Denver is weighing changes to its historic preservation ordinance that could spur landmark designations in the city’s more racially and economically diverse neighborhoods. 

One amendment to the rules would add “culture” to the categories of criteria that potential landmarks must meet to win the status, allowing sites with cultural significance to be considered alongside those with district history, geography or architecture.

Officials on the task force that spent the past year crafting the proposed regulations hope that the additional criteria will open the door for residents in a wider range of Denver communities to seek historic designations.

“If you look at so many of the landmarks in Denver, they’re very elitist-centered and white-centered,” said City Councilman Kevin Flynn, who served on the task force. “There’s not a lot of landmarks that recognize and preserve the history and heritage of some of our marginalized communities.”

Flynn pointed to Denver’s southwest side.

Only one of the city’s more than 400 landmark designations – the Fort Logan field officer’s quarters – is located west of the South Platte River and south of 6th Avenue, an area heavily populated by Hispanic residents.

The proposed changes, which the City Council is set to vote on this month, are slated to go before its Land Use, Transportation & Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday.

Another amendment would allow more time for a property owner to reach a compromise with residents in the case that a historic designation is sought at a property that’s slated for demolition.

“The task force focused a lot of energy on the very rare instances in which a designation application is made and the property owner objects,” Annie Levinsky, executive director of Historic Denver, said in an email. 

The issue was highlighted with the recent controversy over Tom’s Diner, a 52-year-old diner on East Colfax Avenue that residents sought to keep standing over the owner’s objections.

Under the current law, on person can put off demolition for seven extra days, for a total of 28 days, if he or she notifies the city of intent to apply for a designation. The proposed changes would require that three residents come forward to temporarily pause the process; but that hiatus would be extended to 60 days and include a required meeting of stakeholders.

“We have created that pause for parties to be able to talk. Hopefully a resolution can be reached before council gets involved,” said City Councilwoman Robin Kniech, who also served on the task force. “We’ve been trying to dictate compromises from dais in the Monday night meeting, and that’s just too difficult.”

The extension would also “ease the tension and refocus the efforts on problem-solving and collaborative solutions, rather than focusing so rapidly on a binary, demolition vs. designation paradigm,” added Levinsky. 

In the wake of the Tom’s Diner dispute, City Councilwoman Kendra Black has said she might propose two more changes to the ordinance, if she has support from most of her colleagues. 

Black’s proposal, as first reported by Denverite, would require votes from 10 of the city’s 13 council members to approve a landmark designation that’s opposed by a property’s owner. Now, such designations only need a simple majority to pass.

“I heard from dozens of dozens of constituents that were just outraged that total strangers could do that to poor old Tom,” Black said. “I am an advocate for historic preservation. I just have concerns about owner-opposed designations, and I just think we need to have a slightly higher bar for them.”

When news surfaced that Tom Messina wanted to sell his diner to a developer, a group sought historic preservation status for the establishment.

But the residents later withdrew that request, saying in a letter to the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission that they instead intended to work with Messina and the property owner to “find alternative solutions” for the site.

Black is also considering proposing another change that would require support of 51 percent of property owners within a proposed historic district before that district wins designation.

Council members Flynn and Kniech said that they would not support Black’s proposals.

The task force arrived the other amendments through a “consensus process,” so the city should allow time to see if the tweaks are effective before weighing more changes, Kniech said. 

Flynn said he supports the concepts behind Black’s ideas, but would not vote in favor of them.

“Having been part of the task force that arrived at the consensus… I need to honor my commitment and not support the amendments,” he said.

At his recommendation, the task force has also proposed a new provision that would allow council members to vote down a historic designation – even if a site meets all the necessary criteria – if an owner objects to the designation, Flynn said.