Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/17/2012 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESDATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Historic Preservation Process. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2012, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 14 of the City Code Pertaining to Landmarks. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2012, Amending Section 2-277 of the City Code Regarding the Requirements for Membership on the Landmark Preservation Commission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY These amendments to Chapters 2 and 14 of the City Code provide for an appeals process for determinations of historic eligibility; provide for an independent professional review of eligibility if a determination is appealed; give timely public notice to citizens early in the demolition/alteration review process about historic eligibility status and major alterations; and provide more specificity to Landmark Preservation Commission board member experience requirements, ensuring compliance with Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At Council’s direction, the Community Development Neighborhood Services Department (CDNS) is undertaking a two- phase project to consider changes to the City’s Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Section 14-72 of the City Code), which determines the historic eligibility of properties in the City and defines the process for reviewing alterations or demolition. The City Council recently reviewed two appeals of the Planning and Zoning Board’s denial of requests for modifications. The owners of the properties objected to the determination of eligibility made by the CDNS Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) chair; however, there was not a method available to them to appeal the eligibility decision directly. These changes to Chapter 2 and Chapter 14 of the City Code will allow for an appeal to the LPC and ultimately to the City Council. Concerns have also been expressed by citizens that they are not aware early enough in the process that owners or developers of historically significant properties are requesting major alterations, including demolition. These Code changes will enhance citizen notification, and provide for early notice. These changes are consistent with process improvements identified in the 2010 Historic Preservation Program Assessment document and with comments provided to staff by the Landmark Preservation Commission. SUMMARY OF CHANGES Amendments to Chapter 2 and Chapter 14 of the City Code are summarized below: Section 2-277 would be amended to ensure compliance with the CLG requirement. While CLG regulations require that at least four Commission members meet standards of professional expertise, this is not reflected in the membership requirements. This change will eliminate confusion between CLG requirements and those in the City Code. Section 14-72(a), would be amended to provide a method for appealing historic eligibility status, including adding a process for appeals; a provision for a professional, independent review in the case of an appeal. Section 14-28, will be amended to clarify that, once the demolition/alteration review process (Chapter 14, Article IV) has been completed, a permit may be approved without any further compliance with this Article. Amendments would be made to Sections 14-48.5(b) and 14-48.5 (c), and to Sections 14-72(a), 14-72(b)(3)(b), and 14-72(b)(3)(c), to provide timely public notice to citizens early in the process about determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic structures. Section 14-1 will be amended to provide definitions for major and minor alterations, and for significant structure. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 21 Section 14-71 would be corrected to add the proper building code sections for exempting properties from compliance. The Code currently references the Uniform Building Code (UBC), rather than the International Property Maintenance Code, which the City has adopted. Amendments occurring throughout Chapter 14 would remove the use of different titles for the CDNS Director, and ensure that time requirements and other processes are consistent. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There are no direct economic impacts to the City associated with these City Code amendments. Applicants appealing a determination of eligibility will be required to pay for an independent, professional assessment of the property, estimated to cost $400 to $600 dollars. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no direct environmental impacts associated with these City Code amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its June 20, 2012 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to support these changes to Chapters 2 and 14 of the City Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes from the June 20, 2012 LPC Special Meeting LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Meeting June 20, 2012 DRAFT Minutes Council Liaison: Mr. Wade Troxell (219-8940) Staff Liaison: Ms. Laurie Kadrich (221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Mr. Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:30 p.m. at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. John Albright, Sondra Carson, Doug Ernest, W.J. (Bud) Frick, Ron Sladek and Mark Serour were present. Pat Tvede had an excused absence. Also present were: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director, and Nina Lopez, Staff Support. DISCUSSION AND MOTION: PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROCESS – LAURIE KADRICH, CDNS DIRECTOR AND KAREN MCWILLIAMS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER. Ms. Kadrich showed a PowerPoint presentation and noted City Council had requested immediate changes to provide for an appeals process on determinations of eligibility. Staff will be examining the full code in a two-phase process, and will bring forward short term and long term fixes. The long term review will allow for a robust public engagement process. Commission members asked if the proposed ordinance included items recommended in the Nore Winter report. This was affirmed. Ms. Kadrich said the purpose of this first phase is to address those glitches which result in no clear method for someone to appeal the eligibility determination made by the LPC Chair and the CDNS Director, and to improve public notification. Chapter 2 changes are housekeeping items and reconcile code and Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. Mr. Sladek questioned why mortgage lending is an important field for being on the Preservation Commission. The consensus was to strike the words “mortgage lending.” Mr. Ernest asked if listing architecture or architectural history is from the CLG requirements. Ms. Kadrich responded yes. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve amending Section 2-277 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the makeup of the membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission, having struck the wording mortgage lending. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Kadrich returned to the PowerPoint presentation and Chapter 14 code changes. If the Council and LPC feel staff is on track with this, Council is prepared to act quickly so that there is an appeal process in place. The proposed schedule is to take the ordinances forward for first reading on July 17th and second reading on August 21st. An issue addressed in this phase is earlier notification on demolitions and significant alterations. Currently neighbors are not notified until the Final Hearing. Neighbors are upset that they aren’t notified earlier when they would have a chance to let the property owner or developer know of their concerns. Mr. Ernest noted another problem with the present process, which is that only affected property owners within ATTACHMENT 1 Landmark Preservation Commission June 20, 2012 2 five hundred feet are notified. He asked if that will be changed, and notification enhanced by posting a sign and putting information online and in the newspapers. Ms. Kadrich affirmed that was correct. Ms. Carson stated she attended the neighborhood meeting for the Eastside/Westside project last week, and one of the things that many people brought up is notification. The distance is different for each development process, leading to confusion. Ms. Carson thought that there should be the same notification radius for all projects. Others agreed. Ms. Kadrich explained the code changes reflect the uniqueness of the Historic Preservation ordinance. Demolition affects the entire community, and all citizens have standing, not just neighbors within a certain distance. Staff is proposing a number of changes to better inform citizens. These include newspaper notification, posting a sign, web-based notification, and mailed notification. The general idea is get notice out to the people that under the ordinance have standing. The Commission may want to consider changing who has standing during Phase II, as one trend occurring right now is for people who are not property owners, developers or historic preservationist to look at assigning historic eligibility to properties in order to control development. That may become a growing trend or might just be an anomaly. Another issue with the current ordinance is the confusion over a decision on historic eligibility and the lack of a method to appeal. Staff first thought this would be very easy to fix by allowing all eligibility determinations to be appealed. However, we then recognized the volume of possible appeals, as so many requests come in for minor alterations: windows, garages, porches, etc. The proposed solution is to try to separate those out by adding definitions for “minor alteration,” “major alteration,” and “principal structure.” The idea is that there should be the most public process for a principal structure with a major alteration or a demolition. Permits for minor alterations should not have to be delayed for public notification. The provision for independent documentation was discussed. While the LPC Chair generally has expertise in historic preservation, there is nothing that requires that the CDNS director have any particular expertise. The question is what makes these two qualified to make a determination of eligibility. Therefore, if somebody wants to appeal the initial decision of the chair and director to the Commission, staff is proposing an independent review of the property by a professional. This person would complete the Colorado Cultural Resource Architectural Inventory document, providing detailed information for the LPC’s consideration of the eligibility. The appellant would pay for the documentation under this proposal. The Commission would still make the decision on eligibility, which could subsequently be appealed to the City Council if the person chose to. Mr. Sladek stated that there has to be an agreement between the appellant and the City as to who is going to do that independent evaluation. Ms. Kadrich stated that there would be a list of people, approved by the Commission, with preservation expertise and experience in evaluation local eligibility. The applicant could then pick from the list. This would provide a qualified, independent assessment of the property’s eligibility. Ms. Kadrich stated that the idea is not to take that decision away from the board but to make sure that if the decision is appealed to the board that it doesn’t have to rely on only the information that was developed by Ms. Kadrich and the Chair. Ms. Carson expressed concern that the individuals truly be familiar with Fort Collins’ resources, which are typically vernacular rather than pure architectural styles. All agreed. Mr. Albright noted that the Commission faced this very thing in the recent project when the “expert” from Denver told the LPC members that we didn’t understand what we were looking at. Landmark Preservation Commission June 20, 2012 3 Mr. Albright praised the Phase 1 approach, stating that the Commission would be fully respecting the rights of the applicant. He noted that the Commission represents all the citizens of the city, which among others, is the applicant. Ms. Kadrich agreed, stating that she can work with the LPC chair to take care of lots of applications for work that is not controversial, but if it is controversial or there is a question about it or the appellant doesn’t agree with a determination, they should have the right to take it to LPC board, because that’s its role. Ms. Carson questioned the definitions of major and minor alterations. Major is defined as work effecting more than one aspect of integrity, while minor is just one. However, some work affecting just one aspect of integrity could have a significant impact. She gave examples of changes to buildings involving a single major defining feature, and how that can affect the building’s significance. There followed discussion on defining what constitutes a significant architectural feature, which can change from building to building. Mr. Ernest asked if the intent of the definitions “major” and “minor” is to expedite the work of the chair and CDNS director to provide a template to evaluate the extent of impact. Ms. Kadrich said yes. Minor alterations do not require public notice. Ms. Kadrich said that a list of all the decisions made by the LPC chair and the CDNS director would be provided to the board, so the board could decide whether it wants to review a decision. Mr. Ernest agreed that there has to be a sorting mechanism, so that all these applications aren’t coming to the Commission. The Commission agreed this might be better looked at in Phase II. Mr. Albright said it won’t come up unless there’s an appeal, at which time the documentation should provide much of that information, and so correct the problem. The Commission next discussed the term “principal structure.” Ms. Kadrich said the list came from the definitions that are in the LUC currently plus resources as significant historic structures for local issues: granary, carriage house, chicken house, or similar structures. Mr. Ernest wanted to make sure the wording wouldn’t exclude something that could be excluded using this wording. Ms. Kadrich stated the idea behind principal structure is when you look at all the stuff coming through; anything that would be a principal structure plus the major alteration would then go to the publication and the notice in the appeal process. Mr. Sladek stated they need to look at it carefully and would like it put off until a second Phase. It seems like that is where they are headed with the definitions of major and minor alterations. Mr. Sladek said his understanding of this section is that this is really the filter that determines whether demo or alteration review stays at the LPC/CDNS director decision making point, or if it ends up being brought forward to the full LPC. This is different from an appeal. Ms. Kadrich said his first point was correct on whether it can move to the LPC and then on to the Council, but the idea is there are certain things that do not have appeal rights under this proposal. Those things would be minor alterations or structures that are not principal structures. Mr. Sladek requested that public building be added to the list. This will be done. Ms. McWilliams asked if the issue may be the use of the term “principal structure” rather than “significant structure.” A structure that would have significance to the property and would contribute to the significance of the property is captured under this definition. That would include the examples of the outhouse and the mini-me garage discussed by the Commission. The other garage that doesn’t match the house and is just a simple one car garage isn’t that significant we’d still designate the house without that garage; therefore it could be torn down. The Commission agreed; this change will be made. Landmark Preservation Commission June 20, 2012 4 Ms. Kadrich briefly discussed the other, housekeeping, changes to the code document, page by page. Changes include standardizing the use of Director; referencing the correct Building Code; making time frames consistent; and clarifying the processes for notification and for appeals. Mr. Sladek noted that the Preliminary Review would be eliminated. Ms. Kadrich affirmed that was correct. That process has become redundant with staff’s work and the Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. Ernest had a question on page 3 Section 14-28. Ms. Kadrich said the current ordinance is unclear on what happens after a project goes through the full process. There is nothing in the current ordinance that says it can be demolished. While that is the expectation, that they can demolish the building, the code does not actually say that. We want to make it clear, that after complying with the full process, the applicant can alter or demolish the property. Ms. McWilliams brought up a concern with the open-ended language; she questioned if there should be a time limit? Is Council just going to take a building and say never again can this building be considered for Landmark designation? If an applicant wanted to change the roof and Council agrees that they could change the roof, then as it is proposed with this language, the applicant also now has permission to demolish the building, too, without any review. She suggested changing the language to approval of the specific permit application. Ms. Kadrich stated this was not the intention, and all agreed that the wording will be corrected. The Commission discussed striking references to relocation. Ms. Kadrich said after numerous discussions staff asked what the intent of relocation is, what meets the Code’s criteria. An applicant thinks that relocation means I can pick up this structure and put it anywhere I want and I’m in compliance with the Code. The LPC could not approve such relocation as they do not meet the code requirements. This change eliminates the misperception that the code allows taking buildings and moving them all over the place. Staff felt for clarity, take out the relocation language for people who aren’t familiar with historic preservation. This would not prohibit relocations that do meet the code criteria. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Certain Amendments to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Landmarks, including changes already incorporated in the document presented on June 20, 2012 and the comments at the meeting of June 20, 2012 by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0). ORDINANCE NO. 067, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO LANDMARKS WHEREAS, City Council directed City staff to undertake a two-phase project to consider changes to the City's demolition/alteration review process, which process determines the historic eligibility of properties in the City and defines the process for reviewing alterations or demolition of such property; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared and presented to the City Council the first phase of the work, which addresses City Council's concerns regarding the provision of timely public notice early in the process about determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic structures and also addresses the City Council's concern regarding methods for appealing historic eligibility status determinations; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has recommended the same to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes are in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the definition of “Determination of Eligibility” contained in Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Determination of eligibility shall mean a decision by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and/or the Commission that a site, structure, object or district meets one (1) or more of the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. The determination of eligibility for the National and/or State Register of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the Colorado Historical Society. Section 2. That the definition of "Construction" contained in Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Construction shall mean the erection of any on-site improvements on any parcel of ground located within a designated or eligible district or on a designated or eligible site, whether the site is presently improved or unimproved, or the erection of a new principalsignificant or accessory structure on such property. Section 3. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Director” which reads in its entirety as follows: Director shall mean the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or his or her designee. Section 4. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Major alteration” which reads in its entirety as follows: Major alteration shall mean work affecting more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity. Section 5. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Minor alteration” which reads in its entirety as follows: Minor alteration shall mean work affecting no more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity. Section 6. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Significant structure” which reads in its entirety as follows: Significant structure shall mean a house, commercial/industrial building, barn, stable, grainery, carriage house, chicken house, or similar structure. Section 7. That Section 14-53 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered as Section 14-6 and reads in its entirety as follows: Sec. 14-536. Waiver of conditions. 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 provided that the spirit and purpose of the Chapter are not significantly eroded. Section 8. That Section 14-21 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-21. Initiation of procedure. Whenever in the opinion of the Commission, upon its own motion or upon application of any citizen of or owner of property in the City, a site, structure, object or district meets the criteria of a landmark or landmark district, the Commission shall contact the owner or owners of such landmark or landmark district outlining the reasons and effects of designation as a landmark and, if possible, shall secure the owner's consent to such designation. If the Commission is unable to personally contact such owner, it shall be sufficient to send a written request for the consent to designation of such property by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the owner of the property as shown on the most recent records of the County Assessor at the address shown on such records. Following such contact, if -2- an owner does not consent to such designation of the property within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the request for consent to designation, the Commission, upon the affirmative vote of at least five (5) of its members may proceed by officially adopting a resolution stating that the preliminary investigation by the Commission indicates that the described property is eligible for designation as a landmark or landmark district and the reason the Commission feels that it should proceed without the consent of the owner to such designation and scheduling a public hearing by the Commission on the question of designation, hereinafter called a designation hearing, at a specified time, date and place and directing that the notice of hearing be given as described in §14-22. If the owner consents in writing to such designation, the Commission, upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation of the landmark or landmark district without the necessity of notice and without the review by the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services required by §14-23. All applications submitted in accordance with this Section shall include a description of the property proposed for designation and a detailed outline of the reasons why such property should be designated and why the boundaries of the property should be determined as described in the application. No motion or application for designation of a specific landmark or landmark district may be made more than once during any twelve (12) consecutive months. Section 9. That Section 14-28 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-28. City Council action. Upon receipt of the recommendations transmitted by the Commission, the City Council may by ordinance designate property as a landmark or landmark district. Due consideration shall be given to the written view of owners of affected property, and in its discretion the City Council may hold public hearings on any proposed landmark or landmark district designation. If the City Council does not so designate a property, then the permit to alter or demolish the structure on the property may be approved without the necessity of compliance with Article IV of this Chapter. Section 10. That Section 14-48.5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-48.5. Work not detrimental to historic, architectural or cultural material; administrative process. (a) Any work which would otherwise qualify for consideration under the procedures established in §14-46 or §14-47 of this Article may, at the option of the applicant, be considered administratively by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services (the "Director"). The Director may only consider, under the authority of this Section, applications for approval of color selection from a historically authentic palette of colors, awning re-coverings and -3- changes to a landmark or a site, structure or object located in a landmark district that would not remove, cover, alter or destroy any significant historic, architectural or cultural material. The Director may, under the authority of this Section, consider changes originally initiated by the applicant as well as changes to plans previously approved by the Commission. Any application submitted to the Director under the authority of this Section shall be in writing and shall contain a specific statement of the work proposed, together with such details as the Director may require. (b) If, upon receipt of any such application, the Director finds that the proposed work will not remove, cover, alter or destroy any significant historic, architectural or cultural material and is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark or landmark district and with the spirit and purpose of this Chapter, and complies with all of the criteria for review established in §14-48, the Director shall advise the applicant in writing, by issuing a report of acceptability,render a written decision approving the work, and shall affix his or her signature to the plans and specifications for the approved work. The Director shall also promptly publish the decision in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. In the case of an application for a building permit, the Director of Building and Zoning shall proceed with the review of the application only upon receipt of the Director’s of Community Development and Neighborhood Services' report of acceptabilitydecision and approved plans and specifications. No change shall be made in any such application for a building permit or in the plans and specifications for work approved by the Director unless such changes are submitted to and approved by the Director in the same manner as the original application. The proposed work shall not be commenced until the Director has issued a report of acceptabilitythe decision approving the work and a building permit (if applicable) has been issued. (c) Decisions of the Director made under the authority of this Section may be appealed to the Commission, provided that any such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Director's decision of the Director. The DirectorCommission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The DirectorCommission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall also publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. Any action taken in reliance upon the decision of the Director shall be totally at the risk of the person(s) taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. Section 11. That Section 14-71 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -4- Sec. 14-71. General. With the exception of any structure governed by ' 203 of the Uniform Building CodeSection 109.1 of the International Property Maintenance Code as adopted and amended by the City, or any structure designated as a Fort Collins landmark or located in a Fort Collins landmark district, no structure (or portion thereof) fifty (50) years of age or older which meets one (1) or more of the criteria contained in §14-5, "Standards for Determining the Eligibility for Designation of Sites, Structures, Objects and Districts for Preservation" of the Code may be demolished nor shall any permit for such demolition or relocation be issued unless the owner of such structure has complied with the provisions of §§14-71 and 14-72. (This Article shall not apply to interior demolition activities, or to demolition or relocation activities as they affect the surface or subsurface of the ground, or any archeological impacts pertaining thereto.) Section 12. That Section 14.72 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-72. Procedures for review of applications for demolition or relocation. (a) The owner of any structure governed by this Article shall make application for City approval of the demolition or relocation of such structure (or portion thereof) on forms prescribed by the City. Said application shall be filed with the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Within ten (10) days of the filing of such application, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, and the chair of the Commission, (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair) shall determine the structure's current level of eligibility (individual, contributing to a district or not eligible) for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, and shall determine whether demolition or relocation approval should be granted by the Director or whether the application should instead be referred to the Commission for either or both determinations. Such approval shall be granted, subject to compliance with all other applicable laws, under the following circumstances: (1) The structure (or portion thereof) sought to be demolished or relocated is, upon review, determined to be less than fifty (50) years of age; (21) The Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and chair of the Commission (or designee) agree that the structure (or portion thereof), upon review, is not eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins landmark, and the structure is not designated on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, either individually or as a contributing element of a district; or (32) The proposed demolition or relocation of the structure (or portion thereof), in the judgment of the Director of Community Development and -5- Neighborhood Services and the chair of the Commission (or designee), would not be detrimental to the current level of eligibility of the remaining structure, if any, adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the National and/or State Register district in which the structure is located, if any. If none of the foregoing circumstances is determined to exist, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall refer the application to the Commission for consideration pursuant to Subsection (b) below. Any determination made by the Director and the chair of the Commission or his or her designee regarding major alterations may be appealed to the Commission by any citizen or owner of property in the City, which appeal shall include a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. Such report need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Director shall also promptly publish the decision in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Director's decision. The Commission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The Commission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. In addition, the Commission shall cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition stating that the building or structure is being considered for demolition. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. Any action taken in reliance upon the decision of the Director shall be totally at the risk of the person(s) taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. (b) If it is determined by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and/or chair of the Commission (or designee), pursuant to Subsection (a) above, that a demolition or relocation permit should not be issued without review by the Commission, then the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall schedule a public hearing on the application before the Commission as expeditiously as possible following such determination, and following receipt of such information, including sketches, plans and other documents as required by the Commission. All such applications shall be reviewed by the Commission in two (2) phases to determine compliance with this Chapter as followsprocessed as follows: -6- (1) Preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing is an opportunity for the applicant to discuss requirements, standards and policies that apply to structures eligible for designation. Problems, including issues which could affect a resource's significance and/or exterior integrity, can be identified and solved prior to the final hearing of the application. After review of the application by the Commission, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding the preliminary hearing. a. At the preliminary hearing, the Commission, acting with all due diligence, shall explore with the applicant all means for substantially preserving the structure which would be affected by the required permit. These investigations may include, by way of example and not of limitation: 1. Feasibility of modification of the plans; 2. Feasibility of any alternative public or private use of the structure which would substantially preserve the original character. b. In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: 1. The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the structure and adjacent properties; 2. The architectural style, design, construction, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed structures; 3. The effect of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the structure upon which such work is to be done; 4. The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the structure; 5. The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. (2) If the Commission, at the preliminary hearing, is unsuccessful in developing either alternate plans or an appropriate public or private use for such -7- structure which are acceptable to the applicant, it shall order the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services to schedule a final hearing within forty-five (45) days of the receipt of the following: a.(1) A fee in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.) shall be paid by the applicant to cover the costs of processing the request for demolition or relocation at the final hearing before the Commission. b.(2) The application shall include Ssuch information from the applicant as the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services believes is necessary for the full and complete consideration of the request, which information shall include, but not be limited to: 1. A completed Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form for the property, which form shall be provided by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services for completion by the applicant; 2a. A report regarding the effect that the removal or demolition of the structure (or portion thereof) will have on the character of the site and the adjacent properties. The required components of the report shall be established by the City Manager, and shall, at a minimum, include all information, data, maps, documents or other items reasonably necessary, desirable or convenient to assist the Commission in making its decision;A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. 3b. A plan for the redevelopment of the property, which plan shall first be approved by all administrative and/or quasi-judicial decision- making officials and/or boards or commissions as are necessary as a prerequisite to the presentation of construction specifications to the Director of Building and Zoning if applicable, and if not applicable, then as a prerequisite to the commencement of construction (for purposes of this requirement, allowing the property to lie vacant or fallow shall not constitute "redevelopment"). (3) Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing of the Commission, the applicant shall: a. Cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition or relocation, stating that the building or structure is being considered for such demolition or relocation. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from -8- the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. b. Request that the City generate a list of owners of record of all real property, neighborhood groups and homeowners associations, within five hundred (500) eight hundred (800) feet (exclusive of public rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the property lines of the parcel of land upon which the structure is situated, which list shall be prepared from the records of the County Clerk and RecorderAssessor. (4) Written notice of the hearing shall be mailed by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services to all persons named on the list generated under Paragraph (3)b above. Said mailing shall occur at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date. The applicant shall pay postage and handling costs of fifty cents ($.50) per noticeas established by the Director. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been mailed or received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. (5) The Commission shall review the evidence presented at the hearing and shall approve the application (with or without conditions) at the hearing or, in the alternative. Alternatively, it may postpone consideration of the application, for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days, for any of the following reasons:in order to facilitate the gathering of a.Aadditional information is needed for the full and complete consideration of the request by the Commission which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding; or b.The request has generated substantial neighborhood concerns, and such postponement could, in the judgment of the Commission, contribute to resolving these concerns; or c.The Commission has approved a motion directing staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark or landmark district designation of the property in accordance with Article II. (6) In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within sixty (60) days of the date of the submittal of information required pursuant to Subparagraph (b)(2)b. hereof, in detail acceptable to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services,said forty-five (45) day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed demolition or relocation. (c) The Commission shall schedule a date for any hearing to be held by the Commission under subparagraphs (a) or (b) as expeditiously as possible and shall provide the applicant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. -9- Section 13. That all remaining references to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services contained in Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read “Director”. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -10- ORDINANCE NO. 068, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-277 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, the State of Colorado "Certified Local Government" program requirements for historic preservation include the requirement that forty percent of the membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission needs to be composed of professionals in preservation-related disciplines such as architecture, architectural history, archaeology, history, planning, urban planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geography or cultural anthropology; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the City's Landmark Preservation Commission be composed of members acceptable to the State under its "Certified Local Government" program; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed changes to its makeup and has recommended them to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the membership requirements for the Landmark Preservation Commission are in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 2-277 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-277. Membership; term. (a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council. At least four (4) members shall be professionals in preservation related disciplines, including, but not limited to, architecture, architectural history, archaeology, history, urban planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geography, or cultural anthropology. In making appointments to the Commission, the City Council shall also give due consideration to maintaining a balance of interests and skills in the composition of the Commission and to the individual qualifications of the candidates, including, but not limited to, their training, experience, knowledge or interest in any one (1) or more of the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, structural engineering, general contracting, urban planning, mortgage lending and commerce. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk