Loading...
Item 2 - 11-17-2016 LC&LB joint study session minutes Draft_final.docx Library Commission & Landmarks Board Joint Study Session Minutes November 17, 2016 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission and Landmarks Board Date of Meeting: November 17, 2016 at the Main Boulder Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave. Contact information preparing summary: Maureen Malone, 303-441-3106 Library Commission members present: Joni Teter, Juana Gomez, Joel Koenig Library Commission members absent: Alicia Gibb, Tim O’Shea Landmarks Board members present: Deborah Yin, Eric Budd, Briana Butler, Ronnie Pelusio, Fran Sheets City staff present: David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director James Hewat, Senior Planner Edward Stafford, Development Review Manager Jim Robertson, Chief of Urban Design Joanna Crean, Senior Project Manager Maureen Malone, Library Administrative Specialist II Members of the public present: None Type of Meeting: Joint Study Session Agenda Item 1: Call to order and approval of agenda [6:04 p.m., 0:00:00 Audio min.] The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. Teter proposed moving agenda item 3 (Update on Library Master Plan process) to the beginning of the meeting. Agenda Item 2: Update on Library Master Plan process – Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director [6:06 p.m., 0:02:02 Audio min.] Phares explained that library staff is looking at commissioning a feasibility study on renovating the north building to see what’s possible and the associated cost; later next summer, staff will begin more in depth analysis of facilities and come up with detailed plans of building uses based on community feedback. Farnan added that he has requested a current valuation of the north building; code dictates that renovation costs are limited to 50% of the value of the building. A copy of the test fit of the area that was done over a year ago has also been requested. Agenda Item 3: Matters from the Library Commission [6:08 p.m., 0:00:25 Audio min.] a. Memo: Joint Meeting talking points  Butler asked about the library’s capacity to handle the growth experienced over the past year and whether any big expansions are being considered. Farnan replied that the growth should start to level off and explained that staff has worked to activate as much space in the library as possible, aside from the north building due to the uncertainty of its future and the fact that its current layout is dysfunctional and disorienting; determining the future of the north building will be part of the Master Plan process. b. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Historic Architectural Inventory of the Main Library north building  Butler asked if the 1974 addition would receive the same flood exceptions if historically designated, despite the building being less than 50 years old. Stafford clarified that if the building is designated, the flood regulation as it relates to historic buildings would apply; historic designation does not exempt a building from flood regulations, but allows leeway for improvements to the structure and the value of the improvements. Hewat added that if federal funds are used for improvements or physical changes to the building, a section 106 review will be triggered to assess the impact of such improvements on a designated or identified historic resource. Library Commission & Landmarks Board Joint Study Session Minutes November 17, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item 4: Discussion [6:41 p.m., 0:37:00 Audio min.]  Yin explained that decisions on whether or not to landmark a building are based solely on the merit of the building, not on what the applicant plans to do with it. There is a sense that the north wing has become an iconic building for Boulder, and there would be an issue if the library wanted to demolish it; however, since the interior has changed so much, it could be reprogrammed entirely.  Hewat explained that a landmark application could be submitted by the city (the city manager or City Council), a third party recognized historic preservation organization, or the Landmarks Board. Ultimately City Council decides whether or not to designate a building.  Teter communicated her hope that the Library Commission and Landmarks Board might jointly come up with a process that over the next 2-3 years helps us as a community to determine the best use of the site of the north building, taking into account library and other community uses, as well as all of the different values that are in conflict with one another to some extent – historic value, maximum height, flood issues, etc.  Yin expressed her hope that the library would follow through on the Boulder Comprehensive Plan’s statement that the city and county should take a leadership role in landmarking their own buildings, and trust that there is still a lot of flexibility to do what they want to do with the north building, whether it be library-related use or some kind of adaptive reuse.  Pelusio stated that starting the landmarking application and design review process would allow the Landmarks Board to give the Library Commission insight on the board’s position on the building more quickly.  Hewat stated that the landmarking process typically takes 4-6 months from start to finish.  There was a question of whether state funds could be used for the interior of the building if the exterior building was the landmarked aspect, or if the funds could be used for flood mitigation or energy upgrades.  Pelusio asked whether an addition to the west side of the building would be allowed if it were structurally independent and met FEMA requirements. Stafford replied that more analysis would need to be done, but it would have to function 100% independent structurally, and may not be a cost effective solution.  Pelusio expressed that there is merit associated with keeping the existing building – the educational component to having a historic structure marries well to the objectives of the library, and the bridge connects either side of the creek that is disconnected everywhere else in Boulder.  Stafford stated that should the bridge get destroyed in a flood, the city would not be able to permit its reconstruction.  Stafford explained that if the building receives historic designation, the 50% value cap for internal rehab of the building goes away; however, there are still issues regarding flood-proofing requirements.  Yin suggested that it might be worth exploring the potential for an exception to the height restriction for a civic building. There was consensus among the Library Commission and Landmarks Board that neither party will surprise the other with a sudden decision to demolish or landmark the north building. Teter suggested that the Library Commission and Landmarks Board should have another joint meeting around September of 2017, after the library’s community engagement process is complete and a study on the potential uses for the north building has been commissioned by the Facilities and Asset Management department. Agenda Item 5: Adjournment [7:41 p.m., 1:37:51 Audio min.] The meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m.