HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/2023 - Historic Preservation Commission - SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS - Regular MeetingSUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS
ITEM 4 – ATTACHMENT 13
ITEM 4 – ATTACHMENT 14
ITEM 5 – ATTACHMENT 11
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 1
From:Eric Guenther
To:Jeni Arndt; Susan Gutowsky; Maren Bzdek; Jim Bertolini
Cc:Kurt Knierim; Anne Nelson; Bonnie Gibson - Contact; Jenna Edwards - Contact; Jim Rose-Contact; Margo Carlock
- Contact; Yani Jones; Heather Jarvis; Brad Yatabe
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Historic Preservation Commission Resignation - Eric Guenther
Date:Monday, February 6, 2023 7:34:24 AM
Dear Mayor Arndt and Councilmember Gutowsky,
Please consider this communication as my resignation from the Fort Collins Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC).
While I have enjoyed serving on the HPC, I find the process for Involuntary Landmark Designations (ILD)
as defined in Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code to be severely flawed and unfair to property
owners. As such, I cannot ethically and in good conscience vote in favor of an Involuntary Landmark
Designation.
My specific concerns and recommendations for improving the process, increasing transparency and
building community support are outlined below:
Conflicts of Interest: Require Applicants for an Involuntary Landmark Designation to confirm they
and/or their immediate family members have no conflict of interest related to the property, including prior
ownership, partnerships and/or business interests associated with the property. Please Note: With
respect to the two ILD nominations presently before the HPC, the Applicants and/or their immediate
family members had previous ownership interests or partnerships with the current owners. Furthermore,
the Applicants and/or immediate family members had ample opportunity to pursue Historic Landmark
Designations prior to selling the property to the current owners. Instead, the nominations were initiated
after the sales were complete.
Disclosures and Acknowledgements: Require every commercial and residential real estate
transaction involving properties 50 years or older to include a Seller's Disclosure and Buyer's
Acknowledgement regarding the process for an Involuntary Landmark Designation. While the process is
outlined in the Municipal Code, it is not reasonable to require every potential buyer to review the code in
detail. Given the significant impact an ILD has on the value and marketability of a property, the issue
should be fully transparent at the time the real estate transaction is completed.
Applicants: Increase the required number of Applicants for an ILD from three residents to at least
twenty-five residents, and ensure none of the Applicants are members of the same immediate family or
household. This modification will demonstrate more community buy-in for the nomination and minimize
risk of perceived bias on the part of the Applicants.
In addition to the noted recommendations, several other factors are centrally important to consideration
for Involuntary Landmark Designations. My understanding is these factors may be considered at various
levels by the HPC, but not by City Staff in development of their recommendations. Primary issues that
should be fully explored prior to approval of an Involuntary Landmark Designation include:
Financial Impact on Owners: The HPC and City Staff should evaluate the impact of an ILD on the
livelihood and financial interests of the current owners, including investment value, frozen asset costs and
maintenance costs. The HPC and City Staff must also consider whether a property was originally
marketed and purchased as an opportunity for an expansion and/or scrape and rebuild.
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 2
Contamination: Substances that make a property uninhabitable and/or unsaleable (i.e.asbestos,
methamphetamine, radon, nicotine and other dangerous substances) should be considered by City Staff
in development of their recommendations.
Future Plans: Applicants and/or City Staff should be required to present viable plans for the future of the
property, including evaluation of the concept, funding sources, community support and Owner's
participation. Approving an ILD without considering a comprehensive strategy for the future of the
property is a disservice to the Owners and the community.
Alternative Options: For nominations that focus primarily on people and events (versus architecture),
the HPC and City Staff should consider alternate options for recognition (i.e. plaques, parks, street
names, etc.).
Semantics: Although technically accurate, property Owners should not be referred to as Opponents in
the Involuntary Landmark Designation process. They should be referred to as Owners. The word
Opponent in this context carries an inherent negative association.
I appreciate your consideration of this input and your ongoing efforts to make Fort Collins such a
wonderful and vibrant community.
Eric E. Guenther1308 West Mountain AvenueFort Collins, CO 80521
Cell: 248.767.5023e-Mail: eric.e.guenther@gmail.com
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 3
Involuntary Landmark
Designation – Phase 2
PRESENTED BY H AND H PROPERTIES LLC
FEBRUARY 15, 2023
Presentation Outline
I.Burden on Haun family if landmarking occurs
a.Past financial history of Haun family ownership
b.Practical implications of landmarking
c.Economic implications of landmarking
II.Policies and Purposes
a.Policies of Code § 14-1
b.Purposes of Code § 14-2
III.Conclusion
2
1
2
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 4
Haun Family Ownership
Purchased in Summer
2020 (beginning of
pandemic).
Asher Haun – longtime
customer, purchased
through this entity to
keep the restaurant
going in the face of
challenges.
Purchased Building and
restaurant from Frank
Perez – the original
owner.
3
Haun Family Ownership
PAST FINANCIAL HISTORY
Purchase price of building in August 2020: $400,000
$80K down payment from Asher Haun’s retirement account
Building owned by H&H Properties, LLC
Purchase price for restaurant business: $15,000
Restaurant entity: Pobre Pancho’s Mexican Restaurant, LLC
Additional investments of approx. $120,000
Renovations ($57,000)
Asher Haun funded restaurant’s losses, Aug. 2020-March 31, 2022
H&H Properties made no “profit” off the lease to the restaurant LLC
4
3
4
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 5
Haun Family Ownership
CURRENT FINANCIAL PICTURE
Monthly owner carrying costs: $2,800 ($1,700 mortgage, $805
property taxes, $295 insurance).
Monthly utility bills (Fort Collins Utilities and Xcel): $175
Additional costs: trash and weed control.
TOTAL: $3,000 or more per month.
5
Practical Implications of
Landmarking
Building cannot be demolished, unless extraordinary circumstances
make it a hazard.
Code imposes obligations to maintain the property, § 14-7.
Building footprint likely cannot be expanded.
Site restrictions.
Humble nature.
A second level is highly unlikely to be approved.
More modest changes still need review.
6
5
6
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 6
Economic Implications of
Landmarking
Mark O’Donnell
Not a good candidate for a restaurant tenant because building is too
small.
Comparatively low $/sq ft value because building is low quality space
compared to newer buildings.
Value of the land cannot be realized.
Raising Cane’s was willing to pay a substantial amount for the land, and
demolish the building.
They have withdrawn the proposal due to the Historical Designation process
7
Summary Regarding Burden on
Owner
Past burden
Significant investment in Pobre Pancho’s restaurant - $120,000.
Building owner made no profit during Pobre Pancho’s operation. (Aug.
2020-March 2022)
Carrying costs of about $3,000/month since April 2022 ($33,000).
Current burden
$3,000 monthly carrying cost, which will continue for unknown number
of months until a tenant or buyer is found.
Future burden
Redevelopment value is completely stripped away.
8
7
8
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 7
Policies of Code § 14-1
It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the
protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures,
objects and districts of historic, architectural, archeological, or
geographic significance, located within the City, are a public
necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic
pride and general welfare of the people.
It is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural
and aesthetic standing of this City cannot be maintained or
enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural,
archeological and geographical heritage of the City and by
ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural assets.
9
Purposes of Code § 14-2
a. Survey, identify, designate, preserve, protect, enhance
and perpetuate those sites, structures, objects and districts
which reflect important elements of the City's cultural, artistic,
social, economic, political, architectural, archeological, or
other heritage it is the opinion of the City Council that the
economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City cannot
be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical,
architectural, archeological and geographical heritage of
the City and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of
such cultural assets.
10
9
10
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 8
Purposes of Code § 14-2
b. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past.
11
vs
Purposes of Code § 14-2
c. Stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality and
values of such sites, structures, objects and districts.
d. Protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and
visitors.
e. Promote the use of important historical, archeological, or
architectural sites, structures, objects and districts for the
education, stimulation and welfare of the people of the City.
12
11
12
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 9
Purposes of Code § 14-2
f. Promote good urban design.
g. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and
utilization of such sites, structures, objects or districts now so
owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed
above can be attained under such a policy.
h. Promote economic, social, and environmental sustainability
through the ongoing survey and inventory, use, maintenance,
and rehabilitation of existing buildings.
13
Conclusion
Landmarking will have devastating economic consequences for
owner.
Does landmarking provide enough benefit to justify that burden?
No…
HPC should vote to not recommend the building for landmarking.
14
13
14
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 10
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 11
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 12
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 13
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 14
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 15
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 16
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 17
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 18
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 19
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 20
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 21
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 22
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 23
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 24
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 25
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 26
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 27
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 28
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 29
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 30
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 31
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 32
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 33
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 34
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 35
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 36
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 37
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 38
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 39
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 40
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 41
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 42
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 43
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 44
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 45
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 46
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 47
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 48
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 49
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 50
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 51
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 52
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 53
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 54
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 55
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 56
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 57
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 58
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 59
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 60
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 61
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 62
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 63
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 64
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 65
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 66
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 67
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 68
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 69
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 70
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 71
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 72
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 73
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 74
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 75
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 76
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 77
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 78
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 79
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 80
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 81
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 82
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 83
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 84
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 85
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 86
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 87
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 88
Supplemental Documents Page 449 - 89