The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2 - Minutes, 12/3/03CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES December 3, 2003 Council Chambers Municipal Building 1777 Broadway 6 p.m. The followmg are the mmutes of the December 3, 2003, Crty of Boulder Landmazks Preservation Advisory Board meeting A permanant set of these mmutes and a tape recordmg (mamtamed for a per~od of l years) is retamad m Central Records (telephone• 303-441-3043). You may also listen to the mmutes v~a the Gty of Boulder webs~te at www ci boulder.co.us/plannmg/landmarks/agendas/December_3_03 htm BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Lesl~e Durgm L~sa Egger Leland Rucker Rory Salance, Cha~rperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David Gehr, City Attorney Bohdy Hedgcock, Associate Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll havmg been called, Chairperson Salance declared a quorum at 6 08 p.m and the followmg busmess was conducted 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The board approved the mmutes of the November 5, 2003 meetmg 1. REPORT ON LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION PERMITS ISSUED AND PENDING. There were no comments 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Caroi Affleck, P.O. Box 534, N~wot said an archaeolog~cal resource survey is needed for Valmont Butte She also offered a conection to the Cultural Resource Survey that the cemetery is not owned by crty or Boulder Histoncal Society In addrtion, she said Tathngs Pond should be mcluded m the historic designation of the mill site 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning a request for individual landmark status for the structure and its site at 731 Pine Street. Owners: John and Kimberly Carter Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contacts they may have had on thrs uem There were none. Motion On a motion by Leland Rucker, seconded by L~sa E~, the Landmarks Board recommended (3-0, Leslie Durem was absent) to City Counc~l that the building and its site located at 731 Pme (as shown m E~ibrt A) be designated as an mdividual landmark under the C~ty of Boulder's histonc preservation code, adoptmg the staff inemorandum detailmg the sigmficance cntena as findmgs of the board. The board recommended that the buildmgs be named the Hernck House based on the "Gu~delmes for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites" adopted as admm~stratrve regulation m 1989 Ms. Durgin arrived prior to the start of item 8 B. Public hearing and consideration of a request to grant a Landmark Alteration Certificate for rear addition and modifications to the roof for the property at 645 Concord Avenue. Owner: Michael Stack Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contact.r the~~ may have had on this ttem Rory Salance and Lisa Egger reviewed the plans at Landmarks Design Rev~ew Committee meetings. Public Hearing Carlo Perstchetti, 600 Pearl Street, architect, distnbuted mater~als dep~ctmg vanety of homes with similar roof forms He spoke m support of the proposal Staff d~stributed an e-mail to the board in support of the proposal In addinon staff recerved a phone message from another citizen also in support of the proposal Michael Stack, 645 Concord, property owner - spoke in support of the proposal Catherme Schweieer, 628 Maxwell - spoke agamst proposal. She was particularly concerned that the d~str~ct is losmg the smaller homes that charactertze ~t Tim Plass, 655 Maxwell - spoke agamst change m the roof form He was also concerned w~th the overall mass and scale of the proposal R~chard Jones, 625 Concord - spoke m support of the proposal Francesca Hantz, 645 Concord, property owner - spoke m support of the proposal Motion LesLe Durain made a morion, seconded by Rorv Salance, to deny the request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the mod~ficat~on of the roof form, as currently proposed on the front of the house, adopting the staff inemorandum as findings of the board There should be no limitation on resubmisston of a new appl~cation for th~s property, so long as it does not mclude the modification of the roof form as currently proposed The Assistant City Attorney clarified the implications of a tie vote That motion failed by a vote of 2- 2, Leslie Durein and Lisa Eeeer voted tn favor of the motion, Leland Rucker and Rorv Salance voted against the motion. On a motion by Leslie Durain, seconded by Rorv Salance, the Landmarks Preservarion Advisory Board condinonally approved (3-1, Lisa Eeeer dissenting) the request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate based upon the followmg findmgs 1 The sensrtiv~ty of the design to the character of the h~storic distnct, the quality of the design, and ~ts alleg~ance to the spu~t of historic preservat~on makes this proposal appropnate, desprte the fact that it doesn't meet the exact letter of the guidelines adopted by the Board 2. The proposed modificahon of the roof form from hipped to gabled is compatible w~th the Histor~c Preservanon Ordmance, m that ~t does not destroy a sigmficant extenor architectural feature The proposed modificat~on of the roof form from h~pped to gabled is compatible with the Historic Preservat~on Ordmance, m that rt does not adversely affect the spec~al character or special histor~cal, architectural, or aesthet~c interest or value of the ]andmark and its site or the distr~ct Approval was conditioned upon the followmg conditions. The applicant shall submrt final plans, mcludmg a site plan and all butlding elevations at one-quarter mch scale, calhng out all colors, materials, trim details, wmdow and door schedules, landscapmg, lightmg, and other details to the Landmarks des~gn review committee for final review and approval. 6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND CITY ATTORNEY Discussion Item on Potential Code Changes - summary of public comment is attached DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The meering was ad~ourned at 9 42 p m Respectfully subm~tted, He~di Straszewski LPAB Secretary Approved on January 7, 2004 Rory Salance Cha~rperson S \Plan\data\Comdev\HIST\Mmutes~2003-LPABminutes\12-03-03acnon lpabmm.doc Potential Code Changes Discussion Item Public Comment Susan Ballint • Suggested slowing rime-table down • Reqwrement for 100% support is admittedly unfeasible. Concerned, however, that number requ~red to mrtiate an apphcation needs to be defined and needs to represent a"substanrial" port~on of the neighborhood 1/3 may not be enough. (40-45-50?) Close to ma~onty • 3`d-party designation should adhere to same cntena that neighbors should have to adhere to (i.e., percentage support) • Requ~red public education important, but there should also be some requirement for affirmation of interest • Need to calculate support m a quantitative measure pnor to city funds, staff t~me, etc bemg expended. • Many ways that could be accomplished - prior to applicahon, pr~or to hearing, etc ~ Staff should not have preconceived notions about what is appropriate • Need to ~dentify distinctions between indrndual and distr~ct needs • Not essent~al to brmg all potenhal code change items to council at same time Sheila Horton, Boulder County Apartment Associarion ~ Creatmg new districts changes the rules for those property owners - therefore their mput is essenhal • Current ordtnance doesn't address challenges of large distncts ~ Need more pubhc process - more pubhc mvolvement to get mput. Work group may not be representahve of overall opmion on these issues • Outs~de organizahon should not be ~mtiatmg - only elected offiaals • Council ~s required to hold a public hearmg to imtiate - why not HB~ • How does a neighborhood decide if it wants to be a district? Undemocratic, must have opportumty to be heard Election should be held by property owners - not~ust residents - with each ]egal property receivmg a smgle vote, similar to the BID elecrions • Recommendat~on that some percentage must have significance makes sense Should be even highar than 50%. • If elections are not held and property owners are not given a right to vote you are dealmg with a takmg issue Ron Grev • Need to have a majority vote for des~gnat~ons / mittatmg applicat~ons • Need to define contributmg and contnbutmg-restorable • Histonc Boulder's role needs to be reconsidered • Education is not the answer - all the education m the world won't change Uni Hill's opin~on on the appropriateness of the origmal designation appl~cation 1an Otto • Disappomted this is movmg so qu~ckly - should slow down • Only one potent~al policy change cames a staff recommendat~on - none should at this point Inappropnate, part~culariy ser~ous act • Disagrees with assessment that consent queshon is most contentious queshon • Pnmary complamt is that c~ty was tr}nng to ram ~t down their throats, nobody asked us • Boulder ~s m the rmnonty m not requiring consent - Nat~onal Trust and State Register require consent Boulder County requires 67% • Recommendat~on that 51 % owner consent be requued pnor to apphcat~on filed - allows tssues to be resolved and addressed before considerable time and energy aze expended • Recommendahon was immediately challenged by another group member - one member presented a change, another opposed it - thaYs rt Need more discussion on this rtem • Why is staff so afraid of a basic democratic process~ Catherme Schweieer • Supports use of designat~on over owner consent by an elected body Tim Plass • Discussion of these items ~s appropnate at this hme Regardmg adrrunistrative issues. supports paint review, but staff should have large amount of lat~tude Only most egregious cases are a concern • Should full board have to review non-contributing accessory structures - who defines non- contribuhng~ • Requirement of full board hearmg exceedmg a threshold has ment, but metnc needs discussion A number could act as a disincennve to the overly large addihons • Regardmg designation proposals, definit~on of third-party orgs ~s needed, requirement of owner consent is a bad idea, severely weakening preservation efforts m Boulder - fmal power should rest with Council, owners should not have veto power Currently no requirement to consider owner consent, but tt is considered m actual dec~sions Why? IYs not ~ust the property owners who have an mterest m preservmg Boulder - they shouldn't be the only ones with a voice m the issue • Mimmum percentage for district designarion - it is poss~ble there could be less than 50% (i.e west side of 4`~ street in Mapleton~) Appropriate if it makes "orgamc" sense - i.e. oppos~te side of a street from a district BOARD COMMENTS & QUESTIONS • Board members are not pushing~ any t~meline. Take the time to do the ~ob right • Defimtely need definrtion of 3` party orgamzahons • Would the reqix~r;;d public education penod apply to applicat~ons mtt~ated by LPAB/CC~ • Issue of only bemg able to reduce s~ze of proposed boundary • Provide Board wrth figures on percentage of contributmg structures in existmg districts • Time frame ~ssues - extendmg current limits • Provide Board wrth figures on sizes of recent addrt~ons approved at full board and DRC levels - include square footage, far, percent mcreases, etc. • Two members suggested that they prefer limitmg rev~ew for non-designated demolrtions to areas identtfied as potential distncts, as opposed to changmg the threshold age However, all agree that more mformat~on is needed • Surveyed modern buildmgs should also be reviewed for demol~tion