No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESPONSE - RFP - P1156 REVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESSES ADN POLICIESCITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROPOSAL FOR THE REVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESSES AND POLICIES Submitted by: Winter & Company Team December 2, 2008 Winter & Company Zoning Commission, and the Historic and Architectural Review.Com- mission, to identify ways in which to expedite efficient review, while also reaffirming the town's commitment to preservation. Members of ' the development community and town residents will also participate. A strategy summary will be produced. ' Truckee, California Developed a coordinated system of preservation ordinance, surveys, design guidelines and incentives. Tulsa, Oklahoma Citywide preservation plan, with assessment of ordinance and review ' procedures West Palm Beach, Florida Zoning Standards, Review Procedures and Design Guidelines for city-wide preservation system Page 7 Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado The Creamery development study; WKJ Architects --Nore Winter, principal PROJECT TEAM Nore V. Winter — Principal & Owner, Winter & Company Nore Winter is a planner and urban designer, with more than twenty- five years of experience consulting nationwide. His work focuses on established neighborhoods with distinctive character and properties of historic and cultural value. He specializes in preservation, urban design and facility programming. Projects he has managed include: development plans for specific sites, urban design plans for neighbor- hoods and downtowns, design standards for historic and developing areas, and facility plans for educational and cultural facilities. Mr. Winter has organized design review systems for communities across the country and has produced design standards for numerous historic districts, downtowns and citywide settings. He also has conducted participatory workshops for planning assignments and conducts train- ing sessions with preservation commissions and review boards. Mr. Winter is frequently a featured speaker at conferences and con- ventions, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Park Service and the American Planning Association. From 1992-1996, he served as Chairman of the National Alliance of Pres- ervation Commissions. He has received awards for "Contributions to the Built Environment" from the Colorado and Western Regional divisions of the American Institute of Architects. He holds a Bachelor's degree in Architecture from Tulane University and a Masters in Architecture and Urban Design from UCLA. Carl Leith — Senior Planner & Designer Carl Leith joined Winter & Company in 2006. He is currently project manager for a zoning code updatefor Denver, Colorado, design guide- linesfor historic districts in Laguna Beach, California, and preservation consulting services in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma. He recently completed Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines and an up- date of Historic Preservation Design Guidelines for Aspen, Colorado as well as a Preservation Plan for Glenwood Springs, Colorado. His professional background includes work in the west of Ireland and specialities in urban design and historic preservation for many years in the historic and business heart of London. Projects there covered the complete spectrum of urban scale from signs and shopfronts to multi -million dollar redevelopment in an international development market. In addition, Carl has written and illustrated several publica- tions covering design guidance and urban character. Initially from an architectural background, Carl's academic credentials include a bachelors degree in Geography, a masters level degree in Page 8 Winter & Company Planning, a masters level degree in Urban Design, a postgraduate degree with distinction in Conservation/Preservation Policy and a postgraduate certificate in Architectural History. ' Prior to joining Winter & Company, Carl worked as an urban designer and planner for the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina, where he was 1 responsible for character assessment, design review, negotiation, and presentation, historic preservation technical advice, and drafting and application of a new Unified Zoning Ordinance. Carl has memberships in the Royal Town Planning Institute, Institute of Historic Building Conservation, American Planning Association and Urban Design Group. Mary Phillips - Associate Planner and Designer Mary Phillips joined Winter & Company as an Associate Planner and Designer in 2007. She is currently writing a Voluntary Residential Design Handbook and Design Guidelines for Winnetka, Illinois. She has recently completed Design Guidelines and Draft Standards for Ketchum, Idaho, based on existing conditions analysis and modeling ' development alternatives. While with Winter & Company she has also assisted in the completion of Design Guidelines for Galveston, Texas, and developed a Strategic Plan for Historic Preservation for the Town ' of Parker, Colorado. Mary is from San Luis Obispo, California. She received a Bachelors ' of Architecture and a Masters of City and Regional Planning from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. r Past employment includes a planning internship for the City of San Luis Obispo where she worked on a Historic Preservation Ordinance and as a teacher at the National Building Museum for a youth outreach design education program. Bodh Saraswat - Junior Planner and Designer Bodh Saraswat is a Junior Planner and Designer at Winter & Com- pany. He recently was awarded a Masters of Urban Design from the University of Colorado, Denver. Bodh provides assistance in the production of project documents, generating maps, illustrations and graphics. He is currently developing Sketchup models for residential design guidelines in Winnetka, Illinois. A native of Bavla, India, he received his B. Arch. from the Sushant School of Art and Architecture. In India he worked for the architectural firms of Sangath; Kanvinde Rai & Chowdhury; and Jasbir Sawhney & Associates. Page 9 Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado For this assignment, Nore Winter will serve as Principal =in Charge of ' this project; participating in key presentations and providing overall direction for the project. Carl Leith will serve as project manager. He will handle day to day project responsibilities, participate in meeting ' and focus groups and assist in the processes and policies review and report. Mary Phillips and Bodh Saraswat will assist with meeting ' preparation and report production support. Page 10 Winter & Company IPRELIMINARY OUTLINE OF SERVICES Phase I Process Improvement Review 1.1 Review background information ' - General preservation and history information 1.2 Review current planning documents - Guidelines, ordinances and surveys - Other City review procedures - Sample review cases ' 1.3 Work sessions with Boards and Commissions (policymakers) - City Manager and Assistant City Manager ' - City Council - Landmark Preservation Commission - Planning and Zoning Board 1.4 Work sessions with City staff - Director of Planning, Development and Transportation - Chief Financial Officer - City Attorney - Planning Staff (Current and Advance) - Other departments ' - City Manager & Assistant City Manager ' 1.5 Conduct focus groups (customers) - Developers and builders - Designers and architects ' - Property owners - Preservation advocacy groups 1.6 Observe meetings - Landmark Preservation Commission meetings - Staff counter review sessions ' - Planning and Zoning Board 1.7 Coordinate peer review panel - See note describing options 1.8 Draft report of process and policy improvements ' 1.9 Revise final report 1.10 Final presentations ' - Present to City Council - Landmark Preservation Commission Page 11 Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado Phase II Municipal and Land Use Code Review 2.1 Review municipal code, land use code, guidelines, and surveys to identify areas of consistency with City policies and directives 2.2 Conduct peer community review to gain an understanding of how other codes may be structured with respect to historic preservation and development review Product: Memo summarizing findings 2.3 Workshop with staff analyzing code language to gain insight of staff related to their experience with the code Product: Memo summarizing issues 2.4 Draft report Assemble materials from working memos Develop recommendations 2.5 Final report Revise, based on comments 2.6 Final presentations - Present to City Council - Present to Landmark Preservation Board Page 12 Winter & Company PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE Phase I: Process Improvement Review Task Completed By: Authorization to Proceed January 5, 2009 1.1 Review background information 1.2 Review current planning documents 1.3 Work sessions with Boards and Commissions (policymakers) 1.4 Work sessions with City staff 1.5 Conduct focus groups (customers) 1.6 Observe meetings 1.7 Coordinate peer review panel 1.8 Draft report of process and policy improvements 1.9 Revise final report 1.10 Final presentations Mid -March 2009 Phase II Municipal and Land Use Code Review Authorization to proceed April 1, 2009 2.1 Review municipal code, land use code, guidelines, and surveys 2.2 Conduct peer community review 2.3 Workshop with staff analyzing code language 2.4 Draft report 2.5 Final report 2.6 Final presentations Mid -July 2009 The key personnel listed in this response will be available to complete the Review of Historic Pro- cesses and Policies for Fort Collins based on their existing and projected workload for the project period. Page 13 Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado Fort Collins 2-Dec-08 Historic Resource Development Review Analysis Phase I: Process Review 1. Review background information 2. Review current planning documents 3. Work sessions with Boards & Commissions 4. Work sessions with city staff 5. Conduct focus groups 6. Observe meetings 7. Coordinate peer review panel 8. Draft report 9. Revise report 10. Final presentations Personnel Rate Hours Amount Subtotal N. Winter $165 50 $8,250 C. Leith $110 0 $0 M. Philips $75 60 $4,500 B. Saraswat $50 20 $1,000 Step 1 Fees $13,750 Reimbursable Expenses - Step 1 Cost Quantity Amount Subtotal Mileage (Boulder - Ft. Collins - Boulder) $66 4 $264 Meals $40 4 $160 Photography $50 Lump Sum $50 Copying, repro $50 Lump Sum $50 Step 1 Expenses $524 Total Phase 1 Fees & Expenses $14,274 Phase II: Municipal and Land Use Code Review 1. Review ordinances, guidelines, surveys 2. Conduct peer community review 3. Work session with staff on code language 4. Draft report 5. Final report 6. Final presentations Personnel Rate Hours Amount Subtotal N. Winter $165 40 $6,600 C. Leith $110 30 $3,300 M. Philips $75 60 $4,500 B. Saraswat $50 20 $1,000 Step 2 Fees $15,400 Reimbursable Expenses - Step 2 Cost Quantity Amount Subtotal Ground Transportation (Rental, Gas, Parking) $0 0 $0 Mileage (Boulder - Ft. Collins - Boulder) $66 2 $132 Meals $40 3 $120 Plotting, other technical production $50 Lump Sum $50 Workshop Materials $0 Lump Sum $0 Step 2 Expenses $302 Total Phase 2 Fees & Expenses $15,702 TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES $29,976 Page 14 Winter & Company REFERENCES Gretchen Ricehill Community Development Department 101 W. 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970/384-6428 gericehi@ci.glenwood-springs.co.us Historic Preservation Plan Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970/429-2758 amyg@ci.aspen.co.us Preservation Guidelines Greg Hoch Director Planning & Community Development Dept. 949 E. Second Avenue Durango, CO 81301 970/375-4850 hochgs@ci.durango.co.us Residential Design Standards Page 15 Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado Page 16 ' Winter & Company Urban Design • Historic Preservation • Design Review 1265 Yellow Pine Avenue ' Special Needs Studio • Facility Programming • Planning Boulder, Colorado 80304 December 2, 2008 David Carey ' Purchasing Division City of Fort Collins 215 North Mason Street, 2nd Floor ' Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Ladies and Gentlemen: ' In the past 40 years, Fort Collins has taken substantial steps to protect and preserve its historic and cultural heritage. These tools have been thoughtfully crafted and have included identifying preserva- tion as one of the community's goals, adopting preservation ordinances and design guidelines and surveying existing properties. ' Now, the city seeks to further refine its program by conducting a Review of Historic Preservation Processes and Policies that would help to coordinate preservation efforts and place this work into a broader framework of other community development objectives. We recognize the importance of this undertaking and would be honored to assist the community in developing this tool. We believe that we offer the experience and skills that will best meet your needs. We also propose a process that will actively engage stakeholders, staff and the commission in assessing the city's preservation procedures. I urge you to give our proposal close consideration. In doing so, please note that we offer national ' expertise combined with a well -seasoned sensitivity to local resources and cultures. This approach and product format that will facilitate the City's implementation of the review's findings. I look for- ward to an opportunity to discuss how we may refine this scope of work to best meet your needs. ' Sincerely, Nore V. Winter • (303) 440-8445 • fax: (303) 443-0725 • www.winterandcompany.net Residential design guidelines for Laguna Beach, CA encourage building that rc,/lects the established relationships of siting and scale that is seen in the neighborhood. 7 An opportunity site in a transition ;one in ' Monterey, CA provides a mixed use cluster. Mature cypress trees were preserved, corners were anchored and pedestrian fi-iendly facades were incorporated. Clerc Hall at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. is a deaf student housing renovation project being undertaken by Winter & CompanY's Special Needs Studio. Winter & Company Urban Design • Historic Preservation • Design Review Enhancing community livability, protecting cultural resources and providing delight in the community experience — these are the focus of design, preservation and planning services at Winter & Company — often in resort communities and other towns with special character. Winter & Company is a planning and urban design firm that consults nationwide to public agencies, downtown improvement committees and private property owners. Collaboration with regional planning and design professionals is a specialty. Services include urban design plans, neighborhood conservation strategies, cultural facility feasibility studies and design guidelines. Projects span more than 150 communities in 48 states and Canada. Company personnel are frequently featured speakers at conferences and conventions, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Western Plan nersAssociation, theAmerican Planning Association and statewide preservation organizations. In addition, the Special Needs Studio is a pioneer in facility planning and design for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and consults across the nation with schools, community organizations and developers who are engaged in providing facilities designed for the Deaf Community. Winter & Company uses a process that actively engages stakeholders, residents and property owners in creative ways of team -building and problem solving. Community workshops, open houses, and stakeholder interviews are planned to be lively, informative and constructive. Form -based design standards and guidelines help ensure that taller higher densitv development along the Galveston, TX seawall is compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and provides benefits to the overall community. 1265 Yellow Pine Avenue* Boulder, Colorado 80304 0 (303) 440-8445 • fax: (303) 443-0725 • wzuw.winterandcompany.rtet Neighbors in Greenville, SC define ket feunocs of their historic district. Computer modeling of cities such as Aspen, CO illustrates the 3 dimensional form of the city. Additionall' they provide a base to explore potential development options, such as the building below. 3-D development scenarios are used to analyze the affects of proposed standards and guidelines as well as illustrate the final review criteria. Streetscape improvements in the City of Canton, OH show how a Master Plan can come to life. Winter & Company ... Services: Community Character Management Systems • Conservation District and Neighborhood Conservation Plans • Design and Historic Preservation Guidelines • Design Review Systems • Preservation Plans • Neighborhood Plans Cultural & Educational Facility Planning • School facility plans • Performing arts site selection • Feasibility testing Form -based design codes • Neighborhood -based design regulations • Modeling of alternative development scenarios • Illustrating community design principles and standards • Testing draft standards and codes • Context -sensitive design standards and guidelines • Development standards for commercial corridors Historic Resource Planning & Management • Building rehabilitation strategies • Historic building master plans • Adaptive reuse feasibility studies • Historic building condition assessments Heritage Tourism and Historic Survey Strategies Commission training Public Participation & Community Outreach • Hands-on participatory planning workshops • Stakeholder group facilitation • Design compatibility surveys & workshops • Community -based charrettes and Visioning Rural Conservation Planning & Design • Rural heritage -based design guidelines • Land conservation strategies • Historic farm preservation studies Urban Design • Downtown and Neighborhood Plans • Preservation Plans • Streetscape Design and Wayfinding systems • Corridor plans and guidelines • Development Studies for Opportunity Sites • River corridor plans & development standards Special Needs Studio • Facility Planning and Programming • Design Assistance and Facility Assessments • Technical Specifications I Services: • Design guidelines for historic properties • Guidelines for downtown ' • Guidelines for Main Street • Analysis of visual character • Design review training ' Client: Amy Guthrie Preservation Planner City of Aspen ' Date: 2000, 2003 Winter & Company DESIGN GUIDELINES SERVICES Preservation Guidelines Aspen, Colorado Aspen, Colorado first established its name in gold mining in the late nineteenth century and later gained fame as a center for recreation and culture. Many structures and sites exist in the city that convey this rich history. In recognition of this diverse heritage, the city has maintained a preservation program since the 1970s. As a part of this program, it manages two historic districts and hundreds of individually listed historic properties. Experiencing a wave of renovation and new construction projects, the city recognized that its design guidelines, crafted in the 1970s, did not adequately address many of the issues it currently faced. Winter & Company restructured the guidelines system, providing sections of general guidelines that applied to all historic resources and also established a format for individual historic districts. The system is designed to accommodate chapters additional districts, should they be designated in the future. They then crafted new guidelines to address a variety of building types, including resources from the mining era, but also architecture from the beginning of the ski industry as well as early Modernist designs. Winter & Company directed a series of public workshops and hands-on sessions with the preservation commission to refine the policies set forth in the guidelines. As a part of the process, participants evaluated a series of computer - generated models of alternative design approaches, which helped them understand the potential impacts of these policy options. The City recently retained Winter & Company to assist in updating the design guidelines and developing new ones for more recent architecture. Editorial Quote fi-om the Durango Herald 8122105 "The fundamental questions in all of this remain the same: Can we preserve what we value about Durango's neighborhoods? Who gets to decide what that means? What say do the people who live in these neighborhoods have? And, must we adopt a one -size - fits -all approach to planning or can we recognize that each of Durango's neighborhoods has it own unique blend of attributes and concerns?" Services: • Visual analysis withneighbor- hood modeling • Neighborhood survey • Design guidelines for residen- tial buildings • Design Standards for Resi- dential Neighborhoods (city code amendment) Client: ' City of Durango Greg Hoch, Director of Plan- ning Date: 2005 Modeling scenarios were developed for several established neighborhoods. This image shows potential infill that could occur under certain FAR (floor area ratio), lot coverage, height and setback standards. Winter & Company DESIGN STANDARDS SERVICES Residential Design Standards Durango, Colorado The City of Durango, located at 6512 feet, is positioned between majestic red sandstone bluffs in the Animas River Valley. It is recognized for its architectural history, natural features, and modern amenities. The citizens of Durango were concerned with new infill projects eroding the character of traditional neighborhoods. Winter & Company, in collaboration with Duncan & Associates, worked with the community to develop a set of deign standards address- ing their concerns. The process included extensive public meet- ings and a visual survey to determine what types of development citizens felt were compatible with their neighborhoods. Using public feedback, Winter & Company developed a set of potential infill models, and then used them to craft new design standards. Collaboration with local architects, builders and realtors ensured that the final design standards were flexible enough to permit desired development while still requiring compatibility with the community's traditional neighborhoods. A new infill project caused concern among residents about its approriateness in the neighborhood. An established residential neighborhood. This information was also presented with the modeling scenario on the previous page, it includes: neighborhood plan, street perspective and statistics. Winter & Company DESIGN STANDARDS SERVICES Design Standards (eont'd) Durango, Colorado Lot Size &name A-50x 140 B-50x 140 C-75x 140 D-50x 100 E-50x 140 F-50x 140 F-35x 140 Lot size 7,000 7,000 10,500 5,000 7,000 7,000 4900 sf Building coverage 34% 29% 29% 34% 34% 34% 42% Building Square footage Primary 2094 sf 1875 sf 2147 sf 2354 sf 3248 sf 3225 sf 2748 sf Secondary 936 sf 125 sf 1838 sf 936 sf 936 sf 206 sf Total 3030 sf 2000 sf 3656 sf 3290 sf 4184 sf 3225 sf 2954 sf Floor Area Ratio primary 0.33 0.26 0.20 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.56 Floor Area Ratio secondary 0.13 0.02 0.18 i 1 is, 0.13 0.04 Floor Area Ratio Total 0.43 0.28 0.38 0.65 0.59 0.46 0.60 Setbacks Front yard 20' 20' 20' 10' 20' 25' 14' Side yard 9'. 7' 9'. 7' 2'. 44' 8'. 12' 10', 10' 10', 11' 6', 6' Rear yard pri- mary 57' 57' 46' 46' 33' 40' 40' Rear yard sec- ondary 14' 6' 10' 10, 5' 0' 4' Building Height primary 26' 22' 18' 30' 27' 27' 28' A neighborhood survey (developed for each of the five neighborhood characters) was also utilized in gaining feedback from those who did not attend the public workshops. From those surveyed, 70 percent to 80 percent said home improvements should reflect traditional home heights and masses in their neighborhoods. Winter & Company DESIGN STANDARDS SERVICES Design Standards (cont'd) Durango, Colorado Important criteria for the design standards included: • Defining a clear set of expectations, including illustrative diagrams. • Working within the existing land use regulations and to pro- vide design review flexibility. • Helping property owners make well-informed decisions that would preserve the integrity of traditional neighborhoods, enhance livability, and strengthen the overall design cohesive- ness of the neighborhoods. Durango, Colorado For the purposes of this survey, the building mass and scale is defined as the length, width, and height of the 3. Mass & Scale overall building. A. Should a new inflll building or addition reflect the traditional building [Hass and scale found in the neighborhood? YES NO The diagram below represents a typical block in your neighborhood. Several buildings that show the traditional build- ing mass and scale are identified. Please check one box under each lettered building you think best defines the mass and scale compatibility relative to the traditional building. B. 1-1/2 story addition E. I-V2 story infiil to the rear ❑ Compatible ❑ Compatible ❑ Somewhat compatible ❑ Somewhat compatible ❑ Not compatible ❑ Not compatible F. 3 story infill C. 1 story addition .� ❑ Compatible to the rear ❑ Compatible \ I ❑ Somewhat compatible P I, ❑ Somewhat compatible ❑ Not compatible ❑ Not compatible Traditional III building t ell / mass & scale D. 2 story inflll ❑ Compatible ❑ Somewhat comp ❑ Not compatible Traditional build- ing mass & scale 4 7711 G. 3 story inflll Compatible ❑ Somewhat compatible ❑ Not compatible H. 2 story addition to the rear, with attached garage ❑ Compatible ❑ Somewhat compatible ❑ Not compatible Services: • Visual analysis • Development projections • Design guidelines Client: City of Durango Design Review Board Date: 1983 DESIGN GUIDELINES SERVICES Mountain Resort Town Durango, Colorado Design Guidelines Winter & Company developed design guidelines for the core of this Rocky Mountain resort town which serves as a gateway to several notable ski areas and national parks. The team worked closely with the public to formulate goals, identify concerns, and review drafts. The guidelines were intended to provide guidance as well as define requirements and to answer the questions of home owners eager to know how to make improvements and alterations. Initially, the design guidelines for Downtown Durango were written for voluntary compliance and for use in with Main Street Program rehabilitation loans. Therefore, in order to ensure that they would be "user-friendly," the team used a "comic book" format. Extensively illustrated with simple sketches, arrows and margin notes lead the reader to relevant portions of the text. In later years, after many property owners had renovated their buildings in compliance with the guidelines, downtown repre- sentatives urged the city to designate a formal downtown design review overlay to protect their investments. Many buildings in downtown Durango have been renovated in the past fifteen years, following the design guidelines developed by Winter. Left: Building condition in 1983. Right: 1998. Winter & Company The guidelines illustrate a key feature of downtown Durango, which is the alignment of facade elements. The First National Bank Building in Durango anchored a key intersection at the turn-of-the- centu rv. In 1983, a canopy obscured distinctive stone details of the first floor. In 1998, after rehabilitation, the original features contribute to the character of the street once more. DESIGN GUIDELINES SERVICES Mountain Resort Town Durango, Colorado Design Guidelines (cont'd) j ' s LW At Ak IrT IRS Winter & Company A row of one-story storefronts in historic downtown Georgetown Services: • Review of existing regulations and incentives • Strategic planning workshops • Preservation plan document • Commission facilitation URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING SERVICES Preservation Program Georgetown, Colorado Georgetown, Colorado, is a historic mining town that lies one hour east of Denver on the I-70 highway corridor. The community has been a pioneer in preservation, while it also has experienced new development at the edges of the historic core of the com- munity. While the community had some success with historic Fpreservation, it still needed a clear description of how these ef- forts fit with comprehensive plan policies and the town's political agendas. In order to establish a clear base for the preservation program, Winter & Company worked with the town to develop a preservation plan. The Preservation Plan summarizes the types of cultural resources that exist in the community and identifies the key issues related to their protection. The plan also outlines the roles of key play- ers, including the preservation commission, local non -profits, and other branches of government. A discussion of the tools available for preservation and an implementation strategy are addressed in the plan. Client: A series of community workshops provided a forum for resi- Cyndy Neely dents to contribute their ideas, and subsequent work sessions City of Georgetown with the preservation commission focused on refining specific Design Review Commission plan recommendations. Winter & Company also produced new Georgetown, Colorado design guidelines for the community as a step in Implementing the goals of the plan. Date: 2002 This block of two-story facades in the downtown preserves the traditional character of the streetscape. Winter & Coinpany U L The Colorado Hotel Grand Avenue Services: ' • Historic Resource Survey • Summary of Goals and Policies ' Client: Gretchen Ricehill Senior Planner ' Community Development Department The City of Glenwood Springs Date: 2006-2007 The Glenwood Hot Springs Pool is an iinportant part of the city's historical and cultural identity. Winter & Company HISTORIC PRESERVATION SERVICES Historic Preservation Plan Glenwood Springs, Colorado The City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, is situated at the confluence of the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers at the western end of Glenwood Canyon. It has been famous as a resort since the later 19th century, boasting the largest medicinal hot springs pool in the world, and serving as an important early railway center in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The history of the city is reflected in buildings and structures from all periods of the community's development and represents its commercial, residential, mining, transport and resort origins. The city's importance and early prosperity are manifest in the quality and character of many of the buildings; early investment in the settlement was national and international as well as local. Today the city is experiencing substantial commercial and population growth and rapidly rising property prices, which is placing significant pressure on older neighborhoods and the character of the city. The community has taken several steps to establish a preservation program in recognition of its wealth of historic resources. Several studies including a comprehensive plan policy, a historic preservation ordinance, and the Downtown Development Plan and Design Standards have laid the foundation for a comprehensive city preservation program. Winter and Company is working closely with the City and the community to develop a preservation plan. The program, phased over a five-year period, involves the implementation of a work plan of public and voluntary action to enhance awareness and understanding, and future steps to safeguard the city's unique historic resources. The Preservation Plan will be adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. It will also become an integral part of the forthcoming rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan. No Text DESIGN GUIDELINES SERVICES Infill and Redevelopment Study Lexington, Kentucky Services: The Lexington -Fayette Urban County Government undertook the development of design standards and guidelines for infill • Analysis of neighborhood development within the established neighborhoods of the com- character munity. This project seeks to demonstrate that high quality, • Testing of zoning ordinance compatible infill can occur in established neighborhoods in a impacts Modified design standards way which can enhance livability. In addition, the project pro - for infill & redevelopment motes the efficient use of land and thereby implements regional • Public workshops growth policies that encourage development to focus on the core of Lexington rather than spreading into outlying areas. The Client: Henry Jackson process to develop the design standards included extensive Lexington/Fayette Urban public participation from the citizens of Lexington through a County Government series of hands-on workshops, focus group interviews and on - Date: 2001 site analyses. Workshop participants engage in a hands-on exercise to identify the key features of their neighborhood. Concern about incompatible scale and design of multifamily housing in a traditional single-family context is one of the motivations for the Lexington infill study. Winter & Company Each workshop offered a range of opportunities for participants to gain technical knowledge, express their own opinions and develop consensus on community issues. Short presentations of relevant information were blended with individual work exer- cises and team discussions. The information enhanced the plan- ning teams' understanding of the design issues facing the neigh- borhoods today. Participants also described important character - defining features of their neighborhoods. This process led to a series of proposed amendments to the zoning code, which were adopted by the Council. Existing infill development was perceived as missing some of the essential design features seen traditionally in pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods. In this case, parking separated building entrances from the sidewalk edge. DESIGN GUIDELINES SERVICES infill and Redevelopment Study Lexington, Kentucky (continued) Hands-on workshops engaged participants in discussions about design policies for their neighborhoods. go ,'#I 000 Computer -generated models test the effectiveness of alternative design standards for mass, scale and building setbacks. Statistical data, including floor area, lot size, and building heights, accompany each of the illustrations in the infill study report. The design standards include single-family, multifamily and mixed -use zoning categories. Redevelopment opportunities for neighborhood -oriented commercial facilities are also a motivation for the Lexington infill design standards project. A key principle is to have primary Key infill study actions: entrances face the street and be defined with a porch. • Permit development on lots smaller than the citywide mini- mum standard, when special design conditions are met. • Reduce buildable floor area in the two-family zone district, and increase standards for landscape design and screening of parking. • Provide standards that assure new development is in scale with established neighborhoods. Winter & Company The Ruth Memorial Chapel (1870) is Parker'sonlystructure on the National Register of Historic Places. The Tallman/Newlin Cabin (1866) is listed on the State Register for Historic Places and is the only remaining log cabin in Parker. Services: • Evaluation of existing pres- ervation system • Review of preservation strategies applicable to Parker • Criteria for relocation of historic structures • Strategic Plan with priori- tized actions Client: Susan Pacek, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: 2007 Winter & Company PRESERVATION PLANNING SERVICES Strategic Plan for Historic Preservation for Parker, Colorado The Town of Parker is located southwest of Denver and began as a way station along the Cherokee Trail and the Denver and New Orleans Railroad. Many historic struc- tures, objects and sites survive throughout the town that are associated with its early history. Recently, Parker's rapid growth rates have posed an increasing threat to its his- toric resources. In response to this change, the Town commis- sioned a Strategic Plan for Historic Preservation which would both protect historic resources and provide residents with an enhanced connection to the history and traditions of the area. Winter & Company worked with the Town to develop the plan so that it would build on existing preservation strategies. The plan provides an evaluation of Parker's existing preservation strategies, a review of preservation strategies applicable to the Town, review criteria for relocation of historic resources and prioritized actions to enhance preservation efforts in Parker. The strategic plan established three sets of evaluation criteria for preservation treatments pertinent to Parker's unique situation. These criteria were established to evaluate historic structures proposed for either (1) relocation or demolition, (2) relocation to a previously established interpretive park, or (3) relocation of a structure from outside Parker to this interpretive park. Winter & Company developed a series of recommended actions and preservation strategies that were for immediate incorporation or over the next five years. These prioritized actions ensured that the most crucial preservation issues were addressed first, but still provided the Town with guidance on how to deal with changes which could occur throughout the implementation of the Plan. The 20-Mile House was integral to the history and development of Parker and became a Parker Landmark structure in 1998. ' Nore V. Winter Principal & Owner Winter & Company ' Nore Winter is an urban design and planning consultant with more than twenty- five years of experience nationwide. He specializes in services to communities with special amenities, distinctive natural settings and traditional neighbor- ' hoods who seek to protect their heritage. He developed preservation plans and guidelines for historic and conservation ' districts across the country, including Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Denver and Atlanta. Smaller communities he has served include Beaufort, South Carolina, Brattleboro, Vermont, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, Lahaina, Hawaii and Oyster- , ville, Washington. Colorado communities include Aspen, Breckenridge, Durango, Steamboat ' Springs and Telluride. In California, he produced citywide preservation design guidelines for Pasadena and San Jose and developed a citywide system of design review for Carmel. ' Other guidelines projects were for neighborhoods in Napa and Davis and a conservation district for Cannery Row in Monterey. In Texas, he also has produced design guidelines for Georgetown and Nacog- ' doches and assisted in writing guidelines for residential districts in Galveston. His recent projects in Texas include Residential Infill Standards for Alamo Heights and Terrell Hills, as well as a Height and Density Development Plan ' and Design Guidelines for Galveston. His work in urban design includes downtown plans for Boulder, Colorado, Flagstaff, Arizona, Canton, Ohio, Georgetown, Texas and Walla Walla Wash- ington. He also has developed neighborhood plans for Lexington, Kentucky, Memphis, Tennessee and Bellingham, Washington. Mr. Winter is frequently a featured speaker at conferences and conventions, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Park Service and the American Planning Association. From 1992-1996, he served as Chair- man of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. He has received awards for "Contributions to the Built Environment" from the Colorado and Western Regional divisions of the American Institute of Architects. tMr. Winter has provided design review training for a wide range of locations, including the commissions of New York City, Boston, Indianapolis, and Seattle. He has conducted statewide and regional training workshops in design review ' in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Washington. He is based in Boulder, Colorado. He holds a Bachelor's degree in Architecture from Tulane University and a Masters in Architecture and Urban Design from UCLA. tWinter & Company • 1265 Yellow Pine Ave., Boulder, CO 80304 • (303) 440-8445 11 Carl Leith Senior Planner Winter & Company Carl Leith's professional background includes work in Europe and the United States. Carl has extensive experience in design review, urban design and historic preservation in the historic and business heart of London. This has spanned the spectrum of urban scale from signs and shop fronts to extensive redevelopment applications in an international development market and his- toric city core. Urban design projects include enhancement proposals for areas of the riverfront, and several streetscapes and urban spaces. In addition, Carl has written and illustrated several publications covering design guidance and urban character. Experience also includes planning and preservation in Ireland for the County of Mayo. Carl is currently working on comprehensive development standards for the City of Denver, Colorado, residential design guidelines for Laguna Beach, Cali- fornia, an urban design program strategy and design guidelines for Oklahoma City, and a preservation strategy for the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He has re- cently completed historic preservation guidelines for Pitkin County, Colorado, and a preservation plan for Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Other recent projects include commercial design standards and guidelines for Aspen, Colorado, residential design standards for the Village of Chevy Chase, Maryland. Initially from a family architectural background, Carl's academic credentials include a Bachelor of Arts in Geography from Queen's University, Belfast; a Bachelor of Philosophy in Town & Country Planning from Newcastle Univer- sity; a Master of Arts in Urban Design from Westminster University; a graduate Diploma (Distinction) in Conservation and Preservation Policy from Middlesex University; and Certificate in Architectural History from Oxford University. Carl is a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, a member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation and the American Planning Association. Prior to joining Winter & Company in 2006, Carl worked as a planner, urban designer and preservation planner for the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina. Responsibilities included character assessment, design review, PUD negotia- tion, application reports, technical advice for preservation applicants and com- mission, and the review and implementation of a new unified development and zoning code. Winter & Company • 1265 Yellow Pine Ave., Boulder, CO 80304 • (303) 440-8445 Mary E. Phillips ' Associate Planner / Designer Winter & Company ' Mary Phillips joined Winter & Company as an Associate Planner and Designer in 2007. She is currently writing a Voluntary Residential Design Handbook and Design Guidelines for Winnetka, Illinois. She has recently completed Design t Guidelines and Draft Standards for Ketchum, Idaho, based on existing condi- tions analysis and modeling development alternatives. While with Winter & Company she has also assisted in the completion of Design Guidelines for Galveston, Texas and developed a Strategic Plan for Historic Preservation for ' the Town of Parker, Colorado. ' Mary is from San Luis Obispo, California. She received a Bachelors of Architec- ture and a Masters of City and Regional Planning from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. ' Past employment includes a planning internship for the City of San Luis Obispo where she worked on a Historic Preservation Ordinance and as a teacher at the National Building Museum for a youth outreach design education program. Winter & Company • 1265 Yellow Pine Ave., Boulder, CO 80304 • (303) 440-8445 L Bodh Saraswat Junior Planner Bodh Saraswat is a Junior Planner and Designer at Winter & Company. He recently was awarded a Masters of Urban Design from the University of Colorado, Denver. Bodh provides assistance in the production of project docu- ments, generating maps, illustrations and graphics. He is currently developing Sketchup models for residential design guidelines in Winnetka, Illinois. A native of Bavla, India, he received his B. Arch. from the Sushant School of Art and Architecture. In India he worked for the architectural firms of Sangath; Kanvinde Rai & Chowdhury; and Jasbir Sawhney & Associates. Winter & Company • 1265 Yellow Pine Ave., Boulder, CO 80304 • (303) 440-8445 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WINTER & COMPANY WORK SAMPLES 1. Assessing Your Local Historic Preservation Program 2. Conducting Effective Commission Meetings and Making Design Review Judgments . 3. Napa, California, Ordinance Components 4. Napa, California, Review Process 5. Assessing Little Rock's Design Review Program 6. Neighborhood Character: A Preservation Issue 7. The Recent Past in Local Preservation Programs 8. Preservation and Sustainability Q Assessing Your Preservation Program 'l ASSESSING YOUR LOCAL 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM 1 A preservation program exists within a broader community development and planning context. It should be well -coordinated with other initiatives, including housing, economic development and sustainability and it should match the political support that preservation enjoys locally. When assessing the current preservation environment, consider other policies and tools that are in place. How the city's permit review process will interface with other parts of development review also is a key element. You should be able to answer the following How does preservation fit into the broader vision for the community? How does the preservation program relate to other policies and regulations in the community? In order to answer those questions. Following these steps in assessing your preservation program: Step 1: Identify related community policies. Note that many communities with historic preservation programs employ design review as a tool to manage the character of change that may occur, both for preservation of the historic resources themselves and also for directing new development in their context. This design review is most effective when it is a coordinated part of the comprehensive plan for the community, and related policies. Development permitting for historic resources usually occurs in the context of a historic preservation ordinance that provides for design review. Sometimes the design guidelines are included as part of the law. Sometimes the guidelines are adopted through an administrative process after the ordinance is passed. Ideally, this ordinance is based on policies defined in a preservation plan, which itself should be a component of the community's comprehensive plan. Once you have reviewed the broader planning policies of the community, answer these questions: A. Does a comprehensive plan exist that may establish a policy for historic preservation? A comprehensive plan may include these topics that relate to preservation: Housing Economic development Transportation Education Health Sustainability & energy conservation How will preservation help accomplish objectives of the comprehensive plan in these are other topics? B. How will the preservation program fit with other development regulations and policies? Also review related city regulations: zoning ordinances, building codes, subdivision regulations and design review regulations should be studied to determine how the guidelines would relate to these laws. It is very important that potential conflicts be identified early in the process so they can be resolved, and coordination with city staff will be necessary. Zoning ordinances may regulate: Types of land use Lot assemblage Parcel size Density Set -backs Building height Building orientation Planning Tools for Preservation • Copyright © 2008 by Nore V. Winter Page 1 I Winter & Company ' PROPOSAL FOR REVIEW OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESSES AND POLICIES FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ' We are pleased to present a proposal for services by Winter & Com- panyto provide recommendations for improvementto the City's historic preservation program as they relate to development review. ' PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Fort Collins is known as a leader in historic preservation in Colorado. It has worked to identify, preserve and protect individual landmarks and historic districts for more than 40 years. During that time, many individual rehabilitation projects have shown the usefulness of the ' past in supporting community goals for the future. In addition, the suc- cess of the Old Town Historic District is cited in numerous economic development and branding studies which demonstrate the positive I image that preservation brings to the community. However, there is room for improvement. A series of recent devel- opment proposals involving resources or properties with potentially historic significance have raised questions about procedures, and perhaps the policies and standards associated with preservation. ' How the preservation program interfaces with other City initiatives in broader terms also was questioned. ' These issues are not unique to Fort Collins. As preservation programs have matured across the nation, interest has arisen about how to make them more effective and better integrated into community planning. This is a good opportunity to step back and consider how to optimize the preservation program in Fort Collins, and we are excited to have an opportunity to assist the City in this endeavor. We bring a national perspective about trends in preservation that can assist local deci- sion -makers in charting an appropriate direction. A Systems Approach Evaluating review procedures should occur with a systematic view. This should include an understanding of how all of the preservation program components work together, as well as an understanding of the other review steps that the City uses. Coordination with Other Review Systems Of course, a key part of the project assignment is to identify how to improve the way in which preservation review is integrated with other development review systems. In 2003, the City initiated a Quality Im provement Plan which outlined a series of measures to enhance the City's broad development review system. The focus was on finding ways to meet City goals and policies in the most efficient manner. Many Property owners craft design policies in Pasadena, CA Original concept sketch plan for Old Town, prepared by Downing/Leach Architects - Nore Winter, Principal -in - Charge Page 1 Some cities also provide for development review that includes key design variables. How will preservation review interface with these other steps should be a key consideration as well. Some guidelines include policies that conventionally appear in zoning regulations. If such standards are included in the guidelines, be careful to coordinate them with similar regulations in the zoning ordinance itself, to avoid conflicting standards. C. What is the political climate for the preservation program? The degree of support for preservation often correlates with public understanding of the benefits of preservation, and with its fit into broader policies: What is level of awareness? is there an area of special concern? What is the political support for preservation? Will elected officials support the program? Is additional education needed to build support? Will property owners support design review? How may the preservation program be tailored to reflect these values? D. Who are the key players and stakeholders in the preservation program? Preservation is a community -wide effort that spans political camps and a spectrum of interest groups: - The preservation commission - Private preservation advocacy groups - Property owners - Neighborhood residents - The development community Step 2: Evaluate the preservation program components. Many communities organize their historic preservation programs as a series of interrelated tools, each of which contributes to the protection of cultural resources. While it is.not essential to have all of these components in place, it is good to think about them as a coordinated package of policies .and tools. When evaluating a preservation program, check to see which of these components are in place: Assessing Your Preservation Program 1. GOALS & OBJECTIVES These should be stated goals for the long-range character of the districts in the city as well as historic resources in general. They should also relate to other planning issues associated with the area. These may appear in the General Plan, in neighborhood plans, as well as design guidelines. 2. SURVEYS A formal identification of those properties considered to have historic significance is an essential tool. Ideally, this is developed in a professional, objective manner, and is formally adopted such that all parties understand how the property will be treated in development review permitting. A survey identifies each of the historic resources in a district or as individual resources. It should include a description of the general character of the district, as well as a listing of all of the properties surveyed, indicating their significance. When reviewing proposed alterations to properties in the district, use the survey to determine if a property is "contributing," in which case guidelines for rehabilitation of historic structures will apply. If the structure is "noncontributing," then guidelines for new construction usually apply. Some communities use a tiered survey that indicates varying levels of integrity for historic structures. Such a survey may also identify new buildings that are compatible with their context. More recently, communities have identified subordinate levels of significance, such as "structures of merit." Some ordinances provide for varying levels of protection and review based on the category of significance that is used. This can help to balance the level of incentives and regulations that apply to different categories. To what extent does the city's survey system provide advance notice to all parties about the significance of properties? Planning Tools for Preservation • Copyright © 2008 by Nore V. Winter Page 2 Assessing Your Preservation Program HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER. COMMUNITY POLICIES This chart illustrates a typical organization of com- munity policies, which organizes historic preserva- tion programs, including design review, as a part of a Preservation Plan that establishes goals for preser- vation and provides the theoretical basis for design review. This Preservation Plan is in turn a component of community -wide land use and zoning policies, which combine with broader planning topics, such as Transportation, Health and Education, to form a Comprehensive Plan. Although your community may not have all of these planning components, consider this as a model for formal and informal policies that may exist. Planning Tools for Preservation • Copyright © 2008 by Nore V. Winter Page 3 3. LEGAL TOOLS Legal tools define the limits and rights of review and establish the Historic Preservation Commission as the reviewing body. For example, state enabling legislation is needed to allow local governments to adopt powers of design review. At the community level, a city's historic preservation ordinance is usually established under the provisions of local zoning regulations. The ordinance may provide a process for designating historic properties as well as for the review of rehabilitation plans, and designs for new construction and demolition. Other legal tools may include preservation easements. The "underlying" provisions of the base zoning for an area is also an important tool. Several communities are now re -considering the base zoning, in terms of building mass, scale and orientation to the street, in "form -based" coding. These provisions can accomplish some of the objectives of historic district designation and should be coordinated as such. More recently, communities have added Conservation District designation as an option for certain areas of distinct character, and have provided similar designation options for individual properties outside of districts. To what extent do the existing ordinances fit the needs of the community in offering a strategic system of preservation and conservation? 4. ADMINISTRATIVE AND REVIEW PROCEDURES The means by which reviews occur is established in a set of procedures that define a uniform due process for all applicants to be heard in a similar manner. Awritten definition of procedures will include the submittal requirements, outlining the types of documentation that will be required for review. Other procedures will define the process for scheduling a hearing with the commission. Finally, provisions should exist for how the commission will conduct the meeting itself. Preservation review procedures also mustbe coordinated with other permitting steps. As "design" has become a key consideration in all city permitting, there is now more risk that confusion, and even conflicts, can occur. Mapping review processes, and also considering how different boundaries for review may overlap are key aspects of considering a preservation system in the broader planning context. Assessing Your Preservation Program 5. DESIGN GUIDELINES The heart of a design review system for historic resources is a document contains guidance for making informed, objective decisions about the appropriateness of any work that may be proposed. These "design guidelines" should be published and made available in advance for applicants while developing their designs. Ideally, the document will also reiterate the design goals for the district and the community. Once established, guidelines become the community standards by which the design review board evaluates the appropriateness of proposed changes to the affected properties. The guidelines also inform developers in advance of the criteria with which their projects will be considered. Guidelines and the review process also play an educational role, increasing understanding and awareness of design issues in historic areas. 6. PRESERVATION INCENTIVES Many communities provide incentives to stimulate investment in historic properties, encourage property owners to follow appropriate rehabilitation procedures, and even assist those with limited budgets. Even though preservation procedures can be less expensive than alternatives that would alterhistoric character, incentives strengthen any good preservation program. Some communities offer financial assistance, in the form of loans or grants, to reduce rehabilitation costs to property owners. Others offer tax relief, either as income tax credits, sales tax waivers, or reduced property taxes. Others provide technical assistance, to facilitate appropriate rehabilitation techniques, while some communities provide streamlined review processes and offer special flexibility in building codes. To what extent to the city's incentives match the needs and interests of the different types of property owners that may be affected by the preservation program? 7. EDUCATION & AWARENESS Many property owners willingly comply with appropriate rehabilitation procedures and develop compatible designs for new construction when they are well-informed about preservation theory. Effective preservation programs, therefore, include special initiatives to educate property owners. Such programs include rehabilitation classes, publications and walking tours to heighten awareness and increase Planning Tools for Preservation • Copyright 0 2008 by Nore V. Winter Page 4 l Assessing Your Preservation Program understanding of preservation procedures and policies. Well -written design guidelines that provide useful information, as well as literal standards, also serve an educational role. 8. ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM A -weak link in many design review systems is enforcement of approved work. At the initial stage, regulations should clearly state that all relevant building permit applications require approval of the historic preservation commission. Ordinances should also clearly define the responsibility for monitoring construction to assure that it complies with the approved submittals. Finally, penalties for non-compliance must be prescribed. When planning the enforcement component,be realistic about the time commitments that may be required to monitor construction and determine if this will be handled by staff or if commission members will fulfill this role. Some communities assign monitoring responsibilities to zoning code enforcement staff. Others use sub- committees of the preservation to conduct on -site visits during construction. These are typically timed to coincide with key milestones in normal construction inspections that are managed by the building code official. 9. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE Preservation programs require on -going maintenance. They need continuing evaluation of the process and the results. Ideally, the preservation commission will review its actions on an annual basis to determine if adjustments in the system are necessary. Guidelines may be amended to respond to new development trends, procedures may be re -written to simplify review times and ordinances may be adjusted to clarify the powers of the. commission. These suggestions should be summarized in an annual report In addition to regular system reviews, the commission should stage an annual training session to hone its design review skills and provide orientation to new members. Also plan an annual study session with city council and the planning commission. It is essential to maintain an effective working relationship and to identify areas of concern. This evaluation of existing preservation programs should help you determine the role you expect preservation to play in the community. Note that as a part of the evaluation, that you may also identify the need for other preservation strategies. For example, a more aggressive education program may be needed to build broader support for preservation. Be certain to take a realistic assessment and place preservation in context. Step 3: Craft a system improvement strategy. Using the information that you have collected in order to answer the preceding questions, craft a strategy . for enhancing .the system. Within each of the "tools" categories, identify areas of strength and success, as well as opportunities for improvement. Conduct this assessment with a pro -active attitude, with an understanding room always exists for improving a program. Some actions may be quick fixes. Others will require more time, and ground work, to be realized. It is also important to recognize that in some cases other programs may benefit from adjustments in order to better make use of preservation initiatives. Modifying energy codes to acknowledge his buildings is an example. The improvement strategy should: - Describe specific actions, within defined system component categories. - Establish a time line, in relative terms for accomplishing the improvements. - Identify the key players who will participate in the improvements. - Re -affirm how the community's basic preservation policies will be further strengthened by these improvements. ' Planning Tools for Preservation • Copyright © 2008 by Nore V. Winter Page 5 No Text CONDUCTING EFFECTIVE COMMISSION MEETINGS & MAKING DESIGN REVIEW JUDGMENTS This paper outlines some basic techniques for effective meeting management that planning commissions and design review boards can use to use time efficiently and help clarify key deicision-making issues. It focuses on the "dynamics" of a meeting. Note that individual communities have specific review procedures that are usually defined in the development code, review ordinances or other adopted meeting procedures. Therefore, the suggestions offered in this paper should be adapted to the be consistent with specified local regulations. Everyone wants a smooth review process. They want it to be as brief as possible and occur with the minimum amount of cost to all parties, but how do review board members decide if a proposal is appropriate? How do applicants know if they have received a fair decision, and how can they improve their chances of receiv- ing approval? Managing the review system diligently, and in particular conducting the review session in an organized manner, will help to answer these questions. Consider the following factors that influence the quality of planning and design review judgments: Policies and standards should be clear Planning policies and design standards should be easily. understood by laymen, and provide useful ideas for solutions that may be appropri- ate in the area. They should be based on local characteristics and local goals. The standards should be organized in a logical sequence that follows the typical design process. They must be specific enough to provide clear They should be specific, but not restrictive. The board should be "product -oriented." The commission's operating style should be with a positive attitude, with a sense of pur- pose that the group is providing a community service. Board members should remember that many applicants do not understand the process, and they will need a clear explanation of the steps in the review process and its purpose. It is important to recognize that the purpose of the meeting is to make a decision, to make it in a timely manner, and then to state the outcome clearly. That is, each meeting has a "product," and commissioners should always be checking to see that the conversation at hand is helping the board move to an action; it is not merely an open-ended dialogue. The products can be: • A formal decision, reached by vote of the board • Clear, concise direction to staff for further research or information • Clear, concise direction to the applicant for refinement of the proposal As. a commissioner, ask yourself, "How is this discussion moving us to a product for this agenda item?" Discussion must be welcomed with courtesy, and with the objective in mind that the informa- tion presented will help the Board in making a decision or giving direction. Effective Review Sessions • Copyright © 2000 by Nore V. Winter The operating style for the meeting also must convey a willingness to be flexible where ap- propriate, but always within the context of the community's adopted policies and standards. It is important to focus on the big issues, not to become bogged down with petty details, especially at conceptual stages of review. Judgments should be based on the community's standards, and not personal biases. This means that reviewers must distinguish between a concept they personally dislike, as a matter of personal taste, but which meets the standards, and one that is objectively inappro- priate because it clearly violates the established standards. Remember that the standards rep- resent community policy and that the board's role is to administer them, not to draft new standards on the spot. Consistent review procedures Should be followed. A good review procedure contains more than an agenda of applications to be heard: It in- cludes steps that facilitate an orderly sequence of information exchange. Before the Meeting: Try this sequence of events for an effective review meeting: 1. Confirm that. notices have been sent and applications have been properly advertised. 2. Check to see that documentation for the application is adequate. Use a printed application form designed to meet the Board's review process. 3. Be certain that the proposed change requires review: That it will be visible from a public way, that it is not routine maintenance, or in some other manner exempt from review. 4. Check that minutes of the previous meeting are available and/or have been distributed. 5. Confirm that the meeting room is in order. Always meet in a space that accommodates the board, the applicant, and the public comfortably. Also be certain that recording equipment and display space will be available. 6. Confirm that a quorum will be achieved. 7. Be certain that all board members have visited all properties that will be discussed. Your credibility is undermined if you ask about the character or its specific location of the site during the meeting. This may imply that the board is ill - prepared. 2 %vi nterandcompany. net • Boulder, Colorado At the Review Meeting: The following are some recommended steps in hearing an agenda item: 1. Introduce the Review Board and the review process to the audience. Remember that many people attending the meeting don't know who you are! Explain the sequence of events: That each project will have a formal presentation by the applicant; then the public will have an opportunity to comment. A critique by the Board will follow, and finally a decision will be made. Be certain that the roles of the chairman, the Board members and their staff are understood. 2. Explain the purpose of the re- view to the applicants. The purpose is to assure that the proposal is compatible with the objectives of the City's Policies. To determine its compatibility, the project will be reviewed using adopted standards. 3. Call cases according to the pub- lished agenda. If deviations are required, announce this at the beginning of the meeting. Check for conflicts of interest and record of information. 4. Introduce the applicant and their project. Identify the location of the project (preferably on a map visible to all). Make it known if any preliminary reviews or consultations have occurred on this project, but do not present the content or recommendations of those reviews at this point. Note which level of review this will be, and what the expectations are of the outcome of the meeting: Is it a conceptual discussion, with the applicant receiving direction for more work? Or is:final approval requested? 5. Check to see that the documen- tation of the proposal is complete. If important drawings, models, or photographs are missing that are essential for the committee to make a determination, cut the review short, before getting into design criticism. Reviewing an incomplete application is a waste of everyone's time. It may also be a disservice to an applicant f a proposal is denied, simply because it is misunderstood. Theoretically, a check for documentation has already occurred at town hall, and the check at the meeting is simply a formality, to note for the record that all is in order. It may be simply that a piece of their submittal has been left at the planning department. If for some reason a project has made it on to the agenda without enough information too give it a fair review, consider moving it to a discussion in a working session, so the applicant can receive some benefit from the meeting. 6. Listen to the presentation by the owner and his representatives. This provides them with an opportunity to describe their objectives, and to show the intended design. Encourage them to point out how their proposal meets the design guidelines in the process of their presentation. I 7. Ask for clarification of any con- t�ent in the presentation. I Withhold criticisms at this stage. First determine that. everyone understands what has been presented. Are there terms, that may be confusing? Ask questions about what the drawings mean, if necessary. Is the context also understood? Is the scale of the project understood? Effective Review Sessions • Copyright © 2000 by Nore V. Winter 3 Do not be embarrassed if technical information is not clear. It is your responsibility to be certain that you understand what has been presented. 8. Ask for a.planning staff report. They should have reviewed the project in advance with the applicant. Staff comments may be restricted to their identifying the specific issues that this application raises and noting which guidelines bear scrutiny. On the other hand, staff may also be asked to voice their recommendation about the appropriateness of the design as proposed. 9. Next, ask for comments from the audience. Ask that their discussion be limited to the project at hand, and its relationship to adopted standards of the community. If there are large numbers of people wishing to speak, ask if one person can act as a spokesperson to make the presentation, and then ask other audience members to indicate if they support the position. Watch for repetition' in comments from the audience, and cut short presentations that appear to reiterate previous testimony. Record the name and address of speakers. 10.Ask for statements from other public agencies, if they are present. 11.Next, the Board should critique the proposal. Use these techniques in your comments: A. Use simple, clear language. Be specific about what you like as well as what you dislike. Even if you approve the proposal, you want to give a clear message to future applicants and to future Board members about how you reached your decision, in the event that they too face similar issues. Again, watch for repetition, and ask for summaries where people share the same feelings. B. When reviewing the proposal, use the standards. Use a checklist to see that you covered all the items, then ask for discussion of any items that are in question. Allow open discussion, but monitor the content to avoid unnecessary repetition. Also refer to the SPECIAL REVIEW QUESTIONS listed later in this text. C. Keep the discussion moving. When all the points have been made and people are repeating earlier comments, that is a good indication it is time to terminate the critique. D. Keep the discussion on track. Avoid "red herrings," those tangential issues that may be emotionally charged, but have no direct bearing on the specific proposal, are not addressed in the standards, and that should not influence the decision. These can take up time, frustrate participants and confuse the decision - making record. 12.Allow the applicant to respond to the comments at this point. If criticisms have been raised, allow the applicant to defend the design as proposed, or allow them to indicate if they will consider modifications. 13.When the discussion seems to be over, the commission chair should summarize the arguments. The chair should list the key arguments, pro and con and then ask these questions: * Have the standards been reasonably met in order to merit approval? You have two choices for an answer: "Yes," or "No." 0 winterandcompany.net • Boulder, Colorado ' * Which standards give you the basis for making this decision? Remember that an approval or a disapproval should be based on the standards, and commissioners should be able to identify the critical ones. 14.Vote on the proposal. If you can answer those two questions, you are ready for a vote! Typically, there are four options for a mo- tion: a. Approval as submitted b. Approval with conditions for alterations to the submittal c. Denial as submitted d. Continue for additional information The motion should be clear and direct. It should include a reference to the standards, and a finding that the project is approved or disapproved because it meets, or does not meet, the standards adequately. 15.Next, secure a second to the mo- tion and conduct the formal discus- sion. The Chair should repeat the motion for the record. Then vote. The vote should be taken by a show of hands and the voting should be recorded. Ifthe vote is for option B, "Approval with conditions for alterations to the submittal," the items to be revised should be listed, and a deadline for re -submittal to confirm that the revisions have been included should be set. 16.Once you have voted, summarize the outcome clearly for the appli- cant. Remember, you aren't finished until you have a summary. Don't let the applicant leave without an understanding what you have decided, and what their next steps are. Give the applicant a written note of the outcome at the meeting if possible; if not, announce that formal written notice will be forthcoming. 17.Finally, thank the applicant and .citizens for participating in the pro- cess. Everyone who participates in the process does so for the benefit of the community, and their efforts should be acknowledged. Remember, it is more important that you treat an applicant fairly than that you give them the answer that they seek. This in the end will be respected. Effective Review Sessions • &pyright © 2000 by Nore V. Winter E Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado of its recommendations have been implemented. These improvements have been well received. Any potential improvements to the preserva- tion system must be consistent with these process strategies. Key Features of a Preservation Program As with any successful development review program, historic preser- vation systems should be clear and understandable. We will review the system to see how these features can be achieved: Fairness — The system should treat projects of similar type in the same way. Predictability — The steps in the review process should be clear, and the criteria to be used should be understandable. Efficiency — Everyone's time should be used efficiently, including property owners, boards and staff. One-step approaches, expedited decision -making and timely outcomes are key. RECENT ISSUES New issues in preservation are now emerging that also must be con- sidered. We will address the following: Overlapping Review Systems and Jurisdictions As cities have expanded the use of development and design review activities, areas of overlap now occur more frequently. There may be general development standards in the basic code, and others may be set forth in a zoning overlay. Still other standards and guidelines may appear in a neighborhood plan for an area. When the preservation system is added to this array, there is opportunity for confusion, and even conflicts, in goals and administration of the permitting processes. Addressing these issues requires a careful tabulation of the review systems and how they interact. This will be an initial task for the Fort Collins assessment. Trends in Preservation Ordinances When preservation programs were first established, separate, stand- alone ordinances were drafted, often relying upon model ordinances provided by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and more recently by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. During the last decade, cities have integrated the preservation ordi- nance into consolidated municipal codes. This has helped to reduce inconsistencies, but in some cases, certain essential components of a preservation program may be lost. In other cases, opportunities to consolidate provisions that are similar to other programs may have been overlooked. Today, cities are taking a new look at preservation ordinances in the interest of streamlining, while also addressing new issues that did not exist a decade ago. Page 2 Special Review Questions: In the process of your critique, consider these questions: 1. What is the context? What is the character of the block and of adjacent buildings? Remember that you are reviewing the impact of a design upon its specific site, and upon its surroundings. �. 2. How sensitive is this context? If nearby buildings are especially important, or if the project is in a concentration of historic structures, you may be more stringent in applying certain guidelines than you would if the same project were proposed in another area of town. 3. What is the character of what is proposed? Can you describe the basic elements of the proposal? 4. What is the anticipated impact of the proposal? Does it strengthen the goals for the area, or weaken them? 5. Does this design set a precedent for others? If this is a new concept, or a new design problem, it may merit closer inspection. 6. Which are the critical design is- sues? Depending on the type of design, and its location in the district, certain guidelines will be more important than others. Decide which ones will be most significant in reviewing the proposal before you. 7. How do your guidelines relate to the issues? Which issues are not addressed in the guidelines? If an issue is not addressed in the guide- lines, it is for one of three reasons: a. The issue was not intended to be considered in design review. Leave it alone! b. The issue was omitted from the guidelines by oversight. In this case, you should still review the proposal before you based only on the guidelines that you have. If the guidelines need amending, that should happen at another time, not while an applicant is before you. c. The issue maybe improperly described. It may in fact be covered by some other guidelines, with a different description. There may be a legitimate basis for criticism found in some other guideline with some other "key words." Don't, however, try to force a design issue under the jurisdiction of a guideline where it does not in fact fit. . Remember, you are interpreting the guidelines. If you disagree with their stated policies, the review session is not the time to assert your opinions about the guidelines themselves —only about the design in relation to the guidelines. 8. Can the design issues be grouped? Often, discussion will ramble over many topics. Some of these may have common themes. Look for ways to simplify the debate by combining related issues. 9. Are there non -design issues em- bedded in the review? In many cases, the problem is not a design issue, but in fact a broader conflict overland use, density, or some other zoning policy, which the guidelines cannot address or solve. Flag these issues, and either terminate the review, or move back to the design issues. 6 winterandcompany.net • Boulder, Colorado L L 10.How will the proposed design meet the goals of the district? This is the final, broad question that should be answered. Remember that reviewing a design is not a game, but that the results should contribute to the overall betterment of the Town. PROCEDURAL ISSUES During the course of a review season, these issues may arise. Determine ahead of time how the Board will respond to them. Conflict of Interest Whenever the slightest conflict of interest charge arises against a Board member, that person should immediately abstain from voting. If the challenged member believes that the applicant is abusing this policy by charging a conflict of interest as a tactic to eliminate an opposing vote, then he should ask for a vote of confidence from the Board. If the majority do not support his remaining active for the project's review, then he should continue to abstain. Consent Calendar The purpose of the consent calendar is to reduce review time. Items that should be placed on the consent calendar are: • Minor rehabilitation plans that have been reviewed by staff or a subcommittee of the Board. These might include minor alterations, such as replacing an existing window frame, adding a dormer, or removing asphalt siding and restoring the underlying wood. • Revisions to proposals already reviewed by the Board. When a proposal has been approved upon the condition that minor revisions are made, those amendments should be reviewed by staff (or a subcommittee of the Board), and placed on the consent calendar for formal approval. In most circumstances, items on a consent calendar are not discussed at the review meeting, and all are voted on all at one time, unless someone wants to discuss one of the items. If this is the case, that item is then pulled off the consent calendar and moved into the old business category. The motion should be something like this: "I move that we adopt the consent calendar as submitted." Or, if an item has been removed from the consent calendar: "I move we adopt the consent calendar as amended." Revisions to Proposals Permitting the applicants to amend their submittal at the meeting in order to receive approval at that time is a courtesy to be encouraged. It can cut weeks out of a re -submittal process.This needs to be done in an orderly manner,.however, and a clear policy about making revisions and notes at the meeting should be available ahead of time, so designers are prepared. In general, any revision that requires drawing illustrations, as opposed to simply adding written notes to the plans, should not be made at the meeting. Instead, consider approving the application upon condition that specified revisions be made; then have those revisions checked by staff or a subcommittee. The revised application is then placed on the consent calendar of the next meeting for official approval.. Agenda Scheduling Many people have to wait for hours at the review meeting for:their item to come up on the agenda. When it is feasible, schedule a break time for a specific hour. Items on the agenda after the break can then be clearly identified. Establish the rule that agenda items for the second half of the meeting will not begin until that hour, thus allowing those applicants to shorten the amount of time they must wait at meetings. If by chance the first half of the meeting goes faster than anticipated and there is extra time before the break, the Board may use this time for a work session or discussion of procedural or guidelines issues. Effective Review Sessions • Copyright © 2000 by Nore V. Winter 7 Paperwork at the Meeting Paper work, such as the signing of certificates of appropriateness and noting of conditions for approval, should occur at two points in the meeting: At the scheduled break, or at the end of the meeting. Otherwise paper work should occur at town hall and be picked up the next day. DEBRIEFING QUESTIONS Consider these questions after the meeting: 1. How well was the evaluation process followed? • Did the board group the design issues into categories that facilitated discussion? • Did the board identify which guidelines applied to the project? • Did the board prioritize the guidelines and related issues? 2. Was planning and effort acknowledged? • Were areas of compliance noted? • Did staff received recognition for their efforts? • Was the applicant's work effort also mentioned? 3. Was the board clear on how they would interface with other, boards on this project? For example, did it indicate how its decision might relate to an action pending before the planning board? 4. Were there "red herrings?" • Did the board clearly define their relevance to the guidelines? • Werethere symptoms ofunderlyin-concerns - if so, how were they handled? 5. Was there closure on each substantive issue? • Were agreements explicitly stated? • Were unresolved issues clarified and next steps defined? 6. How effective was the board at? a. Using\objective criteria; returning to basic principles b. Clarifying issues, paraphrasing concerns c. Expressing mutual interests d. Dealing with nasty lead lines: who had the move of choice? What moves were made, with what effect? e. Making the applicant feel heard? 7. Who controlled the agenda —board or applicant or "concerned citizen?" 8. How comfortable was the board with their familiarity with the guidelines and other relevant policies? • Did they convey familiarity with their documents? • What additional support might be useful? 8 winterandcompany.net • Boulder, Colorado Preservation Ordinance Project This review compares the existing City of Napa, Historic Preservation legislation (Sections 15.32 and 15.52 of the Code of Ordinances and Resolution No. 97-016) with a detailed out- line of typical historic preservation ordinance components. This outline was taken from our experience from preservation ordinances used throughout the country as well as several local, California communities (Riverside, Santa Monica, and Sacramento). The purpose of this review is to facilitate an initial discussion of where staff and consultants believe preservation legislation should lead the city. Some of the recommendations included herein are clearly needed, whereas others are options, and their inclusion will be based on policy decisions which need to be made in the upcoming weeks. The format for this review presents a detailed description of each ordinance component in bold letters. Following this description is the current status of this component for Napa. Where it .does not exist, recommendations are made. Some of these recommendations are very specific. In some instances, the current legislation is inadequate and recommendations for improvement are included. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS Purpose and intent Establishes reasons for the pres- ervation ordinance, focusing on the public purpose. Section 15.52.010. Purposes and Objectives, adequately covers this provision. Definitions Establishes formal definitions for terms used in the ordinance. For example, it may define a "historic property" as one for- mally identified on an adopted survey. . • Three definitions exist in Section 15.52.020, and are inadequate. Terms that ap- pear in the ordinance as it currently reads and which merit inclusion are: certif- icate of appropriateness, city, cultural heritage com- mission, cultural resources, demolition, historic district, historic resources inventory, landmark, Marks Histori- cal Rehabilitation Act, and structure. With anticipated changes to the ordinance, terms such as building official, Certified Local Government, Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act, contributing resource, dangerous building, design guidelines, Landmark, Land- mark District Plan, Mills Act, neighborhood conserva- tion area, non-contributing resource, ordinary mainte- nance and repair, structure of merit, survey, will also merit inclusion. COMMISSION Declares who will be responsi- ble for carrying out the respon- sibilities described. Usually, this is the preservation commis- sion. Sub -topics include: Creation and Membership Establishes the existence of a "Cultural Heritage Commis- sion." Commission members are typically appointed by the Mayor with City Council ap- proval. Members usually have to meet certain qualification requirements —such as residing in the city or owning real prop- erty. Experience in fields related to design and preservation also may be required. 0 Section 15.52.030(A) creates Winter & Company • RACESTUDIO City of Napa, California • Preservation Ordinance Project the Cultural Heritage Com- mission, but only as "an advisory body on histori- cal preservation matters." Powers and Duties should be handled in a separate section. The creation of the commission should simply create it, period. Section 15.52.030(A) also lists the membership criteria for the Commission. In order to meet CLG requirements, these membership criteria are inadequate. Removal from Office Provides that, with just cause, the Mayor and/or City Council may remove members of the Commission. • Does not exist. Inclusion is optional. • Appropriate language could be: "The Mayor may, with the approval of the Council, remove any member from the Commission for just cause." Vacancies Outlines procedures for filling vacancies on the Commission. • Does not exist in the Ordi- nance. • Currently, the City Clerk advertises the vacancy and Council interviews and votes on applicants. • A quicker process is by may- oral appointment.. Consider language such as: "A va- cancy in a seat on the Com- mission shall be filled by ap- pointment for the remainder of the term of the former member. The appointment shall be made by the Mayor and shall be subject to ap- proval by the Council. Each appointee shall possess the qualifications required for the seat being filled." Operating procedures Establishes that the commission shall adopt rules of operation and procedures for conducting its business. (The procedures themselves are typically a sepa- rate document. In some. cases, these procedures apply to other city commissions as well.) • Section 15.52.030(B) states that the Commission "shall establish rules and regula- tions for its organization, procedure and implemen- tation of its powers and duties." This statement is adequate. Powers and Duties Establishes the focus for the commission. This may include what areas of review are gov- erned by the commission as well as what authorities the commission may have (such as surveying, adopting guidelines, property acquisition, etc.). The education of the public at large and the advocacy for historic preservation are often key du- ties that the commission should undertake, and should be in cluded in this section (if not under its own heading). • Section 15.52.030(C) lists thirteen (13) such powers and duties. These provisions are adequate except no clear authority to review and issue a Certificate of Appropriate- ness is granted. • Appropriate language could be: "Approve, approve with conditions and/or mitiga- tion measures, or disapprove applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness, subject to appeal to the City Coun- cil." District Boundaries/Jurisdic- tion Defines the jurisdiction of the proposed ordinance. All properties noted within these described boundaries are sub- ject to review for a Certificate of Appropriateness and/or de- molition. • Section 15.52.040(C) pro- vides for the review of des- ignated resources but does not mention any specific area boundaries. This should be amended. Commission Meetings Establishes minimum require- ments for meetings. May indi- cate that the commission will meet at least monthly, except when it has no business pend- ing. Also may provide that meetings be open to the public (usually pursuant to state stat- ute). • Does not exist, but should be provided. • Appropriate language could be: "The Commission shall meet at least once each month, unless there is no new business scheduled." 1 U J Winter & Coinpany City of Napa, California • Preservation Ordinance Project Annual Reports Establishes that annual reports to the city council should be presented. This is to ensure that the existence and operations of the commission continue with the city's blessing. These reports can be simple or very detailed (especially if meeting CLG requirements). • Does not exist in the Ordi- nance, but should be pro- vided. • Currently the CHC meets and reports with Council every January. Also, staff summarizes the issuance of CAs. • Appropriate language could be: "The Commission shall prepare a report to the City Council summarizing the past year's activities of the Commission. This report should state the status of preservation in the city and recommend any improve- ments which the Commis- sion deems necessary." Commission Training Provides for the on -going train- ing of the commission. This usually defines that training from a professional consultant might be required. It is neces- sary for the longevity and qual- ity of the commission. • Does not exist, but should be provided. • Appropriate language could be: "The Commission shall participate in training pro- grams from time to time. These may include special Commission study sessions, which shall not be a regularly scheduled meeting, or other training programs provided in the state or nation. At a minimum, all members shall attend one training session annually. Staff Assistance Defines how staff may assist the commission in administration of its duties. This may include ability to conduct administra- tive reviews of certain work as delegated by the commission. • Does not exist, but should be provided. This chapter should assign specific personnel or city departments to act as staff to the Commission. It should also provide the framework for staff review, although this concept can be discussed in another chapter. HISTORIC RESOURCES Provides for the listing (in an official register) of, individual landmarks, structures of merit, historic districts, or neighbor- hood conservation districts. Sub -topics include: Designation Criteria This section provides that the City Council has the authority to designate cultural resources upon the recommendation of the Commission if it meets certain criteria. This objective criteria makes it easier for staff to defend any designations in a court of law. The designation criteria typically highlight what elements of buildings or dis- tricts merit designation. • Section 15.52.040(A)(1)-(2) & (B)(1)-(2) provides that the Council may designate resources upon the Commis- sion's recommendation. No criteria or basis for this recommendation exists how- ever, and should be includ- ed. Cultural Resources Eligible for Designation Provides .that an on -going list of cultural resources eligible for designation can be maintained by the City. Having this survey allows that City to designate resources as the need arises, and not go through the sometimes lengthy investigation process: • Does not exist, but should be included. • Currently the City does have. a Historic Resources Inven- tory, however. Survey Methods Defines how a survey will be undertaken. This section further establishes criteria for the designation of historic resources. It also establishes whose role it is to undertake the survey —be it the commis- sion, staff or an independent consultant. Does not exist, but should be included. Several of the tools available for identifying resources include placing buildings within an historic context, taking a reconnaissance sur- vey, or performing an in- depth, property -by -property survey. Winter & Company 3 City of Napa, California • Preservation Ordinance Project Designation Initiation Defines who may request that a neighborhood, property or structure be surveyed and of- ficially designated. Usually the commission may request such establishment based on the official survey. Property own- ers can also nominate cultural resources for designation. • Section 15.52.040(A)(1) & tajW provides that only the Commission can initiate such procedures. This should be amended to include City Council or any person. Appropriate language could be: "The designation, repeal or modification of a desig- nation may be initiated by the Commission, the City Council, or by any person, organization or entity." Designation Hearing A public hearing should be conducted before the Commis- sion. This hearing should be properly noticed, at a fixed time and place. • Section 15.52.040(A)(1) states that "the council shall hold a public hearing within ten days of written notice to the property owner..." This statement is adequate, but the notice information could be expanded or referenced to other City codes or State statutes which discuss this in greater detail. Designation Process Establishes. the procedures to follow for the nomination and designation of cultural re- sources. Defines specific tasks for the Commission and staff, as well as procedures for filing applications and appropriate time periods. • Section 15.52.040 roughly outlines some of these pro- cedural criteria. However, it is buried within other non - related text and should be in its own section. Designation Resolution Before an historic district is established, the map setting forth the district's boundaries must be submitted to and ap- proved by resolution by the City Council. Also defines what agency will be responsible for the official recording of the district(s). This is usually at the County Recorder's office. • Section 15.52.040(A)(2)-(4) & B 2 - 4 provides for such designation by resolution. However, it is buried within other non -related text and should be -in its own sec- tion. Designation Notification Designation notification to other relevant city agencies and departments is used by some communities so that after a resource is designated, any ac- tions pertaining to that resource shall have been made with the knowledge of the designation. • Does not exist, but should be included per California statute. Designation Appeal Provides the applicant with the right to appeal any designation recommendation made by the Commission. Appeals are usu- ally made to the City Council. • Does not exist, but should be included. Repeal of Designation Provides that the City Council with the recommendation of the Commission may consider the repeal of a designation in the same manner provided for inclusion. • Does not exist, but should be included. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS Certificate of Appropriateness Required Provides the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness (CA) to protect designated properties, or those subject to review. This section describes who must obtain a CA, where to obtain an application, the basis for approval or denial and the basic criteria for review. • Section 15.52.040(C) pro- vides that "any owner of property... within a historic district... is required to re- ceive a certificate of appro- priateness." Also Resolution No. 97-016 provides factors to be con- sidered by the Commission in determining whether to approve or deny the applica- tion. Winter & Company 4 '! City of Napa, California • Preservation Ordinance Project The CA process needs to appear, in whole, in one place —preferably the Ordi- nance. Topics discussing the application, time limits, and other city permits also needs to be included. Demolition . Some communities provide extra protection to properties located within a local historic district. Where not all proper- ties might be subject to review for a CA, greater protection can be. afforded for the demolition of structures. Therefore, this section simply provides the basis for commission review on all applications for demoli- tion. • Section 15.52.040(D) pro- vides that "any owner of property ...on the city's his- toric resources inventory is required to receive a CA... before undertaking demoli- tion." This statement is ad- equate protection for. those "listed" resources. Minimum Maintenance Requirements Provides for the "minimum maintenance" of a structure to prevent the loss of historic material and detail. Does not allow structures to reach a point of hazard where they might be condemned and razed by health and safety issues. Puts the burden of responsibility on the property owner. • Does not exist, but should be included. Application Describes the existence of an of- ficial application which must be used in order to obtain a CA. • Does not exist, but should be included. General Development Prin- ciples Defines overriding develop- ment principles for develop- ment within a local historic district. Provides firm legal basis ;for the adoption of de- sign guidelines. Whereas, if the design guidelines are ever challenged (i.e. for vagueness), then the principles (as provided in the ordinance) can still be applied. • Resolution No. 97-016(E) vaguely provides these ba- sic principles. This section needs to be strengthened and included in the Ordinance. Decision Time Limit, Places a time limit on the review process once an application has been filed. This is a safeguard for the applicant, so the process does not go on forever. If the Commission fails to act within a specified number of days, then the application is approved as submitted. Does not exist, but should be included. Approval Required Typically states that no other city permits may be issued for a property involving a landmark until a CA has been received. This helps to establish priori- ties within the various city de- partments that are not always in communication. • Does not exist, but should be included. Appeals Provides the applicant with the right to appeal any decisions made by the Commission. De- pending upon the municipality some appeals go to either City Council or a specific Board of Appeals. Also may define what the appeal may be based on. Some states base appeals on the review process only; whereas, other states require that the entire application be reviewed again. • Section 15.32.090-120 pro- vides for appeals, in the de- sign review process. This should either be cited as a pertinent source or reworked specifically for the Commis- sion's review process. Staff Approval In some communities the City Council and/or Commission has granted review and ap- proval powers to city staff. This can certainly expedite the pro- cess for many applicants and help the Commission to focus on the more difficult issues. However, clear boundaries for review need to be established. Consider creating'Landmark District Plans to provide this framework. • Does not exist, but should be included. Winter & Company 5 City of Napa, California • Preservation Ordinance Project DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATELY DANGEROUS STRUCTURES Demolition of Landmarks Provides a framework for the immediate demolition of land- mark structures that have been damaged and are in an emer- gency situation —often a public health and safety issue. Out- lines procedures for staff and/ or a sub -committee of the Com- mission to go -into the field to make immediate determination of the structure's fate. This sec- tion is pertinent in earthquake prone areas. • Does not exist, but the Cali- fornia SHPO has draft legis- lation available. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP Economic Hardship Provides for the appeal of a applicant on the grounds of economic hardship. The burden of proof, however, is placed solely on the applicant. Typi- cally, the applicant must prove that the requirements of the commission would be beyond their financial means. Also defines what documentation is needed to prove such economic hardship. • Does not exist, but should be included. PRESERVATION INCENTIVES Preservation Incentives Since historic preservation ef- forts are typically perceived as the "more expensive" al- ternative, many communities provide incentives to property owners who successfully under- take them. These incentives can be spelled out in the ordinance or the framework can simply be established there. Either option merits inclusion. • Does not exist, but should be included. • If a list of incentives is to be included in the Ordinance, then consider these options: Architectural Review Ex- emption, Building Permit and Planning Application Fees, Certificate- of Appro- priateness Fees, Any park- ing incentives permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, Streetscape Improvements in Historic Districts, State Historical Building Code, or Historical Property Con- tracts. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES Enforcement Defines what city staff or de- partment will be responsible for, the enforcement of -these provisions. Sometimes com- missions do not have any staff and must undertake organiza- tion and enforcement duties; whereas, other communities incorporate enforcement duties into existing departments (such as building inspection). • Does not exist, but should be included. • Currently part of the Fire Department. Is this where it should stay? Violation a Misdemeanor Defines that when a property owner undertakes a project without commission review or does not follow commission recommendations, the property owner has committed a misde- meanor. Fines and penalties are spelled out in this section as well. Some communities, provide for the appeal to such civil penalties. Depending upon the circumstances and the appeal body, fines can either be reduced, waived or, in limited instances, recovered. • Does not exist, but should be included. Winter & Company ' City of Napa, California • Preservation Ordinance Project 111 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Issuance of Licenses and Per- mits Defines the responsibility of the issuance of permits and/or Certificates of Appropriateness. Usually an extension of the planning and zoning depart- ment, if one exists. • Does not exist, but should be included. Waiver Enforcement of building codes for historic properties can be difficult for some building officials. One option to make this task easier, is to give the Building Officer the power to waive requirements that do no endanger public health but would hinder the ability to pre- serve the landmark. • Does not exist, inclusion is optional. • Appropriate language could be: "The Building Officer of the City shall have the power to vary or waive any provi- sion of Napa Building, Elec- , trical, Housing, Mechanical or Plumbing Codes, pursu- ant to such Codes, in any case which he determines that such variance or waiver does not endanger the public health or safety, and such action is necessary for the continued historical preser- vation of a Landmark." Maintenance of Records Defines where all official notes of record, including meeting minutes, surveys, CA applica- tions, will be kept. Also defines the length of time which must expire before these records may be destroyed, if ever. • . Does not exist, but should be included. Severability Provides that if any section, clause, provision or portion of an ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected. • Does not exist, but should be included. ' Winter & Company 7 Winter & Company ' Fort Collins is an example of an integrated code, in which Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code covers the core components of the preservation program. Some pieces, however, are located elsewhere ' in the code. All of these parts will be reviewed. Looking Forward ' The analysis of the preservation review processes should look forward as well as backward. That is, while it must consider how reviews have occurred in the past, it should also look forward to the types of reviews that are likely to occur in the future. For example, to what extent does the city anticipate addressing recent past resources? Or does it plan to make more use of neighborhood conservation overlays? These ' also may influence the way in which development review should be considered. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND MEETING FACILITATION Public participation will be planned strategically and meetings must be organized to engage participants in meaningful activities. We will conduct these sessions in four general categories that are designed to appeal to a wide range of people: • Community Open House/Workshop This is designed to engage the greatest numbers of people and to high- light a diversity of ideas. It is interactive and helps build consensus. • Focus Groups These appeal to special stakeholders who wish to participate in more specific discussions about matters of interest to them. In these ses- sions, special concerns are addressed and information related to specific issues is collected. • Personal Interviews These meetings are used for key individuals whose advice is critical to the success of the project and who may not be able to attend group meetings. They may address implementation strategies as well as specific design issues. • Peer Review Panel A peer review panel can help to quickly compare the Fort Collins system with other communities. We have coordinated these in dif- ferent ways, to fit the circumstances. For this assignment, these are some options: Private Sector Professionals ' A panel of representatives from development and design professions in other communities would be assembled to respond to preliminary assessment findings and recommendations. The work session would Page 3 M r ani aw= M City of Napa, Cali Step 1. Preliminary Staff Consultation • Preservation Ordinance Proiect Conceptual Application is Submitted Step 2. Staff Conducts Conceptual Design Review . (a) (C) (e) Applicant may work with Staff to refine project (b) (d) Applicant may work with Staff to refine project Formal Application is Filed Formal Application is Filed Step 3b. Staff Conducts Final Design Review Step 3a. Cultural Heritage Commission Conducts Final Design Review Approved (g) Not Approved (h) Approved (g) Notes: (a) Staff may consult with a Commissioner if the need arises. (b) Staff determines that the Proposed Project is a Major Alteration to a Contributing Resource or New Construction; and therefore, Final Review shall remain with the CHC. (c) Staff determines that the Proposed Project is a Minor Alteration to a Contributing Resource or to a Non -Contributing Resource; and therefore, Final Review can be Delegated to Staff. (d) Applicant is scheduled for the next CHC meeting, but may seek staff assistance in advance. (e) Applicant may schedule final design review with staff as soon all submittal documents are complete. (f) Within 30 days of Staff's decision, the CHC can call-up the project in order to discuss issues which have been brought to its attention. (g) Approval or conditional approval can be granted for a project. If conditional approval is granted,. the CHC can have staff verify that the application was amended appropriately or the applicant may re -appear before the Commission. Upon final approval, the applicant receives a Certificate of Appropriateness and may proceed with other city permit processes (i.e. building permit). (h) The CHC also has the authority to deny a proposed project as submitted. If a proposed project is denied, the applicant may re -apply or appeal the decision to City Council. Winter & Company • RACESTUDIO 1 City 0 Step 2a. (c) Staff Applicant Conducts may work Conceptual with Staff to Design Review refine project Formal (e) Application Step 1. (a) is Filed Preliminary Staff Consultation i Conceptual Application is Submitted (b) Step 2b. (d) Applicant Staff may work Conducts . with Staff to Final Design refine project Formal Review Application is Filed Step 3. Cultural Heritage Commission Conducts Final Design Review I I _ I I _ I I (f) Approved (g) Not Approved (h) Approved (g) Notes: (a) Staff determines that the Proposed Project is subject to review before the full CHIC. Potential thresholds for determining if a project is subject to review could include: multi -family, size, responding to context or seeking a variance. (b) Staff determines that the Proposed Project is subject to staff level review. (c) Applicant is scheduled for a CHIC meeting when all submittal documents are complete, but may seek staff assistance in advance. (d) Applicant may schedule final design review with staff as soon as is necessary. (e) Staff may consult with a Commissioner if the need arises. (f) Within 30 days of Staff's decision to "Approve" a project, the CHIC can call-up the project in order to discuss issues which have been brought to its attention. (g) Approval or conditional approval can be granted for a project. If conditional approval is granted, the CHC can have staff verify that the application was appropriately amended or the applicant may re -appear before the Commission. Upon final approval, the applicant receives a Certificate of Appropriateness and may proceed with other city permit processes (i.e. building permit). (h) The CHIC also has the authority to deny a proposed project as submitted. If a proposed project is denied, the applicant may re -apply or appeal the decision to City Council. Winter & Comfynny • RACESTUDIO 11 �r r 'r � 'r rr 'rr +ri■ ,ram � .� � � �r � r rr rr rr CHC Sub - Preliminary Committee, with Staff p___J roject is Staff, Conducts Consultation scheduled Conceptual Design Review (b) Step 1. Conceptual Review (a) Applicant works with (d) Applicant works with (C) Staff Conducts Final Design Review Cultural Heritage Commission Conducts Final Design Review Final Approval (e) Granted at CHC meeting by Consent Cal- endar Step 2. Final Review Approved (f) Not Approved (g) V Approved (f) Not Approved (g) V Notes: (a) CHC Determines that Proposed Work is a Major Alteration to a Contributing Resource or New Construction; and therefore, Final Review shall remain with the CHC. (b) CHC Determines that Proposed Work is a Minor Alteration to a Contributing Resource or to a Non -Contributing Resource; and therefore, Final Review can be Delegated to Staff. (c) Applicant must wait until next scheduled CHC meeting, but may seek staff assistance before the meeting. (d) Applicant may schedule final design review with staff as soon as is necessary. (e) After Staff recommends project approval, then before a Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued, the application is automatically placed on the CHC's consent calendar. This allows the CHC to have the final decision. The CHC can either approve all projects placed on the Consent Calendar or pull certain projects which it deems necessary off the calendar and discuss it as a regular business item. (f) The CHC can either grant approval or conditional approval for a project. If conditional approval is granted, the CHC can have staff verify that the application was amended or the applicant can be required to re -appear before the Commission. Upon final approval, the applicant receives a Certificate of Appropriateness and may proceed with other city permit processes (i.e. building permit). (g) The CHC also has the authority to deny a proposed project as submitted. At this state, the applicant (after a certain number of days/months has passed) can re -apply or appeal the decision to City Council. i h1inter & Compnuq • RACESTUDIO 3 0 City of Napa, California • Preservation Ordinance Project Preliminary Staff Consultation M CHC Sub- Cultural Approved (f ) Committee, with Heritage Applicant works with Staff, Conducts Commission a ore ine prolec Conceptual Conducts Not Approved (g) (a) Design Review Final Design Review (b) (d) Staff Final Approval Approved (f) Applicant works with Conducts (e) Granted at Staff to refine project Final Design CHC meeting (g) by Consent Cal Not Approved Review endar Step 1. Conceptual Review Step 2. Final Review Notes: (a) CHC Determines that Proposed Work is a subject to review before the full CHC. Potential thresholds for determining if a project is subject to review could include: multi -family, size, responding to context or seeking a variance- (b) CHC Determines that Proposed Work is a subject to a staff level review. (c) Applicant must wait until next scheduled CHC meetings, but may seek staff assistance before the meeting. (d) Applicant may schedule final design review with staff as soon as is necessary. (e) After Staff recommends project approval, then before a Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued, the application is automatically placed.on the CHC's consent calendar. This allows the CHC to have the final decision. The CHC can either approve all projects placed on the Consent Calendar or pull certain projects which it deems necessary off the calendar and discuss it as a regular business item. (f) The CHC can either grant approval or conditional approval for a project. If conditional approval is granted, the CHC can have staff verify that the application was amended or the applicant can be required to re -appear before the Commission. Upon final approval, the applicant receives a Certificate of Appropriateness and may proceed with other city permit processes (i.e. building permit).. (g) The CHC also has the authority to deny a proposed project as submitted. At this state, the applicant (after a certain number of days/months has passed) can re -apply or appeal the decision to City Council. r Winter & Company • RACESTUDIO 4 ASSESSING LITTLE ROCK'S DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM July 11, 2002 The City of Little Rock engaged in an evaluation of its Design Guidelines for the MacArthur Park Historic District in 2002, and retained Winter & Company to facilitate the process. In the course of conducting this review the consultants conducted a quick analysis of the overall historic preservation program. In reviewing the materials related to the r' Little Rock Historic Preservation Program, as well as information gathered in the pub- lic workshop in April of 2002, the success of.the program and of the Commission's existing design guidelines are clear. This is not to say that minor modifications to pro- cedure or clarification of design guidelines and preservation policies would not strengthen the program, but rather there is a solid foundation with a qualified staff, I' good administration, consistent rules and regulations and an overall program that is based on nationally recognized policies. This paper provides a look at the City's preservation system and recommends program improvements. In an accompa- nying paper the consultants recommend improvements to the design guidelines document itself. These two papers to- gether provide a strategy for strengthen- ing historic preservation activities in the City of Little Rock. WHY HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN LITTLE ROCK? Across the nation, thousands of communities pro- mote historic preservation because doing so con- tributes to neighborhood livability and quality of life, minimizes negative impacts on the environ- ment and yields economic rewards. Little Rock is a part of this movement. Little Rock is an important river front city with one of the most unique histories. in the South, that is only now becoming understood. Because it is rich in historic resources and offers an outstand- ing quality of life, it continues to attract develop- ment that challenges the community to seek cre- ative ways of protecting its character. Preserving historic resources is a part of an overall strategy of maintaining community identity and livabil- ....................................... This paper presents the following topics: • Why Historic Preservation in Little Rock? • Relationship with Zoning and Other City Policies • Historic Design Review : • Preservation Program Recommen- dations ........................................ Across the nation, thousands of communities promote historic preservation because doing so contributes to neighborhood livability and quality of life and yields economic rewards. page I Little Rock Historic District Commission ity. As Little Rock continues to redevelop, a goal is to maintain its ties to the past through the pres- ervation of its architectural heritage which is re- flected in its historic resources. Therefore, historic preservation should be an important part .of the community's economic development strategy through heritage tourism. Heritage tourism, a .growing national movement, includes travel to natural, historic and cultural attractions and fo- cuses on historical authenticity, sustainability and local involvement. The underlying objectives of heritage tourists are consistent with those of the City of Little Rock: Preserving and enjoying the historic resources of an authentic Southern river front city in a natural, cohesive and consistent way. Little Rock is well -positioned to take advantage of its rich collection of historic resources and use heritage tourism to strengthen its economic base. Preserving and promoting the community's his- toric resources in such a way as to expand the heritage tourism market promise to provide an increased and improved level and mix of retail and commercial activity, a larger and stronger tax base, increased investor confidence and a more stable role for the downtown area as a major com- ponent both of the historic resource base and of economic activity. Preservation of the built environment also provides fundamental link to the past. Preservation of the built environment also pro- vides a fundamental link to the past. Many of Little Rock's buildings tell its story of unique his- toricaldevelopment and preserving these re- sources creates a sense of place for residents and provides visitors a connection to this heritage. The City's eleven National Register Historic.Dis- tricts, as well as the Quapaw .Quarter, in and around downtown Little Rock offer many advan- tages to obtaining this goal. While historic land- mark status works to preserve individual struc- tures of merit, the creation of historic districts that encompass a collection of buildings provides the city with the opportunity to approach preserva- tion policy efforts in a cohesive and coordinated manner. In addition, the designation of MacArthur Park as a Local Historic District provides a policy plat- form upon which efforts to ensure the integrity of this particular district —as well as other, future local districts —can be regulated through the use of standards and design guidelines. Alterations to existing structures, both those considered to contribute to the integrity of a district and those considered non-contributing, and the design of new infill buildings must meet design criteria in- tended to preserve the visual quality of the MacArthur Park Historic District prior to receiv- ing a building permit. Therefore, Little Rock poli- cies imply that the MacArthur Park district will remain a dynamic, living neighborhood. What does Preservation mean? • Preservation means using historic proper- ties. Preservation means accommodating change. Preservation means maintaining key charac- ter -defining features. Preservation does NOT. • Stop development • Require making improvements, or • Require removing inappropriate changes that have happened page 2 Design Review Program Evaluation RELATIONSHIP WITH ZONING AND OTHER CITY POLICIES Many communities organize their historic pres- ervation programs as a series of interrelated -tools, each of which contributes to the protection of cultural resources. Some of these elements are officially adopted regulations; others may be poli- cies that are used informally. While it is not es- sential to have all of these components in place, it is good to think about them as a coordinated package of policies and tools. Design guidelines function best when they are a part of a coordi- nated set of policies and administrative tools that promote preservation in the community. Most cities now include a strong preservation element in their planning efforts. The guidelines are usually developed in the con- text of an historic preservation ordinance that provides for design review. Sometimes the design guidelines are included as part of the ordinance itself. Sometimes the guidelines are adopted through an administrative process after the ordi- nance is passed. Ideally, this ordinance is based on policies defined in a Preservation Plan, which itself should be a component of the community's Comprehensive Plan. How then, will preservation help accomplish ob- jectives of the comprehensive plan? Specifically, how will design review relate to the other ele- ments of the comprehensive plan? How will the guidelines fit with other development regulations and policies, such as zoning ordinances, build- ing codes, subdivision regulations and design review regulations? Knowing the answer to these questions is especially important when the guide- lines are to be are used for mandatory review. Sometimes topics such as set -backs, building height, building orientation, and mass and scale are covered in the both the guidelines and the zoning ordinance. In these instances the City should have a clear policy on which regulations are to take precedence for design review..purposes and obtaining a building permit. 11113 u1n1 1 111UMI MV3 a LyPlcai orgamzauon or commumry poncies, which organizes historic preservation programs, including design review, as a part of a Preservation Plan that establishes goals for preservation and provides the theoretical basis for design review. This Preservation Plan is in turn a component of community -wide Comprehensive Plan. page 3 Little Rock Historic District Commission HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW Everyone wants a smooth review process. They want it to be as brief as possible and occur with the minimum amount of cost to all parties, but how do Commission members decide if a pro- posal is appropriate? How do applicants know if they have received a fair decision, and how can they improve their chances of receiving approval? Managing the review system diligently, and in particular conducting the review session in an organized manner, will help to answer these ques- tions. Policies and guidelines should be clear Planning policies and design guidelines should be easily understood by laymen, and provide use- ful ideas for solutions that may be appropriate in the area. They should be based on local charac- teristics and local goals. The guidelines should be organized in a logical sequence that follows the typical design process. They should be spe- cific, but not restrictive. The Commission should be "prod uct- oriented " The Commission's operating style should have a positive attitude, with a sense of purpose that the group is providing a community service. Com- mission members should remember that many applicants do not understand the process, and they will need a clear explanation of the steps in the review process and its purpose. The operating style for the meeting also must con- vey a willingness to be flexible where appropri- ate, but always within the context of the community's adopted policies and guidelines. It is important to focus on the big issues, not to be- come bogged down with petty details, especially at conceptual stages of review. Judgments should be based on design guidelines, and not personal biases This means that Commission members must dis- tinguish between a concept they personally dis- like, as a matter of personal taste, but which meets the guidelines, and one that is objectively inap- propriate because it clearly violates the estab- lished guidelines. Remember that the guidelines represent community policy and that the Commission's role is to administer them, not to draft new guidelines on the spot. Consistent procedures should be followed A good review procedure contains more than an agenda of applications to be heard, it includes steps that facilitate an orderly sequence of infor- mation exchange. Design review should be FAIR to each and every applicant. Design review should be PREDICTABLE insofar as an applicant should expect a favorable review if they appro- priately apply the design guidelines to their project. Design review should be EFFICIENT and not waste anyone's time, including Staff, the Com- mission and the applicant. Design guidelines represent community policy and that the Commission's role is to administer them. I I page 4 ' Design Review Program Evaluation PRESERVATION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Design review functions best when it is a part of a coordinated set of policies and administrative tools that promote preservation in the commu- nity. This section presents information about what goes into a good preservation system, comments about Little Rock's current system components and recommendations for improvement. The components of a successful historic preser- vation program include: • preservation goals • historic property survey • commission operating procedures • design guidelines • incentives • education program • system maintenance strategy • historic preservation ordinance • enforcement Preservation Goals Identifying goals for the long-range character of a community or historic district is the starting point for most successful preservation programs. The goals will serve as a benchmark system to monitor the health and success of preservation initiatives. These goal statements should also re- late to other planning issues associated with the area and may also include more specific policies such as those that relate to styles for new con- struction, relocation of historic buildings, -,and regulation of color. In 1996, the Mayor established an Historic Preservation Task Force to develop a blueprint for preservation activities in the city. The Task Force identified goals and objective for de- sign review, incentives programs, the nomination of historic resources, educational outreach, busi- ness investment, and funding. While the "Recommendations of the Mayor's Historic Preservation Task Force" has identified several goals and objectives for preservation ef- forts in Little Rock, the document is six years old and does not address the design character of the City's historic neighborhoods. The Commission should revisit this previous effort and expand the scope of the document to include future charac- ter of the historic districts. The exercises that were used in a public workshop facilitated by Winter. & Company (April 4, 2002) is a good starting point. Historic Property Survey Another step in preservation planning is estab- lishing a base of information that can be used to identify historic resources and develop an under- standing of their significance. A survey identifies each of the historic resources in a community. It should include a description of the general char- acter of a district or neighborhood, as well as a listing of all of the properties surveyed, .indicat- ing their significance. During the design review process the Commission should then use the sur- vey to determine the significance of a property and apply the design guidelines accordingly. Some communities use a tiered survey that indi- cates varying levels of integrity for historic struc- tures. These tiered surveys are much more dy- namic and provide a community with a clear pic- ture of which properties can easily be restored and receive a higher ranking in the survey ratings. Between 1986 and 1999 the City undertook sev- enteen separate architectural surveys for many of its National Register and Local Historic Dis- tricts. While the surveys only identify those prop- erties that are Contributing and Non -Contribut- ing (as opposed to a tiered rating system), they serve the City well and no improvements are rec- ommended. Commission Operating Procedures The means by which design review occurs is es- tablished in a set of procedures that define a uni- form due process for all applicants, to be heard in a similar manner. A written definition of proce- dures include the submittal requirements, outlin- ing the types of documentation that will be re- quired for review. Other procedures define the process for scheduling a hearing with the com- mission. Finally, provisions should exist for how the commission will conduct the meeting itself. The Little Rock Historic District Commission uses a very complete and detailed set of by-laws. No improvements are necessary. page 5 Little Rock Historic District Commission Design Guidelines The heart of design review is a design guidelines document that addresses specific design issues. Design guidelines are the standards by which the Commission evaluates the appropriateness of proposed changes in a Local Historic District. The guidelines also inform developers in advance of the criteria on which their designs will be judged. Guidelines and the review process also play an educational role, increasing understanding and awareness of design issues in historic areas. . Currently the City has only one locally designated historic district for which'design review author- ity exists —the MacArthrur Park Historic District. The design guidelines for this neighborhood are reviewed and updated as a part of this project in a separate document. Other design guidelines also exist for historic districts and neighborhoods in Little Rock but these documents are for use by the Capital District Zoning Commission. Incentives Many communities provide incentives to stimu- late investment in historic areas, encourage prop- erty owners to follow appropriate rehabilitation procedures, and even assist those with limited budgets. Even though preservation procedures generally are less expensive than alternatives that would alter historic character, incentives enhance any good preservation program. Some commu- nities offer financial assistance, in the form of loans or grants, to reduce rehabilitation costs to property owners. Others offer tax relief, either as income tax credits, sales tax waivers, or reduced property taxes. Others provide technical assis- tance, to facilitate appropriate rehabilitation tech- niques, while some communities provide stream- lined review processes and offer special flexibil- ity in building codes. Although the City has some incentives available to property owners —such as tax credits, a revolv- ing fund and technical assistance grants —many other programs (such as those discussed above) are used elsewhere. The City should look into ex- panding their incentives program to make pres- ervation efforts a more integral part in the devel- opment of the community. Education Program While many residents clearly understand the ben- efits of preservation in Little Rock, others would benefit from information that more directly high- lights the connection of preservation with eco- nomic well-being and quality of life issues. A pro- active approach is needed that makes creative use of the media, special programs, institutions, and other communication devices to inform the com- munity of the positive aspects of preservation in the Little Rock. Educational outreach should include programs for Realtors, contractors, property owners and business license holders. The Arkansas Real Es- tate Commission licenses Realtors and real estate brokers operating in the state and operates a con- tinuing education program for its members. Real estate professionals are important participants in preservation, because they often are the first line of communication with potential property own ers, at a time when it is vitally important that these prospective buyers are presented with accurate information about the value of the historic prop- erty they may be considering purchasing. The City should sponsor a certified "continuing education" course on preservation for Realtors. The course should include topics such as basic preservation theory and practices, resources avail- able to homeowners, requirements of Little Rock's design review system, and examples of good and bad restoration projects. The course could be of- fered just to real estate professionals serving the Little Rock metropolitan area, or it could be ex- panded and offered to Realtors from around the state but be held in Little Rock, using local ex- amples. Similar programs exist throughout the country and are very popular in the real estate community. Certification programs are not just for real estate professionals, however. Some communities have also initiated certification courses for contractors and tradespersons. The best laid plans for a reha- bilitation project backfire if ill -prepared contrac- tors that do not understand appropriate tech- niques are hired. Homeowners in an historic dis- trict are strongly encouraged to seek out those construction professionals who understand the intricacies of working on an old house. page 6 Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado include short presentations of their own experiences in other systems as well.' We recently used this approach for an assignment in Grand Junction. Public Sector Professionals An alternative approach invites staff from other communities with well - recognized preservation programs. They would review and comment in a similar manner. Communities that we have worked with recently who have integrated preservation review with other development review and who seek efficiency in their programs include Oklahoma City; Monterey, California; Galveston, Texas; Aspen, Colorado and Durango, Colorado. - One option is to conduct a Private Sector peer review panel in Phase 1, and a Public Sector peer review panel in Phase 2. Another option is to bring a panel in from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. We would work with the City to determine Old Town Firehouse rehabilita- the best approach for this project. tion, by Downing/Leach Archi- tects - Nore Winter, Principal - in -Charge Page 4 Review Program Evaluation The City should also encourage local. property owners along with planners, architects, and de- velopers to become aware of local historic pres- ervation issues by making classes, workshops and publications on technical procedures for restora- tion of historic properties available to them. Prop- erty owners require more information about such procedures and they need to know how to find materials and -craftsmen who can execute reha- bilitation work in an appropriate manner. All of these programs yield results and the City, in co- operation with other preservation organizations, should: • Design an ongoing program for technical restoration training and stage hands-on workshops • Sponsor tours to rehabilitation projects and demonstrations elsewhere in the region Distribute publications that provide "how- to'.' information • Develop technical publications • Establish a reference shelf for rehabilitation at City offices and public libraries System Maintenance Strategy Design review is a high -maintenance system. It requires continuing evaluation of the process and its results. Ideally; the .Commission will review its -actions on an annual basis to determine if ad- justments in the system are necessary. Guidelines may be amended to respond to new development trends, procedures may be re -written to simplify review times and ordinances may be adjusted to clarify the powers of the Commission. In addition to regular system reviews, the Com- mission and Staff should stage special orientation and training sessions to hone design review skills. Training sessions are an essential component of a preservation program, should be conducted at regular intervals, and should be mandated by the preservation ordinance. Such training sessions also provide opportunities for commissioners to discuss theoretical issues in a neutral setting rather than during an official hearing. Training sessions should include topics such as: • Critiquing designs • Design review theory and implementing technical aspects of design review • Managing discussions at a review meeting • Implementing the technical aspects of hearing procedures • Fulfilling the requirements of due process Enough cannot be said about the need for ongo- ing training for a design review Commission. The City should continue to do all it can to make such opportunities available —including a line item in the City's annual budget. Historic Preservation Ordinance An historic preservation ordinance provides the legal basis for the use or establishment of these elements of a preservation program. A good or- dinance provides enough legal detail that it can stand up in a court of law, but provides enough flexibility that a City and Commission can con- tinue to use it for many years despite changes in building and construction ideas and technologies. Division 2 of Article IV (Historic Preservation) in Section 23 of the Little Rock City Code serves.as the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. While the ordinance addresses some of the topics nec- essary in such an ordinance some additions and clarifications should be considered by the Com- mission. Following is a list of comments in order of occurrence in the Ordinance: • Table of Contents — A Table of Contents does not currently exist, but is needed for ease of use. • Organization — Overall the Ordinance is very unclear. The beginning jumps right into "public hearings" for establishing an Historic District (and the Ordinance does not even say that they can exist). Next is the "final report content" of an Historic District Ordinance. Then "definitions" and "find- ings" are presented. This is very confusing and the section titles do not tell what is about to be read either. page 7 Little Rock Historic District Commission Section 23-97: Members — The Ordinance states that the. Commission shall have five members: 2 property owners, 1 Quapaw Association member, and 1 professional (architect). The Commission's By -Laws, on the other hand, include a similar list but it is not exactly the same. The By -Laws should be amended to reflect the Ordinance. Section 23-100: Duties generally — The only enumerated duty is to make a "state of preservation" report. It is not clear if it is to be done annually or not. An expanded list of duties that accurately reflect the Commission's charge should be developed. Section 23-126: Definitions: Height — Height is defined as the vertical distance "...from the lowest finished floor to the highest point". Does this mean that a house with a high foundation and no finished basement is the same height as a house on slab? This definition should be clarified. Section 23-128: Findings; purpose — This section should introduce the entire ordi- nance, not be located on the fourth page. Section 23-129: Created; boundaries — This section title does not describe -what is about to be read. Whereas, it is the second Historic District section, but it is not for the general establishment of any Historic District, only for a specific one: the MacArthur Park Historic District. Each individual historic district should be established in its own enumerated Ordinance. Section 23-130: Appeals — The fact that a Commission decision can be appealed before the fact that design review even exists is awkward. This organization needs to be revisited. Section 23-131: Exemption — Should be entitled "Ordinary Maintenance." Also, Section 23-13.2(a) (2) discusses ordinary maintenance as well. These topics should be merged. However, Section 23-132 (a) (2) states that replacing siding and trim is considered ordinary maintenance and doesn't require a COA as long as it is the same material. Could a property owner could consider wholesale replacement if they felt it necessary? This needs to be clarified. Section 23-132: Certificate of Appropriate- ness — This is a pretty good section but legally only applies to the one Historic District created in this Ordinance. This should be clarified to apply to all [future] historic districts. Section 23-132(a)(5)... Additions — "Decora- tion of the exterior should blend with, if not specifically match, existing exterior fea- tures." The ordinance should not get into this level of design review. Section 23-132 (a) (6)(d) ... COA Not Re- quired — "Repairs, alterations, new con- struction, moving, and demolition that are not visible from the street." While this may be generally acceptable in some instances, there is no provision for landmark struc- tures. So an historic kitchen wing on a landmark structure can be removed as long as it is to the rear? This topic should be revisited and clarified. . Section 23-133: Same — This title is odd. It is assumed that it refers to the COA section. Also, "demolition" and "economic hard- ship" are in this section. Without a table of contents, these would be hard to find. These topics should appear in their own section. Section 23-133(d): Stay of Demolition — The Commission can stay demolition for six months. But then they can take an addi- tional month to decide. Then, if they want, they can delay for one more month. This is confusing and should be restated simply. Section 23-133(e)... Economic Hardship — Burden of proof is placed on the Commis- sion, not the applicant. Many communities have found it more beneficial to place the burden of proof on the applicant, however. page 8 Enforcement A weak link in many design review systems is the enforcement of approved designs which re- ceive a Certificate of Appropriateness. It .is un- pleasant for many municipalities, but it is a nec- essary part of successful design review adminis- tration. At the initial stage, regulations should clearly state that all relevant building permit ap- plications require approval of the Commission. Ordinances should also clearly define the respon- sibility for monitoring construction to assure that it complies with the approved submittals, as well as prescribing penalties for non-compliance. Reviewing the enforcement mechanism of Little Rock's design review system is -outside the pur- view of Winter & Company's contract with the City. An internal review, by the Commission, should be conducted if there are concerns with enforcement. Basically, enforcement relies upon a cooperative effort between the Commission, the City Attorney, the Zoning Code Official and the City Council. i This report was prepared by: Review Program Evaluation SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Therefore, there are several suggestions for strengthening the overall historic preservation program within the City. The key findings are: 1. Policies and code provisions should be re- examined. Where necessary conflicting or ambiguous statements or documents should be updated to reflect current and national trends in preservation, as well as policies based on years of case law. 2. Revisit and refine goals for historic preser- vation. These goals should reflect both city- wide concerns and individual neighbor- hood and historic district design character. 3. Review and update current design guide- lines in use by the Commission. 4. Develop an education program that pro- motes historic preservation to not only individual property owners, but to design professionals, contractors and Realtors as well. 5. Implement and fund a strong historic preservation incentive program 6. Provide a strategy for and fund on -going training for ALL design review commis- sions, not just historic preservation. 7. Enforce the decisions made by Staff and the Commission. Winter & Company —Consultants in Urban Design, Urban Planing, Historic Preservation, and Design Review Main Office: 775 Poplar Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 (303) 440-8445 http://www.winterandcompany.net Branch Office: 239 Critz Street Starkville, MS 39759 (662) 338-0047 page 9 Little Rock Historic District Commission page 10 ABOUT THIS PAPER Addressing Mass & Scale is a fun- damental issue related to demoli- tion, additions and new construc- tion in historic neighborhoods. Today, planners must understand how underlying zoning regula- tions support or hinder preserva- tion objectives.This paper summa- rizes a basic approach for manag- ing neighborhood character, which can be applied to historic districts as well as other older, traditional neighborhoods. For More Information: Winter & Company 1265 Yellow Pine Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 303.440.8445 www.winterandcompany.net Neighborhood Character: A Preservation Issue Older established neighborhoods throughout America have been sleeping giants that have now awakened. To some it is a night- mare. To others it is an exciting op- portunity. Perhaps as much as a decade ago, residents began to notice that something was happening to the character of these places that they called home. After many years of apparent stability, change was oc- curring. Original cottages and bun- galows were torn down, and were replaced with larger structures that were out of scale. Alarms went off. At first, neighbor- hood associations responded by trying to get historic districts estab- lished. This designation provided a detailed set of design guidelines and a process of review that could consider mass and scale as well as architectural character. In some cases, the city also offered an al- ternative "conservation district," which focused more on block char- acter and less on preservation of the details of individual buildings. While these are useful tools, they may not be practical for all situa- tions, more may be needed to sup- port a preservation approach. Design review systems, such as historic districts, require substan- tial manpower to administer both in terms of staff and volunteer commissions. In addition, applying the historic district approach may go beyond the neighborhood's goals. And, even when these sys- tems are in place, there is a linger- ing conflict with underlying zon- ing provisions. For example, while the traditional height of buildings in a neighborhood may be one sto- ry and design guidelines call for compatibility, the base zoning of- ten permits a structure of thirty-five feet, well in excess of a single sto- ry. This sets up an expectation that may be contrary to the guidelines. Combined Height Limits, Durango, Colorado: uurango Height Elevation Standards New standards for neighborhoods in Durango limit wall height at the side yard set- back. Winter & Company — e Plate Height Limits Diagram In Carmel, California, revised height stan- dards established a lower mass on the front of the lot to maintain traditional scale. R EAR Ot Apr- 13 S I D E A FRONT Durango Ridge Offset A new context -based zoning designa- tion in Durango establishes a maximum length for wall and roof planes. This di- vides the overall mass into "modules" that reflect traditional building sizes. Terrell Hills,Texas, Bulk Plane Modeling: A computer model compares a proposed maximum building envelope (transparent form) with a potential new building using draft revisions to the code. How did this conflict arise? Basic dimensional standards were set forth in most zoning ordinanc- es, which originally dated from the 1930s and often were revised in the 1950s. In most cases, this lim- ited the size of a building by es- tablishing minimum setbacks from the property lines and an overall maximum height limit. These pre- scriptive standards were intend- ed to provide adequate separation of buildings for health and safety reascns, but at the same time they established an overall "theoreti- cal building envelope" within which one could develop. For most peo- ple, this envelope went unrecog- nized. Early on, residents seldom con- structed houses to that maximum envelope. A smaller home was sufficient, either by taste, budget or tradition. As a result, residents considered their neighborhoods to be "complete." While renova- tions and small additions might oc- cur, the area was, by and large, thought to be "finished" in terms of the overall number of buildings and their mass. Today, these older neighborhoods are hot spots of investment for ex- isting owners who seek to expand their homes and for developers and new buyers. In some cases, additional pressure comes from zoning that permits higher densi- ties as well. Even though density itself does not necessarily mean that a new building will be larger than those seen traditionally, the two factors (mass and density) can be linked in a dynamic that results in larger structures. While many people seek to tame this trend, there are two sides to the question. Even though "neigh- borhood protection" is a strong motivator, some planners argue that cities should go through cy- cles of investment, which keeps them vibrant and healthy. The in- flux of new owners helps support community schools and servic- es, improves property values and can enhance the efficiency of pub- lic transit. One resident has described it as viewing building from the "two sides of a fence" that runs along a property line. If you are the own- er of the property, the ability to ex- pand or to sell and realize a profit is important. If you are the adjoin- ing neighbor experiencing a mas- sive new building, and a loss of sun and privacy, your perspective is different. Both viewpoints must be acknowledged. Neighborhood Conservation Takes a Turn What can be done? These are some steps that com- munities are taking: Adjust the underlying zoning A key step is to fine-tune the basic prescriptive standards in the zon- ing ordinance to be more context - sensitive. Some basic calibrations are: Adjust the maximum building height. In some cases, reducing the over- all height limit may be needed; in other cases, reducing the height along sensitive edges may be more important. (See below). Define different height limits based on the position on a lot. Setting a lower wall height limit at the minimum side yard setback line, for example, can help reduce impacts on neighbors, without necessarily limiting overall build- ing height. Different systems may limit the front wall height, or that along side lot lines. Some address the rear lot. Set a limit on wall length. For example, establish a maximum front wall plane length that reflects the traditional width of buildings along the street. While the over- all width of a new building may be permitted to be greater, the front portion will appear to be in scale with the context. Establish a floor area ratio. This sets a relationship of the max- imum building area to the size of the lot, with the idea that these should be in proportion. Revise building set -back provision. In some cases, existing codes may prevent one from constructing a new house in line with neighbor- ing structures, because the front yard setback minimum is greater than the traditional development pattern. Describe the existing context in objective terms In order to develop standards that are more context -sensitive, the existing character must be doc- umented. This may include de- scriptions of basic framework fea- tures, such as the configuration of blocks, streets and alleys, as well as specific patterns of building ar- rangement, setbacks, mass and scale. Looking for patterns of con- sistency is a key part of this analy- sis, but defining the range of diver- sity is important as well. This may help to identify the range of "toler- ance" that may exist for accommo- dating change. It is also important to match this analysis of context with other community planning goals related to livability, growth and economic health. Illustrate the potential effects of revised standards. The numbers placed into a code can yield unexpected results. The best way to predict the potential outcome and test to see that the changes will yield a compatible so- lution is to generate three-dimen- sional representations, or "mod- els," of alternative standards. This helps the community shape policy in an informed manner. Computer imagery is particularly easy to ap- ply to this task today. Modeling Potential Development Scenarios: Existing Context Computer models for Atlan- tic Beach, Florida, show the established neighborhood context. This served as a base for testing alternative regulations. Existing Regulations The computer models show the potential cumulative impact of new building that could reach the maximum potential building enve- lope. One earlier traditional house remains in the image for comparison. Proposed Regulations A computer model illus- trates the potential char- acter of a new infill build- ing designed to meet pro- posed standards. Winter & Company Provide options for discretion- ary review. Changes to existing zoning stan- dards should address many is- sues, and keep the system sim- ple to administer, but in some situations a more discretionary ap- proach may be needed. When an owner seeks to execute a design that doesn't quite fit the mold but could still be compatible, they may wish to have an option for using al- ternative standards, or even enter into a design review process us- ing guidelines. In other cases, the city may wish to modify a regula- tion to respond to an unusual site condition. These "alternative com- pliance" methods can provide flex- ibility in a system that otherwise is prescriptive. They should be de- signed, however, to be used only as needed, such that the overall system is efficient, fair and predict- able. This may be built into the ba- sic zoning as an alternative track, or it may be enabled through an overlay, the way historic district designation typically is. Where is this going? With current trends, we will see planning tools becoming more context sensitive, responding to traditional development patterns. At the same time, residents will Testing "Sculpting" Standards, Denver, Colorado: also recognize that neighborhoods are not frozen, and that change can be sculpted to respect context and even can be beneficial. These refinements will come with exten- sive debate, and it is important to provide a forum for reasoned dis- cussion in which all viewpoints can be heard. The stakes are high. The character of our neigh- borhoods and the success of our cities will be greatly influenced by this movement. It is important that we all work to craft creative solu- tions that will enhance livability in all of its aspects and maintain the character that we value. Testing Compatibility of New Construction: Denver, Colorado: A series of bird's eye and street level study models tests how different sculpting requirements, such as stepping down a building form, or adding a one-story porch, can help to address compatibility considerations in an established neighborhood. s�r Neighborhood Conservation Takes a Turn Defining Neighborhood Development Patterns, Denver CO SNAP-07AREA -AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SNAPSHOT AREA - BUILDING PLACEMENT DIAGRAM LOT FEATURES LOT Sae: 35/40' BY 145' LOT STARE & ORIE—ON: LONG, NARROW, PERP TO STREET LOT W,oTN: NARROW, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS LOT Coven * 50% & GREATER BUL-G Ott'll non. GEN. WITH LOT 8.1—Pu E.T FORWARD PAe Nc ACCEasil-o—oN: GEN, REAR ACCESS EXTRACT OF THE SNAPSHOT AREA -AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (LEFT) EXTRACT OF THE SNAPSHOT AREA - BUILDING PLACEMENT DIAGRAM (RIGHT) BUILDING PLACEMENT Front Setback: 20' SME SETakcks: 5' REAR SETeAck. 20' ne pnomgmpn oI congress Park above The photograph oT a duple, in Congress shows the shallow Ironl yards, cons slant Pa above shows how many traditional I nt setback arW general Nro storycoat- multi -lamely structures lit wrtNn Ne gen- aoterprevalent wdhm typology A t. aril; cn.—.r.f the smgle-lamily atuc- lutes around them. The phorograph o/Congress Park above As shown m Ne pnofpgraph o/ Congmss snows me ronaafenf pattern o7 Iran( Park above. Al lends to bare the most parches and lack of rmnl vehiote use an conkooe p,n,m of sorest trees among eas pravelen! In typology AI. typologies. { As drown above. Iredional multi-tamdy ate"10 men; m Iypology Al one, recog. ao the general scale and co—oer.1 As mown abore. ode setbacks ale small Marcy angle-lamly development and lot oo—g— genera ly high in IY- pology Al The derinmg elements of typology Al ale As shown above. Here wally a can- not always — in contemporary walenl pallem o/ delachetl alley -ballad inell on,'.- garages m typology Al BUILDING FORM Building Height. 2-2.5 Plate Height: 15'_22' Roof Ridge Haight 25'-35- Roof Form: FRONT GABLE, SOME HIP Entry (P.MD-0nentanon) CONSISTENT FRONT PORCH Transparency (Window Location & %). 30-50% Transparency A montage of maps and context photographs helps to illustrate typical development patterns in one type of neighborhood in Den- ver.This information is helping the city craft new zoning standards that are tailored to differing contexts. A kemadve InfU7 - Model D SiODELD-. T.I-pW:s.,:air—b— &"-eee,..rayaake�pR III— emwcr M ar,mcr Rak _ eap. y clec[a.g he aoa Ili ae. dc—m s d a tywbab" of hi, rRe1'I nosh _b da,_ odiaq__ M.—+.n "--IT't-eaakdaalh4e— w wir-ai'vrrr++42L 0.1 I'd ❑ 9-e-4- r_oupebiaio I ❑ saaa-aa ackaaw-A& ❑ swr.rnr waimw ❑ Npl L-hnpw>Me ❑ fJa CeepeWe ❑ �.M Crgrai ak iM ib7 WJi Aaillmad r1_.. ^J In a survey of residents of Chevy Chase Village, Maryland, more than 40% of the property owners responded. Of those, 75% stated that relating to the existing context was "very im- portantrrto maintaining community character. I Winter & Company 5 Illustrating Existing Development Regulations: The Potential Building Envelope, as de- termined by height limit and setbacks Floor Area that is exempt from FAR regu- lations Floor Area that is considered "Occupied" Three simple computer models illustrate the nuances of the existing development code in Winnetka, Illinois Modeling Potential Impacts of New Development Standards, Galveston, Texas: Historic neighborhood edge KEY STANDARDS • Larger buildings are oriented to minimize shading of neighborhood. • A transitional edge has a lower height limit. • View corridors are maintained. • Building massing is articulated to reflect traditional building modules. • Parking is internal and screened. • Street edges are active. Proposed new standards for Seawall Boulevard in Galveston,Texas include principles for respecting sensitive neighborhood edges. This sketch illustrates the potential cumulative impact of development as it abuts historic neighborhoods. 6 Neighborhood Conservation Takes a Turn E' IWinter & Company ' QUALIFICATIONS I •••••••••• • ' 1 was impressed by • Winter & Company brings a national perspective in preservation • your sensitivity to the ' ' planning and program implementation strategies from across the • need to clarify each • nation. At the same time, Winter & Company has completed several • issue ... I hope we can • assignments in the Fort Collins area that have helped us develop an • work together again ." • ' understanding of local resources and preservation issues. • • Stanley M. Smith, Preservation Systems Experience • Executive Director, • ' Winter & Company consults nationwide in preservation programs and . Historic Boston, Inc. • related administrative strategies. Services include preparing historic • • preservation plans, urban design plans and neighborhood conserva- • • • • • • • • . • ' tion strategies, conducting design review training and drafting design guidelines. Many assignments include consideration of the develop- ment review process, the relationship of staff review to. boards and ' commissions, and the interaction of discretionary design review with prescriptive zoning standards. ' Seeking ways to efficiently administer preservation programs is an underlying objective in all projects, and many have specifically included an assessment of existing preservation systems and recommenda- tions for their improvement. The office has provided strategic planning services in preservation for ' many communities and governments. A partial list follows. ' Representative Projects: APA Workshop on New issues in Preservation ' For the second year in a row, Winter & Company will stage a special half -day training at the national planning conference. This AICP-certi- fied course focuses on new issues in preservation and how planning departments across the country are addressing them. These include ' Recent Past Resources, Sustainability, Neighborhood Conservation, and Integration in Planning Programs. Aspen, Colorado Review of preservation policies and guidelines ' Boulder, Colorado Analysis of mass and scale standards for established residential neighborhoods, with zoning revisions Dubuque, Iowa Downtown design guidelines, including historic districts and transitional areas; recommendations for review system implementation are also included. Page 5 The Recent Past in Local Preservation Programs A NEW APPROACH OR BUSINESS AS USUAL? Many communities are now considering how to treat properties of the ' " Recent Past," those buildings that represent post -World War II develop- ment in America that now may have historic significance. A substantial number of buildings, sites and neighborhoods are in this group. These ' include residential suburbs, as well as mid-century commercial strips, thematic "Googie" buildings and early Modernist designs. There is sub- stantial debate about the significance of these properties and how they should be treated. If traditional preservation theory is applied and these properties are des- ignated as historic landmarks and districts, will the public understand? ' And what does designation mean in terms of how alterations may be per- mitted? Can planning departments even handle the administrative re- quirements of this expanded historic resource inventory? Finally, should the same standards for treatment used for earlier resources be applied to these newer types? These are some of the questions that planners face today as they re- spond to public interest in the thousands of properties that are now reach- ing 50 years of age, and even other buildings that are not so old but that may be considered historically significant? ' 1. The term "Recent Past' includes a wide range of property types P P Y YP and contexts. A one -size -fits all approach may not be viable because of ' this diversity. 2. There are many advocates for the Recent Past. This expands the ' range of viewpoints about how to deal with these resources. Planners must include these groups in the preservation planning process. ' 3. The focus has been on gaining recognition for these resources. Now the discussion needs to expand to the way in which these properties are managed. This includes how they are designated and how design re- view is handled. There is much less debate about how to treat them once their are designated. Planners will face this issue in updating their pres- ervation policies as listing of resources increases. This Working Paper was prepared for the APA Workshop, "Emerging Trends in Historic Preservation" at the National Planning Conference, Las Vegas, April, 2008 by Nore Win- ter. For More Information: Winter & Company 1265 Yellow Pine Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 303.440.8445 www.winterandcompany.net I Winter & Company Note that this paper focuses on buildings of the Recent Past.There are landscapes and other types of structures that also may have sig- nificance, and some of the ideas discussed here may apply to them as well, but these property types merit a different discussion. Recent Past Resources in As- pen, Colorado: To many people, Aspen is known for its Victorian era buildings, especially down- town. But the city has also been an avid advocate for modern designs. The con- tinuum of design thinking is a part of the city's heritage. Other lodges of the 1960s expressed a different approach to western resort ar- chitecture. Many other buildings in Aspen reflect contemporary design approaches of a range of noted architects. INTRODUCTION TO THE RECENT PAST What is "The Recent Past?" The term "Recent Past" is used by some in the preservation profes- sion as a general category to de- scribe properties that date from af- ter World War II and even more recently. In part, it helps to convey a concept that these properties are considered to be different from earlier properties that we normally consider historically significant. The Recent Past includes: Properties that recently have be- come 50 years old and are there- fore eligible for consideration for historic significance using conven- tional criteria. Properties that are even younger than 50 years that may also be eli- gible, using more specialized crite- ria for determining significance. What we consider to be the Re- cent Past is ever -changing as time moves on. A few decades ago, some preservationists were argu- ing that early roadside architecture should be recognized. But we now Bavarian inspirations were reflected in early ski resort architecture. are in agreement that, as Ches- ter H. Llebs, Professor Emeritus of History, University of Vermont notes: `Today the preservation of 1930s and 40s shop fronts, historic signs, and especially highly iconic examples of roadside architecture has become a mainstream activi- ty." Now, the Recent Past usually means newer, post-war buildings. What types of proper- ties are included in the Recent Past? There are several ways that pres- ervationists classify Recent Past resources. Some organize them by use. Others organize by a com- bination of styles and materials; still others by themes. These are some of the major categories: • Post War II Subdivisions • Gocgie Highway Strip Commercial • Modernist Commercial buildings • Public facilities • Custom -designed homes Bavarian commercial building being al- tered in October, 2006. Preserving the Recent Past IDENTIFYING RECENT PAST RESOURCES How do preservation- ists identify Recent Past Resources? As with older resources, Recent Past properties must have histor- ic significance. What is significant about Recent Past re- sources? Properties may be significant be- cause: • They represent the emergence of an automobile - oriented society. • They represent the way of life in America during a period of significant growth and change. • They represent key movements in architectural design, such as Modernism and the International Style. • They represent experiments in new materials, building technologies and manufacturing processes. • They represent important events in history. Is determining signifi- cance for Recent Past resources different from traditional ones? Yes and no. Some preservation- ists argue that these resources are part of a continuum and should be evaluated using the same crite- ria as earlier property types. They also maintain that they should be listed in a similar manner. There is, however, a counter -ar- gument afoot. Others contend that there are too many of these re- sources, and that the public will not understand, or support, the desig- nation of vast numbers of these re- source types. This raises a ques- tion about the connection between designation and protection. Should Recent Past Resources be held to a higher standard for listing? Some argue that because there are so many properties that are reaching an age to be considered historic, we will be overrun with them. This is a legitimate question. If we use the same methods for listing and for "protecting" these re- sources, the system at a local level could become overburdened. Are we simply coming to understand the sig- nificance of these re- sources? Is the current "awakening" to sig- nificance of the Recent Past a typ- ical phase for recognizing a period of history? There was a time when Victorian buildings were consid- ered garish and of poor taste. At that time, an earlier generation of buildings from Federal to Greek Revival, was valued, but later building types were not. In time, of course, Victorian and Edward- ian era properties, and even entire neighborhoods and downtowns, came to be valued for their historic significance. Log Kit Buildings (This is actually a subset of the Rustic Style.) ( Early 1950s to 1970 in Aspen) Pan Abode is a brand name for log kit houses available beginning in 1492. These buildings were also manufactured by other companies as early as 19.18.'ihe logs were milled, tongue and groove and came pre-cutand notched for easy assembly. The system was popular in Aspen for ski lodges and modest homes. These often employed fixed pane windows. Characteristics: • machineshaped lugs • proieeting second story gable ends • exposed rafter tails large roof overhangs • floor plans rarely con form tothetopography of the site 77re lwrrse at -' i I IN. Iiapkurs was I1ru11 in 1956 and is an axanrple of a log di1 Inrihliug. The Apsen, CO design guidelines in- cludes descriptions of Recent Past build- ing types. Winter & Company Johnie's Broiler, in Downey, California has been the focus of a recent preservation controversy. Substantially demolished in 2007, a rescue plan is now under way. Should communities use a higher standard of significance to des- ignate Recent Past re- sources? Some communities designate Re- cent Past resources, but limit the numbers that can be listed by ap- plying more rigorous criteria. The properties must represent the ``best" of the type, in terms of de- sign and quality of construction. They do because: • There is concern that the public will not support a broad designation because they do not value most of these properties. • The community cannot administer a conventional protection system (that is, design review and permitting process) for a larger number of properties. What is the point of the "Fifty -Year Guide- line?" The fifty-year threshold has been a long-standing guideline for classi- fying which properties may be con- sidered for historic significance. The concept has been that a "cool- ing off" period of time is needed in order to provide a perspective on what may be historically signifi- cant. Reaching the fifty-year mark, however, does not in itself mean that a property IS historically sig- nificant. It simply serves as a first - step test on the path to determin- ing significance. Is the Fifty -Year Guide- line still relevant? Yes, the age guideline remains rel- evant for many property types and for many communities. Howev- er, there are communities that use shorter time spans as thresholds. Some have adopted a forty -year limit, and some others use thirty years. These shorter time spans come with a heightened under- standing, however, of what may constitute historic significance. Preserving the Recent Past DESIGNATING RECENT PAST RESOURCES A survey may identify Recent Past resources that have historic signifi- cance, but then what? Should they be entered into the local register of historic resources, or are there other options? That is, it's impor- tant to separate "Identification" from "Designation" at least at the local level. (Note that some state laws convey some level of protection automat- ically to inventories that identify historic resources, even if they are not officially listed in a local regis- ter.) What are the options for designating Recent Past resources? Recent past resources may be designated in these ways: National Register of Historic Places To be listed in the National Regis- ter, a special criterion, Criterion G, is used for properties less than 50 years old. The regular provisions for consideration of effects of fed- eral undertakings apply, as do the tax credit incentives. State Historic Register A state register often mirrors the National Register listing, although several states include properties that sometimes would not meet Park Service criteria. This listing brings a certain degree of recog- nition and may also be linked to other state regulations and incen- tives. Local historic register Under local ordinances, communi- ties may create their own criteria for designation. While many mod- el their process after the Nation- al Register, some take a different approach. These typically involve discretionary design review, with guidelines applied by a preserva- tion commission. This approach is particularly useful for individual "landmarks" from the Recent Past, and also in cases where a Recent Past resource stands within a his- toric district, even of older proper- ty types. Conservation District In some cases, an alternative list- ing is used. In some more recent neighborhoods, for example, cit- ies may use a conservation dis- trict approach. A conservation dis- trict may take many forms. Some are very similar to historic districts, and use a discretionary design re- view system. Others use prescrip- tive standards. The emphasis is usually on protecting the overall character of a neighborhood, dis- couraging demolition and assuring compatible infill. There is less fo- cus on alterations to historic prop- erties themselves. This approach may be useful for a 1960s residen- tial subdivision, where the overall character as perceived from the street is the primary concern. Zoning Overlay Other communities adopt finely tuned zoning standards that are form -based, to promote compati- bility. These are administered by zoning staff in a prescriptive man- ner. These regulations also can discourage demolition, and pro- mote retaining overall neighbor- hood character. In terms of dealing with the Recent Past, this approach may be of value for an older com- mercial strip, for example. There will be community conversa- tions about significance and the al- ternatives for listing and protection that planners must be prepared to address, as well to help frame an informed discussion. Flagstaff, Arizona: A Route 66 storefront is framed by older facades of the early twentieth century. Winter & Company The National Trust for Historic Preservation hosted a"Recent Past Forum" in Phoenix in March 2005. Some of the discussions from that meeting were published in the Trust's Forum Journal, Fall 2005 issue. This remains a good sum- mary of key issues and is a good starting point for planners who are seeking to gain an overview of the issues. Thematic architecture, such as the Bucca- neer Motel in Galveston, is a category of Recent Past resources. (Demolished) TREATMENT AND PROTECTION What are the "threats" to Recent Past re- sources? Recent Past properties may be susceptible to demolition or at least substantial alteration. Just as late Nineteenth Century buildings were often "modernized," there is similar pressure on Recent Past buildings. Some of the reasons: • Alterations to "modernize" the property • Replacement where land values now support more square footage • Alterations to improve efficiency and operations • Adaptation to new uses Today, there is much interest in "infilling" existing residential and commercial neighborhoods. This could place pressure upon older buildings, including Recent Past resources. Since many subdivi- sions and commercial strips are one story in height, they are ap- pealing places to increase densi- ty. Do the same standards apply? If so, how? A key is in how the "Character de- fining features" are described. Can we administer all of these resources in the same way? Identifying Recent Past resourc- es, and even listing them to a local register may be politically possible, but how will local governments ad- minister the increased number of resources? When designation occurs at the lo- cal level, there is a potential dis- connect that can occur. If the ap- proach for treatment is not clearly defined for Recent Past proper- ties, then "knee-jerk" responses may complicate future design re- view of rehabilitation proposals. Materials Conserva- tion Issues In some cases, the buildings mate- rials, and the component systems made of them, have proven to be less durable than older building materials. Many building systems related certain types of Recent Past buildings are not necessari- ly "green." They may not be as en- ergy efficient are earlier buildings. Their repair is often difficult and re- placement in kind may be impossi- ble. On the other hand, demolition of these buildings poses another set of environmental and land fill issues. Many new building systems were tested, and some have proven to have relatively short life spans. In some cases, this may have been unexpected but in others was in- tentional, where new buildings were seen as short term respons- es to market demands. Design Issues Related to technical questions is the spirit of design for Recent Past properties and what role this plays in their preservation. The restoration of the Lever House in New York is an example. De- signed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill's Gordon Bunshaft and completed in 1952, Lever House was one of the first Modernist buildings to be saved through the landmark process in New York. It was listed in 1983, when the prop- erty was 31 years old, in response to a demolition proposal. Desig- nation was hard-won. Restoration twenty years after listing proved challenging as well. A full-scale rehabilitation was pro- posed in 2002. In developing a treatment approach, the archi- tects determined that the glass wall system was undermined by Preserving the Recent Past its own 1950s technology. Mois- ture had penetrated and corrod- ed the mullion system, and al- most none of the original glazing remained. The entire system, in- cluding glass and mullions, was replaced. In the replacement sys- tem, the plates of glass are actu- ally twice the width of the originals, because new technologies per- mitted larger sizes, and their use was a cost savings. False mullions were added to maintain the look of the original glass proportions. The New York City Landmarks Com- mission determined that this was an appropriate balancing of two objectives. That is, preserving the design character while continuing to innovate with new building sys- tems and technologies. Design Guidelines Planners working in local pres- ervation programs face a spe- cial challenge when writing design guidelines for Recent Past proper- ties. One of the signature features of many early Modernist designs was the search for technological innovation, and the experimenta- tion with new materials and sys- tems. When it comes to respect- ing these characteristics, there are two different concepts: (1) Preserve the original materi- als and systems as they are, even if they are less efficient that new ones, because they are a part of the historical record. (2) Preserve the intent, including the design concept. This may ac- commodate replacing systems with new ones that have better performance features, while re- taining overall character. Many successful rehabilitation projects of Recent Past resourc- es will incorporate some of both approaches. The concern is that, without informed discussion and appropriate guidelines, a review board may take an approach that is too narrow. Planners will need to assure that preservation guide- lines for Recent Past properties are clearly articulated to address these different views. Must there be a sepa- rate set of guidelines for Recent Past Prop- erties? Some preservationists argue that, indeed, different guidelines should be used, ones that are perhaps more "flexible" than those applied to older properties. This has some appeal, but raises a question about consistency in a preservation pro- gram. On the other hand, it may be pos- sible to apply the same guidelines, if thought is given to defining what the key features of the property are. In the conventional dogma of preservation treatment, determin- ing where an alteration to the his- toric building is appropriate relies upon a consideration of how "key character -defining features" would be affected. These features are el- ements that are essential to the in- tegrity of a resource and proposals that would diminish the integrity are generally discouraged. In a traditional historic resource, key features include the overall building form and proportions, its materials, and signature design features. These later elements are often on the front of a structure, or those portions that are prominently viewed from the public way. Fea- tures on subordinate building ele- vations are considered to be less critical, and therefore more flexibil- ity for alteration is given to them. The original design intent of a Re- cent Past property may also be a key feature. That is, if the com- position was clearly arranged to be symmetrical, then an altera- tion that would violate that symme- try may alter the perception of the original design intent. The Colorado Building, Boulder, CO: J �. The Colorado Building was an early en- trant into International Style commer- cial high rise in Boulder. Erected before the city established a height limit of 55 feet, it remains the tallest structure in the downtown. It therefore reflects a signifi- cant change in city planning policies, as well as experimentation in modern de- sign of the time. In the early 1990s, the ground level of the Colorado Building was altered. The original grid system was removed and a sloped panel system was installed. Ce- ramic tile was also introduced. Spandrel panels were also painted in a chromatic range of colors in the 1990s. Winter & Company Resources There are many web sites that ad- dress preservation of Recent Past resources. This is a short list, as a starting point. National Park Service: www.cr.nps.gov/hps/recentpast/ National Trust for Historic Preser vation: www.preservationnation.org Recent Past Preservation Network: www.recentpast.org Society for Commercial Archeol- ogy: www.sca-roadside.org/ There are also many active organi- zations in cities across the nation, including. The current project to rehabilitate the United National Headquarters in New York is a case in point. Da- vid Fixler, an architect with Einhorn Yaffee Prescot Architects involved in the project, noted in a presenta- tion before DOCOMOMO Interna- tional Conference in 2004: "How the idea of newness and its parallel of progress remain signifi- cant to the symbolism of the UN, and when to celebrate or conceal the aging process of the last 50 years will therefore become critical issues to address as the renova- tion design evolves." In formulating renovation strate- gies for buildings of the Recent Past it is often the case that the factor of original design intent is used as a tool with which to en- gage the building, in order to best determine how the history of the work might inform its renewal. With the emphasis of the archi- tecture of the Modern movement upon the building as the manifes- tation of an idea, including the no- tion that modern architecture re- flects the transitory nature of the modern world itself, material per- manence was not a dominant con- cern in expressing an architectur- al concept." Suburban ranch neighborhood in Denver, CO. 8 Preserving the Recent Past PRESERVATION AND SUSTAI NABI LITY Current Planning Issues Planners will face many situations where sustainability and historic pres- ervation principles need to be addressed together. This means that they will need to broaden the discussion about how historic buildings, ener- gy conservation technologies and sustainable development combine to achieve community goals. ` Sustainability strategies should: 1. Acknowledge the embodied energy in historic buildings. 2. Promote the inherent energy efficiency of operating historic buildings. 3. Include sustainability principles in preservation design review guide- lines while maintaining the integrity of historic resources. Sustainability through "green" building has recently returned to the preservation agenda. Much de- bate now centers upon how build- ing design, products and technolo- gy can enhance energy efficiency, reduce CO2 emissions and pollu- tion and slow the growth of glob- al warming. With recent interest in planning for new development that is resource conserving, and in retrofitting existing buildings to be more efficient, the preservation community is experiencing new pressures to "go green". This pres- ents questions for planners about how historic buildings fit into the sustainability movement, and how to address specific design ques- tions related to historic buildings and energy conservation. Local sustainable development policies should encourage preser- vation of older buildings, and rec- ognize that they are very efficient. While historic structures repre- sent our investment in our culture and economy, they also hold ener- gy used in their construction -and management. This `embodied en- ergy' is a central principle in any holistic sustainability policy. Sus- tainability is. essentially about stew- ardship. This is more than just en- vironmental protection, it includes cultural, social and economic sus- tainability. How are historic structures sustainable? Traditional buildings play a signifi- cant role in sustainability, which in-' cludes: • Preserving cultural heritage as social sustainability • Embodied energy in existing construction • Durable materials and building design • Energy efficiency and green design advantages Cultural Sustainability The cultural values associated with stewardship of our historic resourc- es and social history are central to the concept of sustainability. Main- taining traditional neighborhoods and historic downtowns contrib- utes to the social sustainability of economies and cultures. This Working Paper was prepared for the APA Workshop, "Emerging Trends in Historic Preservation" at the National Planning Conference, Las Vegas, April, 2008 By: Nore Winter, Carl Leith and Mary Phillips For More Information: Winter & Company 1265 Yellow Pine Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 303.440.8445 www.winterandcompany.net Documenting Energy Con- servation in Historic Preser- vation 1979, the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation published an extensive analysis of the energy conservation ben- efits inherent in historic buildings. Titled, "Assessing the Energy Con- servation Benefits of Historic Pres- ervation: Methods and Examples," the paper documented the energy required to construct a building and translated it into an equivalent of barrels of oil. While some of the data may be out of date, this study remains an important foundation for understanding the relationship of established buildings to sustain - ability. For more information see: ACHP.gov Winter & Company • 2008 Preservation is an act of recycling, re- ducing and reusing, which are funda- mental principles of sustainability. Examples of sensitive retrofit solutions should be included in design review guidelines for historic districts. These compatible storm windows are illustrat- ed in design guidelines for Telluride, Col- orado. Storm windows snouia atso nave me same sasn divisions as the original. Storm window retrofit illustration from Preservation Guidelines for Aspen, Colo- rado Energy Efficiency, and Green Design Traditional buildings were often constructed using green building principles. This is especially true for structures built prior to modern climate control systems. Historic buildings show an array of energy efficient design techniques. These include: Materials • Historic materials are often more durable and have long life cycles. • Materials used were nontox- ic (excepting more recent ad- ditions). • Materials were often locally harvested (low transportation and maintenance costs). Management • Older buildings are often more adaptable to new uses, ex- tending their lifetime of ser- vice. • Buildings were designed with local climate in mind, with systems that can respond to changing temperatures. • User-controled day -lighting and climate control system ef- ficiency. (Buildings were de- signed for natural ventilation and day -lighting). • Energy efficiency. (A Depart- ment of Energy (DOE) study of commercial building ener- gy usage shows that buildings built prior to 1920 are, on av- erage, as efficient as buildings built after 2000). Embodied Energy The embodied energy of a histor- ic structure is the irrecoverable en- ergy which has already been ex- pended in bringing the structure to the condition it currently exists in. This includes the energy used in its construction and the energy that went into the extraction, pro- cessing, manufacture and trans- portation of all the building com- ponents and materials. The other part of an existing structure's em- bodied energy is its "recurring" em- bodied energy: that used in its re- pair and maintenance. Embodied energy is part of the en- tire life cycle costs of a building, the environmental footprint of its con- struction and the actions to main- tain and extend it during its life. If a building is demolished this em- bodied energy is lost, aside from some limited recycling of materi- als that may be possible. It cannot be converted to fuel a car, for ex- ample. The demolition of a historic struc- ture will discard this energy invest- ment. It will also cause construc- tion waste to build up in landfills and expend energy to do so. Because preservation minimizes the use of resources and saves both new energy and embodied energy, it can yield a smaller en- vironmental footprint and has a smaller impact on global warming. Sustainability and Historic Preservation Review of Historic Preservation Processes, Fort Collins, Colorado • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "You've done an excellent • :job of identifying the issues .and options. Thanks for the • good work!" • Henry S. Jackson :Current Planning Manager • : Lexington -Fayette Urban .County Government • Lexington, Kentucky • ...•...•••••••••• Preston Farm Adaptive Reuse Study, WKJ Architects -- Nore Winter, Principal -in - Charge Denver, Colorado Update of citywide zoning, using context -based standards for all es- tablished residential areas and mixed -use development Fort Lauderdale, Florida Analysis of neighborhood conservation strategies citywide, and revi- sions to zoning and deign guidelines Juneau, Alaska Evaluated the city's design review system, revised its preservation ordinance and prepared design guidelines for the downtown historic district. Conducted meetings with stakeholders, city staff and agencies to refine the system components. Little Rock, Arkansas Conducted an evaluation of the city's preservation ordinance, guide- lines and review procedures and prepared recommendations for improvements. Napa, California Conducted a review of the city's preservation ordinance and procedures, recommended changes and then prepared draft ordinance. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Oklahoma City employs several layersof development review including basic zoning standards as well as design district overlays. In some cases, special development plans also have requirements affecting development. In addition, the historic preservation program sometimes overlaps with these jurisdictions. Winter & Company is working with the urban design division of the planning department and the Office of Economic Development in a project to coordinate review systems and avoid duplication and conflicts. This involves a comparison of standards in each of the layers of development review, considerations of who conducts review, and the process to be used. San Jose, California The city council has requested a review of the preservation system, specifically related to preliminary findings of eligibility for historic significance, staff roles, and criteria for listing. Winter & Company is assisting the planning department in this effort. The project engages preservation advocates, the development community and city staff in developing strategies to enhance the system. Other city branches, in the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority, are also involved. Telluride, Colorado Winter & Company helped the Town of Telluride build its preservation program in the early 1970s, and has continued to provide assistance over the years in updating design guidelines, conducting training ses- sions and refining administrative components. In a current assignment, we will facilitate a work session with Town Council, the Planning and Page 6 PRESERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE r TECHNOLOGIES Compatible and Complementary Energy efficiency technologies, both passive and active, now command much attention and have considerable potential to reduce our environ- mental footprint. Many of these are easily adapted to historic structures, while also preserving their integrity. Three Technology Principles: There are three key principles to incorporate in public policy related to historic resources and sustainability: 1. Think holistically. Single issue definitions do not represent sustainable solutions. Don't sim- ply rely on "high tech" products. Ask what goes into their manufacture — energy consumption, mining waste, original and waste toxicity and their disposal. Where are the materials manufactured and what are the asso- ciated transport costs? How cost effective are they? 2. Use technology creatively. Retrofit historic buildings with sustainability technologies that will maxi- mize the efficiency of existing systems while also extending the life of the structures''. 3. Seek common design solutions. Sustainability solutions can be designed to respect the integrity of histor- ic resources and community guidelines. should reflect these shared ob- jectives. Development codes and design guidelines should promote this approach. Value Historic Materials Some preservationists dealing with recent past resources even wor- ry that we are now coping with the failure of so many building "mira- cle" products and materials from the recent past. Industrial synthet- ic products may not be what they seem, may not have been tested beyond what is necessary for ini- tial marketability, and may be in- herently flawed. This is aside from the energy required and the waste generated in their production and transportation. These same con- cerns extend to new building prod- ucts as well. Traditional materials are dura- ble and generally are more en- ergy efficient than the replace- ment alternatives for roof, wall and window materials. Lighter industrial products frequently require significant secondary insulation systems. The inherent properties of ex- isting building materials may be more energy efficient than additional insulation, e.g. ther- mal mass and insulation char- acteristics of traditional dura- ble materials such as brick, stone and wood. The National Trust's Sustain - ability Initiative The National Trust for Historic Preservation has long recognized the connection between historic resources and energy conserva- tion. It first began drawing atten- tion to this link in the 1970s, and more recently has expanded its ef- forts into a broader Sustainability Initiative. As they say:"The green- est building is the one that is al- ready built" Its web site is a good source for up-to-date research: For more information: preservationna- tion.org Winter & Company • 2008 Very little energy is lost through a pane of glass. This part of the window, where most leakage occurs, should be sealed to conserve energy. ebfost heat loss is associated with air leakage tluough gaps in an older miodmo that are the result of a lack of maintenance, rather than loss of energy through the single pane of glass found in the historic window. Design guidelines for preservation in Du- rango, Colorado, were adopted in 1995 that included information about the dy- namics of energy loss related to window assemblies. Planners should promote such educational materials in guidance documents. Manage the Building Efficiently Energy management involves effi- cient conservation, collection, cir- culation, and generation: These can often be achieved with min- imal impact upon a historic build- ing or district. Methods employed may be passive, low technology approaches as well as high tech- nology solutions. Traditional buildings have a range of characteristics that can be used to an energy efficient advantage. • Traditional buildings make maximum use of light, air and natural ventilation, without reli- ance upon mechanical means. Thermal conditioning features such as blinds, awnings and shutters provide efficient man- agement systems. • Opening windows, for exam- ple, to circulate air promotes heating and cooling through- out the day. Retrofit Respectfully • Add insulation to enhance the energy efficiency of floors, walls, roofs and attic spaces. • Be aware of the health and air circulation implications of `air- tight' buildings. • Many other simple conserva- tion measures, such as replac- ing existing light bulbs with more energy efficient ones, can be used in historic build- ings as well. • Install ground source heat pumps. • Install internal fans and porch fans for climate conditioning. • Install skylights on less signifi- cant surfaces to provide natu- ral light. • Evaporative cooling systems, including "swamp coolers", are often easy to retrofit. Fine Tune Windows • Heat loss is almost entirely through air circulation around the framing rather than through the glass. It can be virtual- ly eliminated through improv- ing the draft seals around the glazing framework. • Add storm windows, which can be installed internally with- out damage to original fabric, while maintaining external ap- pearance. Storm window addi- tions are much more efficient in thermal and also sound in- sulation than double- or tri- ple -glazed replacements, at a small proportion of the cost. Storm windows maintain . ar- chitectural integrity. • Early wood frames are a much more durable material than manufactured or synthetic al- ternatives and avoid the asso- ciated pollution issues. • There is little information on the performance of new win- dows. There is less experi- ence of their lack of durabil- ity and built in obsolescence. Many may also have a tox- ic nature to their manufacture and disposal. • It is less labor intensive for a contractor to replace windows than to repair a distinctly supe- rior original, which can encour- age them to promote replace- ment rather than repair. 4 Sustainability and Historic Preservation i Landscape for Energy Distribution and Sustainability Generation Planting trees and shrubs to Measures in use with success in - provide wind and rain protec- clude the following: tion as well as solar shade re- Under -floor radiant systems. duces the energy demands for Heat recovery systems that heating 'and cooling. This is collect ambient heat. also a carbon off -setting mea- Biomass -based energy. sure. Wind turbines sited where they • Historic landscapes often have do not adversely affect the ap- these energy management pearance and character of the principles. historic resource. Solar panels can be posi- tioned to minimize the impact upon the building and its set- ting, ideally separate from the historic building, or positioned unobtrusively on a secondary building or roof. • Micro hydro -electric turbines may also provide an option in certain cases. "Clients, architects and planners should try to ensure that pre-war and pre-1900 buildings should be conserved and retained in use... not only for their historic, aesthetic and cultural importance and embed- ded energy, but also for continuing energy conservation" - Energy Study for the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom. Jon Wallsgrove. Context 103. IHBC. March 2008. Winter & Company • 2008 5 "Sustainability (building green) and historic preservation are a natural marriage, so long as one remains mindful that Sustainability is notjust about energy conservation. Pres- ervation and sustainability involve myriad elements that can work in symbiotic and synchronized ways toward a favorable outcome. For ex- ample, preservation work is more la- bor- than material -intensive, which benefits local economies; natural ventilation afforded via operable windows can reduce the size of me- chanical equipment, especially of air-conditioning; and salvaging his- toric materials, such as wood sash, obviates the need to harvest live trees and other natural resources for the manufacture of replacement units." - Walter Sedovic and Jill H. Gotthelf "Historic preservation can - and should - be an important compo- nent of any effort to promote sus- tainable development. The con- servation and improvement of our existing built resources, including re -use of historic and older build- ings, greening the existing building stock, and reinvestment in older and historic communities, is crucial to combating climate change." - -National Trust for Historic Preser- vation PRESERVATION REGULATIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY Incorporating Sustainability in Preservation Standards and Guidelines Incorporating "green" building requirements into. zoning and building codes is now prevalent nationwide and abroad. These are usually de- fined individually for commercial and larger scale development and for smaller scale residential. An alternative track is usually provided for his- toric buildings. Whereas prescriptive requirements may provide an effec- tive avenue for improvement in new construction and major renovation of existing buildings, they may be less suited to the individual circumstanc- es of the rehabilitation and repair of individual traditional buildings. These are key regulatory elements: • Building energy codes • Codifying green buildings • Sustainability and design guidelines Building Energy Codes Energy consumption in buildings accounts for approximately one- third of all the energy used in the United States and two thirds of the total electricity demand. Energy codes should acknowledge ways in which historic buildings can be efficient. Conservation benefits can be mea- sured in environmental and eco- nomic terms. The focus on new construction and major renova- tion means that the requirements are technology and product driven. This has at least two major influ- ences: • Energy efficiency is defined as a "replacement" or "pull down and start again" exer- cise. Where (insufficient histor- ic standards, guidance or ex- pertise is available this can also be the case in local gov- ernment. The "replacement' concept then automatically translates as the first thing to consider, ir- respective of the age or histor- ical importance of the building. In this context a prescriptive standard, based upon values established for new products and construction methods, may have very limited applica- bility and much destructive po- tential. Enhancing standards for energy efficiency is a major step, and this should address existing building stock in practical ways. Codifying Green Buildings The United States Green Build- ing Council LEED system has be- come the primary yardstick used to measure "green" construction. As such it is changing the thought patterns of much of the develop- ment and building industry and achieving considerable success in improving energy efficient building standards. It is important that plan- ners take care that historic build- ings are properly credited .in such systems. • The LEED approach is a point; based certification and award system, primarily dealing with new construction and major renovation. As such it is new technology and product sales driven. . 6 Sustainability and Historic Preservation f 1 • In its current form the LEED system does not include the need to retain an existing building as "the" or "a" prima- ry concern. • Existing buildings receive more points if their materials are recycled than they would if the building remained intact. • A maximum of three points is awarded for maintaining the existing building elements in the current system, two of Which come from retaining the building shell. • The system does not recog- nize the concept of embodied energy in existing buildings. • The system does not account for projection life cycle analy- sis and costs. • There is consequently no com- parison drawn between the qualities of existing materials and construction and the alter- native of replacement and re- building. • In its current definition, the LEED system would support gutting the interior of an histor- ic building in pursuit of points. • The system is still evolving and improving from its rela- tively narrow base. • Much can be learned from al- ternative systems in Canada, Australia, the UK and Europe. (See Bibliography) • Since the efficient use and re- use of resources is the ba- sis of sustainability, the LEED system should take the reten- tion of the existing building as its baseline. Sustainability and Design Guidelines Design guidelines for historic pres- ervation should include ways in which sustainability can be ad- dressed while also preserving in- tegrity as historic resources. Re- laxing standards is not necessary if common solutions are sought. Preservation guidelines should embrace these principles: 1. Retrofits with new technologies can occur, with sensitive design and placement. This includes insu- lation, window improvements, and solar collectors. 2. Making best use of the existing building's inherent efficiency fea- tures should occur first. This in- cludes management with integral heating and cooling devices. 3. Maintaining building compo- nents in good condition helps pre- serve embodied energy, as well as retaining the integrity of a proper- ty. 4. Historic landscape concepts of- ten complement energy conserva- tion and should be maintained as well. Uhnaute the 4-W i w—of.1ar colfeciarr and,4*Shu by sot plactna rhos m mofafaper that are vuibfe from public wayx Design guidelines for preservation in Crested Butte, Colorado, address placement of skylight and solar col- lectors. "In the city of Boulder, green build- ing practices provide a response to challenging issues like managing population growth and housing trends, addressing energy and cli- mate change, protecting natural re- sources, promoting good indoor air quality, preserving historic buildings and neighborhoods, and educating members of the community about sustainable construction." Green Building and Green Points Guideline Booklet, City of Boulder, 2008 Note that revised LEED ratings are an- ticipated in the future that will provide more consideration for historic buildings. Planners. should be aware that these new standards may be forthcoming. Crested Butte experiences an extreme winter climate The burden of tine cyst of heating can be lessened through good designthat takes Lento account near cansavation measure and altcntive sources of ahergy. Additional mformetion and suggestions can be found in the Appendix to this document. 9. The use of energy conservation methods is encour- aged. a. Techniques used must be compatible with the historic rme of the town. b. Solar collection devices should not alter. simple roof lines 10. Minim&e the visual impacts of solar collectors and skylights. . Solar collectors and skylights should be parallel with the angle of the roof b. Limit the sift of skylights and the amount of roof glass. C. Locate them away from the street facade when feasible. d. Bubble skylights are inappropriate 11. Minimize the visual impacts 'f expansive areas of glass that may be associated with sun spaces. A. In Crested Butte, the amountof glass needed for solar gain is less than some people may assume It is important to follow the guidelines for solid to void ratio. See also guideline 122. b. Design fenestration patterns to be similar to those of traditional window. c Use smallar glass panes, in frames, rather than a large plate of 81, d. Large expenses of glass are inappropriate, except on first floor stmeSmu. e. The construction of a sun space should not alter the character of an Idstmic building. f Glass sluarld not continue to the edge of a wall. Comers of buildings should be solid materials, not glass, Winter & Company • 2008