HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/2018 - Landmark Preservation Commission - Agenda - Work SessionMeg Dunn, Chair City Council Chambers
Per Hogestad, Vice Chair City Hall West
Michael Bello 300 Laporte Avenue
Katie Dorn Fort Collins, Colorado
Bud Frick
Kristin Gensmer
Kevin Murray
Mollie Simpson
Alexandra Wallace
Fort Collins is a Certified Local Government (CLG) authorized by the National Park Service and History Colorado based on its
compliance with federal and state historic preservation standards. CLG standing requires Fort Collins to maintain a Landmark
Preservation Commission composed of members of which a minimum of 40% meet federal standards for professional experience
from preservation-related disciplines, including, but not limited to, historic architecture, architectural history, archaeology, and urban
planning. For more information, see Article III, Division 19 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make
special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
An audio recording of the meeting is available upon request.
Work Session
February 14, 2018
5:30 PM
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• REVIEW OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD
ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2018 AT 5:30 P.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CONSENT
1. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 20, 2017 REGULAR MEETING.
2. 602 EAST ELIZABETH STREET - FINAL DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW
UDISCUSSION
3. 2601 SOUTH COLLEGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY APPEAL
4. OLD FIREHOUSE AND SECKNER ALLEYS CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW
5. NIX FARM – CONCEPTUAL/FINAL DESIGN REVIEW
• POLICY AND LEGISLATION
o UDiscussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and Dangerous Buildings
• BOARD TOPICS
o ULPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
Roll Call – Work Session
Landmark Preservation Commission
Date: 2/14/18
Bello
Dorn
Dunn
Frick
Gensmer
Hogestad
Murray
Simpson excused
Wallace
DATE:
STAFF:
February 14, 2018
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
Landmark Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and Dangerous Buildings
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss the historic preservation codes and processes related to the review of
demolitions/alterations of 50+ year old buildings, demolition by neglect, and dangerous buildings.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
At this Work Session, the LPC will be discussing Clarion Associate’s analysis of Demolition/ Alteration
Review, Demolition by Neglect, and Dangerous Buildings. The Commission’s comments will be
provided to Clarion and used to help develop tailored solutions that best support Council’s policies.
Questions for discussion include:
Does the LPC agree with or disagree with Clarion's recommendations contained in this White
Paper?
Does the LPC have additional suggestions or recommendations not contained in Clarion's
report?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Building upon the comprehensive review of historic preservation policies completed in 2014, the
Historic Preservation Division has contracted with Clarion Associates to analyze the relevant codes and
processes. This analysis, which will conclude in early 2018, will examine traditional processes, such as
landmark designation, design review of designated buildings and districts, and the review of demolitions
or alterations of buildings 50 years or older, as well as emerging issues important to the community,
such as identifying appropriate and compatible infill development.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (PDF)
2. Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (PPTX)
1
Packet Pg. 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................
2
Summary of Recommendations................................................................................................................................................. 3
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process ............................................................................................................................... 4
B. Determinations of Eligibility ................................................................................................................................................ 13
C. Demolition By Neglect........................................................................................................................................................... 18
D. Public Safety Exclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
1.a
Packet Pg. 3
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
Introduction | Background
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 2
This report is part of a series of reports on the City of Fort Collins’ historic preservation codes and
processes, including the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code. All four reports will be compiled once
reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Committee, Landmark Preservation Commission, and City staff. The
reports focus on the following four topics:
This report includes a review of the City of Fort Collins’ codes and processes related to
―Demolition/Alteration Review‖ and other related topics. The documents reviewed for this report include
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, particularly Articles I and IV. This report assesses the program area’s
current conditions and provides recommendations for proposed improvements. A review of peer cities
was completed to compare these Fort Collins demolition- and alteration-related processes to other
communities.
The report summarizes the Demolition/Alteration review process and its effectiveness in protecting
eligible historic resources from demolition and major alterations, discusses several main topics associated
with demolition, highlights relevant approaches used throughout the country, and provides conclusions
and recommendations for improvements in Fort Collins.
1.a
Packet Pg. 4
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
Summary of Recommendations | Background
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 3
The following sections of this report review four topics related to the Demolition/Alteration process and
related issues, and provide recommendations for each topic based on peer city research. The
recommendations are summarized below:
Clarify the role of the Design Review Subcommittee.
Consider using a decision matrix to more clearly differentiate between minor
and major alterations.
Reevaluate the criteria for approval and potentially add an economic hardship
determination.
Consider increasing the amount of time that the LPC can delay a decision in
order to find alternatives to demolition.
Focus on completing survey work to proactively identify eligible resources.
Create an inventory of eligible historic resources.
Reconsider the five-year period of validity. Consider a process for property
owners to obtain a certificate of ineligibility with a five year limit on validity.
Specify the types of repairs that are required to prevent demolition by
neglect.
Increase penalties for properties undergoing demolition by neglect.
If an inventory of eligible resources is created, extend maintenance
requirements to eligible structures on the inventory.
Incorporate preservation-related requirements in the general property
maintenance standards.
Develop financial incentives to assist with required property maintenance.
Clarify the requirement to fix dangerous conditions when deemed repairable
by the building official.
Review relevant building code definitions.
Improve coordination between the LPC/preservation staff and the building
official in regards to dangerous buildings.
As we have recommended in each report, we believe that the organization of Article IV could be
improved. In particular, Section 14-72, which describes the procedure for determining which type of
review applies, is structured in a confusing and overly complex way and could be simplified.
1.a
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 4
There are properties in most communities that are informally recognized as significant, perhaps because
of age or unique architecture, yet have not been formally designated as ―historic‖ or worthy of regulatory
protection. Inevitably, some of these properties become candidates for demolition. When this occurs,
many communities, including Fort Collins, require special review prior to their demolition. Sometimes this
review also extends to proposed major alterations that would substantially change the structure’s physical
integrity, such as removal of a significant portion of the building.
Having this type of review process in place helps ensure that potentially significant properties are not
demolished or substantially modified before they may be considered for formal regulatory protection
through landmark designation. In many communities, this process involves delaying the release of a
demolition or other permit while the review takes place, in order to allow exploration of other
opportunities to preserve the structure. Communities with these programs typically set parameters to
identify the types of demolition permits that will be reviewed (e.g., permits for all properties listed on a
potential resource inventory, or permits for all properties over a certain age).
The Fort Collins Demolition/Alteration review process is triggered upon submission of a permit
application for any property that is 50 years of age or older within the city limits and has not been
designated historic (the Design Review process covered in Report B would be used for demolition and
exterior alteration requests for listed properties). When possible, applicants are encouraged by city staff to
submit demolition/alteration review applications prior to submitting permit applications in order to create
a more predictable and efficient
process and timeline. The review
involves both the demolition and
alteration of structures.
The first step in the review process is
for the Director of CDNS and the LPC
Chair to determine whether the
proposed work is considered a major or
minor alteration. The city’s website
describes this as a ―historic review‖
(although that term is not actually used
in the ordinance). If the scope only
includes minor alterations, no
additional historic review is necessary. If
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 5
the work is considered a major alteration (a category of determination which includes partial or total
demolition), the structure is then evaluated for its eligibility for individual designation as a local landmark
to determine whether a final review by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) is necessary. The LPC
must review and approve the alteration or demolition, following a public hearing, if the structure is found
to meet at least one of the standards of eligibility for designation. Alternatively, an applicant may consent
to review by the Design Review Subcommittee of the LPC. If the work is approved by the subcommittee
based on the proposed work’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation,
the applicant is not required to take the review to a public hearing at the LPC.
The following definitions in Section 14-1 are integral to the process:
Alteration shall mean any act or process, including relocation, which changes one (1) or
more of the physical characteristics of a designated site, structure, object, or district or a
site, structure, object or district eligible for designation.
Major alteration shall mean work that has the potential to substantially affect
more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity.
Minor alteration shall mean work that has the potential to substantially affect no
more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity.
Demolition shall mean any act or process that destroys in its entirety an eligible or
designated site, structure or object, or a site, structure or object within an eligible or
designated district.
―Integrity‖ is not defined in the definitions section of the ordinance. However, Section 14-5, which
describes the standards for determining eligibility, explains that exterior integrity is based on a
property’s retention of the seven aspects or qualities established by the National Park Service:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (the individual
definitions of these terms are listed in the Topic C report).
Other than partial or full demolition of a structure, major alterations typically include large additions, front
porch additions or remodels, or façade fenestration changes. Rear additions that are not visible from the
public right-of-way are typically determined to be a major alteration based on their size, massing, bulk,
and structural relationship to the original building. Changes that are automatically considered minor
include changes to decks and patios, rear enclosed porches, changes in window openings, and similar
alterations. The city also authorizes administrative staff to approve minor changes such as reroofing
permits, mechanical equipment, and egress windows without undergoing any level of review by historic
preservation staff. Other alterations such as changes to decks and patios, enclosing rear porches, and
changes in fenestration (dependent on location) can be approved by historic preservation staff without a
demolition/alteration review meeting. These automatic approvals are based on staff discretion and any of
these that are borderline cases can be referred for an official determination if needed.
In the last five years, city staff has processed an average of 618 Demolition/Alteration requests of
buildings 50 years and older per year. Almost all of these were reviewed administratively because they
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 6
involved either minor alterations or the building was not eligible for individual designation. Each year, an
average of just five major alterations or demolitions proceeded to the Landmark Preservation
Commission, where they are typically approved on the consent agenda as long as the application
materials are complete.
There are no standards enumerated in the code for a LPC decision on the Demolition/Alteration
application. The commission has the option to approve, to approve with conditions, or to postpone
consideration of the application for up for 45 days. Although not described in the ordinance, staff notes
that the current ordinance essentially presumes that approval will be granted if the correct application
materials are submitted, unless the LPC adopts a motion and findings as to why it should instead proceed
to Council. Staff also adds that the presumption is that an application would proceed to Council only if
the LPC or members of the public felt it should be considered for non-consensual designation. The
findings that the LPC should base this decision upon are not codified. This absence of standards implies
(whether intentionally or not) that the LPC is only deciding upon what types of mitigating documentation
or conditions should be added or whether to forward the application on to Council for consideration as a
nonconsensual designation. The intent of this review could be better clarified. If the application is
ultimately approved, the application can move forward through the typical city permitting processes. If
denied, the applicant has the option to appeal the decision to the City Council.
As noted, an applicant may have their application reviewed by the Design Review Subcommittee. If a
resolution is met with the subcommittee, the process ends and the applicant is not required to appear
before the LPC in a public hearing. The Design Review Subcommittee was first established in 2011, and
the ability for the subcommittee to review these applications was added in 2014 in order to shorten
review times. City staff has not tracked how many applications have been reviewed by the Design Review
Subcommittee instead of the LPC. In contrast to the full LPC process, which does not have listed criteria,
the ordinance lists the following criteria to guide the subcommittee’s review of the application:
(a) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the
landmark or landmark district;
(b) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed
improvements, and their relation to the landmark or the sites, structures and objects in the
district;
(c) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior
characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done;
(d) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the
landmark or landmark district; and
(e) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States
Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of
historic resources.
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 7
Several peer cities we studied have similar processes to Fort Collins’ Demolition/Alteration review. These
types of reviews are almost always decided by the city’s preservation commission. While it is most
common for cities to limit demolition review to locally designated landmarks or properties within local
historic districts, several cities extend this review to structures that are of a certain age and are potentially
eligible for designation. Additionally, some cities review proposed demolitions of national- or state-
designated landmarks. This extends regulatory protection to nationally or state designated properties that
may not have also been locally designated.
In addition to reviewing the demolition of locally designated properties, the peer cities below have
demolition review processes for the following types of properties:1
Boulder: Structures over 50 years
Cambridge: Structures over 50 years
Denton: Structures on the National Register
Eugene: Structures on the National Register
Gainesville: Structures over 45 years; Structures on the state inventory
Santa Barbara: Structures over 50 years in mapped area; Structures on the Potential Historic
Resource List
Syracuse: Structures on the National Register; Structures on the city inventory
Most cities we studied review only proposed demolitions, not every alteration of these resources.
However, in some cities the definition of demolition includes major alterations that remove a significant
amount of historic fabric. Santa Barbara, for example, considers the removal of significant components or
character-defining elements to be ―demolition‖ (as excerpted below.)
22.22.020 - Definitions.
K. "DEMOLITION." The permanent removal from a structure of either a significant component or a character
defining element, as may be determined by the Historic Landmarks Commission or where appropriate, by the
Community Development Director. Demolition shall include, but not be limited to, the act of pulling down,
destroying, removing, relocating or razing a structure or commencing the work thereof with the intent of
completing the same.
Of the peer cities we studied, Boulder has the most specific definition of ―demolition‖ and incorporates
helpful graphics to demonstrate how alterations may meet the definition of ―demolition‖ without
removing the entire structure:
1 Boulder 9-11-23; Cambridge 2.78.090; Denton 35-221; Eugene 9.0-19; Gainesville 6-19; Santa Barbara 22.22.035; Syracuse VII-8
1.a
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 8
9-16-1 – General Definitions
Demolition or demolish means an act or process which removes one or more of the following. The shaded area
illustrates the maximum amount that may be removed without constituting demolition.
(1) Fifty percent or more of the roof area as measured in plan view (see diagram);
(2) Fifty percent or more of the exterior walls of a building as measured contiguously around the "building
coverage" as defined in this section (see diagram); or
(3) Any exterior wall facing a public street, but not an act or process which removes an exterior wall facing an
alley (see diagram).
A wall shall meet the following minimum standards to be considered a retained exterior wall
(A) The wall shall retain studs or other structural elements, the exterior wall finish and the fully framed and
sheathed roof above that portion of the remaining building to which such wall is attached;
(B) The wall shall not be covered or otherwise concealed by a wall that is proposed to be placed in front of
the retained wall; and
(C) Each part of the retained exterior walls shall be connected contiguously and without interruption to every
other part of the retained exterior walls.
It is common for cities to implement a stay or delay of the release of an approval of a permit in these
types of demolition reviews. This is often used to allow for time to find alternatives to demolition and to
provide additional public notice of the proposed demolition. This delay time may allow for the
designation of the property, or to search for willing purchasers of the building, or to allow the city and
property owner to negotiate solutions for the preservation of the structure. In the peer cities we
1.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 9
researched, these delays range from 40 days in Denton to six months in Cambridge. If no alternatives are
found within the delay time, the demolition permit is then released.2
In some cities, the preservation commission is required to concurrently initiate a designation of the
property if they deny a demolition request. In Santa Barbara (shown below), the commission is required to
designate a structure that is denied demolition as a Structure of Merit or initiate the designation of the
structure as a landmark. For partial demolitions of properties that are not currently on the city’s potential
historic resource list but are determined eligible during a demolition review, the commission is required to
place the property on the potential historic resource list.
22.22.037 Demolition of a Listed Historic Structure.
B. AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE DEMOLITION OF A POTENTIAL CITY HISTORIC RESOURCE.
The Commission may appropriately condition the demolition or partial demolition of a structure, site, or natural
feature listed on the Potential Historic Resources List as necessary to mitigate the potential loss of Historic
Resources resulting from the demolition or partial demolition. However, the Commission may not deny an
application to partially or completely demolish a listed structure, natural feature, or site unless the Commission
undertakes one of the following actions:
1. initiates and completes the designation of the structure, natural feature, or site as a City Structure of Merit, or
2. the Commission adopts a resolution of intention recommending the designation of the structure, site, or
feature as a City Landmark to the City Council pursuant to the Landmark designation processes and notice
requirements established by this Chapter.
Many cities allow exceptions to demolition review if the applicant demonstrates ―economic hardship.‖ In
other words, the demolition may be allowed if the applicant is able to prove that the structure is not
economically viable and the costs of rehabilitation or reuse are unreasonable.
Determining whether all potential economic options have been considered can involve a complex
determination based on extensive background data. Communities with economic hardship provisions
typically identify a list of economic data to support any claim of hardship, and place the burden of proof
on the applicant to prove a hardship exists. Because preservation commissioners may not be equipped to
evaluate these claims of economic hardship, many communities bring in outside experts to help in the
determination.
For example, in Salt Lake City (not one of the peer cities reviewed in these reports), the landmark
commission establishes a three-person economic review panel composed of real estate and
redevelopment experts to evaluate claims of economic hardship. The commission and the applicant
respectively choose one of the panel members and they must agree upon the third member. The panel
evaluates the application in an open meeting and may convene a public hearing to receive additional
testimony. Standards used to make the determination are related to the applicant’s knowledge of the
2 Denton 35-221; Cambridge 2.78.090
1.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 10
property’s historic designation, the property’s level of economic return and marketability, the feasibility of
alternative uses, and the availability of economic incentives.3
Other cities, such as Gainesville, rely on their preservation board to determine economic hardship, but
clearly list the detailed materials required of the applicant, as shown below:
Sec. 6-19. - Waiting period for certain demolition permits.
(d) At the next regularly scheduled meeting not less than ten days after the referral is received, the historic
preservation board may waive the demolition delay if the applicant can demonstrate economic hardship, with
consideration given to the economic impact of the delay on the applicant and the reasonableness of the applicant
carrying out the decision of the board.
(1) In the event that economic hardship due to the effect of this section is claimed by an owner, the historic
preservation board may require from the property owner any or all of the following information before it makes
a decision on the application, as long as such information is relevant for the historic preservation board to
decide whether an economic hardship exists:
a. A report from a licensed engineer, contractor or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural
soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation;
b. The estimated market value of the property in its current condition, after completion of the proposed
demolition, and after redevelopment of the existing property for continued use;
c. An estimate from an architect, licensed contractor, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate
professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the
existing structure on the property;
d. The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased, including a
description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom
the property was purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer.
(2) If the property is income-producing, the historic preservation board may also require:
a. The annual gross income from the property for the previous two years, itemized operating and maintenance
expenses for the previous two years, and depreciation deductions and annual cash flow before and after debt
service, if any, during the same period;
b. The remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service,
if any, for the previous two years;
c. All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the
purchase, financing or ownership of the property;
d. Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two
years;
e. The assessed value of the property according to the two most recent assessments;
f. The real estate taxes for the previous two years;
g. The form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for profit or not-for-profit
corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other;
h. Any other information considered necessary by the preservation board to a determination as to whether the
property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners.
(e) After invoking a demolition delay, the historic preservation planner shall post the subject property with a sign
notifying the public of the owner's intent to demolish the structure in order to allow interested parties to come
forward and move the structure upon consent of the owner.
3 Salt Lake City 21A.34.020(K)
1.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 11
Although economic hardship considerations are typically considered in the context of historic building
demolition in most cities, they could also in theory be applied to other processes. For example, economic
hardship could be considered in the larger Fort Collins development review process, set forth in Section
3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, which requires applicants to retain and adaptively reuse eligible buildings on
the development site ―to the maximum extent feasible.‖
Some cities give their preservation commission the discretion to deny a demolition or alteration proposal
for the community’s most important historic properties, as opposed to merely delaying such projects.
Denials are appealable to the city council. Most of the peer cities have the authority to deny requests to
demolish landmarked properties, but only authorize the delay of the demolition of potential resources.
Only Santa Barbara and Syracuse expressly authorize their commission to deny demolition of potential
resources. But as noted above, these denials must happen concurrently with a designation. Adding the
authority to explicitly deny demolition/alteration of eligible properties (rather than de facto deny through
nonconsensual designation) would likely be considered a policy change in Fort Collins and thus is beyond
the scope of immediate recommended changes.4
Fort Collins’ Demolition/Review process is comparable to many of
the cities that we studied. Several aspects are noteworthy:
First, the option for an application to be reviewed by the Design
Review Subcommittee rather than the LPC is a good practice that
offers the potential to shorten review times and provide helpful
feedback, and we recommend maintaining this option. However,
the subcommittee’s role and the reasoning behind some projects
being considered by the subcommittee rather than the LPC should
be better explained in the code. It may be helpful to set
parameters for precisely which types of applications may be
considered by the subcommittee, rather than leaving it up to the
applicant’s discretion. Also, it would be helpful to track the number
and type of projects reviewed by the subcommittee. This
information could be reviewed at regular intervals in the future and
could lead to suggestions for improvements or updates to code
standards.
The approval criteria for LPC decisions in the demolition process should also be reviewed and updated to
provide more certainty and consistency. Although it is relatively rare for a Demolition/Alteration review
application to require LPC approval, it is critical that objective standards be established upon which the
LPC can base its decisions. The ordinance does not clearly explain the LPC’s options or the standards they
should use in reviewing a demolition/alteration application. While staff notes that the LPC is only
4 Santa Barbara 22.22.035; Syracuse VII-8
Recommendations
Clarify the role of the Design
Review Subcommittee.
Consider using a decision
matrix to more clearly
differentiate between minor
and major alterations.
Reevaluate criteria for
approval and potentially add
an economic hardship
determination.
Consider increasing the
amount of time that the LPC
can delay a decision in order
to find alternatives to
demolition.
1.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
| Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 12
reviewing applications to determine potential mitigating conditions of approval or to forward the
application to Council to consider a nonconsensual designation, the ordinance does not currently
accurately describe this intent or the limitations of the LPC’s review. In addition, there could be greater
consistency in the criteria used by the subcommittee and the LPC. The current ―considerations‖ used by
the subcommittee are not mandatory standards to be met–only factors for the subcommittee to
―consider‖ that could be evaluated along a wide spectrum of acceptability.
Similar to our recommendation in the Topic B report related to Design Review, we suggest that the
difference between minor and major alterations be better explained in the code. The current definitions
rely on impacts to integrity and require case-by-case review of each modification to determine the
appropriate process. The same or a similar matrix as we recommended for Design Review could be used
to determine the scope of the alteration. This would increase predictability for applicants and improve the
efficiency of processing Demolition/Alteration Review applications, since the individual determination of
whether an alteration is minor or major can unnecessarily consume significant staff time. Since Fort Collins
applies Demolition/Alteration review to all structures that are 50 years or older and Fort Collins
experienced significant growth in the late 1960s and 1970s, making this process administratively efficient
will be imperative in the coming decade as more properties reach the age where they are potentially
significant. It is worth noting that some cities around the country have set a specific date of construction
as the benchmark for whether a review is required (for instance, only buildings built before 1970 are
reviewed, rather than any buildings over 50 years of age); that date can be sunsetted, which allows for
periodic adjustments. In addition, other cities determine a geographic area within which the review’s
applicability is limited.
We also recommend considering the inclusion of an economic hardship determination. Such a process
could offer an extra type of relief valve in unusual situations where applicants feel the regulations unduly
limit their options for their property. Whether the LPC or a separate panel is used to make these
determinations, the materials required of the applicant and the standards used to determine economic
hardship must be made clear. The burden of proof in claiming economic hardship should be placed on
the applicant.
The LPC’s authorization to postpone a decision on a demolition/alteration application by up to 45 days is
on the shorter end of time periods of the cities we studied that allow for a delayed decision. However,
when coupled with the 180-day interim control period (should a property be ultimately considered for
designation by the City Council), the time limitations are similar to other cities we studied. Fort Collins
may want to consider whether the 45-day continuation period for the demolition/alteration review
process allows for enough time to seek other options for a property that would not be forwarded to the
Council for potential designation (for example, exploring the potential for material salvage, moving the
building finding a new owner, or incentives to encourage adaptive reuse). It would also be useful to
develop a variety of tools (financial incentives or otherwise) that could help the LPC in negotiating
outcomes that can preserve more of a property’s history.
1.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 13
Many cities maintain inventories of properties that have been determined to be eligible for designation,
either through a survey or other means, but have not yet been formally designated. Such lists are
important in the context of demolition review: If a property that may be demolished is not designated, the
first step is typically to evaluate its eligibility for designation, and that step is quicker and more efficient if
a list of eligible resources already exists.
It is important that cities proactively evaluate structures for potential historic significance even beyond
case-by-case demolition reviews. These proactive evaluations could happen during citywide or area
surveys, as discussed in the Topic A report. While a survey is just a first step toward affording a structure
or district protection under an ordinance and provides no formal protection on its own, it does offer early
notice to property owners that demolition review may be required. Providing early notice to a property
owner helps ensure that preservation principles are considered early in the planning for a development
project. In contrast, waiting to determine eligibility once an application has already been submitted means
that preservation may take a back seat to other development goals. It also may add controversy and
politicize the historic evaluation.
The City of Fort Collins identifies eligible historic resources through survey work, during the course of the
Demolition/Alteration Review process, and during the Development Review process. Historic surveys can
identify properties that are potentially eligible and can either recommend a property for further research,
or determine that the property is eligible for designation based on the survey research. Property owners
can also simply apply for a determination of their property’s eligibility outside of any process. In Fort
Collins, a determination of eligibility is valid for five years. Prior to 2014, determinations of eligibility were
only valid for one year – the period of validity was increased as part of an overhaul of the preservation
ordinance intended to improve historic review processes.
Knowing whether a property is eligible for individual designation determines what types of historic review
processes are required. Determinations of eligibility essentially have created an additional class of
protected properties in Fort Collins. Applications involving eligible properties must go through the
Demolition/Alteration process described above, and all new construction is reviewed for compatibility
with and preservation of eligible properties through the Development Review process.
Fort Collins’ identification of separate levels of eligibility is somewhat unique. Only properties that are
individually eligible for designation are subject to the Demolition/Alteration review process; properties
that are only eligible as a contributing property within a potential historic district are not subject to the
Demolition/Alteration review process. This distinction was added into the code in 2002. Of the peer cities
reviewed in this report, Gainesville is the only similar city in which levels of eligibility impact the
1.a
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 14
applicability of different processes; the city’s demolition by neglect rules apply only to landmarks or those
contributing to a district, not to noncontributing properties.5
Fort Collins, like many cities, uses historic surveys to identify potentially eligible historic resources.
However, according to city staff, Fort Collins has surveyed fewer than 2,500 of the estimated 19,000 older
buildings in the city. The majority of these surveys were completed in the 1980s and 1990s. The city’s
most recent survey work was completed in 2017 and focused on the Loomis Addition near downtown.
Over 250 properties were surveyed and 121 were identified as qualifying as local landmarks. Other surveys
completed in the past have focused on particular historic or architectural themes, including agricultural
buildings in the urban growth area, the old fort site, postwar development, Quonset huts, schools, and the
sugar factory neighborhoods. Most of these surveys were undertaken at a ―reconnaissance level,‖
meaning they are high level and merely recommend some properties for further study, rather than going
into detail and identifying eligibility for particular buildings.
The city is moving towards compiling their previous determinations of eligibility and making that
information available to the public. For instance, the city has been tracking the results of decisions made
on Demolition/Alteration Review applications and posting these on their website since 2016. We also
understand from city staff that there is an internal spreadsheet that is used to track the determinations
that have been made. This work could help supplement the determinations of eligibility that have been
made during historic surveys. Additionally, we understand that in early 2018 a GIS map of recent
determinations of eligibility made through both survey work and the official determinations will be
available to the public. The public will be able to see those properties, as well as designated local
landmarks and properties listed on the state and national registers, via the city’s online GIS portal, ―FC
Maps.‖6
In many other cities, determining eligibility is merely a portion of the overall demolition review and does
not establish an independent level of protection for the property that applies in other reviews, as it does
in Fort Collins. For example, in both Boulder and Gainesville, structures are evaluated for their eligibility
during the demolition review process. In Cambridge, buildings are determined to be ―preferably preserved
significant buildings‖ during the review of a demolition of any property over 50 years of age. None of the
other cities we studied have an expiration of these determinations of eligibility like Fort Collins’s five-year
period of validity.7
Some cities complete inventories or lists of properties that have been determined to be eligible for
designation. These cities have the support of detailed survey work that assists in creating the inventories.
For example, Gainesville uses an inventory created by the State of Florida, and Syracuse relies on a past
citywide inventory. Santa Barbara maintains a Potential Historic Resource List and explains the process of
creating this list in great detail in their code. 8 Properties must either be identified by a survey or by a
5 Gainesville 30-112
6 https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/review-list.php
7 Boulder 9-11-23; Gainesville 6-19; Cambridge 2.78.090
8 The Santa Barbara Potential Historic Resources List is available online at this link.
1.a
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 15
commission member and a public hearing is held to put them on the list. If a survey identifies a property
as eligible for designation, that property must be put on the potential historic resource list within a year or
it is deemed to be ineligible.9
22.22.030 - The Preparation and Use of Historic Resource Surveys; Identification of Potential Historic
Resources for Possible Designation as a City Landmark or a Structure of Merit.
A. POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES LIST. The Historic Landmarks Commission, acting with the administrative
support of Community Development Department staff, shall periodically review, amend, and maintain a
master list of potential Historic Resources within the City.
D. LISTING OF STRUCTURES, SITES, AND NATURAL FEATURES ON THE CITY'S POTENTIAL HISTORIC
RESOURCES LIST.
1. Use of Survey Identifications. Those structures, real property sites, or natural features identified
through the survey process established by Subsection (B) hereof as having potential for
designation as a City Historic Resource shall be considered and acted upon by the Commission
for official listing on the City’s Potential Historic Resources List at a noticed hearing conducted
in accordance with subsection (E) below held not more than one year after the identification of
the structure, real property site, or feature through the completion of the Survey process for that
area of the City. Pending a hearing on possible listing initiated pursuant to this subsection (D),
the Community Development staff may arrange for the preparation of an expert Historic
Structure/Site Report regarding the possible Historic Resource significance of the structure, site,
or feature. Such report shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the MEA
Historic Resources Guidelines. The failure of the Commission to list an identified structure, site
or feature within the one year time frame required by this subsection shall constitute a
determination by the Commission that the structure, site, or feature is not appropriate for listing
on the City’s Potential Historic Resources List, unless a delay beyond one year is at the specific
written request of the owner of the real property being considered for listing.
2. Commissioner Historic Resource Identification Requests. Those structures, real property sites, or natural
features identified as a result of a Commissioner request as having a potential for designation as City
Historic Resources pursuant to Subsection (C) above shall be considered and acted upon by the
Commission for listing on the Potential Historic Resources List at a noticed hearing conducted in
accordance with subsection (E) below held not more than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date
of the filing with the Community Development Director of the written request by a Commissioner
pursuant to subsection (C) hereof. Pending a hearing on a possible listing initiated pursuant to this
subsection, the Community Development staff may request the preparation of a report prepared by the
City’s Urban Historian regarding the possible Historic Resource significance of the site, structure, or
feature.
Although Denver is not one of the peer cities studied for this report, it is also helpful to study the City and
County of Denver’s ―Certificate of Non-Historic Status‖ process. Property owners in Denver who want
increased certainty about their property may apply for this certificate prior to submitting a demolition
application. City staff then reviews the property for potential eligibility for local designation. If the
property is deemed not to be eligible, a Certificate of Non-Historic Status is issued, which remains in
effect for five years. In this time, the property owner may submit a demolition application without
9 Gainesville 6-19; Syracuse VII-8; Santa Barbara 22.22.030
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 16
requiring further preservation review. Additionally, no designation application for the property may be
processed during this time.10
Unlike several of the peer cities we studied, a determination of
eligibility in Fort Collins creates a certain level of protection for
properties because it spurs Demolition/Alteration review if
demolition or a major alteration is proposed. It also triggers
additional compatibility and preservation review during the
Development Review process, as discussed in the Topic C report (in
Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code).
Because the determination of eligibility has such significance in
Fort Collins processes, we believe these determinations should be
recorded in an inventory or list that is available to residents and
property owners. This would greatly improve the predictability of
the processes that then apply to these properties. This inventory
can build upon the work that the city has already begun in
compiling all past determinations of eligibility. The inventory will also need to be supported by additional
surveys of the city. The city should place greater emphasis and focus on surveying properties that have
not yet been surveyed and creating this list. It will be important to complete additional intensive-level
survey work of the older buildings in Fort Collins to help proactively determine the eligibility of these
properties. The city is already on the path to achieving this with the previously mentioned GIS map that
will be available early in 2018.
To formalize this updated inventory, Fort Collins could take the approach that Santa Barbara takes and
require a public hearing. This would involve adopting all current determinations of eligibility at once at a
hearing, which would be thoroughly noticed and provide property owners an opportunity to comment
before the inventory is adopted. Ideally, most of the inventory could be created at one time, and it would
conceivably be a relatively rare occurrence to add more properties to the inventory. Future additions to
the inventory would then require additional hearings. The hearing would provide greater opportunities for
public input in creating the inventory. Another option would be for staff to add properties to the
inventory and allow property owners to appeal their listing to the LPC. This may be easier from an
administrative perspective. Like Santa Barbara, a time limit should also be established in which a property
identified as eligible for designation in a survey must be placed on the inventory.
We also recommend reconsidering the five-year period of validity for determinations of eligibility. There
are benefits and downsides to establishing time limits on determinations of eligibility. The main benefit of
having a time limit on the listing of eligible properties on an inventory is that it would require the city to
continuously update their surveys or risk that eligible properties would lose the protection that eligibility
currently provides. However, this may be unrealistic administratively for some cities and therefore would
10 Denver 30-6
Recommendations
Focus on completing survey
work to proactively identify
eligible resources.
Create an inventory of
eligible historic resources.
Reconsider the five-year
period of validity. Consider a
process for property owners
to obtain a certificate of
ineligibility with a five year
limit on validity.
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 17
provide little value. But, it is also important to have some expiration for declarations of non-historic
eligibility, as properties may gain historic significance over time.
Instead, Fort Collins should focus on developing an inventory of eligible resources that can be used in a
more predictable manner for applicants and property owners. If a property is not listed on the inventory,
property owners could request something similar to Denver’s Certificate of Non-Historic Status to ensure
that their property is not put on the inventory for five years and therefore is not subject to
Demolition/Alteration review. Like Denver’s certificate, this could also ensure that designation
proceedings for the property could not be initiated within this time limit.
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 18
Many communities have adopted regulations to protect historic properties from being effectively
demolished by incremental neglect. A wide variety of approaches are taken throughout the country. For
example, a common approach is to permit a specified local agency to take necessary steps to secure a
derelict historical resource against vandalism. Often the local government and its preservation agency
have the power to make repairs and bill the owner when historic properties fall into disrepair. In some
cities, the local preservation commission even has the power to initiate or recommend condemnation
proceedings where demolition by neglect is occurring, allowing the local government to assume
ownership of and begin repairs on neglected properties.
Beyond being more specific as to affirmative maintenance obligations, the preservation ordinance should
also include enforcement procedures that identify authorized personnel who can investigate and report
neglected properties to the Commission, the process/timing for issuing notices of violation, and city
authority to correct conditions of neglect and to recoup expenses if the property owner fails to act within
a specified timeframe. Generally, a preservation ordinance will only be as effective as the power and
willingness of the community to enforce it. Ignoring the details of enforcement in a preservation
ordinance may have unfortunate consequences. Enforcement provisions should include remedies for
noncompliance, maintenance and upkeep requirements, and details of how the ordinance should be
administered.
In Fort Collins, regulations preventing demolition by neglect are limited to designated resources. Section
14-53 of the preservation ordinance sets forth minimum maintenance standards that apply to owners of
designated landmarks and all sites, structures, and objects within designated landmark districts. The
minimum standards consist of the International Property Maintenance Code requirements (citywide
standards, not focused specifically on preservation), as well as requirements to keep exterior structural
elements in good condition and free from deterioration and decay. Any violation of the preservation
ordinance is subject to the city’s general penalties and surcharges for misdemeanor offenses and civil
infractions.
The ordinance also allows the LPC to request that the Director require correction of any defects and
repairs to any designated properties. However, staff notes that the building official has limited ability to
require repairs if the building is adequately secured.
The most typical approach to prevent demolition by neglect is to adopt minimum affirmative
maintenance provisions that require property owners to keep buildings in good condition. Such
requirements identify measures that property owners must take to maintain the physical integrity of the
building and keep it from falling into serious disrepair. Almost every city we studied has similar
regulations requiring maintenance of properties to prevent demolition by neglect. Usually, this
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 19
requirement in the preservation ordinance is limited to formally designated properties, like in Fort Collins.
However, Santa Barbara requires maintenance provisions for both landmarks and structures of merit.
Gainesville requires upkeep of both locally designated properties and properties that are contributing to a
local or national historic district.11
All cities have general maintenance requirements not specific to preservation that are incorporated in
their general building code regulations. As an example, Boise is specific about what types of repairs are
required (excerpted below):
11-05-09(14): MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR REQUIRED; DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT
A. Any property located within an historic district, historic district – residential or designated as a landmark
shall be preserved by the owner, or such other person or persons as may have the legal custody or
control thereof, against decay and deterioration and free from unreasonable structural defects. The
owner or other person having legal custody and control thereof shall repair such resource if it is found
to have one or more of the following defects, or other defects that in the judgment of the Commission
has a detrimental effect on the historical characteristics of the property or district.
(1) The deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports;
(2) The deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members;
(3) The deterioration of exterior chimneys;
(4) The deterioration or removal of exterior finishes or fenestration;
(5) The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations including broken windows or
doors; and
(6) The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe
condition or conditions.
Some cities, such as Boise, Denton, and Madison, have created hearing processes for determining whether
demolition by neglect is occurring. This establishes processes whereby an owner must complete repairs by
a certain time and if not, enforcement action is taken. In addition, many of the cities we studied specify
that the preservation planning department or the preservation commission must be notified by the
building official when violations are cited or orders are given on landmarked properties.12
Of the cities we studied, Madison has the strictest enforcement provisions for cases of demolition by
neglect. If a court determines that demolition by neglect is occurring (using an initial LPC decision as
evidence), all fines for violations of the ordinance are tripled. The ordinance is excerpted below (with
emphasis added):
11 Santa Barbara 22.22.070; Gainesville 30-112
12 Boise 11-05-09(14); Denton 35-222; Madison 41.15
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 20
41.14 MAINTENENCE OBLIGATION; ENFORCEMENT; PENALTIES.
(1) Maintenance Obligation. Every owner of a landmark, improvement on a landmark site, or improvement in a
historic district shall do all of the following:
(a) Protect the improvement against exterior decay and deterioration.
(b) Keep the improvement free from structural defects.
(c) Maintain interior portions of the improvement, the deterioration of which may cause the exterior portions of
such improvement to fall into a state of disrepair.
(2) Enforcement.
(a) The Building Inspector or designee is authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(b) The Building Inspector may issue an official written notice to a property owner, requiring the property owner
to correct a violation of Sec. 41.14(1) above by a date specified in the notice.
(c) The Building Inspector shall notify the Preservation Planner of all official compliance notices issued to owners of
landmarks or improvements in historic districts. The Building Inspector shall further notify the Preservation
Planner whenever a property owner fails to correct a violation by the compliance date specified in an official
notice.
(d) City agencies or commissions responsible for enforcing Chapters 18, 27, 29, 30 and 3, MGO, or, in the
absence of such city agency or commission, the Building Inspector, may grant individual variances from
those chapters to facilitate historic preservation and maintenance under this chapter, provided that such
variance does not endanger public health or safety or vary any provisions of this chapter.
(3) Penalties. Violations of the provisions in this ordinance shall be subject to a minimum forfeiture of two hundred
fifty dollars ($250) and a maximum forfeiture of five hundred dollars ($500) for each separate violation. A second
violation within thirty-six (36) months shall be subject to a minimum forfeiture of five hundred dollars ($500) and
maximum forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000) for each separate violation. A third violation within thirty-six
(36) months shall be subject to a minimum forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000) and maximum forfeiture of
two thousand dollars ($2000) for each separate violation. Each and every day during which a violation continues
shall be deemed to be a separate violation. All fines imposed under this ordinance shall be tripled if the Court makes
an additional finding that the subject property is undergoing demolition by neglect as defined by this ordinance. A
finding of demolition by neglect by the Landmarks Commission as provided in Sec. 41.15 below shall be prima
facie evidence of demolition by neglect for purposes of any civil court action.
41.15 DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
The owner of a landmark, improvement on a landmark site, or improvement in a historic district, may not allow the
landmark or improvement to undergo demolition by neglect.
(1) Notice of Demolition by Neglect.
If the Building Inspector believes that a landmark or improvement is undergoing demolition by neglect, the
Building Inspector shall give written notice of that belief to the owner of the landmark or improvement. The
Building Inspector shall give a copy of the notice to the Preservation Planner and the Landmarks Commission.
(2) Public Hearing.
Upon receiving a notice under Sec. 41.15(1), the Landmarks Commission shall issue a hearing notice under Sec.
41.06 and hold a public hearing to determine whether the landmark or improvement is undergoing demolition
by neglect. The Commission shall hold the public hearing within ninety (90) days of receiving the notice under
Sec. 41.15(1).
(3) Landmarks Commission Finding.
If, after a public hearing, the Landmarks Commission finds that a landmark or improvement is undergoing
demolition by neglect, it shall report its finding to the Common Council, the Building Inspector and the Office of
the City Attorney. A Landmarks Commission finding of demolition by neglect is prima facie evidence of
demolition by neglect for purposes of any administrative or civil court action, and also constitutes a
determination that a public nuisance exists under Sec. 27.05(3), MGO.
(5) Abatement by the City.
If the Landmarks Commission finds under Sec. 41.15(3) that a landmark or improvement is undergoing
demolition by neglect, the Building Inspector may proceed under the non-summary abatement procedures set
forth in Sec. 27.05(3)(e), to repair the landmark or improvement to abate the nuisance. The cost of the required
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 21
repairs shall be paid by the property owner, or shall be imposed as a special charge against the property and
collected pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 4.09(13), MGO, and Wis. Stat. § 66.0627.
(6) Acquisition by City.
If the Landmarks Commission finds under Sec. 41.15(3) that a landmark or improvement is undergoing
demolition by neglect, the Common Council may authorize the City to acquire the property under Wis. Stat. §
66.1111(2), if necessary through the initiation of condemnation proceedings under Wis. Stat. § 32.06.
Fort Collins should focus on enumerating areas of neglect that
could lead to serious repair costs if left unattended. It is important
to be specific in the ordinance about what types of repairs are most
necessary to preserve a structure. In addition, the city should
consider increasing the penalties for properties that are deemed to
be undergoing demolition by neglect. This could be determined by
the LPC at a public hearing, as seen in the peer city examples. Also,
similar to Madison, each violation within a certain time period
should be considered a separate offense. This may require
amendments to different parts of the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
Considerations of an applicant’s economic hardship, similar to that
recommended in the first section of this report, could be
incorporated into the LPC’s review to provide a relief valve.
Understandably, most cities are also concerned with preserving the
exterior structural integrity of structures that could be eligible for
historic designation in the future, but have yet to be formally
designated. In the interim, a ―gap‖ condition exists in which
properties that may warrant future designation are not properly
maintained and risk losing their integrity prior to formal
designation—but this fact may not come to light until a property
owner applies for a permit to physically demolish the structure.
One potential resolution for this issue may be to use the inventory of eligible resources list that is
recommended in the previous section of this report. After creating such an inventory, the city can then
incorporate language in the minimum maintenance requirements that extend the minimum maintenance
requirements to all eligible properties listed in the inventory. Using the inventory to clearly and
predictably define a new class of properties would allow Fort Collins to then extend affirmative
maintenance requirements to that new class. Then, staff can prioritize monitoring of exterior structural
conditions on these properties, as well as exercise the authority to enforce violations in order to avoid
demolition by neglect.
In addition, the city should incorporate some preservation-related requirements in the general property
maintenance standards. This could include adding a clear policy statement to the International Property
Maintenance Code as a local amendment that City policy is to pay particular attention to maintenance
standards of designated and eligible historic resources.
Recommendations
Specify the types of repairs
that are required to prevent
demolition by neglect.
Increase penalties for
properties undergoing
demolition by neglect.
If an inventory of eligible
resources is created, extend
maintenance requirements
to eligible structures on the
inventory.
Incorporate preservation-
related requirements in the
general property
maintenance standards.
Develop financial incentives
to assist with required
property maintenance.
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 22
Finally, we recommend balancing these maintenance requirements with financial incentives to complete
repairs. Often, properties are not being kept up for financial reasons. Assistance may be the ―carrot‖
approach that can balance the ―stick‖ approach of stronger and wider-reaching maintenance
requirements and enforcement. These incentives could also be used to make necessary repairs before
they are exponentially more expensive. The city’s Design Assistance Program is already extended to
eligible resources and can provide up to 2,000 dollars of design assistance for a proposed exterior
modification. An incentive program to actually complete the repairs could be modeled based on the
Design Assistance Program.
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 23
Many local preservation ordinances contain provisions whereby a historic resource declared to be a public
hazard may be altered, repaired, or demolished without the local preservation review body having any
input or taking action. On their face, public safety exclusions appear reasonable—if a building is about to
tumble down on pedestrians below, surely something must be done quickly—but in practice, they could
be used to circumvent local review procedures or to avoid facing up to hard choices between a proposed
redevelopment scheme and preservation of an important historic resource.
At a minimum, local preservation ordinances should attempt to strike a balance between concerns about
public safety and preservation—for example, by allowing the preservation commission to comment on the
proposed demolition unless the legislative body specifically finds there is an immediate and serious threat
to the public safety that cannot be addressed through less drastic measures.
In 2014, Fort Collins updated the ordinance language related to remedying dangerous conditions and
public safety exclusions. This amendment inserted new language requiring that, if the structure is capable
of being made safe by repairs, it must be repaired or demolished in accordance with the provisions of the
provisions of the Demolition/Alteration review process.
Determining what is ―repairable‖ versus ―imminently dangerous‖ happens on a case-by-case basis. The
Buildings and Building Regulations chapter of the Fort Collins Municipal Code sets forth definitions for
determining whether a structure is ―dangerous‖ and when there is ―imminent danger‖ (excerpted below).
Further, an adopted appendix lays out a sample list of conditions that are considered to be substandard
or dangerous.
108.1.5 Dangerous structure or premises. A structure or premises is dangerous if any part,
element or component thereof is no longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit
state as defined in this code or, when considered in totality, the structure or premises
pose an imminent threat to the health and safety of the public or the occupants of the
structure or premises as referenced in Appendix A of this code.
109.1 Imminent danger. When, in the opinion of the code official, there is imminent
danger of failure or collapse of a building or structure which endangers life, or when any
structure or part of a structure has fallen and life is endangered by the occupation of the
structure, or when there is actual or potential danger to the building occupants or those
in the proximity of any structure because of explosives, explosive fumes or vapors or the
presence of toxic fumes, gases or materials, or operation of defective or dangerous
equipment, the code official is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require
the occupants to vacate the premises forthwith. The code official shall cause to be posted
at each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: "This Structure Is
Dangerous and Its Occupancy Has Been Prohibited by the Code Official." It shall be
unlawful for any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of securing the
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 24
structure, making the required repairs, removing the hazardous condition or demolishing
the same.
Most cities give the building official significant latitude in determining what is dangerous, and exempt
ordered repairs or demolition from typical preservation process requirements. However, a few of the cities
we studied limit the authority of the building official. For instance, Syracuse requires that the ordered
changes undergo the typical Certificate of Appropriateness approval process, if time allows. Ultimately,
their preservation commission must approve the changes ordered by the official, but may add conditions
to their approval that will mitigate the historic impact. However, if the time to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness will ―prevent timely compliance,‖ the ordered work can be exempted from the process
altogether.13
As another example, Berkeley contains a provision for a public safety exemption from historic preservation
regulations, but instructs that the exemption is specifically limited to activities necessary to correct public
safety issues, preventing demolition in many cases (emphasis added):
3.24.280 Landmarks, historic districts or structures of merit--Unsafe or dangerous conditions--Effect.
None of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to prevent any measures of construction, alteration or
demolition necessary to correct or abate the unsafe or dangerous condition of any structure, other feature, or part
thereof, which such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous by the Planning and Community
Development Department or the Fire Department, and where the proposed measures have been declared
necessary, by such department or departments, to correct the said condition; provided, however, that only such
work as is reasonably necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed pursuant to this
section. In the event any structure or other feature is damaged by fire or other calamity or by act of God, or by the
public enemy to such an extent that in the opinion of the aforesaid department or departments it cannot
reasonably be repaired or restored, it may be removed in conformity with normal permit procedures and
applicable laws.
Cities also vary in how much involvement of the preservation commission is built into the determinations
of what is ―dangerous.‖ Cambridge requires notification of the Executive Director of their Historical
Commission for inspections of buildings over 50 years in age and the director is given the authority to
―pursue all reasonable courses of action to prevent emergency demolition‖ of structures that are
determined to be significant buildings. In Gainesville, the preservation commission is empowered to
appeal the building official’s determinations that a building is ―dangerous‖ to the city’s board of
adjustment. Gainesville also helpfully identifies the preservation board’s roles, responsibilities, and rights
to notification regarding maintenance issues in their ordinance.14
13 Syracuse VII-6
14 Cambridge 2.78.110; Gainesville 30-112
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 25
30-112. 4.g. Demolition by Neglect.
The intent of this section of the land development code is to stop the continuing deterioration of historic
properties and neighborhoods through application of chapters 13 and 16 of the code of ordinances.
1. The historic preservation board may, on its own initiative, file a formal complaint with the codes enforcement
division requesting repair or correction of defects to any designated structure so that it is preserved and
protected.
2. The code enforcement division shall provide written notice to the staff member assigned to the historic
preservation board of any minor or major housing code violation for a building or structure that is either listed
on the national or local historic register or is a contributing structure to either a nationally or locally designated
historic district.
3. The code enforcement office shall provide written notice to the staff member assigned to the historic
preservation board of a determination that a building or structure that is either listed on the national or local
historic register or is a contributing structure to either a nationally or locally designated historic district is
"dangerous," as defined by section 16-17 of the code of ordinances.
4. Upon receipt of this notice, the city manager or designee is authorized to access these properties accompanied
by a code enforcement officer to assess the damage that formed the basis for the decision to find the building
"dangerous." The assessment will be presented to the historic preservation board, which shall be allowed to
appeal the determination to the board of adjustment pursuant to section 16-27 of this code and present
evidence against the determination that the building is "dangerous".
The Fort Collins ordinance already does a good job of requiring
repair where possible and not purely exempting public safety
exclusions from the historic review process. Many cities do not
have this level of specificity. However, the applicability of this
provision could be more clearly explained in the ordinance.
In addition, the definitions of ―dangerous structures,‖ ―imminent
danger,‖ and the examples of dangerous buildings in the building
code should be reviewed. While the Fort Collins definition of
―imminent danger‖ is generally similar to the other cities we
studied, it is somewhat circular, essentially noting that imminent
danger means whenever the code official believes there is
imminent danger. Many cities maintain this somewhat open-ended
approach to provide flexibility to treat unique situations on a case-
by-case basis. One possible option for additional clarification could
be further emphasis on time, clarifying that ―imminent danger‖ is ―A condition that immediately threatens
the health, safety, and welfare of an individual or the public due to danger of collapse or other dangers to
enter.‖
Potential exclusions for historic buildings should be added to the building code Appendix A list of specific
substandard or dangerous conditions, to ensure that historic resources are not ordered for demolition
when dangerous but repairable conditions exist.
Recommendations
Clarify ordinance language
requirement to repair
dangerous conditions when
deemed repairable by the
building official.
Review and update relevant
building code definitions.
Improve coordination
between the
LPC/preservation staff and
the building official in
regards to dangerous
buildings.
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 26
Finally, the ordinance should more clearly describe the roles, responsibilities, and relationship of the
building official and the commission or preservation staff. The process for notifying the LPC should be
better detailed and a process for appealing these orders or involving the LPC should also be developed.
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Peer Cities
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 27
The following table compares the basic characteristics of the cities we studied for this report. The peer
cities researched were determined based on similar characteristics to Fort Collins: a population size
between 90,000 and 300,000 people, the presence of a large university, a growing or stable population,
and a robust preservation program determined by number of historic districts and landmarks.
Fort Collins,
Colorado
164,000
33,000
Colorado State
University
Growing: 36%
248 landmarks, 3 historic
districts
Berkeley,
California
121,000
40,000
University of California,
Berkeley
Growing: 18%
281 landmarks, 4 historic
districts, and 39 structures
of merit
Boise, Idaho 223,000
22,000
Boise State University
Growing: 14%
30 landmarks, 9 historic
districts
Boulder,
Colorado
108,000
32,000
University of Colorado
Boulder
Growing: 14%
186 landmarks, 10 historic
districts, 75 structures of
merit
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
111,000
33,000
Harvard University &
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Growing/ stable:
9%
30 landmarks, 2 historic
districts, 4 conservation
districts, and 39 properties
with conservation
easements
Denton, Texas 134,000
53,000
University of North
Texas & Texas Woman’s
University
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Links
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 28
PEER CITY ORDINANCES
Berkeley, California:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/Berkeley03/Berkeley0324/Berkeley0324.html#3.24
Boise, Idaho: http://cityclerk.cityofboise.org/media/262806/1100.pdf
Boulder, Colorado:
https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT9LAUSCO_CH11HIPR_9-11-
3INDEINLAHIDI
Cambridge, Massachusetts: http://code.cambridgema.gov/2.78.180/
Denton, Texas:
https://library.municode.com/tx/denton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=SPBLADECO_CH35ZO_ARTVHIL
APRHIDI
Eugene, Oregon: https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/Index/262
Gainesville, Florida:
https://library.municode.com/fl/gainesville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORGAFL_CH30LADECO_A
RTVIRESPREUS_S30-112HIPRCO
Lincoln, Nebraska: http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti27/ch2757.pdf ;
Madison, Wisconsin:
https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=Chapter%2033%20Boards%2C
%20Commissions%2C%20and%20Committees
Norman, Oklahoma:
http://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/WebFM/Norman/Planning%20and%20Development/Planning
%20and%20Zoning/5-22-14%20Complete%20Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf
Provo, Utah: http://www.codepublishing.com/UT/Provo/?Provo16/Provo16.html
Santa Barbara, California: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=12168
Syracuse, New York: http://www.syracuse.ny.us/pdfs/Zoning/Zoning%20Ordinance%20Part%20C.pdf
OTHER RELATED SITES
City and County of Denver, Colorado
https://library.municode.com/co/denver/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIIREMUCO_CH30LAPR_ARTII
NGE_S30-6PRAUERCOREALDEST
City of Santa Barbara, ―Santa Barbara Potential Historic Resources List‖
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17352
Fort Collins Demolition/Alteration Review and Appeals
https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/review-list.php
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
TOPIC 4: DEMO, NEGLECT & DANGEROUS 1
CAC February 7, 2018
1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
Demo/Alt Review
Demolition/Alteration Review Process
Recommendations:
• Role of Design Review Subcommittee
• Decision Matrix & Major/Minor Alterations
• Criteria for Approval
• Add Economic Hardship
• Increase Time of Delay – Longer than 45 days
• Add Standards for LPC’s Decision
2
1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
Eligibility
Determinations of Eligibility
Recommendations:
• Individually Eligible vs Eligible
• Survey
• Inventory of Eligible Resources
• 5-Year Period of Validity
3
1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
Demo by Neglect
Demolition by Neglect
Recommendations:
• Increase Penalties
• Extend Maintenance Requirements to Eligible Structures
• Decision Matrix & Major/Minor Alterations
• Add Preservation Requirements to Property
Maintenance Standards
• Financial Incentives for Property Maintenance
4
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
Dangerous Buildings
Public Safety Exclusions:
Recommendations:
• Fix Dangerous Conditions when Repairable
• Review Building Code Definitions – Better Define
“Imminent Danger”
• Coordination between LPC & Chief Building Official
5
1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
What If ???
6
1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
Purpose of Demo/Alt Review:
• Provide information to owner
• Inform neighborhood/community of change
• Give residents ability to protect highly significant
property
• Document property before significantly altered
7
1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
What Demo/Alt Review does:
• Provides information to owner
• Informs neighborhood/community of change
• Gives residents ability to protect highly significant
property
• Document property before significantly altered
8
1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
What Demo/Alt Review also does:
• Gives false sense that City is protecting residences
• De-incentivizes individual and district designation
• Takes a significant amount of staff time .75 FTE
• Changes focus to regulatory rather than supportive
• Keeps us from doing survey, grants, outreach
9
1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
So, What If:
• Provide information to owner
• Inform neighborhood/community of change
• Give residents ability to protect highly significant
property
• Document property before significantly altered
10
1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
• That City codes do NOT protect residences
• Incentivize individual and district designation
• Use .75 staff time for outreach, survey, grants, etc.
• Changes focus to supportive
• Positive perception of Historic Preservation
11
1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Demo, Neglect and Dangerous Bldgs (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review,
DATE:
STAFF:
February 14, 2018
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
Landmark Preservation
Commission
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Code requires all boards and commissions to file work plans on or before September 30 for the following
year. According to the Boards and Commissions Manual, work plans should set out major projects and issues for
discussion for the following year. The LPC adopted the attached 2018 work plan at its August 16, 2017 meeting.
Beginning with the September 13, 2017 work session, consideration of pending priorities associated with the work
plan will be a regular discussion item. The regular recurrence of this discussion item is intended to provide the
Commission with the opportunity to measure ongoing progress and identify action items.
ATTACHMENTS
1. LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 42
2.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6384 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities)
2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: LPC 2018 Work Plan signed (6384 : LPC Work Plan - Progress and Priorities)
Growing: 60%
2 historic districts, 1
conservation district
Eugene,
Oregon
167,000
23,000
University of Oregon
Growing: 20%
60 landmarks and 2 historic
districts
Gainesville,
Florida
132,000
52,000
University of Florida
Growing: 16%
10 landmarks and 5 historic
districts
Lincoln,
Nebraska
280,000
25,000
University of Nebraska
Growing: 23%
160 landmarks, 18 historic
districts
Madison,
Wisconsin
253,000
43,000
University of Wisconsin
Growing: 20%
182 landmarks, 5 historic
districts
Norman,
Oklahoma
122,000
31,000
University of Oklahoma
Growing: 26% 3 historic districts
Provo, Utah 117,000
33,000
Brigham Young
University
Growing/ stable:
11%
150 landmarks, 2 historic
districts
Santa Barbara,
California
92,000
24,000
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Growing/ stable:
3%
124 landmarks, 3 historic
districts, 132 structures of
merit
Syracuse, New
York
143,000
21,000
Syracuse University
Stable: -2%
59 landmarks, 4 historic
districts
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, Dangerous Buildings (6476 : Discussion of Demolition/Alteration Review, Neglect, and