Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDemo MaterialsPage 1 of 11 14263, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Public Hearing Date: Zoning Commission/Planning Board public hearing is on September 6, 2016 at 6 pm City Commission public hearing is on September 26, 2016 at 6 pm. Project Description: These amendments clarify obligations of property owners to maintain their property and address the process for when and under what conditions structures can be removed when a structure is classed as a historic structure. Project Location: Generally applicable throughout the City with special applicability within those areas documented as historically significant. Recommendation: Approval Recommended Advisory Board Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14623 and move to recommend approval of the text amendment. Recommended City Commission Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14623 and move to approve the text amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development Code. Report Date: August 22, 2016 Staff Contact: Chris Saunders, Interim Director Agenda Item Type: Action - Legislative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unresolved Issues Shall the restriction for issuance of a demolition permit for non-historic structures in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District require simultaneous issuance of a building permit for the subsequent development? Project Summary One of the distinguishing factors for Bozeman is its well-kept established neighborhoods. Many of these areas are located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 2 of 11 (NCOD) where there are protections in place for historic buildings. The City has had regulations in place to protect historic buildings for about 24 years. For the past several years, there has been considerable discussion on how to balance historic preservation with community goals for infill development and redevelopment of under- utilized or obsolete properties. Overly restrictive regulations may inhibit desired redevelopment or removal of unsafe structures. Overly permissive regulations may allow the loss of important elements of Bozeman’s unique character. On July 14, 2014, the City Commission conducted a work session with staff to discuss these issues. The draft regulations incorporate the Commission direction given that day with some modifications determined appropriate during the code drafting process. The text amendment seeks a balance of these two issues by creating a clear definition of what is historic and distinguishing how historic, non-historic, and unsafe buildings are addressed. An associated concern is how to provide protection to adjacent residents from unmaintained properties. The concern is not limited to defined historic districts. Areas throughout the community need to ensure that properties remain safe and are not a detriment to the vicinity. The City has some standards in place under its nuisance code but they are administratively intensive and are subjective. These amendments provide additional clarity. In summary, the amendments propose the following. 1. Clean up text in Chapter 10, Building Codes, of the municipal code to fix references and assign correct staff responsibilities for certain duties. 2. Coordinate Chapter 10, Building Codes with Chapter 38, Unified Development Code that all zoning review needed prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of a building is complete. 3. Coordination with Chapter 16, Environment and Health to clarify that structures must be kept safe. 4. Define what safe means for item 3 above. 5. Amend article 38.16, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay to establish the protection of historic structures as one of its purposes and coordinating with procedures for demolition. 6. Replace the procedures for demolition of buildings. This section currently puts buildings of all historic status into the same section. The proposed language separates them for clarity and adds cross-references as needed. The section also creates a consultation process where an owner of property can get a preliminary determination of whether a building can be removed. This early indication enables lower risk as private parties don’t have to provide full applications for subsequent development before finding out if the building can be removed. 7. Establish procedures to demolish a historic structure. Retains same review criteria as presently in place. Provides a clearer path through the review and greater explanation of 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 3 of 11 how the existing stay of demolition is applied. This section codifies existing City Commission direction regarding timing of demolition. Before demolition can begin, the permit for the replacement structure must be issued. 8. Addresses how to demolish a non-historic structure within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Retains same review criteria as presently in place. This has a lesser standard of review than for a historic building. Provides a clearer path through the review process. This section codifies existing City Commission direction. Before demolition can begin, the building permit for the replacement structure must be issued. This section does not apply outside of the NCOD. 9. Gives specific procedures for demolition of unsafe structures. This is new text not currently existing. An expedited process is provided and criteria are simpler. Coordinates with the nuisance provisions in Chapter 16, Environment and Health, BMC. This section does not apply outside of the NCOD. 10. Establish procedure for clarity of what level of documentation may be required in association with demolition of a historic building. The required matrix has not yet been created. It is expected to be created when the City hires its new historic preservation officer this fall. 11. Specifically addresses duty to protect historic structures. Cross links with the general maintenance obligations of all property owners. Clarifies that standard maintenance and interior renovations are excluded from this standard. 12. Amends the zoning plan review article 38.19 to address when a COA is required to demolish a historic building. This expands the scope of the COA process to include historic buildings outside of the NCOD. This is authorizing language. The required documentation to execute this are not in place at this time. 13. Clarify noticing language for applications to demolish historic structures. 14. Expand application materials for demolitions to make clear the scope of the proposed work and supporting material to evaluate whether the criteria for demolition have been met. 15. Create a specific definition of what property is to be considered historic. Mere age alone is not enough. There are well defined national professional standards for evaluation of properties to determine if historic integrity still is intact. The City uses these standards. This definition requires a substantial process of fact collection and evaluation prior to determining a property to be historic. The National Park Service publishes the standards. The process can be found at https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/. The federal law can be found at https://www.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm. 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 4 of 11 This set of amendments is being processed as part of the larger update to the Unified Development Code. If approved, the changes will take effect with the overall adoption in early 2017. Alternatives 1. Accept the draft text as written. 2. Require revisions prior to passage of the revisions. 3. Do not adopt the revisions. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 4 SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 5 Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ......................................................................... 5 PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ........................................................... 9 APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............... 9 APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ...................................................... 9 FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................... 9 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS Having considered the criteria established for a text amendment, the Staff recommends approval as submitted. The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on August 31, 2016. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints that would impede the approval of the application. 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 5 of 11 The Zoning Commission and Planning Board will hold a public hearing on this text amendment on September 6, 2016 and will forward a recommendation to the Commission. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board will hold a public meeting on September 13, 2016, and will forward a recommendation to the Commission. The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the text amendment on September 26, 2016. The meeting will be held at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following criteria. As an amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that the application should be approved lies with the applicant. In considering the following criteria the analysis must show that the amendment accomplishes criteria A-D. Criteria E-K must be considered and may be found to be affirmative, neutral, or negative. A favorable decision on the proposed application must find that the application meets all of criteria A-D and that the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K. Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Yes. The following selections of goals and objectives from the growth policy, while not exhaustive, indicate that the proposed changes are in accord with the goals and objectives of the growth policy. The broad range of support for this factor across three separate chapters of the growth policy emphasizes its importance. No conflicts with the growth policy have been identified. 3.3 Land Use Goals and Objectives “Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or design.” The proposed amendments will support infill by creating a more clear and predictable path for development review in historic areas. Future, the context of existing areas is protected by avoiding speculative tear-downs which leave holes in the built environment of the neighborhood. Chapter 5 Historic Preservation 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 6 of 11 “Bozeman residents value their community’s heritage: historic neighborhoods, buildings and landscapes are reminders of this heritage. The City envisions a community with a rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of all citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The City’s mission: carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman’s historic resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.” “The surviving historic fabric is an incentive for tourism by providing an attractive and unique experience for tourists. Both actions support the local community’s economy.” This introductory statement and selection from the intent statement of the chapter sets out the importance of historic preservation in Bozeman’s identity and character. It makes it clear than specific action to protect historic character and structures is expected. “Goal HP-1: Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the community’s identity, history, and quality of life. Rationale: Protection of historically and culturally significant resources ensures the survival of Bozeman’s historic buildings, structures, landscapes, streetscapes and archeological sites to ensure a dynamic historic legacy for present and future generations. It also is a driver for economic development and activity in Bozeman, and supports the goal of sustainability. Therefore, historic preservation efforts support economic vitality and the environmental health of the community.” “Objective HP-1.1: Continue implementation and further develop historic preservation planning tools and research efforts that provide protection of historic resources.” “Objective HP-1.3: Provide clear and concise City standards and requirements to ensure protection of historic resources.” Chapter 5, Historic Preservation, is the source of the selections above. A clear link between community character, the health of the local economy, and action to support historic preservation is called for. The proposed regulations require very basic maintenance of all structures in the City whether designated historic or not. History is constantly in the making and new buildings become potentially qualified for historic recognition. Therefore, it is appropriate to maintain all structures. 5.4 Future Historic Preservation Needs “Affirmative Maintenance/Demolition by Neglect: Some property owners treat their properties with such negligence that they become likely candidates for demolition. Several of these properties are historically significant and if lost, damage the community’s collective past. A City ordinance should be drafted that establishes minimum maintenance and upkeep requirements for property owners, so the security and basic structural integrity of properties are preserved and structures remain safe for use.” 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 7 of 11 The growth policy specifically identified the type of amendments presently proposed as an implementing action for the growth policy. “6.3 Housing Goals and Objectives Objective 1.2 – Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Bozeman residents.” Maintaining housing and other buildings in a weather tight and secure condition will advance this objective. Further, it directly supports public health, safety, and welfare by lessening opportunities for vandalism, buildup of vermin, and the detrimental effects than an unmaintained building has on the surrounding properties. B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers. Yes. The revisions to require buildings to be secure will reduce fire hazard and trespassing. Earlier this year, at Main Street and Tracy Avenue persons entered an unsecured closet and started a fire. See the attached incident report. Police had to respond to trespassing calls to unoccupied homes on Peach and Rouse and Peach and N 3rd Ave. Arson is a particular problem for vacant and abandoned properties. The U.S. Fire Administration estimates that there were 28,000 fires annually in vacant residences between 2006 and 2008, with half of these spreading to the rest of the building and 11 percent spreading to a nearby building C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. Yes. As described in criterion B above public safety will be improved. Further, the encouragement to maintain buildings which retain functional value improves the historic character of areas. The requirement to place new buildings in conjunction with removal of buildings prevents speculative demolition, vacant parcels, and loss of participation in the community by residents. Currently, the City’s nuisance code and adopted Building Codes are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety. This code as written does not take effect until substantial damage to a building occurs with associated hazards to the public. Establishing a simple and clear preventative maintenance standard avoids the creation of nuisances which addresses all elements of this criterion. The proposed amendments also simplify the removal of buildings which truly are beyond salvage which expedites the clearance of potential hazards to safety. See the attached report on vacant properties D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Neutral. Generally, the maintenance of buildings supports the health and economic vitality of the community. In turn, this enables ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure. However, 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 8 of 11 the effects of the proposed revisions are expected to be minor in the overall context of the community. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue. F. Effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue. G. Promotion of compatible urban growth. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue. H. Character of the district. Yes. The architectural heritage of an area is an essential element in determining the character of a district. Many areas where historic buildings have been identified are included within National Register Historic Districts (NRHD). These are honorary designations where a commonality of building design and historic features have been documented. An NRHD can span multiple zoning districts. Some buildings are not consistent with the character of a historic district either because they have been so substantially altered as to loose historic integrity, or they do not correspond to the character defining features of the historic district. Not all historic buildings are included within a historic district. Where the required documentation has been created to verify that buildings have historic integrity, the proposed amendments act to preserve that integrity. Buildings not having historic integrity may be removed to allow placement of new buildings which are consistent with the character of the district. I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address uses for specific properties. J. Conserving the value of buildings. Yes. When buildings are open to weather and not secure they can quickly receive cosmetic and more substantial damage. This can occur through vandalism, by water infiltration, infestation of rodents, growth of mold, and other undesirable occurrences. The requirement for buildings to be kept weather tight and secure will limit damage and retain building value. Buildings where demolition has been approved often exhibit signs of water and other weather damage on the interior. The proposed revisions to the process for demolition of buildings will require verification that a building is not economically viable before it is demolished. Removal of unsafe buildings will remove a detriment to a neighborhood which can depress the value of adjacent buildings. K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 9 of 11 Yes. The proposed revisions help ensure that historically developed areas remain in active use by requiring approved development plans and permits before demolition of existing buildings. PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE AMENDMENT AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS Zoning Designation and Land Uses: Historic structures may be located in all zoning districts and be all types of land uses. The majority of designated historic structures are located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). There are also many non-historic structures within the NCOD. The maintenance and nuisance prevention amendments will apply to the entire city and all structures both residential and non-residential. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: See discussion under Criterion A. APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT A public notice was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle legal ads on August 21st and September 4, 2016. This is the legally required notice for amending the text of the municipal code. In addition, the City has convened an advisory committee representing many stakeholder groups within the community. Proposed edits were discussed with the committee for dispersal to interested parties. The City has also maintained a web site for the Unified Development Code update process which provides information on meetings and proposed edits. No comments have been received as of the writing of this report. FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this text amendment. The ordinance also includes direction for staff to help provide education 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 10 of 11 and outreach to the community on building protection and maintenance. It is anticipated that this work will be incorporated into the standard budget and work plan for the Historic Preservation Office (once the position is filled) and the building division. ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Draft text Minutes from July 14, 2014 City Commission meeting Staff memo from July 14, 2016 Commission meeting Graphic illustrating summary steps to identify and document historic properties Vacant Properties – The True Cost to Communities Fire incident report Page 11 of 11 The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases Ord XXX Page 1 of 15 (Unified Development Code revision element 2C, Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Properties) DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA AMENDING MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING CHAPTER 10, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 16.02, PUBLIC NUISANCES; AND ARTICLE 38.16, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATON OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION, MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and Montana law to adopt land development and use standards to protect public health, safety and welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-2-304, MCA; and WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to preserve the fabric of the City and character of City neighborhoods; to have well maintained historic properties; and to prevent intentional and unintentional damage to historic properties through neglect; and WHEREAS, historic preservation is identified in Chapter 5 of the Bozeman Community Plan as an important element of community character and heritage, and the Bozeman Community Plan encourages the protection of historically and culturally significant resources. WHEREAS, the “Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (NCOD), Chapter 38.16, was established in 1991 to conserve and protect neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, the NCOD uses the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process to review development of properties in the NCOD applying general guidelines for the protection of neighborhood character and targeted recommendations for historic properties; and WHEREAS, historic properties are not necessarily limited to the geographical boundaries of the NCOD; and WHEREAS, the Bozeman Municipal Code does not specifically define “historic property”, lessening certainty in identifying which properties are subject to the historic preservation provisions of the; and WHEREAS, adoption of a definition based on a property’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is consistent with the best management practices adopted by UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 2 of 15 other state and federal government agencies such as the Montana Department of Transportation and the Army Corps of Engineers; and WHEREAS, the City’s nuisance code, Chapter 16, and adopted technical codes (Building Codes), Chapter 10, are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA: Section 1 Legislative Findings: 1. The City’s experience with historic preservation shows that the adoption of a specific definition of “historic” will create a knowable and predictable classification of properties. 2. A specific definition of “historic” provides the opportunity to protect properties eligible for listing throughout the City (not limited to the NCOD). 3. A specific definition of “historic” enables the historic preservation program to more readily keep pace with changes in the community and reduce unintentional omissions. 4. A specific definition of “historic” creates a dynamic program which enables an evolving, growing community to recognize properties which are eligible for designation as historic. 5. The historic preservation goals in the City’s Community Plan will be promoted by maintaining historic properties in safe condition and good repair, preventing intentional and unintentional neglect of historic properties, and ensuring that historic properties be maintained as weather tight and secure. 6. The City Commission intends to be proactive and to discourage properties reaching the point that triggers action through either the nuisance code or adopted technical codes (Building Codes) by being neglected to the point of being unsafe. 7. The City’s involvement with homeowners and neighborhood groups to educate, assist and facilitate, and encourage collaborative approaches involving individuals, government, and the private sector to address neglected properties will promote the historic preservation goals in the Community Plan. 8. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest for the City to deter speculative demolition of structures, which creates gaps in the neighborhood fabric, and diminishes the tax revenue stream, which reduces the City’s ability to provide services and infrastructure improvements to the area. In addition, vacant lots diminish the value of adjoining residences and create uncertainty for neighborhoods. The cost to maintain the street and deliver infrastructure to the property is the same while the tax revenue is diminished UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 3 of 15 9. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest to reduce the use of City resources by coordinating the provisions of the City’s nuisance code, adopted building codes, and zoning code. Section 2 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising the Building Moving Code, Section 10.03.110.A as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered: Sec. 10.03.110. - Same—Issuance restrictions and moving conditions. A. The following restrictions and conditions shall be observed before the issuance of a permit as required by this article: 1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move or relocate any building or structure upon another building site unless such use, building or proposed conversion thereof conforms to Chapter 38, (Zoning) to include when applicable the final approval by the review authority specified in 38.34.010, of a Certificate Of Appropriateness, 10.02.030, (the International Building Code), 10.02.040, (the International Residential Code), 10.02.050 (the International Existing Building code) and all other pertinent portions of this Code. 2. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move, remove or locate any building or structure which is: a. So constructed or in such condition as to be dangerous or unsafe; b. Infested with pests or is otherwise unsanitary; c. Or, if a dwelling or habitation, is unfit for human habitation; d. Or is so dilapidated, defective or in such a condition of deterioration or disrepair that its relocation at the proposed site would create a safety or health hazard, or would cause substantial damage or material detriment to the property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. 3. Every application shall be accompanied by the written consent of the deputy police chief and deputy fire chief – operations fire department, who shall be notified as to the route to be taken and the date of the move. 4. The department of public works building division shall specify in the permit the route to be taken in the moving of a building or structure, such means to be used to prevent the street pavement from being subjected to abnormal stresses as may be deemed necessary by the city engineer, and the limit of time which such building or structure shall be upon the streets or alleys. 5. No circuit or box of the city fire alarm shall be disturbed in any manner except with the permission of the deputy fire department chief - operations. 6. No building or structure which is being moved upon or over any street, alley or property of the city shall be occupied as living quarters while such building or structure is in transit. UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 4 of 15 7. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances and equipment to safely complete the proposed move. Section 3 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 10.04.050.A.3 to the Demolition Code to read as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered: Sec. 10.04.050. - Same—Issuance restrictions. A. The following restrictions and conditions shall be observed before the issuance of a permit as required by this article: 1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or structure while any part thereof is occupied. 2. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances, and equipment to safely complete the proposed demolition and disposal. 3. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or structure unless such demolition thereof conforms to chapter 38 to include when applicable the final approval by the review authority specified in 38.34.010, of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the provisions of this article, and this code. Section 4 That Section 16.02.030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Article 2. – NUISANCES Sec. 16.02.030. - Responsibility for maintenance. A. Every owner, occupant, lessee or holder of any possessory interest of real property within the city is required to maintain such property so as not to violate the provisions of this article. The owner of the property shall remain liable for violations hereof regardless of any contract or agreement with any third party regarding such property or the occupation of the property by any third party. B. Every owner of property within the city must maintain such property to ensure the safe condition of the property, in a weather tight condition, and secure from unauthorized entry. Section 5 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding new definitions in Section 16.02.040 as follows: UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 5 of 15 Sec. 16.02.040. - Definitions. A. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1. "Abatement" means the removal, stoppage, prostration, or destruction of that which causes or constitutes a nuisance, whether by breaking or pulling it down, or otherwise destroying, or effacing it. 2. "Owner" means the owner of record or any person with legal, financial or equitable interest in the property on which the alleged public nuisance exists at the time of the violation. 3. "Property" means any real property, premises, structure or location on which a public nuisance is alleged to exist. 4. "Public nuisance" means any fence, wall, shed, deck, house, garage, building, structure or any part of any of the aforesaid; or any tree, pole, smokestack; or any excavation, hole, pit, basement, cellar, sidewalk subspace, dock; or any lot, land, yard, premises or location which in its entirety, or in any part thereof, by reason of the condition in which the same is found or permitted to be or remain, shall or may endanger the health, safety, life, limb or property, or cause any hurt, harm, inconvenience, discomfort, damage or injury to any one or more individuals in the city, in any one or more of the following particulars: a. By reason of being a menace, threat and/or hazard to the general health and safety of the community. b. By reason of being a fire hazard. c. By reason of being unsafe for occupancy, or use on, in, upon, about or around the aforesaid property. d. By reason of lack of sufficient or adequate maintenance of the property, and/or being vacant, any of which depreciates the enjoyment and use of the property in the immediate vicinity to such an extent that it is harmful to the community in which such property is situated or such condition exists. The term "public nuisance" shall mean any nuisance designated in section 16.02.050. 5. “Safe condition” means a condition not involving or likely to involve danger, harm or loss from fire and other hazards. 6. "Summary abatement" means abatement of the nuisance by the city, or a contractor employed by the city, by removal, repair, or other acts without notice to the owner, agent, or occupant of the property except for the notice required by this article. Section 6 That Chapter 38, Article 16 the Bozeman Municipal Code, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, be amended by adding Section 38.16.010.G to read as follows with the remainder of the section to remain as written: UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 6 of 15 G. It is further the purpose of this article to protect historic structures as defined in 38.42.1365 by requiring any person seeking to demolish or move a historic structure to comply with 38.19.080 whether or not the structure is located within the NCOD. Section 7 That Section 38.16.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Sec. 38.16.080. - Review of demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district. A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows: 1. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved before a demolition or moving permit may be issued. 2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to review per articles 19 and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in 38.16.050. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit development application. 3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. Prior to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive a recommendation from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not conform to the criteria below a recommendation from the historic preservation advisory board. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, site plan, UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 7 of 15 conditional use permit or planned unit development application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following: a. The standards in 38.16.050 and the architectural, social, cultural and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the state historic preservation office and the planning department. b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority must find that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: (1) The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. (2) The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. 4. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 2 or 3 of this section. 5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. 6. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site shall be subject to the provisions of this article. This process applies to: 1. Historic properties, as defined in 38.42.1365, per 38.16.090. 2. Non-historic properties per 38.16.100. 3. Unsafe structures whether historic or non-historic per 38.16.110. The provisions for unsafe structures take priority over other provisions for demolition. B. An application to move or demolish a structure subject to this article must follow the applicable review procedures. C. Optional provisional review of demolition. A property owner may request provisional review of the proposed demolition of a structure subject to this article prior to submittal of a certificate of appropriateness application for seeking demolition of the structure. The director of community development may establish criteria for the application for provisional review of UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 8 of 15 demolition. Provisional review is advisory only and does not constitute approval to demolish a structure. Provisional review shall consider: a. The property’s historic significance. b. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Illustrative summary graphic will be developed and inserted appropriately – table is not regulatory, intended to provide handy cross reference. We will update the table after the text is finalized. Section 8 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.090. - Demolition or movement of a historic structure or site. A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Approval of the proposed subsequent development is required for all historic buildings and structures proposed for demolition and for the proposed movement of any building or structure or site. B. Public Notice. Proposals for demolition of historic properties within the city limits require public notice. Notice of application(s) shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. Criteria. The reviewing authority will consider the following factors in evaluating applications for demolition or movement of a historic structure or site and subsequent redevelopment: 1. The property’s historic significance. 2. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a building of the same type and scale. 3. Whether the subsequent development complies with 38.16.050. 4. Whether the subsequent development includes construction of new building(s) unless the existing character of the area does not include buildings. 5. Subsequent development requires a building permit and does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). D. Review process. UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 9 of 15 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application. 2. COA decision alternatives. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the Review Authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. c. COA denial due to the failure of the applicant to make a complete and adequate submittal or propose a subsequent treatment which complies with the standards of this chapter does not initiate the two-year stay. 3. If an application for demolition or moving is denied due to failure to meet 38.16.090.C issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the denial in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section. a. Early termination of two-year stay. An owner of property subject to a stay under this section may seek early termination of the stay if the owner demonstrates it has actively and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition. These alternatives may include but are not limited to: listing the property for sale as a historic property; actively seeking input from neighborhood groups and interested parties; explored alternative funding sources for stabilization and/or reconstruction; and offering the property for relocation. b. If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate proposals have been approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented to otherwise terminate the stay, an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the city pursuant to Chapter 10, article 3 or 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are satisfied, including documentation of the structure to be moved or demolished and the review authority has approved the subsequent development and a building permit issued for the subsequent development, a demolition permit pursuant to Chpt. 10 article 3 or 4 shall be granted and no other proceedings under this chapter are required. 4. Standard Requirements. UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 10 of 15 a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit. b. Documentation of the structure shall be completed and submitted to the historic preservation officer and deemed complete and adequate prior to issuance of a demolition permit per paragraph 38.16.120. Section 9 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.100. - Demolition or movement of a non-historic structure or site in the NCOD A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Required for all properties proposed for demolition or movement of any structure or site. Subsequent development does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). B. Public Notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. Criteria. 1.The applicable criteria are the COA criteria of 38.16.050. 2. The subsequent development must include construction of new building(s) unless the immediately prior character of the area did not include buildings. D. Review process. 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application. 2. COA decision alternatives. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the Review Authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. 3. Standard Requirements. a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit. UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 11 of 15 Section 10 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.110. - Demolition or movement of an unsafe structure whether historic or non-historic A COA for demolition and subsequent development. Upon application and the chief building official’s determination that the property is unsafe the review authority may approve demolition and subsequent development. Subsequent development for an unsafe structure may be its replacement with a new building, integration of the area into a larger site which will support future development, or reclamation of the site to a safe, graded condition where storm water runoff and weeds are controlled. B. Public Notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. The demolition of unsafe properties / structures may be subject to the public nuisance abatement provisions of Chapter 16, article 2 of this Code. Upon the chief building official’s determination that the property is unsafe and declaration of a public nuisance if the property owner does not resolve the unsafe condition, the review authority shall give final approval on a COA, which may be initiated by the city, and the demolition permit will be issued so the city may abate a nuisance. D. The provisions of this section may be initiated by a land owner; or by the city in accordance with article 16.02. Section 11 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.120. - Documentation and administrative procedures. A. Documentation. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented. 1. The director of community development shall establish by administrative order rules for documentation of non-historic and historic properties. This documentation shall be created by a professional who satisfies professional qualification standards for History, Archeology or Architectural History, as established by the National Park Service and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. 2. Documentation may be submitted as early in the process as the property owner desires to support the requested action, and to further the consideration and review of the request, but not later than prior to issuance of a building permit. B. A building permit application, in accordance with applicable codes and requirements, shall be submitted and approved before any demolition or construction. Commented [CHK1]: The matrix would recognize the varying levels of documentation, from new Property Record Forms to HABS II documentation. UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 12 of 15 C. All fees and charges applicable to review of the request for demolition and construction of the subsequent development (e.g. park land, water rights, impact fees) shall be paid prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit. 1. When required by the city, this will include a financial security in a form approved by the city attorney ensuring completion of the demolition and reclamation of the site to a safe condition. D. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Section 12 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.16.130 to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.130. - Safe condition and good repair. Each property/structure identified as contributing, potentially eligible, or landmark by the most recent cultural resources survey verified by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office shall be maintained in safe condition and good repair as required in 16.02.030 and 16.02.040. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any historic structure which does not involve a building permit. Interior arrangements or alternations to the interior of a building shall not be subject to this requirement. Section 13 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.19.080.C as follows: Sec. 38.19.080. Certificates of appropriateness—Additional review procedures and review criteria. A. Sign proposals which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter. Independent sign proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, are required to submit full site plans. Additional site design information, in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the design objective plan, encompassing the property's location shall be provided. B. Review procedures and criteria for certificates of appropriateness. 1. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in articles 16, 17, 20 and 33, in addition to this chapter. 2. Sign proposals which specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in article 28 of this chapter. UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 13 of 15 C. Demolition or movement of historic properties, structures or sites, located outside of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. 1. Demolition or movement of historic properties, structures or sites, located outside of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in 38.16.080. 2. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in articles 16, 17, 20, 34 and 41 as applicable, in addition to this article. Section 14 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Sections 38.40.030, Table 38.40.030, footnote 4 to read as follows: 4Sketch plans for adding dwellings in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, demolition of historic structures as defined in 38.42.1365, contributing structures in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, or modification of wetlands. Section 15 That Section 38.41.090 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Sec. 38.41.090. - Certificates of appropriateness; additional application requirements, review procedures and review criteria. A. Submittal requirements for certificates of appropriateness. All development proposals requiring certificates of appropriateness (i.e.e.g., located in a neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overlay districts or historic property/structure) shall submit the following information in addition to any sketch plan, site plan or special development submittal requirements for the proposal: 1. Neighborhood conservation overlay district and historic property/structures. Certain information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be included in the submission: a. Completed application on form provided by the planning department; b. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted and all pictures shall be mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated with the property address, elevation direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information; c. Sketch plan or site plan information, as per 38.19.050 or 38.19.060 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 14 of 15 d. Historical information, including available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration; e. Materials and color schemes to be used; f. Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant's proposed alterations; g. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations; h. Such other information as may be suggested by the planning department; i. It is further suggested that the applicant seek comments from the neighborhood or area; and j. Description of any applicant-requested deviation and a narrative explanation as to how the requested deviation will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community;. k. An illustration showing all internal and external elements of a structure to be removed or altered by a project. All elements to be removed or altered, and to what extent, shall be clearly identified and shall include those elements to be removed and reinstalled; l. If demolition of a historic structure, as defined in 38.42.1365, is proposed a structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Analysis shall include cost estimates from more than one general contractor for the work. The cost comparison is between the cost to rehabilitate the structure to a condition which meets the building code standard for occupancy and demolition and construction of a new structure of similar size and use to building code standards.; m. If a building is claimed to be unsafe evidence to support that claim; and n. For any non-conforming structure, an analysis of demolition to determine whether the threshold for loss of protected non-conforming status per 38.32.040.B has been met or surpassed. 2. Entryway overlay district. a. Depending on the complexity of development, either sketch plans or site plans will be required as specified in this article. b. If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in 38.35.050, the application for deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as to enable the review authority to make the determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of article 17 of this chapter. Section 16 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new definition, Section 38.42.1365 to read as follows: Sec. 38.42.1365. Historic property / structure. UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 15 of 15 Any site, building or structure that is: 1) listed in the State or National Register of Historic Places; or 2) designated as a historic property under local or state designation law or survey; or 3) certified as a contributing resource within a National Register listed or locally designated historic district; or 4) certified that the property is eligible to be listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places either individually or as a contributing building to a historic district by the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. Section 17 The city manager or designee must work with property owners to identify historic properties no longer maintained in safe condition and good repair. The city, enlisting the assistance of applicable departments, must work to educate property owners about neglected properties; inform them about assistance available; and facilitate connections between the private or nonprofit sector in the attempt to ensure properties are maintained in safe condition and good repair pursuant to this section. 1 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development Anna Saverud and Greg Sullivan, City Attorney’s Office SUBJECT: Obligation to Maintain Historic Properties and Demolition of Historic Properties MEETING DATE: July 14, 2014 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION : The City Commission direct Staff to return to the Commission with revisions to the Bozeman Municipal Code which address: Issue 1: Define “Historic Property/ Structure” ............................................................................... 3 Issue 2: Requiring affirmative maintenance and repair of historic properties ................................ 8 Issue 3: Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits .......................................................... 13 Issue 4: Clarify the two year stay of demolition ........................................................................... 16 Defining “historic property” was not requested of Staff by the Commission. Staff finds that creating such a definition is necessary to clarify what properties are subject to the provisions for affirmative maintenance and demolition permitting. SUGGESTED MOTION: 1. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that reflects proposed definition two; defining “historic property” as any property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that enacts recommended Step 1 and Step 2 for addressing affirmative maintenance of historic properties. 3. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that modifies the process for demolition of structures in the NCOD as recommended in Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 4. 4. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that clarifies the language about the two year stay of demolition as recommended in Step 1. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Commission directed staff to develop a program or policy to address the neglect and subsequent deterioration of historic properties. This memo contains a series of options from which the Commission will be able to review and recommend further development of City policy to address owner maintenance of historic properties. The foundation of the program is the establishment of a definition of “historic property”. The three definitions offered range from the narrowest to the broadest. Staff recommends definition two which is a definition of historic property based on a community wide shared commitment to historic structures and an obligation to maintain a current inventory of historic properties located throughout the community. The staff offers two code options requiring maintenance of historic properties. The first establishes a legal requirement to maintain historic properties. The second option is an enhancement of option one and requires owner maintenance and commits the city to assisting owners through outreach and education. To address the timing of demolition of historic structures, Staff offers the City Commission a series of recommended amendments to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to clarify the process timeline for City approval of demolition permits and approval of the development of the cleared site. The recommended approach is based on City Commission direction/action taken on approved projects. The recommendations are: • Adopt definition of subsequent development; • Amend process to allow determination of viability and preliminary denial/approval of demolition permit; • Specify standard process requiring payment of fees and securing zoning and building approval of replacement development; and • Outline process for demolition of unsafe structures. Finally, Staff recommends the City Commission amend the BMC to clarify the process at the conclusion of a Commission approved two year stay of demolition of a historic property. This memo was presented to the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board and the input of the board is shown in italics throughout this document. ALTERNATIVES: As identified within each section. FISCAL EFFECTS: Dependent upon Commission direction from this discussion, a variable amount of legal and community development staff time and resources to draft municipal code language. In the future, based on full implementation of the proposed BMC changes, staff time from police, legal and community development will be needed to address cases. APPENDIX: Appendix A: Statistics for the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and Certificate of Appropriateness Applications Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Appendix C: How other government agencies define historic properties Appendix D: Statistics on properties built before 1965 in Bozeman Appendix E: Montana Cities, comparison of the two year stay of demolition 3 Appendix F: March 27, 2014 Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes Appendix G: The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases Appendix H: Proposed timing for issuance of a demolition permit Report compiled on: July 7, 2014 Issue 1: Define “Historic Property/ Structure” Creating a definition of “historic property or structure” is important because it clarifies which properties will be subject to historic preservation provisions like affirmative maintenance or the demolition process. An adopted definition will replace terms used in the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) which are no longer used by cultural resource professionals to classify properties as “historic” or “non-historic.” Adoption of a definition will create clarity for property owners in addition to providing a foundation upon which to evaluate development applications. Staff has provided the Commission with three approaches to defining “historic property or structure.” They are listed from the narrowest definition to the broadest definition. A definition may include more than one of the following options, which are not mutually exclusive. Staff’s recommended solution Staff recommends definition two, which enables a continually evolving historic preservation program based upon ongoing survey work created by professional architectural historians. This definition provides property owners with a predictable understanding of what is defined as a historic property/structure. On March 27, 2014, the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board motioned and voted to support a definition that is consistent with Definition Three, as modified as follows: “A proposal to require any property over 50 years of age or more to be evaluated prior to demolition for its eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or its potential contributing status in a National Register Historic District.” The BHPAB’s minutes are included in Appendix F. Why the current approach is no longer effective The BMC does not specifically define “historic property.” Creating a definition of “historic property” would clarify which properties are subject to the historic preservation provisions of the Municipal Code. The City currently uses the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory (Inventory) to identify historic properties. This Inventory identified potentially historic properties as “landmarks,” or “contributing.” Properties unlikely to be eligible for listing on the National Register were identified as “neutral,” “non-contributing” or “intrusive.” Many “contributing” properties became part of a historic district, while others were not included in a historic district. In 2007 the Department of Planning and Community Development commissioned an evaluation of the Inventory’s continued usefulness. Completed in early 2008 by Renewable Technologies, Inc., a professional cultural resource management firm located in Butte, MT, the evaluation found that: 4 “…the existing inventory data has become too dated to be an effective reference tool for city planners,” and “many additional Bozeman buildings have reached an age where their potential historic significance must be considered.” The report recommended “that the City of Bozeman undertake a comprehensive re-evaluation of the historic buildings within its jurisdiction. Such a project, which ideally would be implemented as a phased, multi-year effort, would incrementally update the existing inventory data and expand it to meet current professional standards. A digital copy of the evaluation of the Inventory is available on the City’s record management system, Laserfische, here. The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board discussed the deficiencies of the 1984 Inventory during their March 27, 2014 meeting. Minutes of the meeting are available in Appendix F. Specific comments included recommending that the City Commission entirely disregard the 1984 Inventory. Board members also expressed concern that the 1984 Inventory, which wasn’t completed to the professional standards of its time, could expose the City of Bozeman to legal liability. Established in 1991 to conserve neighborhood character “The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (NCOD) is now found in Chapter 38.16, BMC. The program uses the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process to apply provisions for historic properties. The Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District includes more general guidelines for the protection of neighborhood character. The Design Guidelines also include targeted recommendations for historic properties. The NCOD encompasses 2,270 properties in addition to those individually listed on the National Register or within an established District (See appendix A for Inventory data about properties in the NCOD). All properties in the NCOD are subject to the same Certificate of Appropriateness criteria, found in Sec. 38.16.050, BMC. The NCOD uses the property classification found in the 1984 Inventory to delineate different processes and criteria for demolition of properties within the NCOD. The NCOD requires that all “contributing” structures go through the same process for demolition. (Please see Appendix B for a map of the NCOD and historic districts). 5 Options for definitions for “historic property/ structure”: Definition One: Properties listed on a historic registry or landmark list Draft definition: A property, site or structure recognized as historic through inclusion within a district listed on a national, state or local register of historic places or by any type of individual landmark designation recognized by the City of Bozeman. Advantages 1. There is a defined list of properties already listed on the National Register of Historic Places. All property owners have to agree with the nomination to the National Register before the listing can proceed. 2. Leaves the door open to establishment of a local landmark or local historic district program. 3. Provides predictability for property owners as these are geographic locations which may be readily mapped and made available to the public. Potential consequences 1. Does not protect properties currently identified as “potentially eligible” that are located outside of a Historic District and are not historically significant enough for an individual listing on the National Register. 2. The lack of funding for ongoing cultural resource survey work could lead to a static program. 3. Creates a disincentive for listing a property on a National or Local Register, or in a Landmark program as becoming a listed property subjects it to additional regulation. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition for "historic property". 2. Adopt a resolution which specifies which types of landmark designation are recognized by the City of Bozeman. Number of properties affected Total number of properties affected 698 Individually listed 51 Included in a District 647 Related Discussion Definition one is not preferred by Staff or the HPAB because it could create a disincentive for listing properties on the National Register, which is intended as an honorary program. 6 Definition Two: Properties eligible for listing (Staff’s recommended definition) Draft definition: A property, site or structure identified as “contributing,” “potentially eligible,” or “landmark” by the most recent cultural resources survey verified by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. Advantages 1. More broadly applies the provisions for historic properties which enables the historic preservation program to more readily keep pace with changes in the community and reduce unintentional omissions. 2. Creates a dynamic program which enables an evolving, aging and growing community to recognize historic properties constructed since 1945. 3. This definition has a specific meaning and creates a knowable and predictable classification of properties. Enables community members to know when provisions for historic preservation will apply and under what circumstances the provisions will be applied. Potential consequences 1. Depends on 1984 Inventory data or subsequent updates to classify “contributing” and “non-contributing” properties. 2. Requires routine funding for surveying for cultural resources. 3. Updated cultural resources survey work could generate community interest in new historic district nominations. Historic districts have higher property values and encourage maintenance of historic properties. 4. Protects properties eligible for listing (not limited to the NCOD). A determination of eligibility does not require a property owner’s consent. 5. May require moving provisions for historic properties from the NCOD into a separate place in the Code. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition for “historic property” which reflects the approach of eligibility for listing on the National Register. 2. Fund historic property survey work in order to create updated data set. Number of properties affected Total number of properties identified as "contributing" in 1984 Inventory 963 Number of "contributing” properties in established historic districts 698 Number of "contributing" properties in the NCOD 265 Related Discussion Staff recommends adoption of definition two; basing the definition on a property’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This approach is consistent with the best management practices adopted by other state and federal government agencies like the Montana Department of Transportation and the Army Corps of Engineers. This approach also enables the City of Bozeman’s historic preservation program to grow with the community. The criteria for evaluating a property’s eligibility for historic designation were established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. (For additional information, please see Appendix C). 7 In order to successfully implement this option, the City of Bozeman needs to address the deficiency in the 1984 Inventory by routinely funding cultural resource survey work. An example of such an update will occur in the summer of 2014. The Department of Community Development has partnered with the Downtown Bozeman Partnership to fund a survey of 100 properties in the B-3 “Commercial Core” zoning designation. The bid process revealed a cost of $220 per property to generate a new Montana Property Record Form for each property. Definition three: 50 years or older (BHPAB recommended definition, in addition to Definition One) Draft definition: Any developed site or structure over 50 years of age. Note: Fifty years is a common threshold although a lesser age may be appropriately used in combination with one of the other alternatives. Advantages 1. Easiest threshold to define and is uniformly applicable throughout the community. 2. Could be used as a screening test in combination with Definition Two, listed above. 3. Applies the provisions for historic preservation to the broadest number of properties. Potential consequences 1. Significantly expands the number of properties that the provisions for historic properties would apply. 2. Creates uncertainty for property owners with structures more than 50 years old that haven’t been surveyed. Who funds the survey of the property? City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition for "historic property". 2. Clarify data set on date of construction for all properties. 3. Modify the BMC to expand provisions for historic properties outside of the NCOD. 4. Adopt procedures for obtaining documentation for structures for which a survey has not been done. Number of properties affected Total number of properties in the city limits built before 1965 8677 Residential structures in the City Limits built before 1965 8223 Residential structures built in 1965 or older within the NCOD 1935 Residential structures built in 1965 or older outside the NCOD 577 Commercial Structures in the City Limits built before 1965 454 Commercial structures built in 1965 or older within the NCOD 361 Commercial structures built in 1965 or older outside the NCOD 93 Related Discussion Definition three places the burden of developing cultural resource information on property owners with any property over 50 years of age. It should be noted that not all buildings over 50 years of age are historically significant. About 600 residential properties and 100 commercial 8 properties, respectively, are inside the City Limits, built before 1965 and located outside of the NCOD. (Please see Appendix D for additional statistics). The BHPAB passed a motion supporting a hybrid approach that uses definition three to require creation of a cultural resource survey which evaluates a property’s historic eligibility in a manner consistent with definition two. Board members felt this approach allowed the process and provisions for historic preservation to move through history with the community. Using a 50 year date as a benchmark established an easy threshold for community members. Should the Commission enact this approach, the BHPAB members expressed the need for a robust public outreach effort to educate property owners, developers, design professionals and contractors about the shift in policy. The BHPAB members felt that the worst thing that could happen is a property owner finding out about this requirement when they apply for a building permit, before which they’ve invested thousands of dollars in design services. The BHPAB discussed participating in such public outreach. If the City Commission moves forward with adopting such amendments to the BMC, Staff will engage in a public outreach process. Issue 2: Requiring affirmative maintenance and repair of historic properties The BMC does not currently place a direct affirmative obligation on owners of designated historic properties to maintain their properties in good condition to prevent intentional or unintentional neglect. Staff’s recommended solution: In discussing this issue at length, it appears that a distinction between historic properties that are single household dwellings and historic properties that are or have been considered to be commercial, industrial, or institutional continues to cause concern. For that reason, Staff seeks direction from the Commission on what properties it seeks to regulate and provides possible options for the different property types. Should the Commission direct staff to address both single household dwellings and commercial, industrial, or institutional historic properties, staff recommends Option 1 with Steps 1 and 2, and to create a “maintenance and repair” ordinance that applies to historic properties and addresses the concerns regarding ‘demolition by neglect’. Staff recommends enacting both Step 1 and Step 2, as it encourages the City to educate owners of historic properties about neglect and risks associated with neglected properties, and helps facilitate ways to mitigate impacts of neglect. Should the Commission wish to address only commercial, industrial, or institutional historic properties, it should direct staff to develop Option 2 and adopt a “maintenance of historic buildings” ordinance. For either option, the creation of a definition of ‘historic property’ as discussed in Issue 1, and the geographical boundaries of historic properties as discussed in Issue 2 will identify properties subject to this responsibility. 9 Preservation Board recommends incorporation of discussion and edits included below in the Commission memo, discussion and action. Option 1: Adopt maintenance and repair ordinance to require all historic properties to be maintained in good condition and repair. Option 1 can be satisfied with only step 1, but staff recommends steps 1 and 2 in conjunction. Step 1: Establish a legal requirement on specific properties designated as "historic properties" to maintain and repair the property. Example language Each historic property in the NCOD shall be maintained in good condition. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any historic structure which does not involve change in design, material, color or outward appearance. Interior arrangements or alternations to the interior of a building shall not be subject to this requirement. Advantages 1. Places an affirmative obligation on an owner of a historic property to maintain the property in good condition. 2. Places no financial obligation on the City to assist homeowners. Issues needing to be developed 1. Determinations will need to be made regarding how and what to enforce. 2. Definition for “good condition and repair”. 3. Economic feasibility for property owners and the possibility to allow for economic hardship. 4. Depending on implementation, potential to result in litigation. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Code (Chpt. 38, BMC). 2. Train staff to identify properties subject to the requirement. 3. Develop enforcement protocols. 4. Work with the City Attorney’s Office on enforcement. 10 Related Discussion Currently, the City’s nuisance code and adopted Building Codes are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety. The Commission asked what could be done to avoid properties reaching the point that triggers action through either of these codes. The goal is to prevent intentional and unintentional neglect of historic properties; specific goals are that historic properties be maintained as weather tight and secure. Violations of the adopted standard could be handled under the existing terms of Section 38.34.160 BMC “Violation.” Option 1 (with one or both steps) will require a commitment of staff time from the City Attorney’s Office, Community Development Staff, and Code Enforcement Staff each participating in the code compliance work. Step 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step one, commit the City to assist owners of historic properties. Example language The City Manager or designee shall work with property owners to identify historic properties no longer maintained in good condition and faithful to historic character. The City, enlisting the assistance of applicable departments, shall work to educate property owners about neglected properties; inform them about assistance available; and facilitate connections between the private or nonprofit sector in the attempt to ensure properties are maintained in good condition pursuant to this section. Advantages 1. Places an affirmative obligation on owner of a historic property to maintain their property in good condition and repair. 2. Recognizes the City’s interest in having well maintained historic properties and requires the city to be involved with homeowners and neighborhood groups to educate, assist and facilitate repairs. 3. Encourages collaborative approachs involving individuals, government, and the private sector to address neglected properties; and 4. Less risk of litigation if outreach and education based. Issues needing to be developed 1. Determine how and what to prioritize; 2. Definition for “good condition and repair”; Economic feasibility for property owner and potential to allow for economic hardship. Under zoning law economic hardship is not a basis for not conforming to the regulations; and 3. Determine if code and enforcement will differentiate between income properties and owner occupied properties. City actions to execute this option 1. Same as Step One with the additional program requirements and extensive staff time to develop acceptable definitions of terms as well as staff time to develop partnerships and work directly with owners to improve properties. 11 The BHPAB’s discussion of this matter reflected long consideration of the matter. They questioned creating a regulatory standard only applicable to “historic properties,” as defined by the City. The Board noted that structures in a state of disrepair extensive enough to trigger this definition are probably so far altered that they have no historic integrity remaining. Though no formal motion and vote were taken, the BHPAB reached a consensus to recommended removing “and faithful to its historic character” from the proposed language. The BHPAB recommended that the Commission not open the door to considerations of economic ability and felt the onus was on the City to make fair judgments on the issue. Option 2 had not been developed prior to meeting with the BHPAB. Option 2: Adopt maintenance of historic properties ordinance that addresses demolition by neglect with historic properties considered to be commercial, industrial, or institutional. Example language Maintenance of Historic Buildings: (possibly under 38.21 or 38.23) a. The City finds that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and continued use of historical properties located within the City are important in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride, and the general welfare of its citizens. The City further finds that the economic, cultural, and visual standing of the City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the heritage of the City or by allowing the destruction, defacement, and neglect of historical properties and cultural assets; and that the neglect and deterioration of such assets is harmful to the entire community. It is therefore the intent of the City to protect the general welfare by establishing effective administrative procedures to prevent the owner’s failure to maintain a historic property such that it deteriorates to the extent that the only option to abate the health and safety risks cause by such deterioration is demotion, commonly known as “demolition by neglect”. b. Each historic property shall be maintained in good condition. Failure to maintain a historic property in good condition may result in a determination the property constitutes a nuisance pursuant to Chapter 16. c. The provisions of this chapter apply to all historic properties, excluding single household dwellings within the city limits of Bozeman. d. For the purposes of this section, the term good condition and repair shall constitute the structure be weather tight; secure from unintended entry; and free from dangerous conditions. Advantages 1. Places an affirmative obligation on owner of a historic property to maintain their property in good condition and repair. 12 Related Discussion Option 2 addresses the historic buildings that the community as a whole recognizes as culturally significant and beneficial to the community. These properties are more likely to be the properties the City will choose to allocate funds to, if need be, in an effort to maintain their historical integrity as oppose to the single household dwelling. The Commission could ask Staff to encourage an outreach program similar to Option 1, Step 2, without adding anything to the BMC to encourage, assist, and educate property owners of single household dwelling historic properties about demolition by neglect and the importance of maintaining their property in good condition and repair. Option 2 has not been discussed with members of the BHPAB. Advantages 2. Addresses historic properties community collectively has an interest in preserving. Issues needing to be developed 1. Definition for “good condition and repair” 2. Enforcement. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance 2. Train staff to identify properties subject to the requirement. 3. Develop enforcement protocols. 4. Work with the City Attorney’s Office on enforcement. 13 Related Discussion: Either of the options will require a commitment of staff time from the City Attorney’s Office, Community Development Staff, and Code Enforcement Staff each participating in the code compliance work. The BHPAB’s discussion of this matter reflected long consideration of the matter. They questioned creating a regulatory standard only applicable to “historic properties,” as defined by the City. The Board noted that structures in a state of disrepair extensive enough to trigger this definition are probably so far altered that they have no historic integrity remaining. Though no formal motion and vote were taken, the BHPAB reached a consensus to recommended removing “and faithful to its historic character” from the proposed language. The BHPAB recommended that the Commission not open the door to considerations of economic ability and felt the onus was on the City to make fair judgments on the issue. Issue 3: Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits There are a number of opportunities to clarify the process and criteria for demolishing structures in the NCOD. The Department of Community Development cannot accept an application for demolition or movement of a structure inside the NCOD without a complete proposal for subsequent development of the property, per BMC 38.16.080.A.1. This burdens property owners considering demolition of a structure in the NCOD with the cost of designing the full subsequent development of the property before the City will make a determination if the structure can be demolished. Section 38.16.080 A 2 and 3 could be clarified to delineate and separate procedures and criteria for demolition into distinct categories of structures (historic, non-historic and unsafe structures). This would provide clarity about the process and review criteria for property owners, applicants and the review authority. Staff’s recommended solution We recommend modification to the BMC to enable the Department of Community Development to make a preliminary determination on applications proposing demolition of structures. Staff further recommends clarifying the timing of issuance of a demolition permit for historic and non- historic properties. Staff recommends enacting Option 1, 2 and 3. Depending on the direction from the Commission with regard to Steps 1-3, Staff may recommend revisions to the process for demolition of unsafe structures. In discussing the matter, the BHPAB was generally supportive of the approach recommended by Staff. Potential options for clarifying the application process for demolitions: Step 1 (Staff's recommendation): Incorporate a definition of “subsequent development” into the BMC. The definition may include allowing only a written description of the plan to grade the site, install landscaping, construct a dwelling, etc. 14 Advantages 1. Enables the Department of Community Development to accept an application for demolition of a structure in the NCOD without a fully designed plan for the subsequent development. 2. Reduces the financial burden on the property owner in order to gather information about the likelihood of the City of approving of the demolition. Issues needing to be developed 1. Unknown City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition of “subsequent development” 2. Modify application checklist Related Discussion: The Department of Community Development is prohibited from considering proposals to demolish any structure in the NCOD without a full plan of the site’s subsequent development or treatment of the site by Section 38.16.080.A.1 BMC. Municipal Code does not define “subsequent development” or “treatment.” “Development” is defined by BMC 38.42.860 as: Any manmade change to improve or alter real estate, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. The current requirement of a complete plan for subsequent redevelopment of a site prior to issuance of a demolition permit creates uncertainty for applicants that can only be resolved through significant investment in professional design services. Modifications to Sec. 38.16.080 or an adopted definition of “subsequent development” are required in order to enable the City to consider demolition of structures separately from consideration of the development to follow. We suggest Community Development should be able to determine the viability of existing structures to issue a preliminary denial or approval to demolish a structure before an applicant invests in the professional services necessary to submit a complete proposal for the subsequent development of the property. Step 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step 1, stipulate the preliminary approval of demolition of “historic properties” is subject to the following standard Conditions of Approval: Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Demolition permit for historic properties shall not be issued until all necessary zoning and building entitlements and permits have been issued, and all related fees paid. 2. The subsequent development must receive all necessary Certificate of Appropriateness approvals prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Advantages 1. Prevents speculative demolition of structures by requiring that the redevelopment be approved and the Building Permit issued prior to or concurrently with the issuance of a Demolition Permit from the Building Division. 15 2. The recommended Conditions of Approval make this step consistent with Commission directives based on prior project approvals. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt Code provisions to require the Building Permit for the redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Related Discussion: If demolition is approved, and depending if a property is determined to be historic, the Certificate of Approval could be conditioned to prohibit issuance of a demolition or moving permit until the subsequent development, including issuance of a building permit, has been fully approved. Step 3 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step 1 and step 2, stipulate that issuance of a demolition permit for non-historic properties from the Building Division is dependent upon approval of the zoning review for the site’s complete redevelopment. Advantages 1. Prevents speculative demolition of structures by requiring that the redevelopment be approved and the Building Permit approved prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt Code provisions to require the zoning approval for the redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Related Discussion: It is in the community’s best interest to avoid speculative demolition of structures, which creates gaps in a neighborhood fabric and diminishes the tax revenue stream, which reduces the City’s ability to provide services and infrastructure improvements to the area. The intention of this provision is to preserve historic structures and neighborhood character by preventing speculative demolition. Vacant lots diminish the value of adjoining residences and create uncertainty for neighborhoods. The cost to maintain the street and deliver infrastructure to the property is the same while the tax revenue is diminished. 16 Step 4 (Potential follow-up): Depending on direction on Steps 1, 2, and 3, revise the existing process for demolition of unsafe structures to be consistent with revised demolition process. Advantages 1. Would clarify the process for City Staff, elected officials and property owners in the removal of unsafe structures, thus improving public safety. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt Code provisions to require the Building Permit for the redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Related Discussion: The City has an existing process for addressing unsafe structures through the Building and Nuisance Codes (Article 16.02 BMC, “Nuisances”). Depending on Commission direction for Steps 1, 2, and 3, it may be necessary to revise the existing process for the demolition of unsafe structures. Issue 4: Clarify the two year stay of demolition A “stay” of a demolition permit by the City of Bozeman is authorized in BMC 38.16.080.A.4, which states that if an application for issuance of a demolition permit is denied, the issuance of a demolition permit is stayed for up to two years. In circumstances where the demolition is stayed, the code language does not provide guidance on what, if any, additional proceedings are desired at the end of two years. The City Attorney has issued an option that because the code does not specifically require any additional action by the owner; the owner may proceed directly to an application for a demolition permit under Chpt. 10, BMC. Recommendation for clarifying the two year stay of demolition: Staff recommends amendment of Section 38.16.080.A.4 to include language to clarify whether additional proceedings are required at the end of the two year stay. Staff recommends enacting Option 1. The BHPAB recommends that if a demolition has been denied, any subsequent request needs to be accompanied by a description of any efforts made to preserve the historic structure. 17 Potential options for clarifying the two year stay of demolition: Option 1 (Staff's recommendation): Revise municipal code to clarify what happens during and at the end of the two year stay of demolition. Example language If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate proposals have been approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section, an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the City pursuant to Chapter 10, article 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are satisfied, a demolition permit shall be granted and no other proceedings under this chapter are required. Advantages 1. Clarifies what happens after the two year stay expires. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance to amend Municipal Code. Related Discussion: Comparing Section 38.16.080 of the BMC with similar provisions regarding staying the demolition of a historic structure in communities around the state, Bozeman has by far the Option 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to Option 1, provide incentive for property owner to work with community to consider alternate proposals. Example language (In addition to the example language in option 1) An owner of the property subject to a stay under this section may seek early release from the stay if the owner demonstrates it has actively and in good faith sought input from interested parties; explored alternative funding sources; and considered reasonable proposed alternatives to demolition. Advantages 1. Clarifies what happens after the two year stay expires. 2. Encourages the property owner to engage in good faith with interested parties. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance to amend Municipal Code. 18 longest stay in place for demolitions of historic structures (See appendix E). Additionally, of the handful of cities that were looked at around the country, the longest delay to a demolition permit was two years (San Antonio, TX). Modifying the existing duration for the stay of demotion is not advised. Eliminating the two year stay would take away the opportunity for the City or other interested groups to come up with alternatives proposals to demolition. Extending the stay beyond two years would likely give rise to regulatory takings issues. Providing additional guidance in the BMC will provide clear direction for applicants, the City, and interested parties as to what can occur when the two year stay expires. In discussing the matter on March 27, 2014, members of the BHPAB expressed concern that nothing in the proposed language pressures owners and applicants to find solutions rather than wait out the two year delay in demolition. They noted that the draft language does not create a requirement that property owners allow access to the site for others to develop alternatives and wondered if the language instead enabled demolition by neglect during the two year stay of demolition. Staff noted there is expenses to a property owner to have a property sit vacant, not generating revenue. Staff also noted that allowing access to the property may create liability for the owner. Ultimately, the BHPAB recommended that if a demolition has been denied, any subsequent requests should to be accompanied by a description of efforts made to preserve the historic structure. The BHPAB felt such a requirement would ensure the owner engage with community groups interested in preserving the historic property. The language in Option 2 has not been discussed with members of BHPAB. 19 Appendix A: Statistics for the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and Certificate of Appropriateness Applications Historic District # of contributing properties # of non-contributing properties Total # of properties # of contributing in NCOD but not in a historic # of properties missing an Inventory # of properties in the NCOD identified as intrusive # of properties in the NCOD identified as neutral # of COA applications since 1991 # of COA applications since 2003 # COA applications requesting demo since 2003 # of properties demolished since 2003 # of contributing principal structure demos since 2003 Bon Ton 190 39 229 - - - 318 170 2 2 1 Cooper Park 222 42 264 - - - 297 194 1 1 1 Lindley Place 26 8 34 - - - 38 19 2 2 1 Main Street 49 15 64 - - - 186 98 2 2 1 Brewery 5 0 5 - - - 15 12 1 1 1 N. Tracy 21 8 29 - - - 34 20 0 0 0 S. Tracy 6 1 7 - - - 8 5 0 0 0 S. Tracy/ S. Black 78 15 93 - - - 126 85 5 4 5 NP/ Story Mill 50 10 60 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 Individual listed properties 51 0 51 - - - 17 12 1 1 1 NCOD 265 0 2,270 844 833 285 1,770 1086 N/A N/A N/A Totals: 963 138 3,106 43 844 833 285 2,809 1701 14 13 11 % of all properties in NCOD 31% 4% - 1% 27% 27% 9% N/A* N/A* .4% .4% .35% Acronyms COA: Certificate of Appropriateness NCOD: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District HD: Historic District * Some properties have received multiple COAs 20 Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District A link to this map is available here. 21 Appendix C: How other government agencies define “historic properties” The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The term "historic property" is defined in the NHPA as: "any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register"; such term includes artifacts, records, and remains which are related to such district, site, building, structure, or object. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: "Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register"; such term includes artifacts, records, and remains which are related to such district, site, building, structure, or object.” 1 Criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places include: a. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act “…Prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” “A historic property need not be formally listed on the National Register to receive NHPA protection, it need only meet the National Register criteria (i.e., be eligible for listing in the National Register).”2 1 Definition from the National Historic Preservation Act; 16 U.S.C. Section 470(w)(5). 2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 22 Appendix D: Statistics on structures built before 1965 in Bozeman Number within City Limits Structures built before 1965 Percentage Number of 1965+ structures within the NCOD Number 1965+ structures outside the NCOD Residential structures 8223 2512 31% 1935 577 Commercial structures 1831 454 25% 361 93 These numbers are estimates based on Department of Revenue data. Therefore, some errors and limitations may exist. 23 Appendix E: Montana Cities comparison of two year stay CITY CODE LANGUAGE BUTTE Found in 2.64.120 “Demolition permit review and demolition by neglect program” E. The HPC shall review all demolition permits for local register properties and historic properties in its jurisdiction F. The HPC is authorized to invoke a ninety -day demolition delay to find demolition alternative and make recommendations. The HPC must notify the owner in writing of demolition delay and hold a public hearing. BILLINGS Found in Historic Preservation Section 27.516 Criteria for demolition permits (a) No application for a permit to demolish a structure which is subject to this article shall be approved unless: (1) It is found that the structure to be demolished is not historically or architecturally significant; and (2) Preservation of the structure is not feasible; or (3) The Yellowstone Historic Preservation Board with recommendations from the city building official has determined that the structure poses an immediate threat to public safety. (b) No disapproval of a permit to demolish shall be in effect for more than six (6) months after the board's recommendation. During such six-month period, the historic preservation board may take or encourage the taking of whatever steps seem likely to lead to the structure's preservation. The board may work with the property owner to seek alternative economic uses for the property, may consult with private civic groups, interested private citizens and other public boards or agencies. HELENA Found in Chapter 15: “Review process for demolition of historic buildings” If the city commission denies the application, no further demolition permit application may be considered for the subject property for six (6) months from the date a completed application is submitted, unless the commission finds there are changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a new application. (Ord. 2639, 11-16-1992; amd. Ord. 3097, 4-7-2008) 24 MISSOULA “Relocation and Demolition Delay: Upon receipt of a completed Historic Preservation Permit application for demolition or relocation, the Commission may impose a relocation or demolition delay for 90 days to allow sufficient time to explore preservation of the historic resource.” 25 Appendix F: Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes from March 27, 2014 Minutes of the March 27, 2014 meeting Members Present: Lora Dalton (chair), Steve Keuch, Courtney Kramer (staff liaison), Lisa Verwys, Ryan Olson, Matt Kennedy, Mark Hufstetler, Jillian Bowers I. Call to order- meeting was called to order at 6:34 pm II. Approval of prior meeting minutes- Minutes from the February 27 meeting were unanimously approved as presented III. Public comment- none IV. Disclosure of ex parte communication- none V. Introduction of invited guests- Marsha Fulton and Crystal Alegria of the Extreme History Project, City Attorney Anna Saverud VI. Decision Items a. Collaboration with Extreme History Project (EHP) and allocation of $500 in funding to support walking tours i. Crystal Alegria reported on the fall 2013 walking tours that received funding from the board. 8 tours were given in October 2013 (2 cemetery tours and 6 downtown tours). 52 people attended the tours (all locals, no tourists), good turnout especially given the off-season and the lack of a marketing budget. ii. EHP would like to expand the walking tour program beginning in May 2014. 7 walking tours have been developed in collaboration with Derek Strahn and Dale Martin. Tours would occur on a regular basis with up to 6 tour guides. EHP requests $500 in funding support from the BHPAB to support walking tour program. iii. BHPAB has $900 in budget (fiscal year ends June 30, 2014) and no plans in the foreseeable future to use the funds. Motion made (SK) to approve $500 allocation of funds, seconded (MK), and unanimously passed. b. Discussion of the preservation and demolition memo i. Issue 1- definition of historic properties 1. General discussion and agreement that the 1984 survey is outdated with erroneous information and that it should not be used as a basis for definition of historic property, but that it may contain information useful to future surveys. MH- 1984 survey was not prepared to professional standards and may not/would not stand up to legal scrutiny. 2. If a new cultural resources survey (option 2 in memo) were required to define historic properties, it could be funded by community development block grants, surcharges on major COAs (this fund currently has $80,000; $15,000 currently bookmarked for survey work this spring on commercial properties), or from the general fund. Discussion about the difficulties in keeping a survey 26 updated; issues with a survey being a snapshot in time that may no longer be accurate as structures age and change 3. Discussion regarding option 3 (age- 50 years) as definition for historic property. LV- concerned that this leaves younger properties vulnerable. MH- any younger properties that would have qualified as historic have been demolished. MH- personal recommendation would be a combination of options 2 & 3: require evaluation of any property over 50 years old for potential historic property eligibility prior to demolition. JB- concerned about financial burden for evaluation placed on homeowners and concerned that homeowners will invest significant amounts of money prior to finding out that they must have their property evaluated; education should be part of formal recommendation. CK- have required individuals to finance evaluations in the past for structures in conservation overlay district. General discussion regarding need for education of property owners and architects, need for dissemination of information/education through materials distributed by city staff. LD- education could also come from the board’s outreach activities. 4. MH moves to support a proposal to require properties over 50 years old to be evaluated prior to demolition for eligibility to the National Register or potential contributing status to National Register Historic District. Seconded (RO) and passed unanimously. ii. Issue 2- Affirmative Maintenance 1. Discussion begins with understanding that ordinance is written as a broad/basic, that “good condition” refers to weather tight and secure, and that enforcement is TBD and not expected to be common occurrence. 2. MK- How will owners know if they have a historic property if there is not a survey of historic properties? Use of “historic property” may depend on which definition is adopted in issue 1. Discussion regarding substituting “conservation overlay district” for “historic property” in the ordinance, MH- concerns over including phrase “historic character” which is not easily definable and which may no longer exist in a property that is in disrepair. LD- a broader definition may be more workable. Anna Saverud- ordinance must be construed to address specific properties. 3. Additional discussion regarding concerns over how issues of economic disparity will be addressed. 4. BHPAB recommends that the City Commission takes this discussion into consideration. iii. Issue 3- Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits 27 1. CK- deals with ability to give preliminary yes or no so that there is not incentive to let a property fall into neglect. Chris Saunders- gives higher level of protection for historic properties. LD- issue and recommendations are in line with past BHPAB discussions iv. Issue 4- Clarifying two year stay of demolition 1. Clarification of code necessary to ensure that implied meaning and public interpretation matches. 2. Discussion regarding what occurs during a stay of demolition: time allows for alternate proposals to be made by interested parties; there is no requirement for property owners to let interested parties access the property in order to propose alternate solutions. LD- there is no incentive for property owners to find alternate solutions when they can simply wait out the stay. RO- financial incentive for owners (not cheap to let a property sit unused). Is there a way to encourage property owners to find alternate solutions or engage with the community for alternate proposals? MH- suggests addition to provision: if a demolition has been denied, subsequent requests should be accompanied by a description of efforts made to preserve historic structure. 3. Lack of clarity regarding liability of properties during a stay of demolition. Is the city or the property owner liable for the structure during a stay? VII. Chair’s Report a. Expiring terms i. 7 board member terms expire in June 2014 (Mark Hufstetler, Jillian Bowers, Ryan Olson, Lisa Verwys, Jessie Nunn, Nicole Becker, Lora Dalton). Board members should be thinking about recruitment. ii. RO will not be continuing on the board and will need to pass on committee duties, specifically regarding Historic Preservation Awards. iii. Possibility of reducing the size of the board via bylaw revision. MH and LD will work on this. b. Budget i. After approval of Extreme History Project allocation, there is $400 remaining in the budget. Ideas for use are welcome. ii. Possible use of funds for Bill Grabow oral history. CK will speak with Bill about sitting for an interview and LV will speak with historian Betsy Watry regarding a proposal for conducting the interview. VIII. Committee Reports a. Outreach i. LV, SK, BL met regarding history alliance; sketched out broad plan for a meeting in September. Committee will meet again April 14, 6:30pm at Coldsmoke Coffeehouse to finalize a name and meeting details. As 28 requested, LV will send a reminder to board so other interested members can attend. ii. LD has Pete Brown’s presentation as MP3, CK will work on making it available via the website. If anyone wants a copy, email LD (32mb powerpoint and 69mb recording) IX. Staff Liaison Report a. Received COA application for Willson Auditorium. Recommending that thorough documentation of space occur prior to renovations. Modifications are not appropriate historically. b. Working on Community Development Block Grant to evaluate the Conservation Overlay District as a zoning approach c. Re-surveying 100 properties in the B-3 area. Findings of potentially historic properties will be reported to the board. d. Streetlamps (SAT grant) are ready to be installed. e. Story Mansion appraisal is in, not currently slated as an agenda item for the City Commission X. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. Next meeting set for April 24, 6:30 PM End of Minutes Secretary: Lisa Verwys 29 Appendix G: The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases 30 Appendix H: Proposed timing for issuance of a demolition permit Vacant Properties The True Costs to Communities © August 2005 Acknowledgements The National Vacant Properties Campaign would like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for providing the funding to develop this report. We also thank the many people who contributed to the study: Margaret Bass, Don Chen, Jennifer Leonard, Lisa Mueller Levy, Cheryl Little, Barbara McCann, Allie Moravec, Joe Schilling, and Kevin Snyder. Photo Credits Cover Photo: Joe Schilling Inside Photos: Ken LeBlanc Jennifer Leonard Joe Schilling National Vacant Properties Campaign 1707 L Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036 www.vacantproperties.org TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................2 Costs of Municipal Services .............................................................................3 Decreased Property Values and Tax Revenues .............................................7 Costs to Homeowners ........................................................................................11 The Spiral of Blight: The Cumulative Impact of Vacant Property .........12 Summary .............................................................................................................13 Bibliography .......................................................................................................14 Endnotes ..............................................................................................................18 WHAT ARE VACANT PROPERTIES? The National Vacant Properties Campaign (NVPC) defines vacant properties as residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and vacant lots that exhibit one or both of the following traits: § The site poses a threat to public safety (meeting the definition of a public nuisance), or § The owners or managers neglect the fundamental duties of property ownership (e.g., they fail to pay taxes or utility bills, default on mortgages, or carry liens against the property.) Vacant properties can include abandoned, boarded-up buildings; unused lots that attract trash and debris; vacant or under-performing commercial properties known as greyfields (such as under-leased shopping malls and strip commercial properties); and neglected industrial properties with environmental contamination known as brownfields. The NVPC also monitors deteriorating single-family homes, apartments with significant housing code violations, and housing that remains vacant for long periods of time, as these are indicators of future vacancy and abandonment. State laws and uniform building codes further refine what constitutes an abandoned building, but these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Often these structures have been unoccupied for over a year, are beyond repair, and pose serious danger to public safety. Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 1 Executive Summary By all accounts, vacant properties are a curse. Just ask anyone who lives next to a drug den, a boarded-up firetrap or a trash-filled lot. But abandonment often seems beyond the control of local officials, and it rarely incites a sense of urgency beyond the neighbors on the block where it occurs. But the evidence shows that vacant properties are an expense that local governments simply cannot afford – and that the expense grows with every year a property remains vacant or abandoned. Such properties produce no or little property tax income, but they require plenty of time, attention, and money: § A study in Austin, Texas found that “blocks with unsecured [vacant] buildings had 3.2 times as many drug calls to police, 1.8 times as many theft calls, and twice the number of violent calls” as blocks without vacant buildings.1 § More than 12,000 fires break out in vacant structures each year in the US, resulting in $73 million in property damage annually. Most are the result of arson.2 § Over the past five years, St. Louis has spent $15.5 million, or nearly $100 per household, to demolish vacant buildings. Detroit spends $800,000 per year3 and Philadelphia spends $1,846,745 per year cleaning vacant lots.4 § A 2001 study in Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value.5 The aim of this report is to summarize the many and varied costs that vacant and abandoned properties impose upon communities. It compiles research from across the country quantifying a wide variety of costs, including city services (nuisance abatement, crime and fire prevention), decreased property values and tax revenues, as well as the costs born by homeowners and the issue of the spiral of blight. This report also includes some good news: communities are finding ways to recapture the value in vacant properties, bringing vitality back to once blighted neighborhoods. These communities are providing valuable lessons for us all, and many of the most successful practices are being replicated throughout the country. 2 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Introduction The places with the most well known vacant property problems are older industrial cities in the Midwest and Northeast. One leading expert has estimated that roughly ten percent of residential structures are vacant in Camden (NJ), Baltimore, and Detroit.6 But with sprawl pushing new development to the edges of many communities, even growing metropolitan areas such as San Diego and Las Vegas pay the costs of vacant and abandoned properties. The Brookings Institution found that in 60 cities with populations over 100,000, there are an average of two vacant buildings for every 1,000 residents7 (see table below). Region Number of Cities Reporting Abandoned Property Data Average % of Vacant Land to Total Area Average Number of Abandoned Structures per 1,000 Inhabitants Northeast 7 8.3 7.47 Midwest 10 11.3 3.16 South 20 17.1 2.98 West 23 15.7 0.62 All Regions 60 14.8 2.63 Source: Pagano & Bowman p. 7 Properties are often abandoned as a result of metropolitan-wide trends, such as sprawling development, consumer preference, job loss, and demographic shifts. But on an individual level, the most common reason a property is abandoned is that the cost of maintenance and operation exceeds the apparent value of the property. This occurs regardless of “whether the market is intrinsically capable of supporting continued use of the property, or whether market inefficiencies, or inadequate and inaccurate information, lead property owners to that conclusion.”8 Most importantly for cities facing abandonment problems, the longer a property remains abandoned, the higher the cost of renovation. This leads to continued abandonment even when market conditions have dramatically improved. Cities must address the increasing number of vacant properties, not only because of the negative impact they have on the surrounding community, but because of the numerous costs they impose. They strain the resources of local police, fire, building, and health departments, depreciate property values, reduce property tax revenue, attract crime, and degrade the quality of life of remaining residents. In summary, vacant and abandoned properties “act as a significant fiscal drain on already strapped municipalities, requiring disproportionate municipal resources, while providing little or no tax revenue to municipal coffers.”9 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 3 Costs of Municipal Services Vacant properties have been neglected by their owners, leaving it up to city governments to keep them from becoming crime magnets, fire hazards, or dumping grounds. In some communities, attending to vacant and abandoned properties can overwhelm city resources. The police and fire departments bear the brunt of the responsibility, along with building inspection and code enforcement units. But most municipalities have staff from several departments addressing the care of vacant properties: legal offices, public works, housing, and real estate services all deal with vacant properties. In Philadelphia, at least fifteen public agencies, not including the police and fire departments, have a role in the management of public land.10 Vacant property management also demands coordination among local governments, such as county health departments, tax collectors and assessors. Crime Vacant properties often become a breeding ground for crime, tying up an inordinate amount of police resources. The City of Richmond, VA conducted an analysis of citywide crime data from the mid-90s. Of all the economic and demographic variables tested, vacant/abandoned properties had the highest correlation to the incidence of crime.11 Another study focusing on crime in abandoned buildings in Austin, Texas found that crime rates on blocks with open abandoned buildings were twice as high as rates on matched blocks without open buildings. The survey also found that “41 percent of abandoned buildings could be entered without use of force; of these open buildings, 83 percent showed evidence of illegal use by prostitutes, drug dealers, property criminals, and others. 4 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Even if 90 percent of the crimes prevented are merely displaced to the surrounding area, securing abandoned buildings appears to be a highly cost-effective crime control tactic for distressed neighborhoods.”12 A crime-prevention tactic that has gotten much attention in recent years is directly related to vacant, neglected, and abandoned property. According to George Kelling and James Q. Wilson, “The Broken Window Theory” holds that “If the first broken window in a building is not repaired, then people who like breaking windows will assume that no one cares about the building and more windows will be broken… The disorder escalates, possibly to serious crime.” Wilson and Kelling suggest that it is the nature of the physical environment that leads to an increase in criminal activity.13 While the monetary costs of addressing the crime associated with abandoned buildings has not been calculated, it is clear that vacant properties burden police departments. Arson and Accidental Fires In 1999, firefighters in Worcester, Massachusetts entered a vacant cold storage building that was aflame to search for a homeless couple reported to have been in the building. Two firefighters became disoriented, and others went to their aid. Six became trapped and died in the fire. The homeless couple had left the premises after the fire began.16 The firefighters’ deaths became national news as one of the major costs of vacant properties became all too clear. The US Fire Administration reports that over 12,000 fires in vacant structures are reported each year in the US, resulting in $73 million in property damage annually. Fires are likely in vacant properties because of poor maintenance, faulty wiring, and debris. In the winter, homeless people burn candles for light and heat and may even bring in outdoor grills. But more importantly, vacant buildings are a primary target of arsonists. More than 70 percent of fires in vacant or abandoned buildings are arson or suspected arson. Such fires strain the resources of fire departments. Because vacant buildings often contain more open shafts, pits, and holes that can be an invisible threat to firefighters, the cost of fighting those fires is more than financial. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that 6,000 firefighters are injured every year in vacant or abandoned building fires.17 Neighborhoods in Bloom Fights Crime Richmond, Virginia’s focus on vacant and abandoned properties through the Neighborhoods in Bloom (NiB) program resulted in a dramatic drop in crime rates. The initiative launched a coordinated, focused effort in seven neighborhoods to restore physical livability and improve neighborhood stability, tackling everything from code enforcement to increasing homeownership rates. Bringing together multiple stakeholders – city council, city staff, community development corporations, neighborhoods residents, and private developers – has been an important factor in the program’s success.14 In the first three years of the initiative, the targeted neighborhoods experienced a 19 percent reduction in crime compared to a 6 percent reduction citywide.15 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 5 Public Nuisances and Health Vacant and abandoned properties require a disproportionate amount of public maintenance. In addition to securing buildings against criminal activity, local governments must clean and care for them to prevent a buildup of trash, illegal dumping, and rodent infestations. In some cases, abandoned properties contain toxic waste, particularly in the case of abandoned industrial buildings.18 Most municipalities have adopted ordinances that allow them to clean, board, and secure abandoned buildings. For example, in Roanoke, Virginia, the city has taken a tougher stance on properties deemed health and safety hazards. If a property is deemed a hazard by the city the owner is given thirty days to ameliorate the problem. If no action is taken, the city will solicit input from the neighborhood, do asbestos and lead abatement, solicit demolition bids, raze the house, and place a lien on the property to try to recoup the demolition costs.19 Cities spend significant funds on these activities. “In Trenton, New Jersey during the 1990’s, these dedicated resources (depending on the amount allocated for demolition) ranged from $500,000 to well over $1 million per year.”20 Over a five-year period, St. Louis spent $15.5 million, or nearly $100 per household, to demolish vacant buildings.21 Detroit spends $800,000 each year just to clean vacant lots.22 6 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Demolishing crumbling vacant buildings does not completely eliminate the costs associated with abandonment. The resulting vacant lots still require maintenance. A study of vacant lots in Philadelphia estimated that the city and closely related public agencies spent $1.8 million annually on cleaning vacant lots. At the current level of activity and assuming a three percent inflation rate, this adds up to $49.6 million over the course of twenty years.23 The study only included the costs of five out of the fifteen agencies that have a role in vacant property management.24 Rehabilitation is clearly a better choice. An examination of the St. Paul, Minnesota budget for maintenance and security costs associated with vacant buildings revealed that while demolition saves $4,697,25 the rehabilitation of a vacant building will save an estimated $7,141 in maintenance costs over a twenty-year period. Managing vacant properties ties up the time of municipal employees and the resources of municipal taxpayers. At the same time, these properties depress the value of other properties and generate little or no tax revenue themselves. Lot Clean-Up Programs Lot clean-up programs offer a means for neighborhoods to reverse the neglect associated with vacant and abandoned properties with sweat equity. Most often, they are efforts run by community volunteers with supplies and dumpsters provided by local government. In St. Louis, Missouri, Project Blitz, puts 75,000 volunteers to work every spring on 100 neighborhood “cleaning and greening” projects. This program has helped clear more than seven million pounds of trash from streets, alleys, and vacant lots.26 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 7 Decreased Property Values and Tax Revenues Vacant properties reduce city tax revenues in three ways: they are often tax delinquent; their low value means they generate little in taxes; and they depress property values across an entire neighborhood. Lower property values mean lower tax revenues for local governments. According to Frank Alexander, Interim Dean and Professor at Emory University Law School and an expert in housing issues, “failure of cities to collect even two to four percent of property taxes because of delinquencies and abandonment translates into $3 billion to $6 billion in lost revenues to local governments and school districts annually.”27 Property taxes remain the single largest source of tax revenue under local control, so this loss of income is substantial.28 Lost Tax Revenue Taxes are often lost on vacant properties because of tax delinquency. Abandoned properties often become delinquent because the cost of paying taxes on the property may well exceed the value of the property. If the property goes into tax forfeiture, a common fate for vacant or abandoned properties, ownership is transferred to the municipality which tries to recover the lost taxes through the sale of the property. But such sales are problematic for several reasons. Simply gaining title is a long and difficult process that consumes government resources (see From the State House to Your House on page 8). Once the title is obtained, cities often auction off delinquent properties for the amount of the tax lien, but the reclamation of all of the lost taxes is not guaranteed. One study found that 83 percent of the balance due is lost on foreclosed properties. When cities try to recover delinquent taxes on parcels where homes have been demolished, not only are they not able to recover the taxes, but typically the demolition itself was 8 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities costly – in St. Paul, the overall loss to the city for a single demolished house is about $7,789.”29 And while tax sales provide a source of income for municipalities, they do not ensure that the abandoned property will be put to productive use. The properties are sometimes purchased by speculators without any intent to restore them, and the process fails to assemble marketable parcels of land. Even if the taxes are being paid, those taxes don’t amount to much. In St. Paul, a vacant lot produces $1,148 in property taxes over 20 years; an unrenovated but inhabited home generates $5,650, and a rehabilitated property generates $13,145. 30 From the State House to Your House: Reform of Tax Foreclosure Laws as a Tool for Community Revitalization One of the first barriers cities face in rehabilitating vacant properties is simply gaining control over them. Michigan’s legislature responded with Public Act 123, passed in 1999. PA 123 amended the General Property Tax Act to streamline the system for returning tax-delinquent properties to productive use. More efficient than previous foreclosure laws, which could take up to six years to deliver property to new ownership, PA 123 enables county and state governments to reclaim properties in two years with a clear title judgment.31 The property is titled to either the county or the state. The law helps local governments move quickly, before a vacant building deteriorates or starts to spread blight. The law also created a fund, paid for through property sales, that helps local governments manage foreclosed land. Genesee County, home to Flint, has done the most to take advantage of PA 123. The Genesee County Treasurer’s Office and the Genesee County Land bank, created in 2002, work in tandem to prevent foreclosure and bring tax reverted properties back into productive use. Since 2002, the Land Bank has acquired more than 4,400 residential, commercial, and industrial properties, from which almost 600 will have been demolished by December 2005, and 248 have been transferred to side yards.32 The Land Bank is completing a $3.8 million mixed-use redevelopment in downtown Flint, over 40 housing renovations are completed or underway, and they continue to assemble parcels for additional development projects. The county has also received $200,000 from the U.S. EPA to complete environmental inspections on commercial, industrial, and residential properties. The process is a collaborative one, pulling in partners from a diverse array of local, regional, state, and national agencies. Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 9 Lower Property Values Vacant properties generate little in taxes – but, perhaps more importantly, they rob surrounding homes and businesses of their value. In a 2001 study, researchers from Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value. Properties within 150 to 300 feet experienced a loss of $6,819 and those within 300 to 450 feet experienced a loss of $3,542 (see diagram below). Philadelphia researchers also found “that all else being equal, houses on blocks with abandonment sold for $6,715 less than houses on blocks with no abandonment.”33 A University of Minnesota study also evaluated the fiscal benefits the city of St. Paul would receive if it renovated abandoned housing. The study found that vacant properties negatively affected neighborhood property values, reducing the city’s tax base. While a renovated property did not negatively affect surrounding property values, demolishing a vacant building and leaving a vacant lot in its stead led to “$26,397 in lost property tax revenue over a twenty- year period.”34 These lower property values represent a hit in the pocketbook for both homeowners and the city. But a focused effort to bring vacant properties back can restore value – and taxes – for the city. 450 feet 300 feet 150 feet -$7,627 -$6,819 -$3,542 Abandoned Property Temple University Center for Public Policy & Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. “Blight Free Philadelphia: A Public Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value.” Philadelphia, 2001. 10 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Recapturing the Value in Vacant Properties Richmond’s Neighborhoods in Bloom (NiB) program (see Neighborhoods in Bloom Fights Crime on page 4) has made a significant impact that goes beyond targeted neighborhoods. Housing prices within the NiB neighborhoods appreciated at a rate 9.9 percent per year faster than the citywide average. Prices in non-targeted blocks, but within 5,000 feet, increased at an annual rate 5.3 percent faster.35 The nearly 400 housing units built or renovated through the program equal an 11 percent increase in the number of occupied homes and apartments in the targeted neighborhoods.36 This increase in property values and sales generated growth in tax revenue. The Federal Reserve estimates that the aggregate value for tax assessments in the targeted areas increased 44 to 63 percent.37 And over the next 20 years, it’s estimated that NiB-generated appreciation of single-family homes in the targeted areas will result in an additional $14.7 million in property tax revenues (in 1997/98 dollars.)38 In communities with many vacant lots and a falling population, immediate rebuilding may not be an option. Cleaning up vacant lots and seeding them with grass and plantings can help increase neighborhood property values. A recent report by Susan Wachter, of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania validates what “clean and green” advocates have known for some time – that investment in greening translates not only into increased quality of life benefits, but also into higher property values. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society coordinated a vacant land management system with the New Kensington Community Development Corporation that includes clearing abandoned lots of debris, planting grass and trees, regular cleaning and mowing, and transferring parcels to adjacent homeowners as private side yards. Previously, many of the lots in the New Kensington neighborhood had been havens for illegal activity. Wachter’s study, which analyzed more than 3,000 home sales from 1980 to 2003, found that planting trees within 50 feet of houses increased home prices by 9 percent (approximately $3,400) and that sales prices increased as much as 30 percent when homes were located near vacant lots that had been “cleaned and greened.” In the New Kensington area this translates to a $4 million gain in property value through tree plantings and a $12 million gain through lot improvements.”39 Philadelphia has seen more than a financial payoff from their efforts. By greening many abandoned sites in the same area, the lots have been converted into “green corridors.” To further the environmental benefits, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society has added a stormwater management component to the program, which has been highlighted by the U.S. EPA as a national model for reclaiming and managing vacant urban lots.40 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 11 Costs to Homeowners Living in a neighborhood with many vacant and abandoned properties exacts many costs on homeowners. As discussed above, it leads to decreased property values, which can devastate a family’s financial security. When neighborhood populations decline and properties become vacant, a smaller number of residents bear a greater proportion of the city’s tax burden. This fact is particularly relevant in lower-income neighborhoods and among residents without the resources or the desire to leave their neighborhood. And there are other, less easily measured costs of owning a home in an area with vacant properties – costs that are both fiscal and psychological. Higher Insurance Premiums The proximity of vacant and abandoned properties makes obtaining homeowner’s insurance, mortgages, and loans for home improvements more difficult. Insurance companies pay attention to what is going on in a neighborhood; this can mean increased premiums or even policy cancellations for those homeowners living close to an abandoned property. Determining how vacant and abandoned properties influence the cost of homeowners insurance is difficult at best. There are a number of variables involved in the setting of premiums and many insurance companies hold their underwriting manuals to be proprietary. An interview with an insurance agent in Washington, DC representing a national insurance company revealed that the presence of a “high hazard” property (which includes condemned properties) within forty feet of a solid masonry building and 100 feet of a non-masonry building would lead to a cancellation or non- renewal of an insurance policy.41 Poorer Quality of Life Vacant properties degrade quality of life for remaining residents. Genesee County Treasurer Daniel T. Kildee tells the story of a Flint resident. “I met a woman who bought her house a decade ago, so proud to be a new homeowner. She took good care of her home and her family, and has seen the properties on both sides of her home burn and sit abandoned for many years. Finally under our program (see From the State House to Your House on page 8), we took control of the adjacent properties and have scheduled them for demolition and to transfer to her as part of our side-lot program. Sadly, our program was not in place for many years as she watched the neighborhood slowly slip away. This is a woman that saw her single greatest financial investment become valueless - not due to the condition of her home, but due to the neglect of the property that surrounds her. She only had two choices: stay and maintain her home and make her mortgage payments, or abandon the property and ruin her credit and her home. That is a story that has repeated itself in our community a thousand times over, with a far less happy ending.”42 With abandoned buildings comes social fragmentation. Individuals who live in communities with an increasing number of vacant buildings begin to feel isolated, weakening the community as a whole. A large number of vacant buildings in a neighborhood symbolizes that no one cares, increasing the likelihood that property values will continue to decline and that further abandonment will set in. In the case of vacant properties, the problem is out in the open, for all to see. The aesthetic impact of abandoned properties, while not easily quantified in dollars, is another cost. 12 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities The Spiral of Blight: The Cumulative Impact of Vacant Property The costs imposed by a single vacant building are not contained. If left alone, that building can trigger a costly spiral of blight. With each arson or lot filling up with garbage comes further incentive for the remaining residents and businesses to flee. To stem these problems it is important for municipalities to address the issue early. In Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant Housing, the authors describe the issue of vacant and abandoned property as a self-feeding problem. “In blighted neighborhoods that adjoin abandoned ones, existing homeowners face stagnating or declining property values. Unscrupulous real estate agents play on these fears by inducing existing residents to sell cheaply in order to maximize profits at the expense of incoming families. Although this property is still generating revenues for the city, the combination of high resale prices and high tax rates discourage maintenance of such structures. In this way, communities in transition start to look shabby and run-down. Businesses see their profits dwindle and are unlikely to remain in such locales.”43 Part of the reason abandonment becomes contagious is that “it makes it harder for people to sell their homes or because it leads banks to lower appraisals or deny loans entirely on blocks with abandoned properties.”44 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 13 Summary Vacant and abandoned properties are burning a hole in the pockets of local governments, businesses, and individuals. The root of the problem may seem far beyond the control of local governments. The vacancies are often a result of larger forces, such as corporate decisions to transfer jobs overseas, or developers’ decisions to invest in sprawling new homes far on the urban fringe. But taking no action simply allows the problem to grow worse. The places that have done the most to end the financial drain of vacant properties are those that recognize their value. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society provides an idea of the positive returns cities can expect by investing in a comprehensive program for dealing with vacant and abandoned property. PHS estimates that, over the course of twenty years, the City of Philadelphia would receive $1.54 in benefits for every $1.00 in costs ($158.7 million in benefits, $106.7 million investment). This figure stands before even considering the additional benefits that may “accrue to families and private businesses if the elimination of vacant land results in an increase in the value of their property, a decrease in insurance rates, or a greater interest by businesses to locate in a more attractive city.”45 Many cities and counties across the country are looking for strategies that help them capture the value reported by the programs discussed in this report. While some communities have yet to take the first step, others are enacting their own programs to different degrees of success. Sharing experiences and knowledge – what works and what does not – is the role of the National Vacant Properties Campaign, providing a forum to arm communities, civic leaders, and policymakers with information that can embolden them to take action. The Campaign hopes to encourage communities and researchers to seek solutions to these and other outstanding problems relating to the scope and cost of vacant properties: § Many communities don’t have a reliable accounting system to track of the number of vacant properties that exist within their borders. § Many of the financial costs incurred by a jurisdiction, including demolition, fire and nuisance abatement, are not routinely tracked. § While anecdotal evidence abounds regarding homeowners losing their insurance because of their proximity to an abandoned house, determining the actual cost is difficult. § Much of the data available about the costs of vacant properties is found from a variety of sources and is difficult to obtain. Please contact the Campaign to share the experiences in your community. 14 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Bibliography Accordino, John and Gary T. Johnson. “Addressing the Vacant and Abandoned Property Problem.” Journal of Urban Affairs 22.3 (2000): 301-315. Accordino, John, Galster, George, and Peter Tatian. “The Impacts of Targeted Public and Nonprofit Investment on Neighborhood Development,” Richmond: The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 2005. Alexander, Frank. “Renewing Public Assets for Community Development” Local Initiatives Support Collaborative, 2000. Anderson, Laurie M., Scrimshaw, Susan C., Fullilove, Mindy T., Fielding, Jonathon E., and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. “The Community Guide’s Model for Linking the Social Environment to Health.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24.3S (2003): 12-20. Arsen, David. “Property Tax Assessment Rate and Residential Abandonment: Policy for New York City.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 51.3 (1992): 361 Bowman, Ann O’M. and Michael A. Pagano. “Transforming America’s Cities: Policies and Conditions of Vacant Land.” Urban Affairs Review 35.4 (2000): 559-581. Bright, Elise. “TOADS: Instruments of Urban Revitalization.” Managing Capital Resources for Central City Revitalization. Eds. F. Wagner, T. Joder, and A. Mumphrey Jr. New York: Garland Press, 2000. Bright, Elise. “Making Business a Partner in Redeveloping Abandoned Central City Property: Is Profit a Realistic Possibility?” Federal Reserve System’s Third Community Affairs Research Conference. 27-28 March 2003. Colvin, Ashley, Fergusson, Ian, and Heather Phillips. “Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant Housing.” Center for Public Policy Research – The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William Mary for the International City/County Management Association, 2000. Cramer, John. “Roanoke Pushes for Improvement – or Demolition – of Neglected Houses.” The Roanoke Times 3 August 2003 <http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story153274.html>. Doyle, James. “One House at a Time.” Journal of Housing and Community Development 58.1 (2002):14-17. Duhigg, Charles. “Tax Auctions Rarely Deliver a Dream.” The Washington Post, 19 July 2003. “EPA Administrator Lauds Innovative Program in Philadelphia.” U.S. EPA, 2 August 2005 <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/ 3c74ddbadb18b79c85257051006ff8da!OpenDocument> Farris, J. Terrence. “The Barriers to Using Urban Infill Development to Achieve Smart Growth.” Housing Policy Debate 12.1 (2001): 1-30. Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 15 Goetz, Edward G., Cooper, Kristin, Thiele, Bret, and Hin Kin Lam. “Pay Now or Pay More Later: St. Paul’s Experience in Rehabilitating Vacant Housing.” CURA Reporter (April 1998): 12-15. Goetz, Edward G., Cooper, Kristin, Thiele, Bret, and Hin Kim Lam. The Fiscal Impact of the St. Paul HOUSES TO HOMES Program. Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. <http:// www.npcr.org/reports/npcr1055/npcr1055.html, accessed June 17, 2003>. Greenberg, Michael R., Popper, Frank J., and Bernadette M. West. “The TOADS: A New American Urban Epidemic.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 25.3 (1990): 435-453. Greenberg, Michael, Popper, Frank, Schneider, Dona, and Bernadette West. “Community Organizing to Prevent TOADS in the United States.” Community Development Journal 28.1 (1993): 55-65. “Greening boosts home prices – here’s the proof,” 24 February 2005 <http:www.upenn.edu/ pennnews/current/2005/022405/research.html> Grow Smart Rhode Island. “The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island – Executive Summary.” Prepared by H.C. Planning Consultants, Inc. & Planimetrics, LLP, 1999. Hillier, Amy E., Culhane, Dennis P., Smith, Tony E., and Dana C. Tomlin. “Predicting Housing Abandonment with the Philadelphia Neighborhood Information System.” Journal of Urban Affairs 25.1 (2003): 91-105. Hughes, Mark Alan, and Rebekah Cook-Mack. “Vacancy Reassessed.” Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures, 1999. IOCAD Emergency Services Group. “Firefighter Fatalities in the Unites States in 1999.” National Fire Data Center, 2000. Jakle, John and David Wilson. “Derelict Landscapes: The Wasting of America’s Built Environment.” 1992. Kildee, Dan. “Bringing Flint Back to Life.” Getting Smart! 6.4 (2003). Keenan, Paul, Lowe, Stuart, and Sheila Spencer. “Housing Abandonment in Inner Cities – The Politics of Low Demand for Housing.” Housing Studies 14.5 (1999): 703-716. Kromer, John. “Serious About Neighborhoods: Ten Success Strategies for Philadelphia’s Residential Communities.” 2003 <http://neighborhoodrecovery.com>. Kromer, John. “Vacant-Property Policy and Practice: Baltimore and Philadelphia.” Washington, DC: Discussion paper prepared for Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and CEOs for Cities, 2002. Leigh, Nancey Green. “The State Role in Urban Land Redevelopment” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. MacKenzie, James J., Dower C. Roger, and Donald D.T. Chen. “The Going Rate: What it Really Costs to Drive.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1992. 16 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Mallach, Alan. “From Abandonment to Reuse: Issues and Policies in Urban Abandonment.” Prepared for seminar hosted by Fannie Mae Foundation, 5 November 2001. “Michigan’s New & Improved Tax Foreclosure System.” Genesee County Land Bank, 1 March 2005 <http://thelandbank.org>. “New Tool Ready to Combat Arson: Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Targeted.” American Re. 16 June 2003 <http://www.amre.com/content/press/pressmain.asp?release=04-16-02_ abandonedbuildings>. Operation Brightside. St. Louis, MO. <http://stlouis.missouri.org/brightside/clean-up.html>. Pagano, Michael A. and Ann O’M Bowman. “Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center On Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia Neighborhoods: Cost Benefit Analysis.” Philadelphia, 1999. Ress, David. “The Results Are in: Communities Improve; Neighborhoods in Bloom Program Spurs Changes in Several Areas of Richmond.” Richmond Times Dispatch, 19 July 2005. Richmond Lisc. “The Ripple Effect: Economic Impacts of Targeted Community Investments.” Richmond, 2005. Scafidi, Benjamin, Schill, Michael, Wachter, Susan, and Dennis Culhane. “An Economic Analysis of Housing Abandonment.” Journal of Housing Economics, 7 (1998): 287-303. Schilling, Joseph. “Vacant Properties: Revitalization Strategies.” IQ Reports 34.3 (ICMA, 2002). Schilling, Joseph M. “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Where Broken Windows Meet Smart Growth.” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2002. Schilling, Joseph M., and Naomi Friedman. “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Richmond, Virginia Case Study.” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2002. Setterfield, Mark. “Abandoned Buildings: Models for Legislative & Enforcement Reform.” Hartford, CT: Trinity College, Trinity Center for Neighborhoods, Research Project 23, 1997. Spelman, William. “Abandoned Buildings: Magnets for Crime?” Journal of Criminal Justice 21.5 (1993): 481-495. Temple University Center for Public Policy and Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. “Blight Free Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value.” Philadelphia, 2001. “Urban Insurance Issues.” 2003. Insurance Information Institute. 11 July 2003 <http://www. iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/urban/content.print/>. “Vacant buildings: background: conditions.” Community Environmental Resource Program (CERP). <http://stlcin.missouri.org/cerp/vacant/conditions.htm>. Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 17 Wachter, Susan. “The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia, Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study.” Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Wallace, Rodrick. “Urban Desertification, Public Health and Public Disorder: Planned Shrinkage, Violent Death, Substance Abuse and AIDS in the Bronx.” Social Science Medicine 31.7 (1990): 801-813. Wilgoren, Jodi. “Urban Renewal Without the Renewal.” The New York Times, 7 July 2002. Wilson, David & Margulis, Harry. “Spatial Aspects of Housing Abandonment in the 1990s: The Cleveland Experience.” Housing Studies 9.4 (1994): 493-511. Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. “Making Neighborhoods Safe.” Atlantic Monthly February 1989. 18 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Endnotes 1 William Spelman, “Abandoned Buildings: Magnets for Crime?” Journal of Criminal Justice 21.5 (1993): 481. 2 “New Tool Ready to Combat Arson: Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Targeted,” American Re, 16 June 2003 <http://www.amre.com/content/press/pressmain.asp?release=04-16-02_abandonedbuildings>. 3 Jodi Wilgoren, “Urban Renewal Without the Renewal,” The New York Times, 7 July 2002. 4 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia Neighborhoods: Cost Benefit Analysis,” Philadelphia, 1999: 17. 5 Temple University Center for Public Policy and Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project, “Blight Free Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value,” Philadelphia, 2001. 6 Alan Mallach, “From Abandonment to Reuse: Issues and Policies in Urban Abandonment,” Prepared for seminar hosted by Fannie Mae Foundation, 5 November 2001: 1. 7 Michael A. Pagano and Ann O’M Bowman, “Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource,” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center On Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000: 6. 8 Mallach 5. 9 Mallach 4. 10 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17. 11 Connie Bawcum (consultant formerly with Richmond’s Neighborhoods in Bloom), 12 August 2003. 12 Spelman 481. 13 James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, “Making Neighborhoods Safe,” Atlantic Monthly February 1989. 14 Joseph M. Schilling and Naomi Friedman, “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Richmond, Virginia Case Study,” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2002: 27. 15 Richmond Lisc, “The Ripple Effect: Economic Impacts of Targeted Community Investments,” Richmond, 2005: 5. 16 IOCAD Emergency Services Group. “Firefighter Fatalities in the United States in 1999.” National Fire Data Center, 2000: A-34 17 American Re 18 Mark Setterfield, “Abandoned Buildings: Models for Legislative & Enforcement Reform,” Hartford, CT: Trinity College, Trinity Center for Neighborhoods, Research Project 23, 1997: 5. 19 John Cramer, “Roanoke Pushes for Improvement – or Demolition – of Neglected Houses,” The Roanoke Times 3 August 2003 <http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story153274.html>. 20 Mallach 4, footnote 2 21 “Vacant buildings: background: conditions,” Community Environmental Resource Program (CERP), <http:// stlcin.missouri.org/cerp/vacant/conditions.htm>. CERP is an environmental clearinghouse for the St. Louis area funded by EPA and run under the auspices of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, a regional planning agency. 22 Wilgoren 23 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17. The study defined vacant properties as “unmanaged residential lots under one acre without structures or use for billboards, surface parking lots, or parks.” 24 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17-18. The departments are the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Streets Department, the Redevelopment Authority, the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, and the Philadelphia Housing Authority. These costs include office administration as well as the actual cleaning and sealing of vacant lots. 25 Edward G. Goetz, Kristin Cooper, Bret Thiele, and Hin Kin Lam, “Pay Now or Pay More Later: St. Paul’s Experience in Rehabilitating Vacant Housing,” CURA Reporter (April 1998): 14. 26 Operation Brightside. St. Louis, MO. <http://stlouis.missouri.org/brightside/clean-up.html>. 27 Frank Alexander, E-mail to Laura Reilly. 28 Frank Alexander, “Renewing Public Assets for Community Development,” Local Initiatives Support Collaborative, 2000: 3. 29 Goetz, Pay Now 18. 30 Goetz, Pay Now 19. Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 19 31 “Michigan’s New & Improved Tax Foreclosure System,” Genesee County Land Bank, 1 March 2005 <http:// thelandbank.org>. 32 Robert Beckley (Genesee County Land Bank, Genesee Institute Director), 18 August 2005. 33 Temple University 22. 34 Goetz, Pay Now 19. 35 John Accordino, George Galster, and Peter Tatian, “The Impacts of Targeted Public and Nonprofit Investment on Neighborhood Development,” Richmond: the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 2005: 37. 36 David Ress, “The Results Are in: Communities Improve; Neighborhoods in Bloom Program Spurs Changes in Several Areas of Richmond,” Richmond Times Dispatch, 19 July 2005. 37 Richmond Lisc 5. 38 Accordino Addendum. 39 Susan Wachter “The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia, Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study,” Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2005: 14, 16. 40 “EPA Administrator Lauds Innovative Program in Philadelphia,” 2 August 2005 <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/ 3c74ddbadb18b79c85257051006ff8da!OpenDocument> 41 Al Sisco, Gary Young Insurance (a Nationwide insurance affiliate) in Washington DC, telephone conversation, 8 July 2003. 42 Dan Kildee, “Bringing Flint Back to Life,” Getting Smart! 6.4 (2003): 1. 43 Ashley Colvin, Ian Fergusson, and Heather Phillips, “Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant Housing,” Center for Public Policy Research – The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William Mary for The International City/County Management Association, 2000: 7. 44 Temple 22. 45 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 26-27. Frank Alexander, Emory University* Carl Anthony, Ford Foundation Charles Bartsch, Northeast Midwest Institute Noreen Beatley, The Enterprise Foundation Lavea Brachman, Delta Institute Kim Burnett, The Surdna Foundation Carlton Eley, U.S. EPA, Community and Environment Division Mindy Fullilove, Columbia University Peter Harnik, Trust for Public Land Rick Haughey, Urban Land Institute Dan Kildee, Treasurer, Genesee County Michigan* John Kromer, Fels Institute of Government Alan Mallach, National Housing Institute Joseph Molinaro, National Association of Realtors Rachel Morello-Frosch, Brown University Anne Pasmanick, National Neighborhood Coalition john powell, Ohio State University Joseph Reilly, JPMorgan Chase Jim Rooney, CEOs for Cities Carey Shea, Habitat for Humanity-New York City Diane Silva-Martinez, City of San Diego Susie Sinclair-Smith, Fannie Mae Foundation Israel Small, City of Savannah, Georgia Heather Smith, Congress for the New Urbanism Jeff Soule, American Planning Association Jennifer Vey, Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy *affiliations used for identification purposes only The National Vacant Properties Campaign’s mission is to help communities prevent abandonment and reclaim abandoned and vacant properties. The Campaign focuses on properties — homes, factories, stores, and vacant lots — that are not legally occupied, show signs of neglect or pose a public nuisance. The Campaign is pursuing four core activities: • developing a national network of vacant property practitioners and experts; • providing tools and research; • developing persuasive arguments for property reclamation; and • building the capacity of local, regional, and national practitioners and decision-makers through technical assistance and training. The National Vacant Properties Campaign is a collaboration of four leading national organizations, Smart Growth America (SGA), Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech (MI), and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The Campaign is funded by the generous support of the Fannie Mae Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Ford Foundation, and the Surdna Foundation. For more information and to get involved, visit the web site at http://www.vacantproperties.org or write the Campaign’s director at jleonard@smartgrowthamerica.org. National Vacant Properties Campaign Advisory Committee