Denver leaders reconsider historic landmark law

Denver Councilwoman Kendra Black thinks it should be harder for the city to preserve buildings as historic landmarks if the owners don’t agree.

Recently, the case of Tom’s Diner got national attention: A group of residents wanted to permanently preserve the building as a landmark, but owner Tom Messina wanted to sell the property for demolition and redevelopment.

The Denver City Council was set to make the final decision until the preservationists canceled their request last month. The heated debate prompted Black to consider bigger changes.

“This Tom’s Diner thing really hit home for a lot of people. I heard from lots of constituents (who were concerned) that some total strangers could take away Tom’s property from him,” she said in an interview. Denverite first reported the proposal.

Black wants two major changes:

• Require 10 of 13 council votes for landmark designations that are opposed by the owner. Currently, only seven votes are required.

• For historic districts, require approval by 51% of landowners before an application is filed.

The next historical controversy is on the horizon already: Residents in the Berkeley neighborhood want to designate a 1960 funeral chapel as historic. Fifty-eight townhomes are planned for the Tennyson Street site.

Black hasn’t yet submitted a bill, so her proposal has a long way to go.

“I’ve reached out to other council members. Most of them are talking about it. If I don’t have seven votes, I’m not going to move forward with it,” Black said.

Separately, city officials will consider other updates to the city’s landmark law. A working group came up with the following suggestions:

• Extend the waiting period for demolition permits on contested properties from 28 days to 60 days, and require a “city-facilitated” meeting between the opposing sides.

• Require three Denver residents to apply for a temporary pause in the demolition process, instead of one.

• Give more “flexibility” for alterations to designated properties.

• Simplify the rules and add “cultural significance” as a reason for preservation.

The working group’s suggestions are up for review at the council’s land-use committee on Sept. 10. As they consider the changes, city leaders will have to balance the value of historic buildings against the importance of new development and property owners’ rights.