Professional Documents
Culture Documents
QUESTION
Will historic designation negatively
affect the property value of FUSD?
ANSWER
Per John Olson of Historic Denver: Stability is good for property values. In
studies of historic vs. non-historic properties, historic properties are typically
on the market less time due to unique character, etc. There are real estate
companies that specialize in historic properties due to their appeal.
Sources:
Clarion Associates, LLC., 10/2011. The Economic Power of Heritage and Place: How
Historic Preservation is Building a Sustainable Future in Colorado
The Brookings Institution, 2005. Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and
Review of the Literature
Kristi Robertson, Colorado State Historical Society
John Olson, Director of Preservation Programs, Historic Denver
Per John Olson, certain brokers will artificially increase the cost of insurance
for historic properties. There is no basis for this. Over 6,000 historic
properties exist in Denver and for the vast majority there is no major
difference in property values. We may expect a small bump of 1-2% with
designation but not more.
According to Kara Hahn of the City Landmark Designation office, changes
made to the building to date (such as the elevator) will not keep us from
gaining landmark status. All the other exterior changes will not affect our
application since they were made 30+ years ago.
The interior of the building is vastly different than when originally built and
there are few original elements. This will not affect our ability to get
Landmark Status.
Landmark Status would likely call out original elements in the interior of the
building (such as the original hidden windows), thus requiring approval to
make any modification to those elements. Otherwise, changes to the interior
will not need prior approval.
Per the State Historic Fund, the elevator project probably would have been
approved with Historic Designation. They would have recommended that it
be at the rear of the building (as it is) and there may have been tweeks to the
plan to make it more compatible with the building.
We have reviewed our current exterior work planned for the church and have
been told that it will most likely be allowed under historic designation
especially since our plan calls for restoring the front steps to their original
configuration.
Landmark designation ensures a more thorough review of demolition
proposals for designated landmarks and historic properties in historic
districts, but does not outright prohibit demolition.
Since competition for the grant funds
is so fierce, will our applications be
funded?
Our architect built extra time into our project schedule to accommodate
permitting delays.
Grant funds are indeed competitive. There is no guarantee that we will
receive all the funds that we request.
While the fund was low in recent years, it is at full capacity at this time. We
have been told that we would likely have a very competitive application.
Through 2015, at least 69 churches in Denver have been funded through the
State Historic Fund. At least $12,547,616 was awarded in grant funds through
185 grants. Of those,
The largest amount of funding went to Trinity United Methodist for 7
grants between 1995 and 2001 ($841,000).
Average amount funded per church (removing churches that received
only $10,000 or less (i.e. completed a HSA and did not pursue other grant
funds) was $201,423.
Average grant size was $67,824.95
Considering only grants of over $10,000, 125 grants were awarded,
averaging $96,385.67.
We typically fund the entire amount requested if the project and application are
sound. For the most part, we do not like to recommend partial funding because
there are sometimes costs that are rolled into a category that we don't see, costs that
are fundamental to the success of a project. Cynthia Nieb, Deputy Director,
History Colorado, State Historical Fund.
Yes. Many historic projects complete work in phases. The State Historic Fund
wants to see a realistic game plan but typically understands the need to do
different phases of work at different times.
Yes. In fact, the costs that are built into the budget assume the higher cost
materials required.
First, the grants allow for a 15% administrative fee written into the proposal
to help pay for administration of the grant.
Third, the Sacred Places Project exists through Historic Denver. Sacred
Places can write and manage FUSD historic grant and lend their expertise. Cost
of having Historic Denver write and manage our grants is 12-14% of grant
total; this would be part of the allowed administrative fee. Should a grant they
write not be funded, we do not pay for the grant writing services.
A greater level of approval and review will be required with Historic
Designation. Materials will likely be more expensive. For example, mortar for
tuck pointing will need to be matched to the brick and historically-accurate
techniques will need to be used.
It is very likely that the materials we would need to use on our exterior are the
more expensive variety regardless. For example, a less expensive mortar may
be harder and would be more likely to crack the bricks. Therefore we may
need to use the more expensive product regardless of Historic Designation.
Per the City Landmark office, costs are likely to be higher up front but the
work typically lasts longer due to a higher level of craftsmanship and better
materials. Repairs should last longer as a result of higher upfront costs. Note
that many of the post-fire repairs were done with poor materials and these are
the elements that are falling into disrepair now.
From the 2014 FUSD Long Range Plan: Major Recommendation: Stay in our
building and undertake an extensive renovation, *estimated to cost
approximately $1.3 million including design, consultation, permits and fees).
Rationale: Wide congregational support, identify as an urban sanctuary in
Capitol Hill, national trends away from physical churchgoing, and pledge
patterns.
The congregation similarly affirmed in 1985 prior to the fire and in 1986 after
the fire to stay in the 1400 Lafayette Building.
Current zoning is G-MU-3, UO-3, which allows for a 3-story building. When a
building is 30+ years old, demolition is not allowed without posting of the
property to city council, historic associations, etc. It is very likely that there
would be a move by the City or a third party (which is allowed) to designate
our building as historic during that process. As such, the chances that our
building could be sold to a developer who wanted to demolish it for another
purpose are slim.
Per John Olson: You would probably have neighbors chaining themselves to
this building if there was a move to demolish it.
While there is mention of the historic nature of the church in the 1985 postfire minutes, we have not yet found notes of a serious conversation about the
topic. We have heard that it was explored but not pursued largely due to the
amount of work involved in the process. If there was a deliberate decision
NOT to pursue the designation after a thorough review of the process, we are
not aware of it.
In addition, there are new resources available to churches that impact the time
and effort that would be required of FUSD to pursue this path. In 2000, the
Sacred Landmarks Preservation project was established. The program has
worked with over 50 sacred sites to identify and correctly address issues with
the historic building so that the functions housed inside may continue to
thrive. Due to dwindling congregations, finances, and other challenges, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation recognized urban sacred places as
endangered in 2002.
The historic grants are not a standalone project; they will be done in the
context of the broader capital budget. The fundraising plan will take into
account need for reserves to be used as matching funds.
Per Kara Hahn, City of Denver: Once the building is Landmarked, the location
of the solar panels would be a reviewable project. Solar panels are allowed;
however, we generally recommend that not be located on a primary or street
facing faade. Putting them on the roof of the elevator might be a better location
than the front of the building.
Also, our current understanding is that the roof area of the elevator is not
large enough to be consequential in providing solar energy to the facility.
There also are issues of slope. The issue of solar has been removed from this
renovation project with research on solar farm agreements being explored as
an alternative. Coleen Bryan, Eddie Carroll and Dan Johnson may be resources
on this discussion.
All people interviewed associated with the historic process indicate that there
are very few churches who explore historic designation and dont pursue it.
Reasons for not pursuing designation typically involve a desire to significantly
alter the building (which typically doesnt happen) and/or philosophical
differences.