HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/27/2013 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
August 27, 2013
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. High Park Fire Recovery Status. (staff: Kevin Gertig; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session presentation is to provide City Council with a
comprehensive update on the impacts of High Park Fire specific to our watershed.
As requested, staff will continue to provide updates to Council on a routine frequency
and present the current recovery work plan being conducted under the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) funding
program.
This presentation will cover the following topics:
• Background on the High Park Fire
• Recent watershed impacts and debris management challenges
• 2012 work completed
• 2013 work plan
• Financial impacts
• Environmental impacts.
1 of 141
August 27, 2013
3. On-Bill Utility Financing Pilot Update. (staff: John Phelan, Mike Beckstead; 1 hour
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide a Council-requested update on the On-Bill Utility
Financing Program after nine months of implementation.
Ordinance No. 033, 2012 revised language in Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code to
enable Utilities to provide financing and on-bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency,
water efficiency and renewable energy projects.
The On-Bill Financing Program (OBF) pilot began in November 2012, offering on-bill
repayment of loans for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency
Program, the Solar Rebate Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a
water supply line. Participation in the program as of August 14, 2013 consists of four
completed loans and two loans in the approved/pending process.
When the pilot program was approved, Council requested an update at a work session to
determine progress. Staff is recommending a number of changes to the structure and
terms of the program to position the program for greater activity levels.
4. Historic Preservation Process Improvements, Phase 2. (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Karen
McWilliams; 1 hour discussion)
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.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
2 of 141
DATE: August 27, 2013
STAFF: Kevin Gertig
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
High Park Fire Recovery Status.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session presentation is to provide City Council with a comprehensive
update on the impacts of High Park Fire specific to our watershed.
As requested, staff will continue to provide updates to Council on a routine frequency and present
the current recovery work plan being conducted under the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) funding program.
This presentation will cover the following topics:
• Background on the High Park Fire
• Recent watershed impacts and debris management challenges
• 2012 work completed
• 2013 work plan
• Financial impacts
• Environmental impacts.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The presentation will be for informational purposes only and will provide the current work schedule
as well as watershed impacts observed during the monsoon season.
After the presentation, ample time will be allotted for questions and answers from staff.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The High Park Wildfire burned 259 homes and approximately 87,000 acres of forest and private
land west of Fort Collins in June – July 2012. The City of Fort Collins began immediate steps
managing seeding and mulching to decrease sediment debris flows, poor water quality, and recovery
planning.
In August 2012, City Council approved emergency appropriation of $635,000. As the work
continued, there was an additional appropriation of $2.0 million last September for additional
mulching and seeding. The 2013 Budget included $1 million for anticipated, but unidentified capital
improvements related to the fire. Subsequent analysis determined the most effective capital
improvement to be a pre-sedimentation basin at a total cost of $2.1 million. In April of this year,
$1.25 million was appropriated to fully fund the pre-sedimentation basin. The NRCS has $4.375
3 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 2
million available for the soil remediation and stabilization efforts in 2013 related to this fire. The
City has worked closely with the City of Greeley to optimize the use of those funds to protect the
watershed. The pre-sedimemtation basin is not eligible for the NRCS funds; however, the Tri-
Districts have agreed to reimburse the City for half of the cost of that project in 2014.
It is anticipated that the City of Fort Collins Utilities could experience water quality-related issues
for another 2 – 8 years in the Cache la Poudre River.
Staff has completed an updated intergovernmental agreement for 2013 for the purpose of mulching,
slope stabilization, debris removal and tree felling activities.
The main contract for mulching and tree felling, through the City of Greeley, will begin August 26,
2013 and continue until October 2013. Staff from the City will be involved in quality assurance and
inspections of approximately 1600 acres of land that will be treated in 2013, and continues to be
active in all phases of water quality monitoring, assessments, and emergency preparedness.
FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is imperative that the City of Fort Collins takes a proactive response to help restore the Cache la
Poudre watershed. Our water is essential for public health, firefighting, and maintaining the
economic health in Fort Collins. The City is well known for excellent water quality, which our
residents and businesses depend on.
The High Park Fire continues to have significant financial impact to all water users of the Cache la
Poudre River. The City participated in mulching and seeding of approximately 3000 acres of
private land in 2012, along with the cosponsors, at a total cost to the City of $1.3 million in 2012.
The additional work to be completed in 2013 will bring the total cost to the City for soil stabilization
efforts to $2.8 million, before any NRCS reimbursements. It is expected that the total cost to the
City for soil remediation efforts in 2012 and 2013, after all NRCS reimbursements are received, will
be approximately $750,000. The total cost to the City for the pre-sedimentation basin will be
approximately $1 million, once the Tri-Districts pay the City $1 million for their portion of the
project in 2014. Utility water rates were increased 4% in January 2013 in order to increase operating
revenue by $1 million to pay for capital improvements and increased operation and maintenance
costs associated with increased sediment in the River. Through July 2013, the year-to-date operating
revenue is $1.5M less than that of 2012 through July. Staff will be requesting City Council to
approve an additional 1% rate increase in 2014 for recovery operations and maintenance
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The 87,000 acre fire impacted each watershed area in the Cache la Poudre Watershed. Hydrologists
and City staff have examined each area and rated the severity based on the burned area, as well as
how well vegetation has grown in the spring of 2013.
The environmental impacts include, but are not limited to, possible aquatic life impacts (e.g., fish
and river biology), increased sediment the River banks, which gets suspended with increased flows,
growth of invasive weeds on properties, increase in atmospheric dust particles due to eroded and
burnt soil, increased water treatment costs, and increased costs for sampling, and site visits to
impacted areas. Staff has identified significant sediment erosion on 21 different areas in the Poudre
4 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 3
Canyon. Of those, there are three top priorities and the cost to improve the sites is estimated to be
$2.7 million.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has been managing the public outreach for the High Park Fire since July 2012. The extensive
outreach effort has focused on public awareness and education to support customers in managing
the Cache la Poudre watershed. Key efforts to date are:
• Media interviews
• Bill inserts and City News articles
• Utility website with a focus on High Park Fire
• Articles in City and local newsletters, newspapers and other outlets
• Speakers Bureau that has reached over 800 individuals to date both with internal and
external presentations to key customer accounts, landscape contractors, restaurants and
others
ATTACHMENTS
1. Press Release, August 16, 2013
2. Timeline of Activities
3. Powerpoint presentation
5 of 141
Donna Brosemer Lisa Rosintoski, Fort Collins Utilities Suzanne Bassinger
Government & Public Relations Customer Connections Manager Larimer County
Water & Sewer Department 970-416-2432 Fire Recovery Mgr.
970.518.6767 lrosintoski@fcgov.com 970.498.7148,
donna.brosemer@greeleygov.com sbassinger@larimer.org
NEWS RELEASE
August 16, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
SUBJECT: High Park Fire mitigation Work to Begin August 18
On August 18, trucks will once again begin hauling tons of certified weed-free straw and wood mulch to
staging sites in Poudre Canyon, where helicopters will drop the material on hillsides that were badly
burned during last year’s High Park Fire. A total of approximately 1,700 acres will be treated this year.
Residents and citizens driving along the Poudre Canyon need to be aware of the helicopters and truck traffic
that will be performing the restoration activities beginning on August 18.
In 2012, a partnership of Fort Collins, Greeley and the Tri-Districts spent $3.5 million to treat 2,600 acres of
the 5,500 identified as the most severely burned. Of that amount, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) provided $1.3 million. Many of the treated hillsides have begun to regrow and stabilize.
Congress passed legislation in early March to provide Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) funding for
mitigation efforts related to High Park Fire restoration efforts. The EWP funding recognizes that
management of restoration will be performed by co-sponsors, including Larimer County, and the Cities of
Fort Collins and Greeley. As a result, projects that will decrease fire-related impacts, such as, flooding,
mudslides, water quality, etc., are being pursued by the co-sponsors. The NRCS will control the restoration
project management and fund distribution based on agreements with the co-sponsors. Thus, the cities of
Greeley and Fort Collins, along with Larimer County, are partnering to complete the work.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service Emergency Watershed Protection grant provides 75% of the
cost of watershed mitigation, with local communities providing the remaining 25%. Co-sponsors will work
collaboratively to manage the prioritized projects with a scheduled completion date of December 1, 2013.
Mitigation projects are expected to complete much of the remaining soil stabilization process. Treatment
activities include aerial application of wood mulch in steep slope locations, enhanced mitigation techniques
learned from the Hewlett Fire burn area, debris cleanup in waterways, and protection of identified at-risk
homes and infrastructure. Outcomes of mitigation efforts will minimize mud slides, erosion and water quality
impacts.
#####
ATTACHMENT 1
6 of 141
High Park Fire Mitigation Activities Timeline
June 7
Poudre River offline –
erratic raw water quality
due to rains
June 9
High Park Fire ignites
July 11
High Park Fire
contained
July 25
Completed sponsorship
letter for NRCS to start
federal funding process
Aug. 9
Larimer County Commissioners
approved landowner letters of
permission for Hill Gulch
Aug. 16
Met with Colorado Water
Congress in Steamboat for
financial assistance with
mitigation
Aug. 21
City Council presentation
(re: emergency
appropriation for
June 2012 July August mitigation) September October
Aug. 27
Aerial mulching
begins
Sept. 17
Began drawing water from
Poudre River
week Sept. 24
Shut down Poudre intake
due to rain
week Oct. 1
Drawing water from river
Mulching in progress
Oct. 8
2012 mitigation
work complete
(seeding/mulching)
EWP - Emergency Watershed Protection
NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation Service
Sponsors - Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley and Larimer County
January 2013 February March July August October
Jan. 14
Met with Senator Bennet
Work continues to secure
EWP funding
Congress approves EWP funding
for restoration - $7.2M to be
divided among sponsors based
on work activities
July 29
Fort Collins signs Technical
Assistance Agreement
Mitigation work begins -
1
High Park Fire:
Restoration and Mitigation Update
Kevin Gertig,
Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager
August 27, 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
8 of 141
2
Presentation Objectives
• Mission
• Background
• High Park Fire Recovery Work
• Concerns
• Mitigation work
• 2013 work plan
• Financial Impacts
• Environmental impacts
9 of 141
3
Mission of the High Park Recovery Team
10 of 141
4
Background
• Lightning strike in the High Park area
• Reported June 9, 2012
• >87,000 acres – low, medium, and high
severity
11 of 141
5
Background: Total Acres Burned
• National Forest Service 42,634
• Other Federal 261
• State 5,022
• Private 39,570
__________________________________
Total Acres Burned 87,487
12 of 141
6 13 of 141
7
High Park Fire Recovery Work:
Watersheds – High Quality Source
Pre-High Park Fire Post-High Park Fire
Photo – Jill Oropeza
14 of 141
8
Gertig
15 of 141
9 Source: High Park BAER Team
16 of 141
10
Hill Gulch
Poudre River
1st Priority
High Park Burn Area Boundary
17 of 141
11
High Park Fire Recovery Work:
Fall of 2012 - Status
• Weather indicated drought plan and restrictions
• We needed more funding!
Completed with award of >$7 Million of EWP
funding
• Did not know how mulch would help
• Needed a presedimentation basin
Completed in June 2013
• Much work to be done
Team assembled
18 of 141
12
High Park Fire Recovery Work:
May – 2013
Note: new plant growth in some areas
19 of 141
13
High Park Fire Recovery Work:
Lessons Learned - Milton Seaman Case Study
20 of 141
14
High Park Fire Recovery Work:
Debris Management:
Investigations by our team
21 of 141 Larimer County Road and Bridge
15
High Park Fire Recovery Work:
Level of Work
• Watershed studies
• Treat Poudre River except for high turbidity
events
• City of Fort Collins is a co-sponsor for watershed
mulch work in 2013
• NRCS and co-sponsors have completed an
updated mitigation plan
• Work begins August 26; staging work August 18
Municipal Operations & Agriculture Diversions
Affected
2012 Sediment Continues to move
22 of 141
16
Concerns:
Transportation and Public Safety Issues
• Debris
• Structures
• July storms
• Debris Skin Gulch
• Monroe Tunnel
23 of 141
17
Concerns:
Debris – Sediment Transfer
Jill Oropeza Lisa Voytko
24 of 141
18
Concerns:
Structures
25 of 141
19
Concerns:
July 28, 2013 – 1 Inch
26 of 141
20
Concerns:
Log Jam Example – MM 106.5
Tony Simons - LCSD
27 of 141
21
Concerns:
July 13, 2013 – Poudre Canyon
28 of 141
22
July 12 storm – 3way rapid area
Photo: Lucas Mouttet
29 of 141
23
July 12 storm – 3way rapid area
Photo: Lucas Mouttet
30 of 141
24
s in Skin Gulch
Photo: Lucas Mouttet
31 of 141
25 Photo: Lucas
Mouttet
06.24 before July 12 storm
Photo: Lucas Mouttet
32 of 141
26 Photo: Lucas
Mouttet
oe Tunnel June 29
Photo: Lucas Mouttet
33 of 141
27 Photo: Lucas
Mouttet
nroe Tunnel June 29
Photo: Lucas Mouttet
34 of 141
28
Cache la Poudre River
Mitigation Work:
Staff Sampling July 12, 2013
35 of 141
29
Mitigation Work:
Presedimentation Basin
36 of 141
30
Randall – May 1, 2013
Mitigation Work:
Presedimentation Basin Construction
37 of 141
31
Photo: Lucas Mouttet
Mitigation Work:
Presedimentation Basin
38 of 141
32
Mitigation Work:
Priorities Established by the BAER Report
Case studies and experts agree: Stabilize the soil
and reduce erosion
Re-apply if storms or wind move material
Most of Hewlett Gulch work (2012) is holding and
doing what was expected (City of Greeley)
– Hill Gulch – Completed
– Boyd Gulch - Completed
– Other smaller areas next to Boyd - Completed
39 of 141
33
High Park Fire Mitigation Areas
City of Greeley 40 of 141
34
2013 Work plan
41 of 141
35
2013 Work Plan:
co-sponsors inspectors (mulch and tree felling)
42 of 141
36
Mulch Areas for 2013 Refined
43 of 141
37
2013 Work Plan:
Hill Gulch – After Seed and Mulch
44 of 141
38
2013 Work Plan:
Future Challenges
• How to deal with future fires in watersheds
– NCWCD currently studying the affects of CBT
• Water rights versus Water Quality
– Mother nature was kind this year
• Debris and sediment – new impacts have been
documented – Brian V et al
45 of 141
39
2013 Work Plan:
Private Property Notifications – 5600 Acres
46 of 141
40
Mulch Drop Hill Gulch 9-1-12 Gertig
2013 Work Plan:
Mulch Drop
47 of 141
41
Financial Summary
2012 Actual Expenses
Seeding & Mulching Costs $1,315,724
Design & install monitoring stations $12,387
Staff time assisting during fire $8,217
Total 2012 Expenses $1,336,328
48 of 141
42
Financial Summary
2013 Actual Expenses Year-to-Date
Study Participation $16,665
Advocacy services $14,024
Staff time- project planning $17,205
Hourly Employee Labor $9,086
Pre-sedimentation Basin $1,500,875
Chlorine dioxide project $141,398
Total YTD (7/31/13) Expenses $1,699,253
49 of 141
43
Financial Summary
2013 Expected Expenses after 7/31/13
Pre-sedimentation Basin $185,000
Seeding & Mulching Costs $1,500,000
Total Additional 2013 Expenses $1,685,000
50 of 141
44
Financial Summary
Expense Reimbursements (and Grants)
To Date:
NRCS 2012 Expense Reimbursement $398,658
FEMA 2012 Expense Reimbursement $7,752
Total Reimbursements to Date $406,410
Anticipated:
NRCS 2013 Expense Reimbursement $1,750,000
NRCS 2013 Technical Grant $90,000
Tri-District Reimbursement for Pre-
sedimentation Basin
$850,000
Total Anticipated Reimbursements $2,690,000
51 of 141
45
Rebuilding our sustainable community…
52 of 141
DATE: August 27, 2013
STAFF: John Phelan
Mike Beckstead
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
On-Bill Utility Financing Pilot Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide a Council-requested update on the On-Bill Utility
Financing Program after nine months of implementation.
Ordinance No. 033, 2012 revised language in Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code to enable Utilities
to provide financing and on-bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and
renewable energy projects.
The On-Bill Financing Program (OBF) pilot began in November 2012, offering on-bill repayment
of loans for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate
Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line. Participation in the
program as of August 14, 2013 consists of four completed loans and two loans in the
approved/pending process.
When the pilot program was approved, Council requested an update at a work session to determine
progress. Staff is recommending a number of changes to the structure and terms of the program to
position the program for greater activity levels.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Based on the pilot program activity and early lessons learned, does Council continue to
support the On-Bill Utility Financing Program?
2. Seek feedback from Council on proposed modifications to the program to enhance its
effectiveness.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Policy Alignment
The pilot On-Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals of Plan Fort Collins, the
Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan. The program is a valuable
addition to Utilities’ efficiency and renewable energy programs which foster sustainability through
energy and water use reductions, local contractors and investment in the built environment and
improved home comfort, health and safety.
53 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 2
History
Fort Collins Utilities offered the Zero Interest Loan Program (ZILCH) from the early 1980s until
late last year. The program was very successful for many years. However, from 2002 to 2009 the
program saw relatively little activity. The recent national mortgage crisis resulted in changes to the
requirements for local government entities to be able to originate loans for home improvements.
As a result, the Zero Interest Loan Program was suspended in early 2011. The program restarted
in fall 2011 under a model where the loans are unsecured. Based on the Home Efficiency Program
structure, ZILCH loan activity ramped up from 2010 through 2012. The On-bill Financing Program
has superseded the energy and water efficiency aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program. The air
quality related aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program, with funding from the Environmental
Services Department, continues under a revised administrative model.
OBF Program Development
The OBF program was developed collaboratively by Utilities (Energy Services and Billing),
Finance, and City Attorney departments. The program uses the pre-existing standard capabilities
of the Utilities billing system. In compliance with federal and state lending rules, customer
qualification and loan closing services are provided in partnership with a third party financial
partner, EnergySmart Partners LLC. EnergySmart Partners is a subsidiary of the non-profit
Funding Partners, a Community Development Financial Institution. Program fees and the interest
rate range are defined in Utilities’ residential rate ordinances. The City Finance Department
developed a set of rules and regulations for administrative implementation of the OBF program.
Home Efficiency Program Description
Utilities Home Efficiency Program provides a comprehensive and best practices approach to
improving the performance of existing homes. The Home Efficiency Program elements guide
homeowners with:
• Low-cost audits, which prioritize home improvement measures to address the barrier of
“what to do”
• Participating contractor lists, which address the barrier of “who to call”
• Rebates, which partially address the “first cost” barrier
• Installation standards and verification, which address the barrier of “is it done right”
• Free energy advisor services in support of customers throughout the process
As such, the OBF program has been integrated into the Home Efficiency Program to provide a
financing mechanism for homeowners to implement recommendations from the audit in a more
comprehensive package than a homeowner could typically afford to pay for with cash.
OBF Program Summary
The objective of OBF program is to increase the number of residential efficiency and renewable
energy projects by addressing the up-front cost barrier. Key aspects of the program include:
54 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 3
• Simple application and approval processes
• Financing 100% of project costs
• Repayment of loans on the utility bill
Specific elements of the program include:
• Eligible properties are single family homes and townhomes, both owner occupied and rental
properties with the owner as applicant.
• Project types are based on existing definitions within utility programs and include energy
efficiency (e.g., insulation, furnace, AC, windows), water supply line replacement/repair and
renewable energy (e.g., solar PV)
Program information is available on the City’s website at fcgov.com/financing. Application
information is available on the EnergySmart Partners website at www.vlender.com
/c/connieealey/city_of_fort_collins_on-bill_finance.html.
The OBF Program Guideline is included as Attachment 1.
OBF Program Results
Participation in the OBF financing program has been slow, with three loans closed and three
approved. The table and charts below show activity levels through August 14, 2013.
While the activity for OBF loans has been much less than anticipated, results for the Home
Efficiency Program continue to be strong and growing. Since the program started in January 2010,
over 775 homes have been upgraded. 168 upgrades have occurred year-to-date in 2013, which is
on track to exceed the annual goal of 300 homes.
Table 1: OBF Program Activity Summary
Description Number Loan Amounts Notes
Completed loans 4 $37,853
Approved/Pending
loans
2 $19,695
Withdrawn applications 1 $7,681 Completed project with other
funds
Denied applications 3 $13,000 FICO scores marginally low
Analysis of Initial Results
The results to date are the tangible outcome of a number of identified factors. The factors are noted
in the table below, and come from both quantitative and anecdotal information.
55 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 4
Issue Notes and Potential Changes
Contractors have been reluctant to
promote the new program to
customers. Customers are not
asking contractors about the
program.
• Recent activity points to more contractors
participating. As contractors successfully complete
the projects using the process, they will become
more comfortable promoting the program to
customers.
• Increased outreach and marketing to customers
showing the advantages of using OBF will result in
them asking contractors for the OBF program
option.
See “Next Steps and Recommendations” section below.
Terms of the loans appear to have
limited customer participation
From anecdotal feedback, the interest rate appears to be
an issue for some customers as they compare to the
record low mortgage rates of the last year. Longer terms
will reduce monthly payments where more projects
could be cash flow neutral during the repayment period.
See “Next Steps and Recommendations” section below.
The qualification requirements
have limited customer participation
To date, denied loans have been based on FICO scores,
which were very close to the minimum requirements.
Participation in the Green Colorado Credit Reserve
(GCCR) may offer an opportunity to expand the
qualification requirements.
See “Next Steps and Recommendations” section below.
Other financing options are
available
Customers are being offered consumer (unsecured)
financing by contractors, who often receive a direct
financial benefit. Increased awareness amongst
customers OBF program will help to counter sales
pitches for other products. Some customers may also
take advantage of traditional home equity type of
financing opportunities.
Next Steps and Recommendations
Customer and Contractor Participation: The program will benefit from market awareness on both
contractors and customers.
• Staff recommendation: Enhanced marketing and outreach to include continuing to provide
contractors with updated information on participation, direct program marketing to
customers to build awareness and providing energy advisor services which include on-bill
finance options.
Interest Rates: The current interest rate level is set annually by the City Finance Officer, within the
boundaries established in the residential rate ordinance. The current range is 5.25% to 7.25%
(indexed to the “prime rate” plus 2-5%).
56 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 5
• Staff recommendations:
N Revise the rate ordinance to remove the index to prime, replacing it instead with a
simple range of 5-10%. Rates would continue to be set annually by the City Finance
Officer based on current economic conditions. The proposed change would be
included in the utility residential rate ordinance in October 2013.
N Offer a single interest rate for all loans, replacing the matrix of qualification tiers and
loan terms currently in place to simplify the application process and program
marketing. This change can be done administratively.
Term: Longer loan terms, up to the maximum of ten years, for all loan amounts will reduce
monthly payments where more projects could be cash flow neutral during the repayment period.
• Staff recommendation: Allow customers to choose five, seven or ten year terms for all loan
amounts. This change can be done administratively.
Qualification: As noted in the analysis of initial results, a number of loan applications have been
denied due to marginally low credit scores. In the last year, a new program has become available
from the Colorado Energy Office, the Green Colorado Credit Reserve (GCCR). GCCR is a loan loss
reserve fund, which is available for the OBF Program. In the GCCR, for each loan made by a
participating lender, the GCCR will provide a loan loss reserve equal to 15% of the amount of the
loan. Losses from loans incurred by Utilities may be recovered from reserves deposited in the
GCCR account (up to 100% based on available funds in the reserve). The establishment of this loss
reserve account would enable Utilities to make loans to customers who would not qualify without
additional credit enhancement.
• Staff recommendation: Investigate submitting an application to the Colorado Energy Office
for the Green Colorado Credit Reserve (GCCR), including review by the City legal and
finance departments. Subsequent to the completed application, reduce the minimum
qualifying credit score to 620. Revise the rules and regulations to include limits on the
dollar value of loans within the lower credit zone, tied to the availability of the GCCR loan
loss reserve.
FortZED Meter Based Loan Pilot
Even though the current OBF program is in its infancy, there is interest in leveraging OBF for a pilot
program related to FortZED. The FortZed Steering Committee is working with Rocky Mountain
Institute to create an implementation plan that can help FortZed and the City reach their energy
goals, with a specific focus on the electricity sector. This is a complex problem, involving multiple
stakeholders, different types of initiatives, and multiple potential outcomes. Staff is in the very early
stages of creating a plan that can help FortZed, the City, and the community to:
• Create local jobs
• Invigorate additional economic growth
• Drive local energy independence and improved reliability
• Improve building and living standards
• Distinguish Fort Collins as a leader in clean technology and green energy
57 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 6
• Create clean supplies of energy from distributed and utility sources
• Improve energy efficiency to allow continued growth while minimizing additional utility
infrastructure
One component of the strategy may be to create a mechanism whereby energy loans would be
“attached” to the meter (or premise) rather than to an individual or person. This model could have
a great impact on rental homes in Fort Collins, as the cost of upgrades is paid for by the tenants who
are receiving the benefits. However, it is a significant issue to obligate future utility customers to
bill charges which were made previous to their living at a particular premise.
FINANCIAL/ECOMOMIC IMPACTS
One important change has been implemented related to the underlying capital funding of the OBF
program. Council originally approved a budget exception in fall 2011 to provide $300,000 for on-
bill financing, subject to bringing the necessary changes in the Code and additional details of the
pilot program, which were completed in fall 2012. In addition, $500K annually was allocated in the
2013 – 2014 budgeting for outcomes process. Use of these additional funds was contingent on the
one year review.
Upon further discussion with the Finance Department, it was determined that loan funds should be
handled as a “balance sheet transaction.” Compared to a typical City or Utility process, no funding
is being “expended.” The funds are moved from reserves to accounts receivable. As a result, the
2014 funding was removed via the budget revision process.
Ultimately, the level of available funding will be determined by a maximum level of funds to be
outstanding in accounts receivable for this purpose. Staff’s recommendation is that the program
continue with a maximum outstanding loan amount of $800,000. When the program nears that
ceiling amount, staff will return to Council to request additional balance sheet funding.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The On-Bill Financing Program supports the City’s goals for energy use reduction through
efficiency, carbon emissions reduction from improving the efficiency of the built environment and
increasing local renewable energy production. Homes are seeing 5-50% (10% on average) energy
reductions as a result of improvements made through the Home Efficiency Program. The
opportunity for on-going participation in the program is many thousands of homes. The On-bill
Financing program is expected to be a very effective approach to making a more substantial
improvement to a larger number of existing homes in the coming years.
The Home Efficiency Program also directly addresses indoor environmental air quality. The audit
educates homeowners on what steps to take to improve their indoor air quality. And the installation
standards and project verification testing specifically address combustion safety of natural gas
appliances, and reducing infiltration of contaminated air into the living space from garages, attics
and crawl spaces.
58 of 141
August 27, 2013 Page 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
• Increase marketing and communication efforts to both customers and participating
contractors.
• Revise the rate ordinance to remove the index to prime, replacing it instead with a simple
range of 5-10%. Rates would continue to be set annually by the City Finance Officer based
on current economic conditions. The proposed change would be included in the utility
residential rate ordinance in October 2013.
• Offer a single interest rate for all loans, replacing the matrix of qualification tiers and loan
terms currently in place to simplify the application process and program marketing. This
change can be done administratively.
• Allow customers to choose five, seven or ten year terms for all loan amounts. This change
can be done administratively.
• Set total loans on the balance sheet to $300K from 2012 and $500K from 2013 for a total
limit of $800K in loans.
• Investigate submitting an application to the Colorado Energy Office for the Green Colorado
Credit Reserve (GCCR). Subsequent to successful review and completion of the
participation agreement, reduce the minimum qualifying credit score.
• As part of the FortZED initiative, consider development for a meter or premise based loan
program whereby loans would be transferable to future customers.
ATTACHMENTS
1. On-Bill Finance Product Guideline
2. Powerpoint presentation
59 of 141
1 Revised 03/15/2013
EnergySmart Partners LLC Product Guideline
City of Fort Collins Utilities
On-Bill Financing Program
Eligible Borrowers: Applicants who own residential property located in Fort Collins that is to be
improved by the loan and are current City of Fort Collins electric utility
customers (for qualified energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements)
or water utility customers (for qualified water improvements). For energy
efficiency and renewable energy improvements, customers must have scheduled
or received a City of Fort Collins Home Efficiency Audit. Eligibility of Utility
customers to participate is based on credit scores and stated or verified income
and pursuant to other criteria and procedures adopted in administrative rules and
regulations adopted by the City of Fort Collins Chief Financial Officer. Utilities
reserves the right to also base qualification on utility bill payment history
(reviewed by City of Fort Collins Utility staff), All applicants claiming
ownership interest in the subject property must be natural persons (no legal
entities) and provide a single valid Social Security Number or Individual Tax
Identification Number (ITIN), consistent among all forms of income
verification. Further eligibility defined within a classification table shown
below on page three.
Loan Amount Minimum loan amount is $1,000; Maximum loan is $15,000 (per utility
premise). Loans can be up to 100% of eligible project costs within loan limits
stated above.
Rebates Home Efficiency Program rebates are processed and distributed separately from
the On-Bill Finance loan. The rebate check is sent directly to the homeowner by
Fort Collins Utilities staff.
Property Type: Eligible properties are single family dwellings or townhomes. Residential rental
properties are eligible with loan application from the owner, a natural person. A
loan secured by a deed of trust on a rental property will be billed directly to the
person who obtained the loan.
Collateral: Loans will be secured by a deed of trust recorded with Larimer County. Electric
service may be discontinued for nonpayment of past-due accounts directly or
indirectly related to the provision of electric service, in which event written
notice shall be given in accordance with Section 26-713 of the Fort Collins
Municipal Code and any Council-approved service rules and regulations.
Interest Rate: Fixed interest calculated at time of application based upon a classification table
shown below on page four. Interest rates to be revised annually by the City
Financial Officer.
Income Threshold: Loan terms may depend upon verified household income though no maximum
income limit is imposed for program eligibility.
Debt Ratio: When borrower debt-to-income ratio requires verification, proposed loan
repayment amount combined with all other obligations of the borrower shall not
exceed standards defined by borrower classification table shown below on page
three.
Repayment: Monthly payment of principal and interest will be collected by the City of Fort
Collins Utility Billing Office as a line item on the borrower’s City of Fort
Collins monthly utility bill. Escrow for hazard insurance and property taxes are
not provided by EnergySmart Partners LLC (ESP) and remain the sole
responsibility of the home owner.
ATTACHMENT 1
60 of 141
2 Revised 03/15/2013
Term: Loan amounts of $1,000 to $2,500 are limited to a 60 month loan term, loan
amounts of $2,501 to $7,500 will mature within 84 months or less, and loan
amounts of $7,501 to $15,000 will mature within 120 months or less; with all
outstanding principal, interest and other sums due.
Loan Payoff: Loans will be closed after receipt of all principle and interest. Loans must be
paid off at time of property sale or refinancing of the property first mortgage.
Use of Funds: Permitted capital improvement projects shall enhance the health, safety, and
energy or water efficiency of the home, including installation of renewable
energy systems as allowed by the City of Fort Collins Utilities On-Bill
Financing Program administrator. A list of qualifying energy improvements and
the rebates available can be found by accessing the links on the Home
Efficiency Program (HEP) home page: www.fcgov.com/homeefficiency. A list
of qualifying renewable energy projects and the rebates available can be found
by accessing the links on the Solar Rebates home page:
www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/renewables/solar-rebates. Water
service line repairs qualify as described on the service line repair page:
www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/water/water-distribution/service-line-
repairs.
Loan Fees: A one-time non-refundable application fee in the amount of $25 shall be due and
payable upon submittal of all City of Fort Collins Utilities On-Bill Financing
Program loan applications. An additional origination fee in the amount of $150
is due to ESP at time of loan settlement. Customer may choose to pay the
origination fee at closing or add the amount to the loan principle (not to exceed
loan maximum). Public recording and any other third party service fees are the
responsibility of the borrower and assessed at the time of loan settlement.
Origination Procedures
Application: EnergySmart Partners LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Funding Partners for
Housing Solutions, Inc. collectively referred to as “ESP”, will receive completed
residential loan applications from applicants through ESP’s website:
www.energy-smart-partners.com, a signed Authorization to Release Information
and supporting documentation. A credit report and processing fee of $25 shall
be due ESP at time of application and paid by applicant on ESP website.
Processing: ESP will order third party verifications including credit report(s), the property
owner and encumbrances report, evidence of hazard insurance and the City of
Fort Collins Utility estimated rebates. Under normal circumstances and if ESP
has received all required information, an applicant can expect receive
information about whether the applicant is eligible to receive a loan within 24
hours or one-business day. Confirmation of credit determination, loan terms and
remaining documentation requirements, as applicable, will be delivered in
electronic format to the applicant for review and acceptance.
Pre-Settlement: ESP will prepare loan closing documents that shall include a Lien Waiver &
Completion of Work Affidavit wherein the borrower must acknowledge the
amount paid to the project contractor upon loan settlement. The project
contractor is required to acknowledge that all work is or will be completed
according to the Fort Collins Utilities program standards and in a good and
workmanlike fashion within the agreed-upon timeframe. The project contractor
is required to verify that all suppliers and/or subcontractors for the project are
paid in full with no further recourse to the borrower, and furnish lien waivers to
that effect. The building permit for the project must have received final approval
from the City of Fort Collins Building Department and the project work must be
approved by the HEP inspectors and staff prior to loan closing.
61 of 141
3 Revised 03/15/2013
Fees Collected: Application, public recording and other third party fees shall be assessed and
detailed within a settlement statement prepared by ESP. Borrower must pay the
loans fees at time of settlement.
Settlement: ESP will present all loan documents to borrower at the time of loan settlement.
Each Borrower must acknowledge receipt of a standard Colorado Notice of
Rescission, allowing cancellation of the deed of trust within three business days
of settlement. The deed of trust documents must be signed in the presence of a
notary public, which will be arranged between ESP and the borrower.
Funding: Upon receipt and acceptance of completed and signed Lien Waiver &
Completion of Work Affidavit and HEP Rebate Application forms from the
project contractor(s) and, if applicable, subcontractors, ESP shall release loan
proceeds directly to project contractor(s) upon confirmation that all work is
complete. Dependent upon the scope of the proposed project, ESP will disburse
funds to all applicable contractors and will disburse payment directly to the
borrower for any deposits the borrower has paid to the contractor upon receipt of
a paid receipt. Execution of a release of lien affidavit, and a completed Rebate
Application sent to Fort Collins Utilities, is required from all applicable
contractors prior to each distribution of loan proceeds. Disbursement of funds is
prohibited prior to expiration of the three business day rescission period.
Post Closing: ESP shall retain all original documents and permanent loan file, record deed of
trust documents and UCC filings as necessary, process and issue subsequent
project draw requests, and issue release of collateral obligations upon final
satisfaction of the Note. Copies of all executed loan documents will be provided
to City of Fort Collins after loan settlement.
Loan Qualifications: In order to obtain a loan from ESP under the City of Fort Collins Utilities On-
Bill Financing Program, a borrower must meet the following requirements:
Credit Metrics Tier 1 Tier 2
Minimum FICO (Credit
Score)
• Each borrower must
meet the minimum
FICO score
• If there are multiple
borrowers, the lower
the score (regardless
of income) must be
used for qualification
• 680 if salaried (or
fixed income)
• 720 if self-
employed less than 2
years
• 640 if salaried (or
fixed income)
• 680 if self-
employed more than
2 years
• 720 if self-
employed less than 2
years
• Utility Bill History
(if available, reviewed by
Fort Collins Utility staff)
• 6 months timely
payments
• 12 months timely
payments
Bankruptcy,
Foreclosure,
4 Revised 03/15/2013
Interest Rate and Loan Term Schedule:
Tier 60 Month Term
($1,000 - $2,500)
84 Month Term or
less
($2,501 - $7,500)
120 Month Term or
less
($7,501 - $15,000)
1 5.25% 5.75% 6.25%
2 6.25% 6.75% 7.25%
The Interest Rates above have Annual Percentage Rates (APR’S) that may range as low as 5.47% to as
high as 14.32% based on the borrower’s credit worthiness, loan amount, term and income verification
type, and is subject to our credit qualifications. Interest Rates and APR’s are subject to change without
notice.
Income Verification Requirements:
Salaried Employees, Pension, SSI Income, etc. Self Employed
Stated Income (No Verification Required)
• When the loan amount is less than $5,000
• Or any loan amount if the FICO is greater
than 680
Income Verification Required
• When the loan amount is greater than $5,000
• And the FICO is less than 680
• One pay stub with YTD earnings dated within
30 days of the application or award/benefit letter
for SSI or pension showing income amount,
payment frequency and start and end dates.
Rental income verified by lease or Schedule E
from tax return.
NOTE: Any “other” income (not primary income),
which is being used to qualify the loan, must be
verified.
Stated Income (No Verification Required)
• When the loan amount is less than $5,000
• Or any loan amount if the FICO is greater
than 680
Income Verification Required
• When the loan amount is greater than $5,000
• And the FICO is less than 680
• Most recent federal income tax return (first 2
pages of 1040) plus Schedule C if applicable.
Rental income verified by lease or Schedule E
from tax return.
NOTE: Any “other” income (not primary income),
which is being used to qualify the loan, must be
verified.
Maximum Debt to Income Ratio Requirements (“Max DTI Ratio”):
Debt to Income Ratio Tier 1 Tier 2
List Total Monthly Obligations
• Any loan which has a remaining term of less than 6
months may be excluded from the calculation
• When revolving accounts do not show a minimum
payment use the greater of 1% per month or $10
• Real Estate taxes and homeowners insurance (if not
included in the mortgage payment) must be included in
ratio
• Reductions to the Borrower’s monthly Utility
Obligations derived from improvements may be
1
1
On-Bill Utility
Financing Program Update
Fort Collins City Council Work Session
August 27, 2013
2
Overview
• On-Bill Utility Financing Program (OBF) review:
– History and development of the program
– OBF program parameters
– Activity over the first nine months
– Analysis of program results
– Recommendations for program modifications
Council requested program review during first year after
approving code changes in April 2012.
ATTACHMENT 2
64 of 141
2
3
• Based on the pilot program activity and early
lessons learned, does Council continue to
support the On-Bill Utility Financing Program?
• Seeking feedback from Council on proposed
modifications to the program to enhance its
effectiveness.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
4
• Increase the number and scope of residential
efficiency and renewable energy projects by
addressing the up-front cost barrier via on-bill
financing
– Simple application and approval processes
– Finance 100% of project cost
– Repayment of loans on the utility bill
On-Bill Financing
“in a nutshell”
65 of 141
3
5
Objectives
• Add financing to projects supported by existing Utilities programs
• Structure program such that direct expenses are recovered
through fees and interest rates
Scope
• Single family and townhomes
• Owner occupied and rental properties
• Project types
– Energy efficiency (insulation, windows, heating, cooling)
– Renewable energy
– Water supply line replacement/repair
Program Objectives and Scope
6
• Financing coordinated with the existing Home
Efficiency Program
– Low-cost audits, “what to do”
– Contractor list, “who to call”
– Installation standards and verification, “do it right”
– Rebates partially address “first cost”
Program Elements
66 of 141
4
7
• Utilities Roles
– Approve customer and project eligibility
– Approve project completion and rebates
– Enter loan information and process payments on bills
– Program marketing and outreach
•3rd
Party Partner Roles
– Customer credit qualification and communication
– Loan closing services
– Recording with County records
Program Structure
8
• OBF “available” December 1, 2012
• Program outreach started January 1, 2013
* All were energy efficiency projects
Results to Date
Description Number* Loan Amounts Notes
Completed loans 4 $37,853
Approved/Pending 2 $19,695
Withdrawn
applications
1 $7,681 Completed project with
other funds
Denied applications 3 $13,000 Credit scores low
67 of 141
5
9
• Slow start, but ramping up
• Process working well
– Applications
– Project payments to contractors
– Loan repayments on utility bill
Analysis of Results
10
• Reasons for slow start
– Lack of awareness
– Reluctant contractors
– Loan terms
– Qualification requirements
– Other financing options
Analysis of Results
68 of 141
6
11
1) Develop market awareness from customers
(pull) and contractors (push)
• Direct marketing of on-bill financing
• Customer and contractor testimonials
Staff Recommendations
12
2) Interest rates
• Current
– Set annually by the City Finance Officer
– Range established in utility rate ordinance
(prime plus 2-5%)
– Rate set by loan term and qualification level
• Proposed
– Remove the index to prime, replace with range of 5-10%
• Change via utility rate ordinance in October 2013
– Offer a single interest rate for all loans
• Administrative change via rules and regulations
Staff Recommendations
69 of 141
7
13
3) Loan term
• Current
– Term set by loan amount
• Five, seven or ten years
• Proposed
– Allow customers to choose term of five, seven or ten
years
• Administrative change via rules and regulations
Staff Recommendations
14
4) Qualification requirements
• Current
– Minimum credit score of 640
• Proposed
– Submit application to Green Colorado Credit
Reserve from the CO Energy Office to utilize loan
loss reserve funding
– Revise minimum credit score to 620
• Administrative change via rules and regulations
Staff Recommendations
70 of 141
8
15
5) Finance
• Set program limit to $800k in outstanding
balance sheet loans (based on approved
budgets for 2012/2013)
• Staff may seek additional approval from
Council for additional allowance in the future
Staff Recommendations
16
• FortZED developing models for deploying
efficiency at scale
• Key element would be creation of a
mechanism whereby energy loans could be
“attached” to the meter (or premise) rather
than to an individual or person
– Benefit for rental market upgrades
– Significant issue to obligate future utility
customers
Planning Ahead - FortZED
71 of 141
9
17
1. Increase marketing and communication
2. Revise the rate ordinance with a simple range of 5-10%
3. Offer a single interest rate for all loans
4. Allow customers to choose five, seven or ten year terms
5. Submit an application to the Colorado Energy Office for
the Green Colorado Credit Reserve; reduce the minimum
qualifying credit score
6. Set outstanding loan balance limit at $800k
7. Consider development of a meter based loan program in
support of FortZED
Recommendations Summary
18
• Based on the pilot program activity and early
lessons learned, does Council continue to
support the On-Bill Utility Financing Program?
• Seeking feedback from Council on proposed
modifications to the program to enhance its
effectiveness.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
72 of 141
10
19
Questions
73 of 141
DATE: 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:
74 of 141
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
75 of 141
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
76 of 141
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.
77 of 141
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.
78 of 141
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.
79 of 141
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.
80 of 141
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.
81 of 141
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
82 of 141
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
83 of 141
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
84 of 141
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%
85 of 141
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%
86 of 141
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%
87 of 141
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%
88 of 141
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%
89 of 141
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%
90 of 141
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%
91 of 141
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%
92 of 141
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%
93 of 141
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
94 of 141
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
95 of 141
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%
96 of 141
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%
97 of 141
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%
98 of 141
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
99 of 141
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.
100 of 141
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
101 of 141
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
102 of 141
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.
103 of 141
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
114 of 141
115 of 141
116 of 141
117 of 141
118 of 141
ATTACHMENT 4
119 of 141
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
120 of 141
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.
121 of 141
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)
122 of 141
ATTACHMENT 6
123 of 1 141
124 of 2 141
125 of 3 141
126 of 4 141
127 of 5 141
128 of 6 141
129 of 7 141
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
130 of 141
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.
131 of 141
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.
132 of 141
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
133 of 141
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
134 of 141
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.
135 of 141
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
136 of 141
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.
137 of 141
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
138 of 141
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
139 of 141
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?
140 of 141
9
17
Thank You
141 of 141
(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.
113 of 141
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.
112 of 141
to staff. 300‐375 design
reviews annually, 80% by
staff.
111 of 141
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.
110 of 141
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.”
109 of 141
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
108 of 141
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.
107 of 141
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.
106 of 141
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.
105 of 141
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
104 of 141
considered at the underwriter’s discretion
List Total Monthly Income
Divide Total Obligations by Total Income to determine
DTI Ratio
Maximum total
monthly
obligations to
total monthly
income (Max
DTI Ratio).
50% Max DTI
Ratio
Maximum total
monthly
obligations to
total monthly
income (Max
DTI Ratio).
45% Max DTI
Ratio
63 of 141
Repossession
None in the last 7 years None in the last 5 years
Unpaid Collection
Accounts, Judgments,
Tax Liens
No more than $2,500 No more than $2,500
Loan Amounts $1,000 to $15,000 $1,000 to $15,000
*Loans may be assigned to a different approval tier, be declined or subject to further review if
underwriter determines that FICO score or other factors are inconsistent with actual credit and
employment profile.
62 of 141
(wood mulching, tree felling)
September November December January 2014
Mitigation work in progress
January 16
Anticipated completion date
for mitigation efforts
ATTACHMENT 2
7 of 141