Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.12.13 LB Study Session February 12, 2013 City Council/Landmarks Board Joint Study Session Historic Preservation Plan City Council: Suzy Ageton, KC Becker, Macon Cowles, Suzanne Jones, George Karakehian, Deputy Mayor Lisa Morzel, Tim Plass, Ken Wilson Landmarks Board: Chair Mark Gerwing, Kurt Nordback, John Spitzer, Liz Payton, Kirsten Snobeck Staff: Jane Brautigam, City Manager; David Driskell, Executive Director Community Planning & Sustainability; Susan Richstone, Deputy Director Community Planning & Sustainability; Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager; James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner; Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner; Deb Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney Consultant: Mary Therese Anstey, HistoryMatters PURPOSE: The purpose of the study session was to: • Provide an update and solicit feedback on the work to date on a Historic Preservation Plan. • Request input on goals and objectives to guide future direction for the city's historic preservation program. The work to date on development of the plan includes a program assessment by Dr. Mary Therese Anstey of HistoryMatters, a comparison to other historic preservation programs, a customer survey of applicants, and a public and Landmarks Board meeting held on January 16, 2013. OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION: Staff and the consultant presented an overview of the work to date on a Historic Preservation Plan. The City Council was asked for feedback. COUNCIL AND BOARD RESPONSE TO STUDY SESSION QUESTIONS: Summary of Council and Board feedback: 1. Do the City Council and the Landmarks Board have comments or questions about the work to date, including the Current Program Assessment and the customer survey responses? a. The Current Program Assessment included inaccurate information about how the Pearl Street Pedestrian Mall was created as well as the relocation of the depot and must be corrected. b. Public outreach needs to continue throughout the process and be broadened. c. Cities nationwide, not just other cities within Colorado, should be used for comparison and evaluation of Boulder's preservation program, particularly ones with similar sustainability goals and demographics. d. It was suggested that the 50 year demolition threshold should be reconsidered and consideration given to revising the demolition ordinance. e. Post-war resources and the review process for these resources might be handled differently than other historic resources, allowing for flexibility to transform and evolve, perhaps aided through the development of pattern books. . f. One council member didn't think there would be much support for historic preservation restrictions being placed on post-war houses such as those in Martin Acres. g. Councilmember Plass noted that the program assessment was relevant and accurate based on his six years of experience on the Landmarks Board. h. It was requested that the final assessment and plan include fewer acronyms for ease of reading and understanding. 2. What key issues should the historic preservation plan address? a. Landmarks Board stated that outreach is the foundation for a successful plan and emphasized the importance of solid public understanding and support for it. The board also considered that the plan should address the following issues: • Sustainability and its relationship to historic preservation • Demolition ordinance changes (in particular, looking at giving the board the authority to assess the effect of the proposed demolition, not just whether or not the building is potentially a landmark) • Creating additional and broader incentives for historic preservation • Ensuring that design guidelines are transparent, predictable, and applied consistently • Potentially establishing conservation districts • Plan for handling historic resources in the event of a natural disaster • Post-war building stock • Being proactive instead of reactive, approaching historic preservation with bigger picture, longer-term thinking b. The City Council generally agreed with the Landmarks Board's list of priorities and added that the plan should address the following issues: • There is a need for more public outreach and listening to the community and responding to concerns about the Landmarks Board process. • Work on improving transparency, consistency in how cases are handled, public perception, understanding and the operation of Boulder's preservation program. • Clarify the vision and what infill in historic districts actually means. • Embodied energy is an important consideration toward preserving resources. • City-owned resources should be examined and perhaps designated as historic landmarks and be made publicly accessible. • The City Council also expressed interest in providing more incentives and stated that they could play a more active role in improving public perception of the historic preservation program and partnering with the Landmarks Board. 3. What should be the primary goals and objectives for the historic preservation plan to help guide the program over the next 10-15 years? a. The Landmarks Board considered that the goals and objectives should be: • A more proactive program, increasing outreach and community collaboration and cooperation • Reassessing demolition ordinance, in particular, looking at giving the board the authority to assess the effect of the proposed demolition, not just whether or not the building is potentially a landmark • Continue integrating sustainability goals (e.g. retrofitting storm windows) • Exploring the notion of establishing conservation districts • Ensuring that design guidelines are current, clear, and predictable • Providing more incentives to encourage historic preservation • Establishing post-disaster preparedness for historic resources b. The City Council agreed and requested additional information about the demolition ordinance to determine whether a change to it would be supported. 4. Do the City Council and the Landmarks Board have any questions regarding the proposed steps and timeline for completion of the plan? a. The City Council and the Landmarks Board agreed that community input is critical and the city's plans and actions should respect and reflect this input. An expanded community survey was requested. The city website should be used to better communicate and clarify the historic preservation processes. b. The City Council suggested that the current program be strengthened before it is expanded to include initiatives like conservation districts. c. The City Council stated that the plan should include an "areas of discussion" section that would outline where energy and resources should be focused over the next 10-15 years. d. The City Council asked staff to clarify why growth and density are perceived as threats in the report. e. Development and historic character need to be balanced. NEXT STEPS The consultant and the staff team will develop preliminary goals and objectives based on the City Council, Landmarks Board, Planning Board and public's feedback. During February, March and May, stakeholder meetings will be held, followed by the development of a draft plan. In May, the public, Landmarks Board and City Council will review the Draft Historic Preservation Plan. In July, staff expects to return to City Council for acceptance of the Final Historic Preservation Plan to be submitted to OAHP in July 2013. Staff clarified that after submitting the Plan to the state, revisions can be made and implementation will be on-going.