HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/26/2012 - PROPOSED HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEMOLITION/ALTERATIDATE: June 26, 2012
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
Proposed Historic Preservation Demolition/Alteration Review Process Improvements: Phase I and
II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At Council’s direction, the Community Development Neighborhood Services Department (CDNS)
is undertaking a two-phase project to consider changes to the City’s Demolition/Alteration Review
Process (Section 14-72 of the City Code), which determines the historic eligibility of properties in
the City and defines the process for reviewing alterations or demolition. Phase l, to be discussed at
this Council work session, proposes changes to Chapter 14 to addresses Council’s immediate
concerns with the review process: (1) to ensure timely public notice to citizens (usually neighbors)
early in the process about determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic
structures; and (2) to provide a method for appealing historic eligibility status.
If the Phase I proposed changes are implemented, other parts of Chapter 14 of the City Code will
need to be modified in order to ensure an efficient public notice, eligibility, demolition and appeal
process. Those housekeeping changes are included in this proposal. An additional modification is
recommended for Chapter 2 of the City Code in order to ensure compliance of Landmark
Preservation Board member appointments with Certified Local Government Standards.
Phase II of the project, to be completed later this year, will involve a more comprehensive review
of the Demolition/Alteration Review Process.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is this item ready for formal Council consideration? If so, is the following time frame
appropriate?
• Consideration of First Reading of Ordinances making Phase I changes - July 17,
2012
• Consideration of Second Reading of Ordinances - August 21, 2012
2. Does Council have any general questions or feedback about the proposed changes?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Council recently reviewed two appeals of the Planning and Zoning Board’s denial of
requests for modifications. The owners of the properties objected to the determination of eligibility
June 26, 2012 Page 2
made by the CDNS Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) chair; however,
there was not a method available to them to appeal the eligibility decision directly. The changes
proposed would allow for an appeal to the LPC and ultimately to the City Council. Concerns have
also been expressed by citizens that they are not aware early enough in the process that owners or
developers of historically significant properties are requesting major alterations, including
demolition. To enhance citizen notification, staff proposes that Chapter 14 of the City Code be
changed to require that public notice be sent whenever a major alteration hearing was set by the
LPC. It would also require public notice to be made in the newspaper each week listing the
structures that the CDNS Director and LPC chair have determined to be eligible or not. Notification
of determinations of eligibility and of major alterations will also be added to the appropriate
planning and historic preservation web pages, with links to the City webpage, and advertised
through the weekly Development Review Listserve.
In addition to the electronic and newspaper listings, for those projects affecting a principal structure
involving a major alteration or demolition, a sign (similar to the development review sign) would
be placed on the property, making the request for a determination of eligibility clearly visible to the
neighbors and public. Once public notice is provided, a 14-day period for appeal of any of all of
those decisions would be in effect. These changes are consistent with process improvements
identified in the 2010 Historic Preservation Program Assessment document and with comments
provided to staff by the Landmark Preservation Commission.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
1. Changes proposed to ensure timely public notice to citizens early in the process about
determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic structures:
• Provide definitions for major and minor alterations, and principal structure.
• Provide for neighborhood and community notice.
• Add the proper Building Code sections for exempting properties from compliance.
The Code currently references the Uniform Building Code (UBC), rather than the
International Property Maintenance Code which the City has adopted.
2. Changes proposed to provide a method for appealing historic eligibility status:
• Adding a process for appeals of historic eligibility status.
• Adding an independent reviewer section if the eligibility determination is appealed.
This would allow for preparation of a Colorado Historical Society Cultural Resource
Survey Architectural Inventory Form and report, by an outside reviewer with
expertise in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant. The
survey form and report would take an estimated two weeks to complete, and cost the
appellant $400 to $600.
3. Proposed housekeeping changes:
• Remove the use of different titles for the CDNS Director.
• Modify time frames and other processes to be consistent with each other.
• Provide more specificity to Commission member experience requirements, to ensure
compliance of Landmark Preservation Commission member appointments with
June 26, 2012 Page 3
Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. While CLG regulations require that
at least 4 Commission members meet standards of professional expertise, this is not
reflected in Division 19, Section 2-277, “Membership.”
Phase II of the review of the Demolition/Alteration Review Process will entail a more
comprehensive assessment of the review process to identify process improvements. Phase II will
consist of public engagement, the study of best practices, consideration of the interface of the City’s
Code requirements with those of the federal Certified Local Government program, and an overall
assessment of process improvement and Code changes. A Council work session on Phase II will
be scheduled for late fall, with Code adoption anticipated in early spring 2013.
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Landmark Preservation Commission will formally review the proposal during a special hearing
on June 20, 2012. The public is invited to speak at this special hearing. In addition, those affected
by the recent appeals were provided copies of the proposed changes. The minutes from this hearing
will be provided in the “Read-Before” packet prior to the June 26 work session.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report - “Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process” dated
April 26, 2012
2. Powerpoint presentation
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 1
Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process
April 26, 2012
Page 2
- 2 -
about how residents learn about historic designation and whether their input is part of the review process
early enough.
Recommendation: Modify the current code/process as soon as practical and adopt the following
measures:
Allow for an appeal of the initial eligibility status, first to the LPC and then to City Council.
Allow for any party to request an eligibility hearing before the board in addition to/or instead of
the determination review by the CDNS director and the LPC chair.
Provide public notice to neighbors prior to an eligibility hearing before the LPC.
Provide public notice to neighbors prior to any demolition of a primary building, structure or site.
Timeframe and Process: Ready for City Council review within 3-4 months. A collaborative effort
between City Legal Staff, LPC, City Council and a small number of citizens will develop the immediate
solutions to the current eligibility process. Taking immediate steps that can be completed more quickly
than a broader review will strengthen the current eligibility process and allow for an eligibility
determination appeal without debating what should be eligible or identifying the more systemic changes
necessary. Those processes require more citizen, council and board member discussion as suggested in
Part 2.
2. Broader Review of the Overall Historic Preservation Program
Some owners of locally landmarked properties expressed concerns that they are not clear about the
requirements that will apply; others are worried that the requirements will be strict and that there will be
no flexibility in treatment of their properties. Other preservation-related concerns arise in the course of
the development review and permitting, when dealing with a property that is 50 years or older. Within
the context of these general concerns more specific questions will be addressed:
Does the preservation program operate efficiently?
Does it reflect best practices that are recognized nationally?
Are there ways to improve its function?
Is it too restrictive in some areas? Conversely, is it too permissive in others?
Should the program offer flexibility in treatment to property owners? And if so, how?
Can determinations of historic significance and appropriateness of proposed work be made more
predictable?
How can the program be more effective in achieving its objectives?
Is the City doing enough, in terms of historic preservation?
How can preservation interests be balanced with other community development objectives?
How will the City address new, emerging trends and issues in preservation, sustainability and
neighborhood conservation? (e.g. is the 50-year building review criteria relevant today?)
Recommendation: Improve predictability and effectiveness in the Historic Preservation Program by
implementing the code and processes strategies identified in December 2010, by Winter & Company in
their assessment of the Historic Preservation Program from 2015 to 2012. They identified several “key
issues” for the program:
Providing more information to property owners in advance.
Determining in advance if a property has historic significance.
Improving the Historic Preservation Eligibility Determination Process
April 26, 2012
Page 3
- 3 -
Identifying the role of historic resources in city plans and policies.
Understanding the guidelines for treatment of historic properties and the flexibility that may be
available in design review.
Clarifying the steps in the review processes for different property types.
City Council members and others also expressed concern about the effectiveness of a 50-year criterion on
all properties, sites, and structure and analyze whether other methods such as a tier-approach would be
appropriate for the community today.
Timeframe and Process: A core team of staff and interested citizens will be formed this summer to begin
process planning, as well as develop a project time line and implementation steps and strategies to “kick
off” in the fall. Their initial work includes a review of the Landmark Preservation Code and the Historic
Preservation Program Assessment. During the fall, the team will conduct public outreach including a
survey, open houses and board and commission members’ input on the strategies developed. The project
team will schedule a workshop with the City Council to review information developed and seek further
direction on process, timeline to move forward with recommendations.
Attachments
1. Historic Preservation Program Assessment
2. Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
3. Flow Chart; How Historic Properties are Reviewed (available on our web-site)
City of Fort Collins
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
WINTER & COMPANY
DECEMBER, 2010
On the Cover:
Images of buildings in Old Town Fort Collins illustrate the benefits of the protection that
historic district designation had provided. “Before” images, c.1980, are paired with “after”
images c.1995.
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. The Benefits of a Preservation Program 1
B. Key Issues for the Preservation Program 2
C. Recent Questions 2
D. Scope of this Report 3
E. Balancing Interests 3
II. MODEL PRESERVATION PROGRAMS 5
A. Characteristics of an Effective Preservation Program 5
B. Preservation System Components 6
C. Recent Trends Related to Preservation Programs 14
III. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS 19
A. Policy Directives 19
B. Ordinances 22
C. Operating Procedures 31
D. Resource Surveys 33
E. Design Guidelines and Standards 34
F. Compliance Process 35
G. Incentives and Benefits 36
H. Training, Education and Outreach 36
IV. IMPLEMENTATION PHASING TABLE 37
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE TABLES 41
1. Interim Controls Example 42
2. Resource Types Example Table 43
APPENDIX B: INTEGRATED REVIEW 45
APPENDIX C: GUIDELINE FLEXIBILITY AND EASE OF USE 47
APPENDIX D: PEER COMMUNITIES REVIEW 51
Part One: Peer Communities List 51
Part Two: Peer Communities Review 54
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report assesses the operations of the City of Fort Collins’ historic preservation
program. It then recommends actions that will improve predictability in the program and
enhance its effectiveness. The report focuses on the ways in which the city identifies
and officially designates historic resources. It then considers how review of proposed
work occurs on properties that are recognized as having historic significance. It also an-
ticipates current trends in historic preservation that the city is beginning to experience.
Note: This report reflects recent updates to the organization of the city’s preservation
department. The preservation department is moving from the Advance Planning Depart-
ment to the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department. Sections
of the codes are currently being updated based on the change of departments and this
is reflected in the report.
Old Town also receives recognition for its
role in promoting business development
and corporate recruitment citywide. Many
businesses choose to locate in Fort Col-
lins in part due to the quality of life that Old
Town represents, even though they may
actually locate their facilities in other parts
of the city. This is reflected in the city’s re-
cent branding study, based on a survey in
which many respondents listed Old Town
as one of the city’s key assets.
Citizens also recognize the benefits of
preserving other individual, key landmarks
that exist throughout the community. Ma-
ture, close-in neighborhoods receive ac-
knowledgement as attractive, livable plac-
es, although most of these are not officially
designated as historic districts under city
ordinance.
A. The Benefits of a
Preservation Program
Fort Collins has been a pioneer in the his-
toric preservation movement. It designat-
ed the Old Town Historic District, centered
at the intersection of Linden and Walnut
Streets, and then adopted design guide-
lines and standards for it in the late 1970s.
This provided for protection of its historic
buildings and review of alterations and new
construction. This action preceded local
designations of historic districts in Aspen,
Boulder, Denver and many other communi-
ties in Colorado that now have noteworthy
downtown historic districts.
The success of the Old Town Historic Dis-
trict is well known. It is cited by many peo-
ple as a key cultural amenity as well as
a dynamic economic development driver
for the city. Today, the term “Old Town” ex-
tends to a broader part of the downtown,
reflecting the power of association with the
historic district.
2
City of Fort Collins
B. Key Issues for the
Preservation Program
Even though historic preservation is val-
ued in Fort Collins, there are questions
about how extensive the program should
be, how it should fit within other commu-
nity planning initiatives, and whether there
are ways to improve it.
Some owners of locally landmarked prop-
erties have expressed concerns that they
are not clear about the requirements that
will apply; others are worried that the re-
quirements will be strict and that there will
be no flexibility in treatment of their prop-
erties.
Other preservation-related concerns arise
in the course of the city’s project devel-
opment review and permitting, when a
property that is 50 years old is involved.
This occurs in two ways: First, if a project
is subject to the development review pro-
cess set forth in the Land Use Code and
the property includes a structure that is 50
years or older, then it will be evaluated for
its potential historic significance. Second-
ly, if demolition or relocation is proposed
for a building more than 50 years old, then
a similar evaluation occurs.
C. Recent Questions
Within the context of these general con-
cerns, some more specific questions
arise:
• Does the preservation program operate
efficiently?
• Does it reflect best practices that are
recognized nationally?
• Are there ways to improve its func-
tion?
• Is it too restrictive in some areas? And,
conversely, is it too permissive in oth-
ers?
• Should the program offer flexibility in
treatment to property owners? And if
so, how would it offer such flexibility?
• Can determinations of historic signifi-
cance 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 bal-
anced with other community develop-
ment objectives?
• How will the city address new, emerg-
ing trends and issues in preservation,
sustainability and neighborhood con-
servation?
3
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
D. Scope of this Report
This report considers those questions in an
assessment of the city’s review processes
and policies involving historic resources,
and then provides recommendations for
improvement. Appendix D, Peer Com-
munities Review, addresses preservation
programs in peer communities across the
country that helped identify and evaluate
strategies for future consideration in Fort
Collins.
This assessment draws upon information
collected in the following ways:
• Interviews with city staff
• Review of the city’s published materi-
als related to permitting, its ordinanc-
es, review procedures and web site
• Review of peer community preserva-
tion programs
• Review of data related to projects re-
viewed by the city and in its annual
Certified Local Government reports
• Interviews with approximately twenty
individuals, who are representative of
property owners, developers and pres-
ervation advocates, in a series of “fo-
cus groups”
E. Balancing Interests
In considering these recommendations for
process improvements, balancing several
interests are key considerations:
• Preservation of heritage
• Sense of community
• Sustainability
• Livability
• Political interests
• Economic development
• Ease of administration
• Cost effectiveness and life cycle costs
• Property owners
Aerial view of Old Town Fort Collins
5
II. MODEL PRESERVATION
PROGRAMS
Nationally, effective preservation programs exhibit several qualities that define their op-
erations and some of their essential components. These are described in this section.
For example, some people are unaware of
recent research which demonstrates that
rehabilitating an original window is usually
more energy conserving than replacing it.
Preservation programs that are remaining
current in their outreach are providing in-
formation that helps property owners bet-
ter understand the implications of reha-
bilitation and replacement; some are even
providing technical support for energy ret-
rofits. (The city’s web site does provide
basic information about energy conserv-
ing measures for existing homes, and it
is meritorious in that it recommends other
options to window replacement.)
2. A Preservation Program
should be Clean.
The preservation program should be seen
as operating objectively, applying the same
standards consistently and with a degree
of predictability in the process. It should
be seen as being fair, in that all proper-
ties of similar type are treated the same.
Owners should have confidence in the pro-
cess such that they can predict the likely
outcome following published criteria and
guidelines.
A. Characteristics of an
Effective Preservation
Program
What is the profile of an effective local
preservation program? Today, a city’s
preservation program should have these
three qualities:
1. A Preservation Program
should be Green.
Preservation inherently reinforces
sustainability objectives, because reusing
buildings conserves resources. Historic
buildings also can accommodate compat-
ible new energy saving technologies. An
effective program is one that educates
owners and policy makers about the ways
in which preservation supports the city’s
sustainability initiatives, and works proac-
tively to promote energy conservation as-
sociated with existing buildings. Unfortu-
nately, there is a significant knowledge gap
in the community about the “greenness” of
historic buildings. Many assume that older
buildings are inefficient, when that is not
necessarily the case.
6
City of Fort Collins
While the city’s program does apply stan-
dards and guidelines consistently, and in
consistent procedural decision-making
steps, these criteria and processes are not
made clear, in terms of having easily ac-
cessible information on the web or in print
form.
3. A Preservation Program
should be Lean.
The program should operate efficiently,
with decisions made in a timely manner.
Time should be used wisely, and work ef-
forts of others should be coordinated to ac-
complish mutual objectives. Focus should
be on delivering the “products” of expedi-
ent decisions and technical assistance, as
well as in developing tools that enable us-
ers to make informed decisions about their
properties.
Some inefficiency does exist in the cur-
rent program, especially in the review of
50-year old properties, where the steps in
the process may not be clearly defined,
and general development review may be
well-advanced when preservation issues
are raised.
B. Preservation System
Components
A Green, Clean and Lean preservation pro-
gram is most effective when it includes a
range of components that work together in
a coordinated manner. The basic tools of
an effective preservation program include:
1. Policy Directives
Preservation programs operate within the
framework of broader community policies.
In Fort Collins these begin with policies in
the City Plan:
“Historic buildings and districts will be
preserved and protected.”
This is of course a broad statement, but
it sets a clear direction. Other state-
ments supporting preservation are woven
throughout the City Plan, especially in top-
ics related to community appearance and
design. Under principle CAD-5 there are
directives for survey and identification of
resources, education and awareness, in-
centives, planning and regulations for
preservation and landmark designation.
“PRINCIPLE CAD-5: The quality of life
in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the
preservation of historic resources and
inclusion of heritage in the daily life
and development of the City and com-
munity.”
“Policy CAD-5.4 Planning and Regula-
tions. The City will formally recognize
7
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
A separate Historic Resources Preserva-
tion Plan also exists, which was adopted
as part of the city’s comprehensive plan
in 1994, that sets forth more specific poli-
cies for preservation and actions for their
implementation.
“II.A.4.4 – Prepare short, informative
brochures or “factsheets” on critical
preservation issues targeted to se-
lected interest groups, such as realtors
and homeowners. Some possible top-
ics include a description of the benefits
of preservation, including the economy
and tourism; a description of regula-
tions that apply to landmark structures
and districts; histories of neighbor-
hoods, etc.”
2. Ordinances
Ordinances establish the basic operations
of a preservation program. The preserva-
tion ordinance defines the mechanisms for
identifying and protecting historic resourc-
es. In addition, the basic zoning ordinance
establishes certain land use expectations
that influence the climate for preservation.
The building code also influences preser-
vation.
In Fort Collins, key ordinances include:
• Land Use Code Section 3.4.7
Historic and Cultural Resources
Section 3.4.7 provides standards for
preservation and treatment of historic
properties and their incorporation into
new developments.
• Municipal Code: Chapter 14
Landmark Preservation
Chapter 14 is the preservation ordi-
nance and includes the bulk of regu-
lation on historic properties, including
provisions for demolition that apply to
non-listed structures.
• Adopted building codes include special
sections for existing buildings and his-
toric structures. (Residential Building
Code: 2003 International Residential
Code with local Amendments and Com-
mercial and multi-family Building Code:
2006 International Building Code with
local amendments.)
3. Operating Procedures
The details of the steps that are followed
to identify, designate, and then protect his-
toric resources are specified in operating
procedures. Some of these are embedded
in the land use code. Others are refer-
enced in that document, but exist as sepa-
rate stand-alone papers such that they can
be updated more frequently.
8
City of Fort Collins
Development Review Process Chart
The Land Use Code requires consideration
of the potential historic significance of a
property that is at least 50 years old. How-
ever, the city’s master development review
flow chart fails to reference this potential
step, and does not indicate how the pro-
cess may be affected if a 50-year old prop-
erty is involved. It also fails to reference
a potential review of any officially listed
historic resource. Internally, the points at
which preservation staff are to review a
property also are not clearly charted. While
staff of other city departments understand
that they should include a review by pres-
ervation staff, the timing when that should
occur is not documented in a formal de-
velopment process checklist. As a result, it
is possible to overlook this step until quite
far into the permitting process; if, at a late
stage, a concern is raised by preservation
staff or the Landmark Preservation Com-
mission, it can be perceived as an unex-
pected delay by a property owner.
Once it is determined that a review to con-
sider the significance of a property and
its potential treatment should occur, the
process is not clear. The operating proce-
dures are not stated in a way that is easy
to interpret. Owners may have difficulty in
understanding how, and when, a decision
related to a project that involves a potential
or designed historic resource will be made.
A simple, user-friendly guide is needed.
This should be a web-based publication. It
should include simple check lists and flow
charts that describe how the process will
operate, and which criteria will be used. In
essence, a property owner should be able
to reasonably predict the steps involved
and the approximate amount of time that
will elapse, based on simple information
provided by the city.
Improving Predictability
People need information about the poten-
tial historic significance of their properties
in advance to help them make informed
decisions about improvements that they
may contemplate. This includes those who
are considering purchase of a property
and those who already own it. They wish
to know these things:
• Is my property historically significant?
• If so, what are the requirements or limi-
tations and what are the benefits?
• What is the process for reviewing work
proposed?
Predictability can be improved in these ar-
9
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Providing Flexibility
Preservation programs are structured to
strive to be objective and treat all similar
resources equally. That is to say, after two
properties are found to be historically sig-
nificant, they are to be treated equally, if
all other conditions are the same. “Flex-
ibility” is a bit different in that context; it
is different from a policy-making situation,
such as developing a sub-area plan. How-
ever, there are ways to build in some flex-
ibility that everyone can understand and
predict.
Structured ways to provide for flexibility in-
clude:
• Defining key features of property
types
Preservation programs focus on pre-
serving the key features of a property.
By defining the limits of these other
portions of the property as being less
important, they are therefore open to
more flexibility in alterations.
• Different survey levels
In the survey process, differing levels
of significance may be identified. The
city already distinguishes “contributing”
resources from those that are “individu-
ally eligible.” This may be expanded on
in combination with other strategies.
• Designation levels
Establish different categories of desig-
nation, such as Individual Landmarks,
Contributing Resources and Structures
of Merit. This can be integrated with
survey levels as well as guidelines and
other standards for treatment.
• Different guidelines
Related to designation levels, guide-
lines with increasing levels of flexibility
may be crafted for properties at lower
levels of significance. This could also
provide more flexibility for incorporat-
ing a historic structure into a new de-
velopment.
Surveys identify resources that have his-
toric significance. They are conducted us-
ing adopted criteria for determining sig-
nificance and can cover both districts and
individual resources. Surveys should in-
clude a listing of all of the properties sur-
veyed, indicating the significance of each
of the historic resources and, where appli-
cable, should also include a description of
the general character of the district.
Tiered Surveys
Some communities use a tiered survey
that indicates varying levels of integrity or
10
City of Fort Collins
The Need for More Surveys
Ideally, the entire city would already be
surveyed, but it is not. Fort Collins has
undertaken some survey updates in re-
cent years, but like many communities, it
is substantially behind. From time to time,
the city is able to fund surveys of small
areas, usually with grants. Priority should
be given to this program, with emphasis
placed upon areas that are targeted for re-
development, or where substantial demoli-
tion is occurring or is anticipated.
Because many areas are not surveyed,
determinations of significance must be
made on a case-by-case basis as projects
come in for permitting. This is one purpose
of the 50-year “filter,” to provide an oppor-
tunity to conduct an initial determination of
significance. However, if this occurs well
into a development submittal, it can lead to
surprises for the property owner.
Access to Survey Information
A key role of the historic survey is to pro-
vide information that the city and property
owners can use at the outset of consid-
ering an improvement project, in order to
determine if a property has historic signifi-
cance. In an efficient program, a property
owner should be able to pull up informa-
tion on the web that identifies any historic
significance.
Survey information should be readily avail-
able to users. Even for those properties that
have been surveyed, the information is not
digitized and posted on the internet. It also
is not linked to the city’s GIS system. This
means that when a query is made about a
property, its potential historic significance
is not made known.
Owner-determinations of
Significance
An official determination of historic sig-
nificance requires objective application of
criteria that are understood by profession-
als in the field. However, in the absence of
comprehensive, city-wide surveys, it may
be possible to craft a “predictive model” for
owners to use that would give them a pre-
liminary indication of the potential historic
significance of their property. This might
take the form of a web-based, interactive
set of questions. The city should explore
the potential to develop this type of self-
test, as a means of helping owners an-
ticipate the development review process.
With this information provided by the own-
er, it could also reduce staff time in basic
research about the property, and thereby
11
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Effective guidelines provide clear ex-
amples of appropriate and inappropriate
design treatments using local properties.
They also define the range of flexibility
that may be available for alterations and
additions. They can help to identify which
features are significant that should be pre-
served, and conversely, which features
are less critical to the integrity of a historic
resource, thereby indicating where greater
flexibility may be afforded. Such guidelines
are especially important for administrative
reviews related to 50 year old properties.
At present, custom-tailored design guide-
lines and standards exist only for Old
Town, and these are out of date. In lieu
of local guidelines, the City of Fort Collins
uses the Secretary of the Interior’s Stan-
dards and Guidelines for Treatment of His-
toric Properties. These serve as the basis
for most locally-written guidelines across
the country, and are based on principles
that are widely accepted nationally. How-
ever, they can be difficult for lay people to
interpret. While they should continue to be
the basis for design guidance, additional
guidance, which is custom-tailored to Fort
Collins, is needed.
With respect to the Old Town Historic Dis-
trict, while the guidelines have been effec-
tive, they need to be updated to enhance
clarity and predictability for owners. The
range of flexibility they may have in deal-
ing with the properties is not clearly under-
stood, and in the absence of good guide-
lines, owners often fear the worst.
Citywide Preservation Guidelines
Clear, well-illustrated design guidelines
and standards that apply citywide to his-
toric resources are needed. They should
address treatment of officially designated
properties, and also should indicate how
they apply to properties in the other devel-
opment review tracks that are identified as
having historic significance. These guide-
lines would help orient property owners
in the appropriate direction at the outset
of their improvement planning, and would
help make the criteria for determining ap-
propriateness more transparent.
6. Compliance Process
An effective program must have mecha-
nisms to assure compliance with permits
and other program requirements. Enforce-
ment for non-compliance is defined as a
part of this component.
As in many communities, enforcement and
compliance are on-going issues in Fort Col-
12
City of Fort Collins
7. Incentives & Benefits
An effective program also offers some
special benefits to stimulate investment in
historic properties, encourages property
owners to follow appropriate rehabilitation
procedures, and even assists those with
limited budgets. This may include financial
assistance, tax relief, technical assistance
or regulatory relief such as streamlined
review processes and special flexibility in
building codes.
The incentives most frequently refer-
enced in Fort Collins are the federal and
state income tax credits that are available
for certified properties. Some design as-
sistance has been offered in the past as
well. In general, the incentives available
fall short of those that many communities
offer. Boulder, for example, offers a re-
bate on the local sales tax of construction
materials that are purchased for an ap-
proved preservation project. Others offer
small design assistance grants to property
owners to help them plan an appropriate
design, while some waive or reduce local
permit fees. Offering flexibility in permitted
uses, parking requirements, building set-
backs and other code-related regulations
are other incentives that may be offered.
Expanding the Incentive Package
Fort Collins should strive to expand its in-
centives and benefits for preservation of
historic structures. This should include op-
tions for incorporating a historic property
into a new development, which is an issue
likely to arise in some of the targeted rede-
velopment areas of the city.
8. Education & Outreach
Helping property owners learn how to
maintain their historic properties as active,
viable assets is also a key part of a suc-
cessful preservation program. Many prop-
erty owners willingly comply with appropri-
ate rehabilitation procedures and develop
compatible designs for new construction
when they are well informed about preser-
vation objectives. Workshops that provide
helpful information about rehabilitation
techniques and publications that build an
understanding of historic significance are
examples of education and outreach strat-
egies. Well-written design guidelines and
standards that provide useful information,
as well as literal standards, can also serve
an educational role.
Education and outreach is often a func-
tion of a partner organization, a non-profit
group that promotes preservation and his-
13
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
9. Program Activity Reporting
A key question is how Fort Collins com-
pares in the volume of design review ac-
tivity that it conducts, both for properties
formally listed in its historic districts and
as individual landmarks, as well as for
properties that reach the 50-year thresh-
old. Substantial amounts of data related
to historic properties are provided in the
preservation office’s annual reports to the
city and to the Colorado Historical Society
as part of its Certified Local Government
requirements.
However, the data are not clearly summa-
rized in a way that facilitates comparison
with other communities, and it is difficult
to place the volume of 50-year reviews in
the broader context of the total number
of projects that are reviewed by the city
each year for building permits or for de-
velopment approvals under the land use
code. It is reported anecdotally that only
a small percentage of the projects that
pass through development review actually
involve historic resources. A standard for-
mat for reporting to the Colorado Histori-
cal Society is required for Certified Local
Governments, which Fort Collins uses, but
this format does not request some of the
information that would be useful in annual
evaluations by city administrations.
Annual Reporting
The city should adopt a simple reporting
form that helps to compare the magnitude
of properties considered for historic sig-
nificance with the total number of permits
issued annually. This would be a supple-
ment to the reporting requirements of the
CLG program. This would put the “preser-
vation filter” aspect of design review into
perspective.
10. Level of Historic Significance
The city’s 1994 preservation plan recom-
mends adopting a system in which differ-
ing levels of historic significance are used.
These different levels of significance were
to be linked to different levels of review,
and even the degree of rigor in which de-
sign guidelines and standards were to be
applied. The general approach is that, for
properties of lesser significance, more
flexibility in treatment may be afforded.
Several communities have experience
working with this type of system. Some of
these are reported in a separate survey of
peer communities. See Appendix D: Peer
Communities Review for more informa-
tion.
14
City of Fort Collins
Developing a Tiered System
The city should consider adopting a tiered
system of ratings. This would identify dif-
ferent levels of significance, based on
clear criteria, and then would indicate the
basic approach anticipated for their treat-
ment. This will require careful thought, but
would enhance predictability for all parties
involved. It should remain clear that the
city’s objective continues to be preserva-
tion of cultural resources, but that there
are, in some cases, options to consider.
C. Recent Trends
Related to Preservation
Programs
With these typical system components in
mind, preservation programs continue to
evolve across the country. This in part re-
flects broader trends in society that are
affecting community planning in general
as well as preservation planning. Some of
these trends are introducing new issues to
historic preservation that may not be fully
apparent in the current program, but which
are likely to become more obvious in time.
The following trends should be taken into
account when crafting system improve-
ments for Fort Collins.
1. Program Operations
Communities continue to seek ways to
streamline programs and accomplish core
objectives in the most efficient ways. This
includes devising methods to simplify de-
sign review and to limit some forms of per-
mitting. Delegating more decision making
to staff, and defining some minimum stan-
dards that can be approved “at the counter”
are operational methods some communi-
ties are using. This, however, requires a
survey system that supports administra-
tive review, and also requires clear guide-
lines and standards to expedite review.
The city’s existing design guidelines and
standards would not be sufficient for this
type of streamlined review.
2. Integrated Systems
Cities are seeking ways to assure that
preservation is more deliberately integrat-
ed into planning in general. In this way,
historic resources are more directly con-
sidered in other planning activities, and
there is a heightened awareness of the
preservation program.
Including preservation staff in development
review at the outset of a project application
is an example. Also engaging preservation
issues in sub-area plans is an effective
means of more closely integrating pres-
15
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
One example of a successful integration
of preservation is the West Side Neigh-
borhood Plan. It gives a description of the
types and extent of historic buildings found
in the area, and sets goals for future devel-
opment to preserve both these resources
and the existing character of these areas.
Although there are examples of adequately
addressing preservation in sub-area plans,
some critical sub-area plans in Fort Collins
are inadequate in the policy guidance that
they provide related to historic preserva-
tion. This means that decisions involving
historic properties will be made using the
provisions in the land use code that pro-
vide for considerations of significance for
any properties more than 50 years old, re-
gardless of their location in the city.
If a property is potentially individually eli-
gible for local listing, then preservation
staff are obligated to pursue preservation
of the resource. The ordinance does not
give them the ability to consider other fac-
tors, such as the fit with other community
objectives, and it does not permit them to
treat properties differently, based on vary-
ing degrees of significance and integrity.
This oversight contributes to the percep-
tion that historic preservation appears as
a last-minute obstacle in the development
review process.
Clarifying Preservation Objectives
in Sub-area Plans
The city should more formally address
preservation in its sub-area plans. It should
be a required component, and should be
addressed early in the plan development.
An initial step would be to re-visit some of
the city’s key sub-area plans and add more
discussion about historic resources.
3. Sustainability
A major shift in public policy towards
sustainability is influencing all land use
planning across the country. Preservation
plays an integral role in any sustainability
policy and this may be used as an oppor-
tunity to further integrate preservation with
other aspects of land use planning and de-
velopment policies.
In Fort Collins, sustainability also is emerg-
ing as a high priority concern. This relates
to preservation in these ways:
• Keeping older buildings in use con-
serves the energy already expended to
create them.
• Maintaining older buildings reduces im-
pacts on landfills.
• Historic buildings often have inherent
16
City of Fort Collins
The role that preservation will play in the
city’s sustainability program should be
a topic of discussion in any future plan-
ning activity. This will only grow in impor-
tance in the coming years, and if it is not
addressed, more perceived conflicts are
likely to arise. The resources of Colorado
State University in this field are also impor-
tant assets to consider. It may be possible
to collaborate on educational programs as
well as on demonstration projects that test
the energy-conserving opportunities of
historic resources.
Including Preservation in
Sustainability Initiatives
The city should include preservation con-
siderations as it develops new sustainability
policies and regulations.
4. Alternative Protection Tools
Many communities are using alternative
tools to preserve the historic character of
their neighborhoods. Sometimes neighbor-
hoods seek historic district status to ad-
dress more basic issues related to new
construction. They seek the historic dis-
trict designation because it is the only
tool available that in any way addresses
the issue. In response, some communities
have added other options to their charac-
ter-management toolkit. They do so recog-
nizing that the tool should fit the objective,
and that the historic district tool should be
used strategically for its originally intend-
ed purpose. These new options include
the use of conservation districts and form-
based codes.
Conservation districts focus on maintain-
ing the traditional building scale and char-
acter of a neighborhood. They use special
zoning standards, and sometimes design
review guidelines, that focus on new con-
struction and additions. The emphasis is
on retaining the appearance of the charac-
ter of a neighborhood in terms of building
alignment, scale and open space as seen
from the street. Alterations to the exterior
of existing buildings that do not expand
the usable floor area typically are not re-
viewed. This may be addressed by a de-
sign review process that is similar to that
for historic districts, but with more limited
criteria and scope of approval. It also may
be implemented as a prescriptive set of
standards that apply as an overlay for a
specified area. These can then be admin-
istered at the permitting counter.
Form-based codes are similar, but are pre-
scriptive, defining the mass and scale of
17
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
5. Refined Survey Methods
Many communities are implementing sur-
vey systems that are management orient-
ed, based on their preservation objectives.
This means using a tiered survey that indi-
cates varying levels of integrity for historic
structures. Such a survey may also iden-
tify new buildings that are compatible with
their context.
In its Preservation Program Plan, Fort Col-
lins outlined a concept of tiered levels of
significance that were then linked to dif-
ferent levels of protection, incentives and
design review. However, this was not im-
plemented in the revised Land Use Code.
The system suggested in that plan may be
more complex than is needed, but the con-
cept is one that merits consideration.
It is also important that when a historic
survey is conducted, the information in-
cluded be helpful to property owners in
identifying those features that are key to
its significance. By noting those features,
a survey can help provide guidance to
property owners and also help to indicate
those areas of the property which are less
sensitive, and where greater flexibility for
alterations is appropriate. As an improve-
ment to the system, refinements to the sur-
vey form should occur.
One concern that arises related to these
custom-tailored surveys is how they can
also conform with the Secretary of the In-
terior’s Standards and the state’s require-
ments. In some communities, they have
accomplished this by creating a supple-
ment sheet that accompanies the standard
state survey form. In this way, the infor-
mation that is required for entry into the
state’s system is provided as stipulated,
but additional information is available for
local review and planning processes.
Improving the Survey Tool for Fort
Collins
As it continues its survey program, the city
should refine the historic property survey
instrument with the objective of recording
information that will be useful in an on-go-
ing property management mode. That is,
the survey should include information that
identifies key features to help owners make
informed decisions about their properties.
(An illustration in Appendix C indicates a
process for identifying key features of a
structure. It suggests, in that example that
most of the key features are on the front of
the building. This indicates that more flex-
ibility would be available to the side and
The Linden Hotel is the focal point of the Old
Town Historic District.
19
A. Policy Directives
Policies are crafted by appointed boards
and commissions and formalized by city
council. Staff’s role is to administer poli-
cy. That said, there are important ways in
which staff can more effectively convey
policy in their actions:
1. Include preservation concerns
when developing sub-area plans.
Preservation staff should be involved in de-
velopment of sub-area and specific plans.
The balance between other goals can be
established at this time. Policy directives
in sub-area plans can also signal to pres-
ervation staff that there are other priorities
which must be taken into consideration.
(Note that City Council always has the abil-
ity to insert other policy considerations into
any specific development review through
a public hearing on the property. Howev-
er, the objective is to provide more policy
guidance formally in advance such that the
burden of a council hearing is avoided.)
III. PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
This section provides recommendations for improving the preservation system in Fort
Collins. The recommendations are organized around the preservation system compo-
nents introduced in Section II.
With limited resources to address the recommendations in this report, it is important to
establish priorities for action. A summary table of the recommended system improve-
ments is provided at the end of this section which establishes a proposed phasing
schedule. These phases were determined by prioritizing actions that will have the great-
est or most immediate impact, as well as with consideration for the relative ease of their
implementation.
20
City of Fort Collins
2. Develop a preservation and
sustainability initiative.
Sustainability is a broad concept that con-
tinues to evolve and in which older build-
ings can play an important role. In many
respects, they are more energy efficient,
or can be retrofitted easily. But, in many
cases, the information and techniques are
not available or readily understood. In re-
sponse, the city should:
• Establish policy that recognizes the
role of conserving existing buildings
as sustainable and that this should be
considered when determining best ap-
proaches; in this respect, the preserva-
tion program should be seen as a part-
ner in sustainability.
• Establish a technical assistance pro-
gram for property owners to accomplish
energy-saving retrofits. (Include work-
shops, informational handouts, and
perhaps organize a tech-school retrofit
program. This may be an opportunity to
partner with the university.)
• Related to technical assistance, estab-
lish a process for determining repair
and replacement strategies for win-
dows, materials and roofing that take
sustainability into consideration.
3. Develop policies for the
treatment of recent past
resources.
Younger properties that may now be con-
sidered for historic significance may re-
quire somewhat different treatment in per-
mitting and review. In response, the city
should develop specific design guidelines
and standards for the treatment of recent
past buildings. These properties require
some special consideration, because
some have materials that may be more
difficult to treat than those in traditional
historic properties. As an example, some
commercial buildings constructed during
the 1950s and 1960s used materials and
technologies that are no longer available.
This can make them more difficult to reha-
bilitate using conventional guidelines than
earlier “Victorian” construction. Guidelines
for treatment of Recent Past properties
may offer more flexibility in using replace-
ment materials and even in altering some
features.
4. Consider a neighborhood
conservation tool.
A growing issue is promoting conservation
in older neighborhoods. Consider options
for neighborhood conservation that are
21
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Review would include consideration for:
• The level of significance and level of
preservation that is expected based on
the tiered system
• The context of the property
• The relationship to other planning ob-
jectives for the area
The following table outlines an example of
potential levels of significance and links
them to treatment policies. Note that this
is only a preliminary example for illustra-
tive purposes.
*There is always a consideration of infeasibility (economic hardship) in expecting pres-
ervation of a resource.
22
City of Fort Collins
Actions
• Develop a preservation and
sustainability initiative.
• Include preservation goals and preser-
vation’s role in sustainability in the up-
date of the City Plan.
• Update existing sub-area plans to in-
clude preservation objectives.
• Review options for policies for the treat-
ment of recent past resources.
• Evaluate options for the adoption of al-
ternative neighborhood character man-
agement tools.
• Review options for adopting a tiered
system of historic designation and re-
view.
B. Ordinances
Recommended ordinance improvements
found throughout this section include these
basic components:
• Basic Clean-ups
Some improvements focus on clarifying
existing provisions in the code that are
appropriate, but have technical flaws.
• Modifications to Reflect Policy
These improvements focus on clarify-
ing how city policies relate to the pres-
ervation ordinance.
• New Provisions
These recommendations address new
elements that should be added in re-
sponse to national trends in the best
practices for historic preservation.
• Format
These recommendations focus on the
organization and formatting of the
codes.
These different types of strategies are
identified throughout this section.
1. Land Use Code
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7
Historic and Cultural Resources
Section 3.4.7 provides standards for pres-
ervation and treatment of historic proper-
ties and their incorporation into new de-
velopments. It provides a good basis for
design guidelines and standards as it sets
the broad principles for the treatment of his-
toric resources, but gives only very limited
guidance or direction for rehabilitation of
historic properties themselves. It provides
more specific criteria for the design of new
construction in a Historic District or adja-
cent to a listed resource. However, these
criteria are written primarily for a commer-
cial context, and may not be as applicable
for infill within or adjacent to a residential
context. While this section of the code
23
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Strategy
Add language defining the criteria for treat-
ment of historic properties in general, such
that they will apply to all potential property
types, including single-family.
Add language to 3.4.7(E) that references
Municipal Code 14-72 to clarify applicable
procedures for demolition review.
2. Municipal Code: Chapter 14
Landmark Preservation
Article I. In General
Sec. 14-5. Standards for determining
the eligibility for designation of sites,
structures, objects and districts for
preservation
This section of the code lists four criteria
for eligibility to be designated as a historic
landmark. The resource must meet one or
more of these criteria, in addition to hav-
ing a sufficient degree of integrity for the
exterior of the property. The level of integ-
rity required is not specified; however, in
the definition of “exterior integrity,” it is im-
plied that the level required is relative to
its level of significance. That is, a property
of a lower degree of significance may be
expected to have a higher degree of integ-
rity. This need not be the case. The level
of integrity should be separated from the
definition of significance.
Strategy
Add language that more clearly defines
criteria for eligibility, and that acknowledg-
es different levels of significance. Also,
clarify the definition of “integrity,” including
the discussion of the different “aspects” of
integrity as used by the Secretary of the
Interior. (See the city’s Preservation Plan,
adopted in 1994, for suggestions of crite-
ria for integrity.)
Article II. Designation Procedures
This article defines the steps to follow in
designating historic resources. While it
lays out general steps for designation, it
does not give clear guidance on the full
procedure to be used by staff when des-
ignating a district. Clear policy is lacking
for steps such as neighborhood meetings
and the initiation of the district designation
procedures. This neighborhood meeting is
typically held before the Landmark Pres-
ervation Commission (LPC) “designation
hearing,” though it is not mentioned in the
Code.
Strategy
Update the designation procedures for
districts. A clear process of steps should
be laid out, including language stipulating
24
City of Fort Collins
Sec. 14-21. Initiation of procedure
Owner consent is not required to designate
a landmark. However, when an owner does
not concur with the nomination, a further
level of public review is required above
and beyond that stipulated for designation
when the owner concurs. In addition, the
code provides that any city resident may
file a nomination for a historic district. This
leaves the possibility of “frivolous” nomi-
nations, or of ones that may not be well
thought out.
The initiation of designation procedures
for a district is typically a decision of the
LPC to proceed after a review of the appli-
cation. This application is required to give
basic information on the historic signifi-
cance of the district; however, it does not
require sufficient justification of the bound-
aries of a district.
Strategy
Add language that limits those who may
initiate designation of a historic district or
landmark to:
1. The City Council, the Landmark Pres-
ervation Commission and the Director
of Community Development and Neigh-
borhood Services would have standing
to initiate a nomination.
2. An organization with an established in-
terest in preservation. This would be
clearly defined and can include groups
such as a non-profit with preservation
in their mission statement etc. Inclu-
sion of such groups on a list of parties
with standing is a common practice,
and can help build community support
and preservation partnership ties.
3. The property owner (if a single prop-
erty)
4. A defined percentage of properties in a
proposed district
Also, clarify the preliminary level of infor-
mation that is needed to indicate that a po-
tential district exists and that further con-
sideration is merited. This should include
requirements for the justification of district
boundaries and for the area to be docu-
mented well enough that the LPC would be
able to determine if a nomination has merit
and should proceed.
Sec. 14-23. Community Development
and Neighborhood Services review
This section instructs staff in reviewing a
proposed designation to consider the Zon-
ing Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan,
and the effect on the neighborhood, as
well as any other planning consideration
25
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Strategy
As it exists, the city could choose to avoid
designation because of potential conflicts
with other policies. However, there may
be times in which recognizing the prop-
erty as historic would enable benefits that
would make preservation feasible, even
in the face of other planning policies, and
the owner may wish to retain the building.
Or, it may be appropriate to designate the
property, but signal that more flexibility
in alteration, addition, or removal is de-
sirable. Consider adding language that
would include other planning objectives as
part of the designation discussion by City
Council. Include provisions that staff will
provide information on other planning ob-
jectives to the LPC as background infor-
mation only, and to the City Council as part
of their report and recommendation. The
LPC should continue to consider designa-
tion based on merit only. The discussion of
other planning objectives should continue
to be done only at the City Council level.
Also consider how different levels of des-
ignation and treatment might interact with
historic properties and citywide planning
objectives.
Sec. 14-24. Interim controls
This section includes a provision to place
an immediate “hold” on building permits
while a property or district is being consid-
ered for landmarking. During the hold, per-
mits may only be sought with approval of
the City Council. This can cause an undue
burden because staff have no discretion in
waiving the hold.
Strategy
Modify the language as it applies to pro-
posed landmarks and historic districts to
allow for flexibility. Rather than limiting
permit applications all together, establish
a base level of holds that, at the time of ini-
tiation of landmarking procedures, places
a nominated property (or property within
a nominated district) at the same level of
control as an officially designated one.
Also establish procedures/criteria for the
LPC to have the authority to grant certain
pre-defined exceptions. This should be ex-
plained in both text and inserted as a table
in the code for ease of use and clarity of
policy. See Appendix A for an example of
such a table. (Note that a separate section
of the code also provides exceptions for
addressing dangerous conditions.)
26
City of Fort Collins
Article III. Construction,
Alterations, Demolitions and
Relocations
Sec. 14-46. Work requiring a building
permit
Any action on a designated resource re-
quiring a building permit must first receive
a report of acceptability from the LPC. The
review of such applications is divided into
two parts: (1) a conceptual review and (2)
a final review. The conceptual review pro-
vides an applicant with an understanding
of how their project will be reviewed and
what will be required of it early in the de-
sign process, prior to the full project (final)
review. This level of review provides the
applicant with information that may not be
readily available otherwise, such as how
review criteria apply to their property.
Strategy
This provision needs to be more broadly
communicated to property owners. Recom-
mendations for public outreach and educa-
tion materials that relate to review proce-
dures are addressed in the Draft Process
and Policy Improvement Report.
Also consider permitting the LPC to des-
ignate an advisory design review subcom-
mittee of its body to provide early consul-
tations to applicants and property owners.
These review steps should be illustrated in
a chart or diagram in the ordinance as well
as posted on the web and included in other
print materials that explain the process.
Sec. 14-48. Approval of proposed
work
This section provides a list of criteria for
the Commission to consider when mak-
ing their determination of the appropriate-
ness of work that is proposed on a land-
mark structure, including the Secretary of
the Interiors Standards. However, it does
not explain what the desired outcome is,
other than maintaining the resource’s in-
tegrity and that the proposed work should
be compatible with the resource.
Strategy
Clarify the criteria for determining appro-
priateness. The existing criteria are writ-
ten as topics to be considered, and not
standards to be met. The updated criteria
should continue to draw on the Secretary
of the Interiors Standards but provide more
specific direction relating to what is appro-
priate.
Sec. 14-48.5. Work not detrimental
to historic, architectural or cultural
material; administrative process
27
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Administrative review of minor projects can
minimize the use of commission time, ex-
pedite minor project reviews and provide
a degree of clarity to applicants. Currently
administrative review is done at the option
of the applicant only. Clarification and ex-
pansion of the administrative review pro-
cess should be considered.
Strategy
Expand staff’s ability to approve applica-
tions in conjunction with providing clear
criteria for review. Establish an expanded
base list of actions approvable at the staff
level, and include a provision allowing the
LPC to delegate additional actions to staff
for approval. Illustrate this list of actions
that can be permitted by staff in a chart or
table as part of a companion document to
the code to provide additional clarity to the
public.
Article IV. Demolitions or
Relocation of Historic Structures
Not Designated as Fort Collins
Landmarks or Located in a Fort
Collins Landmark District
Sec. 14-71. General
14-71 refers to section 203 of the Uniform
Building Code and in 1994, applied to dan-
gerous or unsafe buildings. Since the time
that this was written, the city has adopted
new building codes, which cause this sec-
tion to no longer be accurate.
Strategy
Update references in both the Land Use
Code and the Municipal Code to match
building code updates, including special
provisions for historic buildings.
Sec. 14-72. Procedures for review
of applications for demolition or
relocation
Section 14-72 provides for several lev-
els of review in order to explore options
for protecting potential historic resources
(properties 50 years of age or older) from
demolition. The first level is a review by the
Director of Community Development and
Neighborhood Services and the Commis-
sion Chair in order to determine the level
of eligibility of the property. (Note that this
process is different for buildings that are
a safety hazard, which is addressed in a
separate section of the code.)
If they feel the property may have signifi-
cance that could be adversely affected
by the proposed work, then Commission
review is required. Commission review is
conducted in two steps: (1) a preliminary
hearing and (2) a final hearing.
28
City of Fort Collins
The summary of the City’s Review Process-
es for Historic Buildings and Structures on
the city’s website contradicts the process
as described in the code. The website
summary states that “Whenever a permit
or development application is sought for a
building or structure that is 50 years old
or older, the application is reviewed un-
der Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code,
commonly called the Demolition/Alteration
Review Process.” This implies that every
permit application must go through this re-
view application. However, this section re-
quires the LPC to review applications only
for demolition, partial demolition or reloca-
tion of a structure that is 50 years of age
or older and which meets one or more of
the designation criteria. Other applications
for properties 50 years of age or older are
reviewed by staff under Section 3.4.7 of
the Land Use Code. However, applications
for alterations on properties of age may be
considered ‘partial demolitions,’ based on
the definition of a demolition in the code,
if they destroy any part of an eligible re-
source. “Demolition shall mean any act or
process that destroys in part or in whole
an eligible or designated site, structure or
object, or a site, structure or object within
an eligible or designated district.”
Strategy
Update Section 14-72 of the Municipal
Code to specify that it applies to alterations
as well as demolitions, partial demolitions
and relocations. Update the supplemental
policy summary to clarify which element of
which code is applicable based on various
project types. Include a diagram to aid in
clarification of the review process.
Further updates to this section may be
required based on other recommenda-
tions throughout this report. For example,
if different levels of designation are es-
tablished, the demolition review process
should be tailored based on those levels
of significance.
Currently the LPC Chair has the authority
to appoint another member of the Commis-
sion to act for them in the preliminary anal-
ysis of potential significance. The Director
of Community Development and Neighbor-
hood Services should also be given the
authority to appoint another member of the
preservation planning staff to represent
them in the preliminary analysis of poten-
tial significance.
Article V. Landmark Rehabilitation
Loan Program
29
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
3. Other Code Observations and
Issues
This section provides a summary of key
observations and issues that are not di-
rectly related to specific code sections.
Levels of Preservation Review
Several different levels and types of review
on historic properties occur. While these
are clearly defined in the various sections
of the codes, it is not readily apparent which
kind of review is applicable to a certain
project type. For example, administrative
review can happen in two ways: by just the
Director of Community Development and
Neighborhood Services, or by the Director
and the Chair of the Commission.
Strategy
Clarification of the preservation review
process should be provided as part of a
companion guide to the code that helps
the public understand the process. Include
simple flow charts and other visual aids.
Design Standards and Guidelines
The signs section of the Municipal Code
references the city’s Design Guidelines for
Old Town as part of the application review
criteria; however, these guidelines are not
referenced in any of the other review crite-
ria throughout the code.
Strategy
In addition to referencing the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards it is important to
have the ability to adopt design guidelines
or standards, including those for specific
resource types found in Fort Collins. Pro-
vide language stating that the city may
adopt design guidelines and standards
to aid in interpreting the criteria set forth
in Municipal Code Chapter 14: Landmark
Preservation.
Contributing Resources
The code refers to contributing resources
several times. In practice, these are con-
sidered to have a lower level of signifi-
cance, but their treatment is not clear. The
definition of “eligibility” lists “contributing
to a district” as a separate level of eligi-
bility for designation. These two concepts
should not be combined. It confuses the
definition. In most communities, “contrib-
uting” properties are those that gain their
significance from being part of a set of re-
sources that tell a story. A row of houses in
a block is an example. They may all have
a high degree of integrity, but they are not
individually significant. However, the code
lacks clear policies for the treatment or
designation of a contributing resource.
30
City of Fort Collins
Demolition
Land Use Code 3.4.7(E) Relocation or De-
molition overlaps with Municipal Code 14-
72. An overlap between Land Use Code
3.4.7(C) and Municipal Code Section 14-5
for the determination of Landmark Eligi-
bility also occurs; however, the conflict is
minimized as 3.4.7(C) references the cri-
teria in Section 14-5.
Strategy
Add a reference in Land Use Code 3.4.7(E)
to the Municipal Code 14-72 policies for
relocations and demolitions.
Regulations on Non-designated
Properties
Two sections of the code require review
of unlisted, individually eligible properties,
Municipal Code 14-72 and Land Use Code
3.4.7. This is potentially confusing.
Strategy
Clarify the difference between the two sec-
tions of the code and make clear which is
required and how each section is applied.
Where possible, tables should be used to
visually clarify regulations.
New Provisions
In addition to the improvements described
above, best practices in preservation in-
dicate that emerging preservation trends
should also be addressed in the ordi-
nance.
Strategy
Provide new code language to address
trends in best practices in preservation in-
cluding;
• Language referencing the role that his-
toric resources play in sustainability,
resource conservation and energy ef-
ficiency. Establish as a role of the LPC
to advise the city on preservation’s role
in citywide sustainability objectives.
• Language providing for a conservation
district option. Conservation districts
focus on maintaining the traditional
building scale and character of a neigh-
borhood. They use special zoning stan-
dards, and sometimes design review
guidelines, that focus on new construc-
tion and additions. These can often be
administered at the permitting counter.
Conservation district language should
include clearly defined differences in
the levels of review for a conservation
district as compared to a historic dis-
trict.
Organization
Simple formatting updates should be made
to increase the ease of use and under-
31
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Definitions
Some of the definitions found in the Munic-
ipal Code contain circular references with
other definitions. Others reference or im-
ply a requirement not clearly conveyed in
the code language. These include the defi-
nitions of contributing to a district, eligibil-
ity and landmark or landmark district, as
well as possible confusion between altera-
tions and partial demolitions. The defini-
tion of exterior integrity implies that a cer-
tain level of integrity is required in order to
landmark a resource based on its level of
significance. This is not clarified in the eli-
gibility criteria section of the code. The in-
tegrity of a resource is also not listed as a
criterion for review of proposed alterations,
demolitions, etc. The definitions should be
updated to reflect desired policies.
Strategy
Update the definitions to match recom-
mendations in this report including;
• Clarify levels of designation in defini-
tions, including national, state and all
levels of local designation.
• Update the definitions of ‘eligibility’ and
‘eligible resource’ to match designation
levels.
• Clarify the definition of integrity and its
use in the eligibility criteria section of
the code, and add it as a criterion for
review of proposed alterations.
C. Operating
Procedures
1. Clarify the preservation review
process.
Preservation review should be more close-
ly coordinated with other development re-
views.
• Establish provisions to include preser-
vation staff’s comments early in devel-
opment review.
• Incorporate preservation and 50-year
reviews in the city’s development re-
view chart and process. (It does not
appear there at present.)
• Diagram the landmarks designation
and design review processes. (This ex-
ists in text form, but is not easy to un-
derstand.)
2. Update development review
documents to reflect the 50-year
question.
At present, the city’s Development Review
Flowchart omits any reference to historic
preservation review, or to properties that
are 50 years old. This means that proper-
ty owners can be “surprised” to learn that
32
City of Fort Collins
3. Coordinate Section 106
reviews.
The city has no designated official to man-
age Section 106 reviews. This is a part of
the National Historic Preservation Act that
requires consideration of the effects that
any federal undertaking may have on cer-
tain historic properties. Public works proj-
ects may often fall under this provision.
For example, if a road improvement proj-
ect involves widening the street and prop-
erties on or eligible for National Register
listing may be affected, then those effects
must be considered. Typically the project
can be permitted and executed, but the
evaluation must consider ways to protect
the resources and mitigate any potential
negative impacts.
The Section 106 review occurs with the
State Historic Preservation Officer. At pres-
ent, if any project involving federal funds is
proposed, the department responsible for
the project is assumed to be the party that
must coordinate this review for the city.
This means that staff unfamiliar with the
process may be involved, and delays can
occur. In many communities, a single con-
tact point is established to assure timely
review and compliance with the regulation.
The city should identify the preservation
office as the coordinator for Section 106
reviews.
4. Monitor preservation review
and permitting.
An annual tracking/reporting system is
needed, as a supplement to the annual
CLG reports, to track the efficiency and
predictability of the preservation review
system. This would document the number
and types of projects reviewed, as well as
their outcomes and the length of time they
were in the process.
5. Expand administrative review
procedures.
Project types that can be reviewed by the
Director of Advance Planning are specified
in the code. Clarification and expansion of
the administrative review process should
be considered to increase the efficiency of
preservation review.
Actions
• Update development review applica-
tion form to include questions relative
to preservation including the age of the
building and its existing historic status
(if any).
• Update development review flow chart
to include preservation review and 50-
33
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
D. Resource Surveys
The historic significance of a property
is typically determined by professionals
trained in architectural history who apply
consistent criteria. Ideally, older portions
of the city would be surveyed comprehen-
sively to identify properties that are histori-
cally significant. That information is then
made readily available to property own-
ers.
However, Fort Collins, as with most cities,
has not committed the resources needed
to conduct a citywide survey. Funding typi-
cally occurs in small increments, and then
selected areas are surveyed as the funds
become available. (See the Peer Commu-
nities Review in Appendix D for examples
of the status of surveys in other communi-
ties.)
Note that the time period during which
properties may be considered to have the
potential for historic significance continues
to move forward. The 50-year threshold
that the city uses for demolition review is
one that is often applied as a first filter be-
fore evaluating a property for significance.
As time progresses, other properties reach
this threshold. While doing so does not au-
tomatically bestow historic significance, it
does mean that the need to survey is on-
going.
When survey information is not available,
determinations of significance are made on
a case-by-case basis, again using adopted
criteria. This is the process that planning
staff employ when a property older than
50 years is proposed for demolition. They
evaluate the property using adopted cri-
teria. This can appear mysterious to lay
people, and can lead to frustration when
the professional’s finding contradicts the
owner’s expectations.
1. Improve the availability of
existing survey information.
Publish existing surveys on the city’s web
site and link them to GIS data systems. In-
clude lists and maps of all currently listed
properties and all properties over 50 years
of age.
2. Expand the city’s survey
program to cover most of the
older portions of the city.
Give priority to areas where redevelop-
ment pressures exist.
3. Refine the city’s survey form
to include more information
useful to property owners.
A key concept in historic preservation is
34
City of Fort Collins
4. Develop more context
statements.
As a prelude to surveying, the city uses
brief historic overviews related to a partic-
ular theme of development or a geograph-
ic area. This describes the relationship of
built resources to the social and cultural
history of the community, identifies the
typical property types that are likely to be
involved, and suggests areas where these
resources are most likely to occur. These
help serve as a basis for planning, in terms
of predicting where historic resources are
likely to be found, and in setting priorities
for historic surveys.
5. Provide a “predictive model”
to enable owners to gain a
preliminary indication of the
potential historic significance of
any un-surveyed property.
While it is desirable to have a formal sur-
vey already on hand, it may be possible
to craft some user-friendly “self-test” that
could be available over the internet which
would enable property owners to gain a
preview of the potential significance of
their property. The city should provide in-
formation on the web that will help people
develop their own preliminary estimate of
the potential significance of a property.
This may take the form of a checklist that
includes some of the basic criteria that are
typically used in determining significance,
with explanations that facilitate use by lay
people.
Actions:
• Publicize all surveys on the city’s web-
site.
• Conduct additional surveys, place em-
phasis on areas targeted for redevel-
opment or where substantial demolition
is occurring or anticipated.
• Review options for implementing an up-
dated survey system including informa-
tion on key character-defining features
of a building and relating to a proposed
tiered system for designation.
• Develop additional context statements.
• Establish a web-based predictive mod-
el for property owners to make their
own initial determination of the historic
significance of their property.
E. Design Guidelines
and Standards
1. Publish design guidelines and
standards for the treatment of
historic properties.
“Fear of the unknown” is a key concern.
35
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Clearly written, well-illustrated design
guidelines and standards can help remove
some of the mystery associated with the
treatment of historic properties. With ad-
vance guidance, an owner can develop an
appropriate approach for the treatment of
their historic property. These guidelines
should provide information about altera-
tions for historic buildings that are officially
designated as such under city ordinances.
They also should outline options for design
that will help users understand the range
of flexibility that may be available for treat-
ment of certain properties.
Guidelines will provide clarity and help
people make decisions early. The guide-
lines should address new, emerging issues
such as energy conservation and “recent
past” resources.
Guidelines should also address how de-
velopment review occurs on properties
abutting historic districts. This is required
in the land use code, but the criteria for
review are not defined.
2. Update the Design Guidelines
and Standards for the Old Town
Historic District.
The existing guidelines are very brief,
primarily setting forth basic principles for
treatment of historic commercial buildings
and compatible new construction. While
brevity can imply flexibility, it can also sig-
nal lack of predictability. More detail can
in fact clarify areas of flexibility, as well as
defining more specifically appropriate and
inappropriate design actions.
An update would help to streamline review
of projects within the district. By providing
more clarity, additional design actions may
also be approved administratively, thereby
reducing meeting agendas for the commis-
sion.
Actions
• Adopt city-wide preservation design
guidelines and standards.
• Adopt city-wide design guidelines and
standards for areas abutting historic
districts.
• Update the Old Town Design Guide-
lines.
F. Compliance Process
A clear working relationship should be es-
tablished between preservation planning
staff and code enforcement staff. Clear
documentation of what has been approved
should be provided to enforcement staff
to be used in conjunction with site inspec-
tions. A documentation format for succinct-
36
City of Fort Collins
G. Incentives and
Benefits
The city’s existing incentives are very lim-
ited and, in general, fall short of those of-
fered by similar communities.
Actions
• Expand the city’s historic preservation
incentive program.
H. Training, Education
and Outreach
In the absence of other supporting organi-
zations, the city needs to engage in more
outreach and training programs.
1. Provide staff training.
All planning staff should receive a basic
orientation to the preservation system and
the principles involved, such that they can
better understand the program and advise
applicants on their options. Similarly, pres-
ervation staff should be engaged in an ori-
entation program directed at how they can
participate in sub-area planning effectively
and how to take other planning objectives
into consideration when developing poli-
cies for those areas.
2. Provide training to the
Landmark Preservation
Commission.
Establish an on-going program to train the
LPC. This should include the city’s preser-
vation policies and review system as well
as best practices in preservation plan-
ning.
3. Publish all preservation-
related information on the web.
This should include surveys of individual
properties, historic contexts, maps and
design guidelines and standards. Educa-
tional materials such as brochures should
be made available. Case studies illustrat-
ing successful solutions should also be
provided.
Actions
• Establish a preservation planning and
review training program for planning
staff.
• Establish a training program for the
LPC.
• Make all preservation information avail-
able on the city’s website.
• Publish informational brochure on pres-
ervation’s role in sustainability practic-
es.
37
IV. IMPLEMENTATION PHASING
TABLE
The following table summarizes the recommended system improvements and proposes
a phasing schedule for their implementation. The phases are roughly based on the num-
ber of years it will take to implement an action. Phases for each action were determined
by prioritizing those that will have the greatest or most immediate impact, as well as by
considering the relative ease of their implementation.
38
City of Fort Collins
39
40
41
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE TABLES
The following are examples of how tables can be used to provide increased ease of use
and clarity of policies in the code. Such tables can be integrated into the code itself or
published separately as part of a companion document to the code. These tables are
illustrative examples only.
42
City of Fort Collins
1. Interim Controls Example
Actions Permitted During Consideration for Designation as a Local Historic Resource:
43
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
2. Resource Types Example Table
This type of table would be used as part of a tiered system of significance and review. It
outlines potential levels of significance and links them to treatment policies. The proper-
ty ratings are in general terms to provide a clear distinction of significance. Should such
a system be adopted more information should be provided relating to local designations
in addition to the National Register designations shown.
45
APPENDIX B
INTEGRATED REVIEW
The following is an example from Pasadena, CA of how preservation review and design
review can be integrated. Pasadena uses one application form for both types of review,
and the form includes a section for staff to provide information about the historic signifi-
cance of the property.
46
City of Fort Collins
PASADENA PERMIT CENTER
www.cityofpasadena.net/permitcenter
Design and Historic Preservation Section
MASTER APPLICATION FORM
DHPMasterApp.doc Rev: 3/26/08
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT // 175 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE T 626-744-4009
DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION PASADENA, CA 91101 F 626-744-4785
Design Review (Ch. 17.61.030 P.M.C.)
Certificate of Appropriateness (Ch. 17.62.090 P.M.C.)
Project Address
Project Name
Project Description
Applicant Architect Contractor Developer Other
name: phone:
address: fax:
city: state: zip code: email:
Applicant Signature: Date:
(note: if the applicant is other than the property owner, separate signed owner authorization is required)
Architect or Designer (for design review projects)
name: phone:
address: fax:
city: state: zip code: email:
Property Owner
name: phone:
address: fax:
city: state zip code: email:
Primary Contact Person: Applicant Architect Property Owner
Proposed Work
new construction demolition relocation restoration/rehabilitation addition/alteration sign/awning
Project Information (for staff use only)
PLN Review Authority Historic Preservation Review Type of Design Review
PRJ staff Category 1 (designated) concept design review
staff initials: Design Commission Category 2 (eligible) final design review
date accepted: Historic Preservation Comm. consolidated design review
date submittals rec’d:
fee: $ CEQA Review Landmark/Historic District Tree Removal Public Art
notification: $ Exempt yes yes
3% records fee: $ Pending district name no no
TOTAL: $ Completed completed
47
APPENDIX C
GUIDELINE FLEXIBILITY AND
EASE OF USE
The following illustrations from the draft Historic Design Guidelines and Standards for
Deadwood, SD are examples of how guidelines can be made user friendly and identify
a range of flexibility in applying them.
48
City of Fort Collins
49
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
50
City of Fort Collins
51
APPENDIX D
PEER COMMUNITIES REVIEW
As part of the Preservation Systems Improvement Project several peer community pres-
ervation programs were reviewed in 2009 for comparable and innovative program ele-
ments. This review took place in two parts. Part One provides an overview of the pres-
ervation codes and programs for a list of 21 identified peer communities. Based on the
results of this information, Part Two selected several communities for more thorough
review of key areas of their preservation programs.
Aspen, CO (pop. 5,804)
• Recently adopted a list of, and regula-
tions for, potential historic resources.
• Has preservation design guidelines.
• Has three classifications of historic re-
view: exempt, minor and significant.
• Publishes an HPC fact sheet describ-
ing what projects are reviewed.
• Has taken steps to address recent past
resources.
Athens, GA (pop. 112,434).
• Has developed downtown guidelines
that extend beyond the historic district/
core.
• City Code requires design guidelines
to be adopted or identified concurrent
with or immediately following designa-
tion of a district or landmark.
Part One: Peer
Communities List
This list identifies peer communities
whose codes and preservation systems
were considered for review in Part Two,
in order to gain an understanding of how
their programs are structured with respect
to historic preservation and development
review.
Alamo Heights, TX (pop. 7,319)
• Has demolition delay, but not preven-
tion.
Ann Arbor, MI (pop. 115,092)
• Recently adopted urban design stan-
dards and guidelines for the greater
downtown area, portions of which are
historic districts.
• Historic district commission reviews
yard, open space features, and the en-
tirety of the exterior of a building.
• City has adopted, or is promoting green
building policies.
52
City of Fort Collins
Boulder, CO (pop. 91,685)
• Has general historic design guidelines
and guidelines for each historic dis-
trict.
• Has adopted criteria for significance for
individual properties and districts.
• Code identifies standards for Landmark
Alteration Certificate Applications.
• City manager and two members of the
Landmarks Board review all Landmark
Alteration projects; any one may refer
to full board if project may have im-
pacts.
• The Design Review Committee of the
Landmarks Board reviews all demoli-
tion permit applications for buildings
over 50 years old.
Durango, CO (pop. 13,922)
• Council can designate without owners
consent only for buildings with a high
level of significance.
• Staff reviews all applications on listed
properties, and if there are possible im-
pacts refers them to the board for re-
view.
• Review criteria established in the
code.
Eugene, OR (pop. 154,620)
• Uses special zoning designation to al-
low flexibility in historic resources treat-
ment.
• Published advisory design guidelines
for historic residential properties and
for infill development in historic neigh-
borhoods.
• Publishes Preservation Strategies Re-
ports.
• Has taken steps to address recent past
resources and sustainability.
Evanston, IL (pop. 74,239)
• Historic Preservation Commission re-
view required for all landmark buildings
and buildings within historic districts.
• Districts established as zoning overlay
with Historic Preservation Ordinance.
• The city has no preservation guide-
lines.
Fort Worth, TX (pop. 681,818)
• Uses an established list of 10 criteria
for designation of individual proper-
ties.
• Uses overlay zoning for historic districts
requiring consent of > 50% of property
owners representing > 50% of the land
area.
• Uses zoning overlay designation of
‘demolition delay’, with no limits on the
use or alteration of a property, but will
53
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
Lexington, KY (pop. 279,044)
• Has an old core of commercial and res-
idential neighborhoods, ring of “recent
past” neighborhoods, and an estab-
lished preservation program.
• No demolition prevention, only a 30-
day delay for documentation.
• Has summary chart of when historic re-
view is required.
• Recently surveyed 34 downtown blocks
using specific preservation criteria.
Madison, WI (pop. 223,389)
• Uses a combination of Historic Districts,
Neighborhood Conservation Areas and
Historic Landmarks.
• Publishes a best practices guide for
development.
Minneapolis, MN (pop. 377,392)
• Reviews all projects involving desig-
nated resources or within districts
• Recently proposed ordinance amend-
ments to clarify the code, introduce
conservation districts, and update sec-
tions on demolition, designation, and
demolition delays.
Monterey, CA (pop. 30,641)
• Minor reviews done by staff, major by
commission.
• Two levels of designation based on lev-
el of significance.
• Uses zoning incentives for designated
properties.
• Uses separate regulations for surveyed
properties found to be potentially his-
toric.
Pasadena, CA (pop. 143,400)
• City places Preservation and Urban
Design in same division.
• Preservation Program includes façade
easement and historic interior policies.
• Preservation information prominent on
city website.
• Published a 2007 report on recent past
resources.
Phoenix, AZ (pop. 1,552,259)
• City Historic Preservation Office staff
makes all decisions on applications for
Certificates of No Effect or Appropriate-
ness, and can deny demolition applica-
tions (except in cases of hardship).
• The Historic Preservation Commission
reviews designation of landmarks, dis-
tricts and historic zoning overlays and
proposed preservation planning poli-
cies.
Portland, OR (pop. 550,396)
• The City uses both Historic and Conser-
vation Districts, with separate design
54
City of Fort Collins
Sacramento, CA (pop. 460,2420)
• Extensive development review system,
well-established preservation program.
• Uses “hearing officer” format for many
design review decisions.
• A COA may be required even when a
building permit is not; building permit
applications are prevented from pro-
ceeding until the COA process is com-
plete.
Tacoma, WA (pop. 196,520)
• Undertaking a preservation plan that
considers interface with economic de-
velopment.
• Has individual design standards for de-
sign review in separate districts.
Tulsa, OK (pop 393,049)
• In process of updating strategic preser-
vation plan.
• Has automatic demolition delay for des-
ignated properties or properties within
a district, but cannot deny demolition
after the delay.
• Code defines design guidelines to be
used by commission in COA review.
Part Two: Peer
Communities Review
The peer communities reviewed in this
section include: Ann Arbor, MI, Aspen,
CO, Monterey, CA, and Pasadena, CA.
The preservation programs for these cit-
ies were examined based on a list of ten
key topics, as well as for any unique ele-
ments relevant to possible improvements
to the Fort Collins program. The key topics
include:
1. Development Review Process
How does the permitting process work for
officially listed historic resources? How
does it interface with other development
reviews in the city?
2. Delegated Decision-Making
How is decision-making authority as-
signed? Can some projects be approved
administratively or by a sub-committee?
3. Consideration of Unlisted
Properties 50 Years Old
Does the city review work on properties
that are of an established age, but which
are not listed formally as historic resourc-
es?
4. Demolition Review
How is demolition review conducted for
properties that are not officially listed as
local landmarks?
5. Structures of Merit
Does the City have a category that recog-
nizes properties of historic significance,
55
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
6. Surveys
Does the city use a survey system that in-
dicates different levels of significance? If
so, how is this linked to design review and
permitting? Are there any innovative ways
in which surveys are being applied?
7. Incentives
Does the city offer incentives or provide
special benefits for properties that are
listed as historic resources? If so, what
are they? Which are most successful? Are
other incentives being considered?
8. Sustainability
In what ways is sustainability a factor in the
preservation program? Does it appear in
the design guidelines? In other policies?
9. Economic Development
Is economic development a part of the
preservation program? How does the pres-
ervation program interact with other eco-
nomic development initiatives?
10. Recent Past Resources
How is the city addressing recent past re-
sources? Are they listed and reviewed the
same as older properties, or are there spe-
cial categories of listing or different guide-
lines?
11. Other Program Components
Are there any unique elements or strate-
gies in the preservation program?
I. Ann Arbor, Michigan
The City of Ann Arbor (population 115,092)
has recently developed urban design stan-
dards and guidelines for the greater down-
town area, portions of which are historic
districts. The seven member historic dis-
trict commission reviews all projects in his-
toric districts, including the entirety of the
exterior of a building as well as yard and
open space features. The city’s preserva-
tion ordinance includes protection from
demolition by neglect, and provisions for
‘Undue Financial Hardship’ for alterations
in addition to demolitions. The city is also
promoting green building policies.
1. Development Review Process
Ann Arbor only designates historic districts,
and not individual resources, although
there are several districts that have only
one property in them. When an applica-
tion for work on a property within a historic
district is received it is referred directly to
preservation staff. Prior to application for
Historic District Commission (HDC) Re-
view, the Historic Preservation Officer may
meet with applicants to review proposed
projects. Roughly 75% of applications take
advantage of this prior to submitting their
56
City of Fort Collins
The code prescribes the same treatment
for contributing and non-contributing prop-
erties; however, there are certain allow-
ances for more flexibility in the review cri-
teria for non-contributing properties, such
as with review of alteration to details and
more actions that qualify for administrative
approval. Treatment for contributing and
non-contributing resources is also differ-
ent in the proposed design guidelines.
2. Delegated Decision-Making
Ann Arbor’s code allows for administra-
tive approval for specified minor classes
of work. Currently the HPC has listed 30
actions approvable by the City Historic
Preservation Officer. All other work on
properties within a historic district must be
reviewed by the HDC, whose opinion is fi-
nal, and appealable to the State Historic
Preservation Review Board.
3. Consideration of Unlisted
Properties 50 Years Old
Age is one factor considered in determin-
ing the level of significance of a property
within a Historic District, but Ann Arbor
does not use it as a criterion in any other
preservation regulations.
4. Demolition Review
There is no demolition review for projects
outside of a historic district.
5. Structures of Merit
The city does not have a list of structures
of merit. However, they had a district made
up of individual properties of significance
for which designation was repealed. The
list of these properties formerly in the dis-
trict is awaiting appropriate action for in-
clusion in any future districts.
6. Surveys
Surveys are only conducted on historic
districts to determine which properties
within the district are contributing and non-
contributing. When considering adopting a
new district, the HDC will appoint a study
committee who will do a basic study of the
proposed area. This is not a formal sur-
vey.
7. Incentives
Ann Arbor does not have an incentive pro-
gram. This is partially due to a lower level
of necessity for such program elements,
as the city does not designate an individu-
al property, only a district.
8. Sustainability
The City of Ann Arbor has talked a lot
about sustainability; however, little action
has been taken. The most likely future ac-
tion will be to include sustainability in the
57
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
9. Economic Development
There is no organized economic devel-
opment plan for the city; it is divided into
pieces in several different city depart-
ments. The current preservation officer as-
sists with the brownfields program.
10. Recent Past Resources
Ann Arbor has numerous mid-century mod-
ern buildings that many citizens would like
to see preserved. However, the city has
not taken action toward a historic district
including such properties.
11. Other Program Components
Demolition of Properties within a District:
Within a district only properties determined
not significant, or to have lost their integ-
rity, may be demolished. Demolition may
also be allowed in the case of undue finan-
cial hardship, or if retaining the structure
is found to be a hazard to public safety or
will deter a major improvement project of
significant benefit to the public. Very few
applications for demolition have been sub-
mitted for approval based on the interest
of the community, and very few of these
have been approved.
II. Aspen, Colorado
The City of Aspen (population 5,914) has
preservation design guidelines and three
classifications of historic review. Aspen
has also integrated the protection of recent
past resources into its preservation pro-
gram. The city publishes a historic preser-
vation fact sheet describing what projects
are reviewed, and has identified design
objectives for historic districts. Aspen has
also recently adopted a list of, and regula-
tions for, potential historic resources.
1. Development Review Process
Historic development review in Aspen is
only applicable to designated properties.
There are three classifications of review
on historic properties: (1) exempt, (2) mi-
nor and (3) significant. The Community
Development Director may approve a proj-
ect on an exempt property. These proper-
ties are identified according to criteria in
the Land Use Code. A minor development
approval is needed for development on a
historic property that doesn’t qualify as ex-
empt. This level of review requires a public
hearing before the Historic Preservation
Commission. A Significant Development
approval is required for a major alteration,
addition, or demolition of an existing his-
toric property. A Significant Development
Approval requires two public hearings be-
fore the Historical Preservation Commis-
58
City of Fort Collins
2. Delegated Decision-Making
The lowest of the three review levels de-
fined in the code is a staff-only review.
The city’s historic preservation staff does
its best to keep review at the staff level,
and most people seem satisfied with the
system.
3. Consideration of Unlisted
Properties 50 Years Old
Aspen does not use a 50-year mark in their
designation criteria. The city did not pre-
viously have an age criterion; however,
once they began designating recent past
resources they initiated two, one at 30
years and one at 100 years. These rep-
resent two distinct periods of significance
in Aspen’s development, between which
there was very little development. The 30-
year mark represents the post-war build-
ing boom, and is also near the median age
of the buildings proposed for demolition.
Buildings determined significant under ei-
ther age criterion are currently treated the
same. However, Aspen is considering a
tiered system which would no longer use
age as a criterion, and bases designation
on three levels of significance which are
determined based on a point system.
4. Demolition Review
Aspen can deny demolition of designated
properties only, including non-contributing
properties within a historic district. In gen-
eral, there are no special provisions for
non-designated properties. However, there
is a list of potentially historic resources.
Properties on this list may be subject to a
90-day demolition hold. (See Structures of
Merit discussion.)
5. Structures of Merit
The City of Aspen has adopted by ordi-
nance a List of Potentially Historic Re-
sources. These properties are subject to a
90-day hold on development applications
in order to determine their historic signif-
icance. This list is a temporary measure
while a citizen task force examines the
city’s preservation system, and updates
are considered. While the ordinance is in
effect, only voluntary designation of the
listed potential historic resources may oc-
cur. There is no specific date at which the
ordinance and its list will expire.
6. Surveys
The city’s code previously required a sur-
vey every five years, but this was repealed
in 2002. Completed surveys have identi-
fied the majority of the Victorian era re-
sources, as well as many of the city’s 20th
59
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
8. Sustainability
Aspen has green building standards that
apply to all construction projects, includ-
ing historic properties. These standards
are applied with more flexibility for historic
properties.
9. Economic Development
Aspen does not have an economic devel-
opment program.
10. Recent Past Resources
Aspen has fully integrated recent past re-
sources with their preservation program.
Their criteria for designation are specifi-
cally tailored to both their Victorian era
resources and their recent past (20th cen-
tury) resources.
11. Other Program Components
Program Maintenance:
Since the most recent preservation ordi-
nance update, the Community Develop-
ment Department and members of the HPC
have met with City Council annually to dis-
cuss unprotected 20th century era proper-
ties and the successes and challenges of
the preservation program.
Potential Updates:
Aspen is considering a three-tier system to
replace the existing program which would
assign a point rating to a property based
on its level of significance and integrity. In
this system only the highest rated proper-
ties would be able to be designated without
owner consent, but would also qualify for
additional incentive programs. The lowest
tier would have more flexibility in require-
ments for design review.
III. Monterey, California
The City of Monterey (population 30,641)
has both a historic master plan and a his-
toric preservation ordinance as well as an
ongoing survey program. Monterey uses
the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) development review process,
which includes consideration of effects of
proposed projects on historically eligible
properties.
1. Development Review Process
Monterey has two levels of historic zon-
ing designation based on significance: H-
1 and H-2. The H-1 zoning designation is
applied to properties of the highest level
of significance, and may be designated
without owner consent. H-2 designation
requires owner consent. All designated
properties are subject to preservation re-
view based on the Secretary of the Inte-
rior’s Standards. For projects other than
minor repairs, a Historic Preservation Re-
60
City of Fort Collins
3. Consideration of Unlisted
Properties 50 Years Old
Age is only used as a criterion for historic
designation. However, potentially historic,
non-designated properties can be subject
to preservation review. Properties which
are listed in a survey, or which are deter-
mined to potentially meet the criteria for
Historic Zoning by the Deputy City Man-
ager of Plans and Public Works, are sub-
ject to historic review based on a separate
code section for than designated proper-
ties. Staff reviews alterations based on
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
If staff determines the standards have not
been met, a further level of review is re-
quired. These properties are also subject
to CEQA review.
4. Demolition Review
Properties which are listed in a survey, or
which are determined to potentially meet
the criteria for Historic Zoning by the
Deputy City Manager of Plans and Public
Works, are subject to a demolition delay
and CEQA review. After the demolition de-
lay a permit for demolition may be granted
only if it is concurrent with approval of a
replacement structure.
5. Structures of Merit
The city has two levels of official desig-
nation; however, there is no official des-
ignation below landmarking for properties
of merit. (See development review process
discussion.)
6. Surveys
Monterey uses two levels of surveys: (1)
reconnaissance and (2) intensive. All prop-
erties identified in a reconnaissance sur-
vey are included on the Reconnaissance
Survey List and all properties identified by
an intensive survey with potential to meet
criteria for historic zoning are included in
the Adopted Survey List. These lists are
used to help determine which non-desig-
nated properties are subject to historic re-
view. (See consideration of unlisted prop-
erties discussion.)
7. Incentives
Monterey offers a use-permit based zon-
ing incentive for designated properties
that can include modification to under-
lying zoning requirements for setbacks,
parking standards, and/or floor area ratio.
Additional uses are allowed by permit for
designated properties as well. Designated
properties are also eligible for the State
Historical Building Code, the State’s Mills
Act Property Tax Reduction Program, as
61
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
10. Recent Past Resources
To qualify for historic designation, proper-
ties in Monterey must be at least 50 years
old. Most preservation support in Monterey
is for the oldest resources, such as the
mission era adobes. However, staff has re-
cently begun to make efforts to expand the
public perception to other eras and types
of resources.
11. Other Program Components
Conservation District
In 2004, Monterey established the Can-
nery Row Conservation District and its
associated design guidelines. The conser-
vation district was adopted as a tool to es-
tablish a framework for allowing Cannery
Row to grow and change while retaining
its ambiance and historical context. While
respecting the traditional character of the
area is emphasized, change is anticipated
and alterations and new construction are
required to respect the traditional design
context. Regulations for the district ap-
ply to improvement projects including new
buildings and alterations to existing struc-
tures.
Historic District
Upon designation of a historic district a
District Preservation Plan is also adopted.
This plan includes goals and objectives for
the district as well as specific development
regulations for construction within the dis-
trict. The underlying zoning may be modi-
fied by the plan to be more or less restric-
tive including design, mass, bulk, height,
walls, lighting, driveway locations, parking
standards, landscaping, signs, public im-
provements on the property, and eligibility
for incentives.
IV. Pasadena, California
The City of Pasadena (population 143,400)
places Preservation and Urban Design in
the same division within the Planning De-
partment. Pasadena uses the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) devel-
opment review process that includes con-
sideration of effects of proposed projects
on historically eligible properties. The city
publishes thorough handouts on its historic
preservation program and review, includ-
ing a handout on the thresholds for design
review and demolition review within his-
toric districts. The city’s website also has
a high level of prominence and content of
preservation information available includ-
ing links to green tips for historic homes.
Pasadena also published a report on re-
cent past resources in 2007.
62
City of Fort Collins
2. Delegated Decision-Making
Pasadena has two categories of Historic
Preservation Review, one by the Historic
Preservation Commission and one at the
staff level. The code specifies the division
of review between the HPC and staff based
on the type of historic resource (desig-
nated or eligible and potentially eligible
properties) and the type of work proposed.
This division is also clearly explained in a
Historic Preservation Review information
packet.
3. Consideration of Unlisted
Properties 50 Years Old
The City of Pasadena does not use age
as a criterion for designation. As part of
its preservation incentives program Pasa-
dena conditionally permits an office use in
buildings over 50 years old as a non-con-
forming use.
4. Demolition Review
Demolition applications for any prima-
ry structure may not be approved until a
building permit for a replacement building
is obtained. The HPC or staff may grant
exceptions to this requirement if the struc-
ture is not designated or eligible as a his-
toric resource or contributor to a historic
district.
5. Structures of Merit
Pasadena does not have a structure of
merit or similar designation.
6. Surveys
Surveys include a preliminary determina-
tion of historic integrity for each property
within the survey boundaries. Survey in-
formation is made available online and
searchable through the California His-
torical Resources Inventory Database
(CHRID). Design review for a demolition or
alteration follows the same procedures for
both surveyed properties and potentially
significant properties that have not been
surveyed.
7. Incentives
In addition to financial benefits available
on the state and national levels, Pasadena
provides several incentives for designated
and eligible historic properties. Financial
incentives include reduced permit fees and
a façade easement program. Technical as-
sistance is available both in the form of
meetings with professionals and city publi-
cations. The city also provides flexibility in
zoning requirements for historic properties
to encourage adaptive reuse over demo-
lition. These include parking waivers and
other requirements that may create spa-
63
Historic Preservation Program Assessment
9. Economic Development
Pasadena’s goals for economic develop-
ment include one brief reference to preser-
vation: “To further aid economic develop-
ment, encourage the highest level of urban
design and architectural preservation con-
sistent with reasonable use and economic
feasibility considerations.”
10. Recent Past Resources
Pasadena has conducted several surveys
of recent past resources. The city has also
published a booklet on local recent past re-
sources. The city does not currently specify
the inclusion of recent past resources in its
preservation policies; however, it is being
considered for future program updates.
V. Summary Observations
1. Development Review Process
Many communities define multiple levels
of review, based upon the level of signifi-
cance of a property. Most peer communi-
ties review projects based on the Secre-
tary of the Interior’s Standards and local
design guidelines. Guidelines can be for
both individual districts and/or for all his-
toric properties.
2. Delegated Decision-Making
The majority of peer communities include
provisions for staff level review and ap-
proval of minor projects. Typically, there is
a clearly defined method for determining
which projects qualify for this level of re-
view.
3. Consideration of Unlisted
Properties 50 Years Old
Many peer communities require preserva-
tion review of properties that are poten-
tially significant. Within these communi-
ties, potentially significant properties are
identified either by staff at the time of ap-
plication, or based upon an established list
of properties identified through surveys.
When used, age is typically considered
by staff to help identify potentially signifi-
cant properties when an application is re-
ceived.
4. Demolition Review
The majority of peer communities require
some form of demolition delay and pres-
ervation review for non-designated prop-
erties. These policies typically require the
delay in order to determine the significance
of the property and, if significant, to review
alternatives to demolition.
5. Structures of Merit
A list of structures of merit is not typically
used in most peer communities. When it
is used, the list is typically tied to survey
64
City of Fort Collins
7. Incentives
Most successful incentive programs in
peer communities include exemptions for
development regulations that may create
spatial requirements on a site with which
a renovation project is not able to comply.
Parking requirements are the most com-
mon example of such an exemption.
8. Sustainability
Though currently only a few peer commu-
nities include sustainability in preservation
policies, all are discussing it and plan for
its integration with future preservation pro-
gram updates.
9. Economic Development
Most peer communities recognize econom-
ic development as an important aspect of
preservation efforts and support. Howev-
er, few communities have integrated it into
their preservation program.
10. Recent Past Resources
Currently only a few peer communities
have integrated recent past resources into
their preservation programs; however, the
majority of cities recognize this as an im-
portant issue to be included in future sys-
tem updates.
Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 +
Operational Procedures
Establish a system to provide more
information to all property owners in
advance, including which properties are
significant
XX
Develop predictive model for property
owners X
Create a simple, user friendly guide (web
based publication as well) that clearly
explains the process for determining
significance of a property and it's potential
treatements
X
Add questions on building and planning
application forms related to building age X
Create an annual reporting form that
compares the number of properties
considered for historic significance with the
total number of permits processed
XXXXX
Tools
craft user‐friendly “self‐test” that could be
available over the internet X
evaluate tools for recent past resources ‐
address the fifty year question X
update development review flow chart to
include 50 year considerations X
Clearly explain each point where
preservation staffs review is required and
formally document in development review
guide
X
add link to flow chart that illustrates what
happens if a building is 50 years or older X
Publish a preservation review/designation
flow chart X
Section 106
Designate a Section 106 review coordinator X
Train designated Review Coordinator in
Section 106 compliance procedures XX
Develop documentation system for Section
106 reviews XXXX
Establish procedures for Section 106
compliance responsibilities X
Compliance
provide enforcement staff with clear
documentation of approved items to be
used in conjunction with site inspections
X
Develop compliance‐tracking form for
preservation projects X
develop a form, with designated sign‐off
points, and attach to the building permit X
Education and Outreach
Sustainability
develop a preservation and sustainability
initiative XXXXX
hold informational workshops on how
preservation is sustainable X
Create and publish informational handouts
about the "sustainable" aspects of historic
preservation
XX
provide technical support for energy
retrofits XX
establish an assistance program for
property owners to accomplish historic
preservation appropriate energy‐saving
retrofits
X
Publish information and hold workshops for
repair and replacement strategies for
windows, materials and roofing that take
sustainability into consideration
X
Historic Preservation
publish educational materials such as
brochures on historic preservation in Fort
Collins
X
create easy to understand manuel for
historic property types and make readily
available
X
publish case studies illustrating successful
“solutions” regarding historic preservation
issues
X
establish training program for planning staff
including orientation to the preservation
system and the principles involved
X
Additional LPC training X
Ordinances
Land Use Code
Add language defining the criteria for
treatment of historic properties in
general,such that they will apply to all
potential propery types, including single
family.
X
Add language to 3.4.7(E) that references
Municipal Code 14‐72 to clarify applicable
procedures for demolition review
X
create clear guidelines and standards in
order to expand staff’s ability to approve
minor applications
X
Municipal Code
Add language that limits those who may
initiate designation of a historic district or
landmark to: City Council, LPC, Director of
CDNS, the property owner, properties in
the district, Municipal Code: organizations
that are preservation oriented
X
Update the designation procedures for
districts ‐ include clear steps X
Indicate point where a neighborhood
meeting will be a part of the district
designation process
X
Clarify the definition of “integrity,”
including the discussion of the different
“aspects” of integrity as used by the
Secretary of the Interior
X
Clarify the preliminary level of information
that is needed to indicate that a potential
district exists and that further consideration
is merited
X
Include requirements for the justification of
district boundaries and for the area to be
documented well enough that the LPC
would be abe to determine if a nomination
has merit and should proceed.
X
Resource Surveys
Publish surveys of individual properties via
internet X
Update survey system with key
architectural features X
Refine the historic property survey
instrument with the objective of recording
information that will be useful in an on‐
going property management mode
(Address the "50 year +" question)
X
Perform additional historic and cultural
resource surveys X
Publish existing surveys on the city’s web
site and link them to GIS data systems
(Acella)
X
Make lists and maps of all currently listed
properties and all properties over 50 years
old readily available
X
Directives for future surveys and
identification of resources X
Identify different levels of significance ‐
Tiered Surveys X
Policy Directives
Evaluate neighborhood character
management tools X
Explore the benefits of a tiered rating
system X
Include preservation policies in Plan Fort
Collins update X
Revise sub‐area plans to include
preservation X
Involve preservation staff in the
development of sub‐area and specific plans X
identify role of historic resources in city
plans and policies X
Design Guidelines and Standards
evaluate neighborhood character
management tools XX
address additions, mass and scale to
existing buildings X
adopt City wide preservation design
guidelines X
Publish on the internet preservation design
guidelines X
Update Old Town Design Guidelines X
Preservation Incentives
Expand incentives program X
Establish an incentive program that
provides flexibility in permitted uses,
parking requirements, building setbacks
and other code‐related regulations
X
Establish a local sales tax rebate program
for construction materials that are
purchased for an approved preservation
project
X
Establish design assistance grant programs
to historic property owners to help them
plan an appropriate design in advance
X
Eastablish an incentive program to waive or
reduce local permit fees X
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Pg.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 +
Operational Procedures
provide more information to all
property owners in advance XX
CR/EM
develop predictive model for property
owners X
KM/CR pg.8
Create a simple, user friendly guide
(web based publication as well) that
clearly explains the process for
determining significance of a property
and it's potential treatements
X CR/ EM pg. 8
add questions on application forms
related to building age X
CR pg. 7
determine in advance which
properties have historic significance XXXXX
KM/CR
Annual Reporting ‐ adopt a reporting
form that helps compare the
magnitude of properties considered
for historic significance with total
number of permits (annually)
XXXXX KM/CR pg. 13
Tools
Craft user‐friendly “self‐test” that
could be available over the internet
(need city wide survey first)
X KM/CR pg. 10
evaluate tools for recent past
resources ‐ address the fifty year
question
X KM pg. 20
update development review flow
chart to include 50 year
considerations
X CR pg. 32
Clearly explain each point where
preservation staffs review is required
and formally document in
development review guide
X CR
pg. 14,
31
add link to flow chart that illustrates
what happens if a building is 50 years
or older
X CR/ BH pg. 32
Publish a preservation
review/designation flow chart X
CR / BH pg 32
Section 106
designate a Section 106 review
coordinator X
KM pg. 36
document and review city’s
undertakings in regard to Section 106 XXXX
KM / SJ pg. 36
train designated Review Coordinator
in Section 106 compliance procedures XX
KM /SJ pg. 36
write procedures for Section 106
compliance responsibilities X
KM pg. 36
Compliance
provide enforcement staff with clear
documentation of approved items to
be used in conjunction with site
inspections
X CR pg.11
develop compliance‐tracking form for
preservation projects X
CR
pg. 11,
35
develop a form, with designated sign‐
off points, and attach to the building
permit
X CR pg. 11
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg.
Education and Outreach
Sustainability
Develop a preservation and sustainability
initiative ‐ this includes stablishing a policy
that recognizes the role of conserving
buildings as sustainable
X
CR /
Utilities
pg. 20, pg.
22
Hold informational workshops on how
preservation is sustainable XXXX
KM / CR
pg. 12, pg.
20
Create and publish information about the
"sustainable" aspects of historic
preservation
XXXXX CR / EM
pg. 20,
pg. 36
Establish an assistance program for
property owners to accomplish historic
preservation appropriate energy‐saving
retrofits and provide technical support for
these retrofits.
X
KM / CR /
Utilities
pg. 5, 20
Publish information and hold workshops
for repair and replacement strategies for
windows, materials and roofing that take
sustainability into consideration
X
KM / CR /
Utilities
pg. 20
Partner with CSU (or other organizations)
on educational programs as well as on
demonstration projects that test the
energy‐conserving opportunities of
historic resources
X
KM / CR /
Utilities
pg. 16
Historic Preservation
Publish educational materials such as
brochures on historic preservation in Fort
Collins ‐ make available on website
XX CR / EM pg.36
Create easy to understand guidelines for
the treatment of historic property types
and make information readily available in
print and on the internet
Additional LPC training ‐ this includes city's
preservation policies and review system as
well as best practices in preservation
planning
XXXXKM pg. 36
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg.
Ordinances
Land Use Code
Add language defining the criteria for treatment of
historic properties in general,such that they will
apply to all potential propery types, including
single family.
TS/
PB/KM
Pg. 23
Add language to 3.4.7(E) that references
Municipal Code 14‐72 to clarify applicable
procedures for demolition review
X TS/ PB Pg. 23
Create clear guidelines and standards in order to
expand staff’s ability to approve minor
applications
X TS/PB pg.14, 23
Implement a survey system that supports
administrative review in order to expand staff’s
ability to approve minor applications
X TS/PB pg. 14
Municipal Code
Add language that more clearly defines criteria for
eligibility, and acknowledges different levels of
significance
X Pg. 23
Add language that limits those who may initiate
designation of a historic district or landmark to:
City Council, LPC, Director of CDNS, the property
owner, properties in the district, Municipal Code:
organizations that are preservation oriented
X Pg. 24
Update the designation procedures for districts ‐
include clear steps X
Pg. 23
Indicate point where a neighborhood meeting will
be a part of the district designation process X
Pg. 23
Clarify the definition of “integrity,” including the
discussion of the different “aspects” of integrity as
used by the Secretary of the Interior
X Pg. 23
Clarify the preliminary level of information that is
needed to indicate that a potential district exists
and that further consideration is merited
X Pg. 24
Include requirements for the justification of
district boundaries and for the area to be
documented well enough that the LPC would be
abe to determine if a nomination has merit and
should proceed.
X Pg. 24
Building Code
include special sections for existing buildings and
historic structures. This includes both Residential
Building Code 2003 and Commercial and Multi‐
family Building Code 2006
X
MG
/KM
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg.
Resource Surveys
Publish surveys of individual
properties via internet X
BH pg. 34
Update survey system with key
architectural features X
KM pg.9
Refine the historic property survey
instrument with the objective of
recording information that will be
useful in an on‐going property
management mode (Address the
"50 year +" question)
X KM pg. 33
Perform additional historic and
cultural resource surveys X
KM pg. 10
Publish existing surveys on the
city’s web site and link them to GIS
data systems (Acella)
X EM / CR pg. 10
Make lists and maps of all
currently listed properties and all
properties over 50 years old
readily available
X EM / CR pg. 33
Directives for future surveys and
identification of resources X
KM pg. 34
Identify different levels of
significance ‐ Tiered Surveys X
KM
pg. 9, 13,
14, 41
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg.
evaluate neighborhood character
management tools XX
KM/ AP
adopt a tiered rating system KM/ LPC pg. 14, 41
include historic preservation
components in East Side‐ West Side
design standards
XX KM/ MB pg. 15
include preservation policies in Plan
Fort Collins update XX
KM/ AP
update sub‐area plans to include
preservation XXXXX
KM/ AP pg. 15, 19
preservation staff should be
involved in development of sub‐
area and specific plans
XXXXX KM/ AP pg. 19
revisit all sub‐area plans and add
more discussion about historic
preservation
XXXXX KM/ AP pg.15
identify role of historic resources in
city plans and policies XXXXX
KM/ AP
Design Guidelines and Standards
evaluate neighborhood character
management tools ‐ consider
conservation districts
XX KM/ MB pg. 16
address additions, mass and scale
to existing buildings XX
KM / MB
adopt city wide preservation design
guidelines XX
KM/ MB pg. 11
Publish on the internet preservation
design guidelines XX
KM / MB
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Improvement Report Implementation Work Plan
Task / Action Estimated Task Completion Date Staff Report
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 + Ref. Pg.
Preservation Incentives
Expand incentives program X SD
pg. 12, pg.
36
Establish an incentive program that
provides flexibility in permitted uses,
parking requirements, building setbacks
and other code‐related regulations
X PB/TS
pg. 12, pg.
36
Establish a local sales tax rebate program
for construction materials that are
purchased for an approved preservation
project
X SD
pg. 12, pg.
36
Establish design assistance grant programs
to historic property owners to help them
plan an appropriate design in advance
X SD
pg. 12, pg.
36
Eastablish an incentive program to waive or
reduce local permit fees X
SD
pg. 12, pg.
36
-
( #
#
1
1
Laurie Kadrich, Director, Community
Development & Neighborhood Services
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
City Council Work Session
June 26, 2012
Historic Preservation
Process Improvements
2
Feedback Sought From City Council:
• Is this item ready for formal Council
consideration?
– Proposed Schedule:
• July 17th: 1st Readings
• August 21st: 2nd Readings
• General questions or feedback?
ATTACHMENT 2
2
3
Historic Preservation
Process Improvements –– Phase 1
Improving the Eligibility Determination
Process:
• Earlier notice to neighbors & community
• Method to appeal initial decision by CDNS Director
and Landmark Preservation Chair
• Independent survey for eligibility if appeal is sought
4
Historic Preservation
Process Improvements –– Phase 2
Questions/issues to be addressed:
• Why was the Demolition/Alteration Review Process
established? Is it still needed?
• How are properties evaluated?
– Is 50 year threshold appropriate?
– Criteria for determining eligibility
• How should contributing resources be treated?
• How are we upholding/deviating from national
standards and Certified Local Government (CLG)
requirements?
3
5
Historic Preservation Process
Improvements –– Phase 2 (cont)
• Public engagement/outreach
• Best practices
• Compliance with Certified Local
Government (CLG) requirements
• Identify and implement further
improvements to process
• Council work session fall 2012
• Council adoption of changes spring 2013
6
Historic Preservation
Process Improvements –– Phase 1
Staff Recommendation:
– Amend Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code
– Amend Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code
4
7
Earlier Notice to Neighbors & Community
• Define major and minor alterations
• Define principle structure
• Publish eligibility decisions
• Publish major alteration/demolition decisions
– Newspaper
– CDNS Listserve
– Links on City’s Website
• Allow 14 days for written appeals to be filed
• Publish notice of appeals
• Signs posted on property
8
Appeals Provisions
• Method for appeal to the LPC for all eligibility
determinations made by Director and LPC Chair
• LPC decisions can be appealed to City Council
• Provides notice and signage requirements
• Clarify Council action as it relates to Landmark
designation:
– if no designation is received property may be
altered or demolished
• Independent evaluation of eligibility if appeal is
sought
5
9
New: Independent Review of Eligibility if
Appeal is Sought
• Add: “A Colorado Cultural Resource
Survey Architectural Inventory Form and
report, prepared by an independent
reviewer with expertise in historic
preservation, acceptable to the Director
and the applicant.”
10
““HHoouusseekkeeeeppiinngg”” Provisions:
Chapters 2 &14
• Consistent titles: “Director”
• Eliminate inconsistent time frames
• Provide current building code references
• Update membership definition to meet Certified
Local Government (CLG) requirements
6
11
Recommended Process
Eligibility Public
Notice
Appeal LPC City
Council
12
Feedback Sought From City Council:
• Is this item ready for formal Council
Consideration?
– Proposed Schedule:
• July 17th: 1st Readings
• August 21st: 2nd Readings
• General questions or feedback?
-
:40&//@&<4'0
# $
##
-
8
&
@;-
&$ ' &$ *
&$ ,
!
&$ 3 &$ 4 &$ 5
"
#$%#&'#()#*%+,-).
/-0)+1-231%0%1'#)-+(
0)#,,40%53%1)-0%#(&
02/%&67%#2+(067)#)-+(
8%,+1%.+6&%7'%-()+
)/-031+2%009
,8+)/.+6#(&)/%
#*1%%)+#0+76)-+(:0)#,,
0-*(0+,,#(&.+6#1%
1%#&.)+31+2%%&;-)/)/%
#*1%%&0+76)-+(#(&*%)
#3%1<-),+1.+61
#7)%1#)-+(+1#&&-)-+(9
=%%3.+6137#(0#0-0#(&
,+1*+#(.+33+1)6(-).)+
<#$%.+610)162)61%#
/-0)+1-27#(&<#1$#(&
1%2%-'%)#521%&-)0#(&
*1#()09%5).+6<60)*%)
.+6137#(0#331+'%&
)/1+6*/%'%7+3<%()
%'-%;9
!"#!
$
(2%.+6137#(0#1%
#331+'%&8.
%'%7+3<%()%'-%;:2#77
-0)+1-21%0%1'#)-+()+
02/%&67%)/%40-(#7
%#1-(*9)#,,(%%&0#)
7%#0) "&#.08%,+1%.+61
/%#1-(*)+2+<37%)%#
3687-2(+)-,-2#)-+(31+2%00
3%16(-2-3#7+&%9
>%,+1%.+61/%#1-(*-0
02/%&67%&:0)#,,;-773+0)
#(?6(&%11%'-%;@0-*(#)
)/%86-7&-(*9
+6<60)
#70+068<-)A
9 2/%2$,+1B"9
9 2+<37%)%&+7+1#&+
12/-)%2)61#7('%()+1.
+1<7++$,+1,+1<" !
,+6(&#)
9
+61,-(#7#331+'%&
37#(0,+1)/%31+3+0%&
;+1$9
9#-7-(*7#8%70+,%'%1.
/+<%;-)/-(""4+,.+61
0)162)61%:#(/%2$
)+)#7-(*C3%17#8%7)+
2+'%13+0)#*%#(&
/#(&7-(*9
$
%!
!
+61&%2-0-+(2#(8%
3+0)3+(%&,+1)/1%%
1%#0+(09
91%D6%0)0<+1%
-(,+1<#)-+(:#(&)/-0
&%7#.0)/%&%2-0-+(,+163
)+&#.09
9/%2+<<6(-).1#-0%0
0680)#()-#72+(2%1(09/%
,-(#7&%2-0-+(-0&%7#.%&
,+163)+&#.0;/-7%
0)#,,;+1$0;-)/)/%
2+<<6(-).#(ő-2#()
)+/%731%0+7'%)/%0%
2+(2%1(09
9&-1%2)00)#,,)+
-('%0)-*#)%)/%3+00-8-7-).
+,&%0-*(#)-(*)/%
31+3%1).+1#1%##0#
7#(&<#1$9 /+7&-0
37#2%&+()/%86-7&-(*
#(&E+1&%<+7-)-+(3%1<-)9
& !
' (
/%(.+6#337.,+1#
3%1<-))+&+;+1$+(#
86-7&-(*+'%1"F.%#10:
0)#,,&%)%1<-(%0-,)/%
86-7&-(*-0/-0)+1-2#77.
0-*(-,-2#()#(&%7-*-87%)+
8%#7#(&<#1$:1%2%-'-(*
,-(#(2-#78%(%,-)09
+6
<60)31+'-&%)/%,+77+;-(*
'-#%<#-7+1&1+3+,,#))/%
%'%7+3<%()%'-%;
+6()%1
968<-)3/+)+*1#3/0+,
#77,+610-&%0+,)/%
0)162)61%9
91+'-&%#0%)+,37#(0
,+1)/%#7)%1#)-+(+1
#&&-)-+(9
9(276&%#;#.)+
2+()#2).+6+(2%)/%
&%)%1<-(#)-+(-0<#&%9
)
&
!
' (
*+* (
+11.:)/%86-7&-(*
&+%0(4)<%%))/%21-)%1-#9
-0)+1-231%0%1'#)-+(0)#,,
0-*(0+,,#(&.+6#1%,1%%
)+31+2%%&;-)/*%))-(*#
3%1<-),+1.+61#7)%1#)-+(
+1#&&-)-+(9
+ (
!
,
-2%86-7&-(*G -0)+1-2
31%0%1'#)-+(0)#,,0-*(0
+,,#(&.+6#1%1%#&.)+
31+2%%&;-)/*%))-(*#
3%1<-),+1.+61#7)%1#)-+(
+1#&&-)-+(9 (&:.+6
2+67&0)-77%#1(,-(#(2-#7
8%(%,-)09
+(
,-
!#
,.+6186-7&-(*-0%7-*-87%
86).+6137#(0#1%(+)
+$#.:.+68%*-(#
!,.
/0
%'-%;9(#2#0%;/%(
0)#,,2+<%0)+#037-)
&%2-0-+(:.+6<60)#70+
6(&%1*+#1%'-%;9
/%<#$%0)/%,-(#7
%7-*-8-7-).&%2-0-+()/1+6*/
-)01%'-%;31+2%009
/%,-10)0)%3-0#
1%7-<-(#1. %#1-(*#
<%%)-(*9/%
<%%)0<+()/7.:+(%'%1.
0%2+(&
%&(%0&#.#)
A "9
1
.!
(.
. %
(2%)/-0-0&+(%:.+62#(
2+()-(6%)+)/%(%5)0)%3
-()/%1%'-%;#(&
02/%&67%#3687-2-(#7
%#1-(*;-)/)/%9
+1-(,+1<#)-+(+(
%'%7+3<%()%'-%;:'-0-)
+12#77H"I"9
&$ 6
!,
2+()#2)0+;(%10!
%-*/8+1/++&<%%)-(*0
-,;#11#()%&
#&+3)01%0+76)-+(
)+<+'%,+1;#1&
%0-*(#)-+(/%#1-(*
02/%&67%&
;(%10(+)-,-%&#)7%#0)
"&#.031-+1)+/%#1-(*
#(&31+3%1).3+0)%&9
#&+3)01%0+76)-+(
<#$-(*#
1%2+<<%(&#)-+()+
+6(2-7,+1+1#*#-(0)
&%0-*(#)-+(
# #
+6(2-7&%2-&%0-,)/%
31+3%1).0/+67&8%2+<%
#+1)+77-(07#(&<#1$9
"
!"
#
!
"
# $
##
#
"
$
!
#
# $
##
"
"
%
##
!
#
"
$
%
!
# $
##
#
#
#
#
#
" #
##
"
&
# $
#
"
#
#
#
'
#
(
)
##
#"
& #
(
"
$$
#
)
(
# $
##
#
* +
# $
##
*+ ,
-
'() !"
,
#
"
#
"
*(+ " !
,
#
*
+"
# $
,( !"
,
##
# #
%-.
/
0
!
+ &
$1+
.
$/01
"
# & &
#
" $
%
$1+
%
/01
2
#&
*
+
/
0
"
2
/
(
#
34"'00
$
&
-%
.
/'1 #
5
2
"
"
"
"
6
++ -
#
7 8
9
#"
:40&//;&<04=>$#
#?
#
(
#
.
/=@
%
-
XXX KM / CR
publish case studies illustrating successful
“solutions” regarding historic preservation
issues
XX KM / CR
Training
Establish training program for planning
staff including orientation to the
preservation system and the principles
involved
XXXXKM pg. 14, 36
lists for initial identification of potentially
significant properties.
6. Surveys
Many peer communities use surveys to
identify a preliminary level of significance
for a property. Typically, this is later used
to help identify non-designated properties
that are potentially significant and subject
to preservation review.
tial demands on a site that a renovation
project cannot meet. Historic signs listed
in the historic sign inventory are also ex-
empt from the sign regulations in the zon-
ing code for height, area, location, etc.
8. Sustainability
Pasadena’s preservation program does not
include policies for sustainability. The city
has a green building ordinance, though it
is not tied directly to historic preservation.
1. Development Review Process
Design and Historic Preservation review in
Pasadena is applied for under one master
permit application. Work on both desig-
nated resources and resources eligible for
designation is reviewed. The Historic Pres-
ervation Commission (HPC) does most
preservation review for major projects;
however, in the Central District a separate
Design Commission conducts the review.
Both the Design Commission and the HPC
are trained in historic preservation.
well as city grants and other programs.
8. Sustainability
Monterey’s preservation program does not
include policies for sustainability.
9. Economic Development
Monterey’s preservation program does not
include specific policies relating to eco-
nomic development. However, staff con-
siders heritage tourism as an important
aspect to the preservation program and its
continued community support.
port and hearing before the Historic Pres-
ervation Commission are required. The
Historic Preservation Report is adopted by
the commission and includes information
about the significance of a property and a
program for its preservation.
2. Delegated Decision-Making
Staff can review minor repairs and the his-
toric preservation commission reviews ma-
jor projects.
century resources. The small size of the
city means that the majority of its resourc-
es have been surveyed and identified.
7. Incentives
The city has a strong incentive program
that many have taken advantage of. The
most prominent incentives are a floor area
ratio bonus and a historic lot split, allowing
subdivision of a property, which staff feels
are the primary reasons for many volun-
tary designations. Other incentives include
financial and development benefits as well
as technical assistance and preservation
recognition programs.
sion, one for the conceptual development
plan and one for the final development
plan.
planned revision of its master plans. The
yet to be adopted historic design guidelines
include policies for sustainable design in
new construction in historic districts. The
city expects that as their master plans are
updated, sustainability objectives will be
written into the plan’s policies. Staff is in
the process of publishing a brochure on
energy efficiency in historic buildings.
formal application for HDC review.
HDC review is based primarily on criteria
in the code and on the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards. However, the city has
prepared historic design guidelines that
are expected to be adopted. These guide-
lines are currently being used for illustra-
tive purposes during the optional meeting
with staff, similar to how voluntary design
guidelines may be used.
but stops short of official landmarking?
guidelines for most Historic Districts.
• Review system includes staff level for
minor projects and commission level
for major projects.
• Has a three-tier demolition review pro-
cess based on level of significance.
• City has taken steps towards address-
ing sustainability.
delay demolition for 180 days.
Lawrence, KS (pop. 89,852)
• Publishes a design review flowchart for
the COA process.
• Review split between staff (minor proj-
ects) and commission (major projects).
• Has demolition protection (prevention)
for designated historic properties and
properties within a district.
• In process of adopting updated (histor-
ic) downtown design guidelines.
ly listing the conditions of approval should
be developed as a joint effort of preserva-
tion staff and enforcement personnel. This
will make it easier for staff in the field to
confirm compliance with the terms of the
certificate of appropriateness.
Actions
• Create and implement the use of a
compliance-tracking form to aid en-
forcement staff in site inspections for
preservation-related projects.
That is, property owners and developers
who are considering acquiring property
may resist a finding that their property has
historic significance, because they believe
that the requirements for treatment of a
historic resource will be too restrictive.
to retain the “key features” of a property
that give it significance. This information
should be included in the survey form to
help property owners understand which
features need protection and which por-
tions of the property may be less impor-
tant, thereby indicating where flexibility
may be appropriate.
year review.
• Publish a simplified description (flow
chart) of the preservation review and
landmark/district designation process-
es.
• Designate the preservation office as
the official coordinator for Section 106
reviews.
• Establish an annual report form for
preservation review and permits as a
supplement to the existing CLG report.
• Expand staff’s ability to approve minor
applications.
their project has an extra review step.
Furthermore, the city’s application forms
for development review lack questions re-
lated to building age. This means owners
are not alerted to the fact that this may be
an issue, and it means staff must conduct
additional research to determine building
age. The forms also should include infor-
mation that makes it easier to locate the
property in other city records. The address
should be identified by street address, and
also by lot and block number.
standing of the code.
Strategy
• Include tables and other graphics to
clarify requirements (see the appendix
for an example table).
• Format text in bulleted lists where ap-
propriate to increase legibility.
• Move Sec. 14-5, Standards for deter-
mining the eligibility for designation of
sites, structures, objects and districts
for preservation, to Article II: Designa-
tion Procedure.
Strategy
If the city is to have different levels of sig-
nificance, they should be more logically
named and more clearly defined. A system
for tiered designations should be clearly
established, with definitions of each des-
ignation included. The link to the degree of
review that occurs for each level of signifi-
cance also should be made clear.
This program is the only historic preserva-
tion incentive in the code. The code does
not mention that other incentives may be
made available.
Strategy
Generally, specific incentives are not iden-
tified in the code, since they may change
over time. However, there should be lan-
guage that indicates the city’s intent to of-
fer incentives and benefits when feasible.
A new section of the code should be added
with language noting that the City Coun-
cil may offer incentives, from time to time,
which may include financial and technical
assistance, as well as expedited permit-
ting, as feasible. This language would not
commit the city to providing such incen-
tives but would signal the intent to promote
preservation through assistance when it is
possible, through grants or other means.
At the preliminary hearing for demolition,
the commission will consider the effects of
the proposed work as well as any feasible
alternatives for protecting the resource.
Once at a final hearing, the commission
must either approve (with or without condi-
tions) the application, or may delay their
decision in order to consider landmarking
the property. Designation as a landmark is
the only way the commission may deny, in
its entirety, an application for demolition or
relocation of a property.
This section includes provisions for admin-
istrative review by the Director of Commu-
nity Development and Neighborhood Ser-
vices on a select number of minor project
types that would not have negative effects
on historic resources. Project types that
can be reviewed by the Director include
applications for color selection, awning re-
coverings and minor changes which would
not remove, alter, cover or destroy any sig-
nificant features.
that may be relevant. This leaves room for
staff to recommend the denial of a land-
mark designation application for an eligible
property, based on factors other than his-
toric significance and integrity. That is to
say, if the Comprehensive Plan or a sub-
area plan calls for other redevelopment
that does not consider including historic
resources, this fact can be a part of the de-
cision-making for staff’s recommendation.
However, this ability can also provide for
a degree of flexibility in the preservation
system to allow for a combination of plan-
ning objectives to be considered. For ex-
ample, the vision for a neighborhood from
a specific plan that calls for maintaining
traditional character may be considered
when determining preservation priorities
for that area.
that a preliminary neighborhood meeting
will be a part of the district designation
process.
does not currently apply to single-family
homes, as residential historic districts are
established, it will need to apply to areas
adjacent to these residential contexts.
The policies in Land Use Code Section
3.4.7(E) Relocation or Demolition overlap
with those for demolition and relocation in
Municipal Code 14-72. The Municipal Code
states the specific criteria and regulations
for demolition and relocation review. The
Land Use Code provides a general state-
ment that summarizes these policies but
not the complete standards, nor does it
reference the Municipal Code as the ap-
plicable standards.
less comprehensive than historic district
designation. They would address mass
and scale, and additions, but not altera-
tions to existing buildings.
5. Consider a tiered system.
Consider a tiered system of designation
and treatment of historic properties. This
would link levels of significance and integ-
rity to different levels of review, and the de-
gree of rigor with which design guidelines
and standards would be applied. Proper-
ties that are National Register eligible
would be expected to be preserved “to the
greatest extent feasible,” as the ordinance
now provides. Some greater flexibility in
preservation expectations, the range of in-
centives available and the alternatives for
mitigation would be assigned to the other
levels.
rear, where fewer key features are found.)
building that is permitted. They can apply
as the underlying zoning for designated
zoning districts, or they can apply to spe-
cific building types that are permitted.
They may set the maximum size of a build-
ing, related to forms traditionally seen in
an area.
Expanded Character-management
Tools
Additional tools such as form-based codes
and conservation districts should be con-
sidered to complement the preservation
system in Fort Collins. In some cases,
these alternative tools would more directly
address the community’s objectives for a
specific area. They can also be easier to
administer, thus improving overall program
efficiency.
energy saving features, which some-
times have been “forgotten.”
• Historic buildings can be adapted with
new energy-saving technologies, often
more easily than expected.
ervation. In the absence of this integrated
planning, preservation issues often arise
on a case-by-case basis, and staff must
make decisions without clear policy direc-
tives that would otherwise be presented in
a sub-area plan.
Note that some preservation advocates
argue tiered ratings are not necessary, in
that this degree of flexibility is built into
the Secretary of the Interior’s standards
for identifying historic resources and also
in their guidelines for treatment of histor-
ic properties, and that therefore formally
designating different tiers is not neces-
sary. In some cases, tiers have been criti-
cized, because it is felt that they create a
“lower” class of properties that are more
vulnerable to loss or inappropriate altera-
tion. Nonetheless, because the city has
already established a review of older prop-
erties in its development review process,
it has implied that different levels of sig-
nificance exist. But, it has not provided the
tools in the surveys, review processes or
guidelines that would make this approach
work efficiently.
tory. For a time, Historic Fort Collins as-
pired to this role. However, it has not been
active in recent years.
Expanded Outreach and Education
In the absence of other supporting orga-
nizations, the city preservation program
needs to engage in more outreach and
training. This will help the program oper-
ate more smoothly. Providing information
about effective energy conservation meth-
ods that are appropriate for historic prop-
erties is an example.
lins. For example, some work is executed
without the required approval, even when
it is required. In other cases, an approval
has been issued, but the work executed in
the field deviates from that which was ap-
proved. This requires a supportive working
relationship between preservation plan-
ning staff and code enforcement staff. It
also requires clear documentation of what
has been approved.
Compliance Tracking
A simple form, with designated sign-off
points, should be attached to the building
permit, and should be used in conjunc-
tion with other normal site inspections on
a property that has received approval for
preservation-related work.
reduce the review time required.
5. Design Guidelines and
Standards
Design guidelines and standards provide
objective criteria for determining the ap-
propriateness of proposed work affecting
historic resources. Guidelines help inform
a property owner in advance of the criteria
on which their designs will be judged, and
are later applied by city staff and boards in
permitting.
significance for historic structures. Such a
survey may also identify new buildings that
are compatible with their context. A tiered
survey can then be linked to differing types
of review and permitting, as well as incen-
tives and benefits. For example, proper-
ties of a high level of significance may be
subject to review by the preservation com-
mission, whereas those of a lesser level
may be handled by staff. (See also later
discussion on tiered designation systems
on pages 14, 17 and 20.)
eas:
• Providing more information to property
owners in advance
• Determining in advance if a property
has historic significance
• Identifying the role of historic resourc-
es in city plans and policies
• Understanding the guidelines for treat-
ment of historic properties and the flex-
ibility that may be available in design
review
• Clarifying the steps in the review pro-
cesses for different property types
Development Application Form
The steps in a permitting process are a
key part of operating procedures, and in
the case of historic preservation, should
be coordinated with other permitting and
decision-making steps of the city. In that
regard, existing permit application forms
that the city uses do not request informa-
tion that could help facilitate review of
older buildings. The development review
form, for example, does not ask if a struc-
ture that is fifty years old or more is as-
sociated with the proposed project. This
means that a property owner may not re-
ceive an alert that their proposed project is
subject to preservation review.
the contribution of historic resources to
the quality of life in Fort Collins through
planning and regulations.”