ 500 - 800 Time Frame (7 - 9 weeks) Winter, Kramer & Jessup LLC Page 3 Proposal for Professional Planning and Preservation Services Task 1.3 Prepare Summary of Materials WKJ will summarize the existing status of the site(s) as they relate to current regulatory conditions. Part One Products: •Meeting with city staff/Site Visit *Review of Existing Materials •Summary of Materials Time Frame/Part One: (1 week) • Part Two: Evaluation of Development Submittal WKJ will work with the city staff to determine any impacts to the farm site(s) based upon the initial formal submittal. Task 2.1 Review of Submittal with City Staff WKJ will review the formal development proposal once submitted to the City of Fort Collins. This review will include an analysis of the use of the farm site(s) as included in the submittal, impacts to the farm site(s) based upon the development and initial observations as to options. Task 2..2 Review of Submittal with Applicant WKJ will attend a meeting between the city staff and the James Group (and DTJ if included) for review of the initial formal submittal. WKJ will provide a written summary of observations of the impacts upon the farm site(s) based upon the submittal. A written summary of observations relevant to alternative proposals will also be provided. Part Two Products: •Review of Submittal • Written Summary of Observations •Meeting with city staff/applicant Time Frame/Part Two: (2 weeks) • Part Three: Comparative Analysis and Options WKJ will assist the staff in its formal response to the James Group. It is expected that the city staff will provide all necessary background materials (site plan, historic building footprints, etc.) either through materials already in place or through requests to the James Group and/or DTJ. Task 3.1 Prepare Draft Development Options Building upon city staff's formal response to the submittal and using the materials summarized in Part One, WKJ will prepare 1 - 2 development options for the Johnson Farm. The Development Options will be illustrated and include a comparative analysis between the James Group's submittal and WKJ work. At a minimum, this analysis will address key program elements (units, densities, etc.) planning issues (organization of the site, infrastructure, etc.), preservation principles (goals for minimizing impacts to the historic farm site, etc.) and recommendations. (1) Q1(Aw��{ �►�w�y% �`)(hMdS t24N sr►►bo,�� Winter, Kramer & Jessup LLC Page 2 PROPOSALFOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING AND PRESERVATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CO JOHNSON FARMS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW UNDERSTANDING The Johnson Farms, located in the southeast corner of Fort Collins along the Timberline corridor, are significant cultural resources. Because of their role in the agricultural development of the Poudre Valley and the extent of remaining structures, they are eligible for local landmark designation. Recently, options for the purchase of the farms have been obtained by the James Group for the purpose of developing housing. The City of Fort Collins and the James Group have been involved in a series of preliminary discussion as to the proposed development and the status of the remaining farm structures. A formal submittal from the James Group and its land planner, Downing, Thorpe, James (DTJ) is eminent or has been recently made. Winter, Kramer & Jessup LLC (WKJ) proposes to assist the City of Fort Collins in the review of proposals for redevelopment of these areas and in the preparation of options for the Johnson Farms. This proposal and attached materials summarize our recommended approach for undertaking a project such as this. The recommendations within this proposal are based upon WKJ's extensive experience in the preparation of condition assessments for a wide variety of historic properties. These projects have been completed for a broad list of public and private clients. From these experiences, and with the materials already available through city staff, WKJ will be able to quickly respond to those issues associated with the significance of the project. This proposal is tailored in response to the City of Fort Collins's expedited needs. SCOPE OF WORK • Part One: Project Start Up WKJ will work with City of Fort Collins staff to review all materials related to the historic significance of the site(s) as well as regulatory issues. Task 1.1 Review Existing Materials WKJ will meet with city staff to review all available materials related to this project. At a minimum, existing historical surveys, site plans, submitted materials (by the developer), existing zoning regulations, etc. willbe reviewed. Any other additional materials required to complete this work will also be identified. Task 1.2 Site Visit WKJ will visit the site(s) with city staff. If necessary, WKJ will supplement its existing photos of the site(s) at this time. Winter, Kramer & Jessup LLC Page 1 r F' Division 3.4, Environmental, Natural, and Cultural Standards Section 3.4.7(E) (4) Visual and pedestrian connections between the site and neighborhood focal points, such as a park, school or church, shall be preserved and enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible. (5) To the maximum extent feasible, existing historic and mature landscaping shall be preserved and when additional street tree plantings are proposed, the alignment and spacing of new trees shall match that of the existing trees. (Ord. No. 228, 1998 §20, 12/15/98) 3.4.8 Parks'had Trails (A) Nat lishment of Parks and reation Policy Plan Master Plan. In orde accomplish the p oses of this Land Use Code, the location, size and acteristics parks and trails have been established on a plan entitled "Ci f F Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan" dated D ez 1996, as amended, which plan is hereby made a part of t ' d Us ode by reference. The Parks and Recreation Policy Master Plan.1 file with the City Clerk. (B) mpliance with Parks and Recre n Policy Plan Master Plan. All Ievelopment plans shall provide for or a odate the parks and trails identified in the Parks and Recreation Polic Master Plan that are .. associated with the development plan. Article 3, Page 74 Supp. 4 Division 3.4, Environmental, Natural, and Cultural Standards (E) New Construction. Section 3.4.7(E) (1) To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and width of new buildings shall be similar to those of existing historic buildings on the same block. Where.building setbacks cannot be maintained, elements such as walls, columns, hedges or other screens shall be used to define the edge of the site and maintain alignment. Taller buildings or portions of building shall be located interior to the site. Buildings at the ends of blocks shall be of a similar height to buildings in the adjoining blocks. (2) New buildings shall be designed to be in character with existing historic structures, but not be an imitation of historic styles. Horizontal elements, such as cornices, windows, moldings and sign bands, shall be aligned with those of existing historic buildings to strengthen the visual ties among buildings. Window patterns of existing buildings (size, height, number) shall be repeated in new construction, and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6.. Figure 6 Building Patterns (3) The dominant building material of existing historic buildings adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure shall be used as the primary material for new construction. Variety in materials can be appropriate, but shall maintain the existing distribution of materials in the same block. Article 3, Page 73 Supp. 4 Division 3.4, Environmental, Natural, and Cultural Standards Section 3.4.7(B) building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic resource. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any such historic property, whether on or adjacent to the project site. New buildings must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic buildings, whether on the project site or adjacent thereto. (C) Determination of Landmark Eligibility. The determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made by the Landmark Preservation Commission after reviewing the actual construction date (or age of site or object) and photographs of the historic resource (to be provided by the applicant). A site, structure or object may be determined to be eligible for local landmark designation if it meets one (1) or more of the criteria as described in Section 14-5, "Standards for Designation of Sites, Structures, Objects and Districts For Preservation" of the City Code. If a property is determined to be eligible for designation, the applicant will provide a completed "Historic Resource of Merit Form" for the property. (Forms are available from the Community Planning and Environmental Services Department.) The determination of eligibility for the National or State Register of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the Colorado Historical Society. (D) Reuse, Renovation, Alterations and Additions. (1) Original materials and details, as well as distinctive form and scale, that contribute to the historic significance of the structure or neighborhood shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Rehabilitation work shall not destroy the distinguishing quality or character of the property or its environment. (2) The rehabilitation of buildings and structures shall be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (available from the Director) or other adopted design guidelines. Article 3, Page 72 Supp. 4 Division 3.4, Environmental, Natural, and Cultural Standards Section 3.4.6 3.4.6 \Glare or Heat Purpose. This Section is intended to protect the community and neighborhood from glare, defined as a harsh, uncomfo right light. Glare can inhibit good visibility, cause visual disco rt and create safety blems. This Section is also intended to pr the neighborhood from the verse effects of reflected heat that led caused by a proposed land u (B) General Sta rd. If the posed activity produces intense glare or heat, whether di or ected, that is perceptible from any point along the site's property s, the operation shall be conducted within an enclosed build' or w other effective screening sufficient to make such glare eat impercep e at the property line. (C) Glar rpm Manufacturing Sou s. Manufacturing processes that to glare, such as welding, shall conducted within an enclosed 000�uilding or be effectively screened from p cc view. If the source of the glare is proposed to be screened with plant rial, then.the applicant must show that the screening will be effective ye und. 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources (A) Purpose. This Section is intended to ensure that (1) historic sites, structures or objects are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development and any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource; and (2) new construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and -, any Iffslonc p e e surrounding neighborhood. This Section is intended to protect designated or eligible historic structures and structures in designated historic districts,.whether on or adjacent to the project site. (B) General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be eligible for local landmark designation or for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then the development plan and Article 3, Page 71 Supp. 4 2. Regulatory Search — Have Ray's firm put together a packet of citations of historic preservation codes from other jurisdictions -of any existing regulations that would apply to the issue of historic farmstead site planning and establishment of appropriate buffers. [Timeline - by August 13t'] 3. Staff Level Charette — Have Ray participate in a 3 hour intensive staff level design charette in mid -August to help staff analyze the historic issues of the proposed ODP, and to come up with specific comments of how the buffers on this site should be treated. [Timeline — meet sometime -between August 15t' and 21"'] Through all this, it is important that we not loose sight of what exactly the code language says on this issue, and that our role is to determine the extent to which the application complies with that language. The applicable Land Use Code language for Historic and Cultural Resources (with regard to site planning on and adjacent to historic sites) states the following: • It is intended that historic sites are preserved and incorporated into the proposed development [3.4.7(A)], • Any undertaking that may potentially alter the characteristics of the historic property is done in a way that does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource [3.4.7(A)], • New construction is designed to respect the historic character of the site and any historic properties in the surrounding neighborhood [3.4.7(A)], • If the project contains a site that is determined to be eligible for local landmark designation then the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic resource [3.4.7(B)], • The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any such historic property [3.4.7(B)]. 6 City of Fort Collins Comn. .iity Planning and Environment.- Services Current Planning Memo To: Greg Byrne July 10, 2001 Joe Frank Cameron Glo s From: Troy Jones Karen McW I lams Re: Johnson Farm - Tasks for Ray Kramer Overview- The applicants for the Johnson Farm property have indicated that they intend to submit the applications for the rezone and ODP to Current Planning on July 18`h. Staff will then have 5 weeks to respond to the application with formal written comments. The issue of what we (Staff) can require for the buffer areas of the historic farmsteads needs to be resolved as part of this review. This means by August 22°d, we will need to have all tasks by Ray Kramer,completed, and formal comments given to the applicants. The two most directly applicable requirements in the code (at the ODP level of development) state that the proposed site plan "does not adversely affect the integrity of the historic resource," and that it shall "protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any such historic property." In order for staff to determine whether or not the proposed.plan satisfies the above code quotes, we think it would be helpful to have Ray Kramer help us determine what the national and regional historic preservation community and other jurisdictions have established as reasonable expectations with regard to size and character of buffer areas . around historic farmsteads. Given the expeditious nature of the need for information, we propose the following limited tasks for Ray Kramer's firm: 1. Literature Search — Have Ray's firm put together a packet of articles from professionals in the historic preservation field regarding site plans of, and appropriate buffer areas around historic farmsteads. We intend to learn from this what the general thinking on this issue is among the historic preservation community. [Timeline - by August 13`h] 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020 Johnson Farm Plannning and Preservation Services Preliminary Budget 5 June 2001 Task • Part One: Project Start Up 1.1 Revie Existing Materials 1.2 Site Visit 1.3 Prepare Summary of Materials Part One Services Subtotal • Part Two: Evaluation of Development Submittal 2.1 Review Submittal w/city staff -written summary of observations -written summary of options Personnel NVW FEK MS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS NVW RBC MS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS NVW RB< NIS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS NVW RB< MS JH TLT/KG BK AS BS Hrly Rate Hrs Subtotal $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 0 $ 4 $ 400.00 0 $ 0 $ 2 $ 100.00 0 $ 0 $ 1 $ 45.00 $ 545.00 0 $ 2 $ 200.00 0 $ 0 $ 2 $ 100.00 2 $ 100.00 2 $ 90.00 0 $ $ 490.00 0 $ 2 $ 200.00 0 $ 0 $ 4 $ 200.00 0 $ 2 $ 90.00 1 $ 45.00 $ 535.00 $ 1,570.00 0 $ 4 $ 400.00 0 $ 0 $ 8 $ 400.00 0 $ 2 $ 90.00 0 $ $ 890.00 Winter, Kramer Jessu p Johnson Farm Fee Proposal June 5, 2001