HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/08/2005 - RECENT REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL AND LAND USE COD DATE: February 8, 2005
STAFF: Greg Byrne STUDY SESSION ITEM
Joe Frank FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Karen McWilliams
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Recent Revisions to the Municipal and Land Use Codes affecting Historic Preservation Review,
and Options for Possible Additional Changes to these Codes.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The Landmark Preservation Commission and staff welcome a discussion with Council on the
recent changes made to the Municipal and Land Use Codes affecting Historic Preservation
Review. Additionally, at Council's direction, staff has developed three options for additional
possible changes, which Council may wish to discuss.
These options are:
• Option 1: Eliminate historic preservation review entirely by eliminating both the
Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal
Code) and Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
• Option 2: Eliminate historic preservation review of alterations to or the demolition of
significant single family residential properties by eliminating the Demolition/
Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code), but retain
the review of development projects under Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
• Option 3: Eliminate historic preservation review of development projects by
eliminating Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and revising the Demolition/
Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code), thereby
limiting preservation review to only single family residential properties remaining
single family use.
Staff is seeking direction from Council regarding these options. Additional detail on the three
options is provided in Attachment 3.
Questions relevant to the discussion include:
1. Do the recent changes to the Municipal and Land Use Codes regarding the
Historic Preservation review processes adequately address the recent
problems regarding the preservation of historic structures, or are
additional changes to these Codes needed at this time?
2. If additional changes to the Codes are needed, which of these three
options does Council wish staff to prepare for adoption?
February 8, 2005 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Description of Recent Code Changes
2. Summary of Recently Revised Codes With Examples of Their Applicability
3. Description of Three Options for Additional Changes
4. Schedule
5. Results of the January 25, 2005 Public Open House
6. Letter from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding Option 1
ATTACHMENT
• Description of Recent Code Changes
Affecting Historic Preservation Review
Last year, certain problems occurred concerning implementation of the City codes in regards to
preservation of historic structures. On September 28, 2004, Council conducted a Study Session
on proposed revisions to the historic preservation review processes and provided direction on
future changes.
The most critical problems were resolved last December when two changes were made to the
Land Use Code: First, the possibility of relocating or demolishing an historic structure was
added to the possible list of actions that the City could take. Prior to this action, the only option
available to the City was to require preservation of historic structures. Secondly, it was decided
that historic structures that would continue to be for single family use would not be subject to the
preservation requirements of the Land Use Code; only historic single family properties that were
converting to a higher density residential use or commercial use would be subject to these
preservation requirements. Prior to this code change, all historic single family structures were
subject to the code provisions. Additionally, in 2002, the codes were changed to limit historic
preservation review to only those buildings which were deemed individually eligible for local
landmark designation. Previously, all buildings and structures 50 years old and older with any
importance were reviewed, no matter how altered.
• Council has directed staff to investigate additional options for changes to the codes, asking staff
to analyze what would the review process be like if all or substantial portions were eliminated.
Staff has explored each of the following options, described in greater detail on the following
pages:
Option 1: Eliminate historic preservation review entirely by eliminating both the
Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code) and
Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
Option 2: Eliminate historic preservation review of alterations to or the demolition of significant
single family residential properties by eliminating the Demolition/Alteration Review Process
(Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code), but retain the review of development projects
under Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
Option 3: Eliminate historic preservation review of development projects by eliminating Section
3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and revising the Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14,
Article IV of the Municipal Code), thereby limiting preservation review to only single family
residential properties remaining single family use.
•
ATTACHMENT 2
• Summary of Recently Revised Codes
With Examples of Their Applicability
Municipal Code Chapter 14 Article IV- Demolition/Alteration Review Process
• Enacted in 1994.
• A delay process only - it does not prevent alterations or demolition from happening.
• Provides public with notice and chance to comment
• Only applies to highly significant buildings - "individually eligible."
• Requires approved plans—direction by Council to prevent the land from sitting vacant.
• Delay is for 30 days.
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7
• Enacted in 1997 (Previously part of Article A of LDGS, adopted in 1981).
• Type 1 and Type 2 development projects only
• Only applies to highly significant buildings - "individually eligible."
• Standards give consideration to preserving/adaptively reusing historic properties affected by
development- allow for demolition and relocation if decision maker determines that the
applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the structure, and its
preservation is not feasible.
• Typical Examples/How Do the Codes Apply:
•What If a Property Owner Wants to Add Onto or Alter an Individually Eligible Historic
Residence? (Applicable Code: Chapter 14, Article IV,the Demo/Alt Review Process.)
Extent of Historic Preservation Review:
If the proposed work retains the building's historic character:
• Delay process only
• Review consists solely of determining if work will affect historic character
• Maximum 2 weeks for staff review, usually done concurrently with building plan review.
• Opportunity for complimentary LPC design advice, if desired
• Opportunity to explain about financial incentives
If the proposed work damages the building's historic character to the extent that it would no
longer be individually eligible for local landmark designation:
• Delay process only(60 days maximum)
• Review consists solely of determining if work will affect historic character
• Mandatory meeting with LPC to explore alternatives/voluntary compliance with suggestions
• Notify neighborhood and hold public meeting
• Opportunity for complimentary LPC design advice, if desired
• Opportunity to explain about financial incentives
•
• What If a Property Owner Wants to Demolish an Individually Eligible Historic Single
Family Residence to Build a New Single Family Residence? (Applicable Code: Chapter
14, Article IV, the Demo/Alt Review Process).
Extent of Historic Preservation Review:
• Delay process only(60 days maximum)
• Review consists solely of determining if work will affect historic character
• Mandatory meeting with LPC to explore alternatives/voluntary compliance with suggestions
• Notify neighborhood and hold public meeting
• Opportunity for complimentary LPC design advice, if desired
• Opportunity to explain about financial incentives
•What If a Property Owner Wants to Alter or Demolish an Individually Eligible Historic
Building for Multi-Family or Commercial Development? (Applicable Codes: Chapter 14,
Article IV, the Demo/Alt Review Process, and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7).
Extent of Historic Preservation Review:
If the proposed work retains the building's historic character:
• Staff review is done concurrently within normal development review process
• Opportunity for complimentary LPC design advice, if desired
• Opportunity to explain about financial incentives
If the proposed work damages the building's historic character to the extent that it would no
longer be individually eligible for local landmark designation:
• Demo/Alt delay process applies (60 day maximum)
• Mandatory meeting with LPC to explore alternatives
• Notify neighborhood and hold public meeting
• Opportunity for complimentary LPC design advice, if desired
• Opportunity to explain about financial incentives
• Plans reviewed for compliance with LUC standards, including 3.4.7:
To the maximum extent feasible, does the development plan and building design preserve
and adaptively use the historic structure? If so, the plans are approved; if not, the
application is denied.
Or
Does the decision maker believe that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible,
attempted to preserve the structure, and its preservation is not feasible? If so, the
structure can be relocated or demolished. If not, the application is denied.
ATTACHMENT
• Options for Additional Changes
Option 1
Eliminate historic preservation review entirely by eliminating the Demolition/Alteration
Review Process (Chapter 14,Article IV of the Municipal Code) and eliminating Section
3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
This option would eliminate all regulatory review of alterations and additions to, and the
demolitions of, all individually eligible historic properties,both residential and commercial.
Developers' plans would not be reviewed for compliance with the standards contained in Section
3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Type 1 and Type 2 developments would no longer need to give
consideration, of any kind, to retaining, to the maximum extent feasible, and adaptively using
historically significant buildings within development projects. This option would also eliminate
the meeting with the Landmark Preservation Commission to explore alternatives, and the public
meeting.
By eliminating Section 3.4.7, developers would no longer need to give consideration to the
possibility of retaining historically significant buildings. Ultimately, the result could be the loss
of significant historic resources. Option 1 could result in increased development pressure within
older neighborhoods. Under this option, it would be possible for a developer to assemble several
significant, individually eligible historic homes, and demolish these structures to build multi-
family or commercial units. Development plans would no longer be reviewed for historic
• compatibility, and could result in projects that negatively affect the historic character of Fort
Collins' older neighborhoods and commercial areas. Citizens would lose the opportunity to be
notified of and comment upon changes directly affecting the historic character of their
neighborhoods and of Fort Collins.
Over a period of time the cumulative effect of demolitions, substantial alterations, and
inappropriately designed new development could prevent a significant number of properties from
future consideration for national, state or local designation, and preclude them from qualifying
for the accompanying financial incentives. Cumulative changes could also affect the designation
of existing districts, most notably the Laurel School National Register District. Poorly designed
alterations and redevelopment could alter or destroy enough properties that the district would no
longer qualify, resulting in its removal from the National Register of Historic Places and the loss
of financial benefits. (At least 51% of the district's 635 properties must retain their historic
character for the district to qualify for designation.) Currently, all owners of historic property in
the Laurel School District, both residential and commercial, qualify for a 20% state tax credit for
approved work, and may apply for an additional 20% federal tax credit.
Finally, under Option 1, Fort Collins could become less competitive for various state and federal
funding programs for historic preservation, such as the State Historic Funds and Certified Local
Government grants, resulting in far fewer dollars available for building rehabilitation.
•
Option 2
Eliminate historic preservation review of alterations to or the demolition of significant
single family residential properties by eliminating the Demolition/Alteration Review
Process (Chapter 14,Article IV of the Municipal Code),but retain the review of
development projects under Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
This option retains the review of Type 1 and Type 2 development projects, and plans would be
reviewed for compliance with the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
Type 1 and Type 2 developments projects would need to give consideration to retaining, to the
maximum extent feasible, and adaptively using historically significant buildings within
development projects. However, the meeting with the Landmark Preservation Commission to
explore alternatives would be eliminated. Type 1 and Type 2 development projects typically
require one or more neighborhood meetings, providing for notification of affected owners and
public comment. By eliminating the Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14, Article
IV of the Municipal Code), Option 2 would do away with historic plan review of, and
neighborhood notification for, all alterations and additions to residential properties, regardless of
impact. It would also result in no historic review of or neighborhood notification for significant
single family residential properties being torn down ("scraped off') to be replaced with new
single family residences. Citizens would not have the opportunity to comment upon changes
affecting the historic character of their neighborhoods.
Plans would not be reviewed for historic compatibility and appropriateness. Property owners
would lose the opportunity for complimentary professional design advice, provided by staff and
the Landmark Preservation Commission.
Over a period of time the cumulative effect of demolitions and substantial alterations could
lessen the historic character of Fort Collins' residential neighborhoods. This could prevent a
significant number of properties from future consideration for national, state or local designation,
and preclude them from qualifying for the accompanying financial incentives.
Cumulative changes could also affect the designation of existing districts, most notably the
Laurel School National Register District. Poorly designed alterations and redevelopment could
alter or destroy enough properties that the district would no longer qualify, resulting in its
removal from the National Register of Historic Places and the loss of the financial benefits. (At
least 51% of the district's 635 properties must retain their historic character for the district to
qualify for designation.) Currently, all owners of historic property in the Laurel School District,
both residential and commercial, qualify for a 20% state tax credit for approved work, and may
apply for an additional 20% federal tax credit.
One recent suggestion has been to consider applying the less rigorous standard of"extent
reasonably feasible"rather than "maximum extent possible"to those situations when the
decision-maker may allow the relocation and demolition of a historic structure. According to
Article 5 of the Land Use code, "extent reasonably feasible" means that "under the
circumstances, reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the
costs of compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably
burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any
• potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation." The Land
Use Code defines "maximum extent feasible"as meaning "that no feasible and prudent
alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential
harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken."
Option 3
Option 3: Eliminate historic preservation review of development projects by eliminating
Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and revising the Demolition/Alteration Review Process
(Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code), limiting preservation review to only single
family residential properties remaining single family use.
This option would mean that developers' plans would no longer be reviewed for compliance with
the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. Type 1 and Type 2
developments would no longer need to give consideration of any kind to retaining, to the
maximum extent feasible, and adaptively using historically significant buildings within
development projects. This option would also eliminate, for development projects, the meeting
with the Landmark Preservation Commission to explore alternatives, and the public meeting with
its 30 day notification requirement. However, inappropriate alterations to or the demolition of
single family residences would still require a meeting with the Landmark Preservation
Commission to explore alternatives, and a public meeting with its 30 day notification
requirement.
• Under Option 3, preservation review would be limited solely to additions and alterations of
historic single family residences, and the demolition of historic single family residences for a
new single family structure. There would no longer be historic review of any alterations,
additions, or demolition of historic commercial properties, as well as of single family residential
properties being converted to or demolished for multifamily or commercial use. This would
result in a process where the alteration of a historically significant home's front porch would
require review, but the demolition of this same house and its replacement with multifamily or
commercial units would not be subject to preservation review.
By eliminating Section 3.4.7, developers would no longer need to give any consideration to the
possibility of retaining historically significant buildings. Option 3 could result in the loss of _
significant historic commercial buildings, as well as increased development pressure within older
neighborhoods. Under this option, it is possible for a developer to assemble several individually
eligible historic homes, and demolish these structures to build multi-family or commercial units,
without preservation review. The new development also would not be reviewed for historic
compatibility, and could result in projects that negatively affect the historic character of Fort
Collins' older neighborhoods and commercial areas.
Over a period of time the cumulative effect of demolitions and inappropriately designed new
developments could prevent a significant number of properties from future consideration for
national, state or local designation, and preclude them from qualifying for financial incentives.
In addition to potential districts, cumulative changes could affect the designation of existing
• districts, most notably the Laurel School National Register District. (At least 51% of the
district's 635 properties must retain their historic character for the district to qualify for
designation.) Currently, all owners of historic property in the Laurel School District, both
residential and commercial, qualify for a 20% state tax credit for approved work, and may apply
for an additional 20% federal tax credit.
Finally, under Option 3, Fort Collins could become less competitive for various state and federal
funding programs for historic preservation, such as the State Historic Funds and Certified Local
Government grants, resulting in far fewer dollars available for building rehabilitation.
ATTACHMENT 4
• Schedule
Sept. 28 Council Study Session on Historic Preservation Code Changes
Council directed changes to the codes to solve problems in the review process
Nov. &Dec. Meetings with Landmark Preservation Commission to discuss changes
Dec. 7 & 21 Council adoption of Code Changes to LUC 3.1.1 and 3.4.7.
Dec. 31 Previous Code Changes Became Final
Jan. 14 Planning and Zoning Board Work Session
Jan. 25 Public Open House— Introduced Options for Additional Code Changes to the
Public; solicited questions, comments and suggestions.
Jan. 26 Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Discussion on Proposed Code
Changes
Feb. 8 City Council Study Session—Provide Direction to Staff.
Feb. 17 Planning & Zoning Board—Recommendation on Proposed Changes
• Feb. 23 Landmark Preservation Commission Discussion on Proposed Code Changes/
Adoption of Resolution
Mar. 1 & 15 1st and 2nd Readings by City Council
•
ATTACHMENT
Results of January 25, 2005 Public Open House
A Public Open House was held on January 25, 2005, to introduce the public to the existing code
with the recently adopted changes; to discuss the options for possible additional changes; and to
solicit comments. Citizens were given the opportunity to express their views at the meeting,
through comment cards and by indicating directly on boards which options they supported and/or
opposed. Citizens could indicate their support or opposition for more than one option. Citizens
were also supplied with additional contact information, including telephone and fax numbers, as
well as email and mailing addresses.
Fifty two people signed the register sheets. Staff estimates that as additional 15 people were in
attendance but did not register. Of the people who chose to make their preferences known by
indicating their choice(s) directly on the boards:
Option 1: Eliminate historic preservation review entirely by eliminating both the
Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code) and
Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
# Supporting this Option: 1
#Opposed to this Option: 36
Option 2: Eliminate historic preservation review of alterations to or the demolition of significant
single family residential properties by eliminating the Demolition/Alteration Review Process
(Chapter 14, Article IV of the Municipal Code),but retain the review of development projects
under Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code.
# Supporting this Option: 0
#Opposed to this Option: 31
Option 3: Eliminate historic preservation review of development projects by eliminating Section
3.4.7 of the Land Use Code and revising the Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Chapter 14,
Article IV of the Municipal Code), thereby limiting preservation review to only single family
residential properties remaining single family use.
# Supporting this Option: 0
# Opposed to this Option: 33
Option 4: Retain existing (recently revised) code:
# Supporting this Option: 40
# Opposed to this Option: 2
Thirteen individuals completed comments cards:
• I believe stron l in historic preservation. I am saddened when I think of all the historic
structures which have already been lost. They cannot be replaced. Please preserve this
program. Option #4.
• • Thanks for the Open House but I believe it needs more publicity to the folks in the
neighborhoods who are affected. None of my neighbors knew about it.
• (1) When did public get to review and comment on the December 2004 code changes? Council
needs a better public participation process for those changes. (2) We need to review and
comment on an Option 5: the code prior to December 2004 changes. (3) I'd like us to still
review buildings which may not be individually eligible, but do contribute to a district.
• I voted for Option 4; however, this should apply to all buildings over 50 years old,not just
those individually eligible. The recent code changes provide holes that will allow the
destruction of Fort Collins' historic character.
• Section 3.1.1 of the Land Code should not have been changed. As land becomes more valuable
in Fort Collins neighborhoods, we are going to see our historic homes razed to build larger
homes. This section protects those neighborhoods who have historic character.
• I attended tonight's meeting on the proposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance. I
support keeping the ordinance. Indeed, I think Fort Collins should make it more rigorous so
that unscrupulous speculators and developers can't destroy the historic fabric of our
community solely in the interest of their own greed. Thank you. —Mark Fiege, 2524 W. Plum
St., Fort Collins, 80521, 482-0445.
• • I would like to see the City buy some ground for a park—like Greeley's Centennial Park to put
historic properties like the Rule property. I'm told the City's open space dollars can be used
for this purpose. —Ralph Waldo.
• All historic preservation must be voluntary on the part of the property owner. —Eric Kromwall
[?] [signature was illegible]
• No changes should be made to current code for preservation. The Ctv as gotten awards and
recognition for its preservation foresight!
• We started preserving the street car barn for the purpose of establishing a transportation
museum several years ago. Let's finish the project. This would be an ideal location for a fine
museum. —Ed Yonker.
• Retain Existing Codes. Changes threaten to diminish the character of old neighborhoods! —
gmkimmel@frii.com, 331 Park.
• Preservation of historic buildings is absolutely crucial to maintain the authentic identity of this
rapidly changing city. DO NOT DIMINISH HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND DO NOT
CHANGE THE CODES!
• Please keep the current code, and continue to fix its problems as they become apparent. It is
• working well, and the Rules' problem has now been resolved within the code. Don't "throw
out the baby with the bath water."—Barbara Liebler.
Community Planning and Environmental Services ATTACHMENT B
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
January 20, 2005
Mayor Ray Martinez and Members of the City Council
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Martinez and City Council Members:
The City's Planning and Zoning Board would like to comment upon proposed changes to
the Municipal and Land Use Codes affecting historic preservation. At its February 8, 2005
Study Session, Council will be discussing four options for changes to these two codes. The
members of the Planning and Zoning Board urge Council to remove Option 1, "Eliminating
Historic Preservation Review," from consideration entirely.
The historic preservation codes represent a broad-based public response to the
accelerated loss of older buildings, and their replacement, too often, with anonymous, anyplace
architecture. The National Trust for Historic Preservation recently published a shocking statistic:
For the last thirty years, America has lost 577 older and historic homes every single day.
Without historic preservation review, Fort Collins could well have lost its unique character some
years ago.
Less than three years ago, staff revised the codes, limiting historic preservation review to
historic structures that qualify as "individually eligible" for Landmark status. Recently, Council
adopted additional changes to the Land Use Code, specifically providing for demolition or
relocation of individually eligible structures, and reconciling this code with the Municipal Code.
Additionally, single family residential properties subject to administrative review will no longer
be subject to the more stringent requirements of the Land Use Code. These changes have
successfully addressed the recent issues concerning the review processes.
For thirty-seven years, historic preservation has served our community as an important
component of planning and development. During this time, the Landmark Preservation
Commission has made nearly 3,000 decisions, with only one appeal—a record every other board
and commission would wish to emulate. Clearly, the historic preservation review process is not
broken. We appreciate your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Judy Meyer, Chair
Planning and Zoning Board
c't ^_