HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/27/2013 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS, PHASEDATE: August 27, 2013
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
Karen McWilliams
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Historic Preservation Process Improvements, Phase 2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to inform Council on the results of Phase 2 of a study that
evaluated the Historic Preservation Program in order to ensure that its codes and processes
are still relevant, and to identify potential improvements to enhance transparency,
predictability, and effectiveness.
Staff is asking for Council’s direction on proposed changes to City Code Chapter 14 (Landmark
Preservation); and on further study of options to address the large number of properties that will
become subject to the city’s review processes in the near future.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Are the primary components of the Historic Preservation Program still relevant to the
community?
2. Does Council wish staff to bring forward some or all of the proposed revisions to Municipal
Code Chapter 14?
3. Is fifty years the appropriate age for properties to be reviewed for eligibility for landmark
designation? And, should staff proceed with additional study of options to address the large
number of properties that will be subject to the city’s review processes in the near future?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In April 2012, Council directed staff to identify potential improvements to the Historic Preservation
codes and processors in order to ensure that it is transparent, predictable and effective. Phase 1 of
this review resulted in the adoption of Ordinance No. 067, 2012 and Ordinance No. 068, 2012,
which added an appeal process for determinations of eligibility and the effect of proposed work on
this eligibility; provided for timely public notice; and added more specificity to Landmark
Preservation Commission (LPC) member experience requirements, ensuring compliance with
Certified Local Government (CLG) standards.
At Council’s June 26, 2012 Work Session and in subsequent meetings, several questions were raised
about components of the program. To address these questions, in Phase 2 of this Historic
Preservation Process Improvements study, staff:
August 27, 2013 Page 2
• Conducted an on-line survey of nearly 2,800 property owners and adjacent property owners
who went through Demolition/Alteration Review, to assess the relevancy and effectiveness
of this process; (See Attachment 1)
• Surveyed best practices of historic preservation programs in twenty-two communities and
compared these with Fort Collins’ program (See Attachment 2)
• Solicited community input on the relevancy, predictability, transparency and effectiveness
of program components through a twelve-member Citizens Review Committee (CAC), with
representation from all major stakeholders; and worked closely with the Landmark
Preservation Commission on policies and recommendations.
• Identified numerous enhancements to increase the program’s transparency, predictability,
and effectiveness.
• Identified methods other communities are considering to solve the question of how to
address the large number of properties that will be subject to review processes in the near
future.
QUESTIONS RAISED
What is the difference between an old building and a historic building? What makes a building
eligible? How are buildings evaluated?
Determinations of eligibility of a building are based on an evaluation of the building’s age; historical
significance; and its physical integrity, to identify those that qualify for designation on the local,
state and national registers. Most old buildings do not qualify as historic. To be eligible for historic
recognition, a building in Fort Collins must meet specific standards for age, significance and
integrity spelled out in the Landmark Preservation Chapter (Chapter 14) of the Municipal Code.
This eligibility review process complies with all National Park Service (NPS) and CLG
requirements.
A determination of eligibility for landmark designation occurs in a prescribed manner:
• Potential historic buildings are identified primarily through property surveys and permit
applications. Fort Collins uses a 50-year threshold for property evaluation.
• Fort Collins has surveyed and documented approximately 2,500 buildings, and processes an
average of 307 permit applications each year.
• Properties that meet the minimum age requirement are evaluated for their significance in
local, state and national history; consistent with the majority of communities nationally, Fort
Collins uses NPS criteria to evaluate significance.
• Finally, the property’s physical integrity is evaluated, again using established NPS criteria.
Owner consent or awareness is required for an official determination of eligibility. A property is
required to be evaluated for its level of eligibility to qualify for landmark status whenever the
property owner or owner’s agent submits an application for a building or development permit. The
owner or owner’s agent signs a form acknowledging the review. The assessment is done to
determine which building or development review path the application should take. Additionally,
owners are notified, but do not need to give consent, when a property is evaluated as part of a
historic survey project. These historic surveys result in an unofficial or “field” determination of
eligibility. Many communities limit the ability to make this field assessment to qualified historic
preservation professionals. The practice in Fort Collins, and the practice in most Colorado
August 27, 2013 Page 3
communities, is to have historic surveys performed by qualified professionals. Also, in Fort Collins,
field determinations of eligibility must be accepted by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, or by the
full LPC, to become official. Finally, it is a CLG requirement that survey information be provided
to the State Historic Preservation Office, which Fort Collins does.
How does Fort Collins’ 50 year threshold for historic review compare with what other
communities are doing, and with NPS standards?
In its comparative survey of other communities, staff determined that nearly all use fifty years as
the minimum age requirement for evaluation. When they differed, communities usually were more
proactive in identifying potentially significant properties. Denver, for instance, uses a 35-year
threshold, and Greeley evaluates all properties 40 year old and older. The only community known
to use a later age was Charleston, SC, which, with over 5000 individual landmarks, uses 75 years
as its threshold.
How can the potential of a property’s historic eligibility be made to be more predictable?
Staff has identified several methods to help make a property’s potential eligibility for designation
be more readily discernible by property owners and developers. The following are currently being
implemented or will be implemented in the near future:
• Development of a brochure on the eligibility process, available on-line and as a handout
• Post previous determinations of eligibility on-line
• Conduct more historic property surveys. A survey of a potential historic property offers
transparency, in the information used to establish eligibility; and, when completed by a
professional, its conclusion offers strong predictability of a property’s potential eligibility.
• The gold standard for survey is to have all historic properties surveyed every ten years. Few
communities of any size are able to reach this goal. Fort Collins has surveyed and
documented approximately 2,500 buildings, or about 13% of its estimated 19,000 older
buildings; most of this property survey information is between 15 and 25 years old.
Comparatively, Boulder has recorded much of its older building stock (although many of its
surveys are not current); Greeley has documented an estimated 10% of its resources. The
overall percentage in Colorado, which includes vast numbers of resources in rural and
mountainous areas, is estimated at between 2% - 5%.
• Highlight the role that the property’s “setting,” or its existing context, plays in determining
eligibility. Setting is one of the seven NPS-defined criteria for evaluating integrity. Revise
application submittal requirements to include the provision for photographs, drawings and
other documents to demonstrate the setting of the area surrounding a property being
evaluated for landmark eligibility.
• Increase the length of standing for determinations of eligibility and effect from the current
one year to five years. Currently, a decision on a property’s eligibility is good for one year.
• Improve awareness and predictability through interactive GIS maps. GIS staff is currently
developing searchable maps that identify the locations of all individually designated
properties and all historic districts. These maps will offer search capabilities enabling a
citizen to select any parcel and identify the location of designated properties within a chosen
distance. Eligibility determinations will also be uploaded to these maps.
• Publish existing and future historic property surveys and information on the historic
preservation website, and link these to the interactive GIS mapping system. The web page
August 27, 2013 Page 4
will further contain information and links to resources that will promote the public’s
understanding of the guidelines for treatment of historic properties and the flexibility that
may be available in design review.
• Explore a partnership with the city of Austin, TX, which has developed an interactive Wiki
website. In addition to survey information, histories, and previous determinations of
eligibility that the Historic Preservation Division posts, citizens can also add their own
historic information about buildings. The site is monitored, and citizen information is
reviewed before being uploaded. Austin’s model, which includes a predictive model for
property owners, is currently in beta testing. This user-friendly interactive “self-test”
explains the process for determining significance of a property, and, while not fool-proof can
prove useful to property owners.
Is Demolition/Alteration Review still relevant? Is it of value to the community? Why was it
established? Is Fort Collins’ process best practice?
The process requiring the review of properties prior to demolition or extensive alteration (the
Demolition/Alteration Review Process) was established by Council with the adoption of Ordinance
No. 056, 1994. It was created as a means to enable citizens to have a voice in protecting properties
they believe are important, as well as documenting those buildings that are demolished or altered
for future research and planning purposes.
The review of older properties prior to demolition or extensive alteration is consistent with the
actions of a majority of communities throughout the nation:
• While the review of demolitions is not a requirement for maintaining CLG status, the review
and its accompanying determination of eligibility do accomplish two of the CLG
requirements: that a CLG community identify and inventory historic resources; and, that it
provide protection to significant properties through appropriate legislation consistent with
federal standards.
• In Colorado, there are 39 local governments with certified preservation ordinances. Of these
communities, 20 have ordinances very similar to Fort Collins; these communities tend to be
the larger and more populous, including Boulder, Denver, Greeley and Pueblo.
• As communities grow, some are looking into implementing demolition and alteration review
processes. Athens-Clarke County, GA recently enacted an ordinance, and Syracuse, NY is
considering establishing one.
• In 2007, Historic Denver conducted a survey of 20 like-size cities, including Austin, TX,
Phoenix, AZ and Minneapolis, MN. All twenty cities provide some form of demolition
prohibition.
• Fort Collins’ program reviewed an average of 307 buildings a year over the past decade
under the Demolition/Alteration Review Process.
Fort Collins’ process differs from other communities, and from the standards of the National
Register of Historic Places and NPS, in one significant way: Ordinance No. 186, 2002 amended the
Demolition/Alteration Review Process to limit demolition and alteration review to those properties
designated on the State and National Registers and those properties that have been determined to
be individually eligible for landmark designation.
August 27, 2013 Page 5
• This ordinance was adopted as a means to limit the demolition alteration review to only the
more important properties
• However, it has had the unintended consequence of limiting the formation of district
designations.
The norm, and the practice required for compliance with NPS and National Register of Historic
Places standards, is to evaluate a building as either meeting the designation criteria, and therefore
as eligible, or as not meeting the criteria, and being classified as non-contributing, making no
distinction between “individually eligible” and “eligible as contributing to a district.”
The result of Fort Collins’ process is that contributing properties that could qualify for local district
designation are not subject to demolition or alteration review. Consequently, properties that are
contributing to a district and are designated on the more stringent state and national registers may
be evaluated as not eligible to be designated on Fort Collins’ register, confusing many citizens.
Additionally, when owners of a single contributing property seek landmark designation for their
property, the only way to designate the property is as an “individually eligible” property, diluting
the meaning of our register and leading to the criticism that staff will recommend designation for
anything.
How can the Demolition/Alteration Review Process be made to be consistent with other
programs?
One means to make the Demolition/Alteration Review Process consistent with other communities,
with the NPS and with the National Register of Historic Places, was identified in the 2010 Winter
and Company’s Historic Preservation Program Assessment. The recommendation from this study
was to develop tiered levels of review modeled after the system already in place for development
review. The level of review would be tied to the property’s level of eligibility and the effect of
proposed changes on that eligibility. If implemented, “contributing” would be reinstated as a level
of eligibility, with a lower level of submittal requirements and processing than currently required
of individually eligible properties. This concept would require additional study before a
recommendation can be made. Questions that would need to be answered would include, in part,
ascertaining what impact this change could have on the number of reviews, and how much, if any,
time and cost savings there would be to the applicant and to the city.
How does Fort Collins compare to other communities in its number of designations, and in its
treatment of designated properties?
Fort Collins has significantly more individual local landmark designations than is average in
Colorado. However, Fort Collins has fewer landmark districts than most communities. As with all
communities surveyed, Fort Collins requires design review of exterior changes to locally designated
buildings. Fort Collins has a two-tiered design review process, based upon the potential of the
proposed work to affect the historic eligibility of a building. Additional relevant findings include:
• Fort Collins’ Landmark Registry contains 262 individual landmark properties and 3 local
districts.
• The City designates an average of 6-7 individual landmarks each year; the average in
Colorado is 1-2.
August 27, 2013 Page 6
• Boulder has 10 local historic districts; Denver has 332 individual landmarks and 51 historic
districts – one containing nearly1000 properties.
• Cities of similar size nationally tend to have more districts than Fort Collins, and fewer
individual landmarks: Grand Rapids, MI has 7 historic districts; Athens-Clark County, GA
has 11 districts and 41 individual landmarks; Syracuse, NY has 4 local districts and 58
individual landmarks.
• Fort Collins’ Historic Preservation program undertakes an average of 56 design reviews of
proposed alterations to landmark properties a year. Just under 60% of these reviews are
handled by staff, with the remaining going before the LPC.
• The City uses the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties for its review, in addition to other code criteria. The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, or criteria closely modeled on the Standards, was found to be the criteria used in
nearly all communities surveyed.
• Seattle, WA negotiates a “controls and incentives” agreement for each designated property,
defining all allowable treatments.
• Eugene, OR uses Historic Overlay Zoning, with increased flexibility in uses and standards.
• Grand Rapids, MI charges a fee for design review: $15 for staff-level reviews of minor and
standard alterations, and $75 for reviews that conducted by its Review Board.
Is Fort Collins doing enough to promote historic preservation within the community?
Fort Collins’ program has fewer “visible” preservation activities than other communities in
Colorado. Public access to a community’s history is achieved through various means, including
through access to information contained in property files and databases, which includes historic
survey forms, photographs, and determinations of eligibility. History is also made available to the
public through promotional activities, such as walking tours, award programs, books, and
workshops, as well as through the trolley, museums and historic buildings.
• The Historic Preservation Program makes all files and information available to the public;
however, relatively little of this information is available on-line.
• The Historic Preservation Program has, for the last several years, focused its community
awareness efforts on award and recognition programs, including awards presented by the
City, such as the Friend of Preservation Awards; and awards received by the City for its
preservation efforts, such as the recent Stephen H. Hart Award and the upcoming American
Association of State and Local History Honor Award.
• Fort Collins’ program also has emphasized physical restoration projects. These projects
typically have high visibility, promote the preservation of the building, and significantly
leverage private investment of funds. The program has received 82 grants totaling over $4
million dollars in grant funds, which have generated an estimated $20 million dollars in
direct and indirect revenue.
• In previous years, Fort Collins conducted historic walking tours; held yearly Preservation
Mixers; and has twice organized Old House Workshops.
• Both Denver and Loveland have used survey information to publish booklets on architectural
styles, neighborhood histories, and churches. Loveland published their books as part of the
City’s Cultural Affairs Department; many of Denver’s publications were sponsored by the
preservation advocacy organization, Historic Denver.
• After a several year hiatus, both Longmont and Greeley held Old House Workshops this past
spring, and plan to do so again.
August 27, 2013 Page 7
• State Historic Fund grant funds enabled Windsor to produce an hour-long documentary of
its history.
• Most communities offer walking tour brochures, and many are developing podcasts.
How can the Historic Preservation Program provide for a balance between preservation and
development?
Preservation of a community’s unique identity, often defined by its historic character, is a challenge
faced by most cities. Fort Collins’ future will be one of infill and redevelopment, and it is critical
that the Historic Preservation program provide for a balance between preservation and new
development. In Fort Collins, it is unusual for a historic building of high community value to be
threatened. Consequently, as highlighted in the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Study, many
citizens are not concerned as much with the preservation of specific properties as they are with the
preservation of overall neighborhood character. Of communities surveyed, four principal methods
have been identified to provide for the retention of neighborhood character: design standards and
guidelines for specific character areas; plan books, illustrating compatible infill; overlay zones; and
context-driven zoning requirements.
• Fredericksburg, VA recently enacted zoning ordinances which take into consideration the
historic context, “to avoid out-of-character development and retain neighborhood cohesion
and theme.”
• Eugene, OR uses Historic Overlay Zoning, and encourages compatible design by providing
flexibility in development regulations.
• Many communities, including Grand Rapids, MI, Tacoma, WA and Pueblo, have or are
developing specific guidelines and standards for various subareas of their communities.
• Austin, TX has a “McMansion Ordinance” and impervious cover regulations which limit the
size of new construction.
• While no communities surveyed planned to identify separate zones for development and for
preservation, this is another option.
The comparison survey did not address the degree to which these different methods are working,
and how much conflict, if any, there is between preservation and development in communities with
these ordinances.
POLICY QUESTIONS
Proposed revisions to the Landmark Preservation Code, Municipal Code Chapter 14
As a component of Phase 2 of the Historic Preservation process Improvements Study, staff from the
Historic Preservation Division and the City Attorney’s Office have undertaken a comprehensive
review of the Landmark Preservation Code (Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code). City staff has
identified numerous improvements that will enhance the codes understanding, leading to far greater
transparency and predictability. Much of these revisions consisted of re-organizing the sections into
sequential order, and the addition of new language and explanations for clarity and understanding.
Several housekeeping changes were also identified, and are included in the proposed changes.
August 27, 2013 Page 8
More substantive changes include changes to existing processes:
• Add the ability for the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS)
Director to be able to approve minor building alterations and signage on landmark properties
administratively, so that permit approval may be granted within a few days rather than
weeks; saving both the staff and the applicant time and costs.
• Add the ability for the LPC Design Review Subcommittee, established by Council under
Ordinance No. 002, 2011, to be able to provide a recommendation to the CDNS Director.
Currently, the Subcommittee may review plans and provide suggestions to the applicant;
however, even if plans acceptable to all parties are identified, the application is still
forwarded to the full LPC for action. This change would enable the Subcommittee, if there
is unanimous agreement by all parties on plan revisions that meet the review criteria, to
provide a recommendation for approval to the CDNS Director who could then approve the
plans administratively. This would reduce both applicant and staff time and costs.
• Add the ability for the LPC to review development projects affecting individually eligible
and designated historic properties, and to provide a recommendation to the Hearing Officer
or Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) on the project’s effects. This action would provide
important evidence to the P&Z on projects subject to both historic preservation and
development code requirements; and would comply with federal CLG requirements, which
recognizes the LPC as the CLG’s qualified historic review board.
How will the program address the large number of properties that will be subject to the City’s
review process in the near future?
Nationally, there is variety in the approaches offered for handling the large number of properties that
will be turning 50 years old. Both nationally and in Colorado, however, due to differences in
historical development patterns, many communities are not now facing this issue. Of the larger
communities that do expect to see a large increase in properties meeting the minimum age for
review, staff has identified six general approaches to address this issue. These approaches are:
1. Add more staff
2. Do not have a review process
3. Establish a cut-off date for review; properties built after this date are not reviewed
4. Limit the number of reviews through a filter, such as the properties’ age, location,
architectural style, or other factors
5. Develop overlay zones, in which the buildings within the zone are reviewed, while those
outside are not;
6. Identify separate character areas, each with different review requirements dependent on the
area’s age and/or dominant characteristics.
• Most communities, including Denver, Charleston, SC and Austin, TX anticipate that
they will add additional staff.
• No cities with an existing review process expect to eliminate that process; however,
some, such as Tacoma, WA do not have a review process.
• Many communities have or are considering establishing overlay zones or character
areas, to provide for compatible development. These include Fredericksburg, VA
which already has context-driven zoning requirements; Madison, WI; Athens-Clarke
County, GA; Grand Rapids, MI and Charleston, SC.
August 27, 2013 Page 9
• In Colorado, Denver, Boulder and Pueblo have or expect to develop character areas
or overlay zones.
• Aspen has different review processes for buildings constructed prior to 1900 and for
buildings constructed after 1900.
• None of the communities studied were considering limiting the number of reviews
through a filter; however, Charleston, SC, currently limits its review to properties
that are at least 75 years old.
Additional Program Enhancements that are Currently Being Implemented:
• Staff is developing a curriculum to provide on-line and classroom training to local
contractors and architects on the secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for the
Treatment of Historic Properties; this will enhance transparency and predictability, and
encourage compatible design
• In partnership with Utilities and other city departments, staff is investigating the
development of an “incentives clearinghouse.” This would enable citizens to be able to find
all building-related incentives in one location.
• The new design standards and guidelines for the Historic Old Town District, to be completed
in 2014, will include a comprehensive discussion on recent innovations in materials and
technology to enhance energy sustainability while still retaining historic character. It is
expected that this document will also serve as a template for properties outside of the
District, and will be made available on-line and as a handout.
• Better utilize existing financial incentives to encourage appropriate energy retrofits of older
building stock.
• Using interns, develop podcasts and walking and biking tours, neighborhood histories and
brochures. Interns may also be used to inventory older building stock.
• Investigate reinstatement of the Old House Workshops and Preservation Mixers
• Add information to Utility mailing on historic preservation processes and regulations
• Add links to pattern books to demonstrate compatible development
Public Outreach
• Solicited community input through a twelve-member Citizens Review Committee (CAC)
with representation from all major stakeholders. This committee convened three times
during the fall of 2012 and spring of 2013.
• Met with the Landmark Preservation Commission at 7 meetings and work sessions to present
updates and to discuss policies and recommendations.
Next Steps
Based upon Council’s direction at this work session, staff will perform further research and conduct
additional outreach in preparation for returning to Council with recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Historic Review Satisfaction Survey Summary Report – Demolition Alteration Review
2. Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
3. 2010 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Implementation Status Report
August 27, 2013 Page 10
4. June 26, 2012 Council Work Session Summary
5. April 26, 2012 Memorandum to City Council from CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich
6. Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
7. Glossary of Terms
8. PowerPoint Presentation
Survey: Historic Review Satisfaction Survey
(Demolition/Alteration Review)
Value Count Percent %
80521 60 67.4%
80524 21 23.6%
80525 6 6.7%
80526 2 2.3%
80528 0 0.0%
Other 0 0.0%
Statistics
Total
Responses
89
Sum 7,166,466.0
Avg. 80,522.1
StdDev 1.6
Max 80,526.0
Value Count Percent % Statistics
Summary Report
1. Please tell us your zip code.
2. Are you aware the City of Fort Collins requires a historic review of buildings and structures that are over
50 years old before allowing exterior alterations, additions or demolition?
1. Please tell us your zip code.
80521 67.4%
80524 23.6%
80525 6.7%
80526 2.3%
2. Are you aware the City of Fort Collins requires a historic review of
buildings and structures that are over 50 years old before allowing exterior
alterations, additions or demolition?
Yes 68.2%
No 26.1%
Not Sure 5.7%
ATTACHMENT 1
Yes 60 68.2%
No 23 26.1%
Not Sure 5 5.7%
Total Responses 88
Value Count Percent %
Yes, encouraged me 7 8.1%
Yes, discouraged me 18 20.7%
No, made no difference 37 42.5%
Not Sure 2 2.3%
I did not know about the City's historic review 23 26.4%
Statistics
Total Responses 87
Comments
Count Response
1 Am now
1 But I only found that out when we decided to add onto our house.
1 I was not aware of this requirement, but I am now after receiving your postcard.
1 I wonder if the city has considered making it 60 years instead of 50.
1 None of your damn business!!!
1 Now I am
1 The review is a minor obstacle for people with a lot of money to burn
1 but not surprised
1 not always needed at 50, 75 maybe
1 not until I got the postcard
1 ridiculous policy 50 is not historic
1 I knew review was required for Local Historic Landmarks. I didn't realize it was required for all buildings over 50 yrs old.
1 I bought a condo near a historic home, and was told about this from my relator and mortgage people.
1 It's unclear to me how significant the changes have to be to require a review (udpates versus structural change).
3. Has this requirement ever influenced your decision about purchasing an older property?
3. Has this requirement ever influenced your decision about purchasing an older
property?
Yes, encouraged me 8.1%
Yes, discouraged me 20.7%
No, made no difference 42.5%
Not Sure 2.3%
I did not know about the City's historic review 26.4%
Value Count Percent %
Yes 16 18.4%
No 71 81.6%
Not Sure 0 0.0%
Statistics
Total Responses 87
Comments
Count Response
1 Absolutely in support of regulations that preserve the older part of town.
1 The city's other ridiculous ordinances are what made me sell my Old Town house.
1 When I hired a contractor to raise my upstairs bathroom wall, I learned of the policy.
1 Would definitely influence my decision.
1 city has no right to determine what a property should look like as long as it is clean and neat
1 I have owned my home on Mountain Avenue since 1976. We put an addition on in 1982 and tried to tie it in with the
integrity of our beautiful brick home.
1 This process is arbitrary and capricious and may become a serious problem for our growing community
1 I understand the need; but "less is more" when it comes to requiring homogeneity and limiting personal freedom of
expression.
1 If you're not going to let people customize old town homes to better suit modern day families, then families aren't going
to continue living down here. They will become rentals and more transient populations- which I think will negatively
impact the old town feel and economy.
1 It has not affected my decision in previous instances, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't under different circumstances. It
depends very much on the property/situation.
1 I selected No, but the most accurate answer would be simply "Yes", which was not an option in your survey. To explain
further, the requirement both encouraged me (because of landmarking advantages) and discouraged me (because of
alteration restrictions). I wound up buying the old house I wanted, however.
1 Sorry, haven't thought about purchasing an older property (need a straight 'No' among the answers)
4. Have you ever received historic design advice, either through the Design Assistance Program or the
Landmark Preservation Commission's Design Review Subcommittee?
Comments
4. Have you ever received historic design advice, either through the Design
Assistance Program or the Landmark Preservation Commission's Design Review
Subcommittee?
Yes 18.4%
No 81.6%
Value Count Percent %
Yes 9 10.3%
No 6 6.9%
Not Sure 2 2.3%
Did not receive design advice 70 80.5%
Statistics
Total Responses 87
Count Response
1 Don't think this was in effect when we put on our addition. I wish it would have been, though.
1 I don't know about these services.
1 Wasn't helpful
1 Received approval to make some improvements, and intend to take advantage of design assistance program
1 I took advantage of the design assistance program for a porch rebuild. Ther was no real advice given.
1 I'm not positive I've received formal design advice yet, but I've definitely received informal advice from to these groups.
I'm in the process of requesting formal historical design advice now.
1 I do not understand how the contractors on the Design Assistance list get on that list. We know some very good people
who are not on it, and I've heard of some bad work done by some who ARE listed. We chose to ignore the list.
1 I got handouts from Karen McWilliams, but all the best advice I got was from neighbors who pointed out details on my
house or who handed me books on houses from the same time period as our house. That input was invaluable as we
made decisions about changes to the house.
5. Do you feel the design advice helped you to better understand the purpose of historic review and/or the
criteria for historic approval?
Comments
Count Response
1 It was completely arbitrary. Some architect the City approves of runs roughshod on your dreams.
1 The advice given to my neighbor was to go big, a huge insult to many
1 recieved no advice
1 would not favor it
1 as stated before:This process is arbitrary and capricious and may become a serious problem for our growing
community
1 The info I received from Karen was helpful. But it still felt nebulous somehow. I don't know why we didn't apply for
5. Do you feel the design advice helped you to better understand the purpose of
historic review and/or the criteria for historic approval?
Yes 10.3%
No 6.9%
Not Sure 2.3%
Did not receive design advice 80.5%
Value Count Percent %
Yes 4 4.7%
No 9 10.6%
Not Sure 5 5.9%
Did not receive design advice 67 78.8%
Statistics
Total Responses 85
landmark designation. I know our pocketbook would have made out better in the end if we had. But the paper work
seemed like something "out there" and not something "right here" that I should or could deal with. I've thought about it a
few times... why didn't I just DO that? Now that we're thinking of painting the house, I'm considering seeking the
designation. Just haven't actually taken any steps yet. Inertia...
1 It wasn't explained why the house was considered "eligible" for historic designation just as part of the community, not
the house design specifically.
6. Do you feel the design advice resulted in a better design?
Comments
Count Response
1 Design advice not required for our property as original building not impacted
1 It resulted in unnecessary hassles and more time and cost on the project
1 It was definitely more expensive, may be better, but certainly more expensive
1 My contractor, who was resisted by the commission, had much better ideas
1 No, they just told me all the things I couldn't do.
1 The historic preservation people are hypocrites
1 Certainly better from the point of view of maintaining historic character from the street. Some of these things make
design harder, but making lemonade out of those lemons is part of buying an older house.
1 Builders of old houses cut corners just as builders of new houses do. I think that old houses can be improved while still
maintaining their historical value. In some cases, the LPC may prevent old shortcomings from being addressed.
6. Do you feel the design advice resulted in a better design?
Yes 4.7%
No 10.6%
Not Sure 5.9%
Did not receive design advice 78.8%
Value Count Percent %
Yes 24 27.0%
No, but a property in my neighborhood was altered and had a historic
review
23 25.8%
No 41 46.1%
Not Sure 1 1.1%
Statistics
Total Responses 89
7. Have you personally applied for a permit that required a historic review of your property?
Comments
Count Response
1 Builder applied for permit
1 I did apply for, and receive a designation
1 It needlessly delayed my project and prevented me from bringing railing height to code
1 My contractor applied for the permit for work on my property.
1 Needed approval to use a historic door on a side porch
1 The architect's opinion disgusted me, he is simply a profiteer wanting to destroy old town
1 the review process was extreme and invasive
1 Neighbors put on a beautiful addition about 10 or so years ago and I know they were rather miffed at the review board.
The board said they could not exactly match the brick on their addition to the original home because it had to visually be
different. What a bunch of crock that it. Don't we want additions to compliment the original structure and not stand out
like a sore thumb?
1 Several different properties in my neighborhood have been altered. They do not fit in with the neighborhood, and loom
over the next door neighbors.
1 Neighbor got a city loan to put oldfashioned wood shingles on their house 7 years ago. Now look terrible.
1 as stated before:This process is arbitrary and capricious and may become a serious problem for our growing
community
1 My feeling is that the restrictions placed on owners of historic properties are too great. Properties that have not been
properly maintained in the past often require renovations that conflict with the regulations and desires of the review
board.
7. Have you personally applied for a permit that required a historic review of
your property?
Yes 27%
No, but a property in my neighborhood was altered
and had a historic review 25.8%
No 46.1%
Not Sure 1.1%
Value Count Percent %
Very Timely 6 26.1%
Satisfactory 9 39.1%
Not Timely 6 26.1%
Not Sure 2 8.7%
Statistics
Total Responses 23
8. Was the historic review done efficiently and in a timely manner?
Comments
Count Response
1 It was a process but not too odious.
1 took far too long, almost a month
1 this process is arbitrary and needs to be overhauled for the good of our town not to fit the agenda of a small group as
it does now.
1 We experienced a three-week delay for approval because of a minor point about the ratio of the addition to where the
house sits on the lot. Ultimately, the zoning board approved, but it would have been nice to be able to expedite the
process.
1 I didn't even realize it was started before it was over. In fact, I don't actually know when it happened. I think it would have
been kind of cool if the review had resulted in a document to me saying, "Your house was built in 1922 and is a classic
____ architectural style. Blah Blah Blah." It would have endeared me even more to the idea that my house is old and
cool. And it would have helped guide me as I continued to look through books and magazines making decisions about
fixtures, molding, etc.
8. Was the historic review done efficiently and in a timely manner?
Very Timely 26.1%
Satisfactory 39.1%
Not Timely 26.1%
Not Sure 8.7%
Value Count Percent %
Strongly Agree 2 8.7%
Agree 4 17.4%
Disagree 13 56.5%
Strongly disagree 4 17.4%
Statistics
Total Responses 23
Value Count Percent %
Very Helpful 5 22.7%
Helpful 3 13.6%
Statistics
Total Responses 22
9. Please respond to the following statement, "I found historic review helpful."
Comments
Count Response
1 I did a lot of research before hand and so was not too surprised by restrictions.
1 Like I said - I would have loved to get more feedback/information on my house. I know Karen and Josh don't have that
much time. But if the city would like to know what I want, that's what I want. Hire more staff and get more info out to
people so we can get excited about the cool architectural and historical facts about our houses.
10. How would you rank the service you received from Historic Preservation staff?
9. Please respond to the following statement, "I found historic review helpful."
Strongly Agree 8.7%
Agree 17.4%
Disagree 56.5%
Strongly disagree 17.4%
10. How would you rank the service you received from Historic Preservation
staff?
Very Helpful 22.7%
Helpful 13.6%
Somewhat Helpful 13.6%
Not Helpful 31.8%
Not Sure 18.2%
Somewhat Helpful 3 13.6%
Not Helpful 7 31.8%
Not Sure 4 18.2%
Value Count Percent %
Yes 6 26.1%
No 12 52.2%
Not Sure 5 21.7%
Statistics
Total Responses 23
Comments
Count Response
1 Did not work with staff directly
1 My contractor dealt directly with them; I had no direct contact.
1 Neither helpful nor otherwise.
1 Our contractor went through the face to face process, we had to wait
1 They did provide binders of color samples that might be appropriate. No design suggestions.
1 karen has been moderatly responseive to general questions. I had a negative experience for a simple porch repair in
the plan review process.
11. Did your project proceed to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a hearing, whether it was a
complimentary, preliminary or final hearing?
Comments
Count Response
1 My proposed alteration to bring the porch railing to code required me to appear and defend. As a result, I made no
changes. proposed change was well within the character of the home
11. Did your project proceed to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a
hearing, whether it was a complimentary, preliminary or final hearing?
Yes 26.1%
No 52.2%
Not Sure 21.7%
Value Count Percent %
Very Good 1 7.1%
Good 1 7.1%
Average 0 0.0%
Poor 2 14.3%
Bad 2 14.3%
Not sure 8 57.1%
Statistics
Total Responses 14
12. If so, how do you rank your experience at the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing?
Comments
Count Response
1 Contractor dealt with it
1 While it's not a perfect system, I appreciate what the LPC does and I'm glad it's there.
1 n/a
1 no review
1 they should be following nationally standardized procedures and policies BUT THEY DO NOT!!!
1 It was a subset of the folks on the Commission, but they hadn't even looked at the plans in advance. They rejected a
front porch that would have been in keeping with the style of the house.
12. If so, how do you rank your experience at the Landmark Preservation
Commission hearing?
Very Good 7.1%
Good 7.1%
Poor 14.3%
Bad 14.3%
Not sure 57.1%
Value Count Percent %
I subscribe to the City's weekly e-newsletter called "This Week in
Development Review"
0 0.0%
I saw the sign "Historic Review Underway" posted on the property 10 43.5%
I read the notice in the newspaper 1 4.4%
Word of mouth 12 52.2%
Not sure 0 0.0%
Other (Please specify in below Comments box.) 5 21.7%
Statistics
Total Responses 23
13. How did you learn about the historic reviews? Please indicate all that apply:
Comments
Count Response
1 From the postcard I received regarding this survey.
1 I complained about the McMansion next door, that had the full blessing of the city
1 Postcard
1 notified by owner of the property.
1 When I purchased my condo I was told from the relator and mortgage person since my property faced this historic
home nearby.
1 1) Neighbor getting loan for low quality roof. 2) From contractor who thought it would be a hassle to get a permit to
change out our 107yr old windows that still have the original glass.
13. How did you learn about the historic reviews? Please indicate all that
apply:
43.5%
4.4%
52.2%
21.7%
I saw the sign "Historic Review
Underway" posted on the property
I read the notice in the newspaper Word of mouth Other (Please specify in below
Comments box.)
0
50
100
Value Count Percent %
I called the City's Historic Preservation staff 1 5.6%
I visited the City's Historic Preservation website 6 33.3%
I emailed or mailed City staff 2 11.1%
I attended the public hearing or neighborhood meeting 6 33.3%
Other (Please specify in below Comments box.) 10 55.6%
Statistics
Total Responses 18
14. After learning of the historic review, what ways did you use to find out more about the project? Please
check all that apply.
Comments
Count Response
1 Does no good, they want the big houses next to little bungalows
1 I chatted with the people in the historic home once I met them.
1 I did nothing. It is none of my business what someone else does with their property
1 I looked up the review number.
1 I spoke directly with the owners of the house under review.
1 I spoke w a friend on staff at the city
1 Threw up. Gave up thoughts of replacing windows.
1 if it applied to my interests i spent more time
1 none
1 We organized our neighborhood to try to prevent having a historic house razed and replaced with a McMansion, to no
avail....
1 Researched city newspaper archives and talked with realtors to find out more information about it.
14. After learning of the historic review, what ways did you use to find out
more about the project? Please check all that apply.
5.6%
33.3%
11.1%
33.3%
55.6%
I called the City's Historic
Preservation staff
I visited the City's Historic
Preservation website
I emailed or mailed City staff I attended the public hearing
or neighborhood meeting
Other (Please specify in
below Comments box.)
0
50
100
Value Count Percent %
I sent an email or letter to City staff 4 18.2%
I spoke at public hearing or neighborhood meeting 4 18.2%
I called City staff 2 9.1%
Other (Please specify in below Comments box.) 2 9.1%
I did not provide any input 15 68.2%
Statistics
Total Responses 22
15. Did you use any of the opportunities below to share your thoughts about the proposed changes?
Please check all that apply.
Comments
Count Response
1 I moved in during the construction of the property next door.
1 Why try talking to brick walls.
1 contacted all city council members
1 waste of time
1 I did not know about the alterations until the construction began. These occurred before the requirement for signs.
15. Did you use any of the opportunities below to share your thoughts about the
proposed changes? Please check all that apply.
18.2% 18.2%
9.1% 9.1%
68.2%
I sent an email or letter to
City staff
I spoke at public hearing or
neighborhood meeting
I called City staff Other (Please specify in
below Comments box.)
I did not provide any input
0
50
100
16. Do you feel your input was heard? Please share any thoughts in the Comments
box.
Yes 23.1%
No 30.8%
Not Sure 46.2%
Value Count Percent %
Yes 3 23.1%
No 4 30.8%
Not Sure 6 46.2%
Statistics
Total Responses 13
Value Count Percent %
Yes 16 72.7%
No 4 18.2%
Not Sure 2 9.1%
Statistics
Total Responses 22
16. Do you feel your input was heard? Please share any thoughts in the Comments box.
Comments
Count Response
1 I did not provide input
1 I feel we had no impact
1 The guy with the money is a liar and a cheater, what he did is criminal
1 Was not aware, so had no opportunity for input.
2 n/a
1 the process was unnecessary and should not have been required
17. Do you feel the "Historic Review Underway" signs are an effective way to notify neighbors of a
proposed demolition or alteration occurring in your neighborhood?
Comments
Count Response
1 Perhaps just the ones walking by, this method would not be reaching many people.
1 Signs just say a historical review is going on. Not that changes might be made.
1 Sure, but not my business
17. Do you feel the "Historic Review Underway" signs are an effective way to
notify neighbors of a proposed demolition or alteration occurring in your
neighborhood?
Yes 72.7%
No 18.2%
Not Sure 9.1%
Value Count Percent %
Yes 16 72.7%
No 5 22.7%
Not Sure 1 4.6%
Statistics
Total Responses 22
1 no help to me, never saw a sign
1 I mail out like the card sent post-review/project (why I am at this website right now) would be beneficial during the review.
1 for the property on the 600 block of Peterson, neighborhood opinions were widely ignored, so what's the point?
1 They would be extremely helpful. However, mailing a letter to the neighbors would be very good as well. We need to be
made aware!
18. Do you feel you and your neighbors should continue to be notified of demolitions and exterior alterations
occurring in your neighborhood?
Comments
Count Response
1 Depends on if it would or could effect my property
1 During the review process via email and post card with a web address.
1 If they adhere to required building codes and such I do not see why we need to be notified.
1 Not my business
1 only if neighbors are requesting a variance
1 stop the destruction of old town
1 story addtions and 75yr plus
1 I know that some homeowners have significantly altered their older home so that the result does not retain the old town
character. I do not like that.
1 Yes, very definitely! We should at least be aware. I was notified about a garage a few years ago, but had no notification
about several house additions (pop-ups) in our neighbrhood - - why is a garage more important than the houses? The
design should match the character of the neighborhood - the neighboring properties. We need to know how these
changes will affect our neighborhood, and us personally - including our property taxes, which also went up because of
these pop-ups.
18. Do you feel you and your neighbors should continue to be notified of
demolitions and exterior alterations occurring in your neighborhood?
Yes 72.7%
No 22.7%
Not Sure 4.6%
19 Please add any last thoughts or comments on historic review.
Count Response
1 Consider using the NextDoor website to inform neighbors about historical review.
1 Focus on notifying for story additions or land use change otherwise continue on!
1 Good luck!
1 Good thing
1 I think it's a worthwhile program
1 I think they should let home owners do as they wish with their own homes.
1 I will be recommending to my city council representative to repeal Historic Review laws.
1 I would like to know what houses were reviewed in my neighborhood.
1 I would like to learn about this program. Thanks!
1 Keep up the great work, and don't let the turkeys get you down.
1 The process by which owners must submit an application and then a review takes place is unnecessarily burdensome.
It makes the applicant swim upstream in a process biased towards preservation. All old properties are not significant.
The City should determine what is significant through a thorough public process before an owner or buyer applies for a
change.
1 Fifty years does not seem very old for a house to designated as historic. My house is fifty-two years old and the only
historic thing about it, in my opinion, is me! I'm fifty-seven years old.
1 There are always going to be those people who bellyache about anybody "telling them what to do with their property." I
think some of these people just have issues with authority that they ought to have worked out years ago with their
parents so that they can proceed to act like adults when it comes to interfacing with the common good. It is in the best
interest of all Old Town property owners as well as the City and the population that doesn't live in Old Town to preserve
the historic character of privately owned residences in this part of town. Period. Anybody who says otherwise is selling
something.
1 While I appreciate the desire of some folks to preserve historically significant properties, it is clear that the people in
power in Ft Collins are desensitized to the needs and desires of the greater community where there is overwhelming
sentiment for FREEDOM to do as you please on your property without the city meddling with your work. In the case of a
very few properties, control is appropriate, but the vast majority of this commissions' actions are capricious and
completely unnecessary. Please could someone bring some common sense to this group!
1 I'm supportive of for preserving the historic architecture in Old Town, but I'm more supportive of home owners having the
freedom to continue to add creativity and unique culture to the neighborhood. With the exception of a properties that
have giant, sun blocking, monstrosities Fort Collins has done a good job preserving the unique feel in Old Town. I worry
that as this conversation gets louder (and have bigger financial impacts for developers) that the City will be more
restrictive on what can be done.
1 I think all demolitions and major changes should have some signage to notify neighbors. Both new and old buildings.
1 I think very definitely that before a building permit is approved, the neighbor's privacy should be considered - building a
pop-up next to a single story home is an invasion of my privacy. They popped the top on the house next door and now
look right over into my back yard. This also happened to my neighbor across the street, and to two others in the next
blocks over. Each time, the house was popped up, with no consideration for the neighbor's privacy and no concern for
how the new house fit in with the rest of the block. Also I wish I could have some idea of the length of time that the
rennovation is going to take, and an assurrance that the owner will still take care of the property during the rennovation.
When they demolish a couple of lots, and just put up an under construction sign, it would also be nice to know if this is
going to be commercial, multi-family or single family - it makes a difference.
1 Like historic preservation but also want to see homeowners/families encouraged to develop properties and remain as
owner occupiers. Too many homes in old town have been alllowed to become historic dumps because of slumlord
ownership after families moved out in favor of bigger fancier homes
1 While I support the general concept of preserving the buildings with historic value, there are some homes that are not
worth saving due to prior unfortunate changes/additions/alterations and lack of maintenance/upkeep. I would like to see
more emphasis placed on adding value to the properties while enhancing the features and character of the older
homes with good design in keeping with the character of the home. Not just being forced to leave the front exactly the
way it is. The City's historic review folks were very nice. It was the Landmark Commission that seemed to want to put up
lots of barriers to any enhancements. The process to get a final hearing sounded long and arduous, so I gave up.
1 It seems many houses in the Old Town area are being demo'd and replaced with McMansions. The neighborhood I live
in, including myself, is very upset with the allowance of the McMansions. While the original house may not have been
deemed historically significant - it is important to carefully review the design and FAR of the new house. The house I live
next too completely maximized the FAR on the lot - and may have even had a variance ( I have not checked in to this) to
increase the allowable space the home takes up. It is completely out of scale and character within the neighborhood
and while design is subjective - it looks like a really bad attempt on modern. I am disappointed the City allowed the
house to be built in the manner it has and am skeptical of the historic review process if it does not consider the design
style of the house (and size, scale, FAR) as well as how it might fit in the character of the neighborhood. This house is
completely out of scale and context and has zero character. As I mentioned there have been several houses in this
neighborhood (in the last year) - done with cheap materials that look like houses which belong in suburbia - not a
quaint, historic district. If the City continues to allow this type of development we will lose the historic charm of this Old
Town neighborhood. Next door to this house - another neighbor did a historic remodel and their house looks fantastic. It
is of the same size and similar character as the house was where the McMansion was built.
1 Important to preserve the character and scale of our neighborhood - but also important to allow for reasonable
improvements. LPC has an undeserved reputation as being difficult - I never found them to be so.
1 We applied for a variance to add a second story to our house and it was granted so quickly by the review board that I
felt like I'd just gotten whiplash. After a lot more research and soul searching, we decided against popping the top
because it would have done irreparable damage to our neighborhood and we didn't want to do that to our neighbors
and it just wasn't worth it to us. I wish it wouldn't have been so easy to get that variance. Even though we didn't use it, it
still seems like it would have been harmful and yet the folks making the decision whipped out their answer without even
really questioning me about how the change would affect my neighbors. It was really rather shocking and I wonder if
that lack of questioning is partly what has led to some of the unsightly or neighborhood damaging building that's taken
place in Old Town in the past decade. Context is incredibly important and it really should be something that not only the
historic folks look at, but that the folks who grant variances look at as well. We all should be seeking to preserve our
city's heritage. It shouldn't just fall to the overworked historic preservation folks to safe guard it. These old houses are in
some sense a common historical good that even folks on the south end of town can lay claim to as part of their Fort
Collins historical roots. Therefore everyone should be involved in helping to value them and encouraging home owners
to maintain their integrity and value.
1 Wish I knew which properties are being referring to, because some of the new homes around here are pretty huge and
horrible and take up every bit of the property. I wonder how they get away with it when other people have to fight tooth
and nail to do any little thing. Cases in point: NW corner of Mack and Oak, and SE corner of Mountain and Whitcomb.
How do these houses meet the SF percentage requirements when there is virtually no yard? Don't get it.
1 Although it is important to protect significant historic structures, I think the commission has lost sight of what is historic
vs. what is just old.
1 I think the 50 year period for historical review is becoming a bit dated. I think the process is a good idea and is handled
well in my experience, but it's time to re-think the time period. We are into the 60's now and this will quickly become the
70's and 80's. No houses build in the 70's and 80's are 'historical' - and further more as these houses come into the
time frame for review the process will be overwhelmed, due to the increased number of houses built in these time
periods. My recommendation would be to set the date at house built before 1940, and that's it.
1 I think that 50 years is just old not historic. Historic in my opinion should be 100 years or older
1 I think it is excellent that we have this review process in town, and am happy to live in a community that values
preservation and maintaining neighborhood character. We had a minor "glitch" because my house is positioned toward
the back of the lot; the 3-week delay until the zoning board met was unfortunate and irritating. Nonetheless, overall, the
process went smoothly as I experienced it.
1 Please just be aware that people live in America because they value FREEDOM -- and while I agree that one person
shouldn't be allowed to make an alteration to their home that would be so ugly as to damage the values of the
surrounding properties, these regulations need to lean toward accommodating flexibility, rather than restricting too
heavily the inevitable expansion of progress and evolution of our homes and neighborhoods. Too many limitations on
homeowners will, "throw-out the baby with the bathwater," as you will harm the character of the neighborhoods at the
same time as you try, with legislation, to protect it. Please be mindful: Ultimately it is the job of the City to "guide" growth,
rather than control it! Thank you!!
1 This is starting to get to be ridiculous. I had a home before this one that was built in 1904 and it was crappy
craftsmanship, not worth restoring. You need to be careful how this is implemented.
1 I don't think this regulation is sustainable. My neighborhood was built in 1967. In 2017 my house will be 50 years old
and it's a basic tri-level. If I want to upgrade the exterior, the city will actually need to review the historical significance of
my tri-level home? Doesn't make any sense. A home owner should not be so restricted without their consent. Most
larger cities have changed these laws so that the homeowner has the right to refuse what an outside party desires the
home to look like in the historical sense. Here's a suggestion. Do a comprehensive review of all properties within the
city that may actually have significance, then track those for sale. If they go up for sale, the city or historical society
should buy them and restore them. As this city grows, the historical reviews of all these homes will be overwhelming
and inappropriate. In four years, does anyone really think my home deserves a historical review?
1 Not clear if exterior changes include changing paint colors from current. Concern around the time and money being
added to the renovation process in Old Town.
1 The City has gone nuts trying to turn Old Town into Boulder Jr. The basic Old Town homeowner (outside of Mountain
Avenue and a few other ritzy blocks) is HOA-adverse, independent, and not appreciative of being told what to do (as the
city council found out when they tried to institute a single garbage company for Old Town.) I believe that telling people
what to do with their private property is criminal unless it truly harms another party. It is one thing to set zoning
standards -i.e. setbacks from property lines, roads, easements etc - but something else when the thing being controlled
is entirely subjective - i.e. if a house looks "historic" or not. In whose opinion???? I think the city should butt out. Left
alone, people make decent decisions on their own. All these restrictions encourage disregard for or attempts to get
around the ordinances, and dissuade people from upkeep on their property due to the extra hassle (why call attention to
yourself by notifying the city you have plans to remodel or fix something...you'll be "on their radar" forever after.) Or in
my case, I've chosen to move out of city limits.
1 I would like to know what this is about. My house and neighborhood has no historic significance except for a couple of
the original farm buildings on Mulberry (which isn't part of our neighborhood). This sounds like extra bureaucracy from
the city that we don't need and shouldn't have to pay for. I'd also like to know what constitutes 'exterior alterations' and
'additions', since the postcard gave no information. Frankly, this should have been done by letter with more information
than by postcard assuming we know what you're talking about.
1 I would like to see a little more liberal interpretation of what is not considered historic so our neighborhood, near Holy
Family Church, can experience some upgraded renovations, additions and new houses. Our neighborhood has many
homes that are very old and have been rentals for decades and are beyond repair. These homes are very small, all
under 1,000 square feet and are functionally obsolete. I think it's o.k. for new houses to be built to make the
neighborhood look nicer.
1 I'm a new resident of Fort Collins but I purchased a home (recently remodeled) that was built in 1914 or 1918 (sources
differ). I received a postcard about this online survey and visited it out of curiosity only. I have no plans to alter the
house.
1 I do think it is important to preseve the integrity of the historic houses and/ or replace them with similar design, style,
and SIZE!
1 Many houses have recently been built in our neighborhood. Some have architecture that blend with neighboring homes.
Others stand out and do not look like they should be in this older neighborhood. I think there should be more restrictions
on the types of buildings built. New homes are great if they blend with existing homes.
1 I think this is a very good idea as long as the review board keeps in mind that many young people want an older home
in the old town area and need to update it as well as possibly construct an addition to accommodate today's lifestyles
of living and entertaining. It is completely possible to have a new house in the old town area or construct an addition
that retains the character of the majority of the homes in the area. Granted, there are some homes that are 50 years
old but are atrocious and need to be repaired and remodeled. Fifty years really isn't all that old. My home is 108 years
old, has modern amenities, and is beautiful. There are a few 1950s homes in the area that are downright ugly and are
an eyesore. I wish someone would raze or remodel these and perhaps they will if the review board is willing to work
with homeowners on ensuring the design they select is consistent with the neighborhood, while maintaining individuality.
1 I have known several people that have had to deal with a historic review and the historic committee and have heard
nothing positive. One of many of the great things about living in Old Town is no HOA. However, now the historic
committee has become far more intrusive and arbitrary than most HOAs. While I love the charm and details of my old
house I understand that there are people that love the Old Town are but prefer modern design. I have several neighbors
that seem to think they should have a say in what others do with their homes but I am not among them. I support
property rights and the individuals right to do as they see fit with their property.
1 My colleague just went through a very frustrating process with this review committee. The process seemed very
arbitrary, subjective and counter-productive from what it intended to do. Their design for remodel retained many of the
original attributes, did not stick out as a sore thumb on the block and would greatly improve their quality of life-- yet the
committee denied it. After months of negotiations they finally did get approval and it looks amazing now. They are the
exact type of family you want to keep in old town-- they have a young family, pour money into the downtown economy,
and are actively engaged citizens. With 2 kids, they would have had to move out of downtown if the remodel never got
approved. I agree that we want to maintain the charm and character of old town, but to what end? I would rather have
family neighborhoods with more modern homes than historic college rentals.The new construction and remodels that
have occurred around me are gorgeous. No, they are not 1,000 sq ft bungalows anymore- but they are the next
generation of charming, custom, non-cookie cutter homes-- which is what I love about old town-- regardless of what
year they were built. I'd love to see this committee come up with a set of standards that helped ensure the future charm
of old town but at the same time allowed for progress and modern-day upgrades.
1 I found that some members of the commission were unnecessarily inflexible and obstructionist. I value the broad goals
of the review process, but found that some seemed to have the attitude that all change is bad unless proven otherwise.
1 I do not think that a historic review should be necessary in our neighborhood. A lot of the homes are 50's and 60's
ranch homes that could use a good Modern style facelift and we feel that often the historic reviews/confines get in the
way of people's creativity. A home should be just that, a persons home. It should be an extension of the owners
personality. Homes should all look different as the people that own them do. I appreciate the city considering certain
areas of town historic, like old town. I'd like to see our town full of fresh designs and creative architecture on homes less
than 100 years old. Thanks for asking our opinion.
1 While good in concept I hope it does not overreach turning old into historic. Most buildings do not fit historic standards In
my opinion. I do know of specific abuses under the guidelines that have resulted in unnecessary time delays and added
expense.
1 I am a proponent of preserving our old town neighborhoods. I think it is especially critical that city code include sunshine
provisions, so that developers cannot raze small houses and replace them with structures that do not fit the character
of the block and which basically obliterate a neighbors ability to get sunlight.
1 I am a federal governemnt employee and deal with cultural resource protection in my professional responsibilities. I
believe the plan review process took far too long and the commission goes far beyond the intended purpose as it
relates to the National Historic Properties Act. The Historic Preservation office has provided no information indicating
that my home or neighborhood is worthy of listing or protection beyond age; delays in the permitting process are clearly
beyond the intent of the NHPA.
1 Buildings 150 years old may be historic but it is not the city's authority or purpose to determine what they should look
like. Reviewing properties over 50 years old is ridiculous. I trust no one in a city office to determine how my property
should appear. They have no right or skill to make aesthetic decisions for others. Your policy is invasive, unnecessary
and probably illegal and should be discontinued. I have no problem with city review for safety considerations.
1 I think the old farm house near me is unique and a part of this city's heritage as are all of the historical buildings, and I
hope that the folks trying to save them and keep them usable aren't suffering a mess of red tape and road blocks
preventing them from making their old buildings and homes safe and livable.
1 Please let people control their own property. Diversity is a good thing. Satisfying the neighbors' subjective aesthetic
sense does not justify your trampling of my property rights. Forcing outdated design on these neighborhoods is stupid
and wrong.
1 I appreciate that the city is attempting to preserve the character of older homes, and I do think that most of the
renovations / additions / new homes in Old Town have been very well-done. We love old houses and we love Old Town.
However, I worry that over-regulating proposed alterations will eventually end up making Old Town a LESS desirable
place to own a home, as residents and potential buyers will not be able to create the spaces and amenities that suit
modern families.
1 I'm glad there is a historic review. The house next door to mine was foreclosed and the person that bought it made
substantial updates. However, for him to proceed it required going to zoning review and he had to meet with historic
review representatives. The addition, although it exceeds the distance to my property, looks pretty attractive. In short, I
support the historic review process.
1 My original design was by an architect familiar with Old Town requirements. The FC city review resulted in changes that
were very beneficial not only to preserving the exterior but also to a very modern, functional interior addition.
1 Get rid of Karen McWilliams and bring in someone who cares. Stop paying architects who profit from the destruction.
Keep realtors out of this, they only want to make money from old town. DON'T BUILD BIG HOUSES!!!
1 I know that this has been a very controversial issue in the past. I think you do a good job of informing residences of
planned remodels but I do have a problem on what is allowed or how some people have gotten around certain
requirements or codes to get what they want. It bothers me deeply when a project on an existing property is allowed to
be over sized compared to properties surrounding the new project. I have a Property several doors down that did this.
This home towers over the smaller homes, taking away the privacy of numerous homes with Second story balconies,
raised first floor decks that gives a open view into ones backyards. This Neighbor stole my privacy and others as well
and the city historic review board allowed it. I do not know who is on this board and what their back grounds are but, I
can't help to wonder if they have a conflict of interest with their professional lives and that of allowing some of the
projects they approve!
1 not sure what this is about..... I was unaware of any historic reviews in my neighborhood. Should I have received notice
of a review? How do I know if a property is under review?
1 Not aware of any historic reviews in my neighborhood. Within the last few years, an older house was demolished and a
new one constructed that did not fit the historic neighborhood very well.
1 The City of Fort Collins has a habit of overstepping its bounds. Private property rights are fundamental to being an
American. The City will pass some feel good resolution prior to considering the full repercussions. The previous attempt
was found unlawful so they paused and passed the same legislation two years later...the citizens said no. Quonset huts
are not historically significant!! Get over yourselves.
1 I've found Karen McWilliams to be extremely helpful as we've considered applying for historic review.
1 I understand what the historic review board is trying to accomplish but I worry they could be overbearing. We have an
old house that looks terrible and we are afraid of the potential hoops we may end up having to go though and
limitations that may be placed upon us when we want to renovate. We are working hard to improve our property and
had a pretty difficult time getting our permit through the city to modify a garage and turn it from a dump to a very
attractive part of the property. One thing that you mightconsider if it is not already in place is requiring realtors to
disclose to the buyer if house for sale will require a review of the historical society to renovate or add on to.
1 Try incentives to encourage compliance, even homeowners who value historic properties find interference from
authorities burdensome. Tax breaks, large discounts on homeowner's and landscape products (through cooperative
agreements with retailers), and a streamlined process will leave those of us with historic properties likely to want to
partner with the City. We are responsible for purchase, maintenance, and taxes on our property--- our houses are NOT
jointly owned by ourselves and the City. Take that into consideration when dealing with property owners. We must
balance the practical everyday needs of our families with the joy of owning a piece of history. It would be nice if the
Review understood how difficult and expensive historic standards can be. There are those who let properties run down
rather than comply-- hopefully not too many, but try not to burden and interfere with property owners.
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
FORT COLLINS
Size/Population:
55.83 sq. mi./
151,330 people
(2013)
Ordinance since 1968. 3 Fort Collins
Landmark districts (79 properties)
and 262 individual properties; 2
Nat’l Register districts (734
properties) and 23 individual Nat’l
Register properties. Average of 6 ‐
7 designations per year. LPC
recommends designations; Council
designates by ordinance and can
designate over an owner’s
objection. No minimum number or
specific percentage of consenting
owners required. No minimum
building age for designation.
No fee. Any citizen may apply for
designation; additional public
hearing processes and engagement
of owners if non‐consensual.
All Landmark districts have been
non‐consensual; one individual
Landmark property (Post Office)
has been non‐consensual.
Review required for
exterior changes to
designated buildings.
No design review of
changes to buildings
listed on Nat’l Reg. Two
levels of review:
administrative by CDNS
Director, and by LPC in a
public hearing. Average
of 56 design reviews
undertaken annually.
Approximately 58%
reviewed
administratively.
Uses Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and
additional criteria for
review. District‐specific
standards for Historic
Old Town District.
Historic Review,
commonly called
Demolition/Alteration
Review, is required as
part of permitting
processes for buildings
50+ years old. Begins
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Aspen
Size/Population:
3.9 sq. mi. /
6,680 people
(2012 est.)
Ordinance since 1972. 2 local
districts, 198 individual landmarks.
City Council designates. Non‐
consensual designation permitted
for Victorian buildings; Modern
buildings require owner consent.
Anyone may submit an application
for designation. No number or
percentage requirement for non‐
consensual designation. No age
requirement for designation. No
fee.
Design review by Hist.
Pres. Commission for
most exterior changes;
single set of design
guidelines; uses Sec. of
Interior Standards.
Contractors required to
take a historic
preservation licensing
exam before receiving a
permit to work on a
historic property
Review required for
buildings located in the
Main Street or
Commercial Core
Historic Districts, and
buildings on the
Inventory of Historic
Sites and Structures.
Delay for 90‐day
period.
500 sq. ft. Floor Area
Bonus for additions to
designated historic
properties;
0% interest loan up to
$25,000, based upon
financial need, for repairs
to properties in violation
of current zoning codes,
or threatened by neglect.
New inventory
forms, maps and
historic context
papers adopted only
every 10 years
starting in January
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Colorado Springs
Size/Population:
194.5 sq. mi./
431,834 people
(2012 est.)
Ordinance since 1988. 1 historic
district, 8 individual landmarks. City
Council designates. Non‐consensual
designation permitted. Owners,
preservation board may apply.
Fees: $1,350 “zone change fee.”
Historic preservation
overlay Zoning
Colorado Tax Credits for
Certified Rehabilitation
Virtual tours of
historic areas and
walking tours
available on‐line.
Surveys available in
hard copy.
Crested Butte
Size/Population:
540 acres/
1,550 people
(2011 est.)
N/A ‐ Nearly all of town is a
National Historic District, est. 1974.
All changes and new
construction reviewed.
New buildings employ
traditional massing and
materials; “Prevent
excessive uniformity,
dissimilarity,
inappropriateness or
poor quality of design in
the exterior appearance
of buildings & structures
throughout the Town…”
N/A
Denver
Size/Population:
153 sq. mi./
634,265 people
(2012 est.)
Ordinance since 1967. 51 districts,
332 individual landmarks. City
Council designates. Non‐consensual
designation permitted. No number
or percentage requirement for
designation. Minimum age 30
years. Fees: $250 for individual
property, $875 for non‐consensual
individual property; districts $500
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Grand Junction:
Size/Population:
38.2 sq. mi./
59,899 people
(2012 est.)
Ordinance since 1994. 1 historic
district, 28 individual landmarks.
City Council designates. Non‐
consensual designation permitted.
Owners, board may apply. $60 fee.
Historic Preservation
Program is under the
Department of Economic
development and
Sustainability
Greeley
Size/Population:
46.6 sq. mi./
95,357 people
(2012 est.)
Ordinance since 1995. 2 historic
districts, 83 individual landmarks.
Commission decides consensual
designations; City Council decides
non‐consensual designations.
Planning Commission, URA, DDA,
and any preservation organization
or group may apply. Non‐
consensual must meet higher
standard of significance. For district
designation, 2 owners must
nominate and greater than 50%
must consent. No minimum age.
Fees: $50 for individual property,
$100 for district.
General design review
guidelines and specific
district design standards.
Uses Secretary of the
Interior Standards and
additional criteria.
Pueblo
Size/Population:
53.6 sq. mi./
107,772 people
(2012 est.)
Ordinance since 2002. 2 historic
districts, 23 individual properties.
City Council designates. Non‐
consensual designation permitted.
Owner, board, council may apply.
No number or percentage
requirement . No age requirement
for designation. Fee: $150. Nat’l
Reg. properties automatically
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Ann Arbor, MI
Size/Population:
27.8 sq. mi./
116,121 people
(2012 est.)
City Council designates. Only
designates “districts” but several
districts consist of just a single
property; 14 historic districts
Historic District
Commission reviews all
applications for
alterations on buildings
within historic districts.
Approval and a
Certificate of
Appropriateness are
needed to complete any
work.
Demolitions are
permitted when the
commission deems that
retaining the structure
is a hazard to public
safety, would deter a
major improvement
project or for financial
hardship due to an
action beyond the
owner’s control.
Owners of historic
resources within locally
designated districts may
qualify for specific tax
credits. A state income
tax credit of 25% of
rehabilitation costs may
be available.
City staff provides
information on
historic districts and
assistance on
alteration
applications within
historic districts.
The Historic
Preservation
department does
offer energy
conservation
information on how
to make your
historic house
green.
Athens‐Clarke
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Austin, TX
Size/Population:
297.9 sq. mi./
842,592 people
(2012 est.)
City Council designates, non‐
consensual designation not
permitted. 3 local historic districts,
567 landmarks, 19 Nat’l Register
districts.
Historic Landmark
Commission reviews all
proposed exterior and
site alterations to
landmarks and
properties in Local
Historic Districts.
Determinations of
eligibility by the staff
required for all
applications; forwarded
to Board if work would
cause an adverse
impact on eligibility.
Board can recommend
‘historic zoning’ for the
property. 180 day
delay. Permit fees are
required; additional
fees if the project
requires review from
Board. McMansion
ordinance and
impervious cover
regulations that limit
size of new
construction.
City Council grants tax
exemptions of local
historic landmarks.
Amounts depend if
property is income‐
producing or not.
Exemptions must be
applied for yearly and an
inspection for
maintenance is required.
Meetings 2x a
month for
applicants seeking
Certificates of
Appropriateness.
Resources on the
Preservation
website. Austin is
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
requires that owners
spend the tax savings on
preserving and/or
restoring property.
Façade easements. State
par‐bond funds,
Community Development
Block Grants
Striving towards a
better outreach
program.
Cambridge, MA
Size/Population:
6.39 mi./
106,471 people
(2012 est.)
Historic Commission since 1963,
ordinance since 1979, 2 historic
districts, 30 local landmarks, 4
conservation districts, 39
properties with conservation
easements. City Council
designates, non‐consensual
designation permitted. Commission
or 10 register voters apply for
designation. Property must be 50
years old to be designated.
If structure demolished
without approval, then
no new permits can be
issued for that site for 2
years.
Investment Tax Credit,
easements providing
charitable contributions
deduction
Charleston, SC
Size/Population:
109 sq. mi./
125,583 people
(2012 est.)
Council designates. Ordinance since
1931 – 1st in nation. 5000
individual landmarks, 1000 acres
designated, plus 26 Landmark
Overlay Districts in 498 acres.
Clemson Univ. and College of
Charleston offer Hist. Pres.
graduate programs.
Demolition review of
properties over 75
years of age.
Eugene, OR
Size/Population:
43.7 sq. mi./
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Fredericksburg,
VA
Size/Population:
10.4 sq. mi./
27,307 people
(2012 est.)
Old and Historic Fredericksburg
District, consisting of 3 large sub‐
districts and 9 individual landmarks.
Univ. of Mary Washington offers
bachelor’s degree in Hist. Pres.
Preservation plan calls
for the preservation of
historic buildings and
streetscapes; requires an
eye towards the historic
context of each property
as an entity of its own
time and place.
Recent ordinances
enacted for context‐
driven zoning
requirements for
historic neighborhoods.
Zoning laws allow
requirements to be
context‐driven for
historic properties and
neighborhoods to avoid
out‐of‐character
development and
retain neighborhood
cohesion and theme.
Grand Rapids,
MI
Size/Population:
44.4 sq. mi./
190,411 people
(2012 est.)
City Commission designates, non‐
consensual designation permitted,
51% consent desired but not
required. Anyone may apply. 7
historic districts, 85 individual
landmarks.
Historic Preservation
Commission makes
decisions regarding all
demos/alterations –
appeal to MI State Hist.
Preservation Review
Board. $15 fee for staff
review; $75 for board.
In‐kind, minor and
standard work delegated
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Madison, WI
Size/Population
76.8 sq. mi./
240,323 people
(2012 est.)
Common Council designates, non‐
consensual designation permitted.
5 historic districts, 178 landmarks.
Landmarks Commission
must approve and issue
a Certificate of
Appropriateness for all
demolitions, alterations
and new construction on
a landmark site or in an
historic district. The
ordinance requires that
the Commission hold a
public hearing on all
demolitions except for
detached garages,
accessory buildings or
non‐residential buildings
constructed after 1945.
Single‐family houses
listed on the National
Register of Historic Places
or determined by the
State Historical Society to
be individually eligible for
the State Register of
Historic Places are eligible
for a 25% state income
tax credit on the costs of
rehabilitation.
Worked with
Madison Trust for
Historic
Preservation, an
historic
preservation non‐
profit with full‐time
staff. Madison Trust
has helped to save
and preserve
structures
throughout the city,
create educational
information for
residents and
promote historic
preservation
through various
tours.
Portland, OR
Attachment 2: Historic Preservation Program Comparison of Select Colorado and U.S. Communities
Municipality
Landmark Designation Design Review
Demolition Review Incentives Preservation
Activities
Seattle, WA
Size/Population:
83.9 sq. mi./
634,535 people
(2012 est.)
City Council designates, non‐
consensual designation permitted.
Anyone may apply. 8 districts, 450+
landmarks. A “controls and
incentives agreement” negotiated
for each individual property.
“Controls and incentives
agreement,” negotiated
for each individual
property, defines all
significant features and
their allowable
treatments.
Syracuse, NY
Size/Population:
25 sq. mi./
144,170 people
(2012 est.)
Common Council designates, non‐
consensual designation permitted.
Anyone may apply, no number or
percentage of consent required. 4
historic districts, 58 landmarks.
May also designate interiors.
May also designate and
review interiors.
Certificate of
Appropriateness
required for alterations
to locally designated
buildings.
Pre‐development
meeting for all
planning/zoning
projects. Preservation
staff also provides
comments for non‐
designated buildings.
No review for standard
building permits.
Properties flagged
using surveys 30+years
old. Looking to
implement 50+ years
demolition/alteration
process.
Tacoma, WA
Size/Population:
49.7 sq. mi./
202,010 people
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Policy, Planning & Transportation Services
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 26, 2012
To: Mayor Weitkunat and City Councilmembers
Thru: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager – Policy, Planning and Transportation
Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development and Transportation Director
From: Laurie Kadrich, Interim Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process
Executive Summary
Fort Collins has been a leader in the historic preservation movement. The City’s preservation program
began in 1968 with the Landmark Ordinance in the Fort Collins Municipal Code and the establishment of
the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC).
Revitalization of the City’s downtown began in the late 1970s with the Local, State, and National
Register designation of the Fort Collins Old Town Historic District (the first in the state). The result is
one of the most vibrant, successful historic downtowns in the country. The Laurel School National
Register District, containing over 600 properties, was designated in 1980. Today there are over 1,800
historically designated properties in Fort Collins, including the first 1950s-era local landmark residential
district designated in Colorado (Sheely Drive). In 1994, the City adopted the Historic Resources
Preservation Program Plan (HRPPP). On April 13, 2010 the Winter and Company Plan (Historic
Preservation Program Assessment) was presented and approved by the City Council for implementation.
Fort Collins has received over 70 historic preservation grants, translating into over $21,000,000. in direct
and indirect revenue as well as numerous State and National awards.
Even with the City’s Historic Preservation Program successes, there still remain questions about how
extensive the program should be, how it should fit within other community planning initiatives, and how
the program may be improved.
Opportunity Statement:
1. Immediate Needs: Improving the Eligibility Determination Process.
Some property owners expressed concern that it is unclear as to which requirements will apply; how
eligibility is determined, whether they can demolish a structure if they choose to, and what redress
measures are available to them. Conversely, neighbors expressed concerns that they are not notified soon
enough in the process to influence any decisions and/or help provide options to the owner. City Council
members also expressed concern and asked for prompt action to address process issues related to
eligibility determination and opportunity for appeals of eligibility status. They also expressed concern
ATTACHMENT 5
Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process
April 26, 2012
Page 2
- 2 -
about how residents learn about historic designation and whether their input is part of the review process
early enough.
Recommendation: Modify the current code/process as soon as practical and adopt the following
measures:
Allow for an appeal of the initial eligibility status, first to the LPC and then to City Council.
Allow for any party to request an eligibility hearing before the board in addition to/or instead of
the determination review by the CDNS director and the LPC chair.
Provide public notice to neighbors prior to an eligibility hearing before the LPC.
Provide public notice to neighbors prior to any demolition of a primary building, structure or site.
Timeframe and Process: Ready for City Council review within 3-4 months. A collaborative effort
between City Legal Staff, LPC, City Council and a small number of citizens will develop the immediate
solutions to the current eligibility process. Taking immediate steps that can be completed more quickly
than a broader review will strengthen the current eligibility process and allow for an eligibility
determination appeal without debating what should be eligible or identifying the more systemic changes
necessary. Those processes require more citizen, council and board member discussion as suggested in
Part 2.
2. Broader Review of the Overall Historic Preservation Program
Some owners of locally landmarked properties expressed concerns that they are not clear about the
requirements that will apply; others are worried that the requirements will be strict and that there will be
no flexibility in treatment of their properties. Other preservation-related concerns arise in the course of
the development review and permitting, when dealing with a property that is 50 years or older. Within
the context of these general concerns more specific questions will be addressed:
Does the preservation program operate efficiently?
Does it reflect best practices that are recognized nationally?
Are there ways to improve its function?
Is it too restrictive in some areas? Conversely, is it too permissive in others?
Should the program offer flexibility in treatment to property owners? And if so, how?
Can determinations of historic significance and appropriateness of proposed work be made more
predictable?
How can the program be more effective in achieving its objectives?
Is the City doing enough, in terms of historic preservation?
How can preservation interests be balanced with other community development objectives?
How will the City address new, emerging trends and issues in preservation, sustainability and
neighborhood conservation? (e.g. is the 50-year building review criteria relevant today?)
Recommendation: Improve predictability and effectiveness in the Historic Preservation Program by
implementing the code and processes strategies identified in December 2010, by Winter & Company in
their assessment of the Historic Preservation Program from 2015 to 2012. They identified several “key
issues” for the program:
Providing more information to property owners in advance.
Determining in advance if a property has historic significance.
Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process
April 26, 2012
Page 3
- 3 -
Identifying the role of historic resources in city plans and policies.
Understanding the guidelines for treatment of historic properties and the flexibility that may be
available in design review.
Clarifying the steps in the review processes for different property types.
City Council members and others also expressed concern about the effectiveness of a 50-year criterion on
all properties, sites, and structure and analyze whether other methods such as a tier-approach would be
appropriate for the community today.
Timeframe and Process: A core team of staff and interested citizens will be formed this summer to begin
process planning, as well as develop a project time line and implementation steps and strategies to “kick
off” in the fall. Their initial work includes a review of the Landmark Preservation Code and the Historic
Preservation Program Assessment. During the fall, the team will conduct public outreach including a
survey, open houses and board and commission members’ input on the strategies developed. The project
team will schedule a workshop with the City Council to review information developed and seek further
direction on process, timeline to move forward with recommendations.
Attachments
1. Historic Preservation Program Assessment
2. Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
3. Flow Chart; How Historic Properties are Reviewed (available on our web-site)
ATTACHMENT 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
GLOSSARY OF FREQUENTLY USED TERMS
Local landmark – A property that has been officially recognized as meeting one or
more of the standards for landmark designation and which has been designated as a
landmark by official action. The standards for Fort Collins landmark designation are
contained in Municipal Code Chapter 14, and describe a property:
(1) Which has a special character or special historic or aesthetic interest or value as
part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or
nation;
(2) Wherein any event of major historic significance with a measurable effect upon
society took place;
(3) Which is closely identified with a person or group of persons who have had some
measurable influence on society;
(4) Wherein the broad cultural, political, economic or social heritage of the
community is exemplified;
(5) Which faithfully portrays the environment of a group of people in an era of
history characterized by a distinctive architectural style or which embodies those
distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type specimen or which is the
work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the
development of the city;
(6) Which, because of being a part of or related to a square, park or other distinctive
area, should be developed or preserved according to a plan based upon a historic,
cultural or architectural significance;
(7) Which, due to unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an
established, familiar and significant visual feature of the neighborhood,
community or city;
(8) Is officially designated as a Fort Collins landmark or Fort Collins landmark
district pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
Local landmark district - A geographically definable area possessing a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, structures, or objects officially recognized
as meeting one or more of the standards for designation and which have been designated
as a landmark district by official action. Historic district is a generic term used by many
people and communities.
Individual landmark/individually eligible - A site, structure or object eligible for local
landmark designation, or formally designated by Council action, that substantially retains
its exterior integrity. The property may have minor alterations but these alterations will
not have compromised the site’s, structure’s or object’s exterior integrity.
Contributing to a district – A site, structure or object eligible for designation, or
formally designated, that has experienced some alterations which, while not seriously
damaging the exterior integrity of the property, have altered the appearance enough to be
noted. These sites, structures, or objects retain enough exterior integrity to contribute to
the significant characteristics of the district.
ATTACHMENT 7
Noncontributing/not eligible - A site, structure or object which does not possess
sufficient significance and/or exterior integrity necessary for designation, and is
considered noncontributing to a landmark district, or not eligible to be designated.
District designation – Official recognition by City Council of a site, structure, object or
district for listing on Fort Collins’ Landmark register.
State designation – Official recognition by the Colorado State Review Board of a site,
structure, object or district for listing on the Colorado State Register of Historic
Properties.
National designation - Official recognition by the Keeper of the National Register of a
site, structure, object or district for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
The National Register of Historic Places is the list of all properties in the United States
that have been officially designated on this list.
Determination of Eligibility - A decision by the Director and the Landmark Preservation
Commission Chair, or by the full Commission, that a site, structure, object or district
meets one (1) or more of the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark.
Exterior integrity - The ability of a property to convey its significance. To be designated
as a landmark, a property must not only be shown to be significant, but also must have
exterior integrity. The degree of integrity required for landmark status is relative to a
property’s significance. Exterior integrity is the composite of seven (7) aspects or
qualities, which in various combinations define integrity: location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The more qualities present in a
property, the higher its integrity. Ultimately the question of exterior integrity is answered
by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. Location is
the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event occurred. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan space,
structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic
property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an
event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place. It involves how, not just
where, the property is situated and its relationship to the surrounding features and open
space. Materials are the physical elements that form a historic property. Workmanship is
the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in
constructing or altering a building, structure, or site. Feeling is a property’s expression of
the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period or time. It results from the presence of
physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity
occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling,
association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic
character.
Significance - The importance of a property as defined by the standards for designation
as a Fort Collins landmark or landmark district. The standards for designation are:
(1) The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of history; or
(2) The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; or
(3) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or
(4) The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
Historic Preservation Program – The activities of the City that relate to the
identification, protection and treatment of sites, structures, objects, and districts that
could qualify as eligible for landmark designation, and those officially designated as
landmarks.
1
1
Historic Preservation
Process Improvements
Laurie Kadrich,
Director, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
Karen McWilliams,
Historic Preservation Planner
City Council Work Session
August 27, 2013
2
Questions for City Council:
• Are the Historic Preservation Program
components still relevant?
• Should staff bring forward proposed revisions
to Municipal Code Chapter 14?
• Is fifty years the appropriate age for properties
to be reviewed?
– If so, should staff proceed with additional
study of options in the near future?
ATTACHMENT 8
2
3
Historic Preservation
Process Improvements – Phase 1
• Timely notice to neighbors & community
• Appeals process
• Professional survey if appeal is sought
• Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC)
member qualification requirements
4
Historic Preservation Process
Improvements - Phase 2
• Survey on Demolition/Alteration Review
Process
• Comparison of practices in 22 communities
• Citizens Advisory Committee and
Landmark Preservation Commission
3
5
Old vs. Historic?
Question: What is the difference between an old
building and a historic building? What makes a
building eligible? How are properties evaluated?
Answer: Determinations of eligibility are based on a
buildings ability to meet specific standards of age,
historical significance, and physical integrity.
6
Minimum Threshold for Evaluation
Question: How does Fort Collins’ 50 year threshold
for historic review compare with what other
communities are doing, and with NPS standards?
Answer: Nearly all communities use fifty years as the
minimum threshold for evaluation. When they differed
from this norm, the threshold is usually reduced;
examples are Denver’s 35 years and Greeley’s 40.
4
7
Making Eligibility More Predictable
Question: How can the potential of a property’s
eligibility be more predictable?
Answer: Staff has identified several means:
• Brochure explaining the eligibility process
• Post previous determinations of eligibility on-line
• Increase length of time determinations are good for
• Interactive GIS maps and historic “wiki” webpage
8
Local Designation and Design Review
Question: How does Fort Collins compare to other
communities in its number of designations, and in its
treatment of designated properties?
Answer: Fort Collins has many more individual local
designations (262) and fewer local districts (3) than
most communities. All communities surveyed require
design review, and nearly all use the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties as their criteria
5
9
Demolition/Alteration Review
Question: Is Demolition/Alteration Review still
relevant? Is Fort Collins’ process best practice?
Answer: Process created as means for citizens to
have say in protecting properties they believe are
important. Fort Collins does not comply with national
standards in its treatment of “contributing” properties.
10
How Can We Improve the
Demolition/Alteration Review Process?
Question: Are there ways to improve our
Demolition/Alteration Review process to be more like
other communities?
Answer: Evaluate properties as eligible or not eligible,
and implement tiered levels of review tied to the
impact of the proposed change.
6
11
Policy Issues Needing Council Direction
• Proposed revisions to the Landmark Preservation
Code, Municipal Code Chapter 14
• How will the program address the large number of
properties that will be subject to the City’s review
process in the near future?
12
Revisions to the
Landmark Preservation Code
• Reorganizing code sections and adding language
• Housekeeping changes
7
13
Substantive Changes to the
Landmark Preservation Code
• CDNS Director may approve minor permits
• LPC Subcommittee may recommend approval of
alterations to Director
• LPC provide recommendation on development
projects to Hearing Officer and Planning and
Zoning Board
14
Policy Issues Needing Council Direction
How to address the large number of properties subject
to Demolition/ Alteration Review in the near future?
• Do not have a review process
• Cut-off date; those built after date not reviewed
• Add filter, such as location or architectural style
• Overlay zoning
• Character areas with different requirements
• Add additional resources
8
15
Public Outreach
• Citizens Review Committee (CAC) with
representation from all major stakeholders
• Extensive discussion with Landmark
Preservation Commission
• Survey of those who used or were affected
by Demolition/Alteration Review process
16
Questions for City Council:
• Are the Historic Preservation Program
components still relevant?
• Should staff bring forward proposed revisions
to Municipal Code Chapter 14?
• Is fifty years the appropriate age for properties
to be reviewed?
– If so, should staff proceed with additional
study of options in the near future?
9
17
Thank You
(2012 est.)
City Council designates, non‐
consensual designation permitted.
Anyone may apply. Property must
be 50 years old to be designated. 3
historic districts, 1,300 properties
designated at local, state and
national levels.
Preservation toolkit that
includes financial
subsidies, loans, and
grants, including a
property tax exemption.
Size/Population
133.4 sq. mi./
603,106 people
(2012 est.)
Preservation Commission
designates, non‐consensual
designation not permitted by state
statute. Different levels of
designation based upon
significance: Historic Landmarks ‐
both Nat’l. Reg. and local – about
500; Nat’l Historic Landmarks ‐2;
Conservation Landmarks‐ 12;
Properties of “lesser” significance.
Different regulations for each
category.
Demolition of Nat’l
Reg. property reviewed
differently than locally
designated property;
120 day demo delay.
to staff. 300‐375 design
reviews annually, 80% by
staff.
157,986 people
(2012 est.)
Council designates, non‐consensual
designation not permitted by state
statute. 300 individual landmarks.
Historic Review Board is
subcommittee of Planning
Commission.
Historic review using
criteria based on the
Secretary of the Interior
Standards.
Historic Overlay Zone
provides flexibility in
uses and standards.
piloting a Historical
Survey Wiki
designed to make
survey information
accessible all and
allow the public to
add information
about historic
properties. The city
plans to undertake a
comprehensive
survey over the next
three to four years.
This information
would become the
basis for the wiki.
Berkeley, CA
Size/Population:
10.5 sq. mi./
115,403 people
(2012 est.)
Landmark Preservation Commission
designates. Non‐consensual
designation permitted with verified
application of at least 50 residents.
4 historic districts, 39 structures of
merit, 281 landmarks.
Design review by staff or
a Design Review
Committee. Approved
Landmark Alteration
Permits required for all
new construction and
exterior alterations.
Mills Act – CA law
allowing cities to enter
into contracts with
owners of historic
structures. Require a
reduction of property
taxes in exchange for
preservation of the
property. Berkeley
City believes
“Historic and
cultural resources
are much more
likely to be
preserved if citizens
are aware of them
and believe in their
importance.”
County, GA
Size/Population:
116.4 sq. mi./
118,999 people
(2012 est.)
Mayor/County Commission
designates, non‐consensual
designation permitted. Anyone may
apply for designation, no number
or percentage of consent required.
11 districts, 41 landmarks.
The majority of exterior
changes to designated
buildings go to
Preservation
Commission. Staff can
review very minor
alterations such as
fences. Ten districts use
same set of guidelines;
two districts have their
own guidelines.
Recently implemented
demo/alt review
process.
Property tax freeze for 10
years ‐ 8 years of
complete freeze,
followed by 2 years of
incremental freeze
added to local list.
Some design review;
design guidelines for
historic commercial
district.
Surveys and historic
contexts published
on‐line. Staff does
bicycle and walking
tours. Information
given to “welcome
wagon” so new
homeowners are
aware of the
required review
process.
to $1500 based on number of
properties. If non‐consensual,
requires minimum of three
applicants.
Extensive design review
for exterior changes;
majority of review done
by staff.
General design
guidelines and district
specific guidelines for
some historic districts.
Uses Secretary of the
Interior Standards and
additional criteria.
All buildings larger than
120 square feet are
reviewed, regardless of
age. Determinations of
eligibility by staff. If the
structure is eligible
property posted for 21
days. If no designation
application is received ,
then the demolition is
approved. If landmark
designation process is
initiated, City Council
has 120 days to act.
Works closely with
Historic Denver, Inc.
a preservation non‐
profit advocacy
organization.
Historic Denver has
developed walking
and bicycle tours
and a smart phone
app to engage
residents and
visitors. Also has
published several
booklets on historic
neighborhoods.
2011
Boulder
Size/Population:
24.7 sq. mi./
101,808 people
(2012 est.)
Ordinance since 1975. 10 historic
districts, 162 individual landmarks.
City Council designates. Non‐
consensual designation permitted,
25% owner consent required.
Owners, Council, Commission,
organizations with preservation
interest may apply. No minimum
age. Fees: $25 for individual
property, $75 for district.
Landmark Alteration
Certificate (LAC) review
of exterior changes to all
landmark properties.
Three levels of review:
staff; Landmarks Design
Review Committee
(LDRC); and Landmarks
Board.
200 to 300 LAC reviews
annually. 60% of
applications reviewed by
staff. Adopted design
guidelines, and district‐
specific guidelines for
most historic districts.
Uses Secretary of the
Interior Standards and
additional criteria.
Required for all non‐
designated buildings
50+ years old.
Demolition defined as
the removal of 50% of
the exterior walls; 50%
of the roof area; or
removal of any exterior
wall facing a public
street. Buildings
constructed after 1940
reviewed by LDRC.
Buildings built 1940
and before reviewed by
Board. Delay for 180
days. Approximately
60‐100 applications
reviewed by staff each
year; Board reviews
four to six applications
per year.
14 incentives: Tax
advantages (federal, state
tax credits, City sales tax
waiver); State Historical
Fund grants; review
assistance through LDRC;
exemptions/variances
from select building and
zoning code standards;
recognition through a
plaque program for
individual landmarks.
Both County and City
have open space taxes to
purchase natural areas
and parklands; may
include properties with
historic value.
Partnership with
Historic Boulder, for
advocacy, education
and outreach.
Preservation Month
Activities, including
tours and an awards
ceremony.
Presentations to
local organizations.
Informational
brochures.
Digitization of
survey forms on
City’s Carnegie
Library for Local
History’s website.
Production of a
video about historic
preservation in
Boulder.
with a determination of
eligibility for local
designation and a
determination of the
effect of the proposed
work on that eligibility.
Determinations made
by the CDNS Director
and LPC Chair; may be
appealed. Extensive
public notice. CDNS
Director/LPC Chair may
refer to LPC for review.
LPC review requires fee
of $250, survey form,
information about the
historic character of
the neighborhood; and
approved plans for the
proposed work. Fort
Collins conducts an
average of 307 reviews
each year.
20% State Income Tax
Credits; Federal
Investment Credits of
10% and 20%; Landmark
Rehabilitation Loan
Program with $7,500
yearly no interest loans;
$2,000 for professional
design assistance for
alterations or additions;
State Historic Fund grants
of up to 50% of project
cost; Historic Structure
Assessment Grants of up
to $15,000 for thorough
assessment of building,
and to evaluate needs for
new use. Other financial
programs which may also
be used for historic
preservation projects
include Downtown
Development Authority
Facade Funds,
Community Development
Block Grants; Local
Development Company
Low‐Interest Loans
Recipient of
numerous State and
National awards
and recognitions.
Awarded 82
preservation grants.
In previous years,
the program has
conducted historic
walking tours, held
yearly Preservation
Mixers, and twice
organized Old
House Workshops.
Offers resources
and educational
tools for owners of
historic structures,
and technical
information to assist
property owners.
ATTACHMENT 2