Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOUTON HOUSE SUBDIVISION - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - MOD140002 - CORRESPONDENCE -The National Park Service provides direction on protecting the integrity of historic properties. Integrity is the ability of a site, structure, object or district to be able to convey its significance. Integrity is defined as seven (7) aspects or qualities, established by the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. This is a key consideration related to the requested subdivision of the lot. Setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open space. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 39: Changes to Historic Site: 'The site of a historic building is usually an essential feature in defining its historic character. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation require that a rehabilitation involve minimal change to the defining characteristics of a building and its site and environment. The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings stress that site changes such as locating new parking lots adjacent to historic buildings and other landscape changes can impair the defining characteristics of a property." The subdivision of the property, separating the cellar and barn from the house, is likely to impair the defining characteristics of the property with fencing and separate ownership. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-23139 nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2014 10/07/2014: Zoning agrees with Planning comments Also in this case, the designation of the property as a historic landmark adds importance to maintaining the property intact. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 10/07/2014 10/07/2014: Easements for.fire'access and ,utilities appear to be necessary on properties adjacent to Lot 1. This needs further discussion at the meeting, as there has been unclear or contraFy discussion previously. Department: Historical Preservation Contact: Josh Weinberg, 970-221-6206, jweinberg@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2014 10/07/2014: This request must be presented to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a recommendation to the decision maker. This is a fairly new requirement that was put in place largely due to sensitivity of changes in these older neighborhoods. Please contact Historic Preservation staff to schedule the review before the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Commission meets the second Wednesday of each month. LUC 3.4.7(F)(6), states, "In its consideration of the approval of plans for properties containing or adjacent to sites, structure, objects or districts that: (a) have been deter -mined to be or potentially be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Properties, or (b) are officially designated as a local or state landmark or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or (c) are located within a officially designated national, state or local historic district or area, the decision maker shall receive and consider a written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission unless the Director has issued a written determination that the plans would not have a significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential individual eligibility of the site, structure, object or district. A determination or recommendation made under this subsection is not appealable to the City Council under Chapter 2 of the City Code." Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/07/2014 Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources requires that, to the maximum extent feasible: "... 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 property...'. 3.4.7(B) requires that "if the project contains a site, structure or object that... is officially... listed on the National Register of Historic Places ... then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan ... shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value...". Land Use Code Division 5.1, Definitions, provides the meaning of Maximum Extent Feasible: "Maximum extent feasible shall mean that no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken." Fort Collins Kelro>s- October 07, 2014 Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov. com/developmentreview RE: Boughton House Subdivision Modification of Standard, MOD140002, Round Number 1 Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through the Project Planner, Clark Mapes, at 970-221-6225 or cmapes@fcgov.com. Comment Summary: Department: Planning Services Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 10/07/2014 10/07/2014: 3.3.1(B)(1) requires regularly shaped lots with side lot lines substantially at right angles to the street. The south side lot line is not substantially at a right angle to the street. Discussions to date have led to the conclusion that a Modification to this standard should be requested along with the lot width request. The applicant's request as submitted can simply be revised to address this if the request proceeds to hearing. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 10/07/2014 10/07/2014: 4.7(E)(1) 40-foot minimum lot width. This standard is related to 3.3.1(B)(1) which requires side lot lines perpendicular to the street, and 4.7(F)(7) which specifically prevents further subdivision of a lot to create a new lot in the rear portion of the existing lot. While the proposed Lot 1 is not entirely in the rear portion of the existing lot, it is substantially so, and thus it is indirectly relevant to the request. These standards work together to prevent flagpole lots, provide straightforward access on the lot, straightforward utility services on the lot, and to maintain the pattern of streets, blocks and lots in the neighborhood. Upon consideration of all discussion to date, staff believes that the subdivision of Lot 1 would be detrimental to the public good, impair the purposes of the Land Use Code, and would not satisfy any of the criteria for approval of Modifications, for reasons specific to each criterion.