HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/28/2004LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 28, 2004 Minutes
TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY
City Council Liaison: David Roy (407-7393)
Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376)
Commission Chair: W. J. "Bud" Frick, Jr. (484-1467)
SUMMARY OF MEETING: LPC heard public comment and applicant's request
for a waiver of conditions of demolition/alteration review, as allowed in
Section 14-53 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, on the Rule Farm, 4824 S.
Lemay Ave. LPC denied the applicant's request for a waiver of requirements
contained in Chapter 14 of the Code and pre -approval of a demolition permit,
but did approve relocation of the house and barn, should a suitable location
be found.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission called to order with a quorum
present by Chairman Bud Frick at 5:40 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 300 Laporte
Ave., Fort Collins, Colorado. Agnes Dix, Per Hogestad, Janet Ore, Ian Shuff and Myrne
Watrous were present. Angie Aguilera recused herself for a Conflict of Interest and was
not present. After opening the meeting, Bud Frick also recused himself and passed
chairmanship of the meeting to Per Hogestad. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current
Planning, Karen McWilliams and Carol Tunner represented City staff; Ingrid Decker,
Assistant City Attorney, provided counsel. No City Council members were present.
GUESTS: Rick Zier, attorney, representing owners Dick and Dianne Rule; Gene Falk,
1237 Oak Island Court; Evan Gilmartin, 3307 S. College #7011; Cathy Dumler, 1526
Peterson St.; Eric Kronwall, 1119 Monticello Court; Ted Davis, 1908 Rangeview Drive;
John Kirsch, 2217 Gemstone Court; Vonnie Michels, 1818 Lakeshore Circle; Dan
Nygaard, 1609 Shenandoah Circle; Theresa Fightmaster, 7750 Park Ridge Circle;
David Grace, 3118 Rockwood Drive; Jim Tanner, 215 Park St.; Gene Humphries, 4113
Harborwalk Drive; Ben Rule, 4824 S. Lemay Ave.; York (one name only), 2001
Creekwood Drive; Kathleen Zier, 5913 Southridge Greens Blvd.; J.P. Madden, 6032
Brookwater; Rheba Massey; 1400 Freedom Lane; Dave Armstrong, 4113 Sherman
Court; Joe Carter, 4560 Lark Bunting Drive; Linda Hopkins, owner, 903 Rule Drive;
Dave Edwards, 218 W. Magnolia St.; Bill Jones, 1336 Fairway Five; Don Shannon, 630
Sky Sail Lane. In total, approximately 50 members of the public were in attendance.
AGENDA REVIEW: All regular Commission business was moved to Other Business
following the proceedings related to the Rule farm property by chairman Bud Frick, who
returned to the Commission following completion of that item.
DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROCESS
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 2
Rule Farm, 4824 S. Lemay Ave., Preliminary Hearing — Dianne and Dick Rule,
owners; presented by Rick Zier, attorney, introduced by Karen McWilliams.
Per Hogestad: Thank you, Bud. I need to point out that we have changed our
agenda a little bit from what it normally would be. We believe the agenda we have now
will make it a little bit clearer and fairer to all that want to present: We'll have public input
early in the process here. Let me start by asking how many people, with a show of
hands, intends to speak this evening? We have about 15 people, something like that.
OK, I would suggest we allow three minutes per person to make a presentation. We'll
need a motion to set that time limit.
Agnes Dix: I move that presentations are limited to three minutes each
Ian Shuff: Second.
[Motion passed unanimously, 5-0.]
Per Hogestad: We will go ahead and everyone will be allowed three minutes. We
will time that; there is a signal there that will show you when to wrap up. We've got two
podiums here, so what I'd like is that everyone that intends to speak line up at either of
the two podiums so we can kind of move quickly in between speakers.
Ingrid Decker: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, did you want to have the brief staff
overview first, or did you want to go straight to public comment?
Per Hogestad: I want to kind of explain what we're going to do with public portion
of it, but yes, we'll do the staff report. I guess, given that, so we kind of understand
where we're going to go with that, we do have a City staff report that we'd like to do.
Karen?
Karen McWilliams: Mr. Chairman, I'm Karen McWilliams, I'm the Historic Preservation
Planner with the Advance Planning Department. This is a preliminary hearing or a
waiver of conditions for the Rule Farm at 4824 S. Lemay Ave. and the applicants are
Dick and Dianne Rule. The applicants are proposing to either relocate or demolish the
buildings on their property at 4824 S. Lemay Ave. The Rules are requesting a 'Waiver
of conditions", which is Section 14-53 of the requirements, and the requirements they
are asking to be waived are contained in Section 14-72, entitled "Procedures for review
of applications for demolition or relocation," commonly known as the Demolition/
Alteration Review Process. The Rules contend that these requirements would impose a
severe financial hardship upon them.
Section 14-53 of the Municipal Code states, "upon a showing of substantial hardship or
to protect against an arbitrary result, the Landmark Preservation Commission may
waive such conditions and requirements as are set forth in this Chapter provided that
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 3
the spirit and purpose of the Chapter are not significantly eroded." The requirements in
Section 14-72 that are being requested to be waived are:
Section 14-72(a) — The determination of eligibility for Landmark designation;
Section 14-72(b)(1) — The preliminary hearing;
Section 14-72(b)(2a) — A fee of $250;
Section 14-72(b)(2b) — The Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory
Record form, and the report regarding the effect that the removal or demolition of the
structures will have on the character of the site and the adjacent properties;
Section 14-72(b)(2c) — The requirement for fully approved plans, and
Section 14-72(b)(3)(4)(5) and (6), which all pertain to the public hearing process.
Now I'd like to give you a little bit of background on the property: The Rule Farm was
surveyed at the reconnaissance level in 1994 by a professional consultant, whose
qualifications exceed the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications for both
Historian and Architectural Historian. The farm complex was recently re-evaluated by
staff, whose qualifications also exceed these federal standards. The property is
individually eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation. The farm has both
architectural and historical importance under Designation Standard 1, for its significant
contribution to the history of agricultural and urban development in Fort Collins, and
Standard 3, for the farm's outstanding architecture. Additionally, Dale Heckendorn,
Colorado Historical Society's State and National Register Coordinator, again, for the
State of Colorado, reviewed photographs of the site, again, and believes the property
would still likely qualify for individual listing, on both the State Register of Historic
Properties and the National Register of Historic Places, the highest recognition that
most properties can attain. The property would qualify under National and State
Register Criteria C, for the buildings' architectural importance.
Architecturally, this outstanding home is among the region's older and larger
farmhouses. It is unique among the farmhouses in the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area as the only representation of the Dutch Colonial Revival architectural style
associated with an agricultural property. The distinctive Dutch Gambrel barn has
architectural significance in its own right. Associated structures include a chicken house
(one of only a small handful remaining of what was once a very common agricultural
structure) and shed, little changed from their original construction. Two additional
buildings, a garage and a pole barn, while extant, were previously approved for
demolition, to facilitate the property's earlier proposed adaptive reuse as the restaurant.
The 3.25-acre site is sufficiently large that the property can be redeveloped for a variety
of commercial, office and/or residential uses, including the construction of new office or
commercial buildings, while still retaining the historic structures.
It is staffs recommendation that the Commission -- the Commission may either approve
or deny, in whole or in part, the applicants' request for a "Waiver of conditions" (Section
14-53) of the requirements contained in Section 14-72, "Procedures for review of
applications for demolition or relocation."
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 4
Staff recommends denial of the request, believing that requiring the Rules to comply
with the provisions of Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code would not be a substantial
hardship or protect against an arbitrary result. Additionally, a waiver of conditions of this
application would significantly erode the spirit and purpose of Chapter 14. Thank you.
Per Hogestad: Now what I'd like to do is open this to public comment. So, like I
said, those people that want to speak, if they'd lineup at the podiums. What I'd also like
is, that if, rather than repeat the same items again, if you have new information to add,
we'd appreciate it if you could do that, and if information has already been given, it
would save time if we don't give the same information over again. When you come up,
please state your name and address and I believe — do we have a sign -in sheet there
as well? OK, so if you would sign and state your name and address.
Carol Tunner: A sign-up sheet for them to state their name and address, and
there are pens for them to work with. And to help the speakers, I am setting the timer for
three minutes; when there is one minute left, a yellow light will go on in the box there
telling you to sum up. At the end of your three minutes, a beeper will go off until you
finish speaking.
Per Hogestad: If you could come up now, we'd appreciate it.
Gene Falk: My name is Gene Falk, and I live at 1237 Oak Island Court. I am
President of the Board of Directors of The Two Oak Court Homeowners Association,
and this homeowners association is comprised of twenty homeowners in Valley Oak
Court and Oak Island Court, and these two courts are just off of Rule Drive, immediately
to the south of the Rules' property. Speaking for the Board of Directors, at our meeting
on April the 15th, it was. a consensus of the board members that we do support the sale
of the Rule property as currently under contract. We further support the development of
the site as a nursing home or a rehab facility. If the structures are deemed worthy of
preservation, they should be relocated to another site, if practical, or otherwise
demolished. The buildings, as they presently are, are quite are out of character with the
neighborhoods that have developed around the Rule property. Thank you.
Evan Gilmartin: Good evening. My name is Evan Gilmartin, I'm...
Carol Tunner: Would you sign in please, sir?
Evan Gilmartin: Sign in? Sure. Good evening. My name is Evan Gilmartin, I'm a
contractor here in town. I moved houses back in the '70s and '80s before saving houses
was fashionable. I have talked with the Rules about relocating the house, and that's
what I'd like to do. We need to find a suitable location. The house is worthy of saving; in
the present location, I'm not in agreement with. Let them have their property rights, let
them keep their rights and use it to the highest and best use. So, I am willing to work
with them and do whatever we need to get the houses located, work with the City and
preserve the house. Thank you.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 5
Per Hogestad: Is there anyone else that...?
Cathy Dumler: My name is Cathy Dumler and I currently live at 1526 Peterson. We
moved to Fort Collins from Massachusetts in 1990, where in Massachusetts we lived in
a home of similar age. And we became familiar with this property on Lemay because we
lived in the Oak Ridge subdivision. And we met the Rules in 1991 and have been
intimately acquainted with their home both inside and out ever since. And based on my
experience of living in Massachusetts for 17 years, with surrounding me were historic
properties, I find it hard to justify an historical designation label for this particular
property. While the homes and buildings are old, I think they can be preserved in
another location without losing the historical label for the architecture. When I became
aware of the difficulties that the Rules were having, I offered to help them gather names
on their petitions. And in gathering close to 100 names myself, I encountered absolutely
no objection to their wishes to have the property developed and the buildings moved to
another location. In fact, I would say that in most cases the reaction of everyone I met
was in direct opposition to Section 14-3, Number 2, of your Landmark Preservation City
Code, which states that the purpose is to promote civic pride. Everyone I talked to felt
that the LPC position was in direct opposition to civic pride and that it usurped the
private property rights of the current owners. Thank you.
Eric Kronwall: Good evening, my name is Eric Kronwall, and I live at 1119
Monticello Court. One of the key provisions of our Bill of Rights is that there will be no
taking of private property without due process, which of course this is, but also
appropriate compensation. And in talking with Rules, my understanding is that there has
been no compensation offered to them for the severe financial impact that's been
proposed against them. And as a principle of government, and, um, sound process, it's
inappropriate to harm them in this severe way when there are appropriate remedies
such as moving the buildings. Thank you.
Ted Davis: Good evening. My name is Ted Davis, I live at 1908 Rangeview
Drive. With the exception of about four years, I have lived in Fort Collins since 1947. 1
knew this house as the Nesbitt House in the '50s. In my opinion it was not historically
significant then nor is it now. I have known Dick and Dianne Rule for over 30 years. I am
proud to say Bob Wilson has been a partner of mine in ProMats, and a friend for over
20 years. It seems to me that the City staff and this board are pursuing a private agenda
at the expense of the public good. I would ask your consideration to let the Rules move
the house and the outbuildings. Thank you.
John Kirsch: My name is John Kirsch, I live at 2217 Gemstone Court. I've been
somewhat involved in the story behind the situation, and what's occurred to me through
all this is that there is a, this has uncovered a weakness in the Landmark Preservation
system, and that is that there is no funding mechanism. Short of that, I think that this
could only be viewed as a taking. To, to create a few regulations that most people aren't
aware of and only for them to discover the hard way that they could be out a half -a -
million dollars seems to me like, ah, just more political mumbo-jumbo that has got, ah,
so many citizens upset with government. Uh, it's, I can't, uh, believe that it's not a little
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 6
ironic that what we have is, uh, we're buying acreage up near the Wyoming border with
open space money that we can't spend fast enough but we can't seem to find money for
this. So I think, ah, do the job and find the money or let it go. Thank you.
Vonnie Michels: My name is Vonnie Michels, I live at 1818 Lakeshore Circle. I'm
here as a close friend of the Rules, and I do not know the prospective buyer. Last night
my husband and I were walking the Rules' property with them, we remembered some
great times there of our families growing up together. But now walking the property it's
obvious to see how the farm doesn't fit the location any longer. When I think of a farm,
and I think like most people do, you picture a rural and peaceful setting. Here this farm
is surrounded by busy businesses, traffic buzzing on Lemay, and when you're outside
often times you can't hear one another talking. The proposed buyer has a business that
would benefit our community and that particular location. Having a full nursing care
facility in that area allows for elderly patients to go from the assisted living to a full -care
facility in the same area, which makes change for these folks and their families so much
easier. This area is such a great area for this type of facility because it is so close to
businesses and stores, doctors and homes that would allow families to drop by and see
their loved ones easily. I think that's all.
Dan Nygaard: Good evening, my name is Dan Nygaard. I've known the Rules for
about ten years, although I haven't talked to them in years, not because I'm mad at
them or anything. I was rather stunned to learn about this. I read about these events in
The Wall Street Journal where someone in New York City or Boston or someone tries to
prevent, some government institute, entity, tries to prevent a private property owner
from getting the highest and best use out of their property. I don't have a problem with
the City, state, county doing that, as long as it's properly compensated. If it is not proper
compensated, then the City loses its right, just as any other party would. Now I know the
City, state, whatever government entity likes to claim privileges unto itself that, uh, are
not really spelled out in the Constitution. That something that we as a society have been
struggling with for, oh, a couple of decades now, and we're going to continue to struggle
with it. In this particular situation, on behalf of Dick and Dianne Rule, I petition the City
of Fort Collins simply to let them pursue the highest and best use of their property, and
stop putting roadblocks and bureaucratic prerogatives in their way. Thank you.
Theresa Fightmaster: Good evening. My name's Theresa Fightmaster. Thank you
for allowing the public to be here tonight on behalf of Dick and Dianne Rule. As I was
helping them circulate a petition to support the Rules' conflict that they're having with
the landmark preservation group, I had approached a lady and explained the situation to
her, and she said to me, 'Does that mean the moral of the story is that if you live in Fort
Collins, Colorado, you should probably sell your home before it becomes 50 years old
and possibly historically significant?' And that really seemed like black and white to me,
it was very, a very, um, wake-up call to say no, that's not the point, but it almost makes
it sound that way when you look at just the nuts and bolts of it. I wanted to draw
attention to the Section 14-3 Number 4 where it says, the landmark preservation says,
the ordinance is to protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors. This
property lies on South Lemay Avenue, it is not a tourist destination, by any means, it's a
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 7
commercial area, where people in our community go to get services and/or to live. So I
do not feel that, in that respect, that it would affect in any way tourists or visitors. Thank
you..
David Grace: My name is David Grace, I live at 3118 Rockwood Drive. I'm not
particularly in tune with all the different numbers and sections and things like that, but it
was stated that the ordinance says, "unless there's a significant hardship." Mrs.
McWilliams has stated that in her opinion it does not constitute a significant hardship for
the buildings to stay where they are. I'm curious as to how she has made that
assessment. There aren't any counterproposals; there is certainly a proposal to take the
entire property and use it for a nursing home facility. But there haven't been any
proposals that I know of to leave the structures there where they are and to improve the
rest of the property. Mrs. McWilliams stated that there is plenty of room to do that, and
yet no one has stepped forward, so I'm perplexed as to how she can made the
assessment that it wouldn't provide a significant hardship. Thank you.
Jim Tanner: Good evening. My name is Jim Tanner, I live at 215 Park St. Hello,
staff, and hello, LPC. I know some of you; I was a member of the Landmark
Preservation Commission for ten years, '89 to '99, and I've long been a supporter of the
landmark preservation effort, admired the work that staff does, and I know the hard
hours that you folks put in. So I find myself pretty distressed that I'm standing up here
trying to support the long-term goals of preservation in Fort Collins by opposing the
short-term efforts of the preservation staff. I do not believe that the long-term purposes
of this program are being served by staffs recommendation in this case. I've objected
for some time, both orally and in writing, both while I was a Commission member and
after, to the lack of transparency and forthrightness in the rhetoric of the preservation
program. I have also objected to troubling inconsistencies and contradictions in
preservation -oriented statutes, as well as inconsistencies in their application. Since
these objections are a matter of record, and will be touched upon by others in the Rules'
presentation, I won't enumerate upon them further here. What I do want to comment on
is what appears to me to be an almost perverse indifference on the part of the
preservation staff to the Rules' hardship in this situation. I find myself reading about it,
talking to the Rules, shaking my head, saying "What in the world is going on in that
office?" Why have the Rules been bullied into believing that they have no option but to
preserve their property and every expectation of losing their life savings, when there is
an obvious waiver offered to them under 14-53? What is going on? Why have things
been allowed to proceed this far? This is not the preservation program that I participated
in. When I was a member of the LPC, one of my favorite sayings was the phrase, "Zeal
without prudence is frenzy." The staff at that time liked it so much they made a plaque of
it and gave it to me. You remember that? I think maybe you ought to take a look at it
again. I respectfully suggest that we amend or add to that saying with another one:
"Zeal without compassion is tyranny." Thank you.
[Applause]
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 8
Gene Humphries: My name is Gene Humphries, I live at 4113 Harborwalk Drive. I
don't know how to follow something quite as good as that. I've known the Rules for 22
years and am quite familiar with the property out on South Lemay that is the point of
discussion here. Um, one of the things that mentioned in the staff recommendation
about that there would not be an arbitrary result as a result of the decision, if, if the
Rules' request is not granted is simply false. I financed this property and helped them
finance this property before; um, the idea of attempting to develop this property as a
commercial development with the existing buildings there is simply not practical. And
that just the way it is. The other item is is that it's not really even that marketable as a
primary residence, as a residential property, either, because of the fact that it is zoned
commercial and it's completely surrounded by commercial. It's just not practical. So, for
all intents and purposes, their hands are being tied as a result of the process and the
City recommendation. And I also implore the board to seriously consider the
ramifications to them. to the Rules', of the decision you have in front of you, and I urge
you to grant their request for the exception. And that's for either relocating or
demolishing the buildings whichever they, whichever would be practical for them to be
able to do. Thank you.
Per Hogestad: Is there any other public input?
Ben Rule: Ladies and gentlemen of the board, my name's Ben Rule. If you
don't know what address I live at, you guys haven't been paying attention for the last
couple of hours. I have to warn you, I had not intended to stand up here and address
you guys. I have obviously been very involved in this process with my parents for the
last 30 years. I'm probably more familiar with this property than anybody in the room,
including my parents; I've been trying to destroy it for almost 30 years, unsuccessfully,
but based on the conversation that has happened so far tonight and the information that
I know you have in your hands and what you've reviewed over the last couple weeks, I
wanted to touch on a couple different topics. We can stand here all night and argue
code issues or national designations or who's the most certified or who has the best
opinion on this. But at the end of the day, everybody is here to try to find the ultimate
solution that appeases everybody's interests. You guys have that solution presented to
you: My parents, against my wishes and numerous other people's, want to save these
buildings by having them relocated to another place. You guys want to save these
buildings, and then let people enjoy them. They're not all that exciting inside, trust me,
but you're more than welcome to move them somewhere else and let anybody else
come and look at them. The simplest way to do that, for you guys to be able to say we
saved a building, we preserved a piece of, er, I don't, wood and nails that we really like,
is to let the buildings be moved. There's already people fighting over the option to do
that, it's great. Let them go. Let my parents sell the land, build a retirement home, get
the City some more jobs and some more money, and let them retire, it's pretty simple.
Don't get hung up in the semantics of code, and the arguments bend who has the best
certifications or who's letting their ego get in the way, just look at the win/win
compromise that has been put in front of you and grant the waiver. Thank you.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 9
York: Hello, my name is York — and that's my full name. I live at 2001
Creekwood Drive. As the only person up here tonight who does not know the Rules, I
would like to say that I do trust the City process and going through the Landmark
Preservation Committee. I've been by the property. It is a unique feature in the fact that
it is inside an industr—a commercial area and it shows where we came from as an
agricultural community. Having lived here for the last 30 years, and watching how
people have taken advantage of the growth to not preserve the community and the
systems that we have here and what we grew up with, and how we've gotten to today, I
see us becoming a small version of Southern California and also the South Bay Area of
California, which, you know, while it's fun to visit, isn't a really great place to live. So,
um, getting back to what the Rules' are trying to do here, I don't know exactly what all
their options are and all of that, but as a taxpayer in this community and all of that, if I
look at it and see that they are being, as their claim is, that they're not going to be able
to sell this for as much as they'd like, if it does eventually sell for commercial property,
then I would submit that for the last five years, at least, it has been undervalued tax -
wise. And so that would be, I think, part of the negotiations as you go into it. Ah, I would
like to congratulate the Rules for having a very good marketing campaign, and perhaps
that should be their next venture in life is to go into marketing, because they're
obviously able to galvanize people into work on a project and I think that's a great thing,
and that they are up here to work with the system to do that. So I just encourage you to
please use the rules, not let a marketing campaign sway you from those and to make
the best decision possible. Thank you.
Kathleen Zier: I just signed in, they said I was the last one, so. My name is
Kathleen Zier, and I just came from another business meeting. I've only met the Rules
just briefly, I drive past Lemay all the time, even before I moved to Southridge Greens
area. And I always thought it looked so peculiar, just with all the development all around
it. It was almost, not an eyesore, because they've taken good care of it, but very, very
peculiar to me. And then I heard what was going on and it's just as a citizen of Fort
Collins, I was so upset that possibly these people could have their whole retirement
ripped away because somebody thought, you know, somebody, not the state, not the
U.S. government, but the City of Fort Collins, just that it has to stay there and the ideas
of making it into a restaurant or an office — I was in the restaurant business for 15 years,
had a large restaurant that sat over 200 people — there's nobody who's going to pay any
kind of money — it's more expensive to take an existing structure and try and make it
into a restaurant or into an office than you can possibly imagine. So just to tell them,
"Oh, you can go find somebody else," just is not realistic. You know, here they are,
maybe they should have let the thing just fall apart and not taken such great care of it.
You grow up and people tell you, you know, save for retirement, and take care of things,
and this is how you should do it. And then all of sudden, here they are. It just, Big
Brother watching, if it was your parents, ah, it's very scary that other people are taking
control of our retirement, of things that we have no control over as citizens. We can buy
land for Fort Collins, when am I going to see the Open Space that's in Wyoming, and all
these other things that we'll spend millions but we're not going to buy their house or buy
their land, but we're going to say, "No, no, no, you can't sell it to somebody else." As
citizens, we, there has to be a fairness when they are being so, ah, er, it just isn't right, I
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 10
mean, you know, I think you all are like King Solomon, and, you know, you have to do
what is fair, just as he did, for the people who are involved in this situation. I came from
Longmont today on a business meeting, I passed six barns that look just about like
theirs, right on 287 on College. It's not, I, you know, you go to Europe and you see
things from the 12th century, this is not that kind of a category of a building. So, as you
go to sleep tonight, I just hope you feel very comfortable with what the decisions that
you made for the Rules as human beings — do what is right. Thank you.
Jim Madden: I'm Jim Madden, I live at 6032 Brookwater Lane. I had to look,
because I just moved. Um, I will not parrot all of the things that have been said, but I
wanted to offer my thoughts. I have been a realtor in town for 30 years, my office is
located within two football fields of the Rule farm. I do know the Rules, but I don't think
it's about whether the Rules are nice people, or whether they can afford to lose money
or not lose money, but it's about property rights. I don't -- excuse me, guys, but I don't
think your farm is that cute. I see no major significance or historical value to the farm. It
is totally out of sorts. Again, my office is within 200 yards of there, uh, and it's out of
place. And I guess the main thing I want to attest to is from my lender who says it is not
possible to develop that property to anywhere near its highest and best use as a
commercial zoning and keep the structures where they are. That's just not possible. I
know you've got appraisals which show that, as a realtor, I can attest to that, the lender
has attested to that, and common sense tells you that it's not possible. Um, and in the
building, and you've heard a kid who grew up in the house that it's not that great
anyway. But let's do move it, uh, if that's what we want or need to do, let's move it. But
there is significant financial impact to requiring that they keep it and continue painting it.
Rheba Massey: I'm Rheba Massey, and I live at 1400 Freedom Lane, and I am here
tonight to speak .in the support of historic preservation. In 1966 there was a man, Mr.
Gray, who decided that the United States was not preserving its historic heritage. He
paid for Congresspeople to go to Europe to look at what was happening in Europe in
preserving their heritage. I know many of us have traveled there and appreciated what
was happening. We talk about Europe, somebody just mentioned the fact that 12th
century barns over there in comparison to our barns here. But I think we have to
recognize that any barn that was built in the latter part of the 19th Century or the early
part of the 20th Century in Fort Collins is our early settlement history. It's a comparison
to a Jamestown building that was built in 1625, and we go back and we say, why did
they tear all those things down? And the reason they did is because of the same
attitude that we have today: This is not significant; it's new history, it's not three or four
hundred years ago. But this is our early history. And one of the things that is happening
— in fact, many of you have probably bought — all of these barn books that are going on,
they're being published across the United States because our agricultural heritage in
the eastern and western United States is being destroyed. We have a difficult situation
before us tonight, and I don't envy the Historic Preservation Commission's decision. But
having served on this board, the same as Jim Tanner, there's one thing I do know: that
the people who have served historic preservation since 1969 are the ones who have
voted for and fought for and made this city the unique city that has made it number 1
across the nation for people wanting to come for quality of life, because we don't have
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 11
the same modern, new buildings that cover the whole city. We have a unique
downtown, we have unique houses, we have unique farm buildings. And one of the
things I would like for us to consider, irregardless of what is the outcome this evening, is
we have a historic preservation plan that was written and adopted as a part of the
comprehensive plan in 1993. That plan sets forth that when we have historic context like
our agricultural survey from 1995, that at that time, we're to let the community know the
results, we're to publicize it, we're to let them know about the threats to the resources,
and we're to include planning to protect those resources. I attended the Harmony Road
meetings and the plan meetings and they did not do that. I urge us to have that happen.
Dave Armstrong: Dave Armstrong is my name, my address is 4113 Sherman Court.
I've been a resident of Fort Collins for 35 years. I am a recently retired banker, having
been in banking, in commercial lending and banking administration for 43 years. I would
also like to express my feeling about the value of the property used in ways in which
would not serve the Rules properly. I'm in total comfortable feeling that the value of the
property if they are forced to deal with it as proposed by Mrs. McWilliams would be very
little over the $300,000, if any. Uh, it just, the uses of the commercial uses would require
all the land in a bare form. So I feel the only solution is moving and relocating the
property. They are, I can see, and I always have been a supporter of the Landmark
Commission. But I think in this case, morally — and I won't get into that, I think that's
obvious — that a decision has to be in favor of the Rules' petition.
Joe Carter: Good evening, my name is Joe Carter; I live at 4560 Lark Bunting
Drive. I've been a member of this community since 1950. 1 know the property well; my
daughter pastures her horse there, and I look after him on occasion when she's out of
town. Two years ago, I had a contract to sell this property, and it cost me over $50,000
in commissions because of the ruling that you're trying to impose. It's probably going to
cost the Rules over a half -a -million dollars, and I don't think it's fair. I'm not against
preservation, but if you want it, you got to pay for it, just like everything else. Thank you
very much..
Linda Hopkins: I'm Linda Hopkins, I live in the County but own property at 903 Rule
Drive, and actually I grew up in a Dutch Gambrel house at 631 Whedbee. So I
appreciate the architectural significance, but it is burdensome to think that anything over
50 years old is of historical value, although I'll claim some. Two objections: One, I really
do object heartily to criticizing the staff. The staff has worked well to present the staff
um, to the Code, presents the Code well. Um, that's a difficult job. I'd also object to the
notion that this is a marketing campaign. This is what we call citizen input. And while the
staffs job is very difficult. Um, the Code is there and relies on citizens like yourselves
and in fact City Council if necessary to look at the greater good in our community, and
issues that are very important. I, um, applaud the effort to preserve our history. But I
think it is the citizens' right to come to you today and to ask for consideration. And I
would expect that they would be heard. Thank you.
Dave Edwards: My name is Dave Edwards, I reside with my family at 218 W.
Magnolia St., and I urge you tonight to accept graciously the Rules' request and deny
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 12
the staff recommendation of denial as being speculative. I concur highly with Mr. Tanner
and his comments, and I remember, as myself a former member of the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council, the work that Mr. Tanner did. I thought his
comments were excellent. I want to say tonight that H.L. Mencken once wrote, "Every
decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under," and yet, here we are this
evening as a group of citizens in the room and the greater community beyond this
building, trying to be our government, up close and personal, right here, right now. And
as citizen volunteers I understand the position you're in, I understand the weight of the
decision and I want you to realize that you stand as citizen volunteers between a
bureaucracy that understandably has an agenda, that's OK. But when that agenda gets
sideways, when that agenda is justified simply by a City Code which says because we
can do it, we will, that's when good, well-intentioned, reasoned, fair-minded people like
yourselves can step in and prevent a wrong from being done. I have no problem when
bureaucrats have agendas, that's what they should be doing to a certain extent, so long
as there are checks and balances. The notion because the Code allows something,
therefore it can be done, is fundamentally different than should it be done. The Rule
family is really up against it here, I think. They played literally by the rules, yet have
been put in a position where fairness, reason, justice seem to have been forsaken by
the staff simply because our Code allows something to be done in the name of the
greater good. A few years ago, my family and I built a new home in historic Old Town
Fort Collins. We were asked by the Historic Society if we would hold, be on their home
tour. My concern is that 40 years from now, my family might be in the very same
position that the Rules are in now, that my heirs would be up against it, against their
government and their community. I encourage you to not only approve the Rules
request this even, but also work hard to change a Code which needs to be refined.
Thank you very much.
[Applause]
Per Hogestad: Is there any more public input?
Bill Jones: Hi, I'm Bill Jones, and live at 1336 Fairway Five;. My wife and I and
our sons have lived here about 32 years, and we've known the Rules for several
decades. A couple of thoughts: I think that the City Council would do well to amend the
law with regard to agriculture and this is just kind of a thought off the top of my head, but
to apply to a maximum of 5 percent of any agricultural property for designation under
the Landmark Preservation designation, unless more is voluntarily designated by the
owner. I haven't heard it stated explicitly, with all the suggestions about moving the
buildings on the Rules property, but my thought is that if the City, if you all, um, want the
buildings, that the cost of relocation would be yours and you'd negotiate with the Rules
for purchasing whatever buildings you want. Otherwise, they would be the Rules' to
dispose of. Thank you very much.
Per Hogestad: Is there any more public input? OK, I'm going to close the public
input part of this meeting. What I would like to do, though, and what I should have done
earlier, I should go through the agenda, how we're going to conduct the meeting. So I
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 13
apologize for not having done that earlier. We've taken care of the public input piece;
next, what we'd like to do is have a presentation by the applicant, and that would be
followed by a presentation from the City staff. After that, there will be a presentation and
rebuttal by the applicant, and after that, what I'll do is I'll bring it back to the Commission
for discussion and hopefully we'll be able to come up with a motion.
Do we want to take a break now or do we feel like we can continue? I'm asking the
Commission here. You want to continue? OK. All right. Let's have the presentation from
the applicant now.
Rick Zier: Good evening, my name is Rick Zier. I'm an attorney in Fort Collins
with offices at 322 E. Oak St. I'm here on behalf of Dick and Dianne Rule and want to
make clear we believe in the general concept of historic preservation and we believe
and endorse reasonable preservation. Um, we are here to work out and we are
presenting what we believe is a workable proposal as a compromise; whether we are
granted a waiver or not, we are willing to make this offer to the City because we do care
about these buildings. And that would be true even if there were no historic preservation
code, and I can speak with utter confidence about the Rules' endorsement of what I'm
saying.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand that even if relocation is permitted, to simply
require relocation begs the question of whether it turns out to be feasible to do that, and
none of us knows tonight whether that is true, whether that is so. Therefore we have
thought it reasonable -- I thought originally reasonable to offer 60 to 90 days, the
balance of the summer -- my clients have asked that we request a full six months of you
for the concerted, good -will effort, cooperating with the staff, to relocate these buildings.
But if it should not be feasible, economically or physically, to do so, then at the
expiration of that period, if it is not accomplished by then, that we be pre -approved
tonight to demolish the buildings or to pull a permit to demolish the buildings, um, so
that we can know now that, one way or another, six months from now the buildings will
not be on that site, and our contract buyer can also know that, because he is about to
embark, he hopes, in a very expensive land -use code procedure, and it would be
essential for him to know now whether or not he ought to do that. Um, so, that's critical
for you to understand, and we hope you, you appreciate the pickle we would be in if
granted relocation but it's not feasible. Then we have to come back here and go through
all the same evidence again. So, there's no point to that. And this has been very
arduous on my clients, aside from the expense. I wonder, in the interest of time, if I
might distribute a summary of my remarks to you, hoping then, knowing that I'm the
attorney and this is the dry part, I can gloss over it. [Thank you; give this to the board,
please.]
The purpose of a preliminary hearing I think is a good one. It really seems to me as if
this is an opportunity to roll our sleeves up and come up with a solution. And it doesn't
have to go any farther than the preliminary hearing, and we hope to high heaven that it
doesn't have to. We are here, very sincerely, to get this done, now. Problems are
supposed to be identified and solved, the Commission is supposed to explore all means
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 14
of substantially preserving the structure, obviously those are, when you're talking about
possible demolition, many of these criteria cannot pertain, that's clear; they pertain to
relocation. Um, so, um, please understand that ours is a request in the alternative: We
want a reasonable opportunity to relocate, but if we can't, if it isn't feasible to do that as
it turns out, then we wish permission to demolish. So, I don't want to get hung up as
some of the members of the public stressed in the Code provisions dealing with these
criteria that clearly relate to relocation and not demolition, since they are in the
relocation and demolition section both, we have to all take that with a grain of salt.
There really are no criteria with regard to demolition, I think, other than whether or not it
is so significant that these buildings must remain as they are, where they are
permanently. We reasonably disagree with that position.
We are asking the Commission to issue a report of acceptability regarding our proposal,
and even if a waiver is granted, as we think would be appropriate for hardship to the
property and the applicants, we are offering to do many things to try to preserve, if it is
feasible to do that. The Commission has to consider certain criteria, some of which are
on this board here, um, and you are well aware of and I will discuss those. But our goal
again tonight is to develop a plan that achieves substantially all reasonable interests,
and we believe that's possible.
Our basic position is that: 1. The property should not reasonably be determined to be
eligible for designation. It is not currently designated, it isn't designated as a landmark, it
isn't in a landmark district, and it isn't designated on either the federal or state registers.
A check of the SHPO COMPASS online database indicates it's not formally evaluated
or recorded. We believe it is at best of modest importance architecturally and
historically. The property is not significant in the eyes of experts in their fields of
architecture and history or of the Fort Collins public generally insofar as we can
determine. We have submitted a letter from a local architect, Mr. Don Bundy, on that
subject; we have three letters from historians — Jason Marmor, Tonya Metcalfe, and
Karen Waddell, who is no longer local but is familiar with the property. [So, if you
wouldn't mind distributing those.] The property is not associated with persons truly
regarded as significant in history. The staff report varies the area of alleged importance,
i.e., they, they cite to the region when it suits their argument, or then they restrict it and
cite to the Growth Management Area, when it suits their purpose. That's not
appropriate. The staff also seeks to bootstrap the importance of architecture and history
by mixing them rather than assessing their individual merit as the Code requires. The
staff report, in hearsay fashion, alleges what a state historical officer supposedly may
believe based only on his review of photographs. However, the historians whose letters
you are reviewing have, are familiar with the property, have reviewed extensive
information including the entire applicant packet that you all received prior to the
meeting, and they strongly disagree with the alleged hearsay belief as quoted by the
staff here concerning the eligibility for the National Register.
Even if the property is held to be historically or architecturally significant, preservation in
place will work a substantial hardship and/or an arbitrary result for the property and the
applicants. That merits the granting of a waiver of the requirements or the granting of
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 15
the permits that we have requested, in either case. I quote in the outline of the section —
I won't belabor that — It would not erode the spirit and purpose of the Chapter to do this;
the context of the site, as per the historians' letters that you are reviewing, has been
seriously compromised, there is no question about that and there will be further
information and photographic evidence of that. This property is being inappropriately
singled out in many ways, not just the special new order of proceedings of tonight's
hearing that we heard about in the last 24 hours. The City's in situ restrictions will
reduce the value of the property more than half, from $1 million to $300,000; its value as
a residence only is actually dropping, and somewhat dramatically. The restrictions
seriously hamper development feasibility, and conservation easements are not realistic
for the property. Um, we were provided two books by the staff that are extremely pro
conservation easement; we read them, and I appended my comments of those, and
again, I won't belabor them. But basically, even in books that contain chapters that say
how to sell the selling points on the conservation easements, there are many drawbacks
admitted in those books. There was an article in last Saturday's uh, uh, Coloradoan by a
local attorney, Mr. Ron Rutz, who has a real estate column, concerning the downside to
some of these conservation easements, despite the good intentions of many of them.
So I would simply suggest to you that conservation easements are not always all they're
cracked up to be, and they are much better in a setting typically that is much larger,
where you have a much larger area to work with. The significant financial benefits of
conservation easements for the property are certainly conjectural and, I believe,
improbable. The availability of other significant financial assistance, which the staff
always instantly sort of proffers to us, in this case is clearly conjectural and again in my
opinion highly improbable.
The proposed solution then that we are proposing, which we offer even if a waiver is
granted, is this: That until Oct. 28, 2004, six months hence, the applicants shall continue
in ownership of the property, and control of it; they shall make concerted efforts in good
faith to relocate the buildings, hopefully together, to another location in the region; they
will keep the LPC staff apprised of all actions taken in furtherance of the efforts to
relocate; they will not charge a fee to the recipient of the structures for the structures —
in other words, they will be given away free; they will provide the City with
comprehensive photographic documentation of the structures with prints and negatives
pursuant to your Code as can be attached as a condition — we would certainly offer that;
and we will ensure that appropriate commemorative plaques for public information
purposes be permanently placed both at the prior site and the new location. Now, if
relocation of the structures, despite the good -will efforts of the applicants, are, through
no fault of the applicants, not accomplished by Oct. 28, 2004, then we ask that the City
forthwith issue a demolition permit to the applicants to demolish the structures and,
knowing that, to allow the contract purchaser now to proceed under the Land Use Code.
Please note, it is the applicants desire to find an appropriate receiving property for
relocation of the structures. They do sincerely hope that efforts to relocate them will be
successful; they can't guarantee that the structures will be placed on the receiving
property in the same configuration and at the same distances from each other as they
are presently, although every effort will be made to replicate the existing pattern
placement as much as feasible, physically and financially. We do expect to expend
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 16
some money to aid in the relocation but the applicants cannot offer to guarantee — offer
or guarantee that we will pay all or even a significant portion of the cost of relocation.
We do have some basic eligibility concerns that I simply want to put in the record and
don't want to um, um, get off on a side track. But first of all this property is not
associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of history. The word "events" is glossed over in the staff report to you. "Events"
is not understood by Fort Collins residents as meaning the conduct of common
agriculture. There are some, um, dictionary citations and so forth. Again, the historians
whose letters you are looking at, who have examined much more than just photographs,
say that the property lacks integrity, historically and contextually, because the farm is
gone, and all manner of incompatible development encroaches around it. And, I might
add, the City was encouraging of that in many ways. Expert historians say it is doubtful
the property would be eligible on federal or state registers. The property is not
associated with the lives of persons significant in history. The staff report makes no
mention of this ground for eligibility, but the staff was quoted in a recent Fort Collins
Coloradoan newspaper article as alleging that because one John Nesbitt built and
resided in the farmhouse that the structures are eligible. Mr. Nesbitt was one of
approximately 75 individuals who have thus far served as Larimer County
Commissioners, according to the Commissioners' office. Nothing of his service or his
acts as Commissioner is generally known to the Fort Collins populace, and he himself is
not generally known. His other service to the community is of the same stature. I used
to live on Nesbitt Court, named for the Nesbitt family by other members of the Nesbitt
family. And so that was, you know, if anybody questions that. And I spoke with one of
them today. This just is subjectivity taken a little, a little too far, we think.
The structures do not embody distinctive construction characteristics. And it's important
to note that the Code says "construction," not "architecture." They are not the works of a
master; they don't possess high [tape change; some statements missing] whose
components may lack individual distinction," although I'd be lying to you if I told you I
understood that. The property hasn't yielded and isn't likely to yield information
important in pre -history or history. When you look at some of the criteria to be
considered they include the following, and again, the five criteria listed clearly relate
only to relocation, because none of them is, is relevant, if, if demolition is to occur. And
we're trying our best to preserve, if feasible. But first of all, the effect of the proposed
work upon the general historical or architectural character of the structure and adjacent
properties: If demolished the structures will be lost, this is true of any of the criteria.
However, it does not hurt adjacent properties that they be demolished, and probably
helps them, because it removes an incompatibility. There seems to be almost unanimity
in the neighborhood about that. If the structures are relocated, there is substantial
architectural and historical preservation, clearly.
Number two, the architectural style, design, construction, arrangement, texture and
materials of the existing and proposed structure — that's a criterion to consider — again,
these are unremarkable with the subject property. Other similar structures still exist in
the region in agricultural and other settings, and we will submit photographic evidence
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 17
of that. These things gain no added or bootstrap significance because of their
agricultural connection, and that should be stressed. If the structures are demolished,
these matters are clearly lost; if they are removed, they are substantially preserved.
Again, some of these criteria we have to go through them, but they don't really pertain.
And I would say the same is true of the next three, so I won't belabor those, you have it
before you.
Demolition is ultimately appropriate here if relocation does not occur because the
structures are not sufficiently significant; preserving them in place isn't sufficiently
important, and there is a substantial hardship. The application of the foregoing five
criteria to demolition is ipso facto futile and without meaning, as I've said.
In summary, I would say it's questionable whether the property truly has significance
meriting preservation. Clearly very questionable. To require the structures to remain
exactly as they are in perpetuity is extreme and unwarranted. It works a substantial
hardship on the property and the applicants, and there will be further evidence of that.
Relocation is preferred by us to demolition, but it isn't reasonable to require relocation
no matter whether it is infeasible within a reasonable time. If relocation proves infeasible
within a reasonable time, the applicants and their contract buyer must know now that
the buildings can be demolished after the passage of that reasonable period of time for
many valid reasons. The applicants hope and request that they will be able to explore
these matters with the Commission later in the hearing so that a mutually satisfactory
result is achieved tonight. We hope it goes no farther. We'd like to know what, with
certainty, is going on in their lives.
I'd like to pass the podium on to Dick Rule, and following Dick will be Mr. Don Shannon,
our appraiser, and then our final speaker as part of our. presentation will be Dianne
Rule. And, obviously, we're all available for questions as you see fit.
Dick Rule: My name is Dick Rule and I live at 4824 S. Lemay Ave., and I am
the applicant along with my wife, Dianne, at this hearing. I have been a resident of Fort
Collins for 38 years having arrived here in 1966 to attend CSU. We purchased our
property at 4824 S. Lemay Ave. in 1975 when it was South County Road 13 and it was
a two-lane paved road all the way south from Horsetooth Road. We paid $50,000 for the
property; in addition we have spent approximately $175,000 for capital improvements,
maintenance, taxes, and costs and fees pertaining to this hearing. We and the property
were also obligated for approximately $60,000 for repayment of two SIDs when the area
was being developed and infrastructure was put in place. We purchased the property for
two reasons: first, to raise our family in a rural setting and as a future development. As
City development moved our way, we cooperated with the City and developers in the
following ways: we annexed into the City in 1980; we had our property zoned
Commercial in 1980 with an expansion of that zoning in 1987; we donated land for the
widening of Lemay Ave., we closed our irrigation ditches and did everything else we
thought we were supposed to, waiting for our turn to develop.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 18
I'd like to present a picture that points out the differences in the area five years after we
purchased our property and the same area now. As the neighboring farmsteads were
developed, we soon became surrounded by commercial, retail, medical and residential
projects, all the while anticipating the time when we too could sell our property for
development. We accepted a contract on our property in 1998 for a proposed restaurant
and office complex. The proposed purchaser took some preliminary plans through the
conceptual review process, and that's when we found out that our property was eligible
for designation through a survey conducted in 1995. We were never notified about our
property being in this survey or the potential impact it would have on us for development
purposes. The proposed contract, purchaser in 1998 turned out to be totally unqualified,
since shortly after taking his preliminary plans through the conceptual review process,
his restaurant in Loveland was closed down by the state for failure to pay sales taxes for
two years. As far as we know, he is no longer in the area. Since the contract was
terminated early in the process of obtaining City approvals and prior to obtaining any
financing for the project, no economic feasibility was ever completed. After the 1998
contract failed, we listed our property for sale through a commercial real estate broker
for one year. The letter in your packet from Patty Spencer, Exhibit II in the Appendix,
outlines the problems she encountered with the historical classification of our property,
that our property had acquired, and why economically developing the property proved to
be more than any prudent developer wanted to tackle. The letter in your packet from
Bruce Hendee of BHA Design, Exhibit III of the Appendix, details the problems he
encountered with the planning department when he was interested in acquiring our
property and retaining the rural environment, also making it economically infeasible to
purchase the property. Mr. Don Shannon, MAI, SRA, will address the specifics of why
the historic restrictions prove economically infeasible for development and thus creating
a substantial hardship for the property and us in his presentation next.
We have recently accepted another contract from Bob Wilson of Columbine Health
Systems who wants to build a skilled nursing and rehabilitation center on our property.
His plans call for removal of all the buildings.
Before I close, I'd like to address the architectural significance of our property. There is
a letter in your packet, Exhibit IV in the Appendix, from Don Bundy, AIA, of Architect's
Studio: "The architecture of the house and outbuildings were not architecturally
significant or particularly unique when built, and the quality of the original construction
was not extraordinary." In addition, we have received three letters from respected
historians — Jason Marmor, Tonya Metcalfe, and Karen Waddell — who state that the
historical significance of our property has been compromised due to the context of what
it is surrounded by at this point in time. It is important to note, relo — excuse me.
Therefore, since the historical significance has been addressed by an architect and
three respected historians, and the substantial hardship will be addressed next by Mr.
Shannon, we request approval to pursue relocation of the buildings for six months, or if
relocation is not accomplished, within six months be pre -approved for a demolition
permit. It is important to note relocation may prove infeasible through no fault of ours,
and we need to know tonight what the reasonable amount of time to will be to relocate,
if feasible; we need to know tonight when we will be able to pull a demolition permit if
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 19
necessary. We are requesting pre -approval for a demolition permit now since the
process we have been through for the past three and a half months is onerous,
extremely financially costly, and emotionally draining, and we do not desire to repeat
this process in six months from now. If we are not successful in relocating the buildings,
the process will have to become, this process has become a full-time second job for
both of us, and that is why we are requesting approval tonight.
Don Shannon: Good evening. My name is Don Shannon, I reside at 630 Sky Sail
Lane, my office is located at 215 West Oak Street. I have been an appraiser in the City
of Fort Collins for 39 years, I hold the professional designations as both a residential
and commercial appraiser. I have been president of the Colorado Chapter of The
Appraisal Institute and on the national board of directors for three years. I have been
asked by Dianne and Dick Rule to estimate market value of their property, in fee -simple
ownership and the value of their property with historic designation.
The fee -simple value is based on the highest and best use of the property, what it can
be put to. Its highest and best use is clearly a commercial development, primarily office
and retail. The existing zoning allows such uses; the location is proper for such uses, as
it adjoins medical buildings and high -density residential developments. Based upon
recent comparable sales, the value of their land is $7/sq. ft., or $1,002,000. However, to
redevelop the ground for it to be worth $7/sq. ft., the buildings have to be removed, and
of course the designation would not allow that. The historical designation restricts the
ownership rights in this property. The highest and best use with that designation
remains as a rural home site. Developers regard -- Because the barn, the house, and
the chicken coop have to remain there, developers are not interested in taking on a
project this small with this many complications. It's difficult enough to get the required
approvals, through natural processes, through normal processes. As long as there are
other sites available, they are not going to buy this at any price to redevelop it.
The highest and best use with this designation remains as a rural, single-family setting
for people who perhaps desire to have horses, or animals or that type of thing. But even
that use isn't appropriate anymore because of the surroundings. This property, with that
designation, is going to decrease in value because of the surrounding uses, because a
potential purchaser who would want to have livestock, 4-H project and etc., are not
compatible because of the traffic, and because of the designation, the house and
outbuildings really can't be altered significantly. The house is old. It's not in real good
shape and is not the type of thing anyone is going to pay a premium for; it's going to
deteriorate and become a rental property. The highest and best use of this property as a
house, at best, is $300,000.
What we have here, regardless of who owns it, we have a diminished property value
from $1,002,000 to $300,000. We have a reduction in value because of this designation,
that was not put on at the property owners' request, not even acknowledging them with
that, by $702,000. 1 am in favor of historic preservation, but if we are to do so, I am
willing to pay my share to purchase this property from the owners, whoever they may
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 20
be. But it is not fair that the Rule family have to absorb the entire cost of providing a
public benefit at their own cost. Thank you. [OK. Too late.]
Dianne Rule: Hi, I'm Dianne Rule, and you might guess where I live. First, I'd like
to just check on time, do I have five minutes to do this?
Per Hogestad: Yes.
Dianne Rule: OK, thank you very much. I would like first of all to say to the LPC
members that I deeply regret what stress this has brought into your lives, I know it has
brought a mountain full of stress into mine. I know that you are volunteers and that you
care deeply about preservation of Fort Collins history, and that if you're feeling anything
like I am right now, you're pretty uncomfortable. Never in my wildest dreams did I think
we'd have to go to such lengths concerning our home. We have incurred nearly $20,000
already just to get to this podium tonight. We are very hopeful, very hopeful, that this will
help not only ourselves but the City and you, as the LPC. We do not want this to be a
damaging thing to preservation. And also, I want to take a second just to assure you
that we did not invite all of the media that has been going on about this; it just came. I
guess that's an indicator of how people feel about this.
A picture is worth a thousand words. I do have a photo of my new little granddaughter
could show you, but that's probably not going to fly. So instead I would like to submit to
you photos that Dick and I took just this last Saturday of 18 other homes in town that
have the same basic architecture as ours, the Dutch Gambrel roofline. And as the
architect Don Bundy said, we are not unique. There are also seven barns in town that
have the same architecture and I have photos of six of those; two are already
designated as landmarks. According to the 1995 survey by Karl and Karen McWilliams,
there are a total of 42 barns in town, well in the whole Growth Management Area. li
guess I'd have to ask, How many barns do we need in town? Just kind of comes to me.
Our house and barn are the only ones that are totally out of context, being surrounded
by commercial, retail and residential uses. During our lately rather accelerated course in
preservation, we have figured out that there are as many opinions about what is
historically significant as there are historians to ask. So we asked three historians to
give us their opinions of what the historical survey that has been completed on our
property indicated. You have those letters, I believe, in front of you now, from Karen
Waddell, Tonya Metcalfe and Jason Marmor. Karen Waddell has been historic
preservation specialist and cultural resource manager for over 17 years, practicing in
local, state and national venues. She was a charter member of the Fort Collins Historic
Development Corporation. I would like to just quote a little bit from her letter about our
property: "To be deemed eligible for historic designation, a property must posses
integrity of seven factors. Essentially, my professional opinion is that the property has
lost its integrity of setting and feeling. The Harmony area is not recognizable as an
agricultural area, therefore I cannot agree that the City should pursue a non-consensual
designation of the Rule property." She also said: "The property can be protected and
visually sensed as a farmstead by moving the buildings to a site within their appropriate
location in Fort Collins or Larimer County that maintains an agricultural setting and
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 21
feeling. However, if this cannot be done in a timely manner to allow the Rules the
development opportunity they now have for the property, then they should be allowed to
demolish the buildings." This is from a historian. She also added: "We as a city and as
preservation professionals cannot punish the Rule family for their advance planning,
which was allowed by the city."
I'd also like to quote some excerpts from historian and historical archeologist Tonya
Metcalfe's letter. She has over 10 years of experience in cultural resource management.
She says: "The rural landscape that existed during the period of significance" — that
would be from 1920 through 1950, when it was actually being farmed by folks who lived
there — "is no longer present. Given the lack of integrity, I believe the property does not
merit individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places. I am well aware that
the Rule farm meets the minimum requirements for local designation but disagree with
determining it a local landmark. I believe the integrity issues discussed above apply to
local designation as well." And finally she says: "If the LPC and historic preservation
community as a whole continue to remain rigid and unyielding in all aspects of
preservation without taking into consideration public interests and concerns, we run the
risk of generating a public backlash and destroying what we all work so hard to protect."
Jason Marmor, another historian, added — I'll just take a quick quote from his: "In my
opinion, while the farm containing the Rules' buildings was indeed associated with the
historically significant context of agriculture in the Fort Collins area, the property has lost
virtually all integrity of setting."
The handout from the Advance Planning Department entitled "Demolition/Alteration
Review" that we received from staff states that there was a public outcry concerning the
demolition of twelve historically significant structures in Fort Collins between 1980 and
1993. Those were not designated, they were just kind of deemed, opinion, of being
historically significant. We began to wonder what kind of public response there would be
to the City's refusal to allow us to relocate or demolish our buildings in order to sell the
three -and -a -quarter acres that they have owned since 1975 and we have carefully
planned for commercial development. So we distributed 50 petitions, and nearly 1000
signatures have come pouring in. The petition states: "We, the undersigned, are
residents of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. We hereby petition the Landmark
Preservation Commission and the Fort Collins City Council to grant the request for a
Permit for Relocation and/or Demolition of all buildings owned by Dick and Dianne Rule
located at 4824 S. Lemay so that the owners can proceed with the sale and
development of their land. We believe that the City must protect private property rights
and that forcing the Rules' buildings to remain as is and where they are constitutes an
unwarranted, uncompensated taking of significant property value." That's how a
thousand people feel; very simply, it didn't take a lot to have that happen. We sent out
50 little packets and back came all these opinions. I think that is a public outcry.
We also notified the owners within 500 feet of our property, and 65 percent responded,
all in favor of relocation and/or demolition; there were none in opposition. And the
petitions are submitted for your records. [We've already done that? OK. Thank you.]
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 22
Today at 2:30 p.m., I received a phone call from Ed Stoner, and he said, "Gee, I'm
sorry, I've been out of town, been down in Cabo, catching up." But he wanted to
suggest that the Fort Collins Sertoma Club would be very interested in moving and
restoring the buildings and then selling them as a fund-raiser. They have done this
successfully many times. This is exactly the type of solution we have hoped for and that
we feel would be a win -win for all of us. We have also heard from several individuals
who would like to move and restore the buildings, so there is a demand for it. The
problem is we don't know how feasible it is to make that actually, physically happen. I
think that's it for now. I'd just ask that you would really think that through, what we've
said tonight and would approve our permit for relocation and/or demolition. Thank you.
Per Hogestad: That concludes the presentation by the applicant, is that correct?
OK. Then we have a presentation by City staff.
Cameron Gloss: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm
Cameron Gloss, I'm the Current Planning Director for the City. I'm here representing
Joe Frank, the Advance Planning Director, who is not available. But I didn't really want
to speak to the substantive issues that have been raised about architectural significance
or historical significance of the structures, but really to the procedure. The Rules have
asked through legal counsel to waive your procedural requirements for the preliminary
hearing. It is staffs contention that there may be a hardship, but it is self-imposed in this
case, in that the applicant has acknowledged through testimony that they were aware of
the significance of this building dating back to 1998 and there should have been some
recognition that there was a review process for demolishing or altering a structure. So,
with that, staff doesn't see how the criteria would be met to waive the procedural
requirements. We don't think it would really provide the service to the community if we
waived the public process. You have heard very thoughtful testimony on both sides of
the issue this evening. From our perspective, we'd like to see that testimony be
reviewed by the Commission and come to some kind of resolution. I think you have
heard from the applicant or the applicants' representative that there are some potential
compromise positions that might result in this. We don't know the outcome but we would
urge you to continue on through the preliminary hearing process.
Per Hogestad: Karen, do you have anything to add to that?
Karen McWilliams: If the Commission would like me to explain how we
determined the eligibility of the buildings, I'm prepared to do that.
Per Hogestad: Could we do that quickly, so that all of us are understanding?
Karen McWilliams: [off mic] I apologize, first off, I just found out we do not have
a portable microphone here any longer, so I'm going to have to speak loudly.
Rick Zier: [off mic] Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think she has to speak into the
microphone for the purposes of the record.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 23
Karen McWilliams: [moving to podium, with visual aids] OK. What I'd like to
point out when we are reviewing the criteria for landmark designation, the designation is
based, well, the eligibility of a property for designation is based on two standards: they
are the eligibility of the property for its significance and its integrity, and I'll go over those
very briefly.
Ah, the standards for significance for the National Register — and again, as the
applicants pointed out, the property has been evaluated, albeit by photographs but also
again by a professional historian who did go out to the site and did look at the property,
and that has been done twice now — and the property is considered individually eligible
for the National Register for its architecture. It is an outstanding example of its
architectural style in Fort Collins, and it is significant for both the State and National
Registers for its architectural significance. That significance, the State and National
Register criteria is based here on this National Register criteria listing. You will see that
when Fort Collins adopted their standards they adopted virtually word for word the
National Register standards. These, again, are the Fort Collins Landmark standards,
which the Commission is very familiar with.
Again, it is staffs contention that the building qualifies for landmark designation as a
Fort Collins landmark, not only for its architecture, which we've already established is
very special, but also for its significance with events that did make a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history. And in the historic preservation field,
events are described as areas such as, um, agricultural development; the founding of
Fort Collins and our past history, and of course the impact of urban growth and what
impact that has had on agricultural -related properties in the Fort Collins Growth
_Management Area and in the city limits. So we feel that the buildings very definitely
convey both their significance for their broad patterns of history, of events within the
broad patterns of history, and of course for its architecture. Either one of those, though,
would be sufficient to qualify the property for individual landmark designation.
Now, having established the significance of the property, the next um, standard is, Does
it still retain its integrity? There are seven aspects of integrity, and these seven aspects
are recognized both by the National and State Registers as well as by the Fort Collins
City Code, so that's why there's only one [display] board listing the standards of
integrity. And on those standards, you will see that the integrity is the ability of the
property to convey its significance. Integrity is the composite of the seven aspects or
qualities which in various combinations defined integrity. They are: location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. I will briefly go through each
one of those.
In terms of location: Is the property the place where the historic property was
constructed or place where the historic event occurred? Indeed it is. The Rule
buildings still remain on their current location. Very definitely, integrity of location
is intact.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 24
Design: Is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure and
style of the property still retained? Indeed, the buildings still retain their
contextual relation to each other, their form within the ah, agricultural setting,
they have all the different characteristics an agricultural property generally has.
The only thing that they are lacking, and we'll get to that in a little bit, is the land
that at one point the farm would have had.
The setting, and this is where the land comes in: It's the physical environment of the
historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where the property
was built or the event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. it
involves how not just where the property is situated and its relationship to other
buildings, the surrounding features, and open space. The setting of the Rule farm
has been compromised somewhat. The property, originally of course, was a
farmstead with quite a bit of land that was in agricultural use. As the community,
as the city of Fort Collins has developed, we have taken on the philosophy that
we are an urban community. Within that urban community, we have made a City
policy that we don't intend to save land that has been farmed for historic
preservation purposes. That does not refer to the buildings. The buildings
themselves still retain the characteristics of a farm. There's not anyone who
could go by that property and not instantly understand that that was a farmstead
that has since been surrounded by the city. So you're right that the setting has
been compromised somewhat, and that is what the historians in those letters that
you received are referring to. And, ah, because of that, originally, back in 1994
when the agricultural survey was done, this property was also significant for its
National Register significance under Category 1, again contributing to the broad
events and patterns of our history. And that particular standard has been
dropped by the National Register, National and State Register Coordinator. He
no longer feels that it would qualify under that one category, but he still feels that
the property would qualify for the State and National Registers for its
architecture.
Then the next ones are materials: The physical elements that form the historic property.
And the workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts, the particular culture or
people — in other words, how the building was constructed, what was, how it was
made together, so forth. Those two both, obviously, remain on the property; the
buildings are all intact and all have wonderful historic integrity.
The sense of feeling: The property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a
particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that
taken together convey the property's historic character. Indeed, I would argue
that the feeling again is very definitely retained. The property, once again
obviously is a farmstead; in fact it's a wonderful small oasis in the middle of this
rapidly developing community that does give that sort of respite as you drive
down Lemay Avenue or as you walk along the road, and get the sense that, gee,
here was a small ah, place that, at one time, we were an agricultural community.
And the last thing is the association: The direct link between an important historic event
or person and the historic property. Contrary to what the Rules maintain, we have
never felt that the property was associated with the life of a person significant in
history. It is, however, important for its association with historic events; again,
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 25
agricultural being the one that comes to mind foremost. Fort Collins' sole reason
for being here, its purpose, was as an agricultural community. That is how we
started, that is our heritage. We did not grow up because we were a mining
community; we were not a center of commerce and trade until quite a few years
later. But once the military presence left after only three brief years, Fort Collins
developed as an agricultural community. We are rapidly losing that agricultural
heritage that we have.
[Let me go grab the other one.] In 1994, when the City contracted for the Agricultural
Survey that we've been referring to quite a bit this evening, indeed there were 27 farm
complexes that were identified as being eligible or potentially eligible for designation;
this is through the entire GMA. OK? Twenty-seven. This is 10 years ago, in 1994.
Again, keep in mind that our heritage is agriculture here in Fort Collins. In just the past
10 years, nearly half of those agricultural properties have been demolished for
redevelopment. Additionally, numerous others found not to be eligible in 1994 have also
been demolished. Our heritage is being destroyed at an alarming rate. And when we
talk about the Growth Management Area, I want to point out that that's the entire
47,800-square-acre area surrounding Fort Collins; a community that was once known
for its agriculture now has a grand total of approximately 15 farm complexes in the
urban growth area, and several of those are located outside of the city limits. It
behooves us to do everything we can to help protect and preserve in some manner — it
does not necessarily have to be on site — but to protect in some manner those historic
properties so that they still retain sufficient integrity and significance and are still eligible.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, and we'll turn it back over to
the Commission.
Per Hogestad: OK. Do we have a rebuttal from the applicant?
Rick Zier: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rick Zier again. I don't have much to say in
rebuttal. I think that the information already submitted rebuts most of what has been
said rather roundly. I would say a couple of things: it is difficult for us, ah, to address
and verify information when it is presented in hearsay fashion from a supposed state
officer and what that belief is. It's even harder, when it is stated -- I assume the historian
in mind is Mrs. McWilliams, but I don't know that. These things have been done by "a
historian." Of what value is that? Our historians whom we have discussed with you have
put their names in writing on what we have given you, so you can judge the weight
accordingly. Very difficult for us to get our hands around that and to rebut it sensibly,
because we're not sure what it is or who it is and how slanted that might be or might not
be.
I don't think, again, that people consider -- if the rather small historical preservation
community, whatever that means — undefined -- defines "events" the way it was
characterized, again there is very little way of knowing, there's no real support for that
other than the staffs statement. And I would suggest to you that there is overwhelming
evidence that the regular people of Fort Collins, for whom we all are here, regard an
"event" as it is used in that phrase of the Code as being decades of common
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 26
agriculture. I'm just sorry, I don't think any of us agrees with that. I don't. I was a history
major, I care about preservation, I've done a lot of historical research and writing. And
that just doesn't, doesn't fly with me.
There is also the issue of the Growth Management Area. Again, the focus is narrowed
and widened in the staffs argument as suits the argument. In one argument, the region
is cited, and I would suggest to you that the Growth Management Area, the former
urban growth area — Ms. McWilliams mistakenly referred to it as the urban growth area,
I'm sure she meant the Growth Management Area now —1 was involved in the drafting of
the first Urban Growth Area agreement in 1980. It has expanded dramatically between
1980 and now. It is a moveable feast, and it is intended to be that way. It is simply an
intergovernmental agreement between Larimer County and the City involving how
things are going to be handled in the fringe areas of the annexed -to point of the City.
The Growth Management Area is growing, and it will particularly grow northward, so to
say today that within the GMA this is the only extant this or that, again, is on a slippery
slope, as is the moving fifty-year line; every day that goes by, that line moves again and
something else is now historic that wasn't yesterday. We understand that transitoriness,
but it seems to us unfair to widen and expand that scope.
If you drive as I did the other night, in two or three hours' time -- I decided, OK, let's go
outside the Growth Management Area, not far, let's go not farther than 30 minutes from
where the hearing will be that night, which is the same amount of time it takes to go
from the northwest corner of our Growth Management Area to the Rule property. For
anyone who is an aficionado of history and wants to see these buildings in situ, I drove
south, not on back roads, on County Road 30, one of the farmhouses with a Dutch
Gambrel, Colonial -style roof, lived in, actively residential, is there in an agricultural
setting. It is. one mile _ from our Growth Management Area. Driving east on East
Harmony, just west of Severance, is another example, a beautiful example, that has the
same dormer row of windows and it even has a Dutch gambrel dormer, it's an active
agricultural setting still, farmhouse, ranch house, in use. I don't know how large that
acreage is, and I have no information on the age of these properties, but they look old
or remodeled to me. And someday soon they're going to be designatable if they aren't
already under the fifty-year moving line. If you drive north on North Taft Hill, just maybe
five miles north of the Growth Management Area, and that's the way it's heading — you
know, as has been mentioned, the city has contracted to buy 11,000 acres 30 miles
north of that yet — so it seems to me we ought to look regionally, and the staff did at one
point in their staff report. On North Taft Hill Road, you'll find a beautiful ranch house, it's
log -construction and rough-hewn wood, I don't know its age, but it's clearly in an ag
setting and it's a Dutch Gambrel roof with the same dormer row that this has. So, again,
it's a little self-serving to argue that way, and it isn't fair. These are not unique
structures, and historians in the know, who have put their names on their letters have
told you that. The staff wields mighty power here, and to somewhat flippantly call this an
"oasis" is fine. But if it is truly "an oasis," then there ought to be the willingness on the
part of the City to pay for it, to pay what it is worth. The contract amount is not what it is
worth highest and best value; the Rules are not greedy. The care, they would like to see
a nursing facility to be there; it works well.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 27
This is a serious disadvantage to the property as well as to the applicants. I think that if
you inflexibly, and I think somewhat in a extreme manner, require these buildings to
remain where they are as they are, unlike others in the area that have been permitted
over the years to be changed, and in derogation of a number of acts with City
compliance and assent over the years through zoning and SIDs and so forth, to restrict
in this fashion all of a sudden I believe you will set preservation, that I care about, in this
City back fifty years. I ask that you not do that. I think Dianne Rule has some brief
comments.
Dianne Rule: Just one brief thing that I wanted to share with you. As you
probably know, we have a Web site, designed by my brilliant first-born son here, and
we've been getting a number of letters coming in to that. And last night, I opened up the
Web site and there was but one letter there. And if you'll indulge me, it's just a short
paragraph, I'd like to read it to you. It says: "Dear Dick and Dianne, my name is Susan
McAtee and I am writing on behalf of my sister, Vicky Crawford, and myself. Our
grandparents were John and Leland Nesbitt, the original builders and owners of your
home. While your home is a piece of our family history, and our interest is a little more
personal than most, we wanted to let you know that we are upset that you are unable to
sell your home and know our grandparents would have never wanted to see this
happening to you. We wish you all the luck in the world and hope that things will work
out so that you can sell your property." I don't think I have anything else to say. Thank
you.
Per Hogestad: OK. What I'm going to do now is bring it back to the Commission.
I'd also like to take a five-minute break if we could do that, then we'll continue our
discussion. So, we're adjourned for five minutes.
[meeting temporarily adjourned at 7:25 p.m.; called back to order at 7:40 p.m.]
Per Hogestad: OK. Commission come back to order. What we're going to do next
is ah, discuss the waiver issue first. And we can ask questions of whoever we like and
discuss among ourselves. I think the first question I'd like to ask of the applicant is what
parts of the Chapter are we looking to waive? Is it all or is it part? Which pieces?
Rick Zier: Well, um, Rick Zier. Mr. Chairman, what the Code says is simply,
"upon a showing of substantial hardship or to protect against an arbitrary result, the
Commission may waive such conditions and requirements as are set forth in this
Chapter" -- and that's the entire chapter -- "provided that the spirit and purpose of the
Chapter are not significantly eroded." We did not in our application so far as I know or in
our presentation restrict that waiver to simply procedural requirements. But clearly there
are things we are willing to undergo and accede to, one of which is conduct of a
preliminary hearing. So, we were not asking to waive the preliminary hearing; I think the
preliminary hearing is a great tool, because if the spirit of it is followed, we get to
negotiate and try to arrive at something so that it need not go farther and become more
formal. It's more formal than we wished it to be, and probably more formal than
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 28
everyone wished it to be. So, I guess my answer is we would, we wish not to be
subjected to anything in the, in Subchapter Four, Roman numeral IV, of the Chapter,
apart from what we have proposed. We are willing to relocate the structures within a
reasonable period of time, to work and so forth. So anything that might create more of a
requirement upon us, that might be contained in that Article IV, or construed that way,
we are asking for relief from, so we can get to this object one way or another. I hope
that clarifies it.
Per Hogestad: So I guess for me, what you're telling me, is basically is that it's that
entire section, then?
Rick Zier: Yes, except that we're certainly not willing to be procedurally
omitted or excused from appearing here tonight and putting on our case and letting you
know how we feel and why. But I think, I don't think it's eligible, in fairness. I don't think
those criteria really pertain, especially with demolition, and I think there are some
serious problems with the Code itself. So, you sit here as appointed members to
exercise your personal discretion, and I think you have some latitude in looking at the
individual issues, because each side will be different. In fairness to the Council in
drafting this, and in fairness to the staff in administering it, each situation is different,
and some of these things pertain and some of them don't in each case. In this case, I
don't feel any of them pertain, the criteria pertain to demolition. Most of them are, if the
buildings are allowed to be relocated, there will be substantial compliance with the
criteria. So, I mean, I don't wish to belabor them, because I've already handed that to
you in writing. I don't think it's eligible, but nevertheless. Even if the entire chapter were
waived, we are putting our best foot forward, saying we care about preservation and this
is what we think should happen and why, so let's work it out with that object.
Janet Ore: So am I to understand then you do want us to waive Article IV, the
whole Article, which would also be the procedure and would also include the eligibility
statement?
Rick Zier: That would be ducky with us, but what I'm saying is even if you did
that, we will commit and pledge and adhere to what we have offered tonight. That's the
end we want to get to. And I think it is a little circuitous and strange for all of us having
to go through a torturous route to get there because of this constraining Code that
doesn't really apply very well here even though it's in a section related to relocation and
demolition. I'm struggling with it. I had trouble trying to give you relevant comments
concerning our situation under the criteria, because they seem so restricted to
relocation, and maybe you don't really have to relocate if in this case this or that, you
know, it really doesn't pertain here. So let's be realistic about it, and let's call it like it is.
Janet Ore: Well, I guess to me, we've already discussed in previous meetings
the eligibility of the site. We've had um, previous preliminary plans for adaptive reuse
come in where we did look at it. So if it is eligible, which we've discussed before, then I
feel uncomfortable waiving the whole chapter, which would essentially say, as I read it,
that the eligibility is no longer there. Would that be right?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 29
Per Hogestad: Ah, I, 1 think what you're telling me, I believe too and understand,
but I wonder, Ms. Decker, could you help us understand a little bit more about that
waiver and the implications over the entire chapter?
Ingrid Decker: As Mr. Zier said, it allows you to waive such conditions and
requirements as are set forth in this Chapter, which could allow you to waive particular
requirements or conditions, if that was what was being specifically asked for, or could
allow you to waive the whole chapter, if that was what was being asked for. If you waive
the entire chapter, then none of the Code provisions regarding landmark preservation
would apply to this property. So I think what was said a minute ago is probably correct,
that it would not be eligible for designation; it wouldn't be an issue for this property
anymore. If you decide simply, I believe this is what Mr. Zier said, to waive the
requirements of Article IV, which is titled "Demolition or Relocation of Historic Structures
Not Designated as Fort Collins Landmarks or Located in a Fort Collins Landmark
District," then you are basically excusing them from having to go through the whole
process that is laid out in Article IV to get a permit to either relocate or demolish the
structure. At this point, we are part -way through that process; it is my understanding
they have not yet actually applied for a permit but are basically coming to you and
asking for permission to do either or both of those things. What we are doing tonight is
basically the preliminary hearing then under Section 14-72; they have asked for that, it's
coming to you to determine whether that is something you're willing to allow. And as Mr.
Zier said, they're happy to do that, it sounds like, so we can go ahead kind of through
that process if they're not asking us to waive that process as well. But it does mean that
if you granted that, they would not have to go through the entire process, 14-72 to the
requirements of 14-73, which is the requirements and conditions for approval of
demolition and relocation. They would not be obligated to follow those steps before they
are able to move or demolish the structures.
Per Hogestad: I think we understand that now
Rick Zier: Mr. Chair, if I might just clarify again. It seems easier for everyone's
sake if I can simply put it this way: We are asking that anything that might get in the way
of what we have proposed to the board as being a compromise solution be waived,
wherever it appears in the Chapter, whether it's in Roman numeral IV or anything else.
Lim, obviously we're here at the preliminary hearing, and you know, I think you
understand what I'm saying; that seems like the easiest way of putting it.
Per Hogestad: OK.
Janet Ore: Well, maybe for, to clear this all up, why don't I make a motion?
And, are we ready for that?
Per Hogestad: I'm not sure that we are. I think we have to sort of understand why
the, why we would wait. I
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 30
Janet Ore: OK.
Per Hogestad: I think they've told us there is a financial hardship.
Janet Ore: To waive the entire process?
Per Hogestad: And I guess, I think we need to explore a little bit more.
Janet Ore: OK. But that would also waive the determination of eligibility as
well.
Per Hogestad: I'm not sure that it would. Would City staff know that? Are we also
waiving the determination of eligibility if we were to approve the waiver?
Karen McWilliams: If you were to approve a waiver of all of Article IV of Chapter
14, yes, the determination of eligibility is a part of that process.
Janet Ore: It also waives, here are some of the things it would waive: [reading]
the determination; the hearing, the fee the inventory, the plans, the hearing.
Per Hogestad: I think maybe we still need to get at the heart of what the applicant
has asked for here, in terms of the reason why they believe we should waive the
requirements.
Janet Ore: The reason why I proposed that is just that we are actually in the
preliminary hearing, in some ways, and that would just clear it up and we can move on.
But l would certainly like to discuss it.
Per Hogestad: OK. I think we need to understand a little bit about that financial
hardship and what that really means and how that applies to the Code. Ms. Decker,
would you be able to help us out with that, so that we can understand?
Ingrid Decker: Just to kind of say where you are in terms of what you need to
consider at this point. Right now, you're just looking at the issue of a waiver under
Section 14-53. You have two grounds that you can use to find a waiver: one is the
substantial hardship finding, which is what is I think has been mostly argued here; the
other is whether applying the conditions and requirements of Chapter 14 here will
produce an arbitrary result. So you need to look at each of those issues.
If you find that neither one of those applies, then you're done, you don't have the
findings you need for a waiver. If you find either one of those conditions, then you go on
to the second part of 14-53, which says if you find number 1 or number 2: Will waiving
the conditions and requirements of Chapter 14 significantly erode the spirit and purpose
of Chapter 14? So then you have a second finding that you have to make. If you find
that it would not, and there are grounds for a waiver, then you can grant a waiver. If
you've got grounds for a waiver but you find it would significantly erode the spirit and
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 31
purpose, then you don't have grounds, you don't have a reason to grant a waiver.
Substantial hardship is obviously not defined in the Section; so it is up to you to make a
determination of whether the circumstances here constitute a substantial hardship.
You've heard evidence about the value of the property and the effect on the valuation of
the property, and you can certainly consider that. Anything that relates to how the City's
regulations affect the property being discussed is relevant in determining if there is a
hardship here. So you can certainly consider that; you can give what weight you want to
to the evidence you have heard. Information about the applicants' personal finances is
probably not as relevant. I would suggest it is appropriate to consider the application of
City code and policies to the property itself regardless of the financial status of the
owners of the property. But if the Commission feels that their personal financial situation
is something that you want to give weight to, you may do that — I just would not give that
as much weight as the actual diminution in value of the property itself. So, those are the
things to consider, and you probably should state what your purpose, or what your
reasons are for making those findings as you get closer to figuring out what you want a
motion to be.
Per Hogestad: Thank you. From the applicant, can I have a brief summary of
exactly what that hardship is? I understand it is a financial hardship, but could you kind
of outline that one more time? I know we've talked about it quite a bit, but I'd like to be
very clear on what the hardship is.
Dick Rule: What we feel is as we have applied tonight is for a relocation
permit, or approval for a permit for up to six months, working with the City staff, to get
these buildings relocated. If at the end of that time, we're not able to get the buildings
successfully relocated, we would like approval for a demolition permit. Our situation on
the substantial hardship is, if you do not allow that to happen, then we feel there. is as
much as a minimum of $700,000 difference in value, based on the appraisal submitted
by Mr. Shannon. Highest and best use, as Mr. Shannon has pointed out, of the land is
$1,002,000 without any of the buildings; he has stated that the residential use left as is
around $300,000, but is also a declining value. So we are saying that if we are not able
to receive relocation/demolition permit approval, then we would experience that
minimum $700,000.
Per Hogestad: So you are telling us that the hardship is the difference between the
perceived value of the property as it sits with the buildings on it versus a clean piece of
property that has a commercial value of so much money.
Dick Rule: That is correct.
Ian Shuff: I'd like to add something, if I could. I was just curious if another, if
you had explored through your realtor, perhaps, a scheme of developing the property,
maybe retaining a couple of the buildings, particularly the barn and the house, you
know, what kind of responses you've had with that? Or if there's a value associated with
such an option, if there had been one?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 32
Dick Rule: We, like I stated before, we had the property, after the contract in
1998 went away, we had the property listed for a year with a commercial broker in Fort
Collins, and their response was that as they had potential purchasers review the status
of the property that there wasn't any scenario that they were willing to tackle by
preserving the buildings on the property. And that's why we've never received another
offer. [Tape change]
Per Hogestad: Prior to that, you did have an offer on the property for the
restaurant...
Dick Rule: Correct.
Per Hogestad: ...and that was a bona fide offer.
Dick Rule: Well, we had a contract, but I question whether it was a bona fide
purchaser. Because he presented conceptual plans which, if you were on the LPC in '98
you probably saw. However, shortly after those conceptual plans were presented, his
restaurant in Loveland was closed for failure to pay sales tax for two years and he
disappeared. So...
Per Hogestad: But at the time there was a perceived value of the property to
develop as retail restaurant, correct?
Dick Rule: There was a contract in place. I would question whether it was a
valid contract, because the purchaser had no ability to perform on that contract. And we
found that out shortly into the process, before appraisals were completed or before any
feasibility was done.
Per Hogestad: Is it fair to ask what the contract value was?
Dick Rule: $829,000.
Per Hogestad: Pretty comparable to the current offer.
Dick Rule: Correct. One thing that I would point out though is that that
proposed purchaser was only interested in a restaurant site, and really didn't care what
happened to the rest of the land, so he had his architect throw an office pad on and he
just said, get rid of it, I don't want that. But I guess I would say don't put too much
emphasis in that previous offer, because he was not a qualified purchaser. I mean, I
could come to you and offer a million dollars for your house, but I wouldn't be able to
perform on that offer.
Per Hogestad: But it seemed to be in the realm of reality when the offer was
initiated, the price was not overly inflated or way under market. I mean, it seemed as
though there was a pretty sound conceptual plan for it?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 33
Dick Rule: I would question that, because I guess I look at a sound contract to
mean the ability to close on that contract. This person had no ability to close, so he
could agree to almost anything. And we didn't find that out until he did do some
conceptual plans for the property. Any other questions?
Myrne Watrous: Yes, I have one, Mr. Rule. In the materials you gave us, it's my
understanding that you purchased the house for $50,000.
Dick Rule: Correct.
Myrne Watrous: And you put $65,000 worth of improvements into it, is that correct?
Dick Rule: Well, I'm going to have to pull this out of memory. We have put
about $175,000 total in improvements, maintenance, taxes and then what we consider
the cost of this process, so we around $225,000 of costs associated with that property
in 29 years.
Myrne Watrous: Well, I'm looking at what you had incurred before this process.
Dick Rule: OK, so take off $20,000; so around $205,000.
Myrne Watrous: And the lowest offer, according to what's been said here and the
materials you gave us, has been $300,000?
Dick Rule: That's not an offer, that's the appraiser's assessment of leaving it
as a residential property. But he also pointed out, because of the surrounding area as
well as Mr. Humphries, the lender, saying it is, a decreasing value as a residence. It's
just the reality of the location that it's in. Does that answer your question?
Myrne Watrous: Yes.
Dick Rule: OK. Any other questions from the Commission?
Per Hogestad: Thank you.
Rick Zier: One clarification. I think Dick say the maximum difference we're
claiming. The contract on the property is for $860,000, not for the $1,002,000. 1 think
you understand that, but I thought should correct that. The other thing about the prior
contract in '98 was no feasibility had even been gotten into, it was contingent on
feasibility studies and it was optioned in that fashion. So, the market has said that when
those are studied, there is no possibility.
Per Hogestad: There was a conceptual plan put together, is that right?
Rick Zier: At most, but there were no feasibility, the costs of that was not, the
costing of that was not done before the buyer fell out.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 34
Per Hogestad: Did that go to the City, that conceptual plan, for any review?
Rick Zier: I don't know; not that I know of.
Don Shannon May I offer to help put things into perspective? If they had $205,000
in this property 29 years ago, and if we said the appreciation is 5 percent per year over
that timeframe, its value today, at 5 percent, $843,800, so it is not unrealistic, the
$850,000, 1 think it's conservative. What we really have to look at here is the highest
and best use and property rights. And the highest and best use is no longer what it was.
Like all of us, we've all changed. And consequently, for the property owner to maintain
the property rights, fee -simple interest, he should be able to sell it for the highest and
best and most profitable use. And that I could support very well at $1 million. Based on
three sales that have occurred in the last seven months within a half -mile of that
property. So the offer of $850,000 or thereabout is not an outrageous offer, nor an
outrageous price for someone to be paying, nor is the difference between what they
paid for it and the $850,000. Is there any other question I could help clarify?
Per Hogestad: Not at this time, thanks. I'd like to ask City staff a little bit about that
1998 project. Did a conceptual review happen of that particular project?
Karen McWilliams: I'm not aware of that; I don't have that answer. What I do know is
that the plans did come before the Landmark Preservation Commission, and the
Commission and staff worked diligently with the applicant to develop that restaurant
proposal.
Per Hogestad: And how was it received by the preservation commission .at the
time?
Karen McWilliams:The Commission at the time was very supportive of it. The
Commission, um, allowed for a, an additional building to be connected, built and
connected to the farmhouse to accommodate the restaurant use. The Commission
supported the creation of at least one office building, that at the time we were talking
three stories, on the pad on the site, at the edge. The Commission approved relocating
the smaller outbuildings and the Commission approved the demolition of one of the
significant structure — the pole barn — as well as one non -eligible building -- the garage —
to facilitate the development. The only thing that the Commission asked was that the
connectivity between the house and the barn remain and that there not be a parking lot
put in between the two.
Per Hogestad: Are there other projects that would be similar to this in town, that
are fully functional and do what they need to do as a development? Do you know about
any of those?
Karen McWilliams:I think I'm actually going to refer that question to Carol Tunner, she
can help me with that. She deals more with is the properties that have been designated
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 35
and have been adaptively reused. But I do know that there are numerous properties in
the Fort Collins area have been purchased as historic properties precisely because they
are historic properties and that that value has been increased through adaptive reuse
for commercial and business settings. As the Rules have pointed out, this property is
zoned for commercial use, and there would certainly be the, um, support from the part
of the City to have a commercial or adaptive business use applied to this property, very
definitely. The only one that comes to mind, off -hand, is in part the Preston Farm, which
is being used as office space. The City is currently reviewing a proposal for a historic
farm, the Cook -Tyler Farm, and the proposal there is for an events center, a small
events center. And that is going through the review process, and again, has historic
preservation support for the adaptive reuse of the buildings, including additional
construction on the site of new structures, fairly sizable new structures in this case.
Agnes Dix: How large is that property, compared to the three -and -a -quarter
acres that this property is?
Karen McWilliams:The Preston Farm Property?
Agnes Dix: Not the Preston Farm, the other one you mentioned.
Karen McWilliams: The Cook -Tyler Farm, I'm going to say off the top of my head, and
please bear with me since it is off the top of my head, I believe it's 14 acres; the
applicants are proposing to develop just the area immediately around the historic
property, and I don't know the details, but the discussion at conceptual was that the rest
of it will not be developed, certainly at this time, if at all.
Agnes Dix: OK. Thank you.
Ian Shuff: I guess I'm pretty clear on what the property is now assessed at
versus what it potentially could be, and I do realize it is not a very large lot, either, and
um, I was curious about the potential of possibly subdividing or trying to maximize what
you could develop it, and if there is a value associated with that. And I do realize that
the house is kind of in the center of the lot, and I do see that as being a, probably one of
the bigger issues. But, um, I'm not sure I need the answer to that, but I just sort of
stating that, if there had been something explored in that aspect, maybe you could
share that, though?
Don Shannon: Yes, we have explored that and it's been most directly supported by
the market, in the fact that there have been no offers once people found out that the
historic designation was there. It gets back to risk: When you're investing your money,
you want things to be as straightforward as possible. And things that are under normal
zoning, developers and investors know how to deal with. When you're dealing with
historical designations and land use issues that are crossing each other and not even
completely clear to the city attorney who made a comment that they are as clear as
mud, people are not going to invest in a property that has those restrictions. So,
consequently, what we have done is limit what can be done with it. Therefore, we have
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 36
reduced the value. That value reduction is being absorbed by the property owners as
opposed to we the public of the City who would benefit from leaving the barn and the
house there. I'm not opposed to doing that, it's just the fact that there is a difference in
value and who is going to pay that difference in value? Is it the Rule family or is it we the
taxpayers? Basically, I think you could achieve the same thing perhaps and have a
better setting, if we could find a place to relocate the house, in more of a rural setting,
so it would fit better than it does there. It no longer — it doesn't have the same thing I
remember it having for the, when it was rural land around it. And I grew up in that
environment, and I love that. But on the other hand, it's not that anymore. It's, it doesn't
fit, it doesn't fit in the environment, nor does it accomplish what I think we would like to
accomplish. So, have I answered your question?
Per Hogestad: I'm a little bit puzzled here. We've talked that there are some
developments that have been able to incorporate historic properties into their
development plan, and you're telling us that investors will not do that and don't want to
do that. But yet there are some here in town, and there's quite a bit of retail, that is at a
premium because of it.
Don Shannon: There's a couple of things that go into that consideration. One, if
this was a large farm, where in fact that could be paid for through other sales. This is a
3.25acre site. Secondly, the house is located kind of in the center, and it's complicated
even more with the barn setting back in the corner, and they have to have this view
corridor there. So, there's just many obstacles that make it extremely risky and the
purpose of developers are to try to assemble something that will fit and that will make a
profit. Profits, in this area and this timeframe that we are in, and the economy we are in,
have been reduced and they are being very skittish on what they are approaching and
what they are developing and they would much rather have -a clean site, without the
buildings, and just with the Harmony Corridor zoning as the subject has, because, with
that they can come to the City and make a proposal that fits the criteria of the Harmony
Corridor zoning and they know they have a fairly good chance of getting their proposal
approved. One of the biggest handicaps, also, with something like the historical
presentation, people who would buy that to redevelop it will have to put thousands of
dollars up front in engineering and planning and these types of things, and then come
before a overlapping board of authorities and have each one of them pick it apart. It
increases their risk and they also have spent so much money at that point they're just
not going to take those chances. They're going to buy a vacant piece of ground and this
is going to go begging, and it's going to be there, and it's going to decrease in value as
traffic increases and you can no longer keep, board horses there. Now, I think if the
property sold, now I'm not absolutely sure on this and Carol Tunner can probably help
me, but I believe if that if that would change uses you may not be able to have livestock
on the site anymore — there were some issues with chickens in town, where the
property sold, the person who had it before was grandfathered in because they are
owned it for years and years and they had the chickens; when they sold it to another
person, they could no longer have that. So I question — I'm not absolutely sure on this,
but I question — if the horses could even be kept there anymore. And now that anybody
who has horses isn't going to buy the place — they have no place to ride them, so
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 37
they're not going to buy it — and what do you use it for? Well, maybe an industrial site.
Maybe we get a contractor out there, and he puts his office in the house, and has all his
equipment around there. Is that going to be compatible with the house, or with historic
zoning? No. So we're really, as long as that's on there, we've got a choice: We've got
$300,000 or we've got approximately a million dollars.
Janet Ore: Can I ask one question?
Don Shannon: Sure.
Janet Ore: As an appraiser, you must run into historic houses and sites and
structures and stuff that you appraise, and aren't historic houses around town in
demand and actually have a pretty high value?
Don Shannon: There are historical houses in town in demand. The Old Town out
around City Park has redeveloped very nicely, but the circumstances there are so
different. They're not surrounded by industrial use, they're not on a heavily traveled
street that has 14,500 cars by it a day at this time and it's increasing every year, and
those kinds of things. So, if you're going to buy an old historical house, you're usually
going to want to be in a historical district, near the City Park, where other people are
having residence, and you have neighbors and friends who are living there as well as
opposed to having office buildings and rest homes and things of that nature. So, a
property is so affected by its location. You know, the location, one of the things you
hear, say, the importance of location, location, location. And that goes against the idea
of someone buying this and moving into it as their primary home. OK? Thank you.
Per Hogestad: Well, I think the task at hand here now is to determine if there is a
hardship.
Janet Ore: A hardship? Or are we dealing with the waiver? If there's a
hardship, so we would waive based on that?
Per Hogestad: On that hardship. And what I've heard is that we're talking about a
financial hardship, the difference in value the way the property is now and what it could
be, the potential. Is that what you've heard here?
Janet Ore: Yes. I would say that the land itself is affected by its use. It's not
just not the personal finances of use of the property.
Per Hogestad: Have any discussion here?
Agnes Dix: I think in so many ways it would be such a nice little respite from all
the industrial growth around it and development. But, you know, I also see the other
side, that they're, it would be a very difficult situation to try to develop as a historic
property. It's a tough decision.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 38
Ian Shuff: Yeah, I also tend to, I see both sides, but I mean, it is a very tough
site. It has been somewhat compromised, but it is a smaller site, which makes
improvements more difficult. I guess, I'm hearing that, as far as the hardship.
Janet Ore: So, are we coming to the point where we're making the decision
whether to grant the waiver based on hardship?
Myrna Watrous: Don't we have to discuss arbitrary result, also?
Per Hogestad: Yeah, but that would come later. I think we're still struggling with
the hardship, and determining if there is a hardship and if that hardship should cause
the waiver.
Janet Ore: Well, they are not being deprived of use of the property; that would
be sort of one of the legal definitions of hardship. They still can use their property and it
still has value.
Per Hogestad: I think what has been posed here is the idea that there is loss in
monetary value of the property because of how it can be used. That's what I'm
understanding. Whether that is real or perceived, I'm not absolutely certain. I have a
sense was we have a project now that they're interested in buying the property in a
certain condition, and yet a few years ago there was another group that they were
willing to work with those buildings and the contract amounts were very similar. I have a
sense that the property may have value greater than those assessed values.
Janet Ore: So even if we found a finding of substantial hardship, we still need
to determine whether waiving the, ah, Section IV would produce an arbitrary result.or if
it would significantly erode the purpose and spirit of the Chapter as well.
Per Hogestad: I think that one will follow the other.
Myrne Watrous: Well, I have a more stringent definition of hardship: To me, a
hardship means real deprivation. If we do not grant this waiver, the Rules will not be
forced to live in their car, they will not have to apply for food stamps, they won't go on
the welfare rolls. There is no illness or death that would result. That to me is hardship.
They would possibly be losing something that they hoped to achieve, but certainly this
was not written in stone at any time during their ownership of the property that it would
be worth $1,200,000. This was something that they hoped for.
Dick Rule: [off mic] May I comment? [at podium] I hear what you're saying,
ma'am. I guess our position is if this is where we end up after 29 years, why has the
City gone along with everything that we have done to position this property for sale as a
commercial property, 29 years after we purchased it? Why did the City allow us to
change the zoning to commercial in 1980? Why did the City allow us to expand that
commercial zoning to include more uses in 1987? And why has the City allowed all the
other farmsteads that used to be our neighbors to be either relocated or demolished?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 39
So, as we're the last people standing, we have to wonder, why has the City kind of
played us along for 29 years if to come to this point, you're saying, well, too bad, it's
really not a hardship?
Myrne Watrous: Well, I certainly can't answer for the City over the 29 years, but it
was my impression from the materials, from what you said and what the materials that
you gave us said, that you encouraged this, this was your choice.
Dick Rule: Well, this was part of our purpose for purchasing the property, if
that's what you're saying.
Myrne Watrous: Are you saying you were speculating that the property would
achieve this particular, perhaps not this identical number amount, but that it would?
Dick Rule: We felt that growth in Fort Collins was the southeast in 1975 when
we purchased the property. To use "speculate" is, I guess that term, I'm not sure exactly
how you're using it. Were we developers? No, we have never been developers and we
are not developers today. We wanted to raise a family on a little three -acre tract and
hoped that the city would move in our direction. And it did move in our direction, and the
City went along with everything that we did to position the property for commercial use. I
don't know what more to say about that.
Per Hogestad: Let me ask City staff: When there is new zoning in place, what
decisions are made based on historic properties ?
Karen McWilliams: Zoning does not affect historic properties. Historic properties,
including the Rule farm, may be utilized for anything from industrial uses to again
commercial uses, business -oriented uses, residential uses or any other allowable use
that's identified in that zoning district. We have numerous examples, including the,
hmm, one of the Johnson farms where the farmstead was rezoned industrial. We expect
it to become a veterinary clinic or something along that line. There's a wide variety of
potential uses for this property, irrespective of the fact that it has historic buildings on it.
They can become any type of industrial, commercial, business use. It's highly unlikely,
and I will agree with Rules, that the property would remain residential, and the City
certainly doesn't expect that. So the value of the property as a residence at a cap of
$300,000 seems to be decidedly unrealistic. The realistic value of that property is being
redeveloped for a commercial or business or industrial use, if that indeed is allowed in
the Harmony Corridor.
Dick Rule: But again, Mr. Shannon I think has addressed why, on a small
acreage of 3.25 acres, that redevelopment is extremely if not totally impossible. Thank
you.
Per Hogestad: OK.
Janet Ore: Just a point of clarification
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 40
Don Shannon: [off mic] May I address you one more time?
Per Hogestad: Anything to help us out here.
Don Shannon: It is a confusing issue, I understand. The historic -- It's not the
zoning that limits the use, it's the historic designation. And secondly, the buildings do
not lend themselves to other uses, not even to farm uses anymore, they are old, they're
obsolete, they're horse barns, they're not machinery barns, you can't -- the house is
very, very dated, the floors are uneven and squeak as you walk across them, the rooms
are too small and cut up for offices. That was my first thought — what a great, this could
be the main office in the middle of the park and build other offices around it. As I went
through the house, it just would not lend itself to that. The house has about 1800 sq. ft.
divided up into about eight rooms; they're not going to work. As far as the hardship,
there's already a hardship even if you grant this today. That property is worth a million
dollars. They are willing to take $850,000 to be able to move on with their lives. There is
a $150,000 worth of loss there. To solve the problem, they've been through a lot of
stress — talk about illness, I would wonder if they don't have some illness as the result of
this, certainly short-term illness as a result of the financial stress they've been under.
So, I really think, to be fair to individual property owners, be it the Rules or the next
person who applies, that you have to look at the property value, not the individuals.
Whoever owns this property have property rights that should be honored, and the
should be honored at market value.
Per Hogestad: I was trying to get to some ideas about zoning and historic
properties within that zone.
Don Shannon: Yeah. OK. Thank you again.
Myrna Watrous: Well, I don't believe it is within our purview to be establishing
market value.
Per Hogestad: No, no.
Janet Ore: Aren't we discussing the hardship only in the decision of whether to
waive the conditions under the Chapter 14?
Per Hogestad: That's correct.
Janet Ore: So, basically, in this part of our decision -making, if we make a
decision to waive the conditions, then that ends our deliberations tonight.
Per Hogestad: That's correct.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 41
Janet Ore: If we make a decision, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Decker, if
we make a decision not to waive them, then we move on to the next part, which is a
decision on demolition or removal.
Per Hogestad: That's correct. But we need to make a decision about the hardship
and the waiver to be able to move on.
Janet Ore: OK. But if we waive it, we waive everything, we waive everything in
the whole Chapter.
Per Hogestad: That's the way it sounds.
Janet Ore: Which essentially, is waiving the preliminary hearing...
Per Hogestad: ...That we're in.
Janet Ore: Yeah, that we're in. And it waives the eligibility, if it's eligible or not
for a local listing.
Per Hogestad: Yeah, if we were to waive...
Per Hogestad/Janet Ore: the whole thing.
Ingrid Decker: I didn't quite catch the last part of that, but you're correct, if you find
a waiver, then you're basically done here, you're permitting them to go ahead and do
what they want with the structures on the property without having to come back to you
to. approve a permit or to do any further discussion on the issue.,
Janet Ore: If we don't waive it, we move on to the next step, which is what
they're requesting, which is removal or demolition.
Ingrid Decker: If you don't do a waiver, then the next thing that we're going to do is
to look at their request for relocation or demolition, applying the criteria that are laid out
in Section 14-72 of the Code, under Preliminary Hearing.
Per Hogestad: I guess I'm still trying to get to the heart of this, and what that
hardship is. And I believe that the claim is that there's a loss of value of the property.
Am I correct here?
Rick Zier: That's the principal one, yes, I don't think it could be plainer. I think
there are two ways that the Commission can get to the result that we've asked it to, if it
cares to do that. We think they are equally legitimate and substantiated under the
evidence: The first is to waive any requirements in the Chapter that would prevent
according us what we have asked you for, not everything in the Chapter. But it is
irrelevant if that is, if the Commission agrees basically with what we are trying to
achieve, then we simply, the way to do that is to waive the requirements other than the
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 42
requirements in accordance with what we have asked you to require of us, and we will
do it in that fashion and not get to the second point. If, for whatever reason you don't
care to do that, then we get to the second point. We think we have made an irrefuted
case on the second point. But I think we're getting really bogged down in some things
here and losing the object here, and this could go on all night, and...
Janet Ore: See, my frustration is that if we don't know exactly what you're
asking to exempt from the Chapter and not waive and what to waive, it becomes very
difficult. You know, we have our Chapter 14-72 with a whole bunch of different condition
underneath it. We would have to go through which ones — I'm not even clear what
you're asking for and which ones you aren't.
Ingrid Decker: If I may, I think we're getting a little confused about terminology
about Chapters and Sections and Subsections and this sort of thing. We have an entire
Chapter of the Code, and that's Chapter 14, and that's everything that has to do with
landmark preservation. Then there are, within that section, Articles.
Janet Ore: Article IV
Ingrid Decker: Yes, Articles, and if you're talking about Article IV I believe that's,
and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Zier, but what he said before was to waive everything in
Article IV that would prevent them from do what they want to accomplish. So, if that's
specifically what we're talking about, is just Article IV, I don't know that we have to go
through it piece by piece.
Rick Zier: I would agree, and I don't think we have to do that.
Janet Ore: I agree.
Rick Zier: Because in fairness to us, I don't think it's clear enough for us to be
able to tell you exactly. I really don't think it's a very clear statute, and it's really tough.
So the best way of handling it is in the reverse, I think. One correction, I would say:
There may be something in the remainder of the Chapter that would act as some
impediment. We would ask that anything in the Chapter that would be an impediment be
waived. We just want to get to the object. That's simply, substance rather than form.
Per Hogestad: So, I guess I have to bring us back to that hardship, and is there
truly a hardship that would cause us to waive the requirements.
Janet Ore: But there are also other conditions that we have to determine, too,
and we can only waive it if it doesn't significantly erode the spirit and purpose of the
Chapter, right?
Per Hogestad: I think if we were to consider the hardship first and then we'll
consider the next piece and the next piece, and then I think we might be ready to make
a motion.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 43
Janet Ore: OK. I think that's a very hard thing to determine. We could be here
all night, talking the difference between a, a, you know, a proposal to reuse the
buildings and a proposal not to. We haven't seen a proposal to reuse the buildings.
Myrne Watrous: And that's not known.
Rick Zier: Could I ask that everybody be close to the microphone? I can't hear
it and I'm sure people can't...
Per Hogestad: Sorry.
Rick Zier: Thank you.
Myrne Watrous: Well, I would have a hard time voting for this waiver because I am
convinced that this site does have, is eligible for local, state and national designation.
And if we grant this waiver, that goes away.
Agnes Dix: I agree with you. I think that's true.
Per Hogestad: Do you see a financial hardship here?
Myrna Watrous: Not by my definition of a hardship. Other people may have other
definitions.
Agnes Dix: Certainly $700,000 is a fair hunk of change,
Myrne Watrous: Oh, yes, absolutely.
Agnes Dix: No question about that. But it isn't as though they don't have their
property that they can live on, or develop, whatever. We're certainly not depriving them
of the property.
Myrna Watrous: No.
Per Hogestad: I guess I would say that the property, with or without the buildings
on them, is a developable piece of property. There has been and the person who made
the offer on the property may not have been too solid, but I think the plan was a fairly
solid plan to use the buildings as office and restaurant and related uses. I think certainly
it can be developed that way. It was at the same cost that we are talking about now, the
contract was at the same number.
Janet Ore: Well, and I think also as well that we could produce an arbitrary
result, because we have looked at a number of other sites in Fort Collins that are in a
similar situation, and we've ruled they're eligible and therefore are under City Code
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 44
here. And if we exempt one just blanket without further deliberation on our second point,
then we're sort of making an arbitrary decision in light of our other decisions.
Per Hogestad: We have asked City staff about other similar projects, they may be
different in size, but they are an adaptive reuse of other buildings that are up and
running and functional — the doors are open, we don't know if they are making money
but we know the land deal happened. So I guess I don't see that as a hardship.
Janet Ore: Shall I make a motion? Then we can move on.
Per Hogestad: Any other input before the motion? OK.
Janet Ore moved the LPC not grant a waiver of conditions under Section 14-53 of
the City Code, because granting such a waiver will produce an arbitrary result.
Agnes Dix seconded.
Ingrid Decker: I'm sorry, I don't think that is the standard in the Code provision. An
arbitrary result would be another reason to grant a waiver. If you find that there is
unreasonable hardship or that applying this to this property would create an arbitrary
result...
Janet Ore: That's what I meant to say, that it would create an arbitrary result
Ingrid Decker: It would not create... in order to not grant a waiver, you need to find
that it is not an unreasonable hardship and that it would not create an arbitrary result.
Janet Ore: Oh, it would not.create an arbitrary result?
Ingrid Decker: The question with whether it's an arbitrary result is, does applying
these requirements to their property result in an arbitrary result to them — would it be
unfair to them to apply it to their property because the result would be arbitrary. So that
is one ground to waive it. If what you're saying is that you do not want to grant a waiver,
then it has to be because you found that there is no unreasonable hardship and it would
not have an arbitrary result.
Janet Ore withdrew her motion.
Janet Ore: Anyone else want to try it? I think the hardship is a hard one,
because that's a hard one to make a determination on.
Per Hogestad: But I think we've talked quite a bit about developments and how
they can happen and I know there's been evidence introduced here about appraisals on
property, but there's also been conversation on a previous proposal for development for
that exact piece of property at a sale price that was exactly the same. Whether the
buyer was financially able to is maybe neither here nor there, I think it was probably
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 45
done in good faith and it had a good project, a project that the City had at least looked
at and the Commission had looked at.
Jim Tanner: {off mic] Could I address the issue of hardship just briefly?
Per Hogestad: Very briefly. I think we're getting close here.
Jim Tanner: I think Myme has raised very important issue and that is that
everyone has their own definition of hardship. OK? So I think it's a point worth taking a
minute to talk about. Now, hardship is a relative term, alright? If you have nothing,
somebody gives you $10 and they take away half of it, that's a real hardship. For you or
me, $5 is nothing. So we're talking about a percentage of someone's worth. Now if
someone came up to you — and I have no idea what your worth is, you know, what you
have in the bank and frankly I'm not going to push that — but if someone said to you, I
want you to give me 80 percent of what you own — your money, of what your house is
worth, of what your clothing is worth -- you would call that a hardship, I suspect, even if
that still left you with three meals a day, a few clothes to put on your back and a roof
over your head. Now, what is being proposed to do with the Rules is to take away from
them perhaps 70-80 percent of their retirement portfolio, the money they have saved
and planned for retirement; that's what $700,000 represents to them in terms of the
percentage of their savings. Now that, I think, deserves to be called a hardship. And I
suspect anyone on the Commission who was asked to give up 70 or 80 percent of their
retirement portfolio to help the City have "an oasis" in the middle of a development
would consider that a considerable hardship as well.
[Sustained applause]
Janet Ore: As a point of clarification, we're not, as a point of clarification, we're
just voting whether we are going to waive the procedures.
Per Hogestad: I need to stop here for a moment and ask everyone if they would
refrain from those kind of outbursts. I think we are all due a certain amount of respect
here, and that's not helping what we're trying to get to here. So I'd appreciate your
cooperation. Sorry, Janet.
Janet Ore: The other thing that I'd like to say, too, is that the Supreme Court
has already made a number of rulings on this very issue. In 1978 in Penn Central v.
New York City, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a hardship and not a takings for
the local Landmark Preservation Commission to deny a high rise to be built on top of
Grand Central Station. That decision has been upheld in numerous court decisions after
this time. Therefore, if you want to define hardship like they define hardship, the
Supreme Court, that would mean that if the property is left with a viable economic use it
is not a hardship or a takings to make a preservation decision on it. And so maybe in
light of that, I will make a motion.
Per Hogestad: OK.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 46
Janet Ore: I move that we not grant a waiver of conditions under Section 14.53
because it will not result in a substantial hardship. Is that clear enough?
Ingrid Decker: Is the Commission, are you all saying the Commission finds...
Janet Ore: and it will significantly erode...
Ingrid Decker: ...there would not be an arbitrary result?
Janet Ore: I'm going to — do I have to have that one? Or can I say that it will
significantly erode the spirit and purpose of the Chapter?
Ingrid Decker:
Janet Ore:
You may do both.
OK. I'll add that.
Janet Ore moved the LPC not grant a waiver of conditions under Section 14.53 of
the Fort Collins Code because enforcing the requirements would not result in a
substantial hardship on the applicants and because granting a waiver would
significantly erode the spirit and purpose of Chapter 14. Agnes Dix seconded.
Per Hogestad: Is there any further discussion?
Myrna Watrous: Call for the vote by roll call vote, please, Mr. Chairman?
Per Hogestad: Yes. May we have a roll -call vote?
Kate Jeracki: Ore?
Janet Ore: I vote, um, to —what would it be, yes or no?
Ingrid Decker: Your motion was not to grant the waiver, so if you were voting yes
on the motion you are voting to not grant the waiver.
Janet Ore: Right. Yes.
Kate Jeracki: Watrous?
Myrne Watrous: Yes.
Kate Jeracki: Hogestad?
Per Hogestad: Yes.
Kate Jeracki: Dix?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 47
Agnes Dix: Yes.
Kate Jeracki: Shuff?
Ian Shuff: No.
Per Hogestad: The motion carries 4-1. OK, our next business then will be to talk
about approval for the request for relocation or demolition. We will discuss that, and if
we need we will ask questions.
Janet Ore: And this seems to me to be what they're really asking for, whether
they have permission to relocate or demolish the buildings.
Per Hogestad: Yeah, I think this is what it comes down to.
Janet Ore: This is what it comes down to, we've gotten to the crux of the issue.
Per Hogestad: I'd like to ask just a couple of questions of City staff here. The
survey that was done, 199... late 1990s?
Karen McWilliams:1994.
Per Hogestad: 1994. Who was that done by?
Karen McWilliams: That was done by the historic preservation firm Cultural Resource
Historians, which is indeed operated by myself and my husband, before I was hired to
work for the City.
Per Hogestad: So you were a consultant to the City at the time?
Karen McWilliams: At the time I was hired as a consultant tot he City, then later they
offered me full-time employment.
Per Hogestad: In City staff, since that time, have taken another look at the property
and still believe that that property is eligible for local designation?
Karen McWilliams: Yes, I have and I have been objective in my opinion. And indeed
the property is still individually eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation. Again, that
is buttressed by the opinion of Dale Heckendorn, to answer the earlier critic's comment
that I didn't give names. Dale Heckendorn is the State and National Register
coordinator for the Colorado Historical Society. Again, he feels it also has state and
national significance beyond the local eligibility.
Per Hogestad: And that was based on its architectural significance?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 48
Karen McWIIIiams:That was based on the architectural significance. And then, in
addition, its local significance is based on its agricultural, its representation of our
agricultural heritage and urban growth of the community.
Janet Ore: Can I ask a question?
Per Hogestad: Sure.
Janet Ore: Would you say the architectural significance outweighs its
agricultural significance, now that the context is compromised?
Karen McWilliams: I feel that, when you look at those seven standards of integrity, the
one standard that has been compromised is the setting, because of the development
that has occurred around it. And since that setting directly impacts the agricultural
sense, however it portrays the urban sense, yes I think that standard of integrity had
been lessened. In terms of its architecture, nothing has happened to diminish the
architectural value.
Per Hogestad: Has the City staff considered the status of buildings should they be
should they be moved to another location? Would they still be able to be eligible for
designation under their architectural importance?
Karen McWilliams:The Commission and city staff in the past has approved for
landmark designation properties, farmsteads included, that have been relocated. Again,
the Commission need to find that the new location and the way the buildings are placed
and all the characteristics that made that farm important in the first place are still
-retained. So if the Commission is comfortable that the architectural characteristics of the
property are preserved or the agricultural setting and whatever the Commission feels
are the significant aspects in the new location, then that can occur, the buildings can still
be eligible for designation on the local level. This does not apply to national or state
level.
Per Hogestad: So, how do we feel about relocation?
Myrna Watrous: I'm curious to know if there are any definite offers as to location,
relocation sites. Has anyone said, I'll give you my acreage on, east on Harmony or west
on Mulberry or what?
Per Hogestad: Is there anyone here from the applicants that can answer that?
Dianne Rule: Your question is, Are there current locations already identified?
Myrne Watrous: Yes, yes.
Dianne Rule: We actually put a contract on a lot south of us, hoping to be able
accommodate that. But the covenants then came forward and said that would not
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 49
allowed, that you could not move a building on to the site. That's why with our, with just
sort of the media, press, we have consistently said we would love to offer these to a
nonprofit, and also to individuals, to be moved, restored and used. That's really our
heart's desire. We have a great warmth for these buildings; we've raised our children
there, we'd love to see them reused. But as for an actual site, no, it's too early. People
aren't going to get serious about that, unless they know that they can move actually
them. Ed Stoner did call me this afternoon and said the Fort Collins Sertoma Club would
very much like to seriously consider this possibility. So, he didn't have a site -- he's just
back from Cabo, so he doesn't have a site located -- but that's another one. We have
several individuals in the room tonight who do have possible sites. So, it's just
beginning.
Myme Watrous: Are any in the Harmony Corridor that you know of, that part of the
Harmony Corridor between College Avenue and 1-25?
Dianne Rule: I just don't have an answer for that.
Myrne Watrous: I'm thinking that the buildings would lose a certain amount of their
historic value if they were split up. It seems to me they should be going as a package.
Agnes Dix: I think that's what Karen indicated would be, has happened in the
past.
Karen McWilliams: No, if the buildings were split up, barn went to one location and the
house to a different or something, some scenario along that line, then the buildings
would lose a tremendous amount of their historic value to Fort Collins. The value is as a
complex.of farm buildings with their type of architecture in an agrarian setting.
Agnes Dix: So it needs to be a package?
Karen McWilliams: Well, ideally, the buildings should to be together, yes, to retain the
architectural interest the barn and the house need to reflect each other, not one be sent
to North Fort Collins and the other to South Fort Collins or whatever the case may be.
Per Hogestad: But there could be quite a bit of latitude in the size of the lot and
those things as long as the buildings have the same kind of relationship and so on.
Karen McWilliams: There are certain criteria that are usually considered when we look
at things such as the relationship of the buildings to each other. Things like the barn
would almost never, on a farm property, be built in front of the house, it was always to
the back, things like that. And just in general their spatial relationship. But they can be
accommodated on different lots depending on different scenarios, if that answers the
question.
Per Hogestad: I think the task at hand here is to understand if we believe that the
buildings could be moved off the site. And then how do we accomplish that?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 50
Ian Shuff: I personally think the site is obviously compromised. It no longer is
what it was, and um, 1 think it is something we should discuss and decide if, you know,
we still want these eligible for designation and that is a possibility with relocation. Is that
something...?
Per Hogestad: I agree. I believe that the context has been lost. The buildings, that
if they are moved, that what we're looking at here is the architectural significance of the
buildings now rather than a contextual significance.
Ian Shuff: I agree.
Agnes Dix: I agree with that, too. As it stands now, you have these commercial
buildings looming over the fence, and it really has compromised the original purpose of
the farm. Ah, you know, to split them up I think would be a tragedy, however, and
therefore make them ineligible for designation under any circumstances.
Janet Ore: Although under architecture, you could make a case for them
individually, maybe, if you're taking away the agricultural context.
Ian Shuff: Yeah.
Per Hogestad: But there is some relationship to the buildings. And it would be
preferable, probably, to move them as a group, at least the major buildings. Maybe
some of the smaller outbuildings may have less. I understand that the proposal from the
applicants is to be able to move the buildings but to also set a timeframe for how all of
that can happen. I guess I'm struggling with that. It's open-ended. I don't know that we,
will be guaranteed a result here. I think I'd rather see some organized preservation plan,
and a site identified that those buildings can be moved to, so that we all understand how
they fit on the site and when that all occurs, rather than a timeframe that says, well, in
60 days they have the ability to demolish the buildings.
Janet Ore: I agree. Even a longer timeframe would be more of a guarantee
that there would be a good faith effort to find some place to move them to.
Per Hogestad: I think it sounds like there are a lot of possibilities out there and
perhaps a good preservation consultant could work with the applicants here to really
come up with a good site that could either be purchased or maybe there's one where
the buildings could be given away. I think there's a lot of possibilities there.
Ian Shuff: I'm just going to throw this out there, but would it be a possibility, if
we were to look at relocation, to if somehow they couldn't find a site, which is
understandable could they temporarily store the buildings, as long as they are not
allowed to deteriorate, for maybe a certain period of time until they could find a site, or is
that even feasible? I'm not sure.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 51
Janet Ore: Although, that happened once, and they deteriorated rapidly.
Per Hogestad: Yeah.
Ian Shuff: I imagine it could.
Per Hogestad: Every time that particular building moved, it took some severe
damage, and I think it becomes sort of: out of sight, out of mind, and eventually it just
goes away.
Ian Shuff: I just thought I'd throw it out there
Myrna Watrous I would not like to see the buildings taken out of the Harmony
Corridor, because they are part of the history of that district. At one time, the little town
of Harmony had the same status that Timnath and Windsor had. It was just a quiet little
country town. Timnath and Windsor had the good fortune to maintain their individuality,
Harmony just got run over by urban growth of Fort Collins. I agree with you that I don't
think we should have a provision whereby in such -and -such a space of time the
buildings could just be demolished. I think they really should be, if they are going to be
relocated, they should be relocated in a suitable spot. We had this same problem with
the General Store, the Harmony General Store. And I'm certainly grateful to the
McClures for providing a spot for it at Fort Fun, but it is out of its context there, and has
lost a certain amount of its designated value.
Janet Ore: So basically we are amenable to relocation if we can find a suitable
place, and guarantee they would be relocated.
Per Hogestad: I'd like to ask the Rules what their take on that would be. What
we're hoping for is maybe some middle ground here that can satisfy all of us; and I
know it can't be perfect, you know.
Dick Rule: We have a buyer for our property that has already given us two
extensions as we've worked through this. If you want a longer period, our initial proposal
was for six months to find an acceptable adaptive relocation site. If you would like a
longer time, I checked with the proposed purchaser tonight and he is willing to go a
year, if as long as we have tonight the approval that if we cannot find an acceptable
relocation site or feasibility for somebody to relocate these that we would be granted a
demolition permit at the end of a year. Because he can't start his process of his
development not knowing if we're going to be able to get that buildings moved. So, we
would be willing to compromise by saying, yeah, we'll go out to a year. Our concern is to
leave it open-ended to say it's going to be relocated and then we get back into all the
conditions of landmark preservation that have hampered us so far; it's just too onerous,
quite frankly.
Per Hogestad: I think our concern here is that it's so open-ended that easily the
buildings could be forgotten for a year and at the end of the year they're demolished.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 52
Dick Rule: Work with us, that's what we're asking, we want them to be
relocated. But at the same time, give us at the end of the year the ability to have a
demolition permit. So, to me, that's a good compromise. We want them relocated, but to
not put a timeframe on it so that we can proceed with the contract that we have in place
just seems too one-sided.
Per Hogestad: I think we may have missed the point. There's already been a
compromise here, that I think the Commission is willing to have those buildings moved.
[Tape change] An open-ended process is bound to fail.
Dianne Rule: I certainly appreciate that, I can totally put myself in your shoes with
that. Would it be helpful if we had checkpoints along the way, we reported, met with the
Commission, the staff, whoever, every other week, once a month, whatever, we will
report in and tell you what our progress is. And please hear us: We invite your
participation with this, we love the buildings, too. We want them relocated.
Per Hogestad: Do we really believe that it's going to be that hard to find a home for
that building, the house itself and the barn? I would think...
Dianne Rule: I don't believe so
Dick/Dianne Rule: We don't know
Per Hogestad: You being in the real estate business I would think that it could
almost be a money -making proposition. If you were to move it onto a residential site,
with that barn and did a little bit of work to it, perhaps you could make money on -the
buildings.
Dick Rule: We don't know. First of all, we are no longer in the real estate
business, just for the record.
Per Hogestad: But have been in the business for many years.
Dick Rule: Yeah. We don't know, but the point is that we want to find out, but
at the same time we don't want to lose the contract we have in place. The only way
that's going to happen, even if it's a year, that we want to have approval for a demolition
permit. Do we think there's a possibility of moving them? Absolutely, we do. We've had
enough interest, but no one has really figured out where or how to or anything like that.
So I guess we're saying, yeah, we want to do what you want us to do, but we are asking
you even if it's 12 months out to approve a demolition permit at this point.
Janet Ore: Would it be possible to ask the, the member of the public that
talked about moving them earlier about the issue of moving them? Is that appropriate?
He's sitting right here.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 53
Per Hogestad: Sure, if he's willing to speak to that issue.
Janet Ore: Can we ask you about moving it?
Evan Gilmartin: My name is Evan Gilmartin, and I've moved houses. The problem
we have right now is what's going to come first, the chicken or the egg? We cannot
move a house or even spend our time looking for a location unless we have permission
to move it. And of yet you have not granted that.
Janet Ore: I understand that.
Evan Gilmartin: So we need permission.
Janet Ore: Well, we want to know what it takes to move it.
Evan Gilmartin: What it takes to move it? Permission to say yes it's not designated
historical, it can be moved.
Janet Ore: No, I understand that. I'm asking about how...
Per Hogestad: Can we get beyond that part of it? Tell us a little about the
mechanics of moving the house and how that could work.
Evan Gilmartin: OK, first of all we have to find the site. After we get permission,
OK? And we're not going to tie up money on the site unless we have permission. Once
we find the site, we will go to the City, apply for the permit to move, go through the
County, or state permits, and submit our building plans, .and away we go. The process
does not take long, once the site is found. But I'm not going to put up any money and
nobody else is going to put up any money...
Janet Ore: Oh no, we're just asking you how it works and how easy it is. Is it a
hard thing to do? Do people do it all the time? Or is it...
Evan Gilmartin: For approximately ten years, I dealt with Carol, I dealt with Karen
for years. The process, we can get a house up and going within 30 days.
Janet Ore: Do people buy them? Is there a market for it?
Even Gilmartin: Definitely.
Janet Ore: Are there lots available? Is it easy to move it in the way of getting
lines lifted and all that?
Evan Gilmartin: The biggest problem we're facing right now is the height of the
buildings and width of the buildings. OK, you're about 40 feet wide on the barn, give or
take, so 40 feet wide, we're looking at probably four -lane roads. With the islands that
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 54
are in many of the areas, that presents a problem. Medians are not problem, but going
down, for example, Drake or Horsetooth, where they have the raised medians and trees
in the middle, that presents a problem. Railroad crossings present a problem. She
mentioned the site down the road — the covenants did not allow a building to be moved
in. So you have to find a place that allows buildings to be moved in. We helped move
the Cunningham barn. Fortunately, there was no problem there, but that was a wide
street, we were able to move it, close by.
Janet Ore: What do you think the chances of finding someone who would want
the house moved and perhaps the barn too?
Evan Gilmartin: I'm right here. OK? I'll buy it.
Janet Ore: So you think it would happen...
Evan Gilmartin: Again, there are the roadblocks of dealing with the City and your
Commission, OK?
Janet Ore: We just want to know if it's possible. We want assurance that it can
be moved.
Evan Gilmartin: It's possible. I can move this building if you want. Just takes time
and money.
Per Hogestad: So you've looked at the buildings, you've assessed their condition,
and they're able to be moved, is that correct?
Evan Gilmartin: Correct.
Dianne Rule: Yes, and we had a professional house -mover come out. He
measured it, went downstairs, looked at the floor joists and all of that, and said,
absolutely these can be moved. So that it's it.
Janet Ore: And somebody will want them? I mean there's a good chance — I
guess I'm trying to assess the chance, because, after all, if there's a time period to allow
them to be moved, I mean I want to know if it will actually happen. What are the
chances of it happening? And that's why I'm asking that. Is it 75 percent? Or...
Evan Gilmartin: It's 100 percent with permission. I can't emphasize more. We
cannot do anything without your permission.
Janet Ore: Well, we know that. We just want to know if it's possible and if
there's a market.
Dianne Rule: Yes, I really do believe there is a market. A number of homes have
been moved, and they blend right in, you cannot tell they've been moved. And again, Ed
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 55
Stoner called today, saying, we want it, we want it, you know. So we've got a whole
nonprofit club saying let's do it, and Ed's done it several times. So I feel very confident
that we can accomplish it. Where, I don't know yet but people aren't going to start
looking unless they have permission. Thank you.
Per Hogestad: I think that takes care of the house -moving issue. I wanted to ask
another question of the Rules. I think we're done with the house -moving. Are you
actively looking for another property to purchase to put the house on? You mentioned
one that there were some covenants that didn't make that possible.
Dick Rule: No, we are not. We have decided we are more willing to donate the
buildings to somebody else that does have an interest, but we are not actively looking
ourselves.
Per Hogestad: Would you do that if we were to give you permission to move the
buildings?
Dick Rule: No. We have lived there for 29 years, we're ready for a change is
really what it comes down to.
Per Hogestad: I guess I was thinking in terms of resale or whatever.
Dick Rule: No.
Per Hogestad: OK
Dick Rule: But again, we're just saying, yeah, we think there is a market for
relocation, but in order to not lose the contract that we have in place, even if it's a year
out, we need also permission for a demolition permit. We just don't want you to get
focused on relocation strictly, because our buyer is not going to be willing to sit around
waiting to see if that's going to happen.
Per Hogestad: I've got to say, 1 don't have a lot of comfort in those open-ended
agreements. You won't be looking to relocate it yourself, you would be relying on
someone wanting a building, that it can be moved to, because of the streets and those
kinds of things, or...
Dianne Rule: We're not saying that we won't be helping with that process, we're
just saying that we don't... is that what you mean?
Per Hogestad: I think that I would have more assurance if you were out there
thinking, well, maybe I can put also together a deal by moving this house and reselling
the house, as residential. I'd have a lot more comfort in that than if it's only, if there's
someone out there, a group that wants it as a donation or somebody that might want it
for a rental or whatever. That makes it a little more difficult to dispose of the house, so
to speak.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 56
Dianne Rule: I'm trying to understand. So you would feel more comfortable if we
were the actual financiers of moving our house? We should move out of our house, and
move our house? Is that what you're asking?
Per Hogestad: You've already done that once. You told me that you were looking
to buy a piece of property to move that house onto.
Dianne Rule: Yes, that's what we attempted to do.
Per Hogestad: So, I'm asking, are you continuing to do that, since that deal did not
work?
Dianne Rule: Well, we will look for a place to relocate it, but we, what we
discovered was that, we don't have, we're not deep -pocket people. We don't have the
money to do that. Unless we sell the property; we can't do both.
Per Hogestad: OK. I thought the Commission was told it was due to covenants that
the deal did not go through.
Dianne Rule: That's correct, that's what stopped it right there. But what we were
going to have to do is find someway to finance that, and we also looked at that — we're
always kind of looking over our shoulder here — but we discovered that we would take
all of the money that we might be able to pull out of our place and we'd take it all down
the road and put it in there. And we weren't going to make any progress whatsoever,
and then we'd have a property that we had to move and restore. So financially it did not
work for us.at all.
Per Hogestad: OK.
Dianne Rule: It was just inconceivable; we're learning the hard way.
Per Hogestad: Thanks. OK, back to the Commission. Are we ready to...
Myrna Watrous: I have one more question. Would the move include the outbuildings
as well?
Evan Gilmartin: [off mic] It could.
Myrne Watrous: OK. It could. Thank you, sir.
Per Hogestad: I think it's also what the Commission would like to see here. And
what would the Commission like to see?
Agnes Dix: Well, I would like to see them all kept together as a package.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 57
Per Hogestad: Even the smaller buildings or just the two major?
Agnes Dix: I think I'd say at least the barn and the chicken coop. [closer to the
mic] I would say at least the barn, the house and the chicken coop. I guess I'm not that
familiar with the other buildings that are there. I know there is one that was a playhouse
or a storage area and some of the others. I know the pole barn had been given
demolition permission a few years ago, along with the garage. I guess I'm just not that
sure about the other buildings.
Ian Shuff: I think based on what we talked about earlier that there could be,
from the architectural significance of the barn and the house at least that they could
potentially be separated and still possibly be designated on their architectural
significance. But I think 1'd prefer to see them together, obviously. The other
outbuildings, I believe in a previous LPC meeting, they were actually allowed demolish
some of the smaller buildings, I can't see why we'd incur any more restrictions based on
that previous meeting?
Karen McWilliams: Mr. Chair, I'd like interject that the chicken coop is one of no more
than 13 chicken coops that remain in the Growth Management Area identified in 1994,
and several of those have been demolished too. So, retaining the chicken coop with the
other two would be ideal.
Per Hogestad: Janet, have you got anything?
Janet Ore: I think under architectural significance, there's an argument for
moving them. I feel uncomfortable about, um, approving a removal that is a de facto
demolition., I think we need to give them a chance. I think probably the chances of them
being reused are good, but we don't have any guarantee of that. That makes me
uncomfortable.
Per Hogestad: I agree with you. It's of great concern to me that the buildings could
languish there for the better part of a year, and at the end of the year, just for
expedience, let's just knock them down. Then we lose the buildings that we have all
agreed are architecturally significant. Given that, I would think that I would be willing to
see the buildings moved, the two main buildings and perhaps some of the others, but I
think that might be part of a preservation plan that could be presented to us or the City
or, I don't know exactly how we'd work that out, but probably to us. And they say
whatever buildings would be feasible; for certain the two larger buildings, the house and
the barn. That there is no demolition clause in whatever motion we come up with. I
guess I would like to ask Karen that question: If we required some sort of preservation
plan that would sort of outline the scope of the move, where the buildings were going to
go, the actual location of the buildings, and their orientation — would that be something
the Commission, the LPC, would review, or does that go to City Planning or where
would that go?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 58
Karen McWilliams: The first decision would be made by the Chair of the Landmark
Preservation Commission in conjunction with the Director of Advance Planning. If they
felt, both of them, that the proposed new location for the buildings did retain their
historic attributes and still made the buildings eligible for individual designation then they
could just go ahead and approve that and it would not come to the Commission. If there
is any disagreement or concern among those two with that decision, they can go ahead
and refer it on to the Landmark Preservation Commission, and certainly if there is a
disagreement they would refer it to the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Code
provides for that. So then the Commission would see it and be able to make the ultimate
decision.
Per Hogestad: But it could be as simple as the Chair and the Director of Planning?
Karen McWilliams: It could be as simple as that, yes.
Per Hogestad: Any further discussion?
Agnes Dix I wonder if we could consider, they had suggested that maybe they
would be willing to wait for a year, hoping to find a place to relocate these buildings.
After what three, four, six months, if we got back together with them and see what sort
of progress had been made, and then make a more definite decision about that? Is that
something we might consider, I guess?
Per Hogestad: I don't know if that would be of any benefit to anyone. Are we ready
for a motion?
Janet Ore: Can I ask the applicants one more _question?
Per Hogestad: Sure.
Janet Ore: Are you representing the applicant?
Rick Zier: I'm not sure; I was getting up, so maybe so.
Janet Ore: Oh, OK. I just wanted to ask how quickly do you think you could get
the house and the bam moved.
Rick Zier: I don't think we know that. Based on what Mr. Gilmartin said,
maybe after permits are obtained, maybe 30-45 days? You know, but I'm not sure about
that. But the box that we're in is that, though we can stand up here and say it is our
intent to move it, which we want to do, and the ideal is — and I don't know that an ideal
is a compromise — but the ideal is that everything be placed as they are. If that should
prove infeasible, if there are physical obstructions that we don't know tonight, if there
are financial obstructions on behalf of the receiving party that we don't know tonight that
don't allow that, um, what period of time is reasonable to have us do that without losing
this contract that we have now, so that we can all substantially achieve what we're
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 59
trying to achieve? It's just simple logic. We don't know if it's feasible, we hope it is, we
believe it is, but we don't know that, and we can't guarantee you of that tonight. We can
tell you we have a very cooperative buyer, but the Land Use Code process that the
buyer has to go through is very long and very expensive. And this use will be lost to the
City and to the property if that process can't be started into fairly soon. I don't know, the
open-ended part that you mentioned: to us, it's not open-ended. Six month or a year
period — we don't know who that person is, so if that is the open-endedness, tonight we
can't tell you who that is. I don't know. Do all relocation permits, permission, do you
always know that? I don't know the answer to that. But tonight we don't know that,
understanding that we don't know it, but that we have every intent to find that person,
we will double our efforts to do it as much as we can. And we will report back and do
whatever you reasonably want us to do during that time. But if there is no end to that
period of time, then it may as well be designated. That's all we're saying; that's the
logical thing.
Per Hogestad: I have to ask City staff that question: Relocated buildings, typically
they have an address to move to prior to City staff seeing those buildings, is that
correct?
Karen McWilliams: Are you referring to historically eligible buildings or just any
building in the City?
Per Hogestad: Since we're talking about historic buildings, just historic buildings.
Karen McWilliams: Historic buildings up until now, the Commission has always had an
exact location and an exact plan for where the buildings were going to be sited and all
the other information that went with it, their use and so forth, up till now.
Per Hogestad: Thank you. I think we have to bring it back to the Commission.
Janet Ore: Well, if we allow the condition that it can be demolished after a
year, we're de facto giving a demolition permit. There's no incentive to look for, there's
no guarantee that they'll be relocated. So, if we make that decision, we have to live with
the fact that, even though we are commissioned to be responsible for historic buildings,
we would be allowing the site to be demolished.
Myrne Watrous: Has Cameron left for the evening? I thought that perhaps he could
perhaps make a promise to expedite this matter through the Land Use Code?
Karen McWilliams: I do know the City has said they will cooperate if an ideal, if an
appropriate new location can be found, that the City is willing to work with the applicants
to see what we can do. I certainly can't promise that we can expedite it in certain
manners, but we will certainly do what we can to help facilitate a move.
Per Hogestad: But there is the possibility that the could be as simple as the
Director of Advance Planning and the Chair of the LPC.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 60
Karen McWilliams: in terms of getting permission to move the buildings to a new
location, absolutely. There may be other City processes that they have to go through,
such as permits, sewer, things that I can't speak for.
Per Hogestad: I think we probably ready...
Don Shannon: [off mic] Very briefly? [at podium] Our goal is to maintain, retain,
historical buildings. I think that's our common goal. Our stumbling block here is where
can we put it? We nun into such things as zoning requirement, because so many
neighborhoods will not let you move an existing house into it. Again, another handicap,
another hurdle to overcome. The City staff as well as the Rules as well as most of the
public would like to retain that. What about, if all else fails, perhaps we could move it to
a piece of City property? The City has various sites around the community, and perhaps
the City could cooperate in this and let us move it to a City -owned property. Would that
solve our problems and get us beyond this stepping stone?
Per Hogestad: I think that is beyond what this commission could comment on
tonight.
Don Shannon I understand, but I think it should be taken into consideration that
the City should cooperate in finding a site as well. Thank you.
Per Hogestad: Are we ready for a motion?
Ian Shuff: I'll make a motion to allow the demolition/alteration — excuse me —
the relocation or demolition of the property in case within a 12-month period. I think I'd
like to add an amendment to that of potential review to see what the progress is on that
perhaps every month or two months.
Agnes Dix: I'll second it.
Per Hogestad: Would you read back the motion please?
Kate Jeracki: The motion is to allow the relocation or demolition of the property in
question within a 12-month period, with the potential for review of the progress to find a
buyer with every month or two. Actually, it would be to find a site, progress in finding a
site?
Ian Shuff: Exactly...
Kate Jeracki: OK.
Ian Shuff: ...just to see how the potential...
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 61
Ian Shuff moved the LPC allow relocation or demolition of the property at 4824 S.
Lemay Ave. within a 12-month period, with periodic LPC review of the applicant's
progress in finding a suitable relocation site. Agnes Dix seconded.
Janet Ore: Can I ask him about his motion?
Per Hogestad: Yes, we can have discussion now.
Janet Ore: OK. So, you feel comfortable with essentially giving them a
demolition permit?
Ian Shuff: Well, there's two paths we can take: Either — it sounds like it's a
moot point to give them the option to relocate but not to demolish, and in fact — or
there's the option of, you know, if they're willing to lose the contract that they have in
place, um, and still do the relocation. Is that what you understand as well, that that
would be an option as well? That we would not allow them to have an open-end time
period of when they would have to locate the building. It would be, what we were saying
is that they would have to do it, but in doing so they would lose their contract, I guess is
what I'm saying. I'm guessing I'm not making myself clear, I'm sorry. But there's kind of
two paths here, and I guess we could be here all night talking about, um...
Per Hogestad: I think all the incentive to find a home for those buildings is gone if
it is tied to the ability to demolish those buildings.
Ian Shuff: OK.
Per Hogestad: But that is your motion, and it has been seconded.
Janet Ore: No, I know, I'm just, I'm thinking about the motion. Because if we do
this, then there is no guarantee they will be moved at all. And at other times, when
we've discussed moving or demolition, er, moving, we've, the people when they know
they are going to ask for a removal, have found a place to take it to, and so therefore
the question is, do we allow the relocation, not just sort of we allow it in case they find a
site?
Per Hogestad: We have heard testimony from City staff that every time a historic
building has been moved that there is a location for it before we approve that.
Janet Ore: On some of them, we even approved the new site, like Johnson
Farm.
Per Hogestad: Uh-huh, yes.
Myrne Watrous: I could not vote in favor of anything that stated that demolition might
be the ultimate end here. And also, I think that we should not be having this going out
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 62
the full year. Apparently, the prospective purchaser of this property has said a year; I
don't think we want to go up to that deadline. I would say that...
Janet Ore: But they might need a year. That might give it more of a chance if
it's got a year.
Per Hogestad: I guess that if we were to ask them to find a location for the building
without the possibility of demolition, I don't think we need to put any timeframe on it.
Then it is driven by their buyer and whatever those circumstances are. Any further
discussion?
Agnes Dix: So what you're saying Is that we'd give them permission to move
these once an appropriate location has been found, and then after... [closer to mic] I'm
just trying to clarify what the suggestion is here, that we would give them permission to
relocate the buildings without a deadline, is that what you're saying?
Per Hogestad: Yes, just in conversation. We do have a motion on the table here.
Agnes Dix: Yes, I know, right. But excluding demolition is a possibility.
Per Hogestad: Any further discussion? I think we need a roll -call vote.
Kate Jeracki: Ore?
Janet Ore: No.
Kate Jeracki: Hogestad?
Per Hogestad: No.
Kate Jeracki: Watrous?
Myrne Watrous: No.
Kate Jeracki: Dix?
Agnes Dix: No.
Kate Jeracki: Shuff?
Ian Shuff: Yes.
Per Hogestad: OK. Motion fails.
Janet Ore: So, we need an alternative?
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 63
Per Hogestad: Yes, I'd like another motion.
Ingrid Decker: If 1 could just interject, and I may ask Mr. Zier's assistance in
clarifying this. Normally at this, if you were in this Section 14-72 procedure, as you said,
you have had a request for a permit either for relocation or demolition. In this case what
is being requested is permission to relocation and to demolish if relocation cannot
occur. If that is what they are requesting, then I think what your decision is, Is are you
going to grant that request? Or are you going to deny that request? I don't know if they
have an interest in anything other than that, but perhaps Mr. Zier can qualify if that is the
type of ruling they would like: yes, are you going to grant what they are requesting or
no, are you not going to grant what they are requesting?
Rick Zier: Thank you. Well, as I understand what has gone on, what we have
requested has been denied. Both aspects of what we have requested have now been
denied. We would welcome the Commission to go further, based on the record. If it
cares to do something different, we would welcome that. I don't know whether it will be
satisfactory to us or not, but we're here now and I understand the tenor of the
conversation, so I'm interested to see where it leads.
Per Hogestad: We appreciate that. Thank you.
Rick Zier: No, thank you.
Ingrid Decker: Thank you.
Per Hogestad: So, I think we do need to make a motion to clear up the issue of
what they have specifically requested.
Janet Ore: Well, I'm in the, I will formulate a motion, to allow relocation as soon
as they find a site. I'm wondering about a timeframe on it.
Per Hogestad: Let's clear up the other point here about, their request is for
relocation and demolition of the buildings, and I don't think we've...
Myrne Watrous/Janet Ore/Ingrid Decker/Ian Shuff/ Agnes Dix: Yes, yes, we have,
we just did.
Per Hogestad: That motion would have...?
Ingrid Decker: Yes, that's the motion that Mr. Shuff made.
Per Hogestad: Oh, OK.
Ingrid Decker: I was just saying that I don't know if you need to go further than
that, if that's what they were requesting.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 64
Per Hogestad: The concept failed, then they have their answer, is that correct?
Ingrid Decker: But if you'd like to proceed to specify what you would be willing to
do, you may do that.
Per Hogestad: OK. I think we want to do that.
Janet Ore: How does the board feel about timeframe on it? In other words...
Per Hogestad: I think that is driven by the market, you know, if they need to sell
the property. I think you know make it move faster, if not, make it move slower. I don't
see any advantage to putting any timeframe to the move.
Janet Ore: OK. Well, then, I will move that we allow permits for relocation for
the farm as soon as they find a site they can move it to. Do I need to qualify it more?
Per Hogestad: There probably needs to be some kind of drawing or some
indication of where the buildings are going to go, how they are going to sit on the site,
for City staff to review.
Janet Ore: OK. So when they find a site then, if they come up with a plan, it
can be reviewed by the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission and the
Advance Planning Director?
Karen McWilliams: That's correct. The Commission would have purview if the site was
located within Fort Collins.
Janet Ore: OK.
Karen McWilliams: If the site is located outside the city limits, the Commission would
not have purview, at least that's my understanding.
Janet Ore: All right. Is that motion clear enough?
Kate Jeracki/Ingrid Decker: I don't think so.
Janet Ore: That it move that we give our permission for relocation as soon as a
site is found and the plan for moving it has been approved by the Chair of the Landmark
Preservation Commission and, I assume, the Director of Advance Planning.
Karen McWilliams:The Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission and the
Director of Advance planning. So what you're saying in that motion is that the buildings
would have to stay within the city limits, so that they would have...
Janet Ore: If they do. I don't want to limit my motion to that.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 65
Karen McWilliams: OK.
Janet Ore: But if they do stay in the city limits, then...
Karen McWilliams: OK. And if they go outside the city limits, then there's no review.
Janet Ore: I think it's more important to find a site than it is to necessarily limit
it.
Karen McWilliams: OK, I'm just clarifying. Uh-huh.
Per Hogestad: OK, do we have a second?
Agnes Dix: I'll second.
Per Hogestad: OK. Any further discussion?
Rick Zier: [off mic] One clarification, Mr. Chairman? [to podium] I think the
motion was to move "the farm." It would help us to know exactly what buildings you had
in mind.
Janet Ore: OK. The house and the bam for sure, those are the ones I'm most
concerned about.
Rick Zier: Thank you.
Per Hogestad: And would you address the smaller buildings?
Janet Ore: They can be the smaller buildings, too.
Per Hogestad: But it's not...
Janet Ore: It's on a secondary level.
Rick Zier: I understand, and I would also represent that if this is acceptable to
my clients regardless of where the receiving property is, we will at least submit a plan to
the Commission and to the staff for information. I don't know that it will be a certified
preservationist -type plan, but we will certainly inform you.
Janet Ore: It's just something they would approve, a plan for what you are
going to do with them, and where, that they would approve.
Karen McWilliams:OK, maybe Ms. Decker can correct me on this, but my
understanding is that we can only approve or have input if they are within the city limits.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 66
Ingrid Decker: I think that technically since you did not grant a waiver of the
provisions of this section and you have not granted the permission that they wanted,
you're really still within the requirements of the City Code. Under 14-72, the owner of
any structure governed by this Article shall make application for City approval,
demolition or relocation of such structures on forms prescribed by the City. That still
applies. So, if they want to relocate the structure, unless for some reason the potential
for designation has changed, they will go through this process as spelled out in the
Code.
Rick Zier: Well, wait a minute, isn't that what we're doing tonight? We're
asking for permission to relocate — we asked for both, we haven't been given that -- but
we're exploring now, with the latitude that the Commission has given us, the permission
to relocate. So I think that's exactly what we're doing.
Ingrid Decker: What they're saying was is that they're going to talk about coming
back with a plan; the question is what's the process going to be for that. Is it going to be
this process here or is it going to be something new that we're creating?
Rick Zier: I thought the question was is it in the city or outside of the city.
Janet Ore: She's saying it still falls under Code.
Ingrid Decker: If it's a structure that normally to get approval for a plan to relocate
it, this just says if it's, if it has potential for designation, it does not say anything about
where you are going to relocate it to, just if it's in the City of Fort Collins, you fill out the
following forms and you do the process. They did not grant the blanket approval to
relocate or demolish. And now they are saying they want to see some kind of a plan
before they approve it.
Rick Zier: I'm not sure we disagree with any of that. I think you've clarified it.
My understanding is you're basically, upon approval of the normal paperwork, you're
granting the approval, if the motion should pass. And we're not going to worry about in
the County or out of the County.
Janet Ore: That's my intention.
Rick Zier: OK, and I think that's fair.
Janet Ore moved the LPC allow permits for relocation of the house and barn from
4824 S. Lemay Ave. as soon as a suitable receiving site can be found, according
to a plan approved by the Director of Advance Planning and the Chair of the
Landmark Preservation Commission, if applicable. Agnes Dix seconded.
Per Hogestad: Did we get a second on that already? OK. And we've had
discussion here, there's no other discussion? Then do a roll -call again.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 67
Kate Jeracki: Shuff?
Ian Shuff: Yes.
Kate Jeracki: Dix?
Agnes Dix: Yes
Kate Jeracki: Hogestad?
Per Hogestad: Yes.
Kate Jeracki: Watrous?
Myrne Watrous: Yes.
Kate Jeracki: Ore?
Janet Ore: Yes.
Per Hogestad: Passes unanimously. OK. Now I think the question here is, what is
the next step.
Ingrid Decker: At this point, my office will prepare draft proposed findings for the
Commission to review. We're going to try to put something on paper that covers the
decisions that you made tonight. That will be for you to consider and adopt at your next
meeting. And I recommend that meeting be held as soon as is practicable for you. The
applicants have the right under the City Code to appeal the decision that you've made
tonight. The Code Section 2-49 — this is partly for their benefit that I am pointing this out
— allows a 14-day period for appeal. We will consider that period to run, not from today
but from the date that the Commission adopts its findings. So, once we have given you
satisfactory findings and you have voted to adopt those, that's when that time period will
begin to run rather than from today. Do you have any other questions about process or
procedure or anything else that has to be done at this point?
Per Hogestad: No, I don't think so. Thank you. OK. That business is done. We do
have a little bit of other business to take care of tonight.
OTHER BUSINESS
STAFF REPORTS: None
COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: None.
Landmark Preservation Commission
April 28, 2004, Meeting Minutes
Page 68
MINUTES: The minutes of March 24, 2004, were corrected to show that the votes taken
on the additional Friend of Preservation Awards were 6-1 in favor, with Per Hogestad
against. The minutes as amended were approved unanimously on a motion by Agnes
Dix seconded by Janet Ore.
Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Kate Jeracki, Recorder
Corrected
June 25, 2004