Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2011-03-22      1 Museum/Senior Center Services Memo To: Lowell Richardson From: Betty Kilsdonk Date: March 22, 2011 Re: CLG Survey Background: On March I sent an e-mail inquiry to nine Colorado Certified Local Government municipalities: Aspen, Berthoud, Durango, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, Lafayette, Longmont, Loveland and Windsor. Follow-up calls to each contact person were made on April 3. Six questions were asked: 1. What kind of staff time can we anticipate? 2. Do you have staff dedicated to the historic preservation commission (HPC) and other requirements of the CLG? 3. How do your HPC’s recommendations interface with your planning commission, building codes, fire codes and other potentially conflicting commissions and ordinances? 4. Is your city satisfied with the decision to become a CLG? Are the benefits are worth the effort? 5. Do you have any kind of cost breakdown or cost/benefit analysis for operating as a CLG? 6. Any other comments? Telephone or e-mail responses were received from the following five municipalities by April 9: Aspen, Fort Collins, Glenwood Springs, Longmont, and Windsor. In addition, Community Development Director Joseph contacted Steamboat Springs about their CLG program. The Colorado Historical Society provides a CLG ordinance comparison on their website. For each of the six municipalities listed above, I have included the ordinance comparison in six areas: Landmark nomination, landmark designation, maintenance, alteration and construction review process, and state tax credit (STC) application review. Following each ordinance summary, I have included comments from that municipality’s CLG staff contact. The actual ordinances are readily available: I have several in-hand, and have links to others. Summary: Here are summary charts of questions 1) Staff time; and 3)The interface with other commissions and ordinances. As for the other questions: 4) All staff expressed satisfaction with being a CLG. The caveat for us is that in most of these cities, the HPCs have been in place for many years. For example, Aspen and Longmont have had theirs since the 1970s. 5) No municipality had a clear cost analysis for a CLG. Several cited small grants they had received because of the designation. The Schaffer Steamboat Springs memo (previously provided) listed financial and non-financial benefits. z Page 2 Summary Charts Staff Time Municipality Time Commitment Additional Info Aspen 2 FTE planners full-time Unusual situation in that all development plans run through the HPC Fort Collins 2 FTE preservation planners who spend 2-3 hours/week Glenwood Springs 3-4 hours a week by one planner Longmont 15 hours a week by the principal planner Steamboat Springs Unknown Not included in survey. Windsor 10 hours a month by the director of planning Used to be the Cultural Manager. When that person recently left, the responsibilities shifted to Planning Dept. Interface with Other Commissions, Etc. Municipality Comments Aspen Sometimes conflicts with the Planning Commission – they are looking at holding some joint meetings.. Fort Collins No different than other "conflicts" between stormwater and building or development codes, or the engineering dept. and building or development codes, etc., etc. Health and safety always prevail. Glenwood Springs Went through a situation whereby the HPC felt slighted because they weren’t given the opportunity to comment on plans affecting the downtown area. Now they are regularly included on the routing list of consulting organizations and departments. Longmont No conflicts per se but will address building codes and how they affect historic structures in terms of building permit reviews at an upcoming meeting. A Council liaison helps minimize conflict. Steamboat Springs Program has generated some controversy that resulted in recent revision of their ordinance. The revised ordinance reigned in the review process which was seen as cumbersome, complicated and too far reaching Windsor Program is “in its infancy.” z Page 3 CLG Ordinance Comparison and Staff Comments ASPEN y Historic Preservation Commission y Meets twice per month y 7 members (1 alternate) (These individuals may not serve on HPC: members of the city council, the mayor, city employees, or any appointed city official) Landmark nomination y Nomination by Property Owner(s), Historic Preservation Commission, or City Council y After a nomination for designation is filed, there is no stay of any alterations until final determination y Fees: There is no fee for filing a landmark designation application Landmark designation y Non-consensual designation permitted y Economic incentives: zero interest rehabilitation loan fund; conservation easement program; dimensional variances; increased density; lot split; waiver of fees; conditional uses; exemption from growth management system; technical assistance; reduction in off street parking requirements; TDR program for residential properties; square footage bonus up to 500 sq ft y National and State Register listed properties do not automatically become local Landmarks Maintenance y Maintenance requirements (“…exterior features of designated building…shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept free from structural defects.”) y Demolition by Neglect clause y Enforcement and penalties: If owner fails to make repairs, city may make repairs and correct deficiencies that create hazardous and unsafe conditions to life, health, and property. Expense of work is a lien on property Alteration and construction review process y Administrative review for demolition, partial demolition, and relocation y Alterations to properties eligible to be designated are subject to a 90-day negotiation period. y Items not reviewed: interior remodeling, paint color selections, exterior repainting or replastering similar to existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work y Mandatory design review with mandatory compliance y Demolition and relocation criteria y Maintenance requirements y Economic hardship criteria State Tax Credit (STC) application review y STC applications reviewed at staff level. STC applications are not reviewed by HPC Comments from Amy Guthrie, HPO, Aspen/Pitkin Co. Community Development Dept. Aspen has had a HPC since 1972 and has been a CLG since the 1980s. Becoming a CLG was not a huge change in the way they already did business. The Colorado Historical Society (CHS) attends a meeting annually, and the HPC sends their minutes to CHS. 1& 2: Staff Time and Dedication: Aspen has two planners who work fulltime just with the Historic Preservation Committee. There are 7 people on the Committee – they always have trouble filling positions – it’s a four-year commitment. z Page 4 3: Interface: There are still sometimes conflicts with the Planning Commission – they are looking at holding some joint meetings – building codes trump all. 4: Benefit vs. Effort: For her becoming a CLG was a positive thing because it’s a way of reinforcing standards already established through the extant Historic Preservation Committee. 5: Cost Analysis: She hasn’t asked for a CLG grant for a few years because the small amounts of funding haven’t been worth the reporting requirements but that may change with the economy. 6: Other: None FORT COLLINS y Landmark Preservation Commission y Meets twice per month y 7 members Landmark nomination y Nomination by Landmark Preservation Commission, owner(s) of property, or any person y There is a stay of building permits (alteration, construction, relocation, demolition) after Landmark Preservation Commission directs staff to investigate the landmark designation y Fees: There is no fee for filing a landmark designation application Landmark designation y Non-consensual designation permitted y Economic incentives: exemption from wood shingle re-roofing requirement; local interest-free loan program; design assistance program y National and State Register listed properties do not automatically become local Landmarks Maintenance y Maintenance requirements. (“Keep in good repair...all structural elements…which if not maintained…would have a detrimental effect upon the historic character...”) y Demolition by Neglect: A demolition by neglect clause is not specifically mentioned. y Enforcement and penalties: Landmark Preservation Commission may request that the Director of Building and Zoning require correction of defects or repairs Alteration and construction review process y Review includes all work requiring a building permit as well as any work not requiring a building permit, including alteration of color y Administrative sign review y Administrative design review for applications for approval of color; awning recoverings; changes that do not remove, cover, alter, destroy and significant historic material; changes to plans previously approved by Landmark Preservation Commission y Mandatory design review with mandatory compliance y Design criteria for development projects including or located near historic buildings regardless of if they are designated y Demolition or relocation permit review for all structures, not merely landmarks, over 50 years of age y Preservation Plan STC application review y All STC applications go to the Landmark Preservation Commission for review z Page 5 Comments from Karen McWilliams, Fort Collins Advance Planning Department 1& 2: Staff Time and Dedication: We find that being a CLG involves very little extra time. We email (or snail mail) our agenda and draft minutes to the CLG Coordinator, Dan Corson, at the same time that we send our packets, so there is virtually no added time or effort. As a CLG, you will be asked to comment on Section 106 reviews; we see 2 or 3 of these a year, nearly always for new cell towers. Again, unless they are located by historic properties, they take little time; if they are proposed to be located near a historic property, the review can take a few hours of staff time, but its certainly worth it to have the ability to have involvement in the design and location, so that they do not negatively affect the visual appearance of the property. The largest amount of time is spent on completing the CLG Annual Report, due August 1, which I would say takes us about 6 hours to pull all of the statistics together. Supporting the historic preservation commission, and serving as staff for commission meetings, are part of the regular job description for the Preservation staff. We have 2 FTE Preservation Planners. I would estimate that we spend an average of two-three hours a week on activities related to our preservation commission; and about 10-15 hours a year on CLG activities. 3: Interface: We are lucky in Fort Collins to have terrific people in the other departments who will work with us to find an acceptable solution. Our city has adopted the UCB's Uniform Code for Building Conservation, which allows for greater flexibility in reviewing work to historic buildings; the International Existing Building Code also has exemptions and offers special consideration for historic buildings. We have found that "conflicts" between historic preservation requirements and building codes or development standards are no different than other "conflicts" between stormwater and building or development codes, or the engineering dept. and building or development codes, etc., etc. Health and safety always prevail; however, even there, there is a tremendous amount of room for flexibility. 4: Benefit vs. Effort: Absolutely. Being a CLG gives the local community broad powers to administer state and federal preservation regulations, including Section 106 Review and Compliance. It also provides a dedicated pool of federal CLG grants, and the opportunity for designated properties to participate in the state preservation tax credit program. These financial incentives have had a tremendous effect on people's interest in designation. 5: Cost Analysis: No, but I'd be interested in getting a copy of such an analysis if any of the other communities do! 6: Other: None GLENWOOD SPRINGS y Historic Preservation Commission y Meets once each month y 7 members plus a City Council liaison Landmark nomination y Nomination by Historic Preservation Commission, City Council, Property Owner(s), or any organization with a recognized interest in historic preservation. y Fees: There is no fee for filing a landmark designation application Landmark designation y Non-consensual designation permitted y National and State Register listed properties do not automatically become local Landmarks y Structures of Merit z Page 6 Maintenance y Maintenance requirements. (“…No owner…of any landmark shall fail to prevent significant deterioration of the exterior of the structure…beyond the condition of the structure on the effective date of the designating ordinance.”) y Enforcement and penalties: No building permits (construct, alter, remove, demolish) issued while proceeding pending; such a period of time not to exceed 60 days Alteration and construction review process y Committee of 1 staff person and 2 commissioners conducts preliminary review of alteration requests to determine if there is a significant impact y Landmark alteration certificates for new construction, removal, and demolition reviewed by HPC y Landmark alteration certificate applications require all information Community Development deems necessary, including without limitation: proposed exterior appearance (texture, materials, samples), architectural design and detail, names and addresses of the abutting property owners within 200 feet. y Mandatory design review with mandatory compliance yRelocation and demolition criteria y Economic hardship criteria STC application review y Glenwood Springs does not review STC applications locally Comments from Gretchen Ricehill, Planner, Glenwood Springs Glenwood became a CLG in 2001 and had established a historic preservation commission (HPC) by ordinance two years prior. 1& 2: Staff Time and Dedication: Gretchen says Aspen is an unusual situation in that all their development plans get run through the preservation people first. She thinks most small cities have a person who handles their historic preservation/CLG work and also does other things as well, most often, planning. She is the sole HPC staff for Glenwood. She spends 3-4 hours a week on average on HPC/CLG work. She would like to spend more but can’t because her responsibilities also include long-range planning and current planning. She has been at Glenwood for 3 years and has an MA in historic preservation. Prior to working there she was in Sioux City IA where she went through the process of creating a historic preservation ordinance. She said it took about 8 years for the program to catch on because people were fearful of what it meant. In Glenwood she says people still get upset because they find they have design standards to adhere to. Like Aspen, they have a 7-member HPC and they have similar trouble recruiting and retaining commissioners. They have had 3 vacancies in the past 18 mos., causing them to cancel meetings for lack of a quorum. They have just now filled those vacancies. 3: Interface: They went through a situation whereby the HPC felt slighted because they weren’t given the opportunity to comment on plans affecting the downtown area. Now they are regularly included on the routing list of consulting organizations and departments (like public works, for example). 4: Benefit vs. Effort: I asked whether many people had taken advantage of the tax credit opportunity and she said very few people had. She feels Glenwood needs to publicize it more. She feels the HPC and the CLG are worthwhile for Glenwood because preservation keeps coming up in their city’s comprehensive plan and the HPC and CLG provide tools and support for decisions concerning what should be preserved and what should not. z Page 7 5: Cost Analysis: None per se. She has received a survey and a planning grant because the city was a CLG. The planning grant was about $20k awarded in 2007 for a historic preservation plan. The city council is now in process of reviewing the plan. 6: Other: None LONGMONT y Historic Preservation Commission y Meets once each month y 7 members (2 alternates) Landmark nomination y Nomination by Historic Preservation Commission, Owner(s), City Council, local historic preservation organization y After a nomination for designation is filed, there is no stay of any alterations until final determination. However, all permits for total demolition or moving of any structure 50 years of age or older are reviewed. If the structure could be eligible for designation, a stay of issuance of permit is extended for up to 90 days yFees: There is no fee for filing a landmark designation application Landmark designation y Designation without owner consent requires petition by 100 citizens, extraordinary significance, inability to move the building or structure, and would not result in an economic hardship to the owner y District designation requires 25% to nominate and 51% to designate y Economic incentives: waiver of certain building permit and plan review fees; waiver of city sales and use tax y National and State Register listed properties do not automatically become local Landmarks y Structures of Merit Maintenance y No minimum maintenance requirements y Enforcement and Penalties: “…In addition to enforcement actions available to the city under the Longmont municipal code, the city shall have the power to enforce compliance with the provisions of the chapter through injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief…” Alteration and construction review process y Mandatory design review with mandatory compliance y HPC reviews buildings for historic significance which are over 50 years of age in areas being considered for annexation y Reviews demolition permits for all buildings, not merely landmarks, over 50 years of age within the city’s original square mile plat; demolition can be stayed for up to 90 days y CA is required for exterior construction, alteration or demolition. y CA applications require: application form, current color photograph, two sets of plans, samples, and product literature y Staff review of alterations which are determined to have no significant impact y Demolition and relocation criteria y Economic hardship criteria STC application review y The Historic Preservation Commission reviews applications for the Tax Credit program. The process the HPC follows is identical to the COA process outlined in the ordinance z Page 8 Comments from Brien Schumacher, Principal Planner, Longmont Planning Office Longmont has had a Landmark Designation Commission (later a HPC) since the 1970s. He isn’t sure how long it’s been a CLG. 1& 2: Staff Time and Dedication: Brien has been at his job for about a year. He is the HPC/CLG staff person and spends about 1/3 of his time on it; says he could easily spend more. They have no problem getting applicants for the Commission. 3: Interface: He says they haven’ had conflicts per se but they will be talking about building codes and how they affect historic structures in terms of building permit reviews at an upcoming meeting. The HPC has been well supported by the City Council and Planning Commission. They have 7 regular and 2 alternate commissioners. They also have a city council liaison, which he believes has helped avoid conflict. 4: Benefit vs. Effort: He thinks the city likes the CLG program and sees it as a benefit to the community in that they can get local designation rather than having to go through the State. They have 120-125 local landmarks, no local historic districts, and a few National Register districts. 5: Cost Analysis: The city has a C-Rebate program for working on historic structures, in addition to the state and federal tax credit programs. He believes more people are starting to take advantage of it. They have not had CLG-funded grants for surveys in the past few years but have done 3 or 4 surveys in the past. In total they have surveyed about 500 properties through CLG and SHF grants. 6: Other: None. STEAMBOAT SPRINGS y Historic Preservation Commission y Meets “regularly” y 5 members, 2 members with professional qualifications, and alternate; 2 members may live outside city boundaries but within r-E school district boundaries Landmark nomination y Nomination by HPC with owner’s consent or by owner y After a nomination for designation of a historic district is filed, there is a stay of any alterations until final determination y Fees: There is no fee for filing a landmark designation application Landmark designation y Owner consent required y 100% owner consent required for historic districts y Historic resource designations require one criterion; local landmark designations requires two additional criteria y National and State Register listed properties do not automatically become local Landmarks y Economic incentives for individual landmarks and contributing properties in a historic district: historic preservation fund, sales and use tax exemption for individually designated structures; land use variances; waiver of planning fees for tax credit projects; tap fee waiver Maintenance y Demolition by neglect prohibited z Page 9 y Enforcement and Penalties: may include moratorium on development up to 5 years; reconstruction or repair; triple permit fees; stop work order; assessment of costs and attorney’s fees Alteration and construction review process y Reviews all building permits and demolition permits for designated or eligible buildings and structures. y Mandatory compliance for designated buildings; voluntary compliance for eligible buildings. downtown commercial zones y All applications for any building permit / demolition permit are first reviewed administratively. If the administration determines that the proposed project does not significantly alter the historic character, then approval may be recommended without HPC and public hearing. Administration notifies HPC of recommendation; if HPC objects, a public hearing is held. y Economic hardship criteria STC application review y For state tax credit applications, there is a mixture of staff and commission review Comments from Laureen Schaffer, Intergovernmental Services, Steamboat Springs Bob Joseph talked with Laureen and also received a memo she wrote to their Council on the economic benefits of being a CLG, which I have already provided. Bob says, “Talking to Steamboat; their program has generated some controversy that resulted in recent revision of their ordinance. The revised ordinance reigned in the review process which was seen as cumbersome, complicated and too far reaching.” WINDSOR y Historic Preservation Commission y Meets once each month y 5 members, 3 with professional qualifications Landmark nomination y Nomination by any member of the Board of Trustees or by any citizen y After a nomination for designation is filed, there is no stay of any alterations until final determination y Fees: There is no fee for filing a landmark designation application Landmark designation yNon-consensual designation permitted; ¾ majority vote required if no owner consent y National and State Register listed properties do not automatically become local Landmarks Maintenance y No minimum maintenance requirements y No Demolition by Neglect clause y Enforcement and Penalties: fines provided in municipal code. In addition, for alterations without an approved CA: one-year moratorium on all building permits for property. For moving or demolishing without and approved CA: five-year moratorium on all moving, demolition, or building permits for the structure and for the property at the structure’s original location Alteration and construction review process y Mandatory design review with mandatory compliance y The Board of Trustees uses the following criteria in reviewing an alterations certificate: y General historical and architectural character y Architectural style, arrangement, texture and material y Size of the structure z Page 10 y Compatibility of accessory structures and fences y Effects of proposed work y Condition of existing improvements and whether they are a hazard to public health and safety y Effects of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the property y Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation y Paint color is not reviewed y A procedure has not yet been established for Staff approval of simple alterations y Relocation criteria y Economic hardship criteria STC application review y STC review is a combination of commission and staff review. Comments from Joe Plummer, AICP, Director of Planning, Town of Windsor [The Windsor CLG staff person used to be the Cultural Manager. That person is no longer employed at Windsor. The City looked at the responsibilities and decided to move the position to the Planning Department.-BK] 1& 2: Staff Time and Dedication: Training, packet preparation and meetings, monthly or as often as necessary. 10 hours per month or so. Attached is a copy of the establishing ordinance. Also we work with our contract inspection agency for all applicable building inspections, etc. It requires training and commitment. We so far have had difficulty filling the commission with qualified individuals, which requires constant training. 3: Interface: We have not reviewed any properties for local landmarks as yet, and the Commission was established in 2004. 4: Benefit vs. Effort: We also are in our infancy with this and have only had one legitimate review of exterior renovations to a designated landmark which went well. We are further developing our guidelines per the ordinance and after they are adopted I don’t anticipate an inordinate amount of staff review or processing time. 5: Cost Analysis: None 6: Other: Determine first if you want the control at the local level. You can accomplish many of the things you are asking at the state and federal level without becoming a CLG. The biggest CLG benefit is the local control, and if you want that, then you will discover it is worth the investment.