Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 - Landmarks Design Review Update ProcessJOINT MEETING: CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD & DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MAY S, 2004 5-6PM Board Members Present: DMC LPAB Richard Polk (Chair) Lisa Egger Nolan Rosall Tim Plass Kazen Klerman Leland Rucker Nabil Karkamaz Rory Salance (Chair) Nancy Komblum Staff Present: Bohdy Hedgcock (Landmarks) - Meeting Facilitator Molly Winter (DMC) Ellen Cunningham (DMC) Meeting Purpose The group agreed on the following expected outcomes of the meeting: ^ An introduction to the Downtown Guidelines and review process for new LPAB and DMC members ~ A review of the roles and review processes for each board as defined by the Boulder Revised Code and the Downtown Guidelines ^ A discussion of downtown projects to identify what has worked well and what hasn't • Suggestions for potential changes to the process and/or guidelines in order to meet the goals of the review process • A clear understanding of "next steps" and responsibi[ities for making any improvements ~ identif:ed Design Review Goals The group agreed on the following goals for the design review process in the downtown: ^ Balance the property owner's interest in developing their property with the community's interest in protecting the character of downtown ^ Assure conformance of all projects with chazacter and scale of downtown ^ Allow for efficiendprompt review of applications through a defined and transpazent process ^ Provide opportunity for public comment on projects that could have a significant impact upon or potential detriment to the area ^ Provide for consistency in review for all applicants through reliance on t6e Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (added at meetin~ The group agreed on the following recommendations for changes to the cunent review process. None of these changes require code amendments. 1. Significant modi~cations to non-contributing buildings should be routed to DDAB for formal review at their monthly meeting. Dealing with new and non-contributing buildings is very difficult and demands a somewhat different approach and skill set than dealing with contributing/historic buildings. While Landmarks will remain the approving body, this additional step will allow DDAB to have a more formal opportunity to review plans and pmvide input. This step likely represents an increase in review time for projects, but that exVa review is warranted given the importance of Downtown and the additional expertise that DDAB can provide. The extra process is a service to developers and property owners. There is a possibility that LPAB and DDAB will have different approaches to design issues regarding those non-contributing buildings. The change in process will allow DDAB to have a more formal opportunity to provide input that can then be used by LPAB in making their final decision regarding the appropriateness of any design. The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines are the standard farjudging all projects ~'or both boards. 2. Landmarks staff will distribute the weekly agenda for Design Review Committee meetings to any and all DMC/DDAB members interested so that they can keep track of projects going t6rough review. If you would like to receive these weekly emails please contact Bohdy Hedgcock. 3. Landmarks staff will give 10 days notice to DMC/DDAB members when t6e review of significant downtown projects is scheduled so that they may attend those Design Review Committee meetings. Currently, if applications are received by noon on Monday they can be reviewed the following Wednesday, assuming there is space on the DRC agenda. For downtown projects, Landmazks will push that review to the following Wednesday so that DMC/DDAB members may have the opportunity to adjust schedules and attend. 4. Landmarks staff wili attend DMC meetings where projects are beiog reviewed that require both LPAB and DMC approval (e.g., patio railings, awnings, etc.). This will allow both the design and tunctionality of these elements to be reviewed simultaneously, rather tLan separately. Cunently, projects are being reviewed separately, leading to some confusion for both applicants and board members. 5. Applicants will be encouraged to submit plans that depict new buildings or significantly altered buildings in the context of the block face so that t6e impact of any proposed changes can be assessed relative to the overatl context of the area. In addition to these process changes, the group also agreed that some changes to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines may be needed. The group recommended that each downtown board assign one or two members to review the guidelines and report back with any recommended changes. Finally, all agreed that cooperation between the three downtown review boards is desired and essential. The current conversation is a good starting place for renewed cooperation and improvements in the process to assure that our shared goal of pmtecting the unique character of downtown is met. ~y' l 0 ::~~. ~ ~ ~o ~„ ~ o \ ~r ~ __~? fl d j C~ ^ _._i'_~~~_-~ ~ ~ ~ \ ,~ 0