Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 Study Session Agenda Packet 02-03-20 - cancelledSTUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO February 3, 2020 6:30 p.m. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Officer 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Legislative Update 2. 44th Avenue historic barn update 3. Staff Report(s) 4. Elected Officials’ Report(s) ADJOURNMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Marianne Schilling, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: February 3, 2020 SUBJECT: 2020 Annual Legislative Forum ISSUE: The 2020 Legislative Forum is on Monday, February 3, 2020 at City Hall in the City Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. The Legislative Forum is an opportunity for the City’s elected officials and staff to discuss legislative priorities, current legislation and Wheat Ridge positions/priorities for the 2020 session. Senator Jessie Danielson and Representative Monica Duran will be in attendance, and Colorado Municipal League Representative Meghan Dollar will be available to review legislation and answer questions. The Forum is anticipated to begin at 6:30pm and last one hour. Agenda: •2020 Legislative Session Preview: o Senator Jessie DanielsonoRepresentative Monica Duran •Discussion of Priority Legislative Issues: o CML o City CounciloCity Department Directors ATTACHMENTS: 1. CML Box Score of Bills2. 2020 Legislative Priorities Item No. 1 Do s s i e r | S t a t e B i l l C o l o r a d o ht t p s : / / w w w . s t a t e b i l l i n f o . c o m / SB I / i n d e x . c f m ? f u s e a c t i o n = P u b l i c . D o s s i e r & i d = 2 7 1 9 5 & p k = 3 7 8 1 o f 3 01/28/2020, 2:16 PM AT T A C H M E N T 1 Do s s i e r | S t a t e B i l l C o l o r a d o ht t p s : / / w w w . s t a t e b i l l i n f o . c o m / SB I / i n d e x . c f m ? f u s e a c t i o n = P u b l i c . D o s s i e r & i d = 2 7 1 9 5 & p k = 3 7 8 2 o f 3 01/28/2020, 2:16 PM Do s s i e r | S t a t e B i l l C o l o r a d o ht t p s : / / w w w . s t a t e b i l l i n f o . c o m / SB I / i n d e x . c f m ? f u s e a c t i o n = P u b l i c . D o s s i e r & i d = 2 7 1 9 5 & p k = 3 7 8 3 o f 3 01/28/2020, 2:16 PM Affordable housing CML is initiating legislation to clarify that inclusionary zoning for new rental housing developments is not a form of rent control otherwise prohibited by state law and restore local land use authority over development decisions to local leaders. Broadband Voters in 108 municipalities and 40 counties have overwhelmingly voted to exempt themselves from the requirements of SB 05-152. CML supports legislation freeing up revenue to bring fast, reliable broadband to underserved and unserved areas of the state. Criminal justice CML supports collaborative relationships with the state on criminal justice issues, but opposes unduly prescriptive mandates on police and court operations and procedures. Elections CML is initiating legislation to clean up portions of Title 31 municipal mail ballot procedures, and procedures for Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ballots. If passed, municipal clerks will have clear direction on municipal election timelines and ballot language standardization. Additionally, CML supports clarification of certain recall election provisions in Title 31, via the inclusion of language in the omnibus elections bill initiated by the County Clerks Association. Fire and police pensions CML opposes proposed legislation that increases the employer contribution rate to the Statewide Defined Benefit Plan by 5% over 10 years and allows the Fire and Police Pension Association Board to require future increases without legislative approval. Furthermore, CML believes the 1% increase for a new early retirement benefits allowing members to retire at 50 years of age with 30 years of service should be funded by employees. If amended to exclude unfunded contribution mandates, CML can support the portion of the bill that would increase funding of the Statewide Death and Disability Plan. Hemp CML supports maximum local control in the authority to regulate business related to the processing, extraction, manufacturing, and sales of consumable and industrial hemp. Marijuana CML supports maximum local control of medical and recreational marijuana issues. CML supports legislation and initiatives that ensure marijuana revenue is used to mitigate impacts, regardless of whether a municipality allows retail activity, delivery, or on-site consumption. Public safety CML opposes legislation that purports to remove local control on the use of radio encryption as it is an important tool for law enforcement and firefighting agencies to protect municipal citizens. Severance tax and federal mineral lease CML opposes reductions of severance tax and federal mineral lease revenue to municipalities and the appropriation of local governments’ energy impact or direct distribution revenue to finance state programs, state government administrative costs, and to backfill state TABOR refunds. CML supports referring a severance tax debrucing question to voters to protect revenues vital to impacted municipalities as well as water, wildlife, and conservation programs in the Department of Natural Resources. Sustainability CML supports sustainability and sustainable solutions to meet the needs of the present population without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. CML supports express local control to prohibit or restrict the use of certain plastic materials, as well the establishment of local standards for the use of certain containers or products. Tax authority On average, over 70% of municipal tax revenues are derived from sales and use taxes. CML and self-collecting municipalities support efforts to simplify collection efforts without impairing local control, including collection of remote sales taxes in a manner that complies with South Dakota vs. Wayfair. CML supports the state as a partner with the business community and municipalities that self-collect their sales and use taxes, but opposes any efforts to undermine constitutionally-granted municipal home rule authority to set tax policy, administration, and audit in home rule municipalities. CML discourages state sales tax exemptions that negatively impact statutory municipalities. Property taxes are also important to municipalities. CML supports efforts to solve the impacts of continued reductions of the property tax residential assessment rate. CML opposes changes to the business personal property tax that do not “backfill” reductions to local government tax revenues. Transportation Colorado’s transportation system of roadways and transit is a state and local network vital to Colorado’s future. Municipal officials support increased state transportation and transit funding that includes the return of an equitable portion of new revenue to cities, towns, and counties. A statewide solution includes planning and funding for all public roads, not just state highways. Key municipal issues Legislative Priorities of Colorado Cities and Towns20 2 0 Colorado Municipal League 1144 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203 303 831 6411 / 866 578 0936 www.cml.org ATTACHMENT 2 Meet the CML advocacy team Colorado Municipal League The Colorado Municipal League (CML) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has served and represented Colorado’s cities and towns since 1923. As such, CML is a reliable source of information about legislative issues and their impact on Colorado’s cities and towns and their residents. 270 cities and towns are members of the League, and policies are determined by members though the CML Policy Committee and the CML Executive Board. Local control and home rule The Colorado Municipal League is a strong advocate for the state’s tradition of local control and constitutional principle of home rule, both of which allow cities and towns maximum flexibility and discretion in municipal finance, implementation of local policy, and delivery of public services. Local control should remain local and home rule should stay at home. Neither should be centralized at the Statehouse. Municipal government is the cornerstone of good government in Colorado, and the League values the partnership that exists with state and federal officials. The citizens who municipal officials represent are the same as those represented by legislators. The policies legislators enact affecting municipalities must be implemented by municipal leaders and local taxpayers. To maintain the strength of this partnership, CML urges legislators to consider the impacts of decisions on the municipalities in their respective districts. Brandy DeLange CML legislative and policy advocate bdelange@cml.org Advocacy issues: Beer and liquor/marijuana, building codes, health care, hemp, land use and annexation, oil and gas, public safety (incl. communications and disasters), severance tax/FML/energy impact, state budget/JBC, and telecom/broadband. Heather Stauffer CML legislative and policy advocate hstauffer@cml.org Advocacy issues: Natural resources and environment, elections, governmental immunity, historic preservation, lottery and gaming, open meetings/open records, special districts, and water and wastewater/water quality. Morgan Cullen CML legislative and policy advocate mcullen@cml.org Advocacy issues: Transportation and transit, sustainability, economic development and TIF, municipal debt and finance, purchasing, and utilities. Meghan Dollar CML legislative and policy advocate mdollar@cml.org Advocacy issues: Affordable housing, criminal justice and courts, employment and labor, immigration, retirement/pensions, and taxation and fiscal policy. CML employs four full-time advocates to assist in development and communication of policies. The team closely watches proposed legislation and works with legislators to understand municipal impacts. Colorado Municipal League 1144 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203 303 831 6411 / 866 578 0936 www.cml.org Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Marianne Schilling, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: February 3, 2020 SUBJECT: 44th Avenue Historic Barn Update ISSUE: At the June 10, 2019 City Council meeting, the historic barn property owner at 11480 W. 44th Avenue was denied removal of the requested historic designation of the barn. City Council asked staff to work together with the owner of the historic barn property and return with reasonable considerations for the property moving forward. PRIOR ACTION: The barn structure was designated as a local historic landmark in 1998, processed under Case No. WHL-98-01 and passed by ordinance. The property has since changed ownership, and on June 10, 2019, Staffpresented the property owner’s request to remove the historic designation. The motion to remove thedesignation failed due to lack of a second on the motion. No further action or alternate motion wereproposed. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This memo presents several options for next steps each with different financial impacts. Among the options is to partner on a Historic Structure Assessment grant, and the cost to the City in matching funds could be up to $7,500. The cost to have Colorado Preservation, Inc. write the grant would be $1,500. The total amount to pursue the grant may be up to $9,000. If property acquisition is considered, the financial impact would be more significant, requiring expenditures for due diligence, acquisition, and redevelopment. BACKGROUND: In 1998, City Council approved an ordinance designating the barn at 11480 W. 44th Avenue as a local historic landmark under Case No. WHL-98-01. The landmark application was submitted by Claudia Worth who was a Council Member, member of the Wheat Ridge Historical Society, and acquaintance of the property owner who, at the time, was Joy Williams. The property does not have state or national designation. Since 1998, the property has changed hands several times and the current owner, Sandra McEntire, requested removal of the historic designation during the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting. At that time, staff presented the request of the property owner to City Council. Ms. McEntire, members of the Item No. 2 44th Ave Historic Barn Update Page 2 Wheat Ridge Historical Society and members of the public participated in the public hearing and presented to City Council. After discussion, the motion to remove the historic designation failed due to the lack of a second motion. After the meeting, City Council asked staff to look into reasonable options for Ms. McEntire’s property and potential outcomes for the historic barn. Staff met with both Ms. McEntire and the Wheat Ridge Historic Society, visited the property, and also spoke with the State of Colorado Office of Historic Preservation. Based upon the discussion with these stakeholders, staff has developed the following options for City Council to consider. 1. Reconsider removal of historic designation Staff determined in June that this property met all requirements and is eligible to have the historic designation removed. The Wheat Ridge Historical Society (WRHS) let staff know that they would prefer the designation to be maintained. However, given the undetermined cost of restoration, WRHS stated that should Council decide to remove the designation and the barn be torn down at any point, it would like to salvage the wood. If Council would like to revisit the option to un-designate the barn, the property owner would need to apply again and staff would move forward such an ordinance for City Council consideration. 2. Pursue Historic Structure Assessment grant Historic Structure Assessment (HSA) grants are awarded by the State of Colorado for the sole purpose of preparing a report on the physical condition of a historic building or structure. All HSAs must be prepared by an architect or a structural engineer as subject matter experts in historical building assessments. The HSA report includes cost estimates for rehabilitation and classifies those costs based upon critical, serious and minor deficiencies. The HSA may also evaluate the historic value/integrity of the structure and assess its potential for listing as a National Register property. Only public and non-profit entities are eligible to apply for the grant. A reason to pursue this grant would be for the City and the property owner to have an understanding of the exact status and quality of the barn. An assessment may help to provide direction for all parties because it would include an accurate cost component. The grant request would be up to $10,000 with the option to request an additional $5,000 to hire specialized consultants. The grant requires a 50% match (up to $7,500) from the City because the property is privately owned. Additionally, while unlikely, if the cost for the HSA is more than the amount awarded by the State of Colorado, the City would have to bear that cost. Given the expertise required and detailed report provided, HSAs typically take about one year to complete. The City has experience with the grant program; the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority received an HSA grant for the Fruitdale School in 2011 in order to do a full assessment of the property condition prior to determining its future use. Staff found it to be useful to have an accurate understanding of the needs to fully rehabilitate the property. At that time, there was no matching fund requirement because the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority owned the property which made it exempt from the matching fund component. For the Fruitdale School HSA, the Housing Authority partnered with Colorado Preservation, Inc. (CPI) who provided the subject matter expertise to write the grant application. CPI provided the service pro bono at the time, but typically charges $1,500 for grant writing services. If Council 44th Ave Historic Barn Update Page 3 provides direction to pursue the HSA, staff would research similar opportunities for grant writing services; City staff do not have the expertise in historical preservation necessary to complete this specialized application. If direction is provided to pursue the grant, staff would work with the property owner to develop the grant and submit the grant as the City with support of the property owner. As with all grant applications, there is no guarantee that the City would be awarded the HSA grant. 3. Consider pursuit of property acquisition by City of Wheat Ridge Due to the proximity to Prospect Park, Council may want to explore the acquisition of the entire property at 11480 W. 44th Avenue, which would include the barn. This may be an option regardless of whether the barn was going to preserved as a historic asset. If staff were to pursue the acquisition of the property (which would include the barn), it would be contingent upon also acquiring a portion of the land to the south and west, which is owned by the west adjacent neighbor. The purchase of this portion would be necessary to allow direct access to Prospect Park, as can be seen in the map below. If the City were not able to acquire this second parcel or at least the southern portion, the value of the “barn property” as a park asset would be significantly diminished. Aerial view of 11480 W. 44th Ave At this time, staff has not entered into formal discussions with Ms. McEntire, but she has told staff informally that she is open to the possibility of selling the entire property to the City. The property was purchased in 2013 for $145,000. Staff has not yet contacted the west adjacent neighbor. If City Council would like to pursue this option, staff will return a proposal detailing the cost to 44th Ave Historic Barn Update Page 4 purchase the barn property and the adjacent property. Staff would also provide an estimated cost and related funding opportunities to make the property a valuable portion of Prospect Park. Additionally, staff will provide a draft plan for use of the additional space if the park is expanded. The pursuit of property acquisition is not necessarily independent of applying for the Historic Structure Assessment grant. Council may direct staff to pursue both options, either one at a time or concurrently. 4. No action Council may decide not to provide direction at this time, or Council may direct staff to pursue another option not included in the memo. The City is under no obligation to take an active role in the property. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that City Council provide direction related to the 44th Avenue historic barn property. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Photos 2. Letter from Wheat Ridge Historic Society 3. HSA Annotated Scope of Work ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 9 HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT STATE HISTORICAL FUND ANNOTATED SCOPE OF WORK REVISED 2014 THIS ANNOTATED SCOPE OF WORK was developed to assist grant applicants, building owners, stewards, and consultants in collecting and organizing the information needed to develop a comprehensive assessment and plan for the preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration of a historic property. This document is intended to be used as a tool and a reference and provides specific details regarding the expectations and requirements for completing a Historic Structure Assessment funded by the State Historical Fund (SHF). THE PURPOSE OF A HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT (HSA) is to fully document the physical condition of a historic resource. A complete assessment contains photographs, illustrations, and information in narrative form that reflects a comprehensive understanding of the condition and needs of the resource. This information will include details specific to the historic character and significance; specific materials, features, elements, and spaces; and the intended use. The existing conditions will dictate the amount of information contained within any given assessment. Ideally, a resource will be assessed during different seasonal conditions (wet, dry, hot, cold) to ensure a complete evaluation (some conditions may not be evident in one visit under one set of weather conditions). Destructive investigation is acceptable as a means of obtaining information, but it is not required. In some instances, the need for additional and (or) destructive investigation may be included in the treatment recommendations discussed in Section 3.0. Although a HSA can provide valuable support documentation when making application for grant funding from the SHF, the assessment should not be seen as merely a prerequisite to making application for that funding. The HSA should be considered an important planning tool for future rehabilitation, restoration, and/or maintenance of a resource (regardless how the work might be funded in the future). SCOPE OF WORK: In order to ensure a comprehensive assessment, the State Historical Fund has developed a standard Scope of Work for HSAs funded under the special non-competitive grant program. This Scope of Work is included in the application packet. All HSAs submitted to the SHF must follow this Scope of Work. Specific details on the expectations and requirements are provided in this Annotated Scope of Work. WHO CAN PREPARE A HSA? The Historic Structure Assessment must be prepared by an architect or a structural engineer working under the direct guidance of an architect. Please consider the following when deciding who will prepare the HSA: •Architect, and structural engineer if applicable, must be licensed in the state of Colorado. •Architect must be the primary consultant on the project. •Architect, and structural engineer if applicable, must be able to interpret and apply The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. •Architect, and structural engineer if applicable, is required to attend an initial on-site consultation with a State Historical Fund Historic Preservation Specialist at the commencement of the grant contract. Other professionals including engineers, archaeologists, historic preservation consultants, contractors, historians and cost estimators may also be members of the assessment team. Historic Structure Assessment reports are on file in the SHF office for reference. If you would like to review any of these, or if you have any questions, please contact a preservation specialist at 303.866.2825. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2 of 9 ANNOTATED SCOPE OF WORK FORMATTING & CONTENT: The HSA report should mirror the Scope of Work provided by SHF. Information specific to details and requirements for content is provided below. If you have any questions about how or what to include, please contact the Historic Preservation Specialist assigned to the project. Two final copies must be submitted to SHF; both copies must be 3-hole punched and submitted in white 3-ring binders (with clear overlay for title sheet). Please call with any questions about submitting final copies. MULTIPLE BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES & ADDITIONS: For assessments that include more than one structure, or for single structures that have multiple and/or distinct additions, please address each structure or addition individually in the assessment. This can be accomplished in several ways. Please contact the Historic Preservation Specialist for more specific direction and/or suggestions. PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION: Please include photographic documentation to illustrate the features and conditions described in the narrative. Always include in-text references to specific photos when addressing the element, feature, or space in the narrative. For specific guidelines, see Section 6.0. i. COVER PAGE The Cover Page of the report must include: 1. The State Historical Fund Project number 2. The name and address of the property 3. The date of report completion 4. The required acknowledgement of SHF as a funding source (“This project was paid for by a State Historical Fund grant from History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society”) 5. Site Number, if applicable ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS Please number pages in the report, and include the pages in the Table of Contents. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND / PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Discuss the purpose of the project and describe the process taken to complete the report, including: 1. List consultants involved in preparing the report, and what their roles were. 2. Note weather condition(s) experienced during all field (site) visits. 3. List funding partners (include SHF, but full acknowledgment noted above is not required). 4. Include sources of information used to complete this report, including available historical documentation and interviews with building users/managers as relevant (see Section 2.0). 1.2 BUILDING LOCATION Please provide the following: 1. Vicinity map 2. Site plan (Site plans should show the property lines, as well as the designated area, and display all of the improvements, features, and landscape elements within the property boundaries. Indicate a north arrow and scale or NTS. Google satellite maps are not permitted as a site plan.) 3. Legal description 2.0 HISTORY AND USE The research and analysis of the structure’s history and use determines the basis for the preservation treatment recommendations prescribed in the assessment section. This portion of the HSA includes a history of the resource, the architectural significance and construction history, and a detailed discussion of the proposed use. Potential sources for information: State, federal, or local register nominations of historic properties, historical photographs, historical plans/specifications, oral histories or interviews, History Colorado’s Steven H. Hart Library, Denver Public Library's Western History Collection, local (county) assessor’s office records, and local library history collections. Page 3 of 9 2.1 ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE & CONSTRUCTION HISTORY: Describe the structure’s architectural style, including character-defining exterior and interior materials, features, and spaces. Include a brief chronology of additions and alterations to the original structure, and discuss past and current use(s) in relation to these modifications. This information will provide the basis for recommendations for appropriate treatments and design of suitable modifications for use. 1. Note whether or not the building is listed on the National, State or Local Register. 2. Include historical photographs of the structure’s exterior and interior, if available. 3. Excerpt portions of referenced documents that are relevant to the building/resource. 2.2 FLOOR PLAN: The structure(s) should be graphically represented in accurate proportions. The plan(s) should be drawn with measurements, but it is not required to be drawn to scale. In this section, you must: 1. Label individual rooms for reference within the narrative of Section 3.0. 2. Note/identify within the plan or illustrations significant spaces and/or spatial relationships. 3. Illustrate the existing configuration vs. the historical configuration (if known). 4. Include copies of original drawings if they are available. 5. Indicate a north arrow and scale or NTS. 2.3 PROPOSED USE(S): Discuss any proposed use(s), including the functional needs and potential impact to the existing structure, and evaluate whether or not the intended use is appropriate for the structure in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 3.0 STRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT (SECTIONS 3.1-3.8) Each section below should be addressed in a comprehensive narrative. In order to provide a more user- friendly and organized document, please include a separate sub-heading under each section for the three main components of the narrative: (1) Description, (2) Condition Evaluation, and (3) Recommendations. (For example, when discussing the Roof Framing System in section 3.3, you will include a Description of the system, a Condition Evaluation of the system, and a Recommendation of what to do with the system based on The Secretary of the Interior Standards and future plans/use.) The sections describing materials, features, elements, and spaces should follow the specific order listed in the Historic Structure Assessment outline provided below (e.g., 3.1 Site; 3.2 Structural System; etc.). If the resource does not have a component, simply indicate this in the narrative (e.g., “Perimeter foundation drainage: There is no perimeter foundation drainage.”). DESCRIPTION: Please describe each element, feature or space. The intent of this subsection is to identify the elements, features, and spaces that make up the resource. The narrative should first indicate whether the element, feature, or space is original, historic or non-historic, and should then provide a detailed description of what it is, what it looks like, the materials from which it is made, and the methods used in its construction. The Description sub-heading should not include information about the condition: Perhaps one of the most common mistakes is to include a discussion of the condition of each material, element, feature, or space as part of the description narrative—it is important to avoid this. The intent is to describe the element, feature, or space as it exists at this point in time (e.g. “Interior walls are plaster over wood lathe, with a smooth texture and painted finish [see photos #2, 3, 12 and 15].”). This serves the purpose of documenting the material, element, feature, or space as it exists now so that in the future, users of the assessment will have a clear understanding of how this looked prior to any treatment. Significance: Please identify each element’s, feature’s, or space’s relationship to the age of the structure and identify its significance as it relates to the integrity of the resource overall. It is important to remember that all materials, elements, features, and spaces of a structure impact the resource’s historic integrity (contributing to or detracting from); therefore, each component should be described regardless of its historic significance. A significant element, feature, or space should be described in greater detail and include photographic documentation to illustrate that description. Page 4 of 9 Windows, doors, and other repetitive elements or features: Often an element or feature is a series of similar, repetitive items, such as windows or doors. In this case, the feature should be described as one feature and then specific discrepancies should be noted or highlighted—for example, “all nine windows on the 3rd floor are historic, the six 1st floor windows are not.” Although describing as one, please include the total quantity of the element or feature in the description. A schedule to augment the narrative may be included. Remember to include even small repetitive elements such as hardware, lighting, and security. CONDITION EVALUATION: Please evaluate the condition of each feature, element, or space. Please provide a detailed discussion of the existing condition and integrity of each element, feature or space based on the comprehensive physical evaluation. As noted above, destructive investigation is acceptable as a means of obtaining information, but it is not required. The Condition Evaluation must include photographic documentation to illustrate the condition (or range of conditions for repetitive elements or features). Please use the following terms in your evaluation and discussion of the condition of each element, feature, or space: Good Condition, Fair Condition, and Poor Condition. Criteria/guidelines for each are as follows: GOOD CONDITION: An element, feature, or space is evaluated in good condition when it is meets the following criteria: 1. It is intact, structurally sound, and performing its intended purpose. 2. There are few or no cosmetic imperfections. 3. It needs no repair and only minor or routine maintenance. Please note: Elements, features, or spaces that are in good condition do not need lengthy narratives; state that they were examined and found to be in good condition, and why you have made that determination. FAIR CONDITION: An element, feature, or space is evaluated in fair condition when one or more the following are evident: 1. There are early signs of wear, failure, or deterioration, although the feature or element is generally structurally sound and performing its intended purpose. 2. There is failure of a sub-component of the feature or element. 3. Replacement of up to 25% of the feature or element is required. 4. Replacement of a defective sub-component of the feature or element is required. Please note: When an element, feature, or space is in fair condition, it is important to provide a comprehensive discussion of this evaluation; do not simply state that the condition is “fair” without explaining that evaluation. Also, please avoid using generic descriptors such as “weathered” or “damaged” without a more specific explanation (e.g. how/why is it weathered/damaged). POOR CONDITION: An element, feature, or space is evaluated in poor condition when the following is evident: 1. It is no longer performing its intended purpose. 2. It is missing. 3. It shows signs of imminent failure or breakdown. 4. Deterioration/damage affects more than 25% of the feature/element and cannot be adjusted or repaired. 5. It requires major repair or replacement. Please note: When an element, feature, or space is in poor condition, it is important to provide a comprehensive discussion of this evaluation; do not state that the condition is “poor” without explaining that evaluation. Also, please avoid using generic descriptors without a more specific explanation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Please provide a recommendation for each element, feature or space, based on (1) the evaluation of existing conditions and (2) the significance or importance of the building and its associated features and elements. Recommended treatments should comply with, and specifically address, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the recommendations in the Guidelines (e.g., “recommendation is based on Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows…”). If an element, feature, or space has been evaluated in good condition, and there is no recommendation, state, “No recommendation at this time.” For all others, consider the following when making a recommendation: Page 5 of 9 1. The needs of the resource should be considered the first priority (sometimes a proposed use or treatment is contrary to the best interest of the resource). 2. Recommendations should discuss a specific course of action (not: “Repair according to the Standards”). 3. Clearly explain and substantiate recommended treatments within the context of the selected treatment approach. 4. If more than one treatment is viable, discuss the pros and cons of each approach/option. 5. Provide sufficient information and analysis to aid in the preparation of future construction documents. 6. Research and provide alternative solutions when the recommendation conflicts with the guidelines for The Standards. Consult the NPS Preservation Briefs and Tech Notes for potential solutions/alternatives. 7. Consider the future welfare of the resource, and the practicality of maintenance, when recommending treatments. 8. Do not present the quickest, easiest, or most economical solution as the only recommendation. 3.1 SITE: • Associated Landscape Features • Grading • Parking • Archaeology (Archaeological monitoring/mitigation is required by a number of state and federal regulations when any ground disturbance results from preservation activities where there is state and/or federal involvement.) 3.2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM: • General Structural System Description • Foundation Systems • Floor & Ceiling Systems • Roof Framing System 3.3 ENVELOPE – EXTERIOR WALLS: • Exterior Wall Construction • Exterior Finishes • Exterior Masonry • Exterior Appendages—Porch, Stoop, Portico, etc. 3.4 ENVELOPE – ROOFING & WATERPROOFING: • Roofing Systems • Sheet Metal Flashing • Perimeter Foundation Drainage • Drainage System, Gutters & Downspouts • Skylights / Cupolas 3.5 WINDOWS & DOORS: • Doors (including Hardware, Casing/Trim, and Finishes) • Windows (including Hardware, Casing/Trim, and Finishes) 3.6 INTERIOR FINISHES: • Wall Finish Materials • Ceiling Finish Materials • Floor Finish Materials • Trim and Built-Ins (not previously addressed in Section 3.5) 3.7 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS: • Heating & Air-Conditioning • Ventilation • Water Service, Plumbing, & Sewer Utilities • Fire Suppression—Sprinklers 3.8 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS: • Electrical Service & Panels • Electrical Distribution System • Lighting • Fire Detection System • Security Systems Page 6 of 9 4.0 ANALYSIS AND COMPLIANCE In-depth code review and materials analyses may be completed for the structure. However, at a minimum, general observations on each of the following are required, and should be based on the information in Section 2.0, History and Use, and Section 3.0, Structure Condition Assessment. 4.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: • Provide observations of likely sources (e.g., lead paint, asbestos); materials testing may be recommended. 4.2 MATERIALS ANALYSIS: • Suggest further testing as warranted for creation of specifications (i.e., paint, mortar, masonry, finishes). 4.3 ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE: • Identify potential conflicts between zoning requirements and the proposed use(s). 4.4 BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE: • List the code(s) referenced. Consider alternate codes (UCBC, IEBC) and possible variances. • Identify potential conflicts between applicable building codes and retention of historic elements, features, materials and spaces. 4.5 ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE: • Identify potential conflicts between meeting ADA Accessibility Guidelines and retaining the building's historic integrity. • Recommendations for alterations needed to meet accessibility requirements should reflect an effort to minimize material loss and visual change to a historic building. 5.0 PRESERVATION PLAN The Preservation Plan should take the recommended treatments prescribed in section 3.0 Structure Condition Assessment and prioritize the work into a logical order. This order should rank the most urgent work, such as deterioration, structural weakness, and/or life safety issues, over less urgent repairs. In the discussion provided for sections 5.1-5.3, please remember the following: 1. All recommended treatments should be included in the Preservation Plan. 2. The first priority of the Preservation Plan should be to address the needs of the historic building/resource. 3. Programmatic needs of building owners and/or clients need to be represented as secondary priorities. 5.1 PRIORITIZED WORK: Recommended Treatments for elements, features, or spaces should be prioritized and identified utilizing the following terms: Critical Deficiency, Serious Deficiency, and Minor Deficiency. Criteria/guidelines for each are as follows: CRITICAL DEFICIENCY: One or more of the following indicate a critical deficiency: 1. Advanced deterioration has resulted in failure of the building element, feature, or space, or will result in its failure if not corrected within two years. 2. Accelerated deterioration of adjacent or related building materials has occurred as a result of the feature or element’s deficiency. 3. The feature or element poses a threat to the health and/or safety of the user. 4. The feature or element fails to meet a code/compliance requirement. SERIOUS DEFICIENCY: One or more of the following indicate a serious deficiency: 1. Deterioration, if not corrected within two to five years, will result in failure of the feature or element. 2. Deterioration of a feature or element, if not corrected within two to five years, may pose a threat to the health and/or safety of the user. 3. Deterioration of adjacent or related building materials and/or systems will occur as a result of the deficiency of the feature or element. MINOR DEFICIENCY: One or more of the following indicate a minor deficiency: 1. Standard preventive maintenance practices and building conservation methods have not been followed. 2. A reduced life expectancy of affected or related building materials and/or systems will result. 3. A condition exists with long-term impact beyond five years. Page 7 of 9 5.2 PHASING PLAN: If work is to be completed in more than one phase, propose a logical and sequential phasing plan. • Phased plans need to consider mobilization, seasons, sequencing, protection of building, and current uses. 5.3 ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST OF CONSTRUCTION: Dated cost estimates should reflect the current market and include a percentage cost increase to account for inflation if the project is phased or delayed. (If applicable, please include cost estimates for archaeological monitoring, hazardous materials testing, and/or abatement.) 6.0 PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Historic and current photographs and illustrations should be included with the assessment to illustrate and support the information provided in the narrative. Where the photographs and illustrations are located in the report is optional (in each section, after each section, at the end of the report, etc.). Follow the guidelines below for photographs and illustrations: 1. Provide comprehensive and “readable” (i.e., high quality and clear) photographic documentation. 2. Photographs and illustrations should be clearly numbered and captioned. 3. Provide at least one view of each elevation. 4. Provide clear pictures of specific conditions and deficiencies that are discussed. 5. In the narrative, include in-text references to the numbered photographs (for example, “Due to poor drainage, the lower portion of the column is significantly deteriorated [see photos 3, 5, and 6]”). 6. Black and white photographs may be acceptable for the Draft HSA; please contact the Historic Preservation Specialist for specific direction. Color images must be used in the final HSA. 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY List all consulted sources. All the sources you have utilized should be listed alphabetically following a recognized bibliographic style (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style/Turabian, Modern Language Association (MLA), American Psychological Association (APA). • Indicate if the consulted sources did, or did not, contain pertinent information. 8.0 APPENDICES Drawings and other information should be included in the appendices • Historical/original plans (if available) may be included. • Schematic design, design development, construction drawings, or measured drawings (previously prepared, or prepared outside the scope of this HSA) may be also included in addition to the sketch plans provided under Section 2.2, but are not required. Page 8 of 9 CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. For example, they cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which features of the resource should be saved and which can be changed. But once a treatment is selected, the Standards provide consistency to the work. FOUR TREATMENT APPROACHES 1. PRESERVATION places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance, and repair. It reflects a building’s continuum over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made. 2. REHABILITATION allows for a compatible new use for the resource but still emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials. More latitude is provided for replacement because the treatment assumes the property has suffered more deterioration prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation Standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.) 3. RESTORATION focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property’s history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods. 4. RECONSTRUCTION establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Choosing the most appropriate treatment for a building requires careful decision- making about a building’s historical significance, as well taking into account the following: • Relative importance in history. Is the building a nationally significant resource—a rare survivor or the work of a master architect or craftsman? Did an important event take place in it? National Historic Landmarks may warrant a different treatment approach than buildings that contribute to the significance of a historic district but are not individually listed on the National Register. • Physical condition. What is the existing condition—or degree of material integrity—of the building prior to work? Has the original form survived largely intact or has it been altered over time? Are the alterations an important part of the building’s history? Are distinctive materials, features, and spaces essentially intact and convey the building’s historical significance? Are alterations or additions necessary for a new use? These key questions play a major role in determining which treatment is selected. • Proposed use. Will the building be used as it was historically or will it be given a new use? Many historic buildings can be adapted for new uses without seriously damaging their historic character; special-use properties such as grain silos, forts, ice houses, or windmills may be extremely difficult to adapt to new uses without major intervention and a resulting loss of historic character and even integrity. • Mandated code requirements. Code requirements will need to be taken into consideration. But if hastily or poorly designed, a series of code-required actions may jeopardize a building’s materials as well as its historic character. Abatement of lead paint and asbestos within historic buildings requires particular care if important historic finishes are not to be adversely affected. Recommendations for alterations and new construction needed to meet accessibility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 should reflect an effort to minimize material loss and visual change to a historic building. Page 9 of 9 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS AS-BUILT DRAWINGS: produced after completion of the structure showing how it was actually built by incorporating changes that were made as construction progressed. Alterations made to the structure in subsequent years should be clearly identified as later changes. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURE: a prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic of a historic property that contributes significantly to its physical character. Structures, elements, objects, vegetation, spatial relationships, views, furnishings, and decorative details and materials may be such features. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: Drawings, Plans, Technical Specifications, Addenda, Supplemental Instructions and Change Orders created by an architect that set forth in detail the requirements for the construction of the project. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS: produced to work out details, aesthetics, dimensions, and estimated probable costs for construction or manufacture. They often include detail drawings of design features. ELEMENT: may be an architectural feature, structural component, engineering system, or a functional requirement. EXISTING CONDITION DRAWINGS: produced to record the configuration, physical fabric, and conditions of a structure at a given point in time. They are often produced as the first step in a project. IN-KIND: in the same manner, with the same material, or with something equal in substance creating a similar or identical visual appearance or effect. MATERIAL: the physical elements that were combined or deposited to form a property. Historic material or historic fabric is that from a historically significant period, as opposed to material used to maintain or restore a property following its historic period(s). PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for historic designation. PRESERVATION: the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a building, site, structure, or object. RECONSTRUCTION: the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Treatment should be based on documentary or photographic evidence. REHABILITATION: the act or process of making possible a compatible new use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. RESEARCH DESIGN: a statement of proposed activities (identification, documentation, evaluation, investigation, or other research) that identifies the project’s goals, methods and techniques, expected results, and the relationship of the expected results to other proposed activities or treatments. The research design is specific to each project. RESTORATION: the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. SCHEMATIC DESIGN DRAWINGS: also known as conceptual drawings, they are diagrammatic drawings of the essential elements of a design; they are not used to estimate costs. SKETCH PLAN: site plan or building plan drawn with measurements but often not to scale, although the structure and site features should be represented in accurate proportions. TREATMENT RECOMMENDATION: based on The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The degree of intervention recommended depends on the existing condition of the element and its significance or importance to the property.