HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 04/24/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen
Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials
to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2)
hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented.
NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to
election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which
the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711
for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
Adjourned Meeting
April 24, 2018
6:00 p.m.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Items Relating to the Appropriation from Light and Power/Broadband Fund Debt Proceeds and Other
Funds Related to the Broadband Project. (staff: Travis Storin, Mike Beckstead; 5 minute staff
presentation; 30 minute discussion
A. This item was originally scheduled for April 17 and was moved to April 24 to allow the Mayor and
City Manager an opportunity to discuss funding for Art in Public Places (APP), timing, and process
concerns with impacted stakeholders. Funding for APP is included in the ordinance below and will
be finalized upon a review of the APP guidelines and process to occur by the end of 2018. Both
the amount borrowed and amount appropriated have been increased to cover the additional funding
requirement.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2018, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of 2018
Electric Utility Enterprise Revenue Bonds for Capital, Operating, Debt Service and Art in Public
Places Expenditures Associated with the Construction of a Broadband System to Provide
Telecommunication Facilities and Services to Customers Within Fort Collins in the Light and
Power Fund and Transferring Appropriations from the Light and power Fund to the Cultural
Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2018, Appropriating Funds from the Light and Power Fund
to Defease the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise Taxable Revenue Bonds
Series 2010B.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate (1) bond proceeds for the construction of a municipal
broadband system and (2) Light & Power reserves for the defeasance of outstanding debt. The
issuance and defeasance were authorized by the Electric Utility Enterprise Board Ordinances No. 003
and No. 004, respectively. This agenda item is consistent with Strategic Objective 3.9 from the 2016
Strategic Plan: Encourage the development of reliable, high speed internet services throughout the
community.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 24, 2018
City Council
STAFF
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Appropriation From Light and Power/Broadband Fund Debt Proceeds and Other Funds
Related to the Broadband Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item was originally scheduled for April 17 and was moved to April 24 to allow the Mayor and City Manager
an opportunity to discuss funding for Art in Public Places (APP), timing, and process concerns with impacted
stakeholders. Funding for APP is included in the ordinance below and will be finalized upon a review of the
APP guidelines and process to occur by the end of 2018. Both the amount borrowed and amount appropriated
have been increased to cover the additional funding requirement.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2018, Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance of 2018 Electric
Utility Enterprise Revenue Bonds for Capital, Operating, Debt Service and Art in Public Places
Expenditures Associated with the Construction of a Broadband System to Provide Telecommunication
Facilities and Services to Customers Within Fort Collins in the Light and Power Fund and Transferring
Appropriations from the Light and power Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in
Public Places Program.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2018, Appropriating Funds from the Light and Power Fund to Defease
the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise Taxable Revenue Bonds Series 2010B.
The purpose of this item is to appropriate (1) bond proceeds for the construction of a municipal broadband
system and (2) Light & Power reserves for the defeasance of outstanding debt. The issuance and defeasance
were authorized by the Electric Utility Enterprise Board Ordinances No. 003 and No. 004, respectively. This
agenda item is consistent with Strategic Objective 3.9 from the 2016 Strategic Plan: Encourage the
development of reliable, high speed internet services throughout the community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. The City Manager has also
determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the Light and Power
Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light and Power Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in this Fund during the fiscal year.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Overview
At its April 3, 2018, meeting the Electric Utility Enterprise Board adopted Ordinances No. 003 and No. 004 on
Second Reading, authorizing the issuance of debt for construction of the broadband system. The ensuing step
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 2
is to appropriate bond proceeds for operating costs of 2018, the capital project itself, debt issuance costs,
repayment of the General Fund bridge loan, capitalized interest, and defeasance of the 2010 Light & Power
bonds.
For reference, below is the schedule previously published for the broadband project:
Table 1: Broadband Project Schedule
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Appropriations and Budget
Appropriations of the above proceeds are brought forward to City Council under Ordinance No. 056, 2018. Of
the $142,815,541 project funding, $115,356,991 will be appropriated upon issuance while $27,458,550 will be
set aside for future appropriations.
Of the $27,458,550 for future appropriations, staff recommends a balance sheet assignment of $8,200,000
million of unappropriated proceeds for the exclusive use of expanding the system in response to market share
and/or future annexations. This step will require staff to return to Council to authorize the use of these funds.
The remaining $8,200,000 of unappropriated proceeds are for operating costs to be appropriated in the 2019
and 2020 biennial budget as part of Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO). The remaining $11,058,550 of
unappropriated bond proceeds will be placed into escrow as the capitalized interest fund.
The ordinance includes a contribution of $609,526 to Art in Public Places (APP). These APP funds are
transferred to APP on a provisional basis and depend on the outcome of a broader conversation and review of
APP and future Council policy discussions. Of the $609,526, $479,430 remains in the Light & Power Fund for
acquisition of art while $130,096 is transferred to the Cultural Services Fund for maintenance and operations.
City Code states that contributions from City utilities to the APP program are capped at 0.5% of their budgeted
operating revenue. As Broadband is being created as a sub-fund within the Light & Power Fund, it shares this
cap with the electric utility. The 2018 cap for Light & Power is $652,650, of which $43,124 has already been
committed as part of existing capital projects within Light & Power. The $609,526 contribution to APP is based
on the remaining cap, as 1% of the Broadband project amount would otherwise exceed that cap.
Ordinance No. 056, 2018, directs staff to review and consider whether the APP Code provisions need to be
amended to address future new Broadband System construction projects and to present recommendations by
the end of 2018.
1
Packet Pg. 4
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 3
Staff will leverage current Art and Culture Master Plan findings, as well as conduct additional meetings with the
Cultural Resources Board, the APP Board, other relevant boards, capital planning staff, and budget staff. A
review of the current APP workplan and recommendations will be presented.
Appropriated and unappropriated proceeds for the Broadband project totaling $142.8M are summarized below:
Table 2: Broadband Appropriations
2018 Operating Appropriations
Cost of Issuance (legal, advisor, underwriter) 822,100
Interest on $1.8 M loan from General Fund 15,000
2010 L&P defeasance, backfill QECB subsidy 373,000
Operating expenses 2018, repay GF loan 1,800,000
Capitalized Interest 2018 3,129,117
Operating Budget 2018 6,139,217
Multiyear Non-lapsing Capital Appropriations
Capital Projects 108,608,249
Art in Public Places 609,526
Capital Budget 109,217,775
Appropriated by Ordinance in 2018 115,356,991
Table 3: Unappropriated Proceeds
Set aside for future appropriations
Working capital future years (2019-20 BFO) 8,200,000
Success capital (higher take rate or annexation) 8,200,000
Capitalized Interest 11,058,550
Total set aside for future appropriations 27,458,550
Appropriations for the Light and Power Defeasance are summarized below:
Table 4: Light and Power Appropriations
Budgeting for Defeasance of 2010 Light and Power Bonds
2018 Budget (already appropriated) 1,992,324
New Appropriation from L&P Reserves 3,791,004
Total escrow amount for 2018-2020 payments 5,783,328
Impact to Other Projects
The Utility Customer Information System (CIS) replacement project planned for a $7M+ implementation cost,
with $2.3M appropriated in 2018 and the remainder to be brought forward for the 2019-2020 budget.
Broadband was to be put on a separate billing system funded by the project.
Throughout February and March, staff has learned that it can implement a single system to serve all five
utilities. Doing so necessitates a faster implementation so that Broadband can activate customers in late 2019.
1
Packet Pg. 5
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 4
Long-term this is expected to decrease cost, and in fact the bids for the new system are coming in lower than
the original project plan for the four utilities.
The immediate impact is for the four existing utilities to bring forward the full project cost for appropriation
sooner than initially planned.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its February 27, 2018 meeting, the Council Finance Committee supported proceeding to First Reading with
the full Council.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Two separate ballot measures brought to voters were successful in authorizing the establishment of a
municipal fiber retail broadband network.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Broadband and Art in Public Places Memo (PDF)
2. Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 6
215 N Mason Street
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6795
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: March 29
th
, 2018
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer
Re: Broadband – Art in Public Places
Bottom Line:
Staff has been assessing how Art in Public Places (APP) fits within the new Broadband (BB)
effort. The current APP provisions in the City Code would require a range of APP contributions
from zero if BB is treated as a separate utility to over $600k if BB is combined with L&P in
calculating the required contribution.
As a competitive venture vs. a single source utility, BB needs to maintain a competitive cost
position to the current incumbents to be successful. The incumbents are not required to incur
such a cost.
Staff believes additional analysis and policy discussions need to occur to resolve how APP
should be included within a new, competitive venture such as broadband. As a result, staff
recommends approving the BB appropriation without a contribution to APP but including a
commitment to evaluate alternatives for future funding and contributions by 2022 with a target
contribution of $125k to $150k based on BB’s anticipated annual operating revenues once BB is
in full operation.
Background Discussion:
APP guidelines within City Code Sec. 23-304 are summarized below:
1. A 1% contribution to APP applies to construction projects over $250k.
2. If partially funded by restricted sources, the 1% applies to sources not restricted
3. Funds are expended for projects as prescribed by APP guidelines. Within utilities the
project needs to benefit the rate payers in some fashion.
4. Annual contributions for each utility is limited to .5% of annual operating revenue in the
year of the appropriation
5. Construction project defined as:
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Broadband and Art in Public Places Memo (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018 Light & Power
a. The construction, rehabilitation, renovation, remodeling or improvement of any
building, structure, street, sidewalk, park, utility or other public improvement by
or for the City including landscaping, parking, design, engineering, equipment or
furnishing for such improvement and all other costs, but excluding the cost of real
property acquisition, vehicles and equipment not affixed to public property.
Broadband is operating in a competitive environment which requires different business
decisions:
1. BB is not a single source utility where a captive market exists and rates are set based on
revenue requirements needed to support programs such as energy efficiency, APP, or
low-income rates.
2. BB is a competitive business and needs to maintain a competitive cost position compared
with the incumbents.
a. Including APP as a cost to BB puts BB at a competitive cost disadvantage to the
incumbents who are not required to support such a program. Similar discussions
occurred around the topic of low income rates. A low-income internet rate will be
developed but funded outside of BB. PILOTs (payment in lieu of taxes) are
another example. Three of the City’s utilities pays a 6% PILOT to the general
fund. Broadband will most likely carry a PILOT but at a rate that is equal to taxes
paid by the existing incumbents.
3. Governance discussions with Council focused on decision factors based on business and
competitive criteria vs. social and community decision criteria. The omission of an APP
contribution from the broadband capital estimates is consistent with those discussions.
The application of APP to Broadband:
1. If BB were treated as a separate utility, without operating revenue in 2018 when the start-
up capital is appropriated, no contributions would be required to APP.
a. The startup of BB will occur within the current L&P Enterprise fund to leverage
the ability to issue revenue bonds to support the BB capital costs. Other than this
leverage, staff has received direction to not comingle resources and BB will have
a separate set of books within the Enterprise.
2. Combining L&P and BB in calculating the appropriate APP contribution has BB
contributing just over $600k to APP based on the operating revenue of L&P. Staff does
not believe this was the intent behind the APP requirements in the Code.
a. The APP requirements in the Code were developed for established utilities. If BB
is combined with L&P, L&P has a very large APP cap given it’s $130M of
operating revenue and has a very small capital spend that uses very little of the
APP cap in 2018. BB has a very significant capital spend as a start-up utility but
no operating revenue.
Staff believes additional policy discussions need to occur to resolve how APP should be included
within a new, competitive venture such as BB. Considerations and evaluation of items such as:
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Broadband and Art in Public Places Memo (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018 Light & Power
1. Should BB make similar contributions as the other single source utilities or does the
competitive nature of BB exclude it from the program?
2. If excluded, should other income sources be considered such that the APP program is
supported in some fashion?
3. If a PILOT were established for BB that is competitive with what the incumbents incur,
could that be a source of funding for APP in a way that doesn’t create a competitive
disadvantage?
4. If a PILOT were established for BB, would/could that also be used to fund a low-income
internet rate. If so, how would that compete with APP funding from the same revenue
source?
5. Should forecasted operating revenue after start-up be used to establish a targeted funding
level? BB is anticipated to have operating revenues of $25M to $30M by 2023. A base
level of funding associated with start-up capital could be set at $125k to $150K consistent
with the cap defined in code once the funding questions above have been evaluated.
Staff recommends approving the BB appropriation without a contribution to APP but including
in the appropriations ordinance direction from Council for staff to evaluated alternatives for
funding and contributions by 2022 and targeting a contribution associated with the start-up
capital of $125k to $150k.
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Broadband and Art in Public Places Memo (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018 Light & Power
Finance Administration
215 N. Mason
2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6788
970.221.6782 - fax
fcgov.com
Special Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
02/27/18
11 am - noon
CIC Room - City Hall
Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers
Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Jeff Mihelich, Kevin Gertig, Carrie Daggett,
Travis Storin, John Voss, John Duval, Andres Gavaldon, Lance Smith, Tyler Marr,
Joanne Cech, Kelly DiMartino, Andres Gavaldon, Zach Mozer, Jennifer
Poznanovic, SeonAh Kendall, Patrick Rowe, Allyssa Johnson, Blaine Dunn,
Josh Birks
Others: James Manire, Tim Tilleson, Colin Garfield, Todd Parker, Kevin Brinkman,
Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce), Dale Adamy (Citizen),
Meeting called to order at 11:04 am
A. 2018 Light & Power Revenue Bonds, Series A and B
Mike Beckstead, CFO
Travis Storin, Accounting Director
Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director
James Manire, Bond Advisor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is preparing to bring forward ordinances for first reading on March 20th for the following:
• Issuance of 2018 Light & Power Revenue Bonds
• Defeasance of 2010 Light & Power Revenue Bonds
• Appropriation of proceeds for construction of a municipal retail broadband network
Subject to change and as currently structured, bonds will be issued in gross for $141.9 million, which will cover
issuance costs of $0.9 million, establishment of a capitalized interest fund of $13.8 million, and project proceeds
of $127.2 million.
Proceeds are split into separate tax-exempt and taxable series. Tax-exempt bonds have certain requirements to
maintain their exempt status, including:
• A reasonable expectation to spend 85% of the exempt proceeds within a 3-year window
• A limitation on proceeds funding private use of up to 10%
• A limitation on “bad money”, or the use of proceeds for working capital, of 5% of the issuance.
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018
2
The bonds are structured with a 25-year maturity and allow for early redemption beginning in year 10, or mid-
2028. Debt service at the currently contemplated terms is presented as follows:
In addition, existing Light & Power bonds of $5.3 million will be defeased by placing cash reserves into an
irrevocable escrow account. Doing so will satisfy bond covenants limiting the ability to pledge net revenues
toward the 2018 bond issuance.
Proceeds of the bonds will repay the $1.8 million short-term loan made from the General Fund earlier in 2018.
Defeasance of the 2010 bonds will forfeit approximately $400,000 in Qualified Energy Conservation Bond
subsidies, which will be repaid to Light and Power reserves from bond proceeds.
The bond ordinance will be brought forward as a parameters ordinance, allowing for a reasonable range of
market scenarios in the weeks that elapse between second reading and pricing of the bonds.
Staff recommends multiple external rating agencies to review the issuance in March and April, and pricing and
distribution to take place in May after second reading of the ordinance April 3.
1.2
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018
3
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Does the Finance Committee support proceeding to first reading on March 20, 2018?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
For reference, below is the broadband implementation timeline, including the milestones on bond issuance:
Within the bond issuance milestone above are the below key dates:
1.2
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018
4
Discussion / Next Steps;
Mike Beckstead; this is completely neutral to L&P - no adverse impact on L&P revenues, reserves or rates.
We had 13 organizations responded to our RFP - we interviewed 4 - the city should be proud as high-level firms
participated. Very robust and transparent process.
Mike Beckstead; Travis sent an email yesterday talking about the rating agency review – 30-40% of rating is
management / leadership as opposed to financial - how L&P has been managed - we want to highlight next
week - this is a big part of the rating - qualitative side - Fitch / S&P
Option we are exploring - retail only order period of 1-2 days – access before the institutional investors - -
access and can yield benefits to the city – it is not w/out risk as it is one more day it is in the marketplace.
Institutional buyers projected to make up 70% - Encourage as much retail as possible anticipate it will top out
10-30% range.
Ross Cunniff; enable retail - are we talking with investment advisors around the city to let their clients know of
this option?
Travis Storin; that will be part of what the underwriters do – we will work with the senior underwriter and CPIO
to have a little bit of a marketing campaign on how to buy bonds via retail channels. newspaper, etc.
1.2
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018
5
Ross Cunniff; Will sequestering be part of the ordinance?
ACTION ITEM:
Mike Beckstead; we haven’t thought that through yet but we will and will come back with a recommendation.
When fully ramped up this will be $10 - 10.2M of annual debt service
Rates have ticked up 50 basis points recently - volatility - 2-3 months before we issue -there could be more
movement up or down
1.2
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018
6
Mayor Troxell; comprehensive and well thought through - ready to go
Ken Summers; I agree
Ross Cunniff; ordinance and reserve 8.2 - I do have a bias toward wanting that - keep body informed.
Mike Beckstead; to confirm, if we want to activate the reserve we need to come back to Council.
Ross Cunniff; yes, come back to Council
Carrie Daggett; make sure and touch base with bond council regarding this -
1.2
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018
7
Jim Manire; satisfy that as a policy matter - appropriation
Ken Summers; confirming tax exempt is 3.8% - taxable is 4%
Mike Beckstead; based on proposals we received about 3-4 weeks ago - I have a feeling it will be north of that
but do not know by how much
Travis Storin; taxable side scales up - earliest maturities are 3.1% in 2022, latest maturities are 3.9% in 2031.
Ken Summers; 4.0 is 25-year term
Travis Storin; because taxables are more expensive we have them maturing faster - maturing in year 13 where
the exempt go through year 25. So taxable are 4% over 13 years, while exempt are 3.8% over 25 years
Jim Manire; your staff in the due diligence, development, research and consulting has been strong and puts the
city in a terrific position for this project – favorable position because of the ability to combine your finances with
the electric utility -gives you market access for a project like this that a lot of communities in Colorado simply
don’t have. Well organized approach to the project and financing.
Darin Atteberry; we had consultants in the business planning process - best in industry - 3 years ago
Jim is part of Bond Council which is a great team including Sally, Dee, Lance, Mike and Travis.
Thank you for your professionalism and competency.
Ross Cunniff; this has been a very streamlined and well done approach. Excited to move forward and get this off
the ground.
Ken Summers; positive effect - flexibility - makes sense
Jeff Mihelich; appreciate Council’s willingness to going forward with success capital - allow us to expand.
Meeting adjourned at 11:31 am
1.2
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2018 (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of 2018
1
Broadband Project Appropriations
April 24, 2018
2018
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of
2
2
Overview
Recommend appropriating bond proceeds for:
• Broadband build-out capital project
• 2018 Operations/General Fund repayment plus interest
• Cost of bond issuance
• Capitalized interest on bonds
• Repayment of forfeited subsidy to Light & Power
1.3
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of
3
Term Summary:
Proceeds
3
Series 2018A
(Tax‐exempt)
Series 2018B
(Taxable) Total
Project Fund $87,433,000 32,171,526 $119,604,526
Sequestered capital for
annexations and/or market share
‐ 8,200,000 8,200,000
Capitalized Interest Fund 10,272,106 3,915,561 14,187,667
Cost of Issuance 541,793 281,556 823,348
Total $98,246,898 $44,568,643 $142,815,541
1.3
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of
4
Broadband Budget
4
Total Appropriations, 2018/Current and Future $142,815,541
2018 Operating Appropriations
Cost of Issuance (legal, advisor, underwriter) 822,100
Interest on $1.8 M loan from General Fund 15,000
2010 L&P defeasance, backfill QECB subsidy 373,000
Operating expenses 2018, repay GF loan 1,800,000
Capitalized Interest 2018 3,129,117
Operating Budget 2018 6,139,217
Multiyear Non‐lapsing Capital Appropriations
Capital Projects 108,608,249
Art in Public Places 609,526
Capital Budget 109,217,775
Appropriated by Ordinance in 2018 115,356,991
Set aside for future appropriations
Working capital future years (2019‐20 BFO) 8,200,000
Success capital (higher take rate or annexation) 8,200,000
Capitalized Interest 11,058,550
Total set aside for future appropriations 27,458,550
1.3
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of
5
Retirement/defeasance of debt
5
Light & Power will receive $373K from the Broadband Bond proceeds to repay
forfeited federal subsidies for energy conservation
2018 Budget (already appropriated) 1,992,324
New Appropriation from L&P Reserves 3,791,004
Total escrow amount for 2018‐2020 payments 5,783,328
1.3
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of
6
Impact to Other Initiatives:
Utility Customer Information System (CIS)
6
Previous plan
• Utilities planned $7M+ for new billing system; appropriated $2.3M in 2018, planned on
appropriating the remainder in 2019
• Broadband assumed a separate billing system was required
What we learned
• Issued RFP and several responses provided an integrated solution that will support current
utility and broadband needs.
• Evaluating integrated proposal in April & May
Implications
• If integrated solution works, we’ll need to accelerate utility funding
• 2018 appropriation to be brought forward from the four existing utilities
1.3
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of
7
Questions and Comments
7
• Ordinances on first reading:
• Appropriation of Bond Proceeds for project and operations
• Appropriation of Light & Power Reserves for defeasance
1.3
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6702 : Broadband - Appropriation of Proceeds from Issuance of
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 056, 2018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PROCEEDS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF 2018 ELECTRIC UTILITY
ENTERPRISE REVENUE BONDS FOR CAPITAL, OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A BROADBAND SYSTEM TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND
SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS WITHIN FORT COLLINS IN THE LIGHT AND POWER
FUND AND TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE LIGHT AND POWER
FUND TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN
PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM
WHEREAS, after final passage of Ordinance No. 003 of the Board of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise (the “Enterprise Ordinance”), the Electric Utility
Enterprise (the “Enterprise”) intends to issue its “City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility
Enterprise, Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A” (the “2018A Bonds”) and its “City of
Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise, Taxable Revenue Bonds, Series 2018B” (the
“2018B Bonds” and, together with the 2018A Bonds, the “Bonds”)
WHEREAS, as described in the Enterprise Ordinance, the Bonds are being issued and
sold to fund the construction of a municipal broadband system by the City’s Electric Utility (the
“Electric Utility”) to provide telecommunication facilities and services, including the
transmission of voice, data, graphics and video, to customers within the City, which facilities and
services the Electric Utility has not previously provided but is now authorized to provide
pursuant to City Charter Article XII, Section 7 and City Code Section 26-398 (the “Broadband
System”); and
WHEREAS, the net proceeds from the sale of the Bonds are anticipated to be
$142,815,541, and of this amount, City staff is requesting that only $115,356,991 be
appropriated now from the Light and Power Fund to be used to fund the construction of the
Broadband System, including for all related capital, operating and debt service expenditures,
leaving an unappropriated balance of $27,458,550 to be appropriated for future operation and
expansion costs relating to the Broadband System and capitalized interest to bondholders; and
WHEREAS, in 1995, the City Council adopted Article XII of City Code Chapter 23 to
establish a program to acquire, exhibit and maintain art in public places to be funded by
including in the Council’s appropriations for certain capital projects, including those of its
utilities, an amount equal to 1% of the construction costs for those projects, but this contribution
amount for the City’s utilities is limited to a total annual contribution amount of .5% of each
utility’s “budgeted operating revenue” (the “APP Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, contributions to art in public places for each utility will be kept and spent in
such Utility’s own fund, with the exception of maintenance, administration, repair and display
costs pursuant to City Code Section 23-303; and
Packet Pg. 24
-2-
WHEREAS, the Electric Utility’s budgeted operating revenue for 2018 is $130.53
million, but this amount does not include any budgeted revenues generated from the Broadband
System since the System will not be in operation in 2018, so this amount only includes revenues
to be generated from electric services provided in 2018 by the Electric Utility; and
WHEREAS, as currently written, the APP Ordinance therefore requires that this
appropriation include a 1% contribution for art in public places capped at the Electric Utility’s
Light and Power Fund’s annual limit of .5% of the $130.53 million budgeted operating revenues,
which is $652,650, and the Light and Power Fund has so far contributed $43,124 of this cap in
2018, so this leaves $609,526 available to be contributed for the Broadband System project under
the APP Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon
recommendation of the City Manager, to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any
time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations,
in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, do not exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and
determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Light and
Power Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light and Power Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in this Fund during
the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is
necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare and that it is in the best interests of the City,
the Electric Utility and the Electric Utility’s ratepayers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations
and findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from the Light and Power Fund
proceeds from the Bonds in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTEEN
MILLION THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
NINETY-ONE DOLLARS ($115,356,991) to be used to fund the construction of
the Broadband System, including for all related capital, operating, debt service and art-in-
public-places expenditures as follows:
Cost of Issuance $822,100
Interest on loan from General Fund 15,000
Backfill of forfeited subsidy to Light & Power 373,000
2018 Operating Expenses 1,800,000
2018 Capitalized Interest 3,129,117
Packet Pg. 25
-3-
Capital Projects 108,608,249
Art in Public Places (Artwork) 479,430
Art in Public Places (transfer to Cultural Services for Maintenance
& Operations)
130,096
$115,356,991
Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY
THOUSAND NINETY-SIX DOLLARS ($130,096) in the Light and Power Fund is authorized
for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund. Appropriation of said funds in the
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund shall be contingent upon the completion of the review
process described in Section 4. Such funds shall be appropriated in the Cultural Services and
Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations.
Section 4. That the City Manager is directed to study whether the APP Ordinance
needs to be amended to address future Broadband System projects and to present any
recommended amendments to Council before the end of 2018. This should include
consideration of a contribution amount capped at .5% of the Broadband System’s anticipated
annual operating revenues once the system is in full operation, which capped amount is
estimated to be from $125,000 to $150,000. The City Manager should also evaluate and
recommend to Council how to fund art-in-public places contributions for Broadband System
appropriations. It is Council’s intent that some or all of the funds transferred by this
Ordinance to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund shall be transferred to the Light and
Power Fund as appropriate and in accordance with the program amendments adopted by
Council in follow up to this review process.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 24th day
of April, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 26
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 057, 2018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE LIGHT AND POWER FUND TO
DEFEASE THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, ELECTRIC
UTILITY ENTERPRISE TAXABLE REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2010B
WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore established, pursuant to Section 19.3(b) of
Charter Article V and Ordinance No. 060, 1993 adopted by the Council on July 20, 1993, and
Ordinance No. 038, 2010 adopted by the Council on April 20, 2010, the City’s Electric Utility as
an enterprise of the City (the “Enterprise”); and
WHEREAS, after final passage of Ordinance No. 003 by the Board of the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise (the “Board ”), the Enterprise intends to issue its
“City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise, Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds, Series
2018A” (the “2018A Bonds”) and its “City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise,
Taxable Revenue Bonds, Series 2018B” (the “2018B Bonds”) to fund the construction of a
municipal broadband system to provide certain telecommunication facilities and services to
customers within the City (jointly, the “Broadband Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 001 adopted by the Board in 2010, the Board
authorized the issuance of the “City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise, Tax-
Exempt Revenue Bonds, Series 2010A” in the aggregate principal amount of $9,675,000 (the
“2010A Bonds”), and its “City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Electric Utility Enterprise, Taxable
Revenue Bonds (Direct Pay Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds), Series 2010B” in the
aggregate principal amount of $6,410,000 (the “2010B Bonds”) to finance various improvements
to the City electric utility system; and
WHEREAS, the 2010A Bonds have been fully paid in accordance with their terms and
are no longer outstanding; and
WHEREAS, the 2010B Bonds are currently outstanding in the principal amount of
$5,270,000 and $513,328 in interest; and
WHEREAS, relating to the issuance of the Broadband Bonds, the Board has determined
in Ordinance No. 004 that it is in the best interest of the Enterprise to defease the outstanding
2010B Bonds in full prior to the issuance of the 2018 Bonds in order to eliminate certain
restrictive contractual provisions contained in the 2010B Bond Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, upon such defeasance, the 2010B Bonds will no longer be deemed to be
outstanding within the meaning of the 2010B Bond Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the Enterprise will utilize available funds in
the Light and Power Fund to defease the 2010B Bonds; and
WHEREAS, in connection with this defeasance, the Enterprise will enter into an escrow
agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”) with U.S. Bank National Association, as escrow agent,
(the “Escrow Agent”), into which escrow the funds appropriated herein will be deposited; and
Packet Pg. 27
-2-
WHEREAS, in order to fully defease the 2010B bonds, the total amount of $5,783,328
will need to be deposited with the Escrow Agent under the Escrow Agreement; and
WHEREAS, there has already been appropriated in the City’s 2018 annual budget
$1,992,324 for the principal and interest payment owed under the 2010B Bonds in 2018 and,
therefore, only an additional $3,791,004 needs to be appropriated in this Ordinance to fully
defease these Bonds; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon
recommendation of the City Manager, to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any
time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations,
in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and
determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Light and
Power Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light and Power Fund to
exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in this Fund during
the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is
necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare and that it is in the best interests of the City
and its Electric Utility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations
and findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from the Light and Power Fund
THREE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY-ONE THOUSAND FOUR
DOLLARS ($3,791,004) to be deposited with the Escrow Agent pursuant to
the terms and conditions of the Escrow Agreement in partial defeasance of
the 2010B Bonds. The remaining amount of $1,992,324 to be paid from the Light and
Power Fund to the Escrow Agent under the Escrow Agreement in order to fully defease the
2010B Bonds shall come from the funds already appropriated in the City’s 2018 budget to pay
the 2018 principal and interest payment due under the 2010B Bonds.
Packet Pg. 28
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 24th day of
April, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2018.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 29
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial
711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
City Council Work Session
April 24, 2018
After the Adjourned Council Meeting, Which Begins at 6:00 p.m.
• CALL TO ORDER.
1. Historic Preservation Code and Process Review. (staff: Karen McWilliams; 15 minute staff
presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with the results of Clarion Associates’ review of the
codes and processes informing the management of designated and older historic properties and
addressing compatible new construction. Those efforts include recommendations for potential
amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 14 (Landmark Preservation) and Land Use Code Section
3.4.7 (Historic and Cultural Resources).
2. Compatibility and Character Code Update. (staff: Cameron Gloss; 10 minute staff presentation;
30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with a progress report on two interrelated Land Use
Code update projects that together address design standards for development in downtown and in
transition areas at the interface between downtown and the Old Town Neighborhoods.
3. Proposed Changes to the Transportation Section of Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and
Process. (staff: Martina Wilkinson, Joe Olson, Laurie Kadrich; 10 minute staff presentation; 30
minute discussion)
The purpose of this work session is to discuss refinement of the transportation section of the Land
Use Code (LUC) Section 3.7.3-Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and associated process for
evaluating intersections. The purpose is to create flexibility in the process.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
In response to community interests and legal concerns, staff has been reviewing APF status. In
August 2016, Council provided direction at a work session to move forward with developing
refinements. Staff is proposing changes to the review of vehicular impacts associated with
development proposals:
• Combine Level of Service (LOS) review into one process and update the standards to be current
and consistent.
• Develop site-specific Alternative Mitigation Strategies in locations where APF thresholds are
exceeded and typical roadway improvements are not feasible, not wanted by the City, or are not
proportional to the impacts of a proposed development. The strategies will be developed by
staff and identify localized transportation improvements considering holistic multi-modal review.
• Implement the strategy for developments on a proportional basis to address their local impacts.
This can be used as a basis to allow proposals to move forward.
The outcome of the changes is they will address legal concerns and create a path forward for
proposals restricted by the current process while ensuring that new developments pay their
proportional share of infrastructure costs. City interests such as recognizing potential for infill
developments, and supporting multi-modal transportation options are better accommodated with the
changes.
If Council expresses support of the approach, staff will complete the public outreach process and
bring Code and Standards changes to Council for consideration in the coming months.
• OTHER BUSINESS.
• ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
April 24, 2018
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Historic Preservation Code and Process Review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with the results of Clarion Associates’ review of the codes and
processes informing the management of designated and older historic properties and addressing compatible new
construction. Those efforts include recommendations for potential amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 14
(Landmark Preservation) and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 (Historic and Cultural Resources).
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Would Council like staff to bring forward code changes to Municipal Code Chapter 14 and Land Use Code
Section 3.4.7 affecting the management of designated and older historic properties?
2. Would Council support staff’s submittal of a budget offer for historic property survey?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Project Objective
The objective of this code and process review is to provide greater clarity, effectiveness and predictability in the
regulations governing older and designated historic properties, and to better ensure the compatibility of new
construction with existing context. The review builds upon extensive work undertaken in 2012 - 2014 to align the
City’s historic preservation programs with Council’s policies and strategic outcomes.
A series of amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 14 and Land Use Code Section 3.4.7 are necessary to
implement staff and consultant recommendations for improvements to standards that apply to both historic
resources and infill and redevelopment projects. Additionally, Clarion has recommended several process changes
to strengthen and improve current practices.
Historic Preservation and the City’s Strategic Objectives
This code and process review effort will further align the codes, processes and goals of the Historic Preservation
Division with Council’s 2018 Strategic Outcomes in the areas of Economic Health, Neighborhood Livability and
Social Heath, and Environmental Health, specifically:
• EH 3.4: Foster infill and redevelopment that enhances the community;
• NLSH 1.5: Guide development through community planning, historic preservation, and efficient and effective
development review;
• ENV 4.1: Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue progress toward the 2030 goals; and
• ENV 4.4: Achieve 2020 Energy Policy goals and work toward long-term net zero energy.
Historic Preservation protects Fort Collins’ nationally recognized historic character through its review of
development and infill projects. It further supports the City’s economic health through property tax revenue and
building rehabilitation: Between 1979, when it was created, and 2016, property values in the Old Town Historic
1
Packet Pg. 3
April 24, 2018 Page 2
District increased at a much greater rate than in the adjoining comparison area: 629.1% vs 279.3%. (Clarion,
Assoc.: Preservation for a Changing Colorado, (https://www.preservationbenefitscolorado.com/) Clarion also
found that every $1 million spent on historic preservation leads to an additional $1.03 million in spending, 14 new
jobs, and $636,700 in increased household incomes.
Historic preservation also plays a crucial role in the success of the City’s Climate Action Program and Energy
Policy goals through the retrofitting of historic building stock. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s
website on Smart Growth, a new, green, energy-efficient office building that includes as much as 40 percent
recycled materials would nevertheless take approximately 65 years to recover the energy lost in demolishing a
comparable existing building.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-preservation-existing-and-historic-buildings
Project Management
The Historic Preservation Division code and process analysis is being conducted with the expert assistance of
Clarion, Associates, a well-respected firm with experience in preservation and urban planning, infill development,
design, and economic evaluation. Clarion’s review examined standard historic preservation practices, such as
landmark designation, design review, and the review of demolitions or alterations of buildings 50 years of age or
older, as well as emerging issues important to the community, including compatibility and appropriate infill
development.
During the fourteen-month study, Clarion undertook a comprehensive examination of best practices statewide and
nationally, and conducted a comparative analysis of the Fort Collins codes and processes with those in over a
dozen peer communities. For each topic area, Clarion prepared a report that summarized the current conditions
related to the section topic, discussed the main issues associated with the topic, highlighted various approaches
used throughout the country, and provided conclusions and recommendation for improvements.
Each report was then reviewed by a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the Landmark Preservation Commission
(LPC), and city staff. The sixteen-member CAC is made up of a variety of stakeholders, including historic
preservationists, architects, real estate developers and realtors, local land attorneys, property owners, history
group members and others. The CAC convened for fifteen meetings over the course of the fourteen months, to
provide input on current codes and processes and to review Clarion’s recommendations. Each of Clarion’s
reports, and the work of the CAC, was subsequently presented to the LPC for additional discussion.
Based upon Clarion’s examination of preservation practices locally and nationwide, and with input from
stakeholder groups, policy makers and citizens, the project has resulted in the recommendation of code and
process changes tailored to meet Fort Collins’ specific needs. A complete summary of Clarion’s recommendations
is provided as an attachment, along with an Action Items List of over 120 items staff is already working to
complete.
Community Engagement
Historic Preservation policy direction underpinning the code review project was gathered through numerous
community engagement activities, including presentations to boards and commissions, meetings with stakeholder
groups, surveys, open houses and workshops, listening sessions, and web page updates.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) Colorado North Chapter, in partnership with the City and the DDA,
presented two Community Workshops on Architecture and Design Standards for Infill and Historic Districts. The
workshops were well-attended by members of the design and development community and featured highly-regard
national and regional design experts as keynote presenters. Both of these events have helped to inform staff on
the range of issues present and potential solutions.
Stakeholder outreach to date has included presentations and input from the Downtown Development Authority,
the Chamber’s Local Legislature Affairs Committee, the Government Affairs Committee of the Board of Realtors,
and the Northern Colorado Board of Commercial Realtors. Additional presentations were provided to Historic
Larimer County, Protect Our Old Town Neighborhoods (POOTH), the City’s Development Review Advisory
Committee, and the Planning and Zoning Board.
1
Packet Pg. 4
April 24, 2018 Page 3
Timeline
Phase I - Data Collection March 2017 - April 2018
Phase II - Evaluate Regulatory Options March 2017 - July 2018
Phase III - Outreach October 2017 - July 2018
Phase IV - Prepare DRAFT Code Amendments April 2018 - July 2018
Phase IV - Code Amendment Adoption Process April 2018 - July 2018
KEY CHANGES BEING PROPOSED:
Following are key changes staff is proposing to the codes and processes, based on the recommendations made
by Clarion, Associates. If supported by Council, staff will implement processes changes and bring forward code
language for consideration at Council’s July 17, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Landmark Designation Process
• Enable the LPC to be able to approve design review applications during the designation process.
• Improve the non-consensual designation process by reducing the number of required meetings to
two, rather than the current three.
• Historic Preservation and GIS staff have developed a basic interactive map that provides information
on eligibility status, allowing property owners, developers and residents an easy way to located
individually eligible properties. Ultimately, the map will be linked to CityDocs, providing access to a
wealth of property information including landmark ordinances and documentation, photographs, and
building permit records.
Designated Resources: Processes and Standards for Review
• More options for quick approval: Make LPC conceptual reviews optional, and offer multiple
conceptual reviews, rather than one; add the ability for the LPC to make conditional approvals, like
the Planning and Zoning Board; offer Design Review Subcommittee meetings as options; and, enable
LPC members who participate in a Design Review Subcommittee to participate in later reviews of the
project.
• For both clarity and predictability, staff has developed a decision matrix of work that can be approved
without review, and work that can be approved administratively.
• Increase predictability further by adding standards and graphics for acceptable new construction
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards & Guidelines.
Development Review and Historic Resources: Processes and Standards for Review
• As part of the Budgeting for Outcomes process, staff will submit an offer for on-going historic
preservation survey. Both the CAC and LPC noted that survey should be the highest priority, with
consistent on-going funding and support in the City budget.
• Establish a consistent and predictable 200-foot limit for the review of development near historic
properties.
• Staff will bring forward for consideration standards based on design principals by which compatibility
with existing character will be evaluated. These standards with support design flexibility rather than
replication.
• Link demolition permits to building permits to reflect that a site cannot sit fallow following demolition.
• Implement changes to the eligibility review process: Provide a quick initial review; and have those
properties that are both undergoing major work and are likely to be individually eligible professionally
surveyed, prior to any official determination of eligibility.
1
Packet Pg. 5
April 24, 2018 Page 4
Demolition by Neglect and Dangerous Buildings
• In November 2018, as part of the Building Code Update process, staff will bring forward code
language to address the questions regarding imminently dangerous buildings, and to clarify the
requirement to fix dangerous conditions when deemed repairable by the Chief Building Official.
• At the same time, staff will provide Council with options for penalties to prevent intentional demolition
by neglect.
• Staff will further specify the types of repairs that are required to prevent demolition by neglect, and
extend maintenance requirements to eligible structures on the inventory.
NEXT STEPS
Community Engagement activities will continue in the next few months and include the following key dates and
time frames:
• May - June 2018-Interactive public workshops eliciting responses to regulatory options
• June 2018-Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) review of proposed code changes.
• June 2018-Planning and Zoning Board and Landmark Preservation Commission consideration and
recommendation
• July 17, 2018- City Council consideration of code changes
ATTACHMENTS
1. Clarion Associates Final Report (PDF)
2. Final Recommmendations with Comments (PDF)
3. Survey on Recommendations (PDF)
4. Staff Action Items List (PDF)
5. Public Engagement Summary (PDF)
6. Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 6
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 0
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Independent Planning
Consultant
Darryl Austin, Old Town Homeowner
Chris Aronson, Architect, Vaught Frye Larson
Aronson Architects
Jennifer Carpenter, Realtor; P&Z Board
Representative
Brian Cooke, Visit Fort Collins ambassador; Business
Writer & Editor, OTR Global; Owner of Landmarked
Home
David Dixon, Local History Interest Groups
Representative
Brian Dunbar, Institute for the Built Environment
Meg Dunn, LPC Representative; Owner of
Landmarked Home
Per Hogestad, Architect; Owner of Landmarked
Home
Lucia Liley, Attorney
Janelle Kechter, Legal Assistant
James MacDowell, Realtor; Owner of Landmarked
Income-Producing Property
Dr. Sarah Payne, CSU History Department
Anita Rehner, Old Town Homeowner
Matt Robenalt, Executive Director, DDA
Steve Schroyer, Director, Blue Ocean Real Estate
Michael Bello
Katie Dorn
Meg Dunn
W. J. (Bud) Frick
Per Hogestad
Kristin Gensmer
Kevin Murray
Mollie Simpson
Alexandra Wallace
Tom Leeson, Director, Community Development
and Neighborhood Services
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Division
Manager
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner
Brad Yatabe, Assistant City Attorney
Matt Goebel, Director
Lisa Steiner, Associate
1.1
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review i
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Organizational Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 7
A. Designation Process .............................................................................................................................. 8
Designation Process in Fort Collins ............................................................................................................................... 8
Process in Peer Cities ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 11
B. Designation Criteria .............................................................................................................................12
Designation Criteria in Fort Collins ............................................................................................................................. 12
Designation Criteria in Peer Cities ............................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusion & Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 14
C. Owner Consent To Designation .........................................................................................................16
Owner Consent to Designation in Fort Collins ....................................................................................................... 16
Owner Consent to Designation in Peer Cities ........................................................................................................ 16
Conclusion & Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 18
D. Alternative Types of Designation .....................................................................................................18
Alternative Types of Designation in Fort Collins ................................................................................................... 19
Alternative Types of Designation in Peer Cities ..................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion & Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 20
E. Linking Zoning & Preservation ..........................................................................................................22
Zoning & Preservation in Fort Collins ........................................................................................................................ 22
Zoning & Preservation in Peer Cities ......................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion & Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 23
F. Commission Membership ...................................................................................................................25
Commission Membership in Fort Collins .................................................................................................................. 25
Commission Membership in Peer Cities ................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 26
G. Historic Surveys ...................................................................................................................................26
Historic Surveys in Fort Collins ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Historic Surveys in Peer Cities ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Conclusion & Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 29
1.1
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review ii
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................31
Organizational Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 31
A. Design Review Generally ....................................................................................................................32
Design Review Generally in Fort Collins .................................................................................................................... 32
Design Review Generally in Peer Cities ..................................................................................................................... 32
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 35
A.1. Commission Review .........................................................................................................................35
Commission Review in Fort Collins ............................................................................................................................. 36
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 38
A.2. Administrative Review .....................................................................................................................39
Administrative Review in Fort Collins ......................................................................................................................... 40
Administrative Review in Peer Cities .......................................................................................................................... 40
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 42
B. Review Standards Generally ...............................................................................................................43
Review Standards Generally in Fort Collins ............................................................................................................. 43
Review Standards Generally in Peer Cities ............................................................................................................... 44
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 46
B.1. Review Standards for Demolition ..................................................................................................47
Review Standards for Demolition in Fort Collins ................................................................................................... 47
Review Standards for Demolition in Peer Cities .................................................................................................... 47
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 49
B.2. Review Standards for Compatible Infill ........................................................................................49
Review Standards for Compatible Infill in Fort Collins ........................................................................................ 49
Review Standards for Compatible Infill in Peer Cities ......................................................................................... 51
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 53
A. Development Review Process ............................................................................................................57
Overview of the Development Review Process and Historic Resources in Fort Collins ......................... 57
Similar Review Processes in Peer Cities ..................................................................................................................... 59
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 63
B. Applicability of Review .......................................................................................................................65
Applicability of Review in Fort Collins ........................................................................................................................ 65
1.1
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review iii
Applicability of Review in Peer Cities ......................................................................................................................... 66
Discussion and Recommendations: Geographic Extent ..................................................................................... 67
Discussion and Recommendations: Review of Eligible Resources ................................................................ 70
C. Clarity and Organization .....................................................................................................................73
Clarity and Organization in Fort Collins .................................................................................................................... 73
Clarity and Organization in Peer Cities ...................................................................................................................... 74
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 74
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................77
Organizational Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 77
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process ............................................................................................78
Demolition/Alteration Review Process in Fort Collins ......................................................................................... 78
Similar Review Processes in Peer Cities ..................................................................................................................... 81
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 85
B. Determinations of Eligibility ..............................................................................................................88
Determinations of Eligibility in Fort Collins ............................................................................................................. 88
Determinations of Eligibility in Peer Cities ............................................................................................................... 89
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 91
C. Demolition By Neglect ........................................................................................................................92
Demolition by Neglect in Fort Collins ........................................................................................................................ 93
Demolition by Neglect in Peer Cities ......................................................................................................................... 93
Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 96
D. Public Safety Exclusions .....................................................................................................................98
Public Safety Exclusions in Fort Collins ...................................................................................................................... 98
Public Safety Exclusions in Peer Cities ....................................................................................................................... 99
Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 100
1.1
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 1
The City of Fort Collins has long been at the forefront of historic preservation in the state and the nation.
In 1968, the Landmark Preservation Commission was established and the city’s first historic preservation
ordinance was adopted. Since that time, nearly 250 local landmarks have been designated as well as three
local historic districts. Many more properties in the city have also been designated at a state or national
level. Over the decades, Fort Collins has been successful at preserving historic resources through
designation and the review of alterations to historic properties. These designated properties help to
portray the long history and unique character of Fort Collins.
While the City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program is impressive in many respects, there are a few
areas for potential improvement that are highlighted in this report. These changes could help to improve
process efficiency, increase the clarity and user-friendliness of the ordinance, and better ensure
compatibility as the city continues to evolve and grow. This report analyzes various aspects of the existing
codes and processes and proposes improvements to an already strong, well-respected, and resilient
historic preservation program.
This document compiles a series of reports that examine the City of Fort Collins’ historic preservation
codes and processes, which are located in the Municipal Code and the Land Use Code. A review of best
practices in peer cities statewide and nationwide was completed to compare the Fort Collins preservation
codes and processes to those in other cities.
The four sections of this report focus on the following topics:
Each section of this report briefly summarizes the current conditions of the Fort Collins codes and
processes related to the section topic, discusses the main issues associated with that topic, highlights
various approaches used throughout the county, and provides conclusions and recommendations for
improvements in Fort Collins.
1.1
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 2
Prior to consolidation into this document, each report was reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC), Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC), and City staff. The Citizen Advisory Committee is made
up of a variety of stakeholders including historians, architects, real estate developers, realtors, landmark
owners, homeowners, local history group members, and others. The feedback from the CAC and LPC on
each of the recommendations has been integrated throughout the consolidated report. Look for this
symbol throughout the report:
City staff is currently conducting a survey to obtain additional public input on the recommendations in
this summary report. The results of that survey will be attached to this report as an appendix prior to City
Council review of this report.
1.1
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 3
The following table compares the basic characteristics of the cities we studied for this report. The peer
cities researched were determined based on similar characteristics to Fort Collins: a population size
between 90,000 and 300,000 people, the presence of a large university, a growing or stable population,
and a robust preservation program determined by number of historic districts and landmarks.
Fort Collins,
Colorado
164,000
33,000
Colorado State
University
Growing: 36%
248 landmarks, 3 historic
districts
Berkeley,
California
121,000
40,000
University of California,
Berkeley
Growing: 18%
281 landmarks, 4 historic
districts, and 39 structures
of merit
Boise, Idaho 223,000
22,000
Boise State University
Growing: 14%
30 landmarks, 9 historic
districts
Boulder,
Colorado
108,000
32,000
University of Colorado
Boulder
Growing: 14%
186 landmarks, 10 historic
districts, 75 structures of
merit
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
111,000
33,000
Harvard University &
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Growing/ stable:
9%
30 landmarks, 2 historic
districts, 4 conservation
districts, and 39 properties
with conservation
easements
Denton, Texas 134,000
53,000
University of North
Texas & Texas Woman’s
University
Growing: 60%
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 4
The following sections of this report review four topics in detail and provide conclusions and
recommendations for each topic based on peer city research. The recommendations are summarized
below:
• Reevaluate interim control provision and potentially allow design review
applications during the designation process.
• Consider the inclusion of additional criteria for decision-makers to use when
reviewing a nonconsensual designation.
• Better integrate the criteria for designation with the decision-making process for
designation.
• Consider including a criterion that qualifies properties listed or eligible for the
National or State Register for local landmark designation.
• Consider additional types of designation such as conservation districts or structures
of merit.
• Consider historic overlay zoning as a way to better integrate preservation and
zoning.
• Provide searchable map of landmarks and districts for development review
applicants to check early on whether their property is landmarked.
• Consider more specific requirements for commission membership.
• Specify that one of the duties of the Landmark Preservation Commission is to direct
historic surveys to be completed and regularly updated.
• Develop partnership with other organizations to develop a program for regularly
surveying historic properties.
• Prioritize the completion of survey work and regular updating of existing surveys.
• Rename the design review process as a “certificate of appropriateness” process.
• Develop a decision matrix to increase predictability of required review processes.
• Make conceptual review an optional step.
• Consider establishing a time limit for final review.
• Consider more specific requirements for appellants.
• Adopt guiding document that identifies specific types of work that can be
delegated to staff for review.
• Establish mandatory approval criteria rather than “considerations.”
• Add specificity to the “standards of the City” reference in the criteria for approval.
• Consider additional criteria for the approval of demolition.
• Consider codifying general compatibility standards for new construction.
• Clarify the role of the adopted design guidelines and standards.
• Develop design guidelines for additional districts or general design guidelines.
1.1
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 5
• Clarify the purpose and intent of the historic resources component of the
Development Review process.
• Clarify the procedural requirements to obtain a recommendation from the LPC.
• Use new terminology, such as “Historic Resource Compatibility Review,” instead
of “Development Review.”
• Establish a consistent and predictable geographic limit for the review, such as a
Historic Resource Compatibility Review matrix.
• Develop context-based standards that are not based on eligibility to ensure
compatibility in certain areas of the city.
• Consider reviewing impact on eligible resources only if they are on-site or
abutting a development project.
• Focus on survey work to develop an inventory of eligible historic resources.
• Redraft Section 3.4.7 for clarity and to improve the organization, clarifying the
purpose, applicability, and standards of the process.
• Clarify the role of the Design Review Subcommittee.
• Consider using a decision matrix to more clearly differentiate between minor
and major alterations.
• Reevaluate the criteria for approval and potentially add an economic hardship
determination.
• Consider increasing the amount of time that the LPC can delay a decision in
order to find alternatives to demolition.
• Focus on completing survey work to proactively identify eligible resources.
• Create an inventory of eligible historic resources.
• Reconsider the five-year period of validity. Consider a process for property
owners to obtain a certificate of ineligibility with a five year limit on validity.
• Specify the types of repairs that are required to prevent demolition by
neglect.
• Increase penalties for properties undergoing demolition by neglect.
• If an inventory of eligible resources is created, extend maintenance
requirements to eligible structures on the inventory.
• Incorporate preservation-related requirements in the general property
maintenance standards.
• Develop financial incentives to assist with required property maintenance.
• Clarify the requirement to fix dangerous conditions when deemed repairable
by the building official.
• Review relevant building code definitions.
• Improve coordination between the LPC/preservation staff and the building
official in regards to dangerous buildings.
1.1
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 6
1.1
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | Background
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 7
This section of the report includes a review of the City of Fort Collins’ codes and processes for landmark
designation, including nonconsensual designation. The codes reviewed for this section include Chapter 2,
Article III and Chapter 14, Articles I and II of the Municipal Code. This section assesses the program area’s
current conditions and provides recommendations for proposed improvements.
First, we identified some organizational issues with Articles I and II of Chapter 14 that could be improved
and increase the user-friendliness of the document. Overall, subheaders for various topics would be much
more helpful than long, undivided paragraphs, and content should be organized to align with the process.
For example, Section 14-21 is a very long paragraph that could be made much easier to read by dividing it
into subsections with subheaders, multi-level lists, and nested information. Simple organizational
restructuring would greatly help to clarify the ordinance.
CAC: Supports organizational restructuring of codes. Add more explanations for clarity.
LPC: Supports organizational restructuring of code. Also include graphics.
1.1
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Designation Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 8
Preservation ordinances must set forth a procedure for the designation of landmarks and historic districts.
Designation is the primary mechanism through which local properties are protected. The designation of a
property often has significant implications for that property. The ordinance must ensure that an owner of
a property proposed for historic designation is given notice of the proposed designation and an
opportunity for a hearing. Communities should ensure that written findings of fact are prepared at the
time of the designation decision. A summary of the evidence presented, a recitation of standards applied,
and a brief statement of the reasons why the commission took the action it did is sufficient.
The landmark designation process is established in Article II, Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal
Code. Since 1971, Fort Collins has designated 248 landmarks and three landmark districts covering 79
properties: Old Town, Sheely Drive, and Whitcomb Street. The process follows the steps described below.
The designation of a landmark or a landmark district
may be initiated by the Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPC), the property owner, or any three or
more residents of the City. The LPC then determines
whether the property or district meets the criteria of a
landmark or a landmark district. If it does, then the LPC
directs staff to investigate the “benefits” of designation.
Notification of the owner is required if the applicant is
not the property owner. Nonconsensual designation is
permitted, provided either the LPC or at least three
residents initiate the designation.
Interim Control: Once the LPC directs staff to
investigate the “benefits” of designation, no building
permits can be issued for the construction, alteration,
or demolition of the property under consideration. This
delay in issuing a building permit is limited to 180 days.
(However, the City Council can authorize construction, alterations, or demolition if necessary for public
health, welfare, or safety.)
Consensual Designation: If the owner consents to designation, the LPC may adopt a resolution
recommending designation of a landmark or a landmark district without requiring additional staff review,
1.1
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Designation Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 9
notice, or a hearing. In this case, step three below does not apply and the resolution is forwarded directly
to the City Council for consideration.
Nonconsensual Designation: In this case, a public hearing is held before the LPC to determine whether to
proceed with the designation process without the consent of the property owners. The LPC may adopt a
resolution indicating the property’s eligibility for designation and schedule a third public hearing (step
three below). Properties are evaluated based on the standards for determining eligibility in Section 14-5. If
the property is already listed on the State or National Register, the LPC may adopt a resolution to forward
the designation directly to the City Council with a recommendation to designate the property without
requiring a third public hearing. If the LPC does not adopt either of the two resolution options, the
designation process ends.
Notice: Thirty days before the hearing, notice is sent to all the owners of property proposed for
designation and to the Director. Fifteen days before the public hearing, signs are posted and legal notice
is published in the newspaper.
Hearing for Nonconsensual Designations: A third public hearing may be held for nonconsensual
designations within 35 days of the second hearing. The LPC can modify the designation proposal but
cannot extend the boundaries of the land without re-noticing and re-hearing the designation.
The City Council then considers the designation within 75 days. If the City Council does not approve the
designation, any pending applications for alteration or demolition are exempt from the
demolition/alteration review process. If approved by the City Council, the property or district becomes a
landmark or landmark district.
The designation processes in the peer cities we studied are generally similar to the process in Fort Collins.
A designation is typically first taken to a public hearing of the preservation commission, then a
recommendation is sent to the City Council, which makes the decision on designation. Some cities, like
Gainesville, Lincoln, Norman, and Syracuse hold an additional public hearing at the Planning Commission
and forward the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council as well.1
Several cities establish maximum time limits for the various steps of the process. For example:
• Berkeley requires a public hearing within 70 days of receiving a complete application.
• Boulder requires a designation hearing between 60 to 120 days after an application is submitted
or an initiation resolution, then a public hearing at the City Council within 100 days of the
Landmarks Board decision, and then written findings and conclusions within 45 days of that
hearing date.
1 Gainesville 30-112(d)(3); Lincoln 2-27-120; Norman 22.429.3(6); Syracuse VII-5-C
1.1
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Designation Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 10
• Eugene requires a public hearing within 60 days of receiving a complete application.
• Gainesville requires the preservation commission to review the nomination and prepare a
recommendation within 90 days of the nomination hearing.
• Lincoln requires a public hearing within 90 days of receiving a complete application.
• Santa Barbara requires their landmarks commission to hold a public hearing within 35 days of
their resolution of intention to designate.2
Of the cities we studied, the city process with the most public input requirements in their ordinance was
Boulder’s process for the designation of historic districts. First, a public meeting must be held prior to the
public hearing. Design guidelines for the district must also be developed and there must be opportunity
for public comment on the guidelines prior to the public hearing. Additionally, a public questionnaire and
copy of draft design guidelines are required to be sent out to all property owners in the district prior to
the public hearing.3
Only a few of the cities we studied explicitly restrict any building permit issuance to properties during the
designation process, like Fort Collins’ interim control provisions. One example, Norman, does not permit
any alterations while a designation is pending and does not set a time limit for designations.4
Of the cities that address this issue, most allow applications for alterations during the designation process
but place a time limit on the overall designation process. For instance, Boulder does not allow any permits
to construct, alter, remove, or demolish any feature of a proposed landmark or in a proposed district
without a landmark alteration certificate, as shown in the excerpt below. However, Boulder sets a 365-day
overall time limit for the designation process.
9-11-11. Construction on Proposed Landmark Sites or in Proposed Districts.
No permit shall be issued to construct, alter, remove or demolish any structure or other feature on a proposed
landmark site or in a proposed historic district after an application has been filed by an owner or after the
landmarks board or city council has approved a resolution initiating the designation of such landmark site or area
under section 9-11-3, "Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. No
such permit application filed after such date shall be approved by the city manager while proceedings are pending
on such designation unless the applicant obtains an alteration certificate pursuant to sections 9-11-13, "Landmark
Alteration Certificate Application," 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," 9-11-
15, "Landmark Alteration Certificate Hearing," 9-11-16, "Call-Up by City Council," 9-11-17, "Issuance of Landmark
Alteration Certificate," and 9-11-18, "Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications," B.R.C. 1981. If
three hundred and sixty-five days have elapsed from the date of the initiation of the designation and final city
council action has not been completed, the manager shall approve the permit application.
2 Santa Barbara 22.22.050; Gainesville 30-112(d)(3); Lincoln 2-27-120; Berkeley 3.24.130; Eugene 9.7305; Boulder 9-11-3
3 Boulder 9-11-4
4 Norman 22.429.3(6)(j)
1.1
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Designation Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 11
Similarly, Berkeley allows permit applications for properties on initiated landmark sites or in initiated
historic districts, but they must follow the same permit application process as a designated landmark or
district. Berkeley requires designations to be approved, disapproved, or modified within 180 days of the
commission’s public hearing. In Santa Barbara, alterations to sites recommended for designation are not
permitted except pursuant to the typical alteration review process for designated landmarks. Resolutions
of designation must be adopted by the City Council within 90 days.5
There are several good aspects of the current designation process in
Fort Collins compared to the other cities we studied. The opportunity
for a streamlined designation process in Fort Collins (without
additional staff review, notice, or a hearing) for properties where the
owner consents to designation is more flexible than most cities and
allows for a potentially quicker process. Also, some cities require an
additional public hearing before the city’s planning commission, but
Fort Collins does not, making the process faster.
While several other cities restrict permit issuance during the designation process with similar time limits as
Fort Collins’ 180-day delay, Fort Collins’ interim control provision (Section 14-30) is more explicitly
restrictive as it does not provide an owner the option to apply for a permit review during that time. Fort
Collins should consider allowing properties being studied for designation to apply for design review for
alterations, rather than simply having to wait out the 180-day holding period.
There are benefits and downsides to this potential change. This would be a more flexible approach,
particularly for property owners with nonconsensual designations in process, as it would allow proposed
alterations to be reviewed without waiting for the designation to be complete. It could allow relatively
minor changes to be made without delaying a project by up to six months. However, it may prove difficult
to review changes to a property without having a designation study to review those changes against. The
existing criteria for design review, particularly in regard to historical or architectural character, may be
more difficult to apply to this type of situation. Ideally, the initiation of the designation would identify the
most character-defining features of the property and therefore assist in a review of any changes.
CAC: Supports. LPC should be able to approve alterations if appropriate during the interim
control period.
LPC: Supports. Agrees with Clarion and CAC. Work needs LPC approval.
5 Berkeley 3.24.150; Santa Barbara 22.080
Recommendation
• Reevaluate interim control
provision and potentially
allow design review
applications during the
designation process.
1.1
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Designation Criteria | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 12
The goal of a comprehensive preservation program should be to consider, recognize, and protect the full
range of resources that represent the community’s history. Clear criteria for local historic designation are a
crucial aspect of a successful preservation ordinance. Recognizing that there are a variety of reasons for
designation (aesthetic, historic, social, cultural, or economic, and others), communities typically have great
latitude in deciding what resources should be designated. An effective preservation ordinance must do
more than just state that the preservation commission can designate structures of, for instance, “historical
merit.” The ordinance should give meaning to such key terms.
In the Fort Collins ordinance, the criteria for local designation are not listed in Article II with the
procedures for designation. One of the first steps in initiating designation is for the LPC is to determine
whether a “site, structure, object or district meets the criteria of a landmark or landmark district,” but the
criteria are not specifically listed or even cross-referenced. In Section 14-1: Definitions, “landmark or
landmark district” is defined by nine listed factors that appear similar to designation criteria:
Landmark or landmark district shall mean any site, structure, object or improvement and its surrounding environs
or a group of sites, structures, objects or improvements or both and their surrounding environs:
(1) Which has a special character or special historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development,
heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, State or Nation; or
(2) Wherein any event of major historic significance with a measurable effect upon society took place; or
(3) Which is closely identified with a person or group of persons who have had some measurable influence on
society; or
(4) Wherein the broad cultural, political, economic or social heritage of the community is exemplified; or
(5) Which faithfully portrays the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a
distinctive architectural style or which embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type
specimen or which is the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the
development of the City; or
(6) Which, because of being a part of or related to a square, park or other distinctive area, should be developed
or preserved according to a plan based upon a historic, cultural or architectural significance; or
(7) Which, due to unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established, familiar and
significant visual feature of the neighborhood, community or City; or
(8) Officially designated as a Fort Collins landmark or Fort Collins landmark district pursuant to the provisions of
this Chapter; or
(9) Officially designated as a state or national landmark or landmark district.
However, in reviewing the city’s designation studies, it appears that the studies evaluate significance
based on the standards for determining eligibility in Section 14-5 (shown below). Yet no reference to
Section 14-5 is made in the designation procedures. (Note that the determination of eligibility process,
review of integrity, and treatment of contributing properties are reviewed in more detail in the Topic D
section of this report.) Sections 14-1 and 14-5 address similar concepts in regards to the significance of
landmarks and landmark districts but differ slightly, making it unclear which would be the correct criteria
to use.
1.1
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Designation Criteria | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 13
(2) Standards for determining significance:
a. Events. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with events that have made a
recognizable contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the community, State or Nation. A property
can be associated with either (or both) of two (2) types of events:
1. A specific event marking an important moment in Fort Collins prehistory or history; and/or
2. A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a recognizable contribution to the development of the
community, State or Nation.
b. Persons/Groups. Properties may be determined to be significant if they are associated with the lives of
persons or groups of persons recognizable in the history of the community, State or Nation whose specific
contributions to that history can be identified and documented.
c. Design/Construction. Properties may be determined to be significant if they embody the identifiable
characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; represent the work of a craftsman or architect
whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality; possess high artistic values or
design concepts; or are part of a recognizable and distinguishable group of properties. This standard applies
to such disciplines as formal and vernacular architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and artwork, by
either an individual or a group. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed
or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes,
attitudes, and/or uses over a period of time. Examples are residential buildings which represent the
socioeconomic classes within a community, but which frequently are vernacular in nature and do not have
high artistic values.
d. Information potential. Properties may be determined to be significant if they have yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The criteria for local designation are fairly similar in all of the peer cities we studied. While terminology
varies, generally most cities reference distinctive architectural styles, work of master builders or architects,
locations of significant events, association with significant people, and similar features as criteria for
designation.
Some cities, like Eugene, refer to the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, while others have crafted
detailed criteria based on many different facets of significance. Eugene also includes additional criteria,
based on National Register guidance, for properties with special circumstances, such as properties that
have been moved or are less than 50 years old. Several peer cities including Denton, Provo, and Berkeley
list National Register listing or eligibility as its own separate criterion for designation.6
Another variable between the various peer cities is the number of criteria required to be met in order to
be designated. Both Provo and Gainesville require properties to meet more than one of their criteria.7
Boise is a representative example of typical designation criteria:
6 Eugene 9.8165; Berkeley 3.24.110; Provo 16.05.020; Denton 35.254
7 Provo 16.05.020; Gainesville 30-112(d)(3)
1.1
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Designation Criteria | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 14
11-05-09(6)(A). Criteria for Designation
The buildings, sites, structures and objects of an historic district shall meet one of the following 3 criteria:
(1) Historical or Cultural Importance
(a) Has significant character, interest or value, as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics
of the city, state or nation; or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; or
(b) Is the site of an historic event with a significant effect upon society; or
(c) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, educational or historic heritage of the community; or
(d) By being part of or related to a street, square, park or other distinctive area, should be developed or
preserved according to a plan based on historic, cultural or architectural motif; or
(e) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar
visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city; or
(2) Architectural Importance
(a) Portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style; or
(b) Embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type or engineering specimen; or
(c) Is the work of a designer, architect or craftsman whose individual work has significantly influenced the
development of the city, state or nation; or
(d) Contains elements of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or
(3) Archeological Importance
(a) Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history.
(b) Contains or is likely to contain physical remains, such as fossils, relics, monuments, art or symbols, of past
human life and activities.
Some designation criteria are vague and often up to interpretation. One example of vague language is
found in Boulder’s ordinance, which, instead of listing criteria for designation, simply states that the city
council is authorized to designate properties “having a special character and historical, architectural or
aesthetic interest or value.” 8 To assist in the interpretation of this vague provision, Boulder adopted a
separate ordinance in 1975 with significance criteria to use when evaluating applications for landmarks
and historic districts. A detriment of this practice is that this separate document is not referenced in the
code and thus is not very transparent for the general public.
Many peer cities have similar designation criteria, though they vary
widely in specificity and language. Fort Collins’ criteria are less vague
than several of the other cities we studied. However, because the Fort
Collins ordinance does not clearly list the criteria for designation with
the overall procedures for designation (Chapter 14, Article II), it is not
clear that the standards for the determination of eligibility in Section
14-5 should be used rather than the factors listed in the definition of
8 Boulder 9-11-2
Recommendation
• Better integrate the criteria
for designation with the
decision-making process for
designation.
• Consider including a
criterion that qualifies
properties listed or eligible
for the National or State
Register for local landmark
designation.
1.1
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Designation Criteria | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 15
“landmark or landmark district” in Section 14-1. We recommend relocating and better integrating the
criteria for designation with the explanation of the process for decision-making. While the content of the
standards for eligibility are typical of many communities we studied and likely not in need of major
changes, organizational improvements would more clearly tie the determination of eligibility standards to
the designation process.
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees. Relocate and better integrate the criteria for designation with the explanation of the
process for decision-making.
An additional item to consider is the inclusion of a specific criterion qualifying properties listed or eligible
for the National or State Register for local landmark designation. This may help simplify the local
designation of these properties, where the National Register criteria may not perfectly mirror the local
criteria. Also, it should be noted that the inclusion of “Officially designated as a state or national landmark
or landmark district” in the definition of “landmark or landmark district” in Section 14-1 may cause
confusion about the applicability of the provisions in the ordinance.
CAC: Majority not in favor; if implemented, could result in treating some properties differently
than others; if retroactive, should require appropriate public process.
LPC: Does not support. Concern that this borders on a non-consensual designation.
1.1
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Owner Consent To Designation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 16
Around the country, some preservation ordinances allow property owners to object to historic
designation, potentially exempting those properties from the community’s preservation program. Most
owner consent provisions take one of three basic approaches:
• The first is to give owners an absolute veto over designation if they file a written objection, putting
the onus on the property owner to clearly object to designation;
• Another approach is to prohibit designation without the affirmative, express consent of a historic
property owner or a majority of owners in a proposed district, requiring all designations to obtain
consent from the property owner; and
• A third variety requires a supermajority vote of the governing body for designation if an owner or
majority of owners object; these are often called “owner objection” or “protest” provisions.
Practical experience around the country shows that it is difficult to craft an effective historic preservation
program if owner consent is required. Inevitably, the city will lose significant structures or deleterious
alterations will be made. The challenge is to balance preservation goals and the needs of the community
as a whole with the need to bring property owners into the preservation process in a positive manner. The
majority of preservation ordinances around the country allow nonconsensual designation.
Some concerns about nonconsensual designation emerge in circumstances where designations are
initiated without an owner’s consent that may be considered by some to be frivolous or unrelated to
historic preservation. For these situations, it can be useful to build in some heightened level of control in
the ordinance or the process that helps to evaluate the motivations and merits of a nonconsensual
designation and balance community interests against those of individual property owners.
As noted previously, Fort Collins does not require owner consent for designation by the City Council. The
LPC, or a group of at least three residents, may initiate designation. The ordinance was amended in 2014
to require at least three residents (previously only one resident was required) to submit a designation
application. The process for nonconsensual designation requires two additional LPC hearings and
additional staff review, as discussed in the “designation process” section of this report. Nonconsensual
designation also requires a supermajority affirmative vote of six LPC members.
Communities similar to Fort Collins have incorporated a variety of owner consent provisions into their
ordinances. Some, like Madison and Santa Barbara, simply allow any person to apply for a designation.
Others, like Fort Collins, require a certain number of people to apply for a designation without the consent
1.1
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Owner Consent To Designation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 17
of the property owners; this number ranges widely from 10 residents in Cambridge to 50 residents in
Berkeley.9
In the case of historic districts, a more common practice is to require a specific percentage of owners to
consent to designation. In Boulder, 25 percent of owners in a proposed historic district must consent to
designation. Berkeley requires the application to be “subscribed by or on behalf of a majority” of owners
or residents in the proposed district.10 Lincoln’s ordinance states that no district can be designated if
written protests are received by 51% or more of the property owners within the district.
Another approach is to include additional criteria that the decision makers should use when considering
whether the move forward with a nonconsensual designation, as Boulder does. An example of this
approach used in Boulder is shown in the excerpt below. Similar to Fort Collins, Boulder holds an
additional public hearing for designation applications that are made by preservation organizations or
designations for districts without the required number of consenting owners.
9-11-3. Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts.
(d) Criteria for Review: In determining whether to initiate the designation of an application that is made by a
historic preservation organization or less than all of the property owners pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4)
of this section, the council or the landmarks board may consider, without limitation, whether:
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for designation as an
individual landmark or historic district consistent with the purposes and standards in sections 9-11-1,
"Legislative Intent," 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," and
9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981;
(2) There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of the
community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application;
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
(4) The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation;
(5) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate;
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan; or
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Other peer cities require a higher threshold for approval of nonconsensual designations. For instance,
Gainesville requires a 6/7 vote of their city commission or a 6/9 vote of their historic preservation board to
approve a nomination of an individual landmark without the owner’s consent, rather than the typical
majority vote requirement. Lincoln requires that 2/3 of councilmembers approve a petition for designation
of a landmark rather than a majority vote.11
Some cities influence designation applications by people other than property owners by having an
increased fee. None of the peer cities we studied take this approach, but it is worth noting an example
9 Madison 41.07; Santa Barbara 22.22.050; Cambridge 2.78.180(D); Berkeley 3.24.120
10 Boulder: 9-11-3; Berkeley 3.24.120; Lincoln 27.57.120
11 Gainesville 30-112(d)(3); Lincoln 27.57.120
1.1
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Owner Consent To Designation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 18
from Denver for comparison. In Denver, an owner-initiated designation has an application fee of $250,
while an application by someone other than the applicant is $875. Although we did not find the
designation application fees for each of the cities we studied, those we found had a range of designation
application fees, ranging from $25 in Boulder to $100 in Berkeley.
Fort Collins’ owner consent provisions are comparable to similar
communities and likely does not require major overhaul. The two
extra public hearings required by Fort Collins allow for greater
consideration of the merits of continuing with a designation study
without an owner’s consent than programs in some of the other cities.
The requirement of three residents to initiate a designation is
sufficient and we do not believe there is quantifiable value in
increasing the number of residents required to initiate a nonconsensual designation. Additionally, while it
may be reasonable to charge a fee to recoup costs of designation studies, we do not see this as a
necessary or ideal tool to dissuade frivolous designations. A thoughtful process with opportunity for
public input and proper consideration by the decision-makers, rather than the fee or the number of
applicants, should determine whether designations move forward without the consent of an owner.
We do recommend considering the inclusion of additional criteria for decision-makers to use when
reviewing a nonconsensual designation. This would guide decision-makers to weigh a variety of factors,
such as comprehensive plan support and the likelihood of ultimately designating the property before
entering into what is likely a contentious process. Without criteria, decisions may be more subjective and
may be unduly influenced by controversy or other political reasons. Another option is to simply require a
supermajority vote to move forward with an initiated designation when an owner does not consent. This
creates a higher bar for nonconsensual designations, which would potentially limit the number of
designations that move forward without an owner’s consent.
CAC: Review length of process; look for process improvements that would fulfill goals while
simplifying the process:
> Spell out in the code the steps taken to investigate a property’s eligibility for
designation. [Ch. 14-21]
> Clarify what the phrase “benefits to the City” means [Ch. 14-21].
> Add sustainability as a benefit.
> Signatures of three residents on application initiating consideration of non-consensual
designation is appropriate number; do not change.
> No fee should be charged.
> Application does not designate a property; it brings to attention of the LPC and
Council.
LPC: Agrees with CAC on all the above.
Recommendation
• Consider the inclusion of
additional criteria for
decision-makers to use
when reviewing a
nonconsensual designation.
1.1
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
D. Alternative Types of Designation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 19
Around the country, different types of designation are sometimes used to tailor review processes to the
resource’s level of significance. Historic preservation programs should reserve the strictest levels of review
for the most valuable resources and provide flexibility for other less significant resources where changes
may have a smaller impact. The term “landmark” is often reserved for the most important properties that
receive the highest level of protection. Many cities throughout the country also have a “structure of merit”
level of designation that recognizes a property’s significance that does not rise to the level of landmark
status, and is often more honorific than regulatory. Structures of merit must meet specific criteria to
recognize their significance and the community maintains a record of these properties. Some, but not all,
communities require review of alterations to structures of merit.
Additionally, many communities around the country have adopted conservation districts. These are areas
where there is a particular style or character that is intended to be preserved, but where formal
designation is not desired or appropriate for a variety of reasons. Sometimes called “historic district light,”
these are alternative ways to protect areas with cohesive characteristics. The designation of a conservation
district often mirrors that for historic districts, and modifications to properties are reviewed according to
design guidelines, though typically with a more streamlined process. Conservation districts are more
typically owner-initiated and enforced by the neighborhood itself. For these reasons, conservation districts
are often more efficient, require less staff resources, and can overall be easier for a city to administer.
Fort Collins does not currently recognize different levels or types of designation such as structures of
merit or conservation districts. There are simply individual landmarks and landmark districts. The
“determination of eligibility” process does result in some recognition of potential historic status.
Properties are determined eligible for designation for a period of five years, resulting in required
demolition/alteration review processes. (The determination of eligibility process is reviewed in more detail
in the Topic D section of this report.)
Several of the cities we studied included structures of merit or similar alternative types of designation.
Boulder, Berkeley, and Santa Barbara all have three types of designation: landmarks, districts, and
structures of merit. The intent of the structure of merit program in Boulder is simply to “recognize and
encourage the protection, enhancement and use of such structures” and the designation does not
“impose any additional regulations or controls” on the properties. We learned from a conversation with
City of Boulder staff that when the structure of merit program was established in the 1980s, the
designation required demolition review for structures of merit that were under 50 years old. However, this
requirement was removed in the early 1990s and the structure of merit designation is now purely
honorary, with no additional review or maintenance requirements.
1.1
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
D. Alternative Types of Designation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 20
Berkeley and Santa Barbara, on the other hand, require the review of alterations to structures of merit.
Provo has a “historic site” designation which functions similarly to a structure of merit designation in other
cities, but specifically requires documentation of a property prior to demolition.12 The following example
from Berkeley shows criteria used for designation of structures of merit:
3.24.110 Landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit--Designation--Criteria for consideration.
B. Structures of merit. Criteria which the commission shall use when considering a structure for structure of merit
designation are as follows:
1. General criteria shall be architectural merit and/or cultural, educational, or historic interest or value. If
upon assessment of a structure, the commission finds that the structure does not currently meet the
criteria as set out for a landmark, but it is worthy of preservation as part of a neighborhood, a block or a
street frontage, or as part of a group of buildings which includes landmarks, that structure may be
designated a structure of merit.
2. Specific criteria include, but are not limited to one or more of the following:
a. The age of the structure is contemporary with (1) a designated landmark within its neighborhood,
block, street frontage, or group of buildings, or (2) an historic period or event of significance to the
City, or to the structure’s neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.
b. The structure is compatible in size, scale, style, materials or design with a designated landmark
structure within its neighborhood, block, street frontage, or group of buildings.
c. The structure is a good example of architectural design.
d. The structure has historical significance to the City and/or to the structure’s neighborhood, block,
street frontage, or group of buildings.
Although Fort Collins has a strong landmark designation program,
with nearly 250 landmarks designated (far more than many of the
peer cities), Fort Collins could consider additional alternative types of
designation such as conservation districts or structures of merit. There
may be areas of the city that are well suited to a conservation district
or properties that do not rise to the level of landmark designation but
would be good candidates for a structure of merit designation.
Particularly when considering the relatively few historic districts that have been designated in Fort Collins
(in comparison to some of the peer cities), these alternative types of designation may be a better option
for some parts of the city. A structure of merit or conservation district program with a streamlined or
simplified review process may assist in the review of less significant resources that are worth preserving in
a more flexible manner than typical landmark or district designation.
12 Boulder 9-11-21; Berkeley 3.24; Santa Barbara 22.22.085; Provo 16.04.040
Recommendation
• Consider additional types of
designation such as
conservation districts or
structures of merit.
1.1
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
D. Alternative Types of Designation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 21
In creating additional levels of designation, it is important to be realistic about the administrative capacity
of the department in handling the designation and ongoing administration of these alternatively
designated properties. Even purely honorific programs will require some staff resources to administer.
Identifying these properties would also likely need to be based upon area-wide surveys, so there may be
additional surveying work that needs to be done first. However, the potential for greater administrative
efficiency of these alternative types of designations may prove to ultimately create less of an
administrative burden than typical designation.
CAC: Investigate conservation districts further. Also consider if there should be separate
processes for commercial vs. residential properties; for single property designation vs. district
designation.
LPC: Structures of Merit-type program would add significantly to staff workload and impact
financial programs with minimal benefit. Focus on Overlay Zoning as a better tool.
1.1
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
E. Linking Zoning & Preservation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 22
Many local governments integrate their historic preservation regulations into their local zoning ordinance.
This can help to better link zoning and preservation together through the development review process
and emphasize the need for consideration of preservation issues alongside other zoning and land use
related issues.
The most common approach used to link zoning and preservation is to create historic preservation
overlay zones. Overlay zoning is a tool that layers an additional set of regulations on top of the
regulations that apply in the underlying zoning district, when special conditions are present. Overlay
districts often are used to regulate special use areas or to protect sensitive environmental resources.
Overlay zoning also can be used to provide special protection and regulation for historic resources, either
individually or in historic districts. Historic overlay districts typically provide for special review of
modifications to designated historical resources, yet the underlying densities and dimensional
requirements and use restrictions typically continue to apply.
One of the principal advantages of using overlay zoning to protect historic resources can be a
strengthened linkage between preservation and other community land use objectives, since the
preservation efforts become more closely integrated into the overall development review process. This is
an especially helpful approach where the preservation ordinance is administered by the same personnel
as other development review functions. When historic preservation is included in the list of zoning
districts, this puts the applicant on notice that special provisions apply (similar to a floodplain overlay
district).
Though overlay zoning typically adds an additional layer of protection for historic resources, it is also an
opportunity to provide special accommodations and special forms of zoning relief that may provide
additional preservation incentives to owners of these resources.
In Fort Collins, the landmark preservation regulations are currently part of the Municipal Code, a separate
document from the Land Use Code. Though zoning and preservation are fairly integrated in practice, the
development review process is guided by the two separate sets of regulations and a property owner or
development applicant must become familiar with each. The city does not use a historic overlay district to
regulate historic properties. In fact, the city has only one overlay district, the Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay District. When landmarked, properties retain their existing zoning
classifications. The Land Use Code does address some preservation issues in Section 3.4.7: Historic and
Cultural Resources, which are analyzed in detail in the Topic C section of the report regarding
Development Review.
1.1
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
E. Linking Zoning & Preservation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 23
Several of the peer cities we studied incorporate preservation into their zoning ordinances by using
historic overlay districts, including Boise, Norman, and Eugene.13 The following information from the City
of Eugene’s website helps to explain how the historic overlay works and the benefits of this tool:14
The S-H Historic Zoning designation is used selectively to help ensure the conservation of historic properties in
Eugene. The S-H Historic overlay designation allows greater flexibility with allowable uses and development
standards for the property, with a goal of finding a use that is compatible with the historic character of the
property that will help ensure its continued productive use.
An example of this is a professional office in a historic house in a residential district where such an office would not
normally be permitted. Before a property can receive the S-H Historic zoning designation it must first be
designated as a city landmark or be listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
While Fort Collins’ historic preservation program is already fairly
intertwined with the development review process in practice, the City
may want to consider better linking preservation regulations with
zoning regulations. One important tool could be the use of historic
overlay zoning. This could facilitate some new incentives, such as
zoning flexibility, for designated properties. Additionally, it would
make the designation status of a property clear from the outset of
any development inquiry. Typically, this type of overlay zoning
district could be applied to all currently landmarked properties or
properties within a historic district. However, it can also become a
mechanism that is used as an alternative form of designation, as
discussed in the subsection above.
CAC: Investigate. Provides more flexibility while providing options for maintaining character.
Creates predictability. Would like more information.
LPC: Interesting idea. Investigate further. Preserves overall character with less regulation. Would
like Clarion to study.
13 Boise 11-05-09; Norman 22.429.3(6); Eugene 9.8165
14 City of Eugene, “Historic Designation”
Recommendations
• Consider historic overlay
zoning as a way to better
integrate preservation and
zoning.
• Provide searchable map of
landmarks and districts for
development review
applicants to check early on
whether their property is
landmarked.
1.1
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
E. Linking Zoning & Preservation | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 24
Even if historic overlay districts are not utilized, we recommend Fort Collins provide a searchable map of
landmarks and historic districts on the development review website for people to check whether their
property is landmarked. While there is a list of landmarks and PDF maps of the districts available on the
website, no overall searchable map is currently available. Many peer cities we researched included this
type of a mapping tool on their websites. Integrating this with the existing zoning map on the “FCMaps”
site would be very valuable.
CAC: Supports. Strongly noted need for additional survey and staff.
LPC: Supports. Need for additional survey and staff.
1.1
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
F. Commission Membership | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 25
The membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission is an important aspect of the designation
process and the overall preservation program. Each jurisdiction should consider whether to require
professional qualifications for some, or all, members of the review body. Qualifications are important from
both a legal and a practical standpoint and different communities use different approaches. Some
communities require that a few or all members be trained in history, architecture, archaeology, or a
related field, in order to ensure that preservation decisions benefit from professional expertise. Other
communities require no such qualifications and simply ask that members express an interest in
preservation in order to serve.
There are merits to both approaches. A broad-based membership can protect the ordinance and its
administration from a claim of arbitrariness and can help distinguish preservation restrictions from other
aesthetic controls that are sometimes invalidated by courts. On the other hand, some observers argue
that the overall quality of preservation and design review in the community suffers if commission
members do not have solid credentials and the experience necessary to carry out their responsibilities.
There is value in having an overall mix of backgrounds on a preservation commission, while also requiring
a certain number of the commissioners to meet certain criteria.
The Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission consists of nine members that are appointed by the
City Council. Four of the commissioners must be “professionals in preservation-related disciplines.” A list
of examples of these disciplines is provided, such as architecture, architectural history, archaeology,
history, urban planning, or cultural anthropology. The ordinance also notes that the City Council must
“give due consideration to maintaining a balance of interests and skills in the composition of the
Commission and to the individual qualifications of the candidates” when making appointments. The
balance of commissioners need not meet any specific requirements per the ordinance.
Like Fort Collins, most communities we studied have specific requirements for the members of their
preservation commissions. However, these requirements can range from very general to very specific. For
example, Boulder merely requires members to be “architectural or urban planning professionals,” and
Boise requires only that appointments are made “with due regard to the proper representation of such
fields as history, architecture, urban planning, archeology and law.” Many cities note something similar to
Eugene, that members should have “demonstrable interest, competence, or knowledge of historic
preservation.”15
Some cities have more specific requirements, such as professional architectural historians, certified public
accountants, licensed real estate professionals, certified architects, or certified landscape architects. Some
cities, like Madison (shown below) require that at least two of the commissioners meet the Professional
15 Boulder 2-3-7; Boise 11-05-09(2); Eugene 2.355
1.1
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
F. Commission Membership | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 26
Qualifications Standards established by the United States Secretary of the Interior for History, Archeology,
Architectural History, Architecture, or Historic Architecture. A few cities such as Cambridge and Syracuse
specify that members are chosen from nominations from various associations, like a historical association,
the American Institute of Architects, or a real estate board. One outlier in our research was Berkeley, which
does not list specific requirements or interests for commissioners, but simply has each individual
councilmember appoint their own representative.16
33.19. Landmarks Commission.
(1) Composition and Terms. A Landmarks Commission is hereby created, consisting of seven (7) members. One (1)
shall be a historian; at least one (1) shall be a licensed architect, one (1) shall be a licensed real estate
professional; one (1) shall be an Alder; and three (3) shall be resident members, at least one of whom has
expertise in construction. Each member shall have, to the highest extent practicable, a known interest in historic
preservation. Of the membership, at least two (2) shall meet the Professional Qualifications Standards
established by the United States Secretary of the Interior for History, Archeology, Architectural History,
Architecture, or Historic Architecture. The Mayor shall appoint the commissioners subject to confirmation by the
Common Council. The term for each member shall be three (3) years. The terms shall be staggered.
Fort Collins’ Landmark Preservation Commission membership
requirements are fairly similar to the peer cities we studied with no
major issues to address. However, Fort Collins could consider more
specific requirements in Section 2-277 than simply “professionals in
preservation-related disciplines,” such as at least one certified architect, or at least one member that
meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. We understand that due to
Certified Local Government (CLG) requirements, four of the nine members of the LPC are required to meet
the standards. However, this is not a requirement that is stated in the ordinance and could therefore be
clarified. There may be some concern in finding qualified applicants if the requirements are too strict.
However, we found that many cities of similar size to Fort Collins have more detailed requirements and
are able to find qualified commissioners. We recommend limiting the requirements to only a portion of
the commission, as is currently the practice in Fort Collins. The specific skills and qualifications to require
will need to be thoroughly evaluated.
CAC: Requirements are sufficient (are federal Certified Local Government requirements) but
should be repeated or referenced in Chapter 14.
LPC: Same. Follows CLG requirements; are more rigorous that other City boards. Repeat in
Chapter 14. Also need to publicize better.
16 Madison 33.19; Cambridge 2.78.010; Syracuse VII-3-B; Berkeley 3.24.030
Recommendation
• Consider more specific
requirements for
commission membership.
1.1
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
G. Historic Surveys | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 27
The most effective preservation ordinances are supported by thorough, methodical studies and surveys of
the community’s archaeological and historic resources. In the landmark Penn Central case, the Supreme
Court pointed out the importance of background surveys and studies, stating that the “function…of
identifying properties and areas of historical and architectural importance is critical to any landmark
preservation effort.” Historic building surveys provide information for a variety of local government
purposes. They are a key element in making preservation planning complementary with development
goals and help to evaluate the impact of new development. They also enable planning decisions to be
made against a preservation background. By making information available early in project planning
processes, such surveys help review processes operate more efficiently.
Resources of potential historical significance should be surveyed and the archaeological, architectural, or
historical significance of individual resources and districts documented before designation takes place.
The importance of conducting historic resource surveys before designation occurs cannot be
overestimated. Local officials will look to such surveys for guidance when presented with development
applications that affect historical resources. Also, some landowners may challenge designations and
permit denials. Using the survey as a guide, communities then should choose carefully those individual
resources, neighborhoods or districts it believes worth preserving. Attention to detail in the survey and
designation stages proves immensely valuable at later stages.
Once communities have completed initial surveys and designated landmarks and districts, they should
ensure that the survey is periodically reviewed and updated. Resources that were overlooked the first time
around may be discovered, or some that were consciously omitted may assume a new significance. What
a community considers unworthy of protection may change over the course of only a few years. For this
reason, many ordinances contain provisions requiring that the survey be “periodically” updated. Though
influenced by language in the ordinance, surveys are mostly governed administratively outside of the
ordinance.
The Fort Collins ordinance is largely silent on historic surveys, except for one of the functions listed for the
Landmark Preservation Commission in Division 19, Section 2-278: “To advise the City Council and City
staff regarding the identification and evaluation of historic resources within the Growth Management Area
and provide information regarding the significance of the resources, the nature and degree of threat to
their preservation and methods for their protection.” No further specificity is provided on a survey
program. The city’s website houses many historical contexts, survey reports, and development grants
completed over the last twenty years on the “Historic Projects” page. There are a wide range of topics and
areas of Fort Collins covered by these documents.
1.1
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
G. Historic Surveys | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 28
Many cities we studied do not explicitly integrate historic surveys into their ordinance, but many city
websites detail their survey programs. Santa Barbara, Boise, and Provo are three examples of integration
of surveys into the ordinance.17 The Provo example shows a requirement to update surveys every 10 years:
16.02.020. Duties and Powers.
The Landmarks Commission shall have the following duties and powers:
(1) Survey and Inventory Community Historic Resources. The Landmarks Commission shall conduct or cause to be
conducted a survey of the historic, architectural, and archaeological resources within the community. The
survey shall be compatible with the Utah Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Sites. Survey and inventory
documents shall be maintained and shall be open to the public. The survey shall be updated at least every ten
(10) years.
Since the peer cities we studied are all locations of large universities, many of these survey programs
appear to be supported by or partnered with the local university. For example, Gainesville notes on their
website that survey teams partner with students in the university’s historic preservation program and
other community volunteers. Eugene also notes that their survey program has been underway since the
1980s in cooperation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and the University of Oregon
Historic Preservation Program.18
Gainesville is currently completing a mid-century survey of the city, as it states that buildings constructed
from 1930 through 1970 were not assessed in previous surveys that had taken place in the 1980s and
1990s. In describing the importance of this survey, Gainesville notes that its “dramatic growth following
the Second World War was accompanied by a transformation of the city’s architecture, as mid-century
modern design began to appear in suburban homes, commercial properties and motels, among other
vernacular building types. Because mid-century architecture represents such a large departure from
architecture that came before it, the survey will increase knowledge and awareness of Gainesville’s
Modern architecture, and provide a basis for updating historic resources inventories and the city’s Design
Guidelines.”19 This appears similar to the Fort Collins Postwar Development 1945-1969 Survey that was
completed in 2011. Considering the significant continued growth through the 1970s in Fort Collins, future
planning for ongoing historic surveys is vital.
17 Santa Barbara 22.22.030; Boise 11-02-05; Provo 16.02.020
18 City of Gainesville, “Mid-Century Survey”; City of Eugene, “Eugene Cultural Resource Program”
19 City of Gainesville, “Mid-Century Survey”
1.1
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
G. Historic Surveys | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 29
While many of the peer cities did not directly address historic surveys
in the ordinance, there are several improvements that Fort Collins
could make based on the examples that do address surveys. First, one
of the duties of the Landmark Preservation Commission could be to
more explicitly direct historic surveys to be completed and also
specify a time at which they must be updated.
While it may not be integrated into the ordinance, the City should
work with Colorado State University’s public history students, History
Colorado, or other organizations to develop a program for regularly
surveying historic properties.
CAC: Supports. Strongly notes need for additional survey. Far behind.
LPC: Supports. Critical need for funding for on-going survey.
Considering the substantial growth that occurred after 1970 in Fort Collins, soon many properties will
reach the 50-year age limit and thorough, regularly updated documentation and survey work will help
immensely in future decisions related to these properties. Funding and completing survey work should be
a high priority for the Fort Collins historic preservation program as it will result in the more efficient and
predictable administration of all elements of the program.
CAC: Supports. Survey should be highest priority. Requires consistent on-going funding and
support in City budget.
LPC: Supports. Survey is highest priority. Foundation of all other work. Need for on-going
funding.
Recommendations
• Specify that one of the
duties of the Landmark
Preservation Commission is
to direct historic surveys to
be completed and regularly
updated.
• Develop partnership with
other organizations to
develop a program for
regularly surveying historic
properties.
• Prioritize the completion of
survey work and regular
updating of existing surveys.
1.1
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 30
1.1
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Background
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 31
This section of the report includes a review of the City of Fort Collins’ codes and processes related to
design review of designated resources and compatible infill in historic districts. The documents reviewed
for this report include Chapter 14, Articles I and III, of the Municipal Code and the city’s adopted design
guidelines. This report assesses the program area’s current conditions and provides recommendations for
proposed improvements.
As recommended in the Topic section above, we propose organizational improvements to Chapter 14 to
complement the substantive recommendations that are the principal focus of this report. The important
procedural steps in Section 14-46 should be better integrated with the criteria and additional procedural
requirements in 14-48. A better system of organization for Article III may be:
• Applicability (including portions of 14-46 and 14-47);
• Process (including portions of 14-46 and 14-47);
• Administrative process (14-49);
• Criteria to be applied (14-48); and
• The assorted provisions in Section 14-50 through 14-55.
Simple organizational restructuring as well as incorporating subsections with subheaders, multi-level lists,
and nested information would greatly help to clarify the ordinance.
1.1
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 32
In the previous report, we studied the designation of historic resources. This report looks at what happens
when designated resources are modified or altered, or as new structures are built within designated
historic districts. Design review is one of the main tools used to protect historic resources after they are
designated. A thoughtful and thorough review process allows historic resources to evolve and
accommodate new occupants and growing families while still respecting their historic significance.
In Fort Collins, the process of reviewing modifications or demolitions of
designated resources and new construction in historic districts is
referred to in practice as “design review,” although that term does not
appear in the ordinance. Article III of Chapter 14 details the
requirements for construction, alteration, or demolition of designated
historic resources. The first step is a “determination of detriment.” If the
proposal is found by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair
and the Director not to be detrimental to the designated resource, it
may be considered administratively (by staff) without a public hearing;
otherwise, it is considered by the commission following a public hearing.
The procedures for both administrative review and commission-level
review are described in more detail in the following sections of this report. Whether the decision is made
by staff or by the commission, a final “report of acceptability” is issued to authorize proposed changes
and to authorize the issuance of a building permit if required.
In 2016, 17 design review applications were reviewed by the full LPC and approximately 20 design review
applications were reviewed by staff. (For comparison purposes, roughly 700 demolition/alteration reviews
of resources that are not designated are completed in Fort Collins per year.)
Unlike Fort Collins, most cities we reviewed (with a handful of exceptions) use the term “Certificate of
Appropriateness” to refer to the formal authorization for new construction in historic districts or
alterations to designated resources. This is a relatively common term in use throughout the country and is
recognized by many property owners, developers, and local staff and officials as a distinct process
associated with historic preservation.
Beyond the terminology, the actual design review processes are quite similar in most cities, with
applications heard before the preservation commission, decisions made based on a particular set of
criteria, and an opportunity to appeal the commission’s decision to the city council. Almost all cities also
1.1
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 33
allow for an administrative-level review (usually without a public hearing) for more straightforward
applications. These are projects that typically are more modest in scale and do not require a public
hearing because the impacts on other properties are expected to be minor.
A common feature in these ordinances is a clear, upfront identification of the types of projects that are
subject to full commission review (and public hearing), and thus will require more resources and time to
pursue than the relatively simpler projects decided by staff. For example, Madison authorizes
administrative review but requires its commission to formally adopt a list of the types of work that can be
approved administratively. Boise uses a helpful, user-friendly tool that we did not see in any other
communities called a “decision matrix” to identify the type of review required for different types of work,
as well as an enumerated list of items that do not require review.20 The ordinance references this decision
matrix. Portions of the matrix and the list of exempted work are shown below:
11-03-04(20): Certificate of Appropriateness Required for Alteration, Demolitions or Relocations, Changes in
Zoning Classification or Changes in Use in Historic Districts or Historic Districts-Residential
iv. The Commission may delegate to the Planning Director review of Certificates of Appropriateness that are listed
as “staff level” under the Certificate of Appropriateness Matrix adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission
and are in compliance with the design guidelines on file in the Planning and Development Services Department.
Decision Matrix for Certificate of Appropriateness
20 Madison 41.17(4); Boise 11-03-04
1.1
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 34
Similarly, Santa Barbara identifies thresholds for projects that qualify for administrative approval in a
separately adopted General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures document. Gainesville allows
projects to be administratively reviewed when restoring the original appearance or when the proposal
meets their Historic Preservation Rehabilitation and Design Guidelines. This separate document provides
helpful conditions that determine whether a proposal can be approved by staff, as shown below.21
30-122(D)(5) Historic Preservation/Conservation
b. Staff approval. The city manager or designee may issue a certificate of appropriateness if the work will either
result in the original appearance of the structure, as defined in this chapter, or will meet the city's Historic
Preservation Rehabilitation and Design Guidelines on file in the planning and development services department.
Guidelines: Additions to Existing Buildings
These examples, and particularly the Boise decision matrix, are user-friendly tools that allow applicants to
predict the type of process their work will require. The use of a chart system like the decision matrix allows
applicants to quickly understand the process and manage their expectations from the outset of a project.
The substantive distinctions between the types of review are explored in more detail in the following
sections of this report.
21 Gainesville 30-112(d)(5); Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures
1.1
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 35
The Design Review process in Fort Collins has been successful in
reviewing modifications to designated landmarks and properties
within historic districts. This is one of the fundamental purposes of a
preservation program and Fort Collins’ process adequately protects
designated resources. There are two steps that Fort Collins should
consider to improve the clarity, transparency, and user-friendliness of
the design review process.
First, we recommend that Fort Collins consider changing the name of the process for reviewing alterations
to designated historic resources from “design review” to a more specific term that is focused on
preservation. “Design review” does not specify that it is limited to the review of designated resources and
may unnecessarily confuse the process, as “design review” could encompass several different types of city
processes that may be unrelated to historic preservation. It also is confusingly similar to “development
review,” which are discussed in the next section of this report. We believe a different name, such as the
common “certificate of appropriateness,” would help to differentiate the preservation review process from
other city reviews.
CAC: Prefers “Certificate of Approval” and “Landmark Alteration Review”
LPC: Prefers “Certificate of Appropriateness” and “Landmark Alteration Review,” for consistency
with other programs across country.
We also recommend that the Fort Collins ordinance better define and clearly distinguish the types of
projects that require full commission review and a public hearing, versus less significant projects that may
be appproved by staff. The city should summarize the different levels of review in a user-friendly format,
such as Boise’s decision matrix.
CAC: Agrees. Also develop decision matrices for paint and for murals. Paint colors should be part
of both decision matrices; approval on case-by-case basis; reversibility and historic material
preservation key points.
LPC: Agrees. Need to investigate a better way of determining minor work from major work,
rather than using aspects of integrity.
Recommendations
• Rename the design review
process as a “certificate of
appropriateness” process.
• Develop a decision matrix
to increase predictability of
required review processes.
1.1
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 36
Perhaps the most visible, and sometimes most controversial, of powers exercised by preservation
commissions is the review of applications for major alterations or demolition of historic resources, or for
new construction in historic areas. The procedural considerations in reviewing applications for these types
of projects are quite similar to those for designating historical resources. Basically, the historic property
owner must be given an opportunity to be heard, to present his or her case, and to rebut the opposing
case. Commissions can help ensure fair, orderly hearings by making clear beforehand the standards that
will govern their deliberations. It is particularly important that the reviewing body gives reasons (or
“findings of fact”) for its decision on these types of applications.
The LPC reviews major alterations and demolition proposals of designated resources and issues a decision
in the form of a “report of acceptability.” (Projects that are reviewed by staff are discussed in in the next
subsection of this report.) The process for obtaining a “report of acceptability” differs based on whether
the work requires a building permit.
• If a building permit is required, the proposal is reviewed by the LPC in two phases: (1) conceptual
review and (2) final review. The conceptual review allows applicants and the LPC to discuss design
issues as well as the policies, requirements, and standards that apply to a proposal. Final review
requires more detailed plans and is the step at which the commission renders a decision on the
proposal. These reviews may occur at the same LPC meeting depending on the impact of the
proposal.
• If no building permit is required, the ordinance does not specify any phasing to the review.
Although not reflected in the ordinance, Fort Collins also offers an optional Design Subcommittee review
for applicants. This allows applicants to meet with two members of the LPC to discuss a project prior to
their conceptual review to obtain information and feedback.
The LPC’s decision on a design review application is subject to appeal by any “party-in-interest” to the
City Council. A party-in-interest can be the applicant, the subject property owner, anyone who received
mailed notice of the hearing or provided written comment, anyone who appeared at the LPC hearing, or
the City Council.
Most cities list the types of projects that are subject to review by the preservation commission. An
example from Denton of typical ordinance language is shown below. One of the main differences
between the cities we studied was whether work that does not require a building permit needs to be
reviewed by the commission. Boulder, Boise, Denton, and Provo are examples that specify that any
changes, whether or not a building permit is required, must be reviewed at some level for preservation
1.1
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 37
issues. In these cities, the same process for obtaining the certificate of appropriateness approval is
required for either circumstance.22
35.7.6.8. Exterior alterations and changes; minor exterior alteration, ordinary maintenance; appeals.
A. Certificate of appropriateness. No person shall alter, change, construct, reconstruct, expand, restore, remove or
demolish any exterior architectural feature of a designated historic landmark or allow the results of such action
to be maintained unless application is made in compliance with this Section for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and such a certificate is granted. As used in this Subchapter, the term "exterior architectural feature" shall
include but not be limited to architectural style and general arrangement of such portion of the exterior of a
structure as is designed to be open to view from a public way. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be obtained
prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, although the Certificate of Appropriateness review and Building
Permit and other required Permit review processes may be conducted simultaneously. A Certificate of
Appropriateness may also be required for work not otherwise requiring a Building Permit. The Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be required in addition to, and not in lieu of, any required Building Permit.
Clarifying the applicability of preservation review is important because many alterations to designated
resources may not require a typical building permit but may still greatly impact a resource, such as
changes to landscaping where a site’s landscape features are a vital part of the property’s historic
significance. The overall process for preservation approval should be generally the same regardless of
whether a building permit is required. The only procedural difference should be the building permit
processes that take place after the preservation review.
Several cities establish maximum time limits for the review of certificates of appropriateness. For example:
• Berkeley requires a public hearing to be held within 70 days of receipt of the application, and then
a decision is required within 30 days of that public hearing. The overall time limit for the process
is 180 days.
• Boulder allows 14 days to determine whether a proposal is detrimental or will have a significant
impact. A public hearing must occur within 75 days of receipt of a complete application.
• Cambridge requires a decision within 45 days of the filing of an application.
• Denton requires commission review within 21 days of receiving a complete application.
• Lincoln and Madison require public hearings within 60 days of receipt of a complete application.
• Syracuse requires a public hearing within a “reasonable time after [an] application is filed.”23
There are a few benefits to establishing maximum time limits for review. Setting a maximum time limit
creates a predictable timeline for applicants and helps prevent multiple iterations of the same design
returning to the commission until it is finally approvable. However, if this is not an issue in Fort Collins and
22 Boulder 9-11-12; Boise 11-03-04; Denton 35.7.6.8; Provo 16.05.050
23 Berkeley 3.24.240; Boulder 9-11-15; Cambridge 2.78.060; Denton 35.7.6.8; Lincoln 27.57.140; Madison 41.17(5); Syracuse VII-6-C
1.1
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 38
projects are currently reviewed in relatively quick time (from both an applicant’s and staff’s perspective), a
maximum time limit may not be necessary.
All of the cities we studied allow for the preservation commission’s decision to be appealed. The majority
of appeals are heard by the city council, although in Syracuse, appeals are heard by the City Planning
Commission (these are heard de novo, which is also unique). The cities differ primarily in who is permitted
to submit an appeal to these decisions. In Boulder, the city council may “call-up” any decision of the
Landmarks Board, which is unique in the preservation ordinances we reviewed (although this type of
authority may have been described in other city ordinances that were not reviewed). In Denton, only the
applicant may submit an appeal, while Boise, Gainesville, Lincoln, Norman, Provo, and Santa Barbara allow
anyone to submit an appeal of the commission’s decision. Other cities require a specific number of people
that must submit an appeal if they are not the applicant: Berkeley requires 50 people to submit an appeal,
Cambridge requires ten, and Madison requires the owners of at least 20% of parcels within 200 feet of
subject property.24
Crafting more specific requirements for appellants may limit frivolous appeals to the City Council. Often, a
City Council is not trained in preservation issues, and the Council may not have the same expertise as a
preservation commission to review alterations to historic resources. Decisions made at the council level
may also be more subject to political considerations. However, if this is not an issue that has come up in
Fort Collins, using the current “party-in-interest” requirements for appellants may be sufficient.
The general process for obtaining commission approval in Fort Collins
is similar in many respects to the other communities we studied and
may not require significant procedural modifications. One unique
feature of the Fort Collins process is the difference between
preservation review of projects requiring building permits and those
not requiring building permits. Fort Collins should consider whether
the distinction between the processes is necessary.
Additionally, none of the other cities we studied required a conceptual review in their ordinance (although
this may be something that is done in practice in several communities but is not codified) as Fort Collins
does in Section 14-46(b)(1). While there is potential value in conceptual review for some projects and we
do not recommend eliminating entirely the opportunity for conceptual feedback from the commission, we
do recommend considering making conceptual review an optional step. The onus would then be on the
applicant to decide whether to seek conceptual feedback prior to a formal application review or risk
unexpected issues at the final review stage. We believe that the blurred lines between conceptual review
24 Syracuse VII-6-C; Boulder 9-11-16; Denton 35-219; Boise 11-03-04; Gainesville 30-112; Lincoln 27.57.180; Norman 22:429.3; Provo
16.03.040; Santa Barbara 22.22.090; Berkeley 3.24.300; Cambridge 2.78.240; Madison 41.20
Recommendations
• Make conceptual review an
optional step.
• Consider establishing a time
limit for final review.
• Consider more specific
requirements for appellants.
1.1
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 39
and final review may invite commissioners and applicants to focus less on the specific criteria to consider
for a report of acceptability. In addition, if it is common for proposals to have both conceptual and final
review at the LPC meeting, the requirement for an independent conceptual review seems less important.
CAC: Supports making conceptual review an optional step.
> Also offer multiple conceptual reviews, rather than one.
> All conceptual review comments should be presented at LPC Final Review
> Add the ability for LPC to make conditional approvals like P&Z.
> Offer Design Review Subcommittee meetings as alternate option; LPC members who
participate in Design Review Subcommittee should be allowed to participate in Final
Review, as done with DDA
LPC: Supports making conceptual review an optional step; add the ability for LPC to make
conditional approvals like P&Z does.
> Offer Design Review Subcommittee meetings as alternate option; LPC members who
participate in Design Review Subcommittee should be allowed to participate in Final
Review, as done with DDA
> Works in conjunction with clearer standards; focus on specificity of what is required for
approval.
> Add more information on what would likely be supported or denied.
Other items to consider are setting a time limit for the overall process (in Section 14-46(b)(2)), as many
cities do, and reevaluating who can appeal the decision of the LPC, perhaps establishing a new list in
Section 14-49(c) rather than cross-referencing the “party-in-interest” language of Chapter 2 of the
Municipal Code. These each have benefits and drawbacks, as described in the respective subsections
above.
CAC: Agrees with setting time limit. Agrees there should be requirements for appellants, but not
sure what these would be.
LPC: Agrees with setting time limit as it adds predictability; strengthens process. Does not agree
that there should be requirements for appellants. This is not an issue; no change necessary. Why
make it harder for owner to appeal the LPC’s decision?
1.1
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 40
Communities vary as to what extent, if any, responsibilities under the preservation ordinance are
delegated to full-time administrative staff, as opposed to the preservation commission. Nationwide, it is
extremely common for preservation commissions to delegate authority for minor decisions to
professional staff. This often is done to streamline the review process and free up the preservation
commission’s time to work on more long-range or complex issues. For example, staff might be given the
authority to approve minor alterations to designated buildings (e.g., screen door replacement or paint
colors).
In some cities, delegation of review authority often is done in practice but is not codified in the ordinance.
The general rule for delegating authority from the commission to staff is that responsibilities should not
be delegated at random, but rather should be guided by detailed provisions included either in the
ordinance or in formally adopted rules and regulations that are referenced in the ordinance.
In Fort Collins, work that is considered not detrimental to historic, architectural, or cultural material may
be administratively reviewed by the Director, with the consent of the chair of the commission. Specific
types of work are authorized to be processed administratively such as color changes, signs, and
recovering of awnings. More generally, “minor exterior alterations” are also authorized for administrative
review.
Article I defines “minor alteration” as “work that has the potential to substantially affect no more than one
(1) aspect of exterior integrity.” However, exterior integrity is not defined in the definitions section of the
ordinance. The National Park Service’s seven standards for integrity are integrated into Section 14-5
(standards for determining eligibility), but no cross-reference is provided that would help a user
understand this link. Administrative design review is subject to the same criteria as a commission-level
design review and the Director’s decision may be appealed to the LPC.
Normal maintenance that does not change the exterior appearance or characteristics appears to be
exempted by Section 14-52. Normal maintenance is not a defined term, but “repair and maintenance” is
defined in Article I as “work done on a site, structure or object in order to correct any deterioration, decay
or damage to any part thereof in order to restore the same as nearly as practical to its condition prior to
such deterioration, decay or damage.”
Almost every city we studied uses an administrative design review process in addition to a public hearing
process before their preservation commission. Syracuse is the only city that does not have administrative-
level reviews; all changes are heard by the Landmark Preservation Board. On the other end of the
spectrum, all modifications of designated resources in Eugene are reviewed administratively. These
1.1
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 41
administrative decisions are typically appealable up to the preservation commission, such as in Eugene,
Boise, and Provo.25
Boulder has two different levels of review for Landmark Alteration Certificates that do not require a public
hearing: (1) administrative staff review, and (2) review by the Landmarks Design Review Committee, which
consists of two members of the Landmarks Board and one staff preservation planner. For comparison,
Boulder reviews approximately 200 Landmark Alteration Certificates per year (a much higher volume than
Fort Collins, perhaps due to larger and more numerous historic districts), with about half being reviewed
by staff, 45 percent reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee, and only about five percent
going to the full Landmarks Board for public hearing approval.26
Many cities exempt ordinary maintenance from the review process altogether. Some cities, such as
Denton, have a separate review process for ordinary maintenance which is essentially the same as the
review of minor alterations but has a faster timeline. Cities often carefully define ordinary maintenance to
help differentiate it from a minor alteration, like Norman, which defines it as “Work meant to remedy
damage or deterioration of a structure or its appurtenances, and which will involve no change in materials,
dimensions, design, configuration, color, texture or visual appearance to the exterior of an historic
structure. Ordinary maintenance and repair shall include painting and reroofing.”27
Ongoing maintenance of historic properties is one of the best ways to preservation original and historic
features. For this reason, maintenance should be encouraged and regular maintenance should have either
expedited review processes or be exempted from review.
Only a few of the cities we researched specify a time limit for administrative approvals:
• Denton requires reviews of ordinary maintenance to be completed within five days and reviews
of minor alterations to be completed within five working days.
• Madison requires administrative reviews to be completed within 60 days of receiving a complete
application.
• Provo limits administrative reviews to 10 days after receiving a complete application.28
Time limits increase the predictability of a process for applicants. Administrative reviews should be
completed quickly to encourage applicants to utilize the process. Long timeframes for relatively simple
reviews can sometimes have the unintended consequence of encouraging applicants to “ask for
forgiveness rather than permission,” and lead to unpermitted (and often inappropriate) work.
25 Syracuse VII-6-C; Eugene 9.7200; Boise 11-03-04; Provo 16.03.050
26 Boulder 9-11-14
27 Denton 35.7.6.8; Norman 22:429.3
28 Denton 35.7.6.8; Madison 41.17; Provo 16.03.050
1.1
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 42
Fort Collins’ approach to administrative review is similar to many of
the communities we studied. It is a good practice of any preservation
program to provide for a quick administrative review of minor
changes. However, the “determination of detriment” process in Fort
Collins is somewhat unpredictable in that it does not provide much
upfront notice to property owners as to the level of effort required to
get a project approved. Fort Collins should determine a clear
distinction between what can be approved administratively by adopting a new guiding document that
determines which decisions can be delegated to staff. In particular, the non-specificity of “minor exterior
alterations” that can be approved administratively should be clarified. This may result in the development
of a decision matrix or similar document as recommended earlier in this report, or a document laying out
specific conditions required for work to be reviewed administratively. This document should be referenced
in the ordinance.
This will increase predictability for applicants and will improve the efficiency of processing applications, as
case-by-case analysis of whether something truly meets the definition of “minor alteration” can
unnecessarily consume significant staff time. While the ordinance currently references considerations of
integrity to make these determinations, more objective standards are warranted. Clarifying what can be
approved administratively also may guide applicants to propose work that is less intrusive on historic
resources. By clearly identifying the boundaries for what can be approved administratively, a city can
ensure that the type of work proposed (or conditions to allow it to be approved administratively) is in line
with typical recommended preservation treatments.
Some examples of work that is commonly approved administratively in other communities include:
window replacement with the same materials and design; alterations that are not visible from public right-
of-way; fences; reroofing with no change in materials; and installation of mechanical equipment.
Additionally, the distinction between normal maintenance and minor alterations should be better clarified
in the ordinance to identify what type of work is wholly exempted from the review process.
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees. Develop matrices of review processes, identifying routine, minor and major work.
Also need to investigate a better way of determining minor work from major work, rather than
using aspects of integrity
Recommendation
• Adopt guiding document
that identifies specific types
of work that can be
delegated to staff for review.
1.1
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 43
Whether reviewed by the commission or by staff, alterations to designated properties and new
construction in historic districts are evaluated based on a set of standards set forth in the ordinance. The
process of setting standards is crucial not only from a legal standpoint, but also as a way for communities
to evaluate where their preservation program is leading. What kind of development, if any, do we really
want in the local historic area? How will we evaluate proposed changes? What is the most efficient and
fair method of administering proposed changes? What should be the relationship of our local standards
to other historic resource regulations, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s standards?
The typical preservation ordinance sets forth broad review standards for the development or demolition
of historic properties. Often preservation ordinances attempt to ensure that modifications will “not have
an adverse effect on the fabric of the district” or that new construction not be “incongruous,” but “in
harmony,” with the “character” and “significant features,” of the designated resource. These operative
terms in determining the impact of a development or demolition proposal are to a degree subjective and
need to be defined and limited in some fashion to give applicants reasonable notice of what is expected
of them. Communities can narrow broad review standards through the use of detailed criteria set forth in
the ordinance or in accompanying documents such as guidelines, surveys, or administrative manuals.
Review standards that are too broad often are criticized for being vague and unclear. Fairness and
regulatory efficiency dictate that local ordinances contain clear standards that result in predictable
decisions by staff and review commissions and limit administrative discretion. For this reason, the
standards that are used for review of alterations and new construction are extremely important.
In Fort Collins, the standards considered by both the LPC and the director in deciding upon the issuance
of a report of acceptability are as follows:
(b) In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission
shall consider the following criteria:
(1) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the landmark
or landmark district;
(2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed improvements, and their
relation to the landmark or the sites, structures and objects in the district;
(3) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior characteristics
of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done;
(4) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the landmark
or landmark district;
(5) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of
the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources.
These are relatively broad consideration statements that could be narrowed. Importantly, the ordinance
only requires that the standards are be considered by the commission, which may result in less predictable
1.1
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 44
decisions. As drafted, there are not mandatory standards to be met--only “considerations” that could be
evaluated along a wide spectrum of acceptability. In other words, Section 14-48(b) does not give an
applicant a clear idea of what may be an approvable modification or how new constructions may be
acceptable. At what point is the effect of a proposal unable to be approved?
Also, to what extent do proposals need to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) standards? The current
standards also place a heavy reliance on the SOI standards for guidance in reviewing alterations and new
construction. While the SOI standards are helpful for review and are used by communities all over the
country, they are somewhat vague and imprecise. We typically recommend that they are used as a
starting point for more tailored and precise standards specific to the community.
Many of the peer city ordinances we reviewed use similar language and address similar topics in their
criteria for reviewing alterations, new construction, and demolition of designated resources. Boulder’s
ordinance provides an example of typical review standards:
9-11-18. - Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications.
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a landmark alteration certificate unless it meets
the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior
architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or
aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials used on existing and
proposed structures are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic
district; and
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in a historic district, the proposed new construction to
replace the building meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
These conditions more clearly present the requirements of an application: Materials and architectural
styles must be compatible, historic character cannot be adversely affected, and exterior architectural
features cannot be damaged. While these are still somewhat broad, Boulder supplements these conditions
with adopted design guidelines for each historic district as well as general city-wide guidelines.
Like Fort Collins, most of the cities we studied either reference or incorporate the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI) in their requirements for the review of certificates of
appropriateness. (For reference, the standards can be found below.) Eugene, which grants approvals only
administratively, uses seven of the SOI standards for rehabilitation for their review, as well as two
additional standards requiring compliance with other Eugene-specific development standards or design
guidelines. In Boise’s standards, an abundance of different documents are referenced including the SOI
1.1
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 45
standards, plans, design guidelines, and even architectural history books. Madison notably uses the SOI
standards only when reviewing applications for landmark properties, but uses individually adopted
standards & guidelines for applications in historic districts. Norman and Provo both use the SOI standards
as well as additional adopted design guidelines.29
1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the
defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or
alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false
sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other
buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right
shall be retained and preserved.
5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a
historic property shall be preserved.
6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration
requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and
other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be
used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that
characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed
in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
Tying back to federal standards is useful to ensure consistency with federal and state reviews, such as for
properties that are being reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office for tax credit projects. While
the SOI standards are a valuable tool in reviewing alterations and demolitions of designated resources,
supplementing them with local guidelines or specific ordinance language is highly recommended. We
understand that recently the State Historic Preservation Office has identified some landmark modifications
29 Eugene 9.8175; Boise 11-03-04; Madison 41.18; Norman 22:429.3; Provo 16.06.010
1.1
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 46
(specifically additions) that have been approved by Fort Collins that have negatively impacted that
landmark’s eligibility.
Generally improving the Fort Collins standards to act as requirements rather than “considerations” could
better ensure that alterations are consistent with the SOI standards. Additionally, establishing additional
Fort Collins-specific standards to supplement the SOI standards would allow the review process to better
implement the SOI intent in a more tailored manner. For instance, if general residential design standards
were adopted, they could specify the appropriate size of an addition in relation to the existing structure,
how the addition should be attached, and how visible an addition may be from the public right-of-way.
A few of the communities we reviewed have additional findings or processes to follow when an applicant
can prove some level of “hardship” that would be caused by not granting the approval. For example, both
Berkeley and Provo allow their commissions to approve applications that do not meet their general
standards but where the applicants claim that there would be unreasonable hardship if the application is
not approved. Cambridge has a separate approval process called a “Certificate of Hardship” when failing
to approve an “otherwise inappropriate project would involve substantial hardship” and would not cause
“substantial detriment.”30 Lincoln’s commission can issue a “Certificate of exception on the ground of
insufficient return or hardship” using findings that are similar to typical zoning variance findings: if it finds
that a reasonable return cannot be made without the proposed work, that there are unique circumstances,
and that the hardship is the result of the application of the ordinance and not a result of the applicant.31
This hardship finding can provide some level of flexibility for applicants. However, the ordinance should
clearly state that the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove a hardship. Additionally, changes should
also still generally reflect the intent of the ordinance.
The general subjects of the Fort Collins criteria are typical of most
preservation ordinances we reviewed as they focus on the impact of a
project on historic character, architectural style, and important
exterior features. The criteria themselves would not likely require
major changes. However, it is somewhat unique that the language is
phrased as “considerations” in Section 14-48(b), which arguably
allows for much interpretation and can result in a less predictable
process. Fort Collins should redraft the list as mandatory approval criteria rather than as considerations.
30 Cambridge Historical Commission, Application for Certificate
31 Berkeley 3.24.270; Provo 16.05.070; Cambridge 2.78.210; Lincoln 27.57.150
Recommendation
• Establish mandatory
approval criteria rather than
“considerations.”
• Add specificity to the
“standards of the City”
reference in the criteria for
approval.
1.1
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 47
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees. Change language that LPC “must consider” to “must meet.” Make clear in code
what criteria are.
Fort Collins also references the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as many cities do, which is helpful to
keep reviews in line with federal and state standards. However, additional Fort Collins-specific standards,
either in the ordinance or in adopted guidelines, would be useful to assist in reviews. These could be
much more specific and may be more easily understood by applicants than the more general SOI
standards. While the current criteria reference “the standards of the City” (Section 14-48(b)(5)), it is not
clear whether this means adopted design guidelines or standards. Greater specificity should be added to
this particular criterion to specify what the “standards of the City” might include. Finally, as we
recommend that all criteria become requirements rather than considerations, the level of compliance that
is required with those adopted design guidelines should then be made clear either in the ordinance or in
the adopted standards.
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees. Clarify in codes what standards the City has adopted, by name, and reference in
codes whenever applicable
While most communities use a common list of procedures and criteria for both alterations and
demolitions, some use a heightened review for demolition proposals. This may include additional criteria
or considerations unique to demolition.
Fort Collins does not have specific standards for the review of demolitions of landmarked properties or
properties within designated historic districts. The general criteria for considering a report of acceptability
are used in these circumstances. (Note that the Topic D report will review the Demolition/Alteration
review process for non-designated resources in detail.)
Some cities, like Gainesville, will not release a demolition permit until a building permit for a replacement
building has been obtained. Boulder requires that new construction replacing whatever is demolished
1.1
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 48
must meet the criteria for approval as well.32 Madison has established particular standards for granting a
certificate of appropriateness for demolition as shown below.
41.18 Standards for Granting a Certificate of Appropriateness.
(2) Demolition or Removal. In determining whether to approve a certificate of appropriateness for any
demolition or removal of any landmark or structure within a historic district, the Landmarks
Commission shall consider all of the following, and may give decisive weight to any or all of the
following:
(a) Whether the structure is of such architectural or historic significance that its demolition or
removal would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the
people of the City and the State.
(b) Whether a landmark’s designation has been rescinded.
(c) Whether the structure, although not itself a landmark structure, contributes to the distinctive
architectural or historic character of the historic district as a whole and therefore should be
preserved for the benefit of the people of the City and the State.
(d) Whether demolition or removal of the subject property would be contrary to the policy and
purpose of this ordinance and/or to the objectives of the historic preservation plan for the
applicable historic district as duly adopted by the Common Council.
(e) Whether the structure is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, method of construction,
or material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty and/or
expense.
(f) Whether retention of the structure would promote the general welfare of the people of the City
and the State by encouraging study of American history, architecture and design or by
developing an understanding of American culture and heritage.
(g) The condition of the property, provided that any deterioration of the property which is self-
created or which is the result of a failure to maintain the property as required by this chapter
cannot qualify as a basis for the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or
removal.
(h) Whether any new structure proposed to be constructed or change in use proposed to be made is
compatible with the historic resources of the historic district in which the subject property is
located, or if outside a historic district, compatible with the mass and scale of buildings within two
hundred (200) feet of the boundary of the landmark site.
Reviews of demolition are often greatly assisted by additional standards, as the general standards used
for the review of alterations or new construction may not sufficiently guide decisions. These additional
standards could consider whether the resource is the last example of a certain style or architect’s work,
assessments of the condition of the property, or the economic usefulness of the property. Review criteria
specific to demolition could also specify that documentation, a common mitigating condition of
demolition, is required.
32 Gainesville 30-112; Boulder 9-11-18
1.1
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 49
Fort Collins may want to consider establishing supplemental criteria
for approving demolitions of designated properties, as it appears that
the existing criteria in Section 14-48 may be difficult to apply to cases
of demolition. Often demolition has a different range of
considerations that needs particular criteria as shown in some of the
peer city examples. The hardship findings that other cities have used
(cited above) could be adapted in crafting findings for demolition.
CAC: Add criteria to code. The answer to all proposals to demolish landmark designated
properties should be no, except in cases of non-contributing buildings in districts; non-
contributing reviewed same as infill in district.
LPC: Change codes to reflect that site cannot sit fallow following demolition. Clarify in code when
a Landmark may be demolished; add standards for acceptable new construction consistent with
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards & Guidelines. Revisit hardship standards to make sure they
are appropriate.
The effectiveness of determining the compatibility of infill development also depends on the standards
used for review. The broad review standards must be sufficiently narrowed to allow for meaningful and
predictable review of infill development. Often, because a particular project might be compatible in one
historic district but wholly incompatible in another, cities use design guidelines to craft particular
standards for different districts, to assist in the design and review of infill development.
Drafting adequate review standards is much less difficult in historic areas that have a distinctive style or
character. Areas with strong identifying features provide examples of the features best used to define
compatible development and measure the impact of proposals for new development. In areas that are
less distinctive in style, review of infill can also be aided by design guidelines that explicitly direct some
flexibility to certain features. If a local ordinance does not contain narrowing criteria beyond the typical
broad criteria for review, the preservation commission would be well advised to adopt them by way of
regulation or guidelines.
Compatibility of infill development in Fort Collins’ historic districts is guided by the design review process.
The general standards noted above for all “reports of acceptability” are used to evaluate infill
development in historic districts. In the ordinance, there is no specific language regarding infill
development. In addition to the criteria for consideration of a report of acceptability, Section 14-48 also
generally requires that the LPC find that all proposed work is “compatible with the distinctive
Recommendation
• Consider additional criteria
for the approval of
demolition.
1.1
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 50
characteristics of the landmark or landmark district and with the spirit and purpose of this chapter.” The
term “compatible” is defined in Article I:
Compatible shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them
to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility
include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or
vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect
compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean
"the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in
maintaining the character of existing development.
One of the LPC’s considerations for the report of acceptability is the “extent to which the proposed work
meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior for the preservation,
reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources.” As noted earlier in this report,
presumably the “standards of the city” refers to the city’s adopted design guidelines, although this is not
clear. Two guideline or standards documents have been adopted for designated resources in Fort Collins
and are described below.
• The Old Town Neighborhoods Design Guidelines were adopted in February 2017 concurrently with
the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan. The document is intended to provide guidance for design
review but compliance is not required. Particularly relevant to this topic, however, are the
guidelines for new construction incorporated in the document. These guidelines cover a full range
of topics such as design, mass and scale, articulation, windows, and materials. The guidelines also
include overall impact and compatibility considerations.
• The Old Town Historic District Design Standards were updated and adopted in 2014. These are
used to determine the appropriateness of modifications or new construction in the Old Town
Historic District, as well as for eligible local landmark properties within Old Town and the River
District. The design standards clarify that the guidelines require compliance (when applicable) and
explain the difference between important terms used in the document such as “shall,” “should,”
and “may be considered.” The document also has specific design standards for new construction,
focusing on building placement, architectural character, mass, scale, height, roofs, entrances,
materials, and windows.
In other districts outside these two areas, and for individual landmarks without adopted standards, great
emphasis is placed on SOI standards for review of changes, as well as the general criteria for
consideration.
In reviewing staff reports for recent design review applications in the Old Town Historic District, we did
not find any analysis of the design standards included in the reports. It is not clear how, or when, the
standards are applied to the review of projects. We presume that a project’s compliance with the
standards are discussed in the LPC meeting. However, we recommend including staff-level analysis of
compliance with the design guidelines in staff reports to help guide the LPC’s discussion at public
1.1
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 51
hearings. As a larger point, staff reports could also include greater analysis of how a project meets the
Secretary of Interior’s standards and whether the property’s integrity is impacted by the proposal.
Almost every city we studied has either adopted design guidelines or integrated specific requirements
into their ordinance for evaluating compatibility. Boulder and Norman have both adopted design
guidelines for each of their historic districts, as well as general guidelines for all districts and landmarks.
All of the design guidelines documents from Boulder specify that the guidelines are intended to be an aid
for design, not a checklist for compliance. Lincoln has specific design guidelines for each landmark and
district that are adopted concurrently with their designations and guide future alterations. Several cities,
like Denton and Madison have actually codified design requirements for each particular district in their
ordinances.33
One issue that comes up in many cities is the difficulty in determining what standards of review are
advisory versus mandatory. For example, in Eugene, one of the criteria for approval is that the proposal is
consistent with the design guidelines, although the design guidelines are “Advisory Design Guidelines for
Historic Residential Properties.” Design guideline documents often also do not adequately distinguish
between guidelines that “should” be met versus those that “shall” be required. Another example is from
Provo, which has codified “Special Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts.” These guidelines
cover topics like height, scale, window proportion, roof shape, and architectural details. Per the ordinance,
the commission is required to use the guidelines to determine the appropriateness of applications for new
construction. However, each of these suggest that these features “should be compatible” with surrounding
structures. It is therefore not clear whether these are simply intended to guide the discussion or to what
degree a project must comply with the guidelines in order to be approved.34
Berkeley does not have adopted design guidelines for particular historic districts, although the city has
adopted general downtown design guidelines with specific guidelines for landmark buildings. Berkeley
has a fairly general additional finding for the review of new construction in historic districts that ensures
that work will not “adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the
relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and
surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the
special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district.”35
In addition to their Historic Preservation Rehabilitation and Design Guidelines mentioned earlier in this
report, Gainesville has codified “visual compatibility standards” to guide certificate of appropriateness
decisions. The use of “shall” makes them clearly mandatory, but they are general enough to be applicable
to different districts with many different architectural styles:
33 Boulder Design Guidelines for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts; Norman Historic Preservation; Lincoln Historic
Preservation; Denton 35-275; Madison 41.22
34 Eugene Advisory Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Properties; Provo 16.06.020
35 Berkeley 3.24.260
1.1
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 52
Sec. 30-112. - Historic preservation/conservation.
(6) Criteria.
a. Generally. The decision on all certificates of appropriateness, except those for demolition or relocation, shall
be guided by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings and the following visual compatibility standards:
1. Height. Height shall be visually compatible with adjacent buildings.
2. Proportion of building, structure or object's front facade. The width of building, structure or object to the
height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible to buildings and places to which it is visually
related.
3. Proportion of openings within the facility. The relationship of the width of the windows in a building, structure
or object shall be visually compatible with buildings and places to which the building, structure or object is
visually related.
4. Rhythm of solids to voids in front facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the front facade of a building,
structure or object shall be visually compatible with buildings and places to which it is visually related.
5. Rhythm of buildings, structures, objects or parking lots on streets. The relationship of the buildings, structures,
objects or parking lots to open space between it and adjoining buildings and places shall be visually
compatible to the buildings and places to which it is visually related.
6. Rhythm of entrance and porch projection. The relationship of entrances and projections to sidewalks of a
building, structure, object or parking lot shall be visually compatible to the buildings and places to which it is
visually related.
7. Relationship of materials, texture and color. The relationship of materials, texture and color of a parking lot or
of the facade of a building, structure or object shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials
used in the buildings to which it is visually related.
8. Roof shapes. The roof shape of the building, structure or object shall be visually compatible with the
buildings to which it is visually related.
9. Walls of continuity. Appurtenances of a building, structure, object or parking lot such as walls, fences and
landscape masses shall, if necessary, form cohesive walls of enclosure along a street, to ensure visual
compatibility of the building, structure, object or parking lot to the building and places to which it is visually
related.
10. Scale of building. The size of the building, structure, object or parking lot; the building mass of the building,
structure, object or parking lot in relation to open space; and the windows, door openings, porches and
balconies shall be visually compatible with the buildings and places to which it is visually related.
11. Directional expression of front elevation. A building, structure, object or parking lot shall be visually
compatible with the buildings and places to which it is visually related in its directional character.
The Santa Barbara ordinance includes a “Project Compatibility Analysis” which establishes additional
criteria for consideration by their Historic Landmarks Commission. Topics range from compliance with the
municipal code, adopted design guidelines, compatibility with the architectural character of the city and
neighborhood, appropriate height and scale, and sensitivity to adjacent landmarks. In addition, Santa
Barbara recently adopted Infill Design Guidelines in their General Design Guidelines and Meeting
Procedures document that are intended to “ensure that infill development complements existing
buildings, preserves neighborhood character, and is well integrated into the neighborhood with a
1.1
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 53
cohesive and well-thought out design.” The guidelines list possible design techniques and approaches to
achieve the objectives in the Project Compatibility criteria in the ordinance.36
Gainesville’s visual compatibility standards are an excellent example, as they are clear, relatively objective
standards that are codified. These standards are supplemented by design guidelines for some districts in
the city, where even more tailored standards are necessary to determine compatibility.
Although the term “compatible” is often used in preservation ordinances, very few of the ordinances we
reviewed (only Madison and Norman) defined this term.37 Some of the cities, like Santa Barbara below,
defined compatibility within a separate design guidelines document. These definitions provide some level
of specificity in determining compatibility by providing several examples of features to consider.
Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures
“For the purposes of design review, “compatibility” is defined as a project’s ability to integrate harmoniously with
the desirable architectural qualities and characteristics which are distinctive of Santa Barbara and the immediate
neighborhood. A study of the ten (10) closest properties, and additional properties as needed, can be used in
evaluating neighborhood compatibility.”
The following should be considered in achieving compatibility:
A. Contextual setting (streetscape, surrounding structures, street trees, parks)
B. Patterns of development in the particular area
C. Architectural style
D. Size, mass, bulk, height, and scale
E. Proximity to, and interface with, historic resources, historic districts, historic sites, or natural features
F. Design intent and overall concept of the project and land use designation of the site
Many cities struggle with clearly identifying what is advisory versus
mandatory in regards to design guidelines that assist in the review of
new development in historic districts. To account for varying
character between and within different districts, some degree of
flexibility is warranted. This flexibility should be clearly established
either in the ordinance or in separately adopted design guidelines.
Fort Collins has several high-quality design guidelines that could be
used to review the compatibility new development in historic
districts. However, it is not clear how enforceable or applicable the
adopted design guidelines are, or how they are incorporated into the
design review process. Are they intended to be a checklist for
compliance or simply guidance? The Old Town Historic District Design Standards are clearer about the
36 Santa Barbara 22.22.145 and Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures
37 Madison 41.02; Norman 22:429.3
Recommendations
• Consider codifying general
compatibility standards for
new construction.
• Clarify the role of the
adopted design guidelines
and standards.
• Develop design guidelines
for additional districts or
general design guidelines.
1.1
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 54
terminology used, but the ordinance does not clearly explain their role in the design review process. If the
standards are used as a checklist for compliance, some degree of flexibility should be defined and
integrated to allow for unique circumstances. The actual design guidelines appear to be helpful and cover
appropriate topics for reviewing compatibility of development.
Stronger design guidelines could greatly assist in the review in other designated areas of the city.
Developing general residential design guidelines in particular may be helpful, as Fort Collins has a
significant number of landmarked residential properties. Fort Collins should also consider codifying some
general compatibility standards into the ordinance, as Gainesville has done, and supplement those
general guidelines with the adopted design guidelines for particular areas. The ordinance should then
clearly reference those other adopted guidelines and clarify whether compliance is advisory or mandatory.
The existing definition of “compatibility” in the Fort Collins ordinance could easily be built upon to craft
standards for achieving compatibility in new construction in historic districts.
CAC: Agrees. Code should better reference Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines for
examples of how to apply. Make both Ch. 14 and LUC 3.4.7 clear that literal replication is not
desired, same with great divergence; what is desired is invention within a style and reference to
context.
LPC: Agrees. Adopt standards for compatible new construction in Landmark Districts consistent
with 2017 Secretary of Interior’s Standards & Guidelines update. Develop district-specific design
standards and guidelines for each new and existing historic district
1.1
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 55
1.1
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Background
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 56
This section of the report includes a review of the City of Fort Collins’ codes and processes related to
“Development Review,” specifically that portion of the Development Review process that involves review
by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) of proposed commercial development on identified
historic resources. The documents reviewed for this report include Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and
Article 3 of the Land Use Code, particularly Section 3.4.7 related to Historic and Cultural Resources.
This section summarizes the current component of the Fort Collins Development Review process that
considers the effect of new development on historic resources and its effectiveness in achieving
compatible infill, discusses main topics associated with Development Review, highlights relevant
approaches used throughout the country, and provides conclusions and recommendations for
improvements in Fort Collins.
1.1
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 57
Generally across the country, most historic preservation programs limit their review of new development
to projects that directly impact designated historic resources—that is, alterations to designated landmarks
or alterations or new construction within historic districts. However, a handful of communities, like Fort
Collins, extend the scope of their preservation-related review to infill outside of historic districts, including
considerations of compatibility with nearby designated properties as well as those eligible properties that
have not been formally designated. In Fort Collins, this process also provides an opportunity for the
Landmark Preservation Commission to submit a recommendation to the decision maker for the
Development Review application. This is separate from the Design Review process discussed in the
previous Topic B report, which focuses solely on designated resources.
The Development Review process in Fort Collins is intended to ensure that all new development meets
the city’s adopted policies and regulations. The process includes review for compliance with a wide range
of standards, including the General Development Standards in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. The process
is required for all building permit applications (except those applying to single-family residential and
extra-occupancy rental houses) and all development applications.
From a historic preservation perspective, the component of the Development Review process that is
especially important is a review of the impact of new development on adjacent designated and eligible
historic resources. This process requires staff review and, if there is an effect on historic resources, a
written recommendation from the Landmark Preservation Commission on how well the proposed
development meets the code. This process is established in Section 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources.
The Fort Collins Development Review process includes an evaluation of a project’s impact on nearby
historic and cultural resources whenever:
• A local, state, or nationally designated landmark is on the site of proposed development or
adjacent to the site; or
• A property that is eligible or potentially eligible for local, state, or national landmark designation
is on the site or adjacent to the site;
• The development site is located in or adjacent to a local, state, or national historic district.
To the maximum extent feasible, the preservation and adaptive reuse of any onsite historic structure is
required. Also, development plans and designs must protect and enhance the historical and architectural
1.1
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 58
value of any historic property located adjacent to the development site. New structures are required to be
compatible with the historic character of the historic property, whether on the site or adjacent to it.
While the Historic and Cultural Resources standards
section of the Fort Collins Land Use Code has been in
place since 1998, section F(6) requiring a written
recommendation from the LPC was added in 2014, based
on a request from the Planning & Zoning Board to receive
additional input based on the LPC’s their preservation
expertise. Unlike the Design Review process for alterations
to designated resources, the LPC is just a recommending
body and is not the final decision-maker for Development
Review. The decision-maker is the Planning & Zoning
Board, a hearing officer, or the Director of Community
Development & Neighborhood Services, depending on
the scale of the project.
Not all Development Review applications that are
adjacent to historic resources are reviewed by the LPC.
The Director may administratively issue a written
recommendation for projects that “would not have a
significant impact on the individual eligibility or potential
individual eligibility of the site, structure, object, or district.”
Projects that are determined by the Director to have a significant impact typically involve a two-step
review by the LPC. The first step is a conceptual public hearing, during which the project’s “Area of
Adjacency” is established by the LPC. The identification of “adjacent” designated and eligible resources is
key to this process because it ultimately dictates whether the standards in 3.4.7 apply. The term “adjacent”
is defined in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code as:
Adjacent shall mean nearby, but not necessarily touching. The determination of “nearby”
shall be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the context in which the
term is used and the variables (such as but not limited to size, mass, scale, bulk, visibility,
nature of use, intensity of use) that may be relevant to deciding what is “nearby” in that
particular context. Adjacency shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or
alley, a public or private right-of-way, or a public or private transportation right-of-way or
area.
Therefore, identification of adjacent resources is considered on a case-by-case basis to establish the Area
of Adjacency. The Area of Adjacency determination requirements are not fully described in the ordinance,
but the city’s website explains the process in more detail. All designated landmarks are included in the
1.1
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 59
initial Area of Adjacency, and all nearby properties 50 years or older are then evaluated for their potential
eligibility (although this determination may be non-binding and is for decision-making purposes if the
property owner is not the applicant for the determination request). There is no set distance that defines
the extent of this study of eligibility. The eligible properties and the designated properties ultimately
compose the final Area of Adjacency. A final review of the project based on the standards in Section 3.4.7
is then held either at a subsequent final hearing, or at the same meeting as the conceptual review.
City staff notes that, in order for the LPC to complete their review and make a recommendation, staff must
provide assurance that the overall review of the development proposal has progressed sufficiently to the
point that no other substantive building or site design changes are likely to occur. This requirement stems
from the fact that the historic resources review component of Development Review is most helpful in the
initial round of application review, rather than as a final step in the process.
The LPC reviews projects based on the standards in Section 3.4.7 related to new construction, demolition,
reuse, renovation, alterations, and additions. The new construction standards are intended to guide
compatible infill and cover the following topics:
1. Height, Setback, and Width of New Structures
2. Design Characteristics (horizontal elements, window patterns, and entrance patterns)
3. Building Materials
4. Visual and Pedestrian Connections
5. Landscaping
After the LPC makes their advisory recommendation, the decision-maker considers that recommendation
in their subsequent review of the project.
The majority of cities we studied do not have a process for reviewing the compatibility of new infill
development with nearby historic resources. We reached out to preservation and planning staff from each
of the peer cities to confirm whether they have this type of process, and if so, how it has been working. Of
the peer cities listed at the end of this report, both Madison and Santa Barbara have programs similar to
Fort Collins’ Development Review process and are discussed immediately below. A few of the other
communities also have processes with some similarities and are noted at the end of this section. In both
Santa Barbara and Madison, a city board reviews projects for compatibility when a project is adjacent to a
historic resource and the board provides an advisory recommendation to a further decision-maker, much
like Fort Collins.38
38 Madison 28.144; Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures and
Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures
1.1
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 60
Madison has been reviewing all development “adjacent to a landmark” since 1996 based on the section of
their zoning code excerpted below. The city’s Landmark Commission completes an advisory review of
projects adjacent to landmarks prior to the project’s review by the city’s Plan Commission or Urban Design
Commission. The city unfortunately did not return requests to learn more about the efficacy of the
process, but did not mention major issues in our brief initial discussion.
28.144. Development Adjacent to a Landmark or Landmark Site.
Any development on a zoning lot adjoining a landmark or landmark site for which Plan Commission or Urban
Design Commission review is required shall be reviewed by the Landmark Commission to determine whether
the proposed development is so large or visually intrusive as to adversely affect the historic character and
integrity of the adjoining landmark or landmark site. Landmark Commission review shall be advisory to the
Plan Commission and the Urban Design Commission.
In 2008, Santa Barbara adopted a compatibility analysis tool in their zoning code that included a general
requirement of “sensitivity to adjacent landmarks and historic resources.” The full project compatibility
analysis is excerpted below.
22.22.145 Project Compatibility Analysis
B. Project Compatibility Considerations.
In addition to any other considerations and requirements specified in this Code, the following criteria shall
be considered by the Architectural Board of Review when it reviews and approves or disapproves the
design of a proposed development project in a noticed public hearing pursuant to the requirements of
Chapter 22.68:
1. Compliance with City Charter and Municipal Code; Consistency with Design Guidelines. Does the
project fully comply with all applicable City Charter and Municipal Code requirements? Is the project’s
design consistent with design guidelines applicable to the location of the project within the City?
2. Compatible with Architectural Character of City and Neighborhood. Is the design of the project
compatible with the desirable architectural qualities and characteristics which are distinctive of Santa
Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project?
3. Appropriate size, mass, bulk, height, and scale. Is the size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project
appropriate for its location and its neighborhood?
4. Sensitivity to Adjacent Landmarks and Historic Resources. Is the design of the project appropriately
sensitive to adjacent Federal, State, and City Landmarks and other nearby designated historic
resources, including City structures of merit, sites, or natural features?
5. Public Views of the Ocean and Mountains. Does the design of the project respond appropriately to
established scenic public vistas?
6. Use of Open Space and Landscaping. Does the project include an appropriate amount of open space
and landscaping?
1.1
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 61
In our discussions with Santa Barbara staff, they noted that the criteria in the project compatibility analysis
alone did not provide the boards with enough guidance and that incompatible development was still
being approved by both commissions. Approved adjacent development was particularly incompatible.
To help address these concerns and provide more specific guidance, the city recently adopted new infill
design guidelines to guide decisions by both their Historic Landmark Commission and Architectural
Review Board regarding infill development adjacent to historic resources. These design guidelines have
been incorporated in each commission’s adopted General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures
documents. The city’s Architectural Review Board (not their Historic Landmark Commission) reviews
projects that are adjacent to historic resources. However, the infill design guidelines for the Architectural
Review Board are identical to those for the Historic Landmark Commission.
The following excerpt from the General Design Guidelines and Meeting Procedures document shows the
applicability of the infill design guidelines and the standards that are used to evaluate the compatibility of
infill projects:
1.2.3 Infill Projects. Infill development projects involving historic resources shall preserve, protect, and enhance
those resources. Projects on sites adjacent to historic resources shall respect and be compatible with the adjacent
resources.
A. Project Sites Containing Historic Resources: If a project parcel contains potentially historic or designated
historic resources the project shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). The Urban
Historian can assist the HLC by identifying particular issue areas where the proposed development must show
consideration and sensitivity to historic resources on the site.
B. Projects Adjacent to Historic Resources: The HLC is the review body for all projects within El Pueblo Viejo
Landmark District or another landmark district. In all other areas of the City, the ABR is the review body for
projects adjacent to historic resources, and will follow this section of guidelines.
This section of guidelines helps to ensure that infill development is appropriately sensitive to adjacent historic
resources, is compatible, and maintains a balance between historic resources and new construction.
It is recognized that not all techniques or approaches are appropriate or practical for every development
project. Consultation with the City Urban Historian is required to determine which of the design techniques
and approaches listed below should be followed to demonstrate sensitivity to historic resources:
1. Architectural styles of new or remodeled buildings should be compatible and fit with the character of
adjacent structures.
2. Special consideration shall be given to setbacks for projects adjacent to historic resources and/or historic
patterns of development to be compatible with other historic resources on the street.
3. Design interior setbacks to maintain an appropriate distance to provide views to the resource,
appropriate light and air, and avoid impacts such as crowding or looming over adjacent historic
resources.
4. Location of parking and garages should be sensitive to adjacent historic resources.
5. Orient the front entrance of the building to the street and clearly identify the front entrance unless this is
not the predominant pattern on the street.
6. Larger buildings should be stepped down in height as they approach smaller adjacent historic resources.
7. Design the front façade to appear similar in scale with adjacent historic resources.
8. Align foundation and floor-to-ceiling heights to be sensitive to adjacent historic structures.
9. Align eaves, cornices, and ridge lines to be compatible with those of the neighboring historic structures.
10. Design the front of buildings to have a similar rhythm and pattern of window and door openings as
those of the existing streetscape.
11. Incorporate materials and colors similar to those traditionally used in neighboring historic structures.
1.1
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 62
In interviews, the staff stated that the new adopted guidelines are working well thus far, but that most
projects are not able to meet each guideline, so they have found that flexibility in the application of the
guidelines is necessary.
Other cities similarly seek advisory reviews from their preservation commissions when development
occurs near historic resources for circumstances that require their expertise. Syracuse does not have a
specific process described in their zoning code, but we learned from city staff that the Zoning
Administrator will refer zoning applications to the Landmark Preservation Board if a project is in close
proximity to a sensitive property or district. Somewhat similarly, Lincoln’s Historic Preservation
Commission advises the city on public projects that are in close proximity to designated historic districts
or National Register properties.39
We also found a few other relevant approaches taken by cities that were not in our initial peer-city review.
For instance, some cities regulate properties that are within a specific distance of a designated resource.
The city of Brownsville, Texas, designates “secondary historic sites,” which function similarly to Structures
of Merit.40 One of the criteria for a secondary historic site is location within 300 feet of a local, state, or
federal historic resource that positively contributes to the historic value of the designated resource. This
extends a certain level of protection to these nearby sites as well and is clear as the properties are given
their own particular designation.
A similar geographically focused method is currently used in Albuquerque, New Mexico. All exterior
changes to properties within 300 feet of the historic overlay district are reviewed through a Certificate of
Appropriateness process identical to that required for a designated resource. However, it is important to
note that Albuquerque is in the process of rewriting their zoning code and officials are proposing to
eliminate this process. They have found that the process is unpredictable for property owners because
they do not have a map or tracking system that identifies which properties are subject to this review and
that permits are issued accidentally without going through this review as a result.41
39 Lincoln 4.36.030
40 Structures of Merit are discussed in the Topic A report.
41 Brownsville 348-1513; Albuquerque 14-16-2-25(E)
1.1
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 63
Fort Collins’ Development Review process for new infill near historic
resources is fairly unique in comparison to the peer cities we
researched. Most cities do not extend preservation review to
properties that are not designated, or review development for impact
on nearby historic (or eligible to be historic) resources. However, in a
variety of ways, several other communities are attempting to address
compatibility issues with projects located near or adjacent to historic
resources. The particular features of the Fort Collins process will be
further compared to other city’s processes in the following
subsections of this report.
Moving forward, we recommend that Fort Collins clarify the overall
purpose of the Development Review process in order to provide more
certainty to applicants, and to better tailor the extent of the review,
both geographically and by resource type (designated and eligible
properties). These issues are discussed later in this report with more specific recommendations. The
process described in Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(A) and (B) should also be examined for potential
efficiency improvements, particularly the staff time and resources devoted to the case-by-case review of
non-designated resources that do not already have established determinations of eligibility. In addition, it
is important to evaluate which of the current standards have proven most important for ensuring the
compatibility of infill. This analysis will help determine the priorities for modifying the process.
CAC: Agrees. Area of adjacency identifies significant historic properties that could be affected by
new development. These resources provide the context. New development different but
compatible.
LPC: Agrees. Review serves dual goals: 1. Retains eligibility of historic resources; 2. Promotes
compatibility with existing character.
Additionally, the procedural requirements of the process are not currently well-described in Land Use
Code Section 3.4.7. The description of the LPC recommendation process is somewhat buried in paragraph
6 of subsection (F). Because this is within subsection (F), it is not clear whether the LPC would review
properties with changes that relate to subsection (D) or (E) as well. Further, it is not evident what
differentiates a director-level review from a commission-level review. These procedural requirements
should be clarified. In addition, we found the use of “eligible” and “potentially eligible” as two separate
processes to be very confusing and recommend clarifying that aspect of the review.
Similar to a recommendation we made in the previous topic, we believe that using the term
“Development Review” for this process is confusing, as it could mean either the entire development
review process or this one step. We recommend establishing a new terminology for this particular point in
Recommendations
• Clarify the purpose and
intent of the historic
resources component of the
Development Review
process.
• Clarify the procedural
requirements to obtain a
recommendation from the
LPC.
• Use new terminology, such
as “Historic Resource
Compatibility Review,”
instead of Development
Review.
1.1
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Development Review Process | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 64
the review, whether that is a “Historic Resource Compatibility Review” or something similar. It should be
clearer that this is simply a subset of the overall Development Review process.
CAC: Agrees. Area of adjacency identifies significant historic properties that could be affected by
new development. These resources provide the context. New development different but
compatible.
LPC: Agrees. Review serves dual goals: 1. Retains eligibility of historic resources; 2. Promotes
compatibility with existing character.
1.1
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 65
Of the few communities that require preservation review for infill development near historic resources,
most identify geographic boundaries to limit the scope of that review. In addition, some communities
consider impacts to designated resources only, and do not analyze impacts to resources that are merely
eligible for designation.
In Fort Collins, the Development Review process in Section 3.4.7 applies to any project with an on-site
designated or eligible resource or any project that is adjacent to a designated or eligible resource. As
described above, a project-specific “area of adjacency” is determined to establish which properties the
project will be reviewed against for compatibility. The LPC determines the area of adjacency at their first
hearing. We understand that staff typically suggests a geographic area to use for each project based on
nearby proximity to the development site and the scale of the proposed development, but the staff
recommendations are sometimes expanded or reduced by the LPC, which can lead to unpredictability for
applicants. There is a desire to provide more consistency and predictability so that applicants can be
reasonably sure of what will constitute an area of adjacency in the early stages of their project
development.
It is also worth noting that the code differentiates “adjacent” from “abutting.” The current definition of
“adjacent” has been in the code since 2004, when an amendment was adopted to distinguish between the
two terms. At the time, staff noted that flexibility was needed in defining what “nearby” means, so the
case-by-case nature of determining adjacency was intentionally placed in the code.
The policy direction in Fort Collins is to extend the Development Review process beyond impact on
designated historic resources; review also extends to consider the impact of new development on any
property that is eligible for local, state, or national landmark or district designation. Staff notes that the
intention for this policy, which has been part of the Land Use Code since 1998, is a reflection of eligible
resources’ equal contribution to the character of the vicinity of the development site.
Although the LPC’s recommendation is only advisory, this process extends the typical preservation
protection of local landmarks and historic districts to state and national landmarks and districts that do
not otherwise have local regulatory protection (even advisory). It also extends advisory protection to
properties that are merely eligible to be landmarks or districts.42 This is relatively rare in our experience
and creates some additional challenges, particularly regarding uncertainty as to when and how eligible
properties will factor into the analysis.
42 The Demolition/Alteration Review Process would also protect on-site modification of eligible resources and is discussed in the
Topic D section of this report.
1.1
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 66
It is certainly true that other cities develop context-based standards to help protect neighborhood
character, and sometimes definitions of “character” are based at least in part on the surrounding historic
resources. In fact, Fort Collins is currently engaged in a project to develop more context-sensitive and
form-based standards for the downtown area to help ensure the compatibility of infill development.
However, in most cities the application of these types of character-protection standards is not necessarily
tied to determinations of eligibility, or historic preservation at all.
The reviews in both Madison and Santa Barbara are limited to properties that directly abut a historic
resource. In Madison, the advisory review only applies when a development is on a lot that directly
“adjoins” a landmark. While “adjoining” is not defined in the code, staff reports that the review is limited
to only properties directly next to an individual landmark. This process does not apply to properties that
are adjacent to historic districts. Similarly, in Santa Barbara the process is limited to properties that are
directly adjacent to the historic resource (both landmarks and districts). City staff believed extending this
review any further would be too administratively difficult in terms of the time it would take and the
number of properties that would then be subject to this review.43
Madison’s process is more limited than Fort Collins in that only properties near designated landmarks (not
properties that are merely eligible) are subject to review.44 On the other end of the spectrum, Santa
Barbara’s process is applicable to both designated and “potentially historic” resources as well as
properties that are adjacent to designated and potentially historic resources. Santa Barbara has an
extensive inventory of potentially historic resources that are mapped and included in the city’s permitting
property information database, so that property owners are aware from the outset of a project that their
property either includes or is adjacent to a potential historic resource (this system also ensures that
building permits are not issued accidentally).45 Staff noted that the inventory includes nearly 600
properties and was assembled based on historic surveys completed in 1978 and 1986. Additional
resources were added in 2013 based on another survey and other resources have been added over time in
a piecemeal fashion.
43 Madison 28.144; Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.2.3
and Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.4.3
44 Madison 28.144
45 Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.2.3 and Architectural
Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.4.3
1.1
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 67
Fort Collins is unique in extending the geographic area of
preservation review beyond immediately abutting properties. While
this benefits the city’s overall character protection goals by extending
the reach of compatibility considerations, it does create some
unpredictability and potential for inconsistency.
For instance, the current case-by-case determination of adjacency
could be problematic. It could be larger or smaller depending on the
particular factors of each case, but an applicant may not know that
initially. While it is understandable for the LPC to want flexibility to calibrate the area of adjacency based
on a project’s perceived impacts, this should be balanced with the applicant’s need for predictability and
consistency—especially since this is a review of a resource that is not designated.
Moving forward, we recommend the city consider establishing a more consistent and predictable
geographic limit for the historic resource component of Development Review. A better-defined area of
adjacency would give applicants advance notice of the need to integrate certain compatible design
features, rather than having to guess whether or not they are close enough to a historic property, or
whether that property is significant or sensitive enough to warrant heightened review. Applicants would
also likely be less resistant to design modifications that are more compatible with nearby properties if
they were aware of these limitations at the outset of their design process.
In Clarion’s March 2017 memo “Defining ‘Adjacency’ in the Preservation Ordinance,” we made several
recommendations for balancing predictability with the flexibility to base adjacency on a project’s impact.
Some of these recommendations are summarized below:
• Define a project’s radius of impact, which would determine whether a project is considered
“adjacent” to historic resources and therefore LPC review is required. The radius of impact should
be based on a list of objective criteria such as height or massing indicating impact.
• Remove the term “nearby” from the definition of adjacency and instead use more specific lot
identifiers or specific distance limits.
• Tailor the level of review, allowing projects with lesser impacts (using indicators such as height,
massing, or others) to be reviewed by the LPC based on a limited number of issues or within a
certain amount of time, or to simply be reviewed by staff instead of the LPC. A matrix tool could
be developed to illustrate this type of calibrated review.
Building upon these recommendations and based on further research, we propose the following matrix
for discussion purposes. The goal is to better tailor the level and type of review based on a project’s
impact. In this matrix, more characteristics of compatibility should be considered by the LPC for projects
that are most likely to impact a historic resource, while fewer features must be reviewed for projects that
are less likely to impact a historic resource. The matrix defines a radius of impact that determines the
Recommendations:
Geographic Extent
• Establish a consistent and
predictable geographic limit
for the review, such as the
Historic Resource
Compatibility Review matrix.
1.1
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 68
properties included in the review based on the height of the proposed structure. We also propose
reviewing impacts on eligible resources only if they abut the proposed development site; this
recommendation is described in more detail in the next section of this report.
HISTORIC RESOURCE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW
PROPOSAL IS ….
OPTIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY
CONSIDERATIONS
Abutting a…
Designated Resource
Height
Setbacks
Massing
Stepbacks
Floor-to-ceiling height
Materials
Windows & doors
Eligible Resource
Height
Setbacks
Massing
Stepbacks
Within 200
feet of a…
Designated Resource:
Proposed building is 3 stories
in height or more
Height
Setbacks
Massing
Stepbacks
Designated Resource:
Proposed building is less than
3 stories in height
Height
Massing
More than
200 feet but
less than 500
feet from a…
Designated Resource:
Proposed building is 3 stories
in height or more
Setbacks
Massing
Designated Resource:
Proposed building is less than
3 stories in height
No compatibility review required.
Abutting = Touching. An abutting condition shall not be affected by the parcelization or division
of land that results in an incidental, nonbuildable, remnant lot, tract or parcel.
Designated Resource = A local, state, or nationally designated landmark or a property within a
local, state, or national historic district.
Eligible Resource = A property that is potentially eligible for local, state, or national landmark
designation or as part of an eligible local, state, or national historic district.
For example, a proposed four-story building that would be within 500 feet of a designated landmark
would be reviewed for compatibility with only the setbacks and massing of the designated landmark. A
project of any size that abuts a designated landmark would be reviewed for compatibility with all of the
listed considerations of the historic building. A two-story project that would be within 500 feet of a
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 69
The compatibility considerations listed in the draft matrix are for discussion purposes only and may be
modified based on the city’s preservation priorities. Whatever compatibility considerations are ultimately
listed would need to be supplemented by detailed guidelines. The following are some examples of
compatibility guidelines, with “historic buildings” meaning the applicable eligible or designated resources
based on the matrix above. Additional recommendations for clarifying the standards can be found in the
final section of this report.
• Height: The height of the proposed structure is visually compatible [or within X amount of
deviation] with historic buildings and does not diminish the exterior integrity of the historic
buildings.
• Setbacks: The proposed setbacks of the proposed structure are similar to historic buildings and
do not impact the exterior integrity of the historic buildings.
• Massing: The massing of the proposed building is designed to minimize the visual impact on
historic buildings, including creation of shadows and loss of sunlight, and does not impact the
integrity of the historic buildings.
• Stepbacks: Height that is taller than historic buildings is stepped back to reduce visibility and
reduce impact on the integrity of the historic buildings.
• Floor-to-ceiling height: Floor-to-ceiling heights are similar to historic buildings to minimize
visual impact on historic buildings.
• Materials: The proposed materials are visually similar to the predominant materials of the historic
buildings and do not diminish the exterior integrity of the historic buildings.
• Windows & doors: In order to minimize negative impact on the integrity of the historic
buildings, the proposed structure has a similar relationship of solids to voids in the historic
buildings, window styles are similar, fenestration patterns are similar, and the location of
pedestrian entrances are similar to those on historic buildings.
For discussion purposes, we propose 200 and 500 feet as radii of impact for the review of projects that are
not abutting but are near designated resources. These were chosen because 500 feet is the approximate
length of a typical east-west block in downtown and 200 feet is the length of about four typically sized
parcels. We recommend measuring these distances from parcel line to parcel line. This is both for ease of
mapping and also so that larger-scale projects (with a larger lot size) that will likely be more impactful will
capture more properties within their buffer areas. This concept is illustrated in the samples below, which
are displayed at the same scale.
1.1
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 70
Doing some additional mapping could be very useful in finalizing the radius of impact limits. We
recommend completing a thorough analysis of how large the areas of adjacency used in the past have
been. In practice, we understand that the city typically recommends an area of adjacency that has been
similar to the limits that are recommended, but additional mapping could help confirm that. In addition,
mapping the locations of designated landmarks and known eligible resources would be very helpful in
determining a realistic geographic limit.
In summary, the geographic limits should be made more consistent and predictable and these limits could
be better tailored to a project’s impacts. We recommend an approach similar to the proposed historic
resource compatibility review matrix, which calibrates the level of review to the radius of impact based on
proximity to a historic resource.
Fort Collins’ historic resources component of Development Review
applies to many different kinds of properties, ranging from nationally
designated to potentially eligible resources (and the non-designated
properties that are near those resources). The purpose of the review,
per Section 3.4.7, is to protect the integrity and significance of both
on-site and off-site designated and eligible historic resources.
However, in our view it appears that the extension of the review to
eligible resources serves a dual purpose, which is to generally ensure
compatible infill while also specifically protecting the integrity and
significance of the eligible resource. The multiple objectives of this
review perhaps make it more challenging for applicants to understand
the process.
Generally, we believe that the further an infill project is from an
eligible resource, the less likely it is to impact the resource’s integrity and therefore the resource’s
potential for future designation. This follows a similar logic to the tiered level of review recommended
Recommendations: Review
of Eligible Resources
• Develop context-based
standards that are not
based on eligibility to
ensure compatibility in
certain areas of the city.
• Consider reviewing
impact on eligible
resources only if they are
on-site or abutting a
development project.
• Focus on survey work to
develop an inventory of
eligible historic resources.
1.1
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 71
above for limiting the geographic extent. We recommend tailoring the review of impacts to eligible
properties to only development that directly abuts an eligible property.
CAC: No difference in treatment of designated and eligible properties. Supports set radius,
regardless of height. More review criteria for abutting development. Discussed radius ranging
from abutting only to 500+ feet.
LPC: No difference in treatment of designated and eligible properties. Supports set radius,
regardless of height. More review criteria for abutting development. Support for 200-foot radius –
½ typical block.
To meet the broader purpose of promoting compatible infill development in areas with historic resources,
we recommend exploring other options that might take the place of the LPC review process, or
supplement it. For instance, context-based zoning standards that are based not on a nearby property’s
eligibility but rather on the area’s overall character may better serve this purpose. Linking the desire for
compatible development to determinations of eligibility requires staff time and resources to make case-
by-case determinations of eligibility (and area of adjacency) needed to evaluate each project. A more
efficient approach could be to adopt design guidelines or standards for certain areas of the city and
ensure that infill development meets those standards, regardless of nearby historic eligibility. There could
be general compatibility guidelines for these areas and supplementary standards for properties that abut
eligible resources or are nearby designated landmarks or districts.
CAC: Agrees. Building’s status does not change importance to community. Treating both equally
recognizes contribution to character, offers more predictability, simplifies review.
LPC: Agrees with Clarion and with CAC. Also develop standards & guidelines for different areas
in town based on areas’ character.
Protecting the integrity of eligible resources is an important goal of this process that is integral to the
purpose of the review overall. However, the process should be better tailored to focus on the impacts of
new development that can cause a nearby property to lose its eligibility. Preventing or mitigating those
impacts should determine the standards used in the process or the compatibility features that are
considered. Conversations with the State Historic Preservation Office may help assist in determining what
types of impacts would most harm a resource’s eligibility for designation.
In our opinion, nearby (but not abutting) development may impact the integrity of either the setting or
the feeling of an eligible resource, but is unlikely to impact location, design, materials, workmanship, or
association. (These italicized terms are from the National Park Service and are defined below.) It is also
unlikely that nearby development could eliminate an eligible property’s significance according to Section
14-5 of the Municipal Code.
1.1
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Applicability of Review | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 72
Abutting development is more likely to impact additional aspects of integrity as it may obscure materials
or important aspects of the historic resource’s design and has a higher probability of impacting the
general setting, feeling, or association of the resource. While infill development on properties that do not
abut historic resources may change the surrounding area, such development is unlikely to negatively
impact a resource’s integrity to the point where the resource cannot be designated. Therefore, we
recommend only considering the impact of new infill projects that directly abut eligible resources and not
reviewing properties that are nearby but not necessarily abutting.
1. Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event occurred.
2. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property.
3. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
4. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of
time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
5. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any
given period in history or prehistory.
6. Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
7. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property.
CAC: Disagrees. Retention of context important. Development can be different but should still be
good neighbor.
LPC: Disagrees. Would not promote context - Sense of Place. Development can be different but
should still be reviewed to ensure good neighbor.
In general, it should be a top priority of the city to establish a comprehensive inventory of eligible historic
resources. The case-by-case determination of what is “adjacent” (and then what is eligible in that area)
that is essential to the current process may be challenging to sustain based on the level of staff time and
resources required. The ambiguity of whether or not a property is “eligible” creates another level of
uncertainty behind the current Development Review process. Additional mapping, more comprehensive
survey work, and/or database updates may be necessary to clearly identify eligible properties and thus
provide applicants with upfront notice that they are near eligible resources prior to designing their
project.
While coordinating and managing a survey process would also take staff time and city resources, the work
done upfront to compile this in a holistic manner is sure to pay dividends in the time saved over case-by-
case determinations. Currently, the city is, in a sense, creating a piecemeal historic resources list through
1.1
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Clarity and Organization | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 73
both this process and the Demolition/Alteration Review process. Greater emphasis should be placed on
proactively studying and inventorying eligible historic resources rather than relying on these incremental
efforts. The time and resources spent determining adjacency and completing reviews of eligibility in
reaction to development proposals would be better spent towards compiling or updating an inventory of
eligible sites or designating eligible resources.
CAC: Agrees. Should be highest priority. This will not work unless surveys and contexts are
getting funding. Need City commitment of on-going funding.
LPC: Agrees. Foundation of all other work. Need funding, staff to manage.
Communities should use clear standards or guidelines that are organized in a user-friendly way for all
types of land use reviews. Since the LPC’s recommendation regarding Development Review is currently
advisory only Fort Collins, flexible guidelines may be more appropriate than strict standards. Guidelines
should be objective but leave room for creativity and flexibility.
Section 3.4.7 lists the standards for this review. The organization of the section is confusing (probably due
at least in part to multiple revisions made to this section over time), with the following general standards
for review scattered throughout subsection (B):
• “To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the
preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure.”
• “The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and
architectural value of any historic property that is [subject to this section.]”
• “New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property,
whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.”
Subsection (D) describes reuse, renovation, alterations, and additions. These standards are similar to
design review for landmarked properties. It appears that these standards would only apply to properties
with eligible resources (or state/national designated but not local) on site, but it is not clear. If a
designated resource was on-site, the LPC Design Review process would be required. Subsection (E)
describes the standards for demolition. It is not clear how this would serve a different purpose than the
Demolition/Alteration Review process.
Subsection (F) is related to New Construction and forms the standards for compatible infill. The
applicability of this section is confusing and the paragraphs are randomly organized. The subsections
1.1
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Clarity and Organization | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 74
should be titled. Also, the “building patterns” graphic should be updated or replaced to more clearly
reflect the standards.
The two peer cities that have the most similar types of processes offer two very different examples of
language and organization. Madison’s approach is simple and merely states that the Landmark
Commission shall review each project “to determine whether the proposed development is so large or
visually intrusive as to adversely affect the historic character and integrity of the adjoining landmark.”
Santa Barbara uses 11 guidelines for the review of infill projects (listed earlier in this report) that cover
architectural style, setbacks, parking, entrances, height, scale, floor-to-ceiling heights, architectural
features, window patterns, and materials. The guidelines for each of these topics are fairly general, and
seek “sensitive,” “compatible,” and “similar” features. Because the guidelines are applicable to all areas of
the city, they do not precisely identify the features necessary to be compatible, as they would be able to
do in a fairly cohesive area.46
Several other cities we studied provide other examples of criteria to determine compatibility. We included
an excerpt of the Gainesville’s criteria for visual compatibility in the Topic B Report. These types of
compatibility standards could be extrapolated to serve as standards for the review of compatible infill on
properties that are not designated.
There are several improvements that could be made to the ordinance
language that establishes the Development Review process. The
standards in Section 3.4.7 are poorly worded and so their applicability
is unclear. The “general standard” in subsection (B) appears to be a
mix of a purpose statement, criteria, and statements of applicability.
Rather than implying applicability through the purpose statement
and the “general standard,” we recommend that the city draft a new a
new, clearer statement of applicability clearly for all of Section 3.4.7. It should include the city’s preferred
approach to the “adjacency” issue, as discussed above and should integrate the Historic Resource
Compatibility Analysis as the primary standard for approval. This section needs to be redrafted to improve
clarity. The provisions should be reevaluated in light of the earlier recommendations in this report and
should be more clearly tied to the protection of integrity and significance that is stated to be the purpose
of this review.
46 Madison 28.144; Santa Barbara Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.2.3
and Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures, Section 1.4.3
Recommendations
• Redraft Section 3.4.7 for
clarity and to improve
organization, clarifying the
purpose, applicability, and
standards of the process.
1.1
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Clarity and Organization | Research Topics
Topic A: Landmark Designation | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 75
Similar to the previous sections of this report, we propose organizational improvements to Section 3.4.7
of the Land Use Code to complement the substantive recommendations that are the principal focus of
this report. Overall, the information in Section 3.4.7 is not well organized and we believe it would likely be
confusing to new code users who are not familiar with the Fort Collins system. The applicability of the
provisions is particularly difficult to discern. Importantly, this challenging organization contributes to a
sense of general ambiguity about the purpose and extent of the process.
When redrafting this section, discrete blocks of information should all be given clear headings and
subheadings. Multi-level lists should be used to help break apart dense blocks of text, rather than burying
important information in lengthy paragraphs. In general, the section should more clearly identify and
distinguish purpose, applicability, process, and standards. Additional graphics would also be useful (e.g., in
describing what qualifies as “adjacent,” or to display examples of compatible development alongside the
standards).
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees.
1.1
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 76
1.1
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Introduction | Background
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 77
This section of the report includes a review of the City of Fort Collins’ codes and processes related to
“Demolition/Alteration Review” and other related topics. The documents reviewed for this report include
Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, particularly Articles I and IV. This section summarizes the
Demolition/Alteration review process and its effectiveness in protecting eligible historic resources from
demolition and major alterations, discusses several main topics associated with demolition, highlights
relevant approaches used throughout the country, and provides conclusions and recommendations for
improvements in Fort Collins.
As we have recommended in each report, we believe that the organization of Article IV could be
improved. In particular, Section 14-72, which describes the procedure for determining which type of
review applies, is structured in a confusing and overly complex way and could be simplified.
1.1
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 78
There are properties in most communities that are informally recognized as significant, perhaps because
of age or unique architecture, yet have not been formally designated as “historic” or worthy of regulatory
protection. Inevitably, some of these properties become candidates for demolition. When this occurs,
many communities, including Fort Collins, require special review prior to their demolition. Sometimes this
review also extends to proposed major alterations that would substantially change the structure’s physical
integrity, such as removal of a significant portion of the building.
Having this type of review process in place helps ensure that potentially significant properties are not
demolished or substantially modified before they may be considered for formal regulatory protection
through landmark designation. In many communities, this process involves delaying the release of a
demolition or other permit while the review takes place, in order to allow exploration of other
opportunities to preserve the structure. Communities with these programs typically set parameters to
identify the types of demolition permits that will be reviewed (e.g., permits for all properties listed on a
potential resource inventory, or permits for all properties over a certain age).
The Fort Collins Demolition/Alteration review process is triggered upon submission of a permit
application for any property that is 50 years of age or older within the city limits and has not been
designated historic (the Design Review process covered in Report B would be used for demolition and
exterior alteration requests for listed properties). When possible, applicants are encouraged by city staff to
submit demolition/alteration review applications prior to submitting permit applications in order to create
a more predictable and efficient
process and timeline. The review
involves both the demolition and
alteration of structures.
The first step in the review process is
for the Director of CDNS and the LPC
Chair to determine whether the
proposed work is considered a major or
minor alteration. The city’s website
describes this as a “historic review”
(although that term is not actually used
in the ordinance). If the scope only
includes minor alterations, no
additional historic review is necessary. If
1.1
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 79
the work is considered a major alteration (a category of determination which includes partial or total
demolition), the structure is then evaluated for its eligibility for individual designation as a local landmark
to determine whether a final review by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) is necessary. The LPC
must review and approve the alteration or demolition, following a public hearing, if the structure is found
to meet at least one of the standards of eligibility for designation. Alternatively, an applicant may consent
to review by the Design Review Subcommittee of the LPC. If the work is approved by the subcommittee
based on the proposed work’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation,
the applicant is not required to take the review to a public hearing at the LPC.
The following definitions in Section 14-1 are integral to the process:
Alteration shall mean any act or process, including relocation, which changes one (1) or
more of the physical characteristics of a designated site, structure, object, or district or a
site, structure, object or district eligible for designation.
Major alteration shall mean work that has the potential to substantially affect
more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity.
Minor alteration shall mean work that has the potential to substantially affect no
more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity.
Demolition shall mean any act or process that destroys in its entirety an eligible or
designated site, structure or object, or a site, structure or object within an eligible or
designated district.
“Integrity” is not defined in the definitions section of the ordinance. However, Section 14-5, which
describes the standards for determining eligibility, explains that exterior integrity is based on a
property’s retention of the seven aspects or qualities established by the National Park Service:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (the individual
definitions of these terms are listed in the Topic C report).
Other than partial or full demolition of a structure, major alterations typically include large additions, front
porch additions or remodels, or façade fenestration changes. Rear additions that are not visible from the
public right-of-way are typically determined to be a major alteration based on their size, massing, bulk,
and structural relationship to the original building. Changes that are automatically considered minor
include changes to decks and patios, rear enclosed porches, changes in window openings, and similar
alterations. The city also authorizes administrative staff to approve minor changes such as reroofing
permits, mechanical equipment, and egress windows without undergoing any level of review by historic
preservation staff. Other alterations such as changes to decks and patios, enclosing rear porches, and
changes in fenestration (dependent on location) can be approved by historic preservation staff without a
demolition/alteration review meeting. These automatic approvals are based on staff discretion and any of
these that are borderline cases can be referred for an official determination if needed.
In the last five years, city staff has processed an average of 618 Demolition/Alteration requests of
buildings 50 years and older per year. Almost all of these were reviewed administratively because they
1.1
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 80
involved either minor alterations or the building was not eligible for individual designation. Each year, an
average of just five major alterations or demolitions proceeded to the Landmark Preservation
Commission, where they are typically approved on the consent agenda as long as the application
materials are complete.
There are no standards enumerated in the code for a LPC decision on the Demolition/Alteration
application. The commission has the option to approve, to approve with conditions, or to postpone
consideration of the application for up for 45 days. Although not described in the ordinance, staff notes
that the current ordinance essentially presumes that approval will be granted if the correct application
materials are submitted, unless the LPC adopts a motion and findings as to why it should instead proceed
to Council. Staff also adds that the presumption is that an application would proceed to Council only if
the LPC or members of the public felt it should be considered for non-consensual designation. The
findings that the LPC should base this decision upon are not codified. This absence of standards implies
(whether intentionally or not) that the LPC is only deciding upon what types of mitigating documentation
or conditions should be added or whether to forward the application on to Council for consideration as a
nonconsensual designation. The intent of this review could be better clarified. If the application is
ultimately approved, the application can move forward through the typical city permitting processes. If
denied, the applicant has the option to appeal the decision to the City Council.
As noted, an applicant may have their application reviewed by the Design Review Subcommittee. If a
resolution is met with the subcommittee, the process ends and the applicant is not required to appear
before the LPC in a public hearing. The Design Review Subcommittee was first established in 2011, and
the ability for the subcommittee to review these applications was added in 2014 in order to shorten
review times. City staff has not tracked how many applications have been reviewed by the Design Review
Subcommittee instead of the LPC. In contrast to the full LPC process, which does not have listed criteria,
the ordinance lists the following criteria to guide the subcommittee’s review of the application:
(a) The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the
landmark or landmark district;
(b) The architectural style, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed
improvements, and their relation to the landmark or the sites, structures and objects in the
district;
(c) The effects of the proposed work in creating, changing, obscuring or destroying the exterior
characteristics of the site, structure or object upon which such work is to be done;
(d) The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the
landmark or landmark district; and
(e) The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States
Secretary of the Interior for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of
historic resources.
1.1
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 81
Several peer cities we studied have similar processes to Fort Collins’ Demolition/Alteration review. These
types of reviews are almost always decided by the city’s preservation commission. While it is most
common for cities to limit demolition review to locally designated landmarks or properties within local
historic districts, several cities extend this review to structures that are of a certain age and are potentially
eligible for designation. Additionally, some cities review proposed demolitions of national- or state-
designated landmarks. This extends regulatory protection to nationally or state designated properties that
may not have also been locally designated.
In addition to reviewing the demolition of locally designated properties, the peer cities below have
demolition review processes for the following types of properties:47
• Boulder: Structures over 50 years
• Cambridge: Structures over 50 years
• Denton: Structures on the National Register
• Eugene: Structures on the National Register
• Gainesville: Structures over 45 years; Structures on the state inventory
• Santa Barbara: Structures over 50 years in mapped area; Structures on the Potential Historic
Resource List
• Syracuse: Structures on the National Register; Structures on the city inventory
Most cities we studied review only proposed demolitions, not every alteration of these resources.
However, in some cities the definition of demolition includes major alterations that remove a significant
amount of historic fabric. Santa Barbara, for example, considers the removal of significant components or
character-defining elements to be “demolition” (as excerpted below.)
22.22.020 - Definitions.
K. "DEMOLITION." The permanent removal from a structure of either a significant component or a character
defining element, as may be determined by the Historic Landmarks Commission or where appropriate, by the
Community Development Director. Demolition shall include, but not be limited to, the act of pulling down,
destroying, removing, relocating or razing a structure or commencing the work thereof with the intent of
completing the same.
Of the peer cities we studied, Boulder has the most specific definition of “demolition” and incorporates
helpful graphics to demonstrate how alterations may meet the definition of “demolition” without
removing the entire structure:
47 Boulder 9-11-23; Cambridge 2.78.090; Denton 35-221; Eugene 9.0-19; Gainesville 6-19; Santa Barbara 22.22.035; Syracuse VII-8
1.1
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 82
9-16-1 – General Definitions
Demolition or demolish means an act or process which removes one or more of the following. The shaded area
illustrates the maximum amount that may be removed without constituting demolition.
(1) Fifty percent or more of the roof area as measured in plan view (see diagram);
(2) Fifty percent or more of the exterior walls of a building as measured contiguously around the "building
coverage" as defined in this section (see diagram); or
(3) Any exterior wall facing a public street, but not an act or process which removes an exterior wall facing an
alley (see diagram).
A wall shall meet the following minimum standards to be considered a retained exterior wall
(A) The wall shall retain studs or other structural elements, the exterior wall finish and the fully framed and
sheathed roof above that portion of the remaining building to which such wall is attached;
(B) The wall shall not be covered or otherwise concealed by a wall that is proposed to be placed in front of
the retained wall; and
(C) Each part of the retained exterior walls shall be connected contiguously and without interruption to every
other part of the retained exterior walls.
It is common for cities to implement a stay or delay of the release of an approval of a permit in these
types of demolition reviews. This is often used to allow for time to find alternatives to demolition and to
provide additional public notice of the proposed demolition. This delay time may allow for the
designation of the property, or to search for willing purchasers of the building, or to allow the city and
property owner to negotiate solutions for the preservation of the structure. In the peer cities we
1.1
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 83
researched, these delays range from 40 days in Denton to six months in Cambridge. If no alternatives are
found within the delay time, the demolition permit is then released.48
In some cities, the preservation commission is required to concurrently initiate a designation of the
property if they deny a demolition request. In Santa Barbara (shown below), the commission is required to
designate a structure that is denied demolition as a Structure of Merit or initiate the designation of the
structure as a landmark. For partial demolitions of properties that are not currently on the city’s potential
historic resource list but are determined eligible during a demolition review, the commission is required to
place the property on the potential historic resource list.
22.22.037 Demolition of a Listed Historic Structure.
B. AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE DEMOLITION OF A POTENTIAL CITY HISTORIC RESOURCE.
The Commission may appropriately condition the demolition or partial demolition of a structure, site, or natural
feature listed on the Potential Historic Resources List as necessary to mitigate the potential loss of Historic
Resources resulting from the demolition or partial demolition. However, the Commission may not deny an
application to partially or completely demolish a listed structure, natural feature, or site unless the Commission
undertakes one of the following actions:
1. initiates and completes the designation of the structure, natural feature, or site as a City Structure of Merit, or
2. the Commission adopts a resolution of intention recommending the designation of the structure, site, or
feature as a City Landmark to the City Council pursuant to the Landmark designation processes and notice
requirements established by this Chapter.
Many cities allow exceptions to demolition review if the applicant demonstrates “economic hardship.” In
other words, the demolition may be allowed if the applicant is able to prove that the structure is not
economically viable and the costs of rehabilitation or reuse are unreasonable.
Determining whether all potential economic options have been considered can involve a complex
determination based on extensive background data. Communities with economic hardship provisions
typically identify a list of economic data to support any claim of hardship, and place the burden of proof
on the applicant to prove a hardship exists. Because preservation commissioners may not be equipped to
evaluate these claims of economic hardship, many communities bring in outside experts to help in the
determination.
For example, in Salt Lake City (not one of the peer cities reviewed in these reports), the landmark
commission establishes a three-person economic review panel composed of real estate and
redevelopment experts to evaluate claims of economic hardship. The commission and the applicant
respectively choose one of the panel members and they must agree upon the third member. The panel
evaluates the application in an open meeting and may convene a public hearing to receive additional
testimony. Standards used to make the determination are related to the applicant’s knowledge of the
48 Denton 35-221; Cambridge 2.78.090
1.1
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 84
property’s historic designation, the property’s level of economic return and marketability, the feasibility of
alternative uses, and the availability of economic incentives.49
Other cities, such as Gainesville, rely on their preservation board to determine economic hardship, but
clearly list the detailed materials required of the applicant, as shown below:
Sec. 6-19. - Waiting period for certain demolition permits.
(d) At the next regularly scheduled meeting not less than ten days after the referral is received, the historic
preservation board may waive the demolition delay if the applicant can demonstrate economic hardship, with
consideration given to the economic impact of the delay on the applicant and the reasonableness of the applicant
carrying out the decision of the board.
(1) In the event that economic hardship due to the effect of this section is claimed by an owner, the historic
preservation board may require from the property owner any or all of the following information before it makes
a decision on the application, as long as such information is relevant for the historic preservation board to
decide whether an economic hardship exists:
a. A report from a licensed engineer, contractor or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural
soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation;
b. The estimated market value of the property in its current condition, after completion of the proposed
demolition, and after redevelopment of the existing property for continued use;
c. An estimate from an architect, licensed contractor, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate
professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the
existing structure on the property;
d. The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased, including a
description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom
the property was purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer.
(2) If the property is income-producing, the historic preservation board may also require:
a. The annual gross income from the property for the previous two years, itemized operating and maintenance
expenses for the previous two years, and depreciation deductions and annual cash flow before and after debt
service, if any, during the same period;
b. The remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service,
if any, for the previous two years;
c. All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the
purchase, financing or ownership of the property;
d. Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two
years;
e. The assessed value of the property according to the two most recent assessments;
f. The real estate taxes for the previous two years;
g. The form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for profit or not-for-profit
corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other;
h. Any other information considered necessary by the preservation board to a determination as to whether the
property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners.
(e) After invoking a demolition delay, the historic preservation planner shall post the subject property with a sign
notifying the public of the owner's intent to demolish the structure in order to allow interested parties to come
forward and move the structure upon consent of the owner.
49 Salt Lake City 21A.34.020(K)
1.1
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 85
Although economic hardship considerations are typically considered in the context of historic building
demolition in most cities, they could also in theory be applied to other processes. For example, economic
hardship could be considered in the larger Fort Collins development review process, set forth in Section
3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, which requires applicants to retain and adaptively reuse eligible buildings on
the development site “to the maximum extent feasible.”
Some cities give their preservation commission the discretion to deny a demolition or alteration proposal
for the community’s most important historic properties, as opposed to merely delaying such projects.
Denials are appealable to the city council. Most of the peer cities have the authority to deny requests to
demolish landmarked properties, but only authorize the delay of the demolition of potential resources.
Only Santa Barbara and Syracuse expressly authorize their commission to deny demolition of potential
resources. But as noted above, these denials must happen concurrently with a designation. Adding the
authority to explicitly deny demolition/alteration of eligible properties (rather than de facto deny through
nonconsensual designation) would likely be considered a policy change in Fort Collins and thus is beyond
the scope of immediate recommended changes.50
Fort Collins’ Demolition/Review process is comparable to many of
the cities that we studied. Several aspects are noteworthy:
First, the option in Fort Collins for an application to be reviewed by
the Design Review Subcommittee rather than the LPC is a good
practice that offers the potential to shorten review times and provide
helpful feedback, and we recommend maintaining this option.
However, there are a few improvements to the subcommittee review
process that could be implemented. Fist, the subcommittee’s role
and the reasoning behind some projects being considered by the
subcommittee rather than the LPC should be better explained in the
code (Section 14-72(b) and (d)). It may be helpful to set parameters
for precisely which types of applications may be considered by the
subcommittee, rather than leaving it up to the applicant’s discretion.
Also, it would be helpful to track the number and type of projects
reviewed by the subcommittee. This information could be reviewed
at regular intervals in the future and could lead to suggestions for improvements or updates to code
standards.
50 Santa Barbara 22.22.035; Syracuse VII-8
Recommendations
• Clarify the role of the Design
Review Subcommittee.
• Consider using a decision
matrix to more clearly
differentiate between minor
and major alterations.
• Reevaluate criteria for
approval and potentially add
an economic hardship
determination.
• Consider increasing the
amount of time that the LPC
can delay a decision in order
to find alternatives to
demolition.
1.1
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 86
CAC: Agrees. LPC members participating in DRS should still be able to participate in later LPC
hearings on item, like DDA does.
LPC: Agrees. LPC members participating in DRS should be able to participate in later hearings on
item. DRS should be utilized more, offered as alternative to conceptual design review of changes
to landmarks and for preliminary reviews of new development.
The availability of an administrative review process is a good practice. However, similar to our
recommendation in the Topic B section of the report related to Design Review, we suggest that the
difference between minor and major alterations be better explained in the code. The current definitions
rely on impacts to integrity and require case-by-case review of each modification to determine the
appropriate process. The same or a similar matrix as we recommended for Design Review could be used
to determine the scope of the alteration. This would increase predictability for applicants and improve the
efficiency of processing Demolition/Alteration Review applications, since the individual determination of
whether an alteration is minor or major can unnecessarily consume significant staff time. Since Fort Collins
applies Demolition/Alteration review to all structures that are 50 years or older and Fort Collins
experienced significant growth in the late 1960s and 1970s, making this process administratively efficient
will be imperative in the coming decade as more properties reach the age where they are potentially
significant. It is worth noting that some cities around the country have set a specific date of construction
as the benchmark for whether a review is required (for instance, only buildings built before 1970 are
reviewed, rather than any buildings over 50 years of age); that date can be sunsetted, which allows for
periodic adjustments. In addition, other cities determine a geographic area within which the review’s
applicability is limited.
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees.
The approval criteria for LPC decisions in the demolition process should also be reviewed and updated to
provide more certainty and consistency. Although it is relatively rare for a Demolition/Alteration review
application to require LPC approval, it is critical that objective standards be established upon which the
LPC can base its decisions. The ordinance does not clearly explain the LPC’s options or the standards they
should use in reviewing a demolition/alteration application. While staff notes that the LPC is only
reviewing applications to determine potential mitigating conditions of approval or to forward the
application to Council to consider a nonconsensual designation, the ordinance does not currently
accurately describe this intent or the limitations of the LPC’s review. In addition, there could be greater
consistency in the criteria used by the subcommittee and the LPC. The current “considerations” used by
the subcommittee are not mandatory standards to be met–only factors for the subcommittee to
“consider” that could be evaluated along a wide spectrum of acceptability.
1.1
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
A. Demolition/Alteration Review Process | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 87
We also recommend considering the inclusion of an economic hardship determination. Such a process
could offer an extra type of relief valve in unusual situations where applicants feel the regulations unduly
limit their options for their property. Whether the LPC or a separate panel is used to make these
determinations, the materials required of the applicant and the standards used to determine economic
hardship must be made clear. The burden of proof in claiming economic hardship should be placed on
the applicant.
CAC: Disagrees with Clarion. Does not support adding economic hardship as a criterion. Very
difficult, adds complexity. Potentially unfair; different results between savvy investors with large
portfolios, lawyers and accountants, vs Mom and Pop owners. Support developing intermediate
options for LPC between must approve or non-consensual landmark designation.
LPC: Disagrees with Clarion. Does not support adding economic hardship as a criterion. Noted
that this is Council policy, affects all city codes. Agrees with developing intermediate options
between two extremes.
The LPC’s authorization to postpone a decision on a demolition/alteration application by up to 45 days is
on the shorter end of time periods of the cities we studied that allow for a delayed decision. However,
when coupled with the 180-day interim control period (should a property be ultimately considered for
designation by the City Council), the time limitations are similar to other cities we studied. Fort Collins
may want to consider whether the 45-day continuation period for the demolition/alteration review
process allows for enough time to seek other options for a property that would not be forwarded to the
Council for potential designation (for example, exploring the potential for material salvage, moving the
building finding a new owner, or incentives to encourage adaptive reuse). It would also be useful to
develop a variety of tools (financial incentives or otherwise) that could help the LPC in negotiating
outcomes that can preserve more of a property’s history.
CAC: Agrees. Concern that easy to miss deadline, such as by a meeting cancelled for weather or
lack of quorum. Make sure timing is adequate.
LPC: Agrees. Staff needs to address as part of review of overall timing.
1.1
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 88
Many cities maintain inventories of properties that have been determined to be eligible for designation,
either through a survey or other means, but have not yet been formally designated. Such lists are
important in the context of demolition review: If a property that may be demolished is not designated, the
first step is typically to evaluate its eligibility for designation, and that step is quicker and more efficient if
a list of eligible resources already exists.
It is important that cities proactively evaluate structures for potential historic significance even beyond
case-by-case demolition reviews. These proactive evaluations could happen during citywide or area
surveys, as discussed in the Topic A report. While a survey is just a first step toward affording a structure
or district protection under an ordinance and provides no formal protection on its own, it does offer early
notice to property owners that demolition review may be required. Providing early notice to a property
owner helps ensure that preservation principles are considered early in the planning for a development
project. In contrast, waiting to determine eligibility once an application has already been submitted means
that preservation may take a back seat to other development goals. It also may add controversy and
politicize the historic evaluation.
The City of Fort Collins identifies eligible historic resources through survey work, during the course of the
Demolition/Alteration Review process, and during the Development Review process. Historic surveys can
identify properties that are potentially eligible and can either recommend a property for further research,
or determine that the property is eligible for designation based on the survey research. Property owners
can also simply apply for a determination of their property’s eligibility outside of any process. In Fort
Collins, a determination of eligibility is valid for five years. Prior to 2014, determinations of eligibility were
only valid for one year – the period of validity was increased as part of an overhaul of the preservation
ordinance intended to improve historic review processes.
Knowing whether a property is eligible for individual designation determines what types of historic review
processes are required. Determinations of eligibility essentially have created an additional class of
protected properties in Fort Collins. Applications involving eligible properties must go through the
Demolition/Alteration process described above, and all new construction is reviewed for compatibility
with and preservation of eligible properties through the Development Review process.
Fort Collins’ identification of separate levels of eligibility is somewhat unique. Only properties that are
individually eligible for designation are subject to the Demolition/Alteration review process; properties
that are only eligible as a contributing property within a potential historic district are not subject to the
Demolition/Alteration review process. This distinction was added into the code in 2002. Of the peer cities
1.1
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 89
reviewed in this report, Gainesville is the only similar city in which levels of eligibility impact the
applicability of different processes; the city’s demolition by neglect rules apply only to landmarks or those
contributing to a district, not to noncontributing properties.51
Fort Collins, like many cities, uses historic surveys to identify potentially eligible historic resources.
However, according to city staff, Fort Collins has surveyed fewer than 2,500 of the estimated 19,000 older
buildings in the city. The majority of these surveys were completed in the 1980s and 1990s. The city’s
most recent survey work was completed in 2017 and focused on the Loomis Addition near downtown.
Over 250 properties were surveyed and 121 were identified as qualifying as local landmarks. Other surveys
completed in the past have focused on particular historic or architectural themes, including agricultural
buildings in the urban growth area, the old fort site, postwar development, Quonset huts, schools, and the
sugar factory neighborhoods. Most of these surveys were undertaken at a “reconnaissance level,”
meaning they are high level and merely recommend some properties for further study, rather than going
into detail and identifying eligibility for particular buildings.
The city is moving towards compiling their previous determinations of eligibility and making that
information available to the public. For instance, the city has been tracking the results of decisions made
on Demolition/Alteration Review applications and posting these on their website since 2016. We also
understand from city staff that there is an internal spreadsheet that is used to track the determinations
that have been made. This work could help supplement the determinations of eligibility that have been
made during historic surveys. Additionally, we understand that in early 2018 a GIS map of recent
determinations of eligibility made through both survey work and the official determinations will be
available to the public. The public will be able to see those properties, as well as designated local
landmarks and properties listed on the state and national registers, via the city’s online GIS portal, “FC
Maps.”52
In many other cities, determining eligibility is merely a portion of the overall demolition review and does
not establish an independent level of protection for the property that applies in other reviews, as it does
in Fort Collins. For example, in both Boulder and Gainesville, structures are evaluated for their eligibility
during the demolition review process. In Cambridge, buildings are determined to be “preferably preserved
significant buildings” during the review of a demolition of any property over 50 years of age. None of the
other cities we studied have an expiration of these determinations of eligibility like Fort Collins’s five-year
period of validity.53
Some cities complete inventories or lists of properties that have been determined to be eligible for
designation. These cities have the support of detailed survey work that assists in creating the inventories.
For example, Gainesville uses an inventory created by the State of Florida, and Syracuse relies on a past
citywide inventory. Santa Barbara maintains a Potential Historic Resource List and explains the process of
51 Gainesville 30-112
52 https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/review-list.php
53 Boulder 9-11-23; Gainesville 6-19; Cambridge 2.78.090
1.1
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 90
creating this list in great detail in their code. 54 Properties must either be identified by a survey or by a
commission member and a public hearing is held to put them on the list. If a survey identifies a property
as eligible for designation, that property must be put on the potential historic resource list within a year or
it is deemed to be ineligible.55
22.22.030 - The Preparation and Use of Historic Resource Surveys; Identification of Potential Historic
Resources for Possible Designation as a City Landmark or a Structure of Merit.
A. POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCES LIST. The Historic Landmarks Commission, acting with the administrative
support of Community Development Department staff, shall periodically review, amend, and maintain a
master list of potential Historic Resources within the City.
D. LISTING OF STRUCTURES, SITES, AND NATURAL FEATURES ON THE CITY'S POTENTIAL HISTORIC
RESOURCES LIST.
1. Use of Survey Identifications. Those structures, real property sites, or natural features identified through
the survey process established by Subsection (B) hereof as having potential for designation as a City
Historic Resource shall be considered and acted upon by the Commission for official listing on the City’s
Potential Historic Resources List at a noticed hearing conducted in accordance with subsection (E) below
held not more than one year after the identification of the structure, real property site, or feature through
the completion of the Survey process for that area of the City. Pending a hearing on possible listing
initiated pursuant to this subsection (D), the Community Development staff may arrange for the
preparation of an expert Historic Structure/Site Report regarding the possible Historic Resource
significance of the structure, site, or feature. Such report shall be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the MEA Historic Resources Guidelines. The failure of the Commission to list an identified
structure, site or feature within the one year time frame required by this subsection shall constitute a
determination by the Commission that the structure, site, or feature is not appropriate for listing on the
City’s Potential Historic Resources List, unless a delay beyond one year is at the specific written request of
the owner of the real property being considered for listing.
2. Commissioner Historic Resource Identification Requests. Those structures, real property sites, or natural
features identified as a result of a Commissioner request as having a potential for designation as City
Historic Resources pursuant to Subsection (C) above shall be considered and acted upon by the
Commission for listing on the Potential Historic Resources List at a noticed hearing conducted in
accordance with subsection (E) below held not more than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date
of the filing with the Community Development Director of the written request by a Commissioner
pursuant to subsection (C) hereof. Pending a hearing on a possible listing initiated pursuant to this
subsection, the Community Development staff may request the preparation of a report prepared by the
City’s Urban Historian regarding the possible Historic Resource significance of the site, structure, or
feature.
Although Denver is not one of the peer cities studied for this report, it is also helpful to study the City and
County of Denver’s “Certificate of Non-Historic Status” process. Property owners in Denver who want
increased certainty about their property may apply for this certificate prior to submitting a demolition
application. City staff then reviews the property for potential eligibility for local designation. If the
property is deemed not to be eligible, a Certificate of Non-Historic Status is issued, which remains in
effect for five years. In this time, the property owner may submit a demolition application without
54 The Santa Barbara Potential Historic Resources List is available online at this link.
55 Gainesville 6-19; Syracuse VII-8; Santa Barbara 22.22.030
1.1
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
B. Determinations of Eligibility | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 91
requiring further preservation review. Additionally, no designation application for the property may be
processed during this time.56
Unlike several of the peer cities we studied, a determination of
eligibility in Fort Collins creates a certain level of protection for
properties because it spurs Demolition/Alteration review if demolition
or a major alteration is proposed. It also triggers additional
compatibility and preservation review during the Development
Review process, as discussed in the Topic C section of this report (in
Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code).
Because the determination of eligibility has such significance in Fort
Collins processes, we believe these determinations should be
recorded in an inventory or list that is available to residents and
property owners. This would greatly improve the predictability of the
processes that then apply to these properties. This inventory can
build upon the work that the city has already begun in compiling all past determinations of eligibility. The
inventory will also need to be supported by additional surveys of the city. The city should place greater
emphasis and focus on surveying properties that have not yet been surveyed and creating this list. It will
be important to complete additional intensive-level survey work of the older buildings in Fort Collins to
help proactively determine the eligibility of these properties. The city is already on the path to achieving
this with the previously mentioned GIS map that will be available early in 2018.
To formalize this updated inventory, Fort Collins could take the approach that Santa Barbara takes and
require a public hearing. This would involve adopting all current determinations of eligibility at once at a
hearing, which would be thoroughly noticed and provide property owners an opportunity to comment
before the inventory is adopted. Ideally, most of the inventory could be created at one time, and it would
conceivably be a relatively rare occurrence to add more properties to the inventory. Future additions to
the inventory would then require additional hearings. The hearing would provide greater opportunities for
public input in creating the inventory. Another option would be for staff to add properties to the
inventory and allow property owners to appeal their listing to the LPC. This may be easier from an
administrative perspective. Like Santa Barbara, a time limit should also be established in which a property
identified as eligible for designation in a survey must be placed on the inventory.
CAC: Strongly agrees. Notes that each of Clarion’s reports states need for far more survey.
LPC: Strongly agrees. Would greatly benefit predictability; aid developers and property owners.
56 Denver 30-6
Recommendations
• Focus on completing survey
work to proactively identify
eligible resources.
• Create an inventory of
eligible historic resources.
• Reconsider the five-year
period of validity. Consider a
process for property owners
to obtain a certificate of
ineligibility with a five year
limit on validity.
1.1
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 92
We also recommend reconsidering the five-year period of validity for determinations of eligibility. There
are benefits and downsides to establishing time limits on determinations of eligibility. The main benefit of
having a time limit on the listing of eligible properties on an inventory is that it would require the city to
continuously update their surveys or risk that eligible properties would lose the protection that eligibility
currently provides. However, this may be unrealistic administratively for some cities and therefore would
provide little value. But, it is also important to have some expiration for declarations of non-historic
eligibility, as properties may gain historic significance over time.
A slightly different, alternative approach might be to develop an inventory of eligible resources that would
provide greater predictability. All properties that have been determined eligible for designation at any
time could be listed on such an inventory. There would be no set expiration period for the eligibility
determination. If a property is not listed on the inventory (or the owner contests its eligibility), property
owners could apply for something similar to Denver’s Certificate of Non-Historic Status to ensure that
their property is not put on the inventory for five years and therefore is not subject to
Demolition/Alteration review. Like Denver’s certificate, this could also ensure that designation
proceedings for the property could not be initiated within this time limit. This would give owners of
property that have not been included in the inventory of eligible resources assurance that they would not
be subject to preservation requirements for at least five years.
CAC: Clarify. Clarion appears to say that all buildings are eligible until determined not to be. Not
sure how this would help. Request more information.
LPC: Currently no presumption of a building’s eligibility. More information needed to understand
why Clarion recommends this change.
Clarion Response: Clarion has modified the language in the above paragraph to try and provide
greater clarity on the recommended alternative. However, on further reflection, we also think the
city’s current approach is sufficient.
Many communities have adopted regulations to protect historic properties from being effectively
demolished by incremental neglect. A wide variety of approaches are taken throughout the country. For
example, a common approach is to permit a specified local agency to take necessary steps to secure a
derelict historical resource against vandalism. Often the local government and its preservation agency
have the power to make repairs and bill the owner when historic properties fall into disrepair. In some
cities, the local preservation commission even has the power to initiate or recommend condemnation
proceedings where demolition by neglect is occurring, allowing the local government to assume
ownership of and begin repairs on neglected properties.
Beyond being more specific as to affirmative maintenance obligations, the preservation ordinance should
also include enforcement procedures that identify authorized personnel who can investigate and report
1.1
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 93
neglected properties to the Commission, the process/timing for issuing notices of violation, and city
authority to correct conditions of neglect and to recoup expenses if the property owner fails to act within
a specified timeframe. Generally, a preservation ordinance will only be as effective as the power and
willingness of the community to enforce it. Ignoring the details of enforcement in a preservation
ordinance may have unfortunate consequences. Enforcement provisions should include remedies for
noncompliance, maintenance and upkeep requirements, and details of how the ordinance should be
administered.
In Fort Collins, regulations preventing demolition by neglect are limited to designated resources. Section
14-53 of the preservation ordinance sets forth minimum maintenance standards that apply to owners of
designated landmarks and all sites, structures, and objects within designated landmark districts. The
minimum standards consist of the International Property Maintenance Code requirements (citywide
standards, not focused specifically on preservation), as well as requirements to keep exterior structural
elements in good condition and free from deterioration and decay. Any violation of the preservation
ordinance is subject to the city’s general penalties and surcharges for misdemeanor offenses and civil
infractions.
The ordinance also allows the LPC to request that the Director require correction of any defects and
repairs to any designated properties. However, staff notes that the building official has limited ability to
require repairs if the building is adequately secured.
The most typical approach to prevent demolition by neglect is to adopt minimum affirmative
maintenance provisions that require property owners to keep buildings in good condition. Such
requirements identify measures that property owners must take to maintain the physical integrity of the
building and keep it from falling into serious disrepair. Almost every city we studied has similar
regulations requiring maintenance of properties to prevent demolition by neglect. Usually, this
requirement in the preservation ordinance is limited to formally designated properties, like in Fort Collins.
However, Santa Barbara requires maintenance provisions for both landmarks and structures of merit.
Gainesville requires upkeep of both locally designated properties and properties that are contributing to a
local or national historic district.57
All cities have general maintenance requirements not specific to preservation that are incorporated in
their general building code regulations. As an example, Boise is specific about what types of repairs are
required (excerpted below):
57 Santa Barbara 22.22.070; Gainesville 30-112
1.1
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 94
11-05-09(14): MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR REQUIRED; DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT
A. Any property located within an historic district, historic district – residential or designated as a landmark shall be
preserved by the owner, or such other person or persons as may have the legal custody or control thereof,
against decay and deterioration and free from unreasonable structural defects. The owner or other person having
legal custody and control thereof shall repair such resource if it is found to have one or more of the following
defects, or other defects that in the judgment of the Commission has a detrimental effect on the historical
characteristics of the property or district.
(1) The deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports;
(2) The deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members;
(3) The deterioration of exterior chimneys;
(4) The deterioration or removal of exterior finishes or fenestration;
(5) The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations including broken windows or doors; and
(6) The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition
or conditions.
Some cities, such as Boise, Denton, and Madison, have created hearing processes for determining whether
demolition by neglect is occurring. This establishes processes whereby an owner must complete repairs by
a certain time and if not, enforcement action is taken. In addition, many of the cities we studied specify
that the preservation planning department or the preservation commission must be notified by the
building official when violations are cited or orders are given on landmarked properties.58
Of the cities we studied, Madison has the strictest enforcement provisions for cases of demolition by
neglect. If a court determines that demolition by neglect is occurring (using an initial LPC decision as
evidence), all fines for violations of the ordinance are tripled. The ordinance is excerpted below (with
emphasis added):
41.14 MAINTENENCE OBLIGATION; ENFORCEMENT; PENALTIES.
(1) Maintenance Obligation. Every owner of a landmark, improvement on a landmark site, or improvement in a
historic district shall do all of the following:
(a) Protect the improvement against exterior decay and deterioration.
(b) Keep the improvement free from structural defects.
(c) Maintain interior portions of the improvement, the deterioration of which may cause the exterior portions of
such improvement to fall into a state of disrepair.
(2) Enforcement.
(a) The Building Inspector or designee is authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(b) The Building Inspector may issue an official written notice to a property owner, requiring the property owner
to correct a violation of Sec. 41.14(1) above by a date specified in the notice.
(c) The Building Inspector shall notify the Preservation Planner of all official compliance notices issued to owners of
landmarks or improvements in historic districts. The Building Inspector shall further notify the Preservation
Planner whenever a property owner fails to correct a violation by the compliance date specified in an official
58 Boise 11-05-09(14); Denton 35-222; Madison 41.15
1.1
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 95
notice.
(d) City agencies or commissions responsible for enforcing Chapters 18, 27, 29, 30 and 3, MGO, or, in the
absence of such city agency or commission, the Building Inspector, may grant individual variances from
those chapters to facilitate historic preservation and maintenance under this chapter, provided that such
variance does not endanger public health or safety or vary any provisions of this chapter.
(3) Penalties. Violations of the provisions in this ordinance shall be subject to a minimum forfeiture of two hundred
fifty dollars ($250) and a maximum forfeiture of five hundred dollars ($500) for each separate violation. A second
violation within thirty-six (36) months shall be subject to a minimum forfeiture of five hundred dollars ($500) and
maximum forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000) for each separate violation. A third violation within thirty-six
(36) months shall be subject to a minimum forfeiture of one thousand dollars ($1000) and maximum forfeiture of
two thousand dollars ($2000) for each separate violation. Each and every day during which a violation continues
shall be deemed to be a separate violation. All fines imposed under this ordinance shall be tripled if the Court makes
an additional finding that the subject property is undergoing demolition by neglect as defined by this ordinance. A
finding of demolition by neglect by the Landmarks Commission as provided in Sec. 41.15 below shall be prima
facie evidence of demolition by neglect for purposes of any civil court action.
41.15 DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT.
The owner of a landmark, improvement on a landmark site, or improvement in a historic district, may not allow the
landmark or improvement to undergo demolition by neglect.
(1) Notice of Demolition by Neglect.
If the Building Inspector believes that a landmark or improvement is undergoing demolition by neglect, the
Building Inspector shall give written notice of that belief to the owner of the landmark or improvement. The
Building Inspector shall give a copy of the notice to the Preservation Planner and the Landmarks Commission.
(2) Public Hearing.
Upon receiving a notice under Sec. 41.15(1), the Landmarks Commission shall issue a hearing notice under Sec.
41.06 and hold a public hearing to determine whether the landmark or improvement is undergoing demolition
by neglect. The Commission shall hold the public hearing within ninety (90) days of receiving the notice under
Sec. 41.15(1).
(3) Landmarks Commission Finding.
If, after a public hearing, the Landmarks Commission finds that a landmark or improvement is undergoing
demolition by neglect, it shall report its finding to the Common Council, the Building Inspector and the Office of
the City Attorney. A Landmarks Commission finding of demolition by neglect is prima facie evidence of
demolition by neglect for purposes of any administrative or civil court action, and also constitutes a
determination that a public nuisance exists under Sec. 27.05(3), MGO.
(5) Abatement by the City.
If the Landmarks Commission finds under Sec. 41.15(3) that a landmark or improvement is undergoing
demolition by neglect, the Building Inspector may proceed under the non-summary abatement procedures set
forth in Sec. 27.05(3)(e), to repair the landmark or improvement to abate the nuisance. The cost of the required
repairs shall be paid by the property owner, or shall be imposed as a special charge against the property and
collected pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 4.09(13), MGO, and Wis. Stat. § 66.0627.
(6) Acquisition by City.
If the Landmarks Commission finds under Sec. 41.15(3) that a landmark or improvement is undergoing
demolition by neglect, the Common Council may authorize the City to acquire the property under Wis. Stat. §
66.1111(2), if necessary through the initiation of condemnation proceedings under Wis. Stat. § 32.06.
1.1
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 96
Fort Collins should focus on enumerating areas of neglect that could
lead to serious repair costs if left unattended. It is important to be
specific in the ordinance about what types of repairs are most
necessary to preserve a structure. In addition, the city should consider
increasing the penalties for properties that are deemed to be
undergoing demolition by neglect. This could be determined by the
LPC at a public hearing, as seen in the peer city examples. Also, similar
to Madison, each violation within a certain time period should be
considered a separate offense. This may require amendments to
different parts of the Fort Collins Municipal Code in addition to
Section 14-8 and 14-73. Considerations of an applicant’s economic
hardship, similar to that recommended in the first section of this
report, could be incorporated into the LPC’s review to provide a relief
valve.
Understandably, most cities are also concerned with preserving the
exterior structural integrity of structures that could be eligible for
historic designation in the future, but have yet to be formally
designated. In the interim, a “gap” condition exists in which properties that may warrant future
designation are not properly maintained and risk losing their integrity prior to formal designation—but
this fact may not come to light until a property owner applies for a permit to physically demolish the
structure.
CAC: Agrees. Proactive enforcement before they become imminently dangerous.
Neglected/dangerous buildings should have to go through city’s processes, not be able to
circumvent. Also agrees to increase penalties for properties undergoing demolition by neglect.
Way to circumvent City processes. Penalties within certain time frame should also be cumulative
rather than treated as separate incidents.
LPC: Agrees with CAC. Noted that how repairs are done could damage integrity of building.
Agrees with CAC about penalties. Used as way to circumvent City processes.
One potential resolution for this issue may be to use the inventory of eligible resources list that is
recommended in the previous section of this report. After creating such an inventory, the city can then
incorporate language in the minimum maintenance requirements that extend the minimum maintenance
requirements to all eligible properties listed in the inventory. Using the inventory to clearly and
predictably define a new class of properties would allow Fort Collins to then extend affirmative
maintenance requirements to that new class. Then, staff can prioritize monitoring of exterior structural
Recommendations
• Specify the types of repairs
that are required to prevent
demolition by neglect.
• Increase penalties for
properties undergoing
demolition by neglect.
• If an inventory of eligible
resources is created, extend
maintenance requirements
to eligible structures on the
inventory.
• Incorporate preservation-
related requirements in the
general property
maintenance standards.
• Develop financial incentives
to assist with required
property maintenance.
1.1
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
C. Demolition By Neglect | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 97
conditions on these properties, as well as exercise the authority to enforce violations in order to avoid
demolition by neglect.
In addition, the city should incorporate some preservation-related requirements in the general property
maintenance standards. This could include adding a clear policy statement to the International Property
Maintenance Code as a local amendment that City policy is to pay particular attention to maintenance
standards of designated and eligible historic resources.
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: No discussion against using inventory to require minimum maintenance. Agrees with general
maintenance standards change.
Finally, we recommend balancing these maintenance requirements with financial incentives to complete
repairs. Often, properties are not being kept up for financial reasons. Assistance may be the “carrot”
approach that can balance the “stick” approach of stronger and wider-reaching maintenance
requirements and enforcement. These incentives could also be used to make necessary repairs before
they are exponentially more expensive. The city’s Design Assistance Program is already extended to
eligible resources and can provide up to 2,000 dollars of design assistance for a proposed exterior
modification. An incentive program to actually complete the repairs could be modeled based on the
Design Assistance Program.
CAC: Agrees. Bigger carrots to incentivize rehabilitation.
LPC: Agrees. Also use to address energy efficiency.
1.1
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 98
Many local preservation ordinances contain provisions whereby a historic resource declared to be a public
hazard may be altered, repaired, or demolished without the local preservation review body having any
input or taking action. On their face, public safety exclusions appear reasonable—if a building is about to
tumble down on pedestrians below, surely something must be done quickly—but in practice, they could
be used to circumvent local review procedures or to avoid facing up to hard choices between a proposed
redevelopment scheme and preservation of an important historic resource.
At a minimum, local preservation ordinances should attempt to strike a balance between concerns about
public safety and preservation—for example, by allowing the preservation commission to comment on the
proposed demolition unless the legislative body specifically finds there is an immediate and serious threat
to the public safety that cannot be addressed through less drastic measures.
In 2014, Fort Collins updated the ordinance language related to remedying dangerous conditions and
public safety exclusions. This amendment inserted new language requiring that, if the structure is capable
of being made safe by repairs, it must be repaired or demolished in accordance with the provisions of the
Demolition/Alteration review process.
Determining what is “repairable” versus “imminently dangerous” happens on a case-by-case basis. The
Buildings and Building Regulations chapter of the Fort Collins Municipal Code sets forth definitions for
determining whether a structure is “dangerous” and when there is “imminent danger” (excerpted below).
Further, an adopted appendix lays out a sample list of conditions that are considered to be substandard
or dangerous.
108.1.5 Dangerous structure or premises. A structure or premises is dangerous if any part,
element or component thereof is no longer within its serviceability limit or strength limit
state as defined in this code or, when considered in totality, the structure or premises
pose an imminent threat to the health and safety of the public or the occupants of the
structure or premises as referenced in Appendix A of this code.
109.1 Imminent danger. When, in the opinion of the code official, there is imminent
danger of failure or collapse of a building or structure which endangers life, or when any
structure or part of a structure has fallen and life is endangered by the occupation of the
structure, or when there is actual or potential danger to the building occupants or those
in the proximity of any structure because of explosives, explosive fumes or vapors or the
presence of toxic fumes, gases or materials, or operation of defective or dangerous
equipment, the code official is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require
the occupants to vacate the premises forthwith. The code official shall cause to be posted
at each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: "This Structure Is
Dangerous and Its Occupancy Has Been Prohibited by the Code Official." It shall be
unlawful for any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of securing the
1.1
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 99
structure, making the required repairs, removing the hazardous condition or demolishing
the same.
Most cities give the building official significant latitude in determining what is dangerous, and exempt
ordered repairs or demolition from typical preservation process requirements. However, a few of the cities
we studied limit the authority of the building official. For instance, Syracuse requires that the ordered
changes undergo the typical Certificate of Appropriateness approval process, if time allows. Ultimately,
their preservation commission must approve the changes ordered by the official, but may add conditions
to their approval that will mitigate the historic impact. However, if the time to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness will “prevent timely compliance,” the ordered work can be exempted from the process
altogether.59
As another example, Berkeley contains a provision for a public safety exemption from historic preservation
regulations, but instructs that the exemption is specifically limited to activities necessary to correct public
safety issues, preventing demolition in many cases (emphasis added):
3.24.280 Landmarks, historic districts or structures of merit--Unsafe or dangerous conditions--Effect.
None of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to prevent any measures of construction, alteration or
demolition necessary to correct or abate the unsafe or dangerous condition of any structure, other feature, or part
thereof, which such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous by the Planning and Community
Development Department or the Fire Department, and where the proposed measures have been declared
necessary, by such department or departments, to correct the said condition; provided, however, that only such
work as is reasonably necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed pursuant to this
section. In the event any structure or other feature is damaged by fire or other calamity or by act of God, or by the
public enemy to such an extent that in the opinion of the aforesaid department or departments it cannot
reasonably be repaired or restored, it may be removed in conformity with normal permit procedures and
applicable laws.
Cities also vary in how much involvement of the preservation commission is built into the determinations
of what is “dangerous.” Cambridge requires notification of the Executive Director of their Historical
Commission for inspections of buildings over 50 years in age and the director is given the authority to
“pursue all reasonable courses of action to prevent emergency demolition” of structures that are
determined to be significant buildings. In Gainesville, the preservation commission is empowered to
appeal the building official’s determinations that a building is “dangerous” to the city’s board of
adjustment. Gainesville also helpfully identifies the preservation board’s roles, responsibilities, and rights
to notification regarding maintenance issues in their ordinance.60
59 Syracuse VII-6
60 Cambridge 2.78.110; Gainesville 30-112
1.1
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 100
30-112. 4.g. Demolition by Neglect.
The intent of this section of the land development code is to stop the continuing deterioration of historic
properties and neighborhoods through application of chapters 13 and 16 of the code of ordinances.
1. The historic preservation board may, on its own initiative, file a formal complaint with the codes enforcement
division requesting repair or correction of defects to any designated structure so that it is preserved and
protected.
2. The code enforcement division shall provide written notice to the staff member assigned to the historic
preservation board of any minor or major housing code violation for a building or structure that is either listed
on the national or local historic register or is a contributing structure to either a nationally or locally designated
historic district.
3. The code enforcement office shall provide written notice to the staff member assigned to the historic
preservation board of a determination that a building or structure that is either listed on the national or local
historic register or is a contributing structure to either a nationally or locally designated historic district is
"dangerous," as defined by section 16-17 of the code of ordinances.
4. Upon receipt of this notice, the city manager or designee is authorized to access these properties accompanied
by a code enforcement officer to assess the damage that formed the basis for the decision to find the building
"dangerous." The assessment will be presented to the historic preservation board, which shall be allowed to
appeal the determination to the board of adjustment pursuant to section 16-27 of this code and present
evidence against the determination that the building is "dangerous".
The Fort Collins ordinance already does a good job of requiring
repair where possible and not purely exempting public safety
exclusions from the historic review process. Many cities do not have
this level of specificity. However, the applicability of this provision
could be more clearly explained in the ordinance.
In addition, the definitions of “dangerous structures,” “imminent
danger,” and the examples of dangerous buildings in the building
code should be reviewed. While the Fort Collins definition of
“imminent danger” is generally similar to the other cities we studied,
it is somewhat circular, essentially noting that imminent danger
means whenever the code official believes there is imminent danger.
Many cities maintain this somewhat open-ended approach to provide
flexibility to treat unique situations on a case-by-case basis. We did
not find an excellent example in our peer city research that would significantly clarify the issues with the
current definition in Fort Collins. One possible option for additional clarification could be further emphasis
on time, clarifying that “imminent danger” is “A condition that immediately threatens the health, safety,
and welfare of an individual or the public due to danger of collapse or other dangers to enter.”
Potential exclusions for historic buildings should be added to the building code Appendix A list of specific
substandard or dangerous conditions, to ensure that historic resources are not ordered for demolition
when dangerous but repairable conditions exist.
Recommendations
• Clarify ordinance language
requirement to repair
dangerous conditions when
deemed repairable by the
building official.
• Review and update relevant
building code definitions.
• Improve coordination
between the
LPC/preservation staff and
the building official in
regards to dangerous
buildings.
1.1
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
D. Public Safety Exclusions | Research Topics
Topic D: Demolition | City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 101
CAC: Agrees. City should have distinction between dangerous and imminently dangerous. Need
definition of dangerous and imminently dangerous; reference in all relevant codes. City Attorney’s
Office will prepare definition.
LPC: Agrees with Clarion and CAC. CAO crafting definition good; defensible.
Finally, the ordinance should more clearly describe the roles, responsibilities, and relationship of the
building official and the commission or preservation staff. The process for notifying the LPC should be
better detailed and a process for appealing these orders or involving the LPC should also be developed.
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees. More coordination helpful in both preventing and resolving issues.
1.1
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 102
PEER CITY ORDINANCES
Berkeley, California:
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/Berkeley03/Berkeley0324/Berkeley0324.html#3.24
Boise, Idaho: http://cityclerk.cityofboise.org/media/262806/1100.pdf
Boulder, Colorado:
https://library.municode.com/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT9LAUSCO_CH11HIPR_9-11-
3INDEINLAHIDI
Cambridge, Massachusetts: http://code.cambridgema.gov/2.78.180/
Denton, Texas:
https://library.municode.com/tx/denton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=SPBLADECO_CH35ZO_ARTVHIL
APRHIDI
Eugene, Oregon: https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/Index/262
Gainesville, Florida:
https://library.municode.com/fl/gainesville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORGAFL_CH30LADECO_A
RTVIRESPREUS_S30-112HIPRCO
Lincoln, Nebraska: http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/attorn/lmc/ti27/ch2757.pdf ;
Madison, Wisconsin:
https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=Chapter%2033%20Boards%2C
%20Commissions%2C%20and%20Committees
Norman, Oklahoma:
http://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/WebFM/Norman/Planning%20and%20Development/Planning
%20and%20Zoning/5-22-14%20Complete%20Zoning%20Ordinance.pdf
Provo, Utah: http://www.codepublishing.com/UT/Provo/?Provo16/Provo16.html
Santa Barbara, California: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=12168
Syracuse, New York: http://www.syracuse.ny.us/pdfs/Zoning/Zoning%20Ordinance%20Part%20C.pdf
OTHER RELATED SITES
Cambridge Historical Commission, “Application for Certificate,”
https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/historicalcommission/pdf/chcapplication.pdf?la=en
City and County of Denver, Colorado,
https://library.municode.com/co/denver/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIIREMUCO_CH30LAPR_ARTII
NGE_S30-6PRAUERCOREALDEST
1.1
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Codes & Processes Review 103
City of Albuquerque Comprehensive City Zoning Code
http://documents.cabq.gov/planning/UDD/ZoningCode/CodeEnf-ZoningCode-FullText-2017.pdf
City of Boulder, “Design Guidelines for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts,”
https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/historic-preservation-applications-design-guidelines
City of Brownsville Code of Ordinances
https://library.municode.com/tx/brownsville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH348ZO_ARTIX
HIPRURDE_DIV3HIPRAD_S348-1513CRDESELOSI
City of Eugene, “Advisory Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Properties,” https://www.eugene-
or.gov/830/Historic-Documents-and-Resources
City of Eugene, “Eugene Cultural Resource Program,” https://www.eugene-or.gov/828/Eugene-Cultural-Resource-
Program
City of Eugene, “Historic Designation,” https://www.eugene-or.gov/823/Historic-Designation
City of Gainesville, “Mid-Century Survey,”
http://www.cityofgainesville.org/PlanningDepartment/HistoricPreservation/Mid-CenturySurvey.aspx
City of Lincoln, “Historic Preservation,” https://lincoln.ne.gov/city/plan/long/hp/hp.htm
City of Norman, “Historic Preservation,” http://www.normanok.gov/planning/historic-preservation
City of Santa Barbara, “Architectural Board of Review General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures,”
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17281
City of Santa Barbara, “Historic Landmarks Commission General Design Guidelines & Meeting Procedures,”
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17311
City of Santa Barbara, “Santa Barbara Potential Historic Resources List”
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17352
Fort Collins Demolition/Alteration Review and Appeals
https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/review-list.php
1.1
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Summary of Recommendations
With Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and Landmark Preservation Commission
(LPC) Comments
Topic 1: Landmark Designation
Designation
Process
Clarion: Reevaluate interim control provision and potentially allow design
review applications during the designation process [Final Report p. 11;
Municipal Code Section 14-30.]
• CAC: Supports. LPC should be able to approve alterations if appropriate
during the interim control period. (Ch. 14-30)
• LPC: Supports. Agrees with Clarion and CAC. Work needs LPC approval
Designation
Criteria
Clarion: Better integrate the criteria for designation with the decision-making
process for designation [Final Report p. 14; Municipal Code Sections 14-1 and
14-5.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
Clarion: Consider including a criterion that qualifies properties listed or
eligible for the National or State Register for local landmark designation [Final
Report p. 14.]
• CAC: Majority not in favor; if implemented, could result in treating
some properties differently than others; if retroactive, should require
appropriate public process.
• LPC: Does not support. Concern that this borders on a non-consensual
designation.
Owner Consent
to Designation
Clarion: Consider the inclusion of additional criteria for decision-makers to use
when reviewing a nonconsensual designation [Final Report p. 18; Municipal
Code Section 14-21 through 14-26.]
• CAC:
- Review length of process; look for process improvements that
would fulfill goals while simplifying the process
- Spell out in the code the steps taken to investigate a property’s
eligibility for designation. [Ch. 14-21]
- Clarify what the phrase “benefits to the City” means [Ch. 14-21].
- Add sustainability as a benefit.
- Signatures of three residents on application initiating consideration
of non-consensual designation is appropriate number; do not
change. Note: Clarion did not recommend raising the number.
- No fee should be charged.
ATTACHMENT 2
1
1.2
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
- Application does not designate a property; it brings to attention of
the LPC and Council.
• LPC: Agrees with CAC on all the above
Alternative Types
of Designation
Clarion: Consider additional types of designation such as conservation
districts or structures of merit [Final Report p. 20.]
• CAC: Investigate conservation districts further. Also consider if there
should be separate processes for commercial vs. residential properties;
for single property designation vs. district designation.
• LPC: Not worth investigating now. Structures of Merit-type program
would add significantly to staff workload and impact financial programs.
Linking Zoning &
Preservation
Clarion: Consider historic overlay zoning as a way to better integrate
preservation and zoning [Final Report p. 23.]
• CAC: Investigate. Provides more flexibility while providing options for
maintaining character. Creates predictability. Would like more
information.
• LPC: Interesting idea. Investigate. Preserves overall character with less
regulation. Would like Clarion to study.
Clarion: Provide searchable map of landmarks and districts for development
review applicants to check early on whether their property is landmarked
[Final Report p. 23.]
• CAC: Supports. Strongly noted need for additional survey and staff.
• LPC: Supports. Need for additional survey and staff.
Commission
Membership
Clarion: Consider more specific requirements for commission members [Final
Report p. 26; Municipal Code Section 2-277.]
• CAC: Requirements are sufficient (are federal CLG requirements) but
should be repeated or referenced in Chapter 14.
• LPC: Same. CLG requirements; are more rigorous that other City boards.
Need to publicize better.
Historic Surveys
Clarion: Specify that one of the duties of the Landmark Preservation
Commission is to direct historic surveys to be completed and regularly
updated [Final Report p. 29.]
• CAC: Supports. Strongly notes need for additional survey. Far behind.
• LPC: Supports. Critical need for funding for on-going survey
Clarion: Develop partnership with other organizations to develop a program
for regularly surveying historic properties [Final Report p. 29.]
• CAC: Supports
• LPC: Supports
2
1.2
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Clarion: Prioritize the completion of survey work and regular updating of
existing surveys [Final Report p. 29.]
• CAC: Supports. Survey should be highest priority. Requires consistent
on-going funding and support in City budget.
• LPC: Supports. Survey is highest priority. Foundation of all other work.
Need for on-going funding.
Topic 2: Designated Resources: Processes & Standards for Review
Design Review
Generally
Clarion: Rename the design review process as a “certificate of appropriateness”
process [Final Report p. 35.]
• CAC: Prefers “Certificate of Approval” and “Landmark Alteration Review”
• LPC: Prefers “Certificate of Appropriateness” and “Landmark Alteration
Review,” for consistency with other programs across country.
Clarion: Develop a decision matrix to increase predictability of required review
processes [Final Report p. 35.]
• CAC: Agrees. Also develop decision matrices for paint and for murals.
Paint colors should be part of both decision matrices; approval on case-
by-case basis; reversibility and historic material preservation key points
• LPC: Agrees. Need to investigate a better way of determining minor
work from major work, rather than using aspects of integrity.
Commission
Review
Clarion: Make conceptual review an optional step [Final Report p. 38; Municipal
Code Section 14-46(b)(1)]
• CAC: Supports.
- Also offer multiple conceptual reviews, rather than one. All
conceptual review comments should be presented at LPC Final
Review
- Add the ability for LPC to make conditional approvals like P&Z does
- Offer Design Review Subcommittee meetings as alternate option;
LPC members who participate in Design Review Subcommittee
should be allowed to participate in Final Review, as done with DDA
- LPC: Supports. Add the ability for LPC to make conditional
approvals like P&Z does
- Offer Design Review Subcommittee meetings as alternate option;
LPC members who participate in Design Review Subcommittee
should be allowed to participate in Final Review, as done with DDA
- Works in conjunction with clearer standards; focus on specificity of
what is required for approval.
- Add more information on what would likely be supported or
denied.
3
1.2
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Clarion: Consider establishing a time limit for final review [Final Report p. 38;
Municipal Code Section 14-46(b)(2)]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Adds predictability; strengthens process.
Clarion: Consider more specific requirements for appellants [Final Report p. 38;
Municipal Code Section 14-49(c)]
• CAC: Agrees, but not sure what these would be.
• LPC: Does not agree. This is not an issue; no change necessary. Why
make it harder for owner to appeal the LPC’s decision?
Administrative
Review
Clarion: Adopt guiding document that identifies specific types of work that can
be delegated to staff for review. [Final Report p. 42; Municipal Code Section
14-49.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
- Develop matrices of review processes, identifying routine, minor and
major work.
- Need to investigate a better way of determining minor work from major
work, rather than using aspects of integrity
Review
Standards
Generally
Clarion: Establish mandatory approval criteria rather than “considerations”
[Final Report p. 46; Municipal Code Section 14-48(b)]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Change language that LPC “shall consider” to “shall use.” Make
clear in code what criteria are.
Clarion: Add specificity to the “standards of the City” reference in the criteria
for approval [Final Report p. 46; Municipal Code Section 14-48(b)(5)]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Clarify in codes what standards the City has adopted, by name,
and reference in codes whenever applicable
Review
Standards for
Demolition
Clarion: Consider additional criteria for the approval of demolition proposals
[Final Report p. 49; Municipal Code Section 14-48.]
• CAC: Add criteria to code. The answer to all proposals to demolish landmark
designated properties should be no, except in cases of non-contributing
buildings in districts; non-contributing reviewed same as infill in district
• LPC: Change codes to reflect that site cannot sit fallow following demolition.
Clarify in code when a Landmark may be demolished; add standards for
acceptable new construction consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards & Guidelines. Revisit hardship standards to make sure they are
appropriate
4
1.2
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Review
Standards for
Compatible Infill
Clarion: Consider codifying general compatibility standards for new
construction [Final Report p. 53.]
• CAC: Agrees. Code should better reference Secretary of Interior Standards and
Guidelines for examples of how to apply. Make both Ch. 14 and LUC 3.4.7 clear
that literal replication is not desired, same with great divergence; what is
desired is invention within a style and abstract reference to context.
• LPC: Agrees. Adopt standards for compatible new construction consistent with
2017 Secretary of Interior’s Standards & Guidelines update.
Clarion: Clarify the role of the adopted design guidelines and standards [Final
Report p. 53.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
Clarion: Develop design guidelines for additional districts or general design
guidelines [Final Report p. 53.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Develop district-specific design standards and guidelines for each
new and existing historic district.
Topic 3: Development Review and Historic Resources: Processes & Standards for
Review
Development
Review Process
Clarion: Clarify the purpose and intent of the historic resources component
of the Development Review process [Final Report p. 63; Land Use Code
Section 3.4.7(A) and (B)]
• CAC: Agrees. Area of adjacency identifies significant historic properties that
could be affected by new development. These resources provide the
context. New development different but compatible.
• LPC: Agrees. Review serves dual goals: 1. Retains eligibility of historic
resources; 2. Promotes compatibility with existing character.
Clarify the procedural requirements to obtain a recommendation from the
LPC. [Final Report p. 63; Land Use Code Section 3.4.7]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
Clarion: Use new terminology, such as “Historic Resource Compatibility
Review,” instead of “Development Review.” [Final Report p. 63]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
5
1.2
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Applicability of
Process
Clarion: Establish a consistent and predictable geographic limit for the
review, such a Historic Resource Compatibility Review matrix. [Final Report
p. 67.]
• CAC: No difference in treatment of designated and eligible properties.
Supports set radius, regardless of height. More review criteria for abutting
development. Discussed radius ranging from abutting only to 500+ feet.
• LPC: No difference in treatment of designated and eligible properties.
Supports set radius, regardless of height. More review criteria for abutting
development. Support for 200-foot radius – ½ typical block.
Clarion: Develop context-based standards that are not based on eligibility to
ensure compatibility in certain areas of the city. [Final Report p. 70.]
• CAC: Agrees. Building’s status does not change importance to community.
Treating both equally recognizes contribution to character, offers more
predictability, simplifies review.
• LPC: Agrees with Clarion and with CAC. Also develop standards & guidelines
for different areas in town based on areas’ character
Clarion: Consider reviewing impact on eligible resources only if they are on-
site or abutting a development project. [Final Report p. 70.]
• CAC: Disagrees. Retention of context important. Development can be
different but should still be good neighbor.
• LPC: Disagrees. Would not promote context - Sense of Place. Development
can be different but should still be reviewed to ensure good neighbor.
Clarion: Focus on survey work to develop an inventory of eligible historic
resources. [Final Report p. 70.]
• CAC: Agrees. Should ne highest priority. This will not work unless surveys and
contexts are getting funding. Need City commitment of on-going funding
• LPC: Agrees. Foundation of all other work. Need funding, staff to manage.
Clarity and
Organization
Clarion: Redraft Section 3.4.7 for clarity and to improve the organization,
clarifying the purpose, applicability, and standards of the process. [Final
Report p. 74.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
Topic 4: Demo/Alt Review, Demolition by Neglect, Dangerous Buildings
Demolition/Alteration
Review Process
Clarion: Clarify the role of the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS). [Final
Report p. 85; Municipal Code Section 14-72(b) and 14-72(d)]
6
1.2
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
CAC: Agrees. LPC members participating in DRS should still be able to
participate in later LPC hearings on item, like DDA does.
LPC: Agrees. LPC members participating in DRS should be able to participate
in later hearings on item. DRS should be utilized more, offered as
alternative to conceptual design review of changes to landmarks and for
preliminary reviews of new development.
Clarion: Consider using a decision matrix to more clearly differentiate
between minor and major alterations. [Final Report p. 85.]
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees.
Clarion: Reevaluate the criteria for approval and potentially add an
economic hardship determination. [Final Report p. 85; Municipal Code
Section 14-72(b), 14-72(f)(7) and 14-7]
CAC: Disagrees with Clarion. Does not support adding economic hardship as
a criterion. Very difficult, adds complexity. Potentially unfair; different
results between savvy investors with large portfolios, lawyers and
accountants, vs Mom and Pop owners.
- Develop intermediate options for LPC between must approve or non-
consensual landmark designation.
LPC: Disagrees with Clarion. Does not support adding economic hardship as
a criterion. Noted that this is Council policy, affects all city codes.
- Agrees with CAC on intermediate options between two extremes.
Clarion: Consider increasing the amount of time that the LPC can delay a
decision in order to find alternatives to demolition. [Final Report p. 85]
CAC: Agrees. Concern that easy to miss deadline, such as by a meeting
cancelled for weather or lack of quorum. Make sure timing is adequate.
LPC: Agrees. Staff needs to address as part of review of overall timing.
Determinations of
Eligibility
Clarion: Focus on completing survey work to proactively identify eligible
resources. [Final Report p. 91.]
CAC: Strongly agrees. Notes that each of Clarion’s reports states need for
far more survey.
LPC: Strongly agrees. Would greatly benefit predictability; aid developers
and property owners.
Clarion: Create an inventory of eligible historic resources. [Final Report p.
91.]
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees.
Clarion: Reconsider the five-year period of validity. Consider a process for
property owners to obtain a certificate of ineligibility with a five-year limit
on validity. [Final Report p. 91; Municipal Code 14-6(a)]
7
1.2
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
CAC: Clarify. Clarion appears to say that all buildings are eligible until
determined not to be. Not sure how this would help. Request more
information.
LPC: Currently no presumption of a building’s eligibility. More information
needed to understand why Clarion recommends this change.
Demolition by Neglect
Clarion: Specify the types of repairs that are required to prevent
demolition by neglect. [Final Report p. 96; Municipal Code 14-8 and 14-73]
CAC: Agrees. Proactive enforcement before they become imminently
dangerous. Neglected/dangerous buildings should have to go through city’s
processes, not be able to circumvent.
LPC: Agrees with CAC. Noted that how repairs are done could damage
integrity of building.
Clarion: Increase penalties for properties undergoing demolition by
neglect. [Final Report p. 96.]
CAC: Agrees. Way to circumvent City processes. Penalties within certain
time frame should also be cumulative rather than treated as separate
incidents.
LPC: Agrees with CAC. Used as way to circumvent City processes.
Clarion: If an inventory of eligible resources is created, extend
maintenance requirements to eligible structures on the inventory. [Final
Report p. 96.]
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees.
Clarion: Incorporate preservation-related requirements in the general
property maintenance standards. [Final Report p. 96.]
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees.
Clarion: Develop additional financial incentives to assist with required
property maintenance. [Final Report p. 96.]
CAC: Agrees. Bigger carrots to incentivize rehabilitation.
LPC: Agrees. Also use to address energy efficiency.
Public Safety
Exclusions
Clarion: Clarify the requirement to fix dangerous conditions when deemed
repairable by the building official. [Final Report p. 100.]
CAC: Agrees. City should have distinction between dangerous and
imminently dangerous.
LPC: Agrees with Clarion and CAC.
Clarion: Review relevant building code definitions. [Final Report p. 100.]
CAC: Need definition of dangerous and imminently dangerous; reference in
all relevant codes. City Attorney’s Office will prepare definition.
8
1.2
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
LPC: Agrees with Clarion and CAC. CAO crafting definition good; defensible.
Clarion: Improve coordination between the LPC/preservation staff and the
building official in regards to dangerous buildings. [Final Report p. 100.]
CAC: Agrees.
LPC: Agrees. More coordination helpful in both preventing and resolving
issues.
9
1.2
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Final Recommmendations with Comments (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Report for Historic Preservation Code
Update Stakeholder Groups
Completion Rate: 76.9%
Complete 20
Partial 6
Totals: 26
Response Counts
1
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
1. Are you a member of the CAC or the LPC?
58% CAC
42% 42%LPC LPC
Value Percent Responses
CAC 58.3% 14
LPC 41.7% 10
Totals: 24
2
1.3
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
TOPIC 1: Landmark Designation
2: Clarion's Recommendation: Reevaluate interim control provision and
potentially allow design review applications during the designation process
[Report 1, p. 8; Municipal Code Section 14-30.]
• CAC: Supports. LPC should be able to approve alterations if
appropriate during the interim control period. (Ch. 14-30)
• LPC: Supports. Agrees with Clarion and CAC. Work needs LPC
approval.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 21
Totals: 21
3
1.3
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
206 In a voluntary designation process, where the owner is either the applicant or
has consented, proposed alterations should be governed by Article III. in a
nonconsensual designation process, minor alterations could be approved, but
major alterations should be delayed until after the final decision on the
designation.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
4
1.3
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
3. Clarion's Recommendation: Better integrate the criteria for designation
with the decision-making process for designation [Report 1, p. 11;
Municipal Code Sections 14-1 and 14-5.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 21
Totals: 21
5
1.3
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Anything we can do to add clarity and consistency is good.
189 Maybe clarification of existing criteria rather than invent new criteria.
192 This has been one of the most difficult areas of the code to understand and
interpret. Improvements in language should remove much of the confusion for
staff and applicants.
198 These should be integrated for clarity to the LPC as well as applicants who might
get bogged down in the technical and legal side of the code.
206 It is unclear from the current ordinance if the criteria for designation is that in 14-
5 or in the definition of landmark and landmark district in 14-1. The applicable
standards, together with references to any adopted guidelines for interpretation
of such standards, should be clearly stated in the designation process.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
6
1.3
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
4. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider including a criterion that qualifies
properties listed or eligible for the National or State Register for local
landmark designation (p. 12)
• CAC: Majority not in favor; if implemented, could result in treating
some properties differently than others; if retroactive, should require
appropriate public process.
• LPC: Does not support. Concern that this borders on a non-consensual
designation.
81% Yes
19% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 81.0% 17
No 19.0% 4
Totals: 21
7
1.3
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 I agree with the LPC and also think it would add more animosity to a process
instead of less.
188 If the criterion is for local "eligibility" Criterion makes sense. Since the Natl, State
and city set different requirements, forced designation does not make sense.
198 This approach would likely lead to confusion and additional kickback from the
community.
201 Differences between State/National designation and local landmarking are
significant and therefore properties should be considered for local landmarking
apart from whether they're State or Nationally designated.
203 The public is antsy enough about non-consensual designations. Why put fuel in
that fireplace?
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
8
1.3
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Owner Consent to Designation
5. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider the inclusion of additional criteria
for decision-makers to use when reviewing a nonconsensual designation
[Topic 1, p. 15; Municipal Code Section 14-21 through 14-26.]
• CAC:
• Review length of process; look for process improvements that
would fulfill goals while simplifying the process
• Spell out in the code the steps taken to investigate a property’s
eligibility for designation. [Ch. 14-21]
• Clarify what the phrase “benefits to the City” means [Ch. 14-21].
• Add sustainability as a benefit.
• Signatures of three residents on application initiating
consideration of non-consensual designation is appropriate number; do not
change. Note: Clarion did not recommend raising the number.
• No fee should be charged.
• Application does not designate a property; it brings to attention of
the LPC and Council.
• LPC: Agrees with CAC on all the above.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 21
Totals: 21 9
1.3
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
189 Any process "improvements" should be reviewed publicly.
190 Any "process improvements" should be publicly reviewed.
192 I agree on this yet want to stress that I don't see non-consensual designation
being done very often. I was involved in one in the past that was successfully
done with minimal opposition (Old Post Office). We may be putting more energy
into this than is needed.
199 I don't see non-consensual designation being used that much and maybe we are
spending too much time on something that will be a very rare occurrence.
201 Few people recognize the environmental benefits of historic preservation and
adaptive reuse. Spelling out those benefits within the code would be helpful.
Landmarking a property also provides financial benefits that can make housing
more affordable, especially for owners living on a limited income. This affordable
housing component should also be spelled out in the code as a benefit to
historic preservation.
203 Nonconsensual designation is an important tool to retain in our code. It has
been rarely used in the past. It will likely continue to be rarely used in the future.
However, when that critically important building is at risk, this tool is the
community's only recourse to try to protect our local heritage. It is important
that we retain this process and hone it so that it works well for the community.
206 Requests for nonconsensual designations should perhaps only proceed to the
first LPC hearing if CDNS provides the Colorado Cultural Architectural Inventory
Form prepared by a qualified professional that concludes that the property is
eligible for designation. In the current code, the hearing process can be started
on the basis of a "preliminary investigation" or a State or National Registry listing.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
10
1.3
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Alternative Types of Designation
6. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider additional types of designation such
as conservation districts or structures of merit [Topic 1, p. 17.]
• CAC: Investigate conservation districts further. Also consider if there
should be separate processes for commercial vs. residential properties; for single
property designation vs. district designation.
• LPC: Not worth investigating now. Structures of Merit-type program
would add significantly to staff workload and impact financial programs.
57% Yes
43% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 57.1% 12
No 42.9% 9
Totals: 21
11
1.3
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
184 Agree with LPC stance
185 Staff workload is of particular concern to me.
188 Some type of conservation district, especially resident initiated, should be
looked at. I can think of many arrangements. Denver has done some.
191 Additional funding might make the CAC ideas more feasible.
192 I side with LPC on this. Adding another type of program may just add confusion
and serve to "water down" local designation as it is currently.
193 Need to get the basics in order before expanding the program offerings.
195 Not worth investigating now.
197 Conservation districts could be powerful tool for preservation AND dynamism,
strongly support investigating possibility further.
199 I agree with LPC that this isn't worth investigating now, especially given other
items that need to get done and are probably more important. I think a "structure
of merit" type program will just water-down the entire concept of local landmark
designation.
201 I would really like to see conservation districts explored by the City. Such
districts could help to preserve the overall character and sense of place in the
Old Town area without having the more stringent requirements of historic
designation.
203 Not a week goes by when I don't hear a Fort Collins resident complaining about
the changing character of the Old Town neighborhoods. Conservation districts
would help to retain that well beloved character while allowing more leeway than
a historic district would. Right now a historic district is residents only option to
protect their neighborhood. Other options should be available. Conservation
districts would be a good way to go due to their flexibility.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
12
1.3
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Linking Zoning & Preservation
7. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider historic overlay zoning as a way to
better integrate preservation and zoning [Topic 1, p. 19.]
• CAC: Investigate. Provides more flexibility while providing options for
maintaining character. Creates predictability. Would like more information.
• LPC: Interesting idea. Investigate. Preserves overall character with less
regulation. Would like Clarion to study.
91% Yes
10% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 90.5% 19
No 9.5% 2
Totals: 21
13
1.3
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
14
ResponseID Response
185 It is an interesting idea and could simplify and clarify the process. I do wonder if it
is even something that Council would go for though.
188 This may well fit for the Loomis Addn. In a way, this could be a local version of
the Laurel Hist. Dist. (Federal)
189 Needs much more study and public review.
190 Need much more study and public comment and review.
192 I'm not sure what an overlay could bring to the table but it's at least worth
exploring.
193 Support investigation of historic overlay zoning, but only if appropriate
resources are dedicated to historic surveys on a routine basis so that
professionally compiled survey work is available to affected property owners
and staff.
197 Would like to see in-depth evaluation of successes and failure of overlay zones
in other cities.
198 I am intrigued by this idea and think it could benefit the planning process, but I
would like to see more information about it to see if it is plausible.
199 Yes, although I'm not sure this could offer greater predictability, or preserve
character with less regulation.
201 There is a tremendous amount of unpredictability, especially among residential
neighborhoods. People living in historic neighborhoods assume that their
neighborhood will be stable (since it's been around for 80 - 100 years so far). So
striking new construction, especially when it doesn't even resemble the
character of the neighborhood, can be incredibly unsettling for neighbors. There
needs to be a better understanding of what's allowed and more of an emphasis
on retaining historic character.
203 Yes. Historic overly zoning or conservation overlay districts could go a long way
towards helping to maintain character and a feeling of stability while still allowing
some managed growth and change.
206 Perhaps adoption of the City Plan Downtown character districts and
accompanying LUC regulations will improve the link between zoning and
preservation, so that a separate overlay zone is not necessary.
1.3
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
8. Clarion’s Recommendation: Provide searchable map of landmarks and
districts for development review applicants to check early on whether their
property is landmarked [Topic 1, p. 19.]
• CAC: Supports. Strongly noted need for additional survey and staff.
• LPC: Supports. Need for additional survey and staff.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 21
Totals: 21
17
1.3
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 I think it would be enormously helpful for citizens as well as historic
preservationists.
188 Will help with early development work and, possibly, before committing to
purchase said property. Realtors could use it.
192 Yes most definitely needed!
198 This would be very beneficial to both the public, the LPC, and the city.
199 This is a no-brainer and probably should have been done already.
201 Yes! There was a BFO offer for this in the last budgeting round and it didn't make
it above the line. Over and over again the CAC group came back to the
realization that we need more surveys done and more transparency in then
getting that information to the public.
203 Surveys, surveys, surveys. We need'em need'em need'em.
206 Including properties that have been determined eligible would also be helpful.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
18
1.3
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Commission Membership
9. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider more specific requirements for
commission members [Topic 1, p. 21; Municipal Code Section 2-277.]
• CAC: Requirements are sufficient (are federal CLG requirements) but
should be repeated or referenced in Chapter 14.
• LPC: Same. CLG requirements; are more rigorous than other City boards.
Need to publicize better.
91% Yes
10% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 90.5% 19
No 9.5% 2
Totals: 21
19
1.3
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
184 They should be more specific and include actual background. Consider folks
with work experience outside of Fort Collins/Northern Colorado.
185 We don't want to do anything that would compromise the CLG status - I think
publicizing that Fort Collins is a CLG and what that means specifically as well as
those requirements could help alleviate those concerns.
192 I think the requirements are fine as they are but it's sometimes difficult to find
good volunteer commission members who can objectively fulfill their
responsibilities as a member.
199 I think the requirements are ok as is, but it's still difficult to get good, qualified and
unbiased members for most city boards and commissions - something the
requirements just can't really address.
200 Agree with LPC
201 Because Fort Collins is a CLG, there are already requirements for the makeup of
the commission with quite a lot of technical skill and education being brought to
the group through current commissioners.
203 The variety of expertise and the depth of experience on the commission are
really pretty mindblowing. People seem to think it's a group of old biddies with
nothing better to do, but with architects, contractors, an archaeologist and
more, it's really a well educated group that uses rigorous thought processes and
brings a lot of experience and knowledge to the table.
206 Since the CLG requirements allow a variety of degrees and experience to satisfy
the minimum, we assume that all LPC members get a thorough orientation to the
Fort Collins processes and standards.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
20
1.3
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Historic Surveys
10. Clarion’s Recommendation: Specify that one of the duties of the
Landmark Preservation Commission is to direct historic surveys to be
completed and regularly updated [Topic 1, p. 24.]
• CAC: Supports. Strongly notes need for additional survey. Far behind.
• LPC: Supports. Critical need for funding for on-going survey
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 21
Totals: 21
21
1.3
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Surveys cannot happen without time and costs, which I think is not well
understood. It seems that people think we can know instantly, which is not true
without the archival and large-scale context analysis.
192 This is a no-brainer that relates more to budgetary considerations.
199 Another no-brainer that should have been done over time. This needs to be
addressed in the budgetary cycle.
201 Yes! Over and over again we came back to the critical need for more survey
work to be done. If we want predictability, then surveys are a very important part
of making development in Fort Collins more predictable -- especially as more and
more buildings hit the 50 year mark. Buildings 40 or 45 years old or older should
all be surveyed. Denver is surveying every single building in their city (no matter
how old). We should do likewise.
203 Our anthem song, "We need surveys!"
206 Hopefully the direction to prioritize survey work will also specify the minimum
professional requirements for surveyors, and the process, forms and evaluation
criteria to be used.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
22
1.3
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
11.Clarion’s Recommendation: Develop partnership with other
organizations to develop a program for regularly surveying historic
properties [Topic 1, p. 24.]
• CAC: Supports
• LPC: Supports
91% Yes
10% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 90.5% 19
No 9.5% 2
Totals: 21
23
1.3
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 In particular I think partnerships with both CSU and FRCC would be beneficial -
students would get training and the City could get more surveyed for less cost
(though time may be longer as Students will need to be trained and their work
will require more review).
192 See prior comment on budgetary
193 Have concern about capabilities of college students surveying historic
properties, and returning a professional outcome. This should not be
considered an OTJT program for students. A professional product must be
delivered as the designation process, demolition review process requires quasi-
judicial oversight in the case of appeal so information quality must be attested to
by a professional historic researcher with experience in the industry.
199 Good idea, but not sure who the organizations with money would be other than
SHPO grants and possibly DDA??
201 We have CSU right here. Let's use those students! (With oversight from
professionals, of course. So we're not getting meaningless crap.)
203 I attended a fabulous talk at the Saving Places conference on how Discover
Denver is surveying Every Single Building in Denver -- not matter how old or
new. They're doing 4 levels of survey, and they're utilizing trained volunteers.
Fort Collins should do that.
206 Locating qualified individuals to perform surveys is important.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
24
1.3
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
12. Clarion’s Recommendation: Prioritize the completion of survey work and
regular updating of existing surveys [Topic 1, p. 24.]
• CAC: Supports. Survey should be highest priority. Requires consistent
on-going funding and support in City budget.
• LPC: Supports. Survey is highest priority. Foundation of all other work.
Need for on-going funding.
95% Yes
5% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 95.2% 20
No 4.8% 1
Totals: 21
25
1.3
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Survey is indeed one of our highest priorities - especially with regard to some of
the Post WWII subdivisions.
192 This has long been on the "to do" list and is a basic function of a historic
preservation program that has been neglected in FC.
199 Again - another no-brainer that should have been done over time. This needs to
be addressed in the budgetary cycle.
201 Yes! We should have at least one staff person whose entire job is survey work.
This is a critical need.
203 And say it again, "We Need Surveys!"
206 Being able to draw on surveys already completed by qualified individuals will
prevent case by case cursory staff reviews done in response to proposals.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
26
1.3
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
TOPIC 2: Designated Resources: Process & Standards for
Review
Design Review Generally
13.Clarion’s Recommendation: Rename the design review process as a
“certificate of appropriateness” process [Topic 2, p. 8.]
• CAC: Prefers “Certificate of Approval” and “Landmark Alteration
Review”
• LPC: Prefers “Certificate of Appropriateness” and “Landmark Alteration
Review,” for consistency with other programs across country.
75% Yes
25% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 75.0% 15
No 25.0% 5
Totals: 20
27
1.3
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
184 Agree with LPC since this is the accepted language across the country.
185 Consistency with other programs across the country helps with clarity of
process, particularly for people who are just moving to Fort Collins, and for
contractors who are based in other areas e.g. Denver or Boulder.
190 Prefer LPC recommendation.
191 Uniformity with national preservation vocabulary is useful.
193 The name for the process should be consistent with mainstream terminology in
the historic preservation discipline. Need to eliminate FC terminology that
persists as local tribal knowledge.
195 Certificate of Appropriateness is a great name for consistency with other local
governments.
197 I agree with the LPC that better terms are "Certificate of Appropriateness" or
"Landmark Alteration Review"
199 Get rid of the term "appropriateness" - it conveys a sense that "we know what is
appropriate for your property" and you don't, further contributing to the "us and
them" perception between HP staff/LPC and the public
200 Agree with LPC
201 I like including both the words "Landmark" and "Alteration" in the name because
then it's clear what kind of building we're talking about (which helps to clearly
differentiate which part of the Code should be looked at) and that a change will
be taking place with it.
203 Changing the names of these processes will not only help applicants to have a
better sense of what's going on, but it's been confusing for the LPC as well.
"Landmark Alteration Review" clearly states what is going on.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
28
1.3
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
14. Clarion’s Recommendation: Develop a decision matrix to increase
predictability of required review processes [Topic 2, p. 8.]
• CAC: Agrees. Also develop decision matrices for paint and for murals.
Paint colors should be part of both decision matrices; approval on case-by-case
basis; reversibility and historic material preservation key points
• LPC: Agrees. Need to investigate a better way of determining minor
work from major work, rather than using aspects of integrity.
85% Yes
15% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 85.0% 17
No 15.0% 3
Totals: 20
29
1.3
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
30
ResponseID Response
184 Agree with the matrix, we should not be trying to do any guiding of paint/murals.
185 Major vs. minor work is a key cut off for if something comes to the full LPC, so
any predictability that can be added is good. Additionally, there should be a
caveat that if there is any discrepancy/debate even minor work can be elevated
to the LPC at the discretion of staff, the smaller review committee, or on behalf
of the applicant.
188 Paint colors could be done administratively.
189 Need further study. Not sure that aspects of integrity is not appropriate. More
definition of aspects may be required.
190 Paint color is irrelevant . Paint preferences and perception of appropriateness
changes with time and historic perspective.
193 Artistic murals are protected 1st Amendment content. The Preservation
program purview needs to be limited to how paint is applied to the landmark
property to avoid damaging a historic resource just as it reviews non-artistic
painting for appropriate paint types; how substrate materials, e.g. mural panels,
are affixed to building just as it reviews for proper attachment of light fixtures,
signage, etc. to avoid damage to historic materials such as the masonry; and to
some extent the location on the building that is appropriate for the mural.
Artistic content is 1st Amendment protected free speech, and the LPC and
preservation staff are not trained to pass judgment on artistic content even if a
legal basis did exist for such review.
199 Any matrix created still needs to be kept simple and easy to understand - and not
continually refer back to Code sections for clarity. Agree on painting, murals and
minor work.
200 Also agree with LPC
201 A decision matrix should be included in the code, but it should also be readily
available as a handout at the windows at the front of the Planning Department
and online.
203 The aspects of integrity don't take into account whether work is being done in
front of the house, where even a small change could have a big impact, or they're
on the back of the house where a large change could be hardly noticeable to
neighbors.
206 Clarity improves predictability.
1.3
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Commission Review
15. Clarion’s Recommendation: Make conceptual review an optional step
[Topic 2, p. 11; Municipal Code Section 14-46(b)(1)]
CAC: Supports.
• Also offer multiple conceptual reviews, rather than one. All conceptual
review comments should be presented at LPC Final Review
• Add the ability for LPC to make conditional approvals like P&Z does
• Offer Design Review Subcommittee meetings as alternate option; LPC
members who participate in Design Review Subcommittee should be allowed to
participate in Final Review, as done with DDA
LPC: Supports. Add the ability for LPC to make conditional approvals like P&Z
does
• Offer Design Review Subcommittee meetings as alternate option; LPC
members who participate in Design Review Subcommittee should be allowed to
participate in Final Review, as done with DDA
• Works in conjunction with clearer standards; focus on specificity of what
is required for approval.
• Add more information on what would likely be supported or denied.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
33
1.3
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Consistency with other organizations like the DDA is key and will help add
predictability. Also, adding in examples and more information about what will
*likely* (Not absolute!) be approved or denied will help citizens prepare for their
project and know going in if it is a long shot.
188 Design Review Members should not have to recuse themselves for later review.
200 Also LPC
203 I particularly like the idea of including examples of what would be supported or
denied. This would help applicants have a much better sense of what to expect.
206 Need to change perception of Design Review subcommittee process from a
delay to an optional assistance program.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
34
1.3
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
16. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider establishing a time limit for final
review [Topic 2, p. 11; Municipal Code Section 14-46(b)(2)]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Adds predictability; strengthens process.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
35
1.3
Packet Pg. 154
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
188 Make sure the limit includes the possibility of one lost meeting. That would make
it at least 2 meetings long?
198 The process has received decent kickback so anything that we can do to clarify
and simplify the process would be beneficial.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
36
1.3
Packet Pg. 155
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
17. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider establishing a time limit for final
review [Topic 2, p. 11; Municipal Code Section 14-46(b)(2)]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Adds predictability; strengthens process.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
37
1.3
Packet Pg. 156
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
188 See above
199 duplication of the previous item
201 Isn't this the same as above?
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
38
1.3
Packet Pg. 157
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Administrative Review
18. Clarion’s Recommendation: Adopt guiding document that identifies
specific types of work that can be delegated to staff for review. [Topic 2, p. 13;
Municipal Code Section 14-49.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
• Develop matrices of review processes, identifying routine, minor and
major work.
• Need to investigate a better way of determining minor work from major
work, rather than using aspects of integrity
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
39
1.3
Packet Pg. 158
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 I agree especially with regard to major vs. minor work. It will save staff and
applicants time and stress.
188 Paint, repair, etc.
199 Again, keep all matrices simple and easy to follow/understand.
200 Also LPC
201 Again, this document should be readily available to property owners outside of
the code as well.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
40
1.3
Packet Pg. 159
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Review Standards Generally
19. Clarion’s Recommendation: Establish mandatory approval criteria rather
than “considerations” [Topic 2, p. 18; Municipal Code Section 14-48(b)]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Change language that LPC “shall consider” to “shall use.” Make
clear in code what criteria are.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
41
1.3
Packet Pg. 160
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 use is much stronger and clearer than consider.
200 Also LPC
203 There needs to be a better sense of what is expected and an understanding that
if an applicant wants to do something other than what's expected, they should
have a really solid argument as to why they're asking to do something differently.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
42
1.3
Packet Pg. 161
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
20. Clarion’s Recommendation: Add specificity to the “standards of the City”
reference in the criteria for approval [Topic 2, p. 18; Municipal Code Section
14-48(b)(5)]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Clarify in codes what standards the City has adopted, by name,
and reference in codes whenever applicable
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
43
1.3
Packet Pg. 162
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 The more specificity and clarity the better.
191 There is a need for close review of code language to reduce possible points of
confusion.
193 The CAC should have an opportunity to review Clarion's changes to Muni Code
14-48 when drafted.
203 I am all for repeating things in the code when it helps applicants (and LPC
members) better understand what is expected.
206 Please be sure to also include the level of compliance with the more specific
standards.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
44
1.3
Packet Pg. 163
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Review Standards for Demolition
21. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider additional criteria for the approval
of demolition proposals [Topic 2, p. 18-19; Municipal Code Section 14-48.]
• CAC: Add criteria to code. The answer to all proposals to demolish landmark
designated properties should be no, except in cases of non-contributing
buildings in districts; non-contributing reviewed same as infill in district
• LPC: Change codes to reflect that site cannot sit fallow following demolition.
Clarify in code when a Landmark may be demolished; add standards for
acceptable new construction consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
& Guidelines. Revisit hardship standards to make sure they are appropriate
70% Yes
30% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 70.0% 14
No 30.0% 6
Totals: 20
45
1.3
Packet Pg. 164
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
191 I am uncertain about "cannot sit fallow;" rest of LPC suggestions are ok.
193 Not clear how noncontributing properties get reviewed the "same as infill". Infill
is additive, and demolition is subtractive. Disagree with LPC that site cannot sit
"fallow". The pace of someone's (re)development of the site is case specific and
control of those factors are outside of the purview of the LPC and City.
195 I'm confused about what the views are in this question.
196 Agree with all except the first one. Don't know why there needs to be a time
frame after demolition
197 The LPC recommendations combined with CAC's would be ideal.
199 I don't believe the answer should always be "no". I support LPC's position on this
instead of CAC's.
200 Agree with LPC
203 It really does add insult to injury when a property is demolished only to have the
land sit vacant for years. You might as well give us paper cuts and pour lemon
juice on them. Any deviation from Secretary of the Interior guidelines (which help
us to make sense of the standards) should be very well argued and supported.
206 We noted much disagreement about the suggestion to add a blanket statement
that a site cannot sit fallow following demolition, due to the broad variety of
circumstances.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
46
1.3
Packet Pg. 165
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Review Standards for Compatible Infill
22. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider codifying general compatibility
standards for new construction [Topic2, p.24.]
• CAC: Agrees. Code should better reference Secretary of Interior Standards
and Guidelines for examples of how to apply. Make both Ch. 14 and LUC 3.4.7
clear that literal replication is not desired, same with great divergence; what is
desired is invention within a style and abstract reference to context.
• LPC: Agrees. Adopt standards for compatible new construction consistent
with 2017 Secretary of Interior’s Standards & Guidelines update.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
47
1.3
Packet Pg. 166
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Secretary of Interior's Standards are widely recognized by the Federal
government, the State and many other communities.
193 This is great!
197 I agree only within the context of existing historic districts. Outside of an historic
district, if new construction does not adversely affect integrity of setting,
association, or feeling, compatibility of landmarks within a per-established radius,
compatibility is not the purview of preservation.
201 Yes! We don't want replication, but we do want new buildings to carry on the
patterning of the old so that new buildings look like they're joining the family, not
like they're aliens from another planet. It would be great to see similar code for
residential areas and not just commercial.
203 Applicants don't have to follow every guideline, but if they're not going to follow
every guideline, they should have a very good reason why not.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
48
1.3
Packet Pg. 167
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
23. Clarion’s Recommendation: Clarify the role of the adopted design
guidelines and standards [Topic 2, p. 24.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
49
1.3
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 More clarity is better.
188 Explain how standards meld with guidelines.
199 Please keep "standards" and "guidelines" clearly defined and use these terms
properly (standards = must do; guidelines = should do).
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
50
1.3
Packet Pg. 169
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
24: Clarion’s Recommendation: Develop design guidelines for additional
districts or general design guidelines [Topic 2, p. 24.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. Develop district-specific design standards and guidelines for
each new and existing historic district.
90% Yes
10% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 90.0% 18
No 10.0% 2
Totals: 20
51
1.3
Packet Pg. 170
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
182 Fort Collins should emphasize historic districts as a way to take a more holistic
view of historic preservation efforts, especially in Old Town.
185 Standards and guidelines tailored to individual districts and areas helps to better
maintain character and provide predictability for citizens.
188 Unless done through an overlay or special district. Historic Districts should be
comparable in guidelines.
189 Need specific district involvement and in-put.
190 Need district residents in-put.
197 Guidelines should be district-specific, though a template for how district design
guidelines ought to be formatted, expected content, etc. would be useful.
199 I believe there are still some general standards and guidelines that should be
used for each district, as well as some district-specific standards and guidelines
that will vary from district-to-district.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
52
1.3
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
TOPIC 3: Development Review and Historic Resources:
Processes and Standards for Review
Development Review Process
25. Clarion’s Recommendation: Clarify the purpose and intent of the historic
resources component of the Development Review process [Topic 3, p. 10;
Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(A) and (B)]
• CAC: Agrees. Area of adjacency identifies significant historic properties that
could be affected by new development. These resources provide the context.
New development different but compatible.
• LPC: Agrees. Review serves dual goals: 1. Retains eligibility of historic
resources; 2. Promotes compatibility with existing character.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
53
1.3
Packet Pg. 172
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
201 New development should not replicate the old, but should clearly speak to it.
The buildings should all look like they're from their own time period, but they're
all in the same overall family. Grandparents and grandkids look similar, even
though hairstyles, clothing, etc. might be night and day different.
203 City Plan states that existing character is important. The two purposes of review
hold true not only to protecting our historic resources, but also to doing our
part in helping to maintain and strengthen the character of our community.
206 In revising 3.4.7(A) and (B), there is an opportunity to define once what is
"historic" for purposes of this review (i.e. designated resources or resources
determined to be eligible for designation, but not potentially eligible resources).
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
54
1.3
Packet Pg. 173
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
26. Clarify the procedural requirements to obtain a recommendation from
the LPC. [Topic 3, p. 10, Land Use Code Section 3.4.7]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
55
1.3
Packet Pg. 174
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 That would help new LPC members as well as provide clarity for Citizens and
applicants.
203 I would love a code that enables and even pushes architects to think outside the
box. Let's find ways to strengthen who we are as a community -- not only by
respecting our historic resources, but by creating new buildings that continue to
reflect who we are, who WE are, as a community. We are forward thinking,
collaborative, community-minded, can-do people, rooted in nature and
energized by hard work. Our old buildings already convey that. Let's preserve
that sense that they give to us. But let's build new structures that continue to
speak to who and what Fort Collins is. Colored boxes don't do that.
206 If the "area of adjacency" is defined in 3.4.7, there should be no need for staff
time/effort to come up with recommendations and no need for the first LPC
hearing to establish it. Also, we suggest clarifying in 3.4.7(C) that any new
eligibility determinations done in response to development proposals be done
by qualified professionals following the required process and standards, so that
staff cannot do cursory reviews to increase the number of historic properties in
the area of adjacency.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
56
1.3
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
27. Clarion’s Recommendation: Use new terminology, such as “Historic
Resource Compatibility Review,” instead of “Development Review.” [Topic
3, p. 10]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
95% Yes
5% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 95.0% 19
No 5.0% 1
Totals: 20
57
1.3
Packet Pg. 176
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 It is more specific language which should help citizens/applicants to better
understand the process that their project is going through.
188 Development Review is used by the whole of Neighborhood Services, and
Historic is just a component of the overall Development Review Process.
Minimally, any change should be made with all Departments input. Confusing......
195 Let's look at other options in addition to "Historic Resource Compatibility
Review"
199 This new terminology more clearly represents what we are trying to achieve, but
occasionally using the development review process.
203 Clear wording is a great idea.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
58
1.3
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Applicability of Process
28. Clarion’s Recommendation: Establish a consistent and predictable
geographic limit for the review, such a Historic Resource Compatibility
Review matrix. [Topic 3, p. 15-18.]
• CAC: No difference in treatment of designated and eligible properties.
Supports set radius, regardless of height. More review criteria for abutting
development. Discussed radius ranging from abutting only to 500+ feet.
• LPC: No difference in treatment of designated and eligible properties.
Supports set radius, regardless of height. More review criteria for abutting
development. Support for 200-foot radius – ½ typical block.
75% Yes
25% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 75.0% 15
No 25.0% 5
Totals: 20
59
1.3
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
182 Would prefer neighborhoods-based approaches rather than "islands" around
designated properties. Fort Collins historic preservation efforts would benefit
from the city having more historic districts, especially in the Old Town residential
neighborhoods.
184 Agree with 200 ft absolute max
185 Part of our CLG status is maintaining consistency with State and National
Historic Preservation Act guidelines. Neither the state nor the NHPA treat
properties that are evaluated as eligible as different from those that have been
officially designated as such. Also, 200 ft / 0.5 block is scaleable, people
understand what we mean by it, and should allow sufficient context while being
predictable for applicants.
191 But 200 foot radius might vary among sites.
193 Agree with LPC, 200' radius is defensible and practical.
197 Support 200-foot radius
199 I believe up to a 200' radius is the way to go. Otherwise, I think the larger radius
is unnecessarily pulling more properties into the mix. An option could be to
allow for an increased radius in situations where a "resource of community
significance" is involved/impacted (ie. defining those very unique properties -
such as Old Post Office - that could either be involved in or impacted by a
proposal.
200 Agree with LPC
201 200 foot radius appears to be about right, although the construction of a
particularly tall building may merit a somewhat wider radius. This should be
addressed in the code. The wider radius could be 500 feet or less. Review
should treat abutting comparisons differently than non-abutting but within the
radius.
202 Do not agree with different criteria for abutting vs. non-abutting-adjacent. If
impact is diminished when non-abutting, then the problem solves itself w/r/t
those criteria - think having different sets of criteria adds needless complexity.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
60
1.3
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
203 The only caveat I would add is that if a particularly tall building is added to our
skyline, a wider radius may be needed in that case. Unfortunately, this might be
something that we need to feel our way through since we haven't had a
particularly tall building added in the past thirty some years. Maybe it won't be an
issue.
206 We support setting a defined radius for the area of adjacency (200') and suggest
removing other confusing terminology like "in the surrounding neighborhood,"
adjacent" and "in the immediate vicinity."
ResponseID Response
61
1.3
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
29. Clarion’s Recommendation: Develop context-based standards that are
not based on eligibility to ensure compatibility in certain areas of the city.
[Topic 3, p. 18.]
• CAC: Agrees. Building’s status does not change importance to community.
Treating both equally recognizes contribution to character, offers more
predictability, simplifies review.
• LPC: Agrees with Clarion and with CAC. Also develop standards &
guidelines for different areas in town based on areas’ character
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
62
1.3
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
189 Who develops standards and guidelines. What would be the process for this.
Who determines "area character". What would be the process for this.
190 Need public participation.
199 This may be a very hard sell for SFD neighborhoods
200 Also agree with LPC
201 Yes. One thing that became clear in reading Clarion's reports is that many other
communities have a Design Review Board that monitors new construction to
help assure new construction is compatible with character of an area. This helps
strengthen "Sense of Place" which is an important part of helping people
connect to the city overall and especially the part in which they live, work, or
hang out a lot. Old Town has that sense. Much of the rest of town doesn't.
Character areas could help with this.
203 Yes to character districts. They're especially important in mid-town which has a
1960s - 1980s character that we should preserve, but we need to figure out
how infill should look that would respect and enhance that character.
206 We do not believe that "potentially eligible" resources should be included.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
63
1.3
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
30. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider reviewing impact on eligible
resources only if they are on-site or abutting a development project. [Topic
3, p. 18.]
• CAC: Disagrees. Retention of context important. Development can be
different but should still be good neighbor.
• LPC: Disagrees. Would not promote context - Sense of Place. Development
can be different but should still be reviewed to ensure good neighbor.
80% Yes
20% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 80.0% 16
No 20.0% 4
Totals: 20
64
1.3
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
184 I think this would actually work better as you have set design considerations for
abutting buildings and are not trying to incorporate multiple stylistic elements.
185 Particularly as the City continues to grow up as well as out, 200 ft or half a block
is much more consistent, predictable, and allows for a full context to be taken in.
Also, on-site or abutting opens the door for more conflict and confusion as far
as what those terms mean instead of 200 ft.
198 Only reviewing the impact on abutting projects would greatly impact the
character of an area and then the projects would only be examined in a vacuum
rather than a broader view.
199 This sounds contrary to the question above re: radii.
201 Yes. Buildings beyond those that abut a property contribute to the sense of
place for the area. Ignoring surrounding buildings could lead to a hodge podge
feel in an area and therefore a loss of that sense of place.
203 Good neighborliness is important -- especially in terms of pedestrian impact and
the comfortableness that comes with being in a place that's in agreement with
itself.
206 The impact on all eligible resources (i.e. those determined eligible by qualified
individuals using the prescribed methodology, process, terminology) within the
defined area of adjacency (200') should be considered. However, we support
the notion that less criteria may be applicable to non-abutting properties.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
65
1.3
Packet Pg. 184
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
31. Clarion’s Recommendation: Focus on survey work to develop an
inventory of eligible historic resources. [Topic 3, p. 18.]
• CAC: Agrees. Should ne highest priority. This will not work unless surveys
and contexts are getting funding. Need City commitment of on-going funding
• LPC: Agrees. Foundation of all other work. Need funding, staff to manage.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
66
1.3
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
182 The need for survey work could be reduced if there were more historically
designated neighborhoods.
185 Survey is really important and the more that is done, the more information the
City and citizens have to work with. Funding and staff is very important though -
survey takes time and effort.
193 Surveys need to be completed by trained professionals in the industry as the
content of the surveys must be accurate and objective due to the use of the
content in quasi-judicial proceedings. Should be no attempts to complete these
surveys on the cheap with un-trained students, or volunteers. Historic surveys
function and integrate with the City's preservation program just as fuel and
mechanics are to the City's vehicle fleet.
199 Yes, this should be the highest priority for city staff.
201 If there's one thing that the entire CAC agreed on over and over again it's that
we have GOT to get this city surveyed. Other communities are really putting us
to shame in this department.
203 Surveys - Yes! Yes, yes, yes!
206 Agree emphatically, as long as the work is being done by qualified individuals
using consistent methodology, standards, terminology, etc.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
67
1.3
Packet Pg. 186
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Clarity & Organization
32. Clarion’s Recommendation: Redraft Section 3.4.7 for clarity and to
improve the organization, clarifying the purpose, applicability, and
standards of the process. [Topic 3, p. 22.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
68
1.3
Packet Pg. 187
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
189 Re-draft should be a public process. Maybe a graphic clarification.
190 Redraft should be a public process.
193 CAC should have opportunity to review Clarion's draft work for clarifying and
improving 3.4.7
201 3.4.7 is at times confusing. It seems well intentioned, but poorly written and not
thoroughly thought out. A rewrite with similar intentions but clearer verbiage
would go a long way towards improving predictability as well as consistency in
application.
203 There are parts of 3.4.7 that the LPC can't tell if they stand on their own or if
they're predicated on previous code. It gets confusing. Let's fix that.
206 We look forward to reviewing drafts of the reorganized/revised 3.4.7. Although
not likely that it belongs in the text of 3.4.7, we suggest that the Historic
Preservation Department be included on the referral list for all concept reviews,
preliminary design reviews and PDPs.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
69
1.3
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
TOPIC 4: Demo/Alt Review, Demolition by Neglect,
Dangerous Buildings
Demolition/Alteration Review Process
33. Clarion’s Recommendation: Clarify the role of the Design Review
Subcommittee (DRS). [Topic 4, p. 11; Municipal Code Section 14-72(b) and
14-72(d)]
• CAC: Agrees. LPC members participating in DRS should still be able to
participate in later LPC hearings on item, like DDA does.
• LPC: Agrees. LPC members participating in DRS should be able to
participate in later hearings on item. DRS should be utilized more, offered as
alternative to conceptual design review of changes to landmarks and for
preliminary reviews of new development.
95% Yes
5% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 95.0% 19
No 5.0% 1
Totals: 20
70
1.3
Packet Pg. 189
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 I allows for more flexibility in timeline as it can be more than 1 regular meeting a
month. Also, the DRS is an underutilized service that can add clarity earlier in the
process.
199 But I believe the success and effectiveness of the DRS is a function of who's on
the committee and I also believe that such a committee shouldn't be reliant on
who's on it - so a bit of a catch 22 for me!
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
71
1.3
Packet Pg. 190
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
34. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider using a decision matrix to more
clearly differentiate between minor and major alterations. [Topic 4, p. 11.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
72
1.3
Packet Pg. 191
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
199 With all of the years' "history" of alteration reviews, it should be fairly simple to
define minor and major alterations.
203 As someone directly involved in demo/alt, this is definitely something that is
needed. It's hard to be consistent when you're not really sure where the
boundaries lie. So we try our darndest, but it really shouldn't be so hard.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
73
1.3
Packet Pg. 192
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
35. Clarion’s Recommendation: Reevaluate the criteria for approval and
potentially add an economic hardship determination. [Topic 4, p. 11;
Municipal Code Section 14-72(b), 14-72(f)(7) and 14-7]
• CAC: Disagrees with Clarion. Does not support adding economic
hardship as a criterion. Very difficult, adds complexity. Potentially unfair;
different results between savvy investors with large portfolios, lawyers and
accountants, vs Mom and Pop owners.
o Develop intermediate options for LPC between must approve or non-
consensual landmark designation.
• LPC: Disagrees with Clarion. Does not support adding economic
hardship as a criterion. Noted that this is Council policy, affects all city codes
o Agrees with CAC on intermediate options between two extremes.
90% Yes
10% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 90.0% 18
No 10.0% 2
Totals: 20
1.3
Packet Pg. 193
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Hardship is so subjective and it would not make any sense to have a hardship
JUST for historic preservation - it would indeed have to be city wide. Also, while
LPC must include members who are trained in historic preservation
(architecture, history, archaeology, etc.), none of these fields offer specific
training in evaluating hardship.
193 Also, LPC membership criteria, which is currently structured to meet CLG
requirements, does not provide for the typical skill-sets that would be necessary
to objectively review complex arguments for economic hardships. Would need
an LPC membership containing CPAs, bankers, real estate financing
professionals to fill this role, not architects and historians.
199 I believe we should stay far away from trying to add/define/apply economic
hardship. This is a true, writhing "bucket of worms".
201 If the City is not doing it elsewhere, then why the heck would we add it to the
preservation code?!!
202 Think it is inappropriate to completely dismiss economic impacts to property
owners. Believe that, specific to alterations, there should not be a "hardship"
test, but rather a "reasonableness" test - again, specific to alterations. Agree that
considerations of "economic opportunity cost" should not factor into
designation/demolition reviews.
203 For the most part, Clarion has been right on about stuff. But this one just doesn't
seem very "Fort Collins" to me. It's not how we operate.
206 We do agree with Clarion's recommendations to improve certainty and
consistency of the review criteria, and to clearly state the intent and limitations
of the LPC's reviewing authority. We are interested in reviewing any suggested
options for between "must approve" and "nonconsensual designation."
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
75
1.3
Packet Pg. 194
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
36. Clarion’s Recommendation: Consider increasing the amount of time
that the LPC can delay a decision in order to find alternatives to demolition.
[Topic 4, p. 11)
• CAC: Agrees. Concern that easy to miss deadline, such as by a meeting
cancelled for weather or lack of quorum. Make sure timing is adequate.
• LPC: Agrees. Staff needs to address as part of review of overall timing
80% Yes
20% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 80.0% 16
No 20.0% 4
Totals: 20
76
1.3
Packet Pg. 195
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Once it is placed into the overall timeline given to applicants it should not cause
any suprises.
188 Agreed. There should be flexibility to deal with a missed meeting or time for staff
research.
193 In favor of increased amount of time only if there is a clear nexus articulated
between amount of time required for the delay and the steps and efforts
employed by LPC/staff to identify and discuss alternatives to demolition with the
owner.
203 It's not like we WANT to delay a project. That doesn't do anyone any good. But
we also want to make sure that we've engaged in a sound and thorough
process. So we should have time allotted that will enable a good overall process
-- especially if there are unforeseen circumstances.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
77
1.3
Packet Pg. 196
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
37. Clarion’s Recommendation: Focus on completing survey work to
proactively identify eligible resources. [Topic 4, p. 16.]
• CAC: Strongly agrees. Notes that each of Clarion’s reports states need
for far more survey.
• LPC: Strongly agrees. Would greatly benefit predictability; aid
developers and property owners.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
78
1.3
Packet Pg. 197
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Survey is key, but it will need funding and time.
201 Yup. We need those surveys!
203 Shout it from the mountaintops, " We need surveys!"
206 Clarion makes this recommendation repeatedly because of it will improve the
efficiency and success of the whole program.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
79
1.3
Packet Pg. 198
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
38. Clarion’s Recommendation: Create an inventory of eligible historic
resources. [Topic 4, p. 16.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
80
1.3
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Having such an inventory will be helpful for applicants and will be an excellent
resource for the City.
199 I am assuming this inventory would be created as a result of survey work (either
done, or to be done). If yes, I support. If no, I question how a determination
would be made on eligibility.
201 And get that inventory online so that people have a clearer sense of what is
landmarked, what contributes to a district, what is eligible but not protected, and
what it too altered or too new to qualify. There is a clear misconception in the
community that more of our historic places are protected than is actually the
case. If people realized how unprotected our heritage is, they might be quite
shocked.
206 Publication of the new resource, accessibility and ease of use by the public will
be important.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
81
1.3
Packet Pg. 200
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
39. Clarion’s Recommendation: Reconsider the five-year period of validity.
Consider a process for property owners to obtain a certificate of ineligibility
with a five-year limit on validity. [Topic 4, p. 16; Municipal Code 14-6(a)]
• CAC: Clarify. Clarion appears to say that all buildings are eligible until
determined not to be. Not sure how this would help. Request more
information.
• LPC: Currently no presumption of a building’s eligibility. More
information needed to understand why Clarion recommends this change.
75% Yes
25% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 75.0% 15
No 25.0% 5
Totals: 20
82
1.3
Packet Pg. 201
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
184 I don't think there should be a 5-year period. How about eligible until proven
otherwise.
185 Presuming a building is eligible until it is proven that it is not is a slippery slope. I
am still not clear on why Clarion recommended that change or how it would
really benefit Fort Collins.
188 Agree with the idea that any significant building or 50 yr old building should be
considered "Eligible" unless certificate ineligibility is obtained. 5 year limit also
good.
190 Need more information
199 I was not aware that the 5-year period of validity was a rule. I believe there needs
to be some allowance that if conditions change (ie. within a 200' radius) that may
impact a resource's eligibility, then the eligibility status should be re-visited.
SHPO tends to use 5-years, but also says if conditions have changed for the
resource or in the area, then a new evaluation is warranted.
201 I do think we need more clarity on this recommendation. However, it doesn't
make sense that an eligible property would somehow lose that eligibility after 5
years unless work had been done to it or it had somehow been damaged.
Ineligible buildings, however, may be rehabilitated such that they could then
qualify as eligible. So the general principal that Clarion is recommending here
seems to be sound.
203 I agree that some more explanation from Clarion would be helpful, but I like the
overall idea of reversing the process from what we do. If a house is eligible, it's
unlikely that would change over time without a permit having to be pulled, which
would give the alert of change. On the other hand, an ineligible property could
become eligible without any work being done, simply the passing of time.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
83
1.3
Packet Pg. 202
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Demolition by Neglect
40. Clarion’s Recommendation: Specify the types of repairs that are
required to prevent demolition by neglect. [Topic 4, p. 21; Municipal Code
14-8 and 14-73]
• CAC: Agrees. Proactive enforcement before they become imminently
dangerous. Neglected/dangerous buildings should have to go through city’s
processes, not be able to circumvent.
• LPC: Agrees with CAC. Noted that how repairs are done could damage
integrity of building.
95% Yes
5% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 95.0% 19
No 5.0% 1
Totals: 20
84
1.3
Packet Pg. 203
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
184 Look at mothballing. You may have to approve interventions that would not
normally pass if that will, in the long run, provide the greatest protection to the
resource.
185 Neglecting buildings should absolutely not be a way to wiggle out of other City
reviews and processes. Clear guidelines and minimum standards are necessary
as are requirements that their repairs cannot damage the integrity of the
building.
190 "City processes" should include LPC or subcommittee design review.
199 This area is still within the purview of the Building Code, so that staff needs to be
involved in drafting any information relative to demolition by neglect.
202 Agree - with reservations. This is further encroaching on private property rights
- urge caution!!
206 Will defer to majority CAC opinion.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
85
1.3
Packet Pg. 204
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
41.Clarion’s Recommendation: Increase penalties for properties
undergoing demolition by neglect. [Topic 4, p. 21.]
• CAC: Agrees. Way to circumvent City processes. Penalties within
certain time frame should also be cumulative rather than treated as separate
incidents.
• LPC: Agrees with CAC. Used as way to circumvent City processes.
95% Yes
5% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 95.0% 19
No 5.0% 1
Totals: 20
86
1.3
Packet Pg. 205
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Neglecting a building cannot be seen as a way to get out of City processes.
193 Demolition by neglect could be confused with a situation whereby a property
owner is not of financial means to maintain the property sufficiently. Determining
if neglect is malicious is a slippery slope for the LPC to weigh in upon. Penalties
need to be considered very carefully and should only be used if well defined
criteria and supporting evidence shows that the neglect is malicious. Otherwise
the City could be in a situation that penalizes a property owner for being poor
and not maintaining their property to the standard that is perceived by the
historic preservation board and staff as sufficient.
197 Penalties should be high.
199 I'd like to see this done, but believe it is another very hard sell for the city. Maybe
a grant fund could be created for someone who just doesn't have the resources
to make repairs, or who doesn't even understand the full implication of not
taking any protective measures.
201 There should be a several step process: 1) First approach property owner with
problems as well as the multiple programs the City has in place to help deal with
the given problems. 2) Give a deadline for the completion of the work and touch
base after a bit to see if the property owner will be taking advantage of City
programs. 3) Once deadline has been reached, if the property owner has started
work and appears to be seeking compliance, give extension. Otherwise
penalties should be steep.
202 Agree - with reservations. This is further encroaching on private property rights
- urge caution!!
206 Will defer to majority CAC opinion.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
87
1.3
Packet Pg. 206
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
42. Clarion’s Recommendation: If an inventory of eligible resources is
created, extend maintenance requirements to eligible structures on the
inventory. [Topic 4, p. 21.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
85% Yes
15% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 85.0% 17
No 15.0% 3
Totals: 20
88
1.3
Packet Pg. 207
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Fort Collins is a CLG- consistency with federal standards is part of maintaining
the CLG status. Under federal (and state) standards, eligible properties are
afforded the same protections as designated properties.
188 Probably should be a reasonable "minimum" maintenance requirements.
193 Like the tool of condemnation, this maintenance requirement tool needs to be
used for only the most extreme of cases, and very sparingly. The public relations
optics associated with this maintenance requirement tool will be a nightmare to
manage, and may cause more harm to the overall preservation program than
benefit.
199 Ditto my comments on the previous question.
202 Agree - with reservations. This is further encroaching on private property rights
- urge caution!!
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
89
1.3
Packet Pg. 208
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
43.Clarion’s Recommendation: Incorporate preservation-related
requirements in the general property maintenance standards. [Topic 4, p.
21.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees.
95% Yes
5% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 95.0% 19
No 5.0% 1
Totals: 20
90
1.3
Packet Pg. 209
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
188 See 83
199 I see these questions re: property maintenance and demo by neglect as lower
priorities, given the lack of surveys that need to be done.
201 Yes. Preservation code should be integrated with other code items so that
applicants don't have to search all over creation to find the parts that apply to
their situation.
202 Agree - with reservations. This is further encroaching on private property rights
- urge caution!!
206 Will defer to the majority CAC opinion.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
91
1.3
Packet Pg. 210
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
44. Clarion’s Recommendation: Develop additional financial incentives to
assist with required property maintenance. [Topic 4, p.21.]
• CAC: Agrees. Bigger carrots to incentivize rehabilitation.
• LPC: Agrees. Also use to address energy efficiency.
95% Yes
5% No
Value Percent Responses
Yes 95.0% 19
No 5.0% 1
Totals: 20
92
1.3
Packet Pg. 211
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Energy efficiency and recycling of already used materials (e.g. existing houses)
are compatible, and there are many ways that historic preservation helps with
the City's green goals, not the least of which is less landfill space used when
properties are demolished instead of adapted and reused.
199 See my comment earlier re: a grant fund
203 And make sure the residents are aware of these incentives.
206 Will defer to the majority CAC opinion.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
93
1.3
Packet Pg. 212
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Public Safety Exclusions
45. Clarion’s Recommendation: Clarify the requirement to fix dangerous
conditions when deemed repairable by the building official. [Topic 4, p. 25.]
• CAC: Agrees. City should have distinction between dangerous and
imminently dangerous.
• LPC: Agrees with Clarion and CAC.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
94
1.3
Packet Pg. 213
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 It is an important distinction to have. Owners should not be able to shrug and
have to demolish through neglect unless it is imminently dangerous. If repairs
can be made that is the way to go. It also helps avoid people using demolition by
neglect as a way to circumvent city processes.
189 work should be reviewed by design review committee.
199 Again, Building Inspection staff should be involved in this
203 If it can be repaired, it should be repaired. Chucking stuff into the landfill and
starting over isn't environmentally sustainable. As part of our Climate Action
goals, we should be first maintaining things and then fixing things that have gone
beyond the maintenance stage. Not fixing or maintaining an eligible resource
results in a loss to the community.
206 Do we need more definition of what is "repairable"? Are here any financial limits
on what is considered repairable?
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
95
1.3
Packet Pg. 214
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
46. Clarion’s Recommendation: Review relevant building code definitions.
[Topic 4, p. 25.]
• CAC: Need definition of dangerous and imminently dangerous;
reference in all relevant codes. City Attorney’s Office will prepare definition.
• LPC: Agrees with Clarion and CAC. CAO crafting definition good;
defensible.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
96
1.3
Packet Pg. 215
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 Clear and defensible are important.
199 Ditto comments on previous question
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
97
1.3
Packet Pg. 216
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
47.Clarion’s Recommendation: Improve coordination between the LPC/
preservation staff and the building official in regards to dangerous
buildings. [Topic 4, p. 25.]
• CAC: Agrees.
• LPC: Agrees. More coordination helpful in both preventing and
resolving issues.
100% Yes
Value Percent Responses
Yes 100.0% 20
Totals: 20
98
1.3
Packet Pg. 217
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
199 Yes, extremely important.
Please share any additional comments or feedback about this item.
99
1.3
Packet Pg. 218
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ResponseID Response
185 No
191 I am a former LPC member but did take part in much of the Clarion effort. Overall,
creation of historic surveys is extremely important for both applicants and city
staff/LPC.
193 The process to evaluate and consider these recommendations by Clarion was
well executed. I felt my time was very well spent in these conversations, and the
resulting direction will help alleviate the sticking points that previously
contributed to making historic preservation review process challenging for both
the LPC and applicants.
201 There was a fairly wide variety of points of view within the CAC, and yet we
agreed on a surprising number of points. It's clear that we all want a beautiful,
well maintained, accessible, comprehensible city and process to get there. The
value of our historic resources was seen by all to be a positive aspect of who we
are as a community. And the overwhelming, resounding call for surveys unified
us over and over again.
203 The demo/alt process for residential buildings needs an overhaul. Either eligible
residential properties need to be protected or we should stop wasting time
figuring out which are eligible if they're going to be scraped or altered anyway.
It's a waste of resources and a pain in the butt for all involved. Let's keep the
valuable pieces, like alerting the public as to what is about to happen and giving
time for pubic feedback, but ditch the parts that are frankly pointless. It's
depressing to evaluate a property, find that it's not only eligible but a rare and
pristine example of a type of architecture, only to see it scraped the moment the
announcement sign has been taken down. If we're not going to protect our
heritage, then what's the point of putting labels on it first?
Final Comments
48. Is there anything else you would like us to note that was not covered in the
previous questions?
100
1.3
Packet Pg. 219
Attachment: Survey on Recommendations (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
HP Program Area Action Item Schedule %
Complete
Strategic Outcome
Area
Historic Property Survey Publish survey results on FC Maps website. 2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Historic Property Survey Clarify standards for local eligibility to create more consistent survey
results.
2018 25 High-Performing
Govt.
Historic Property Survey Work with IT/GIS staff to develop web-based or fillable PDF field
survey form for tablet-based survey.
2018 10 High-Performing
Govt.
Historic Property Survey Survey priority redevelopment areas in the Downtown zone and the
NCB zone.
2018 10 Neighborhood
Livability
Historic Property Survey Secure resources to develop a ten-year survey schedule that
prioritizes commercial properties and Downtown and Old Town
neighborhoods.
2019-20 BFO High-Performing
Govt.
Historic Property Survey Update survey form and train surveyors to collect data on key energy
performance features.
2019-20 BFO Environmental
Health
Historic Property Survey Take stock of changes within local historic districts to track overall
exterior condition of buildings.
2019-20 BFO Neighborhood
Livability
Historic Property Survey Include neighborhood development history with online survey results
to improve public understanding of community history.
2019-20 BFO Neighborhood
Livability
Historic Property Survey Send all existing landmarks and recently surveyed properties to GIS
staff to populate the updated historic properties map for FC Maps.
Completed 100
High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Evaluate merits of conservation districts or structures of merit as
additional types of historic resource recognition.
2018 100 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Designation Evaluate merits of separate process for commercial and residential;
single property and districts.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Analyze code requirements for nonconsensual designation; clarify and
look for unnecessary steps.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Create a new designation process description with accompanying flow
chart/infographic.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
ATTACHMENT 4
1
1.4
Packet Pg. 220
Landmark Designation Reevaluate interim control provision while properties are under
consideration for designation to allow alterations with Director/Chair
or LPC approval.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Identify opportunities to improve process within the allowable time
frame for consideration of a nomination for nonconsensual landmark
designation.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Clarify and resolve conflict in code with supermajority notations for
LPC votes and meeting presence.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Add City website to the required noticing outlets for designations. 2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Evaluate relationship of National Register standards and practices to
local landmarks.
2018 60 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Designation Evaluate opportunities to require additional information on a
designation application to improve decision-making, e.g. context and
rarity considerations.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Clarify the process and sources for staff investigation of a property's
suitability for designation and potential benefits to City, based on the
local criteria for designation.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Improve description of potential "benefits to the City" in municipal
code Ch. 14, including contributions to CAP goals.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation If Council chooses not to designate a property without consent,
determine how long that decision has standing.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation For nonconsensual designations, reconsider exemption for pending
permit applications to comply with Article IV, if the property will not
be designated.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Use code review feedback to improve criteria for local landmark
eligibility and consider appropriate criteria for "priority" historic
resource category.
2018 30 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Designation Update designation procedures for districts. 2018 20 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Designation Investigate additional incentives for designated properties, such as
flexibility in permitted uses, parking requirements, fee waivers.
2018 Neighborhood
Livability
2
1.4
Packet Pg. 221
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Landmark Design Review Clarify role/analyze options for expanded use of the Design Review
Subcommittee to improve customer service. LPC members who
participate should be allowed to participate in Final Design Review, as
DDA does.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Improved staff report template to clarify how project complies with
standards and other guidelines; include conceptual review comments
and staff recommendations.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Develop recordkeeping system for summaries of all decisions,
including administrative review.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Investigate better way to distinguish major (LPC review) versus minor,
to create more opportunity for administrative approval (Ch. 14, Article
III).
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Change approval label from "Report of Acceptability" to "Certificate of
Approval" or "Certificate of Appropriateness," as used in other
communities.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Investigate opportunities to clarify, simplify, and waive conceptual
design review when appropriate.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Codify general standards for new construction within a historic
district, based on federal guidelines.
2018 60 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Design Review Clarify what is meant by "standards of the City in Section 14-48 -
Report of acceptability, (b)(5).
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Make Chptr 14 code clear that literal replication is not required for
additions to designated landmarks; designs may include "invention
within a style."
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review In Chapter 14, clarify the role of any adopted design standards for
historic districts.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Design Review Adopt mandatory criteria for demolition applications of designated
resources, including hardship standards.
2018 30 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Design Review In code and all documents, clarify that design review is for exterior of
designated landmarks, not interior work.
2018 30 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Change code to reflect deadlines for all types of approval and clarify
process for re-approval when necessary.
2018 30 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Design Review Promote/highlight rapid approval process for appropriate solar
installations and other energy performance measures.
Landmark Design Review New decision matrix, process flow chart/infographic that includes
mandatory approval criteria.
2018 20 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Develop decision matrices for paint and murals: colors, % of bldg
covered, elevation, protection of character-defining features,
application method, reversibility, material preservation.
2018 20 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Clarify process in code for conditional approvals of design review
applications.
2018 20 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Design Review Review and improve process for working with inspectors on site
inspectors for approved plans and plans of protection that involve
designated landmarks.
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Create internal City staff "expert" resource list to provide higher level
of customer service.
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Design Review Conceptual Review/Final Review noticing: ensure that public does not
miss opportunity for comment because they don't understand that
LPC may render a final decision.
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Develop staff report templates to improve consistency, rigor,
efficiency.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Evaluate Clarion's suggestion for distance-based "radius of impact" in
addition to immediately abutting "area of adjacency" or other criteria
to create more predictability and consistency.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Create a basic list of required standards for design compatibility with
historic resources and survey stakeholders for feedback.
2018 100 Neighborhood
Livability
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Update 3.4.7 requirements to allow compatible modern architecture
as infill.
2018 60 Neighborhood
Livability
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Insert description of stakeholders' preference for "area of adjacency"
requirements in LUC 3.4.7.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Outline specific criteria that would allow staff to provide a "no effect"
determination (LUC 3.4.7) as well as procedural requirements to
obtain a recommendation from the LPC.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Setbacks: in Articles III and IV, clarify when new development should
align with historic building setback or newer setbacks; clarify side
setbacks in residential neighborhoods.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Coordinate updates for Article III general standards in 3.5.1 and 3.4.7. 2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Write new general standards for compatibility of new construction
with historic resources in LUC 3.4.7 to balance flexibility and
predictability.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Evaluate use of "shalls" and of "to the maximum extent feasible" to
make sure all are appropriate and clarified, when possible.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Work with Planning to address code requirements related to height:
what constitutes a story, effect of grade buildup, realistic relationship
of minimum floor height to maximum building height.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Align standards in 3.4.7(D) that relate to treatment of historic
resources with 14-72(d)(1) to comply with federal standards.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Develop mitigation requirements for development projects that have
adverse impact on historic resources (LUC 3.4.7)
2018 25 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Consider opportunities to formalize minor/major (admin/LPC) project
review tiers.
2018 20 High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Develop process flow chart/infographic as handout and web content. 2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Establish SIRE cabinet for City Docs sharing of historic property
documents.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Update website and info sheet with complete list of potential sources
used for reviews.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Create research source checklist for weekly demo-alt review meetings-
-create addendum of sources provided.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Implement improved demo-alt review form to improve rigor and
transparency of decisions.
2018 100 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Modify spreadsheet tracking to capture additional data for analysis. 2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Promote/highlight rapid approval process for solar installations. 2018 100 Environmental
Health
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Send addresses of properties to Demo/Alt review team 2 days before
meeting to allow for individual field visits as necessary.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Demolition by neglect: improve coordination between HP staff and
building official regarding dangerous buildings.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Ask community for feedback on 5-year period of validity and potential
benefit of "certificate of ineligibility."
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Reevaluate criteria for approval; consider adding an economic
hardship determination
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Review/clarification of process with front counter for construction of
new secondary structures.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Clarify the role of the Design Review Subcommittee in the demo/alt
review process.
2018 30
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Work with Russ Hovland and CAO to clarify requirement to fix
dangerous conditions when deemed repairable by building official.
2018 25 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Work with CAO and Russ Hovland to update code definition of
imminent danger.
2018 25 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Revisit the 2014 changes to 14-72(f)1 regarding unintentional weaking
of the requirement for fully approved plans for final review.
2018 20 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Better define detrimental changes that affect eligibility and line
between major/minor work.
2018 20 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Research "Old Town" historic overlay zone option as opportunity to
reduce the need for demo/alt review.
2018 10 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Consider tiered requirements for major/minor on eligible properties. 2018 10 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Work with Russ Hovland to clarify and incorporate preservation-
related maintenance requirements in building code update.
2018 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Map locations of full demolitions to inform analysis of neighborhood
character transitions.
2018 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Consider adding automatic signoff for buildings constructed after 1960
(if code change not required?).
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Investigate increased fees associated with demolition as offset
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Improve posting signage for properties - wording, options for more
info or clarifying purpose of posting.
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Design Assistance Program Create new infographic summarizing program requirements and
applicability for designated/eligible properties and non-eligible Old
Town properties.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Design Assistance Program Institute requirements of before and after photos for all applications
to document program efficacy.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Design Assistance Program Create portfolion of recent success stories portfolio to provide
examples for potential applicants.
2018 100 Neighborhood
Livability
Design Assistance Program Identify improvements through a survey for property owners who
have used the program.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Design Assistance Program Publish success stories on DAP page of website. 2018 10 Neighborhood
Livability
Design Assistance Program Explore options to integrate energy-efficiency retrofits into program. 2018 Environmental
Health
Design Assistance Program Institute annual meetings with participating consultants to review
requirements and identify program improvements.
2018 Neighborhood
Livability
Landmark Rehab Loans Update functionality of landmarks database for loan tracking. 2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Rehab Loans Renew service agreement with Funding Partners to include full loan
servicing for more rapid service delivery.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Rehab Loans Identify potential solutions for supplemental support to equalize
income-related barriers to the program
2018 25 Economic Health
Landmark Rehab Loans Outline a successful sample loan project in A-Z steps and timeline. 2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Rehab Loans As component of sustainable preservation project, evaluate options to
integrate efficiency retrofits and tiered project levels with different
dollar caps.
2019-20 BFO Environmental
Health
Landmark Preservation
Commission
Include board makeup and qualifications in all meeting materials. 2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Landmark Preservation
Commission
Establish LPC work plan progress reports as regular agenda item for
monthly work sessions.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
8
1.4
Packet Pg. 227
General Improvement Establish preliminary list of qualified businesses for pilot Legacy
Business Program (at least 30 years in FC) as a "small business
visibility" program.
2018 100 Economic Health
General Improvement Update Historic Preservation Q&A content in Access Fort Collins. 2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Publish all code review reports, minutes, and next steps on City
website.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Provide designated landmarks information to Poudre Landmarks
Foundation for FoCo Creates, the update to the city's Arts and Culture
Master Plan.
2018 100
Neighborhood
Livability
General Improvement Evaluate intersection and alignment of all review programs. 2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Update program and review process labels to clarify specific purpose. 2018 90 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Improve overall clarity, organization, hierarchy, and cross-references
of preservation code in LUC 3.4.7 and Chapter 14 of municipal code.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Clarify role of federal standards as framework for local code, wherever
applicable.
2018 60 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Add reference to intersection with environmental/CAP goals in
Municipal Code 14-2 Declaration of Policy.
2018 60 Environmental
Health
General Improvement Create improvement plan with Enviro Svcs and Utilities to coordinate
public outreach, workshops that serve internal/external audience.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Add more references in code to federal documents, briefs used for
local code requirements.
2018 30 Neighborhood
Livability
General Improvement Participate in City Plan working groups to include preservation policies
and perspectives plan update.
2018 10 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Establish regular internal coordination/training focused on
streamlined customer service with other CDNS divisions.
2018 10 High-Performing
Govt.
General Improvement Improve public visibility of historic places and legacy businesses with
signage and outreach initiative.
2019-20 BFO Economic Health
9
1.4
Packet Pg. 228
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Outreach Comments
Joint LPC/P&Z Work Session, November 9, 2017:
LUC needs to address form, not just height, massing, bulk and scale.
Pedestrian experience more than just stepbacks.
Predictability encourages sameness. New development “Not same as,” followed by 200 pages
of LUC that makes it the same.
Downtown (D) Zoning – what are restrictions on residential in zone?
FAR addresses form through backdoor.
NCL and NCM: Buildings still too big. Long walls.
Issue of lot consolidation.
Rate of change: Incremental over next decade, i.e. 3 stories to 5, to 9 vs. all at once, i.e., 3
stories to 9.
Some compatibility decisions must be a case by case basis.
Need to proactively identify critical buildings that need to be protected.
Compatibility vs transition: what’s the difference? Ans.: scale = transitions.
Transition at alleys, not across street.
Start with clean slate: this is what we want.
Need to look into PFA’s height regulations; how does this affect zoning height?
Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC), December 1, 2017 &
February 23, 2018
Do not want non-consensual process to be easier for applicant.
Property rights of owner – non-consensual landmark designation should not be allowed at all.
Please define “proportions.” What does that mean?
I just wanted to tell you I thought you did a great job. I thought your responses were honest
and direct and recognized the tension without apologizing for it. Sometimes these
presentations feel like BS. This one did not. Bravo.
ATTACHMENT 5
1
1.5
Packet Pg. 229
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Smaller area for review (less than 400 - 500 feet) may not provide a big enough sample; more
variety with larger area.
Should allow option to match historic if developer desires.
Four-sided architecture is expensive.
Survey provides predictability; why isn’t more being done?
LPC acts like they know more than the architect; designing buildings on the fly.
Change in heights equals change in property value.
Comment about 1970s commercial buildings.
Protect Our Old Town Homes (POOTH), February 23, 2018
No protections offered in codes for residential neighborhoods. Owners can easily demolish;
only option is extreme recourse of non-consensual designation.
Concern that changes to demolition/alteration review will increase negative effects in
residential areas.
Likes predictability offered with set area of adjacency. However, should consider views. Not
sure if 200 feet is best distance. Pilot program and review in year or two.
Need to encourage retention of character through designation of districts. Character next to
individual building designations can be completely changed – no staff review for compatibility,
minimal requirements in codes.
Public Open House, February 28, 2018
What about view corridors?
[Size of radius] Depends upon if radius includes residential. Maybe bigger radius if commercial
going near SF residential.
Adjacency radius of 300' contributes to the character of the entire block. But the radius
depends on the site. "Strengthen standards toward pedestrians"--YES! Downgrade the place of
automobiles in downtown Fort Collins.
Radius depends on block size. i.e. site specific.
Height and footprint should influence size of adjacency.
2
1.5
Packet Pg. 230
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
For the Union restaurant, I would prefer the radius to be at least 200' but not more than 300'!
Knowing the actual height, 200' works. For the L'Avenir project, an idea of the proposed height
would be helpful, perhaps a scale could be 2 story-200', 3 story-300' 4 story-400'!
Assess businesses over a long time to make parking spaces. Once they are paid off, have this go
away.
We hate Uncommon. Please no more like that.
With the height of Uncommon, the radius should be at least 300' but not more than 400'.
Process needs to be predictable.
I would still prefer that materials be considered in NEARBY historic bldgs.
Create the neighborhood conversation.
More power and influence for historic preservation. Need enforceable codes--at least req's to
address neighborhood character.
Contextual logical, not necessarily "matchy-matchy;" classic never goes out of style, avoid being
too trendy.
A more vigorous education researching history. Historic significance of neighborhoods, files
need to be available to current and future property owners in Old Town. Maybe all of FC.
I support new structures that are more classic. Never becomes outdated. Quaint. Vintage.
Differentiation doesn't have to be goal.
Northern Colorado Commercial Association of Realtors (NCCAR), March 5, 2018
Fort Collins’ historic character is what sells. Need to protect. Don’t want to see development
encouraged at expense of character.
Like predictability of set radius.
How does historic character fit in with Downtown Plan’s character areas? Will review be the
same.
Rooflines/roof shape should be added to compatibility criteria.
Downtown Development Authority, March 8, 2018
Need for history survey of inventory in the Downtown – benefit LPC, staff, developers.
3
1.5
Packet Pg. 231
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Survey needed to implement change in preservation codes.
Historic survey not funded in several past budget cycles, which has contributed to difficulties in
LPC operations. Look to City Council to fund.
Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, March 9, 2018
Have you picked one adjacency distance? Ans.: No, but CAC & LPC leaning towards 200 feet.
What are compatible materials for abutting?
Will compatibility considerations be codified? Or just provided to designed as suggestions? This
could limit design.
Do you have anything for prioritizing properties within the radius? Will one property have more
weight than another?
Fort Collins Board of Realtors Government Affairs, March 13, 2018
Question about “good” compatibility: use or character? Does use define compatibility?
Can you subtract buildings within the 200-foot radius, or do all count?
Is the 200 feet measured from the building or the lot boundaries?
Concern about property rights with any review.
Point about property rights as they currently stand: current zoning/density should be upheld.
Follow-up with developers/stakeholders after a project has been built. Process/Results.
Who reviews/decides on criteria for compatibility?
I truly enjoyed learning more about the city's plans for the maintenance of the Old Town feel
and I think you are all doing a wonderful job in seeking input from the community. While I do
feel property owners should have the right to utilize their homes as they wish, I do believe that
allowing free reign to dismantle historic homes would be a bit heart-breaking. I look forward to
seeing how we as a community can continue to find a graceful balance between new and old.
Historic Larimer County, March 25, 2018
Agree that LPC should approve alterations during interim control.
How often do non-consensual designations happen? Ans. Rarely, but districts nearly always
non-consensual – difficulty of getting all property owners to consent.
4
1.5
Packet Pg. 232
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Importance of viewsheds – 200-foot radius does not address.
Do these code changes affect signage for Scenic Byway?
Wish Loveland’s codes protected properties like Fort Collins. Can see the difference.
Large massing of new construction an issue. Codes need to address.
Individual Comments
I absolutely believe that any citizen should have rights to be a party of interest in the process. Historic
preservation is a community value and all citizens should be provided with the right to engage in the
process.
The process should become more proactive in that reviews of properties should be encouraged to be
initiated by interested citizens. This would avoid a significant problem where citizens opposed to a
development use historic preservation as a surrogate to oppose the development. I consider this an
abuse of the historic preservation process which only creates bad feelings. If citizens are concerned
about potential historic properties in their neighborhoods or larger community, they should be
encouraged to file for consideration when the issue is not charged and conflated with a development
proposal. Once a decision is reached in this manner, everyone is clear of the status of the property as
regards historic preservation and this creates more transparency and predictability. The areas most
likely to be affected by infill and redevelopment and have the most potential historic properties are in
the Eastside, Westside and West Central Neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have adopted plans
which are part of the City Comprehensive Plan. As plans are scheduled for review, Historic Preservation
staff and the LPC should engage in this review process to propose and encourage this proactive
approach to preservation.
Historic designation begins to give recognition to the character of a neighborhood which by the
designation formalizes that character. If a property is designated historic then future developments
within a certain distance of the property should be encouraged to add to this character by adding
appropriate exterior architectural details. This idea may be too prescriptive so some threshold to trigger
this requirement should be considered. This could also be done by working with neighbors near a
proposed development and have them consider the idea as the proposal is reviewed by the
neighborhood. This consideration of the historic character of an area should be driven by the residents
rather than the City.
5
1.5
Packet Pg. 233
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
6
1.5
Packet Pg. 234
Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
ATTACHMENT 6
1
1.6
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
2
1.6
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
3
1.6
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
4
1.6
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
5
1.6
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
6
1.6
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
7
1.6
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
8
1.6
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
9
1.6
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
10
1.6
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
11
1.6
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
12
1.6
Packet Pg. 246
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
13
1.6
Packet Pg. 247
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
14
1.6
Packet Pg. 248
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
15
1.6
Packet Pg. 249
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
16
1.6
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
17
1.6
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
18
1.6
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
19
1.6
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
20
1.6
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
21
1.6
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
22
1.6
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
23
1.6
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
24
1.6
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
25
1.6
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
26
1.6
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
27
1.6
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
28
1.6
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
29
1.6
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
30
1.6
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
31
1.6
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
32
1.6
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
33
1.6
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
34
1.6
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
35
1.6
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
36
1.6
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
37
1.6
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
38
1.6
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
39
1.6
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
40
1.6
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
41
1.6
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
42
1.6
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
43
1.6
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
44
1.6
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
45
1.6
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
46
1.6
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
47
1.6
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
48
1.6
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
49
1.6
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
50
1.6
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
51
1.6
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
52
1.6
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
53
1.6
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
54
1.6
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
55
1.6
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
56
1.6
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
57
1.6
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
58
1.6
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
59
1.6
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
60
1.6
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
61
1.6
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
62
1.6
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
63
1.6
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
64
1.6
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Citizen Advisory Committee Minutes (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
4-24-2018
Historic Preservation Code Review
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager
ATTACHMENT 7
1.7
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Questions
Questions for Council:
• Would Council support staff bringing forward the
revisions to the historic preservation codes?
• Would Council support staff bringing forward a
request for historic property survey?
2
1.7
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Aligns with Strategic Outcomes
Neighborhood Livability and Social Health:
• 1.4 Protect and preserve the quality of life in neighborhoods.
• 1.5 Guide development through community planning, historic
preservation, and efficient and effective development review.
Economic Heath:
• 3.4 Foster infill and redevelopment that enhances the
community
Environmental Health
• 4.1 and 4.4 Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Energy
Policy goals.
3
1.7
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
4
1.7
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
5
1.7
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Historic Preservation Review
Four Topic Areas:
• Landmark Designation
• Changes to Designated Landmarked Properties
• New Development and Historic Buildings
• Demolition/Alteration Review & Dangerous Buildings
6
1.7
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Citizen Advisory Committee
Matt Robenalt
Sherry Albertson‐Clark
Chris Aronson
Dr. Brian Dunbar
Jennifer Carpenter
Janelle Kechter
Per Hogestad
Leslie Williams
Lucia Liley
Dr. Sarah Payne
James MacDowell
Anita Rehner
Meg Dunn
David Dixon
Brian Cooke
Steve Schroyer
7
1.7
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Code Improvements
• Improved non-consensual
designation process
• Clear line between
“dangerous” and
“imminently dangerous”
8
1.7
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Eligibility Review
9
Eligibility
Analysis
Survey
Interim Improvements:
• Survey – gold standard
• Forward to LPC only if:
• Survey evaluates as
Individually Eligible
• Major Work
1.7
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
New Development & Historic Resources
Predictability:
• 200-foot Area of
Adjacency
• Promote design
variability
10
1.7
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
11
1.7
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
12
1.7
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
13
ADDRESSING DESIGN COMPATIBILITY
DISTANCE CRITERIA
New Development
Next to Historic
Height
Massing
Setbacks
Step-backs
Materials
Scale
Solid/void ratio & character
Proportion
Pattern
Roof form
New Development
Within 200 feet
of Historic
Height
Massing
Setbacks
Scale
Proportion
Pattern
1.7
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Key Improvements
Current
• No defined area of adjacency
• Criteria promotes sameness
• Non-consensual: three
meetings required
• Initial eligibility decision
without full information
• Confusion on imminently
dangerous
Improvement
• Predictable, consistent area
• Criteria promotes flexibility
• Now two meetings
• Initial eligibility decision
based on survey
• Clarity on imminently
dangerous
14
1.7
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Additional Improvements
• More options for quick approval
• Staff and LPC approval with conditions
• LPC Design Review Subcommittee
• Interactive GIS map
• Demolition permit tied to building permit
• Reformat code; add graphics and references
• Flowcharts and handouts; webpage improvements
• District‐specific design standards
15
1.7
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Timeline
I. Data Collection March 2017 – March 2018
ll. Outreach October 2017 - April 2018
III. Council Work Session April 24, 2018
IV. Draft Changes April – June 2018
V. Additional Outreach April – June 2018
VI. Council Adoption July 17, 2018
16
1.7
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Questions
Questions for Council:
• Would Council support staff bringing forward the
revisions to the historic preservation codes?
• Would Council support staff bringing forward a
request for historic property survey?
17
1.7
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
DATE:
STAFF:
April 24, 2018
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Compatibility and Character Code Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with a progress report on two interrelated Land Use Code update
projects that together address design standards for development in downtown and in transition areas at the
interface between downtown and the Old Town Neighborhoods.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council agree with the proposed regulatory concepts?
2. Are there specific metrics that should be refined?
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Purpose and objectives
Since the December 12, 2017 City Council Work Session, staff has been working closely with area property
owners, businesses, design professionals, and other interested citizens to develop Land Use Code revision
concepts necessary to implement policies within the recently adopted Downtown Plan and the Old Town
Neighborhoods Plan.
The project objective is to provide greater predictability in the Land Use Code regulations by clarifying standards
that apply to new infill and redevelopment projects. These concepts for Code changes add form- and
performance-based metrics that update and augment existing design standards. The new standards need to add
clarity, yet allow for creative architecture and site design.
This joint code improvement effort aligns with urban design goals of the Historic Preservation code review project,
as well as the Downtown Plan and Old Town Neighborhoods Plan.
A New Downtown Zoning District
The recent Downtown Plan process redefined and expanded the area known as “Downtown”’. This area currently
comprises 11 zoning districts. A part of proposed code revisions will be to consolidate these into a single
Downtown zone.
Standards in the new revised Downtown zone will support differing character in unique subdistricts described in
the Downtown Plan. The subdistricts roughly correspond to the different current zoning districts. Code revisions
will include language to help guide the evolving character in these areas similar to the current River Downtown
Redevelopment zoning district. Examples of components to be addressed are historical context, types of street
frontages, contextual building form, predominant building materials, and landscape setting.
2
Packet Pg. 316
April 24, 2018 Page 2
Street Character as a Defining Element
Three types of street frontages have evolved downtown, shaping the public realm. The Downtown Plan and this
code project have illuminated needs and opportunities to protect and enhance these three frontage types. This is
a key component of code revision concepts. The three frontage types are:
• Storefront - Found primarily along College Avenue and Linden Street, buildings adjoin a wide sidewalk
extending from street curb to building. Retail and commercial uses dominate the ground floor with a high
degree of visual interest and transparency into shops and restaurants.
• Mixed Use - Found outside the Historic Core on streets such as Mason, this condition is a hybrid between the
Storefront and Green Edge frontage types. Building are set a little farther back from the sidewalk, typically
with small landscape areas separating the building from the walk.
• Green Edge - Found primarily in the west portions of downtown and northeast of the Poudre River near New
Belgium Brewing, this frontage type is recognized for landscaped setbacks between the sidewalk and the
building. Ground floor uses comprise more office, residential, and other non-retail uses.
Building Placement
Proposed building placement standards correspond to the street frontage types with setbacks ranging from 0-10+
feet from the back of the sidewalk. Specific setback distances help shape the look and feel of the different parts of
downtown, especially for pedestrians.
Building Height and Form
Current code standards provide for a height range from 2.5 stories to 12 stories throughout the 11 current zoning
districts in the Downtown Plan area. At the work session, staff will present a proposed building heights map to
regulate building heights in a more cohesive whole approach to downtown.
The map is intended to address subdistrict character, transitions to neighborhoods, and a logical urban design
pattern.
Along with the height limits map, proposed code revisions clarify requirements for stepbacks of upper stories in
taller buildings, and slender form of any future tower buildings (over 7 stories) similar to the existing tower
buildings found downtown.
Participants in the Downtown Plan process and the most recent Land Use Code draft revisions have differed in
their opinions about the proposed building height limits. This is consistent with past discussions of the current
code standards and is probably universal in cities similar to Fort Collins. Some participants have remained
neutral on the issue; others have called for a reduction in the maximum allowable heights, particularly above the
6-story level on one end of the spectrum; while others (see Attachment 2-letter from the Downtown Development
Authority) have expressed concern over any reduction in potential height capacity from current standards.
Proposed height limits are similar to current limits, but with some adjustments that will be explained at the work
session.
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Zoning District
The NCB zone provides a transition between the commercial intensity of downtown and the residential character
of the Old Town Neighborhoods. It allows for office and multi-family buildings up to four-plexes, up to three
stories. The recent Old Town Neighborhoods Plan and Downtown Plan both recommend revisiting NCB code
standards to clarify how such larger buildings should be compatible with adjacent houses.
Concepts for code revisions involve more detailed attention and responsiveness to the context of neighboring
properties. Tapering back building mass to address shading impacts on adjoining neighbors is a key concept,
along with modulating any large building walls to aid in compatible new development.
2
Packet Pg. 317
April 24, 2018 Page 3
Clarification on setback requirements, as well as strengthening mass mitigation standards are primary methods to
aid in compatible new development.
Community Engagement
Most recently, the staff has held multiple one-on-one and small group meetings with property owners and
designers, and presented draft code concepts to the Downtown Development Authority, Downtown Business
Association, Board of Realtors, members of the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan efforts, and several advisory
boards and commissions. Staff will have held two open house events by the time of the Work Session. The first
of these, held on February 28 at The Elizabeth Hotel, was well-attended by members of the design and
development community. The second is scheduled for April 18. These events have helped to inform staff on the
level of support for the proposed code concepts.
NEXT STEPS
Community Engagement activities will continue beyond the April 18 public open house and includes the following
key dates and timeframes:
• May 2018 - One-on-One and Small Group Stakeholder Meetings
• June-Planning and Zoning Board and Landmark Preservation Commission consideration and
recommendation
• July 17, 2018 - City Council consideration of Code Revisions
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary, December 12, 2017 (PDF)
2. DDA Comments on Proposed Downtown Land Use Code Amendments, April 4, 2018 (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 318
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.221.6376
970.224.6134 - fax
1
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 15, 2017
TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation
Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director
FROM: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Manager
RE: Work Session Summary – December 12, 2017 re: Compatibility and Character Code
Updates
Attendees:
Cameron Gloss and Karen McWilliams presented an update on on-going efforts to development new
compatibility and character Land Use Code standards and responded to questions from Council. All City
Council members were present.
Specific Questions to be Answered by City Council:
Is it appropriate to create an expanded Downtown zone district?
Is Council comfortable with staff’s intention to integrate compatibility requirements in the Land Use
Code to improve overall clarity and predictability?
Discussion Summary
• The Code changes should focus on clarity, predictability, and simplification
• More specificity is requested with the revised standards with respect to terminology:
o “Sensitivity to development” is ambiguous.
o Terms other than “compatible” should be considered (no alternatives were suggested)
• Predictability is good, but we also want creativity in design. The standards need to find the right
balance between the two.
• Need to allow the funky old with the new--prescription vs allowance for designs to have some
unusual elements.
• The ability to have greater predictability for developers and the community is a good goal.
• More visual graphical representations are helpful in explaining the design concepts.
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Work Session Summary, December 12, 2017 (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
December 12, 2017 Council Work Session Summary Page 2
Compatibility and Character Code updates
• Ginger and Baker was mentioned as a great combination of preserving the old and integrating a
complementary addition.
• The quality of staff processes shows in the projects that are being built.
• We need to be careful not to overprocess. Sometimes less is more when it comes to process.
• The impact of the design standards on construction costs and affordable housing needs to be
considered. Housing should be affordable to different income levels with the Downtown and Old
Town Neighborhoods.
• Expectation that there is design sensitivity at the interface between neighborhoods and
surrounding districts.
• Need specific metrics for the ramp-down of buildings; this transition should happen within the
Downtown District and not within the surrounding neighborhoods.
• Commercial pressures from Downtown are such that we need to protect residential areas.
• Building Height standards should consider the following:
o Number of stories is not a very useful metric. Use feet rather than stories.
o Lower building heights are better next to neighborhood districts.
o Reference the height of individual buildings, but not the overall character of zones.
o May want to consider how other communities have created system of an air rights
market, where if you want to construct a building of a certain height, you must buy air
space.
o Varied building heights adds positively to Downtown; look at higher densities where
they make sense (along the MAX corridor was mentioned).
o Clustering tall buildings Downtown makes sense.
o View corridor protection is important.
o Pedestrian experience is paramount; however, property owners and building tenants
should be important considerations, as well.
• Would be interesting to explore overall character and the kinds of tools that can be placed to
make sure that the overall Downtown zone doesn’t get changed based on specific projects.
• Historic Preservation compatibility standards should consider the following:
o The current adjacency standard makes compatibility hard to judge; prescribing a radius
of historical influence would be helpful.
o Site line metrics to historic resources should be more specific.
o Defining relevant historic resources that would be impacted, rather than those that fall
within a specific area, was suggested.
o Suggested that staff be more proactive about identifying landmarks versus evaluating
every building over 50 years old.
• Council is supportive of the integration of the historic preservation standards with other
development standards found in the Code.
• Staff shared the on-going partnership with CSU to create a virtual reality model for Downtown
which will become a future tool for evaluating proposed changes.
2.1
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Work Session Summary, December 12, 2017 (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
December 12, 2017 Council Work Session Summary Page 3
Compatibility and Character Code updates
Follow-up Items:
Council requested that staff:
• Include the Affordable Housing Board and other relevant boards and interest ground in
development of the standards.
• Need to carefully craft citizen engagement so we ensure feedback that clearly defines what the
community desires.
• Need to spend more time educating the community on the Code objectives and the options
being pursued.
2.1
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Work Session Summary, December 12, 2017 (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: DDA Comments on Proposed Downtown Land Use Code Amendments, April 4, 2018 (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code
2.2
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: DDA Comments on Proposed Downtown Land Use Code Amendments, April 4, 2018 (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code
2.2
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: DDA Comments on Proposed Downtown Land Use Code Amendments, April 4, 2018 (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code
1
Compatibility Code Updates
Cameron Gloss
04-24-2018
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
(D) And (NCB) Zones
2
2.3
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Recent Outreach
3
2.3
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Main Questions
4
2.3
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Subdistrict Regulation
5
2.3
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Street Frontage Types
6
2.3
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Street Frontage Types
7
2.3
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Street Frontage Types
8
2.3
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Build‐To Range
9
2.3
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Building Base Materials
10
2.3
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Building Base Materials
11
2.3
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Window Transparency
12
2.3
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Window Transparency
13
2.3
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Window Transparency
14
2.3
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Height Limits
15
2.3
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Height Limits
16
2.3
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Building Form
17
2.3
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Stepbacks
18
2.3
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Design Details
19
2.3
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
(NCB) Standards
20
2.3
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Main Questions
21
2.3
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
Next Steps
22
Next Steps
May – Additional Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews
June –P&Z and LPC Recommendations
July 17 –City Council Consideration
2.3
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6705 : Compatibility and Character Code Update)
DATE:
STAFF:
April 24, 2018
Martina Wilkinson, Assistant City Traffic Engineer
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Proposed Changes to the Transportation Section of Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to discuss refinement of the transportation section of the Land Use Code
(LUC) Section 3.7.3-Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and associated process for evaluating intersections. The
purpose is to create flexibility in the process.
In response to community interests and legal concerns, staff has been reviewing APF status. In August 2016,
Council provided direction at a work session to move forward with developing refinements. Staff is proposing
changes to the review of vehicular impacts associated with development proposals:
• Combine Level of Service (LOS) review into one process and update the standards to be current and
consistent.
• Develop site-specific Alternative Mitigation Strategies in locations where APF thresholds are exceeded and
typical roadway improvements are not feasible, not wanted by the City, or are not proportional to the impacts
of a proposed development. The strategies will be developed by staff and identify localized transportation
improvements considering holistic multi-modal review.
• Implement the strategy for developments on a proportional basis to address their local impacts. This can be
used as a basis to allow proposals to move forward.
The outcome of the changes is they will address legal concerns and create a path forward for proposals restricted
by the current process while ensuring that new developments pay their proportional share of infrastructure costs.
City interests such as recognizing potential for infill developments, and supporting multi-modal transportation
options are better accommodated with the changes.
If Council expresses support of the approach, staff will complete the public outreach process and bring Code and
Standards changes to Council for consideration in the coming months.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is Council comfortable with the implementation of Alternative Mitigation Strategies at currently APF
constrained locations?
2. Is Council comfortable moving into the final outreach and implementation phase of the change?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
History
In 1997, the City adopted Section 3.7.3 of the Land Use Code to establish a mechanism that ensures that public
facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of such
developments. The transportation element of the APF ordinance details the required vehicular Level of Service
(LOS) at substantially impacted intersections. If the LOS is not met, then the development is required to make
improvements to reach an acceptable LOS, or the project cannot move forward. There are several challenges
with the current status:
3
Packet Pg. 347
April 24, 2018 Page 2
• APF was historically envisioned to address greenfield intersections on the fringes of the City, and some of its
restrictions are difficult to meet or may not be wanted in infill areas.
• The evaluation for APF is in addition to other and different requirements within the City’s street standards (i.e.,
there are currently two separate processes). (Attachment 1)
• The APF criteria is dated and not consistent with other standards
• The City’s existing APF ordinance does not limit a developer’s responsibility to a “proportionate share” of
improvements, and does not offer any flexibility for alternative mitigation.
City staff previously identified the challenges noted above and presented opportunities for refinement to City
Council at a work session in August 2016. General direction from Council at that time was the following:
• Support to retain APF, but create flexibility to recognize alternative mitigation
• Support to establish a mechanism for proportional share contributions
• Support to better accommodate infill and re-development patterns in the city, as well as, recognition of the
multi-modal interests of the community
• Support to update and consolidate the process with current standards, and make it consistent across
documents (Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) and the Land Use Code)
Since the work session, staff has completed outreach to the Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board,
and has had conversations with the development community to better understand the complexities and important
considerations to keep in mind as the proposal was developed.
APF Refinement Proposal
The refined process could be as generally outlined in Attachment 2. The following are noted:
• The APF element in the Land Use Code would be aligned with LCUASS.
• Insignificant and/or nominal impact developments would be limited to those where traffic impact studies (TIS)
are waived due to their small size. The criteria for a TIS waiver will be consistent with LCUASS.
• Mitigation for Level of Service (LOS) issues remain the same if reasonable/proportional mitigation is possible,
or where Level of Service issues are limited to intersection approaches or movements.
In locations where overall intersection LOS is not met (the current APF threshold), and typical roadway
improvements to meet LOS are not feasible, not wanted by the City, or not proportional, a site specific Alternative
Mitigation Strategy will be developed. This strategy:
• Will be developed by a multi-disciplinary team composed of City staff. The strategy can be pro-actively
developed in locations of known APF issues, or can be concurrently developed during a development’s
review process once impacts are known;
• Identifies localized transportation improvements that the City supports and that helps mitigate the
development’s impact in the area of the APF constrained intersection;
• Is site specific to each location;
• May include roadway, intersection, signal, and/or multi-modal improvements (such as bicycle, pedestrian or
transit facilities)
• Should be constructible within a three-year timeframe.
Examples of this might include alternate route improvements (i.e., Timberline/Vine) to address impacts at
Lemay/Vine, bike or transit infrastructure in the downtown area to address impacts at College/Mountain, sidewalk
improvements to address impacts in the vicinity of College/Harmony, etc.
Once the strategy is developed, and an applicant’s impact is known, staff will determine what portion (or all) of the
strategy a development must complete based upon anticipated vehicular trips through the APF constrained
location. The implementation could include either construction or proportional monetary contribution towards a
specific upcoming project (within three years).
3
Packet Pg. 348
April 24, 2018 Page 3
If the applicant is willing to implement their portion of the strategy, then that is noted in the recommendation of
approval for the project, and memorialized in the development agreement. If the developer is not willing to
implement the strategy, they can appeal the strategy to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to proceeding to
hearing of the development.
Relationship of Alternative Mitigation Strategy to Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (TCEF)
The City has a Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) program (previously called the Street Oversizing
Program) which collects revenue from new developments to mitigate overall transportation impacts of growth.
The TCEF fees are predominantly based on the cost to add capacity to the existing transportation network
needed for growth and focus on funding roadway widening (complete streets) along arterial and collector roadway
segments. The fees also include a limited contribution toward city-wide intersection and multi-modal
improvements. The TCEF fees paid by a developer cannot be used to address existing deficiencies.
The proposed Alternative Mitigation Strategy is intended to address a development’s impact on localized
transportation concerns that may not be funded (in full or part) by TCEF and/or able to be constructed within a
reasonable timeframe (i.e. three years). Therefore, the strategy will serve as a companion to TCEF.
Outcomes
The outcome of the changes in Code, standards, and process include the following:
• The overall basis of APF remains: improvements are required to meet standards.
• If needed improvements are not proportional, not feasible, or not wanted by the City, then the Alternative
Mitigation Strategy provides a way forward while still having development mitigate their impacts.
• The strategy is implemented proportionally and addresses localized impact. It is separate from yet
complements the regional and citywide TCEF fees.
• The revisions will combine two processes into one, reflect current standards, be consistent across
documents, acknowledge changing development patterns (such as infill), and allow for consideration of a
holistic transportation review based on City interests.
Next Steps
If the general concept for Alternative Mitigation Strategies in areas that are APF constrained is supported by
Council, then next steps include completion of outreach efforts with the development community and additional
boards/commissions, and then bringing proposed changes for Land Use Code and LCUASS to Council for
consideration. Time frame for that would be in the next several months.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Current Status (PDF)
2. Proposed Process (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 349
Intersection Review - Current
Make
Improvements?
Note:
• LCUASS also has volume warrants for
auxiliary turn lanes regardless of level of
service.
• Variance criteria is not specifically
outlined
YES
Challenges:
• Table II in MMLOS is dated, not consistent
with LCUASS and incomplete
• No variance procedures or flexibility
• Not proportional to impact
• No opportunities for alternative mitigation
(all or nothing)
NO
NO NO
YES
NO
YES
Does project meet
exception of 50 trips
in peak hour through
intersection?
YES
Project Can
Proceed
NO
Make
Improvements?
YES
LCUASS
APPROVED
NO
Check overall intersection as well
as approach and movement LOS
against Table 4-3 in LCUASS
Does it meet
MMLOS LOS?
Wait
Check overall intersection
LOS against Table II in
MMLOS manual
Does it meet
LCUASS LOS?
Request variance
– technical review
Is there a “significant
negative impact”? (Does
overall intersection delay
change by more than
2%?)
RECOMMEND
DENIAL
YES
Adequate Public Facilities
In the Land Use Code
Project Can
Intersection Review - Proposed
Check overall intersection as well as approach and
movement LOS against Table 4-3 in LCUASS
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
Does it meet
LOS?
Is it a minimal or
insignificant
impact?
APPROVED
Make
Improvements
Request variance
through LCUASS –
technical review
If Approach or Movement
LOS is problem
RECOMMEND
DENIAL
If Intersection
LOS is problem
NO
Is reasonable / proportional
mitigation possible that
addresses LOS?
City develops site specific
Alternative Mitigation Strategy.
Determines proportional
contribution.
Strategy appealable
to P and Z Board
Project Can
Proceed
YES Implement Development’s
portion of strategy
NO
Is applicant willing to
implement Strategy?
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: Proposed Process (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
1
Adequate Public Facilities
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Questions for Council
2
• Is Council comfortable with the implementation of Alternative
Mitigation Strategies at currently APF constrained locations?
• Is Council comfortable moving into the final outreach and
implementation phase of the change?
3.3
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Background
3
• Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
adopted in 1997 to accompany
Street Oversizing Program.
• Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS) first adopted
in 2001
• Both have standards and processes
for vehicular Level of Service (LOS)
3.3
Packet Pg. 354
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Current Status and Opportunities
4
• APF was originally envisioned for greenfield development, and
application to infill areas are problematic
• No current mechanism to address impact in areas where typical road
improvements are not feasible, not wanted by the City, or not
proportional to impact
• There are two completely separate and different standards and review
processes for Level of Service (LOS)
• APF criteria needs to be updated and made consistent with LCUASS
3.3
Packet Pg. 355
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
5
Current
Status
Adequate Public Facilities In the Land Use Code Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS)
Check overall intersection, approach and
movement LOS against Table 4‐3 in LCUASS
Does it meet
LCUASS LOS?
Is there a “significant
negative impact”? (Does
overall intersection delay
change by more than 2%?)
Make
Improvements?
Request variance –
technical review
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
Project
Can
Proceed
APPROVED
RECOMMEND
DENIAL
NO
Does project meet
exception of 50 trips in
peak hour through
intersection?
NO
Wait
Project
Can
Proceed
YES
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS)
NO
YES
YES
Project
Can
Proceed
APPROVED
NO
Is there a “significant
negative impact”? (Does
overall intersection delay
change by more than
2%?)
RECOMMEND
DENIAL
Check overall intersection, approach and
movement LOS against Table 4‐3 in LCUASS
Does it meet
Previous Work Session
and Outreach
6
• Support to retain APF
• Interest in refining APF in order to:
– Create flexibility to accommodate City’s development patterns
– Support establishment for proportional share contributions
– Include multi-modal interests including transit
• Create ability for development community to anticipate requirements
prior to project hearings
3.3
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Proposed Alternative
Mitigation Strategy
7
Applicable in areas where:
1. Overall intersection Level of Service is not met AND
2. Typical improvements are not feasible, not wanted by the
City or not proportional to the impact
The strategy is:
1. Developed by multi-disciplinary team of City staff
2. Site specific
3. Localized improvements that mitigate a development’s impact
4. May include roadway, intersection, signal, and/or multi-modal facilities
5. Proposed to be appealable to Planning and Zoning Board
3.3
Packet Pg. 358
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Examples of Potential
Alternative Mitigation Strategies
8
Downtown
where non-vehicular interests
are prioritized
Consider:
– Sidewalk improvements
– Bike parking
3.3
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Examples of Potential
Alternative Mitigation Strategies
9
Fully built out intersections
i.e. Harmony and College
Consider:
– Signal timing improvements
(adaptive timing)
– Completing sidewalk gaps
– Improving bus stops
3.3
Packet Pg. 360
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Examples of Potential
Alternative Mitigation Strategies
10
Severely constrained or
“mega project” locations
where mitigation cannot be
proportional to impact
Consider:
– Alternate route improvements
(signalization of Timberline /
Vine)
3.3
Packet Pg. 361
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Examples of Potential
Alternative Mitigation Strategies
11
Transit Oriented Development
where mitigation may support
alternative modes and/or transit
instead of roadway improvements
Consider:
– Connections to MAX
3.3
Packet Pg. 362
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
12
Proposed
YES Approach
YES
YES Make
Improvements
Check overall intersection, approach and
movement LOS against Table 4‐3 in LCUASS
Does it meet LOS?
NO
Is it a minimal or
insignificant impact”?
RECOMMEND
DENIAL
APPROVED
Request variance
through LCUASS
technical review
Project
Can
Proceed
City develops site specific
Alternative Mitigation
Strategy. Determines
Proportional Contribution
Strategy appealable
to P and Z Board
If Intersection
LOS is problem
If Approach or Movement
LOS is problem
NO
NO
NO
Is reasonable /
proportional mitigation
possible that addresses
LOS?
Is applicant willing to
implement strategy?
YES Implement Development’s
portion of Strategy
3.3
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Outcomes
of Refined Approach
13
• Recognizes various types of development - infill, redevelopment
and “greenfield” projects
• Allows consideration of alternative mitigation (multi-modal, transit,
other area improvements)
• Creates current and consistent standards within LCUASS
• Appropriate and enforceable standards still in place
• Development still pays it proportional share
• Alternative Mitigation Strategy developed by staff and appealable
to Planning and Zoning Board
3.3
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Next Steps
14
• Refinement based on Council feedback
• Complete Outreach (Boards and Commissions, Development
Community etc.)
• Potential Approval Hearings in June (Planning and Zoning) and
July (Council)
3.3
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Questions for Council
15
• Is Council comfortable with the implementation of Alternative
Mitigation Strategies at currently APF constrained locations?
• Is Council comfortable moving into the final outreach and
implementation phase of the change?
3.3
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
LCUASS LOS?
YES
Make
Improvements?
NO
Request variance
– technical review
Check overall intersection LOS against
Table II in Multi Modal LOS manual
Does it meet
MMLOS LOS?
Make
Improvements?
NO
3.3
Packet Pg. 356
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Proceed
ATTACHMENT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: Current Status (6696 : Adequate Public Facilities Changes)
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
measure.
2018 Environmental
Health
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Develop process and decision matrix to illustrate difference between
major and minor alterations.
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Develop predictive eligibility "self-test" tool for property owners. 2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Develop appropriate strategy for recent past architecture eligible for
historic review (midcentury).
2018 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Consider code change so that demo/alt review must start with
determination of eligibility; then major/minor determination if
requested.
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
7
1.4
Packet Pg. 226
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
2018 75 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Work with Russ Hovland to develop list of repairs required to prevent
demolition by neglect.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Work with Russ Hovland to develop draft list of increasing penalties
for properties that meet definition of demolition by neglect.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Demolition by neglect: Investigate issues;consider economic factors
that contribute to unintentional demo by neglect.
2018 40 Neighborhood
Livability
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Improve organization of Article IV; in particular simplify and clarify 14-
72 that describes procedure for determining which type of review
applies.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
6
1.4
Packet Pg. 225
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
Following code revisions, update historic preservation components of
City's general development review procedures and web content.
2018 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
Develop staff report templates to improve consistency, rigor,
efficiency for LPC review.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
Demolition/Alteration
Review
If staff recognizes a property as likely to be eligible, provide applicant
with option to get 3rd party documentation in advance to inform the
official determination of eligibility.
2018 100 High-Performing
Govt.
5
1.4
Packet Pg. 224
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Clarify the definition of historic resources throughout LUC 3.4.7. 2018
60
High-Performing
Govt.
Development Review for
Historic Compatibility
In LUC 3.4.7, improve general purpose statement and rationales for
each standard.
2018 40 High-Performing
Govt.
4
1.4
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
2018 30 Environmental
Health
3
1.4
Packet Pg. 222
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
Attachment: Staff Action Items List (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
designated landmark would not require a review.
1.1
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)
2 historic districts, 1
conservation district
Eugene,
Oregon
167,000
23,000
University of Oregon
Growing: 20%
60 landmarks and 2 historic
districts
Gainesville,
Florida
132,000
52,000
University of Florida
Growing: 16%
10 landmarks and 5 historic
districts
Lincoln,
Nebraska
280,000
25,000
University of Nebraska
Growing: 23%
160 landmarks, 18 historic
districts
Madison,
Wisconsin
253,000
43,000
University of Wisconsin
Growing: 20%
182 landmarks, 5 historic
districts
Norman,
Oklahoma
122,000
31,000
University of Oklahoma
Growing: 26% 3 historic districts
Provo, Utah 117,000
33,000
Brigham Young
University
Growing/ stable:
11%
150 landmarks, 2 historic
districts
Santa Barbara,
California
92,000
24,000
University of California,
Santa Barbara
Growing/ stable:
3%
124 landmarks, 3 historic
districts, 132 structures of
merit
Syracuse, New
York
143,000
21,000
Syracuse University
Stable: -2%
59 landmarks, 4 historic
districts
1.1
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Clarion Associates Final Report (6698 : Historic Preservation Code and Process Review)