HomeMy WebLinkAbout9 - Follow-up on general code and process improvements, preservation issues related to University HiMemo to the Landmarks Preservatlon Advisory Board
Update Item: General code and process improvements, Uni HIII follow-up
MEMORANDUM
Apri12, 2003
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning
Neil Holthouser, Historic Preservation Planner
Bohdy Hedgcock, Planning Associate
SUBJECT: Follow-up on general wde and process improvements, preservation issues related to
University Hill.
At its March 5~' meeting, the Landmarks Board held a discussion about preservation issues related
to University Hill and general improvements to the Historic Preservation program, including
potential changes to the Historic Preservation Code. The Board agreed that it would focus primarily
on general preservation code and process improvements invoiving a broad stakeholder group. The
Board also agreed to additional follow-up with the University Hill neighborhood to address
outstanding concerns. The following is a suirunary of stafPs recommended "next steps," as
presented to the Board at its March 5'~ meeting:
With respect to GENERAL CODE CHANGES, the historic designation process is the primary concern.
Staff has suggested the following process for reviewing that issue:
a) The Landmarks Board should provide initial input on the issues at its April 2ntl meeting.
b) Form a stakeholder group, including representatives of the following interesta: existing historic
districts, potential historic districts (including Uni Hill), Landmarks Board, third-party historic
groups (e.g., Historic Boulder), and the ciry attorney's office. The group will work with city
preservation staff to identify issues and recommend changes to the Landmarks Board. The group
should begin meeting in April.
c) Tentatively schedule a review of staff and stakeholder group recommendations for consideration
at the June Landmarks Board meeting. ,
Follow-up with the UNIVERSITY HILL neighborhood is needed to answer questions raised by the
designation effort and to assess any future role for the city in fssues related to neighborhood character.
Staff expects to schedule a follow-up neighborhood meeting to:
• Identify issues related to the loss of neighborhood character
• Review the historic resources in the neighborhood ~
• Discuss alternative approaches to neighborhood character preservation
• Solicit Input regarding improvements to the hfstoric preservation program and next steps
As part of the March 5~' discussion, staff provided the Board with a summary of quesrions and
responses from the January 25'~ neighborhood meeting, jointly sponsored by the city and the
University Hill Neighborhood Association. The questions and responses have since been
distributed to all who participated in the January 25~' meeting, and have also been made available
Memo to the Landmarks Preservatlon Advisory Board
Update Item: General code and process Improvements, Unl HIII follow-up
on the city's website. Staff has received additional comments in response to the January 25`h
summary; additional comments are attached to this memorandum as Attachment A.
At this time, staff requests input from the Board as to the issues that should be considered in a
review of the Historic Preservation Code relative to the historic district designation process.
Staff will use the Board's input as a basis for a stakeholder group discussion, as described above.
Staff encourages the Board to consider the following:
~ ~
Iss es: ~~` \ ~\u
• The ability of a third party to initiate designation; ~~\ ~~
• The fact that a district may be designated without property owners' consent; ~~
• The fact that Landmarks approval is required for all exterior alterarions while an application
for district designation is still pending; and
• The process for determining district boundaries.
Potential direction for code chanees:
~
• Differentiate between designation of districts and individual landmazks. Certain procedures ~
and timelines may work best for individuallandmark designation, but may not work for large ~~~ ~
districts.
• Require notification and public ouueach prior to iniriafion of district designation by a third ~~~
~ ~
P~Y ~~ ~
• Eliminate or limit the ability of a third-party organization to initiate designation without
property owner consent. ~
• Revise the timelines in the code to afford more time for outreach and public participation
once an application for district designation has been received.
ATTACHMENTS: ~~
Attachment A: Summary of comments from University Hill neighbors since Mazch 5~' LPA$ ,~
meeting ~
i
2
ATTACHMENT A
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
TO: Neil Holthouser, Preservation Planner
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, City of Boulder
FROM: Jan Otto
Subject: NEXT STEPS (Memorandum from Neil Holthouser, dated March 10, 2003
regarding proposed Uni Hill Historic District)
SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT STEPS - COMMENTS
1. DESIGNATION PROCESS
a) What useful purpose will be served by having "The Landmarks Board..: provide
initial input on the issues at its Apri12"a meeting" ?
The issues have not been defined. It is premature to have the LPAB spend an
entire meeting considering issues, when no issues have been clearly articulated.
b) Form a stakeholder group, including representatives of the following interests: existing
historic districts, potentiai historic districts (including Uni Hill), Landmarks Board, third-party
historic groups (e.g., Historic Boulder), and the city attorney's office. The group will work with
city preservation staff to identify issues and recommend changes to the Landmarks Board. The
group should begin meeting in April.
It seems to me that this should be the first step in addressing the flaws in
the current designation process.
Both the LPAB and the staff seem to fail to recognize that the Uni Hill
debacle occurred primarily because neither the Board nor the staff communicated
with the residents and property owners of the proposed district.
Yet these suggested "Next steps" go pounding down the same old trail.
Form the stakeholder group first. Then, do not have the stakeholders
meeting with the staff and city attorney's office. Do not have the staff make the
recommendations to the LPAB.
The LPAB needs to acknowledge, if they are serious about avoiding another
Uni Hill debacle, that the Board needs to listen, really listen, to the stakeholders.
The Board needs to solicit information directly from the stakeholders, and avoid
having it filtered through the staff and city attorney's office.
2
The Board and staff do not seem to be aware of the tremendous level of
distrust which currently exists. Uni Hill is not opposed to historic preservation, yet.
But there is a deep reservoir of suspicion and mistrust, generated by the events
since October 14. There is a general perception that the Board is just looking for
another opportunity to bring back the designation of Uni Hill as an Historic District,
and that there is an active agenda within the staff to promote that process.
Until the Board, and staff, addresses that mistrust and suspicion, the current
hostility on Uni Hill will continue. The proposal to have the Board "provide initial
inpuY' at its April 2nd meeting merely continues the same tired "top down", "we
know best" attitudes that led to the Uni Hill outburst in the beginning,
The LPAB members need to admit that they cannot continue to do business
as usual. Uni Hill has spoken, loud and clear, that they want a process that is open
and democratic, when it comes to..possible designation of Uni Hill or any other
Historic District in the City of Boulder.
c) Tentatively schedule a review of staff and stakeholder group recommendations for
consideration at the June Landmarks Board meeting.
"Consideration" is not what is required. What Uni Hill requires from both the
LPAB, and from the staff, is a commitment to change Chapter 10-13, B.R.C. 1981
to reflect a more democratic and open process for both designation and design
review.
Ch. 10-13 is almost thirty years old. It is clearly out-dated in its approach to
historic preservation. It must be changed.
Uni Hill is not looking for a band-aid. Ch. 10-13, at this point, requires radical
surgery. It requires complete reconsideration.
If the Board, and the staff, are not willing to commit to that process, then
history will most assuredly repeat itself.
2. FOLLOWUP WITH THE UNI HILL NEIGHBORHOOD
Uni Hill has spoken. We spoke loud and clear on December 4, 2002, in our
opposition to designation. The Board chose to ignore us, and even to ignore its
own laws, and allowed the application to be withdrawn.
Uni Hill spoke loud and clear on December 17, 2002, when Dan Corson tried
to do an end run around Ch. 10-13 by invoking a spurious "emergency".
Uni Hill spoke loud and clear on January 7, 2003, when Dan Corson tried to
extend the "emergency" to June of 2003.
3
And Uni Hill spoke loud and clear on January 25, 2003, when an overflow
crowd attended the information session, sponsored by UHNA and the city.
The message has been clear and consistent every time, for those who have
the ears to hear. Uni Hill is not opposed to historic preservation. Uni Hill is opposed
to having a process that tries to cram something down our throats, without our
approval or consent.
Uni Hill does not require any more follow-up. The message will not change.
The time has come to change Chapter 10-13. There is no point in wasting
further time and effort trying to figure out what needs to happen.
I urge the Board and the sta#f to focus on how to achieve meaningful change
to Ch. 10-13, as soon as possible. And I urge the Board to form a stakeholder
group to determine what those changes need to be. But most importantly, I urge
the Board to change its ways, and actually pay attention to what the stakeholders
are saying.
Jan Otto
960 Lincoln Place
Boulder CO 80302
jcotto@mindspring.com
303 443-9655
4
7. DESIGNATION PROCESS - COMMENTS
The current process for designating either a Landmark Site (individual
property) or an Historic District (multiple sites, either contiguous or non-
contiguousl, as spelled out in Ch. 10-13, B.R.C 1981, is fairly well summarized in
the memorandum:
The general process for the designation of an historic district begins with an application for designa6on from a property
owner, City Council, the Landmazks Preservation Advisory Board, or an organization with a recognized interest in historic
preservation. The Planning Departrnent then researches the historical and architectural significance of the property or area
and prepazes a summary report for review by the Iandmazks Boazd. The research is presented at a public hearing held by
the Boud. The Boazd may approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the proposal. The Boazd bases its
recommendation on public comment and whether the property meets the pu~poses and standards of the historic
preservation code. If the Landmazks Boazd recommends approval, its recommendation and a draft ordinance are
fonvarded to the City Council. Council also conducts a public hearing on proposed designafions and has final approval
action on the proposal. If approved by Council, the ordinance becomes effective thirty days after Council's approval. A
copy is placed in the Boulder County real estate racords, so future owners aze awaze of the designation.
a) There are no sanctions for ignoring the law
With regard to the proposed designation of Uni Hill, which began on October
14, 2002 with the submission of an application by Historic Boulder, Inc., the LPAB
ignored the existing process when it allowed Historic Boulder, Inc. to withdraw its
application on December 4, just before the scheduled public hearing.
This was a serious error, and raises some interesting legal questions. There is
no provision for the withdrawal of an application, once it has been properly submitted.
The LPAB, by law, has only three options: "approve, approve with modifications or
disapprove the proposal."
Under the current law, the LPAB does not have the option to allow the
withdrawal of the application. On December 4, it should have gone ahead with the
public hearing, as scheduled. As the weight of public comment was overwhelmingly
negative, the LPAB most likely should have disapproved the application, and
forwarded it to the City Council with that recommendation.
Instead, the LPAB chose to ignore the law.
This points out one flaw in the current process. There are no sanctions, or
penalties, for the LPAB for ignoring the law.
b) There are no provisions for withdrawing an application, once submitted.
If withdrawal of a submitted application is desirable, in the future, then the
designation process should be modified to permit that, by law. If it is not desirable,
then it should be explicitly, rather than implicitly prohibited, as is the current case.
5
c) The current process does not allow for public input prior to submitting an
application.
Again, from the memorandum:
Aistonc Boulde~'s application generated a considerable amount of ques[ioas and controveisy within the Univecsity Hill
neighborhood. At the request of the University Hill Neighborhood Association (UI~IA), Histonc Boulder withdrew the
application to allow time for education and outreach. An infomiational meeting, jointly sponsored by the city and L1I INA,
was held in Januazy to present infonnarion about historic district designation and desi~t review, discuss pms and cons of
district designadon, and solicit neighborhood wmment Representatives oFLIIINA selected the meeting locauon. Interest in
the issue and tumout was simply much lazger than anticipated. Any fuhue meetings will be held in larger venues.
While there is no focmal mechanism required for gauging owner support in the designation process, such as a public vote,
property owner support is certainly one factor considered by the Landmarks Board and Ciry Council in making designation
decisions. These individual issues and concems are considered along with lazger public benefit issues.
The city says it has done at least four surveys of the Uni Hill area. (TheUniversiry
Hill area was surveyed in 1990-1992, 1994, 1998 and 2001-2002.)
Unfortunately, none of these surveys made any attempt to contact the owners
or residents. No attempt was made to gauge the depth of support for or opposition to
an Historic District by residents and property owners. The City quotes a cost of
536,457 for the 2001-2002 survey. Adjusting for 2001 dollars, this seems to imply
that at least 5145,000 was spent between 1990 and 2002 for surveys. And to what
end?
In addition, the application submitted by Historic Boulder, Inc., and the resulting
storm of opposition resulted in untold hours of staff time dealing with the sheer
volume of requests for information, compilation of responses, and preparation of
additional reports for the LPAB.
The memorandum states, "property owner support is certainly one factor wnsidered by
the Landmarks Boazd and City Council in making designation decisions." The result of the Uni Hill
application demonstrates the significant costs associated with excluding this support
from consideration prior to submitting an application.
The current process has the cart before the horse. An application should not be
submitted until the property owners have be thoroughly canvassed to assess the degree
of their support.
d) Role of third-party groups in the designation process.
The memorandum notes:
One immediate outcome of the University Hill designarion process has been a call for reviewing and
potentially amending the historic preservarion ordinance. Of particular interest is the ability of third-
parly groups, such as Historic Boulder, to initiate the designarion process.
6
A proposal to eliminate third-party groups sounds suspiciously like "kill the
messenger." In fact, if anyone is at fault in the Uni Hill debacle, it is the LPAB, for
ignoring the current law, and City Council, for attempting, on Dec. 17, 2002, and
January 7, 2003, to do an end run around the current law, first, by allowing the
withdrawal of a properly submitted application, and second, by proposing "emergency
legislation" where no emergency existed. Historic Boulder, Inc., at the very minimum,
did follow the law in submitting their application. The ensuring uproar only
demonstrated that the current designation process is seriously flawed. But the flaw
has nothing to do with third-party applications, and everything to do with omitting
some mechanism for gauging public support prior to submission of an application.
7
2. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS -COMMENTS
a) The current ordinance is qualitative, rather than quantitative.
Standards are subjective and qualitative, rather than quantitative, and are
therefore wide open to individual variations in interpretation at both the staff and LPAB
review levels. The current ordinance is structurally flawed, in that it permits and even
encourages this variation in interpretation.
The major structural fiaw in the current ordinance is that it is of the "enabling
legislation" type. Rather than face the difficult task of writing quantitative standards,
City Council took the easy way out and passed the task to the City Manager:
10-13-13 Landmazk Alterntion Certificate Application.
An owner of proper[y designated as a landmazk or located in an historic district or a proposed landmark or located in a
proposed 1»storic district may apply to the city manager for a landmazk alteration certificate, on fomis prescnbed by tlie
manager and including all infonnadon that the manager and the landmazks boazd deteRnine is necessary to consider the
application, including, withou[ limitarion, plans and specifications showing [he proposed ex[erior appearance, witli coloy
texture, materials, and azchitectural design and detail, and the names and address of the abutting propecry owners.
b) Applicants for an LAC face uncertain, often arbitrary, review standards.
This is built in to the structure of the ordinance. There is no quantitative
standard delineating what is to be reviewed at the staff level, and what must be
passed along for LPAB review. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that property
owners have been advised to wait until the membership of the LPAB has changed,
before submitting their request for an LAC.
The current ordinance states:
10-13-14 Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(a) The city manager and two designated members of the landmazks board shall review all applications for landmazk
alteration certificates for alterations to buildings or special features and detennine within fourteen days after a complete
application is filed whether or not the proposed work would have a significant impact upon or be potentially detrimental to
a landmazk site or historic district. 1
( I) If they deteanine that there would ~o significan[ impact or potential detriment, the manager shall issue a
certificate to the applicant and shall notify the city council and the applicant of such issuance.
(2) The above notwithstanding, the manager may review without the two landmazks boazd designees any
application that seeks only approval of certain common types of alterauons that haue been identified by the board
through a regularion as being very familiar to the manager; and, iF the manager detennines that there would be no
significant impact or potenfial detriment from the alteration, then the manager shall issue a certificate to the
applicant and shall no6fy the ciry council and the applicant of such issuance.
8
(3) If either the manager or one of the landmazks boazd designees detetmines that the proposed work would
create a significant impact or potential detriment, they shall refer the applicaGon to the landmazks boazd for a
public hearing and shall promptly notify the applicant of the refeaal.
b) The landmarks board shall hold a public hearing on all applications for landmazk alteration certificates for new
conshuction, removal, or demolition of a designated landmazk strucNre or a suuchue within a Mstoric district, except that
an applicalion for cons Wction of a one-story above grade accessory building or structure with a total floor azea of 340
squaze feet or less may be approved by the manager and two landmarks board designees without a public heari~g.
Notice that there are no standards spelled out, or referenced, anywhere in this
process (with the exception of the 340 sq. ft. standard for accessory buildings). All
decisions are left solely to the city manager and/or the LPAB.
If the City Manager decides that a public hearing before the full LPAB is
required, then the following standards are invoked:
10-13-18 Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications.~
(a) The landmazks boazd and the city council shall not approve an applicaHon for a landmazk alteration certificate unless
each such agency finds that the proposed work is consistent with the pu~poses of [his chapter.
(b) Neither the landmazks boazd nor the city council shall approve a landmazk alterarion certificate unless it meets the
following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior azchitectural
features of the landmazk or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special histoncal, azchiteotural, or
aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The azchitectural style, amangement, texture, color, anangement of color, and materials used on existing and
proposed stcuctures are compa[ible with the cha~acter of the existing landmazk and its site or die historic district;
and
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the proposed new construction to
replace the building meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmazk alteration certificate, the landmarks boazd shall consider the economic
feasibility of alternatives, inco~poration of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
~See, South of Second Associates v. Georgetown, 196 Colo. 89, 580 P. 2d 807 (1978).
Note that, once again, there are 1absolutely no quantitative standards.
Qualitative measures such as "architectural features", "special character", and
"compatible" leave the door wide open to arbitrary interpretation.
9
c) The current design review process adds extra time and cost burdens to all property
owners, as well as additional costs for city staff.
The memorandum states:
The LAC process allows a variety of minor alterations to be approved at the staff level, often in a
single day.
This is misleading, at best. It may be true that some applications for an LAC,
once they reach the staff desks, may be approved in a single day. However, the LAC
application form requires information which would be exceeding difficult to compile in
one day. (See: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildingservices/apps/HistPresapps/lacapp.pdf). JUSt 8
sample, from the LAC application form:
The followine documentation is reauired for final review and anproval:
^ Scaled site plans
O Elevations (usually '/<"=1' scale)
^ Materials (bricWstone samples)
^ Colors (painUstain clup)
^ Photographs (phoros of existing building all sides and surrounding context)
^ Manufacturer's/catalogue "teaz" sheet
^ For fences, please bring drawings to scale showing dunensions, including spacing behveen rails
Does anyone believe that an ordinary homeowner, faced with the demand for
this level of detailed information, can compile all of this in less than one day?
And does anyone believe than an ordinary homeowner, faced with the demand
for this level of detail, can compile it in less than one day without any professional
help?
Requiring this level of detail adds a significant financial burden to the home
owner contemplating changes to his or her property. With regard to Uni Hill, many of
the current owners are elderly, living on fixed incomes. While these costs may not
seem significant to Board members, there are indeed significant to these property
owners.
In addition, many of the properties in the proposed district are rental properties.
Why would a rental property owner consider any renovations, faced with higher cos#s
for which there is no discernible economic return? In such cases, the rational
economic decision is to maintain the property at the lowest possible level consistent
with current ordinances. The net effect is to lead to an overall decline in the
neighborhood, as buildings age.
10
In addition, each new Historic District, in addition to the time consumed in the
designation process, requires significant new staff resources for the city. The
memorandum says:
The historic preservation program is currently staffed with 1.5 FTE (fuil-time employee) planners
and 0.5 FTE administrative help. The program's 2002 budget for operating expenses (both personnel
and non-personne]) was $130,600... ,
Based on current practices, it is estimated that an addi6onal 1 FTE (planner) and 0.5 FTE
(administrative) would be required to effectively handle the increased workload associated with
University Hill designation.
By extrapolation, the proposed Uni Hill District will require an additional
5100,000 per year. It is not clear whether or not the recent expansion to the
Mapleton Hill Historic District is included in the 5130,600 figure; but what is clear is
that any expansion of the city's historic districts, under the current design review
process, requires significant, and costly, staff support.
It makes more sense to revise the current design review process, with an eye
toward making more efficient use of existing staff.
d) The definition of "alteration" is far too broad.
"Alteration" is defined as:
10-13-2 Defmitions.
The following terms used in this chapter have the following meanings unless the content cleazly indicates otherwise:
"Alteration" means any addiNon or modificarion of any portion of the exterior of a building or designated feature that
changes the architectural sryle, anangement, texture, or material of the building or feature or significan8y changes the
color, if such change, addirion, or modification is visible from the public street, sidewalk, alley, or park.
Under this definition, a property owner would require an LAC to change a
doorknob on the front door. Or to obtain an LAC to raise and lower sunscreens, blinds
or awnings on a front porch. Or to obtain an LAC to erect a temporary trellis for
climbing roses or vines in the summer.,A summer birdbath or birdhouse would require
an LAC. A winter bird feeder would require an LAC. Any structural item that changes
with the seasons could be interpreted as an "alteration", under this detinition. (Read
the definition again. It says: "Alteration" means any addition or modification of any portion..."
(emphasis added-.)
If the intent of the ordinance is not to regulate these minor alterations, then it
should say so. "Architectural style" is too vague, and too open to individual
interpretation. The area that is lef.t open to interpretation by the City Manager, the
Historic Preservation staff, and/or the Landmarks Board is far too broad.
11
And why should any homeowner be prohibited from changing the color of his or
her house? Look at San Francisco's multi-hued homes. Are they unattractive?
The definition of "alteration" needs to be narrower, and needs to specify only
those items such as, perhaps, door and window size, gross features such as porches
and roofs, which are subject to the requirement for regulation.,Otherwise, with such a
broad reach, the definition of "alteration" becomes almost ridiculous, and certainly
opens the door to legal challenges.
; Sareh Myers - Unwersity Hill Hisforic District ProposalF, ' Page 1;
From: <Fap464@ao~.com>
To: <HolthouserN@ci.boulder.co.us>, <rsalance@Yahoo.com>,
<lesliedurgan@earthlink.net>, <le@lisaegger.com>, <KDStutsman@aol.com>, <IruckerQ@earthlink.net>
Date: 3/20/03 8:42PM
Subject: University Hill Historic District Proposal
Now that the dust has settled, several things are clear: Most residents do
not want the proposal and are upset by the means with which it was put
forward.
I would suggest the following:
1. Work on a revision of the land use regulations, city wide, to address the
ratio of structure size to lot size. This is a problem and if addressed
would solve much of the "neighborhood character" question.
2. Never again allow a private group to push forward a proposal without
support of the residents involved. The "we know whaYs best for you"
attitude will not fly. Much of the confusion and ill will could have been
avoided if this had been done. '
3.The resulting use of staff time and resources on an unpopular and
unnecessary
proposal is totally unjustified, especiaily with the current budget
constraints. Ciry funds should not be used unless there is broad neighborhood
support for such a proposal.
I love old Boulder. Otherwise, I would not have lived on the hill for over 32
years. I believe in preserving our heritage. University Hill is unique and
diverse and will continue to be so without benefit of this proposal. Perhaps
we need to redefine the word "Historic". This episode has left feelings of
mistrust and has had a destablizing effect on our neighborhood. Let's learn
from this.
Inspite of it all, thanks to all of you who have tried to bring order out of
chaos.
Faith Peterson
763 16th St
Boulder. CO 80302
..... . ..
, Sa~reh Myers -_Comments on Uni Hill ~~ ~~~ Page 1'
From: Sarah Myers
To: Holthouser, Neil
Date: 3/20/03 9:55AM
Subject: Comments on Uni Hill
As I told you, I got a call from Joe Stepanek of 720 11th St. about Uni Hill on Monday. To sum up his
comments:
- he really likes the Denver plan for pop-ups
- he is supportive of stronger codes and more preservation on the hill
- it seems that only about 1% of citizens have generated ill-will against the city, and want code changes
(related to all issues, notjust uni hill)
- a questionnaire to the neighborhood is a good idea, but how to word it is very difficult
- the energy for preservation has moved out of Boulder, sadly. He thinks it will take a lot of work to bring it
back.
- He offered his time and money if we need help
303-544-0881.
Letter Concerning Uni Hill
I appreciate the efforts of the Historic Preservation staff to address
residents' concerns.
However, I am not satisfied by the written responses, and I believe that
important questions have still not been answered. The most pressing of these
is the question of why this is a priority issue for the Hill, in the face of
other problems and a serious shortfall in the City's budget this year. I do
not see a clear and convincing justification for allocating money and
resources to this program. Uni Hill may be a"unique area of national
significance," but that does not explain why a Historic District designation
is required, or why existing city regulations are inadequate.
I discussed this issue of historic districting with a national expert in
historic preservation, Professor Martin Weaver of Columbia University in New
York (who is my father). He is the Director of the Center for Preservation
Research at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation.
Professor Weaver has had considerable experience with this issue in
communities across the U.S., which have sought the designation for reasons
apparently similar to those driving the Uni Hill proposal (primary
over-development concerns). He said that the designation itself is rarely
effective in achieving long-term historic preservation objectives, since
without a well-developed infrastructure and resources for historic
preservation in the community as a whole, the designation results in
logistical problems and increased expense for homeowners, and a
significantly increased workload for the community's planning staf£ In
summary, he said that the historic district designation is unlikely to
provide significant benefits to the residents of Uni Hill, and would not
recommend that we as residents support the proposal. He also noted that he
would be willing to communicate with the Boulder city staff, explain this
viewpoint, and provide additional information.
I do not support the Historic District proposal, and urge the staff inembers
concemed to completely justify their actions to Uni Hill residents before
committing additional time and resources to this issue.
Yours truly, ~ .
Alex Weaver
976 IOth St.
Boulder, CO 80302
303-444-0958
Landmarks Board;
I oppose historic designation of the entire university hill area and
would like to voice my concerns.
My first concern is that my house was built in 1991, just over a
decade ago, and has absolutely no historic value.
My second concern is the short-sidedness of this designation in an
area where many of the neighboring properties are rentals (which are
businesses). If the process of upgrading these homes becomes
more cumbersome than it already is today, many of the business
owners may choose not upgrade these homes due to the extra cost
of time and money which would leave the neighborhood looking more
"run down" rather than "historic."
My third concern is for the rights of property owners. I respect the
idea of preservation, however, that choice should be up to the
property owner; not some governing body with a controlling interest in
the "look and feel" of a property when that governing body doesn't
have any sweat equity or ownership in the property.
I believe that a better solution to preserving the history of the hill, and
at the same time appeasing all residents, would be to allow property
owners the choice whether to designate their home as historic.
Respectfully,
Marc deLorimier
918 University Ave.
Boulder, CO 80302
303-888-5144
03/05I2003 12:03 3034447661 KARL ANUTA PAGE 01
~w oFFlCes oF
KARL R ANUTA
POST OFF/~ gpX SIX71
1720 l6TH $YREET
80ULbER, COLOlfADO 8W06
(303~ 9aa•7660
March 5, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE 303-441-A070
I.andmarks Prescrvation Advisory Board
City of Boulder
P.O. 791
Boulder, Colorado 80306
Re: .Amendmemt of Ordinance: Initiation/Owner's Consent
Dear Board Members:
I write as a 10-year veteran of your Board and a 9-year veteran of the Boulder
County Historic Preservation Advisory Board. I served as chair of both the Gity and the
County Boards during my tenures. T also speak as an individual and as an attorne~
involved both personally and professionally in histoxic preservation for over 30 years.
In such capacity I urge you ~ to modify the Historic Preservation Ordinance in
respect of who may inidate designation (Boulder City Code 10-13-4) or by adding a
requirement that the owner of the property consent to ttae designation.
Boulder's ordinance is not unique. Indeed it is patterncd, originally, after the
ordinance in the City of New York sustained in the penn Central case by the United
States Supreme Court. The ability of elected representatives, such as our City Council,
to preserve historic buildings or sites, whether individually or in a group as a district, is
long established in American jurisprude{~ce. There are valid reasons for granting this
authority to our elected representatives. ,
The designation of property without specific consent of the owner is rare. During
my 10-year tenure on the youz Board only once did we come close to designation of a
property without the consent of the owner: The Arnett-Pullen House now owned by
Historic Boulder. Ultinnately, by the time tkxe matter became before the City Council,
the owner granted ~is consent. I believe that the number of instances where the power
has been exercised since that date; without consent of the owner, can be counted on the
fingers of ane, hand.
03/05/2003 12:83 3034447661 KARL ANUTA PAGE 02
I.andmarks Preservadon Advisory Board
March S, 2003
Page 2
But even if rare, it is still of concem to many who are unfamiliar with the
circumstances. There are times when our elected representatives must simply state that
it is for the benefit of the community as a whole that certain actions be taken.
Sometimcs these actions affect real property, In aur form of government it is necessary
that there be a body wkuch has the duty to take inW account all the circumstances of. a
community. That body in our case is the City Council. If the City Council iransgressas
the law there is an appeal to the judicial system. 1'he prpperty owner is never without
the ability to be heard.
There are, however, circumstances which might require that the community as a
whole say to an individual propetty owner: "For the good of the commun.ity your
properly must be subjected to certain xules". We do this, for example, in zoning. We
do it in our solar ordinance. We do it with our height ordinance, We do it with the
ordinances which prohibit certain accivities in residendal neighborhoods or near
schools. Historic designation is vcry similar.
If there is a concern that the City is ovec reaching in attempting to control
matters outside of the purview of the historic preservadon ordinance, those concerns
shauld be addressed by youx Board, by the City Council, and ultimately by the couzts.
Stated another way, there is adequate and suffcient protection for reai property
rights built into our existing City ordinance.
As I noted in the beginning paragraph, I also served on the Caunty board. The
County ordinance requires that the landowner consent before any action is taken with
respect to his or her propecty, That consent provision croates nothing more than a delay
since frequently the landowner who has important structures merely waits out the
period during which no action can be taken and then applies for a building or
demolition percnit, The County ordinance is, thereby, weakened substantially in
comparison to the Ciry of Boulder ordinance. And the County has very littie power to
negotiate a compromise resolution. '
Under the circumstances extant in the County this is not inappropriate. There is a
different attitude toward presezvation. There are substantaally different circumstances.
In the City there is an elected City Council which, in essence, may change every two
years. The political forces which play upon those Council members, and their
decisions, are much more direct and democrape. In the County, however, there are
oniy three Commissioners and it often takes a minimum of 4 years (or more) before a
03/05/2003 12:03 3034447661 KARL ANUTA PAGE 03
Landmarks Preservadon Advisory Board
March S, 2003
Page 3
change can be made. Because of the political circumstaaces, change (especially in
Boulder County) is rarely made. Stated another way, our City Council is much more
responsive to the voter's concerns; the County Commissionera are not so responsive.
Shwld an enor occur, therefore, the political proeess within the Ciry is much more
amenable to correckian.
T'he sama political factors apply with equal force iQ xegard to Section 10-13-4
which allows organizations with a"recogzuzed interest" to initiatc designation. If only
the owner or the City, accing through your Board, were allowed to initiate a desiguation
politics anct pezsonalicies would intervene. Independent efforts are often needad to begin
a movement. 'The Central Park Bandshell, for example, would not bavc received
protection but for this section of the ordinance. Again, substankial due process and
property rights protections are built in to the ordi~wce.
The University Hill circumstances are illustrative of why no change is needed.
Protest and objection by the persons affected as well as by other persons within the
cozz~muniry at large caused the itutiating entity to wichdraw; but had thcy not, there
were still two more public hearings (at a minimum) before your Board and the Council.
Apd quite gossibly a challenge in the judicial system.
Our political system wxth the frequent public participadon and the checks and
balances works well. Insertion of an "owner veto" prevents such public involvcmcnt
and destroys the system.
I strongty xecommend that you make no change. Thtce may be room for
compromise in respect of some of the limitations applieable after application and before
designaaon. I do not think thcre is room fox coxnpromise on the quesdon of the owner's
consent or in respect of the ability of recognized preserva[ion organizations to initiate
designation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours tntly,
~
ar~ u
KFA:cam
PN~ab IG ~M OC Ti
MAR-21-03 03:20 PM D.A.HROWN.A.I.F ~b3 wwc 7~i7 r ~1
i
David A. Brown
Architecture Planning Design LLC
906 Nlnth Street . Boulder . C;olorado 80302
21 Mazch 2p03
Neil Holtheuser
c% City of Boulder
Planni~g and Development Sernces via FAX: 441.3241
Re: Universfty Hdi Neighborhoed hiistoric District / Issues
Neil:
Presented herein are my comments / concerns regarding the ongoing study of
the pot?ntial Historic District.
1: 1 helieve it is Gnperative thai a procPss is developed to initiate applications that
guarantees the involvement of a signiticant majority of the owners ot the aHected
properties. A part ot this prxess shou!d be a" petidon" requirement, similar to
that required for application to the Transportalion Mitigation and Neighborhood
Parking Permit Programs, that would require a"super-majority" [ 2J31 of the
affected owners signatures. This would mek.e it imperative upon those wishing to
applY 1or such designation tn involve the neighborhootl at the earliest stages ot
the proposal process.
2: I believe that ihe abi!'rty ot thir~-Fart~ groups to initiate the designation process
should be deleted trom the erdinance in question. 7hey would then be required
to work as consuhanu and valuab!e re~urces to the neighborhood groups
seeking historic siatus
3: The section oi the ordinance that requires review and approval of building
aiterations a!!er the application but pnor to the adoption ot an ordinance and the
required legal period tor it to be !n ettect should be re~clnded. The current eHect
of this policy is the imposiaen ef the repuirements ot an o!dinance without the
oQportuniry for pubUC debate. It has. in my opinion. been used i~ the past as a
"club" in the pursuit of ~+oliiical agentlas that have other issues at thair core.
4. The idea rec,~rding the crea!ien oi NeighborYwod Conservation Districts
appears to have some merit , depending on how it would be structured. I would
toresee this req~~ving a design review board similar i~ structure to that of the
Downtown Oesign Advisory Board. Deslgn review cou!d be triggered through
the same mechanism as tha~ used tc require Landmarks Board review of mayor
alterations and demolition o1 buuaings over 5A years olo Reviews would be
mandatory a~d mmpliance voluntary, zgain. like DOAB. This would also directly
address the original concern on the paR of Historic Boulder ot "...inappropnate
developm?nt / demoUt~on..," in UnrversRy Hill. It woukl foster an environment ot
303.448 1246 FAX'303 448.9319
ri~r..-zi-~3 03:21 PM L.F.HROWN.~.I.A 3~3 446 53Y9 p,b~
openness and inte.action ear!y in the da~sign deve~~pment process and albw for
creativity i~ the projacts proposed to qe debated in a more open torum.
WFiile I SuppC,Vi lhE ~?l1fpOS65 O! thg rit~rs Historir Presen~stior. O!din~nce, !
beGeve tha!, in its current configura?ion, it does not create the opportunilies
r~uired to achieve an appropna~R b~l~nce h?tw~n private Rropp!ty rights and
the larger intsrests of the city as a whe!e I think it i~ otten subverted b the
service ot other agc_ndas r~±tw~ tha~ the ptarpo~e for which it was ori~in~lly
proposed
!t is my sincss~e ty~pe thai lhe pr~~ss tha!, w= ara al! I~volve~ in will l=,.ad to a morP
refined polic~~, or ~~ o} Ppli~ies tha! wi!! not only protect the significant portions of
the hent~r±or goulcl?r, ti~r? also acrnmmociata thechangi!u~ environmen! in
whi~h all of the divergent issues ce-exist I believe that far more owners in the
Uni-Hill area h?ve been evr_.~~n+ s?ewazds o! t,~o r~ighborhqod than have not
Thank you for your attenlion
David a B~UWn
j~~rl ij I, 1 A~jt...
FAEGRE & BENSON Lr.r
1900 FIFT'EENTH STREET .j"~`, ..
BOULDER~ COLORADO 80302-5414
TELEPHONE3OJ.$46.I3O0
FACSIMILE 303.449.5426
www.faegre.com
March 13, 2003
City of Boulder
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
c/o Neil Holthouser
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
City of Boulder
Planning Board
c/o Peter Pollock
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
City of Boulder
Historic Preservation Office
c/o Neil Holthouser
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
Re: University Hill
Dear City of Boulder Officials:
I write to you on behalf of my client, James Cargill, who owns property on 16`h Street in
University Hill in Bouldet, Colorado.
As stated in our November 27, 10U2 letter to the Landmarks Board, Mr. Cargill supports
the principle of historic preservation and believes that landmarks and historic districts can be
valuable tools in maintaining a community's ties to its past. However, he feels that University
Hill as a whole is not appropriate for historic preservation.
Mr. Cargill remains opposed to any proposal to create a University Hill Historic District.
We appreciate the Landmarks Board's commitment on March 5, 2003 not to consider a historic
district proposal for University Hill in the near or even distant future. Furthermore, on the heels
of a process that left many property owners extremely upset, we appreciate the City Staff's most
recent efforts to facilitate better communication between the Landmarks and Planning Boards
and the citizens of University Hill.
Colorado Mianesota lowa London Frankfurt Shangbai
City of Boulder
March 13, 2003
Page 2
Finally, Mr. Cargill supports the City's efforts to revise the Historic Preservation
ordinance and thinks that this process should involve input and participation from members of
the community.
Thank you again for your attention in this matter, and for your decision not to proceed
with a historic district on University Hill.
Sincerely,
Christopher
cc: James R. Cargill, II
~~! ~I~/N Yf// WV.
~t
MkR o~ ~ REC'd
765 l0~' Stre~t~~y of Boulder Insp, Svcs,
Boulder, CO 80302 D3. ~~
March 17, 2003
Mr. Neil Holthouser
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
P. O. Box 791
Boulder CO 80306-0791
Deaz Neil:
I am writing out of general interest, and also in response to your letter of Mazch 10
concerning the evolution (if any) of the designation of University Hill as a historic
district. Because the issue will ultiinately come before the city council, and because
some of my comments apply directly to the council, I am sending them each a copy of
this letter. You and I have discussed historic districting briefly several times. My
position is now somewhat changed due to the impressions I have gained from meetings
and from talking to neighbors. This is addressed in the subsequent pages. You are free
to use or copy any part of this letter as you choose.
Sincerely,
John C. Price
Copy
Will Toor
Tom Eldridge /
Dan Corson
Spense Havlick
Don Mock
Lisa Morzel
Francoise Poinsatte
Gordon Riggle
Mark Ruzzin
,~
Historic Districting - Who gets to vote?
The question "Who gets to make the decision" predates human history. For the English
speaking people the general approach to this question was decided with the signing of the
Magna Carta: the people get to make the decisions. In the present instance the Boulder
City Council, a body elected by the residents, makes the decision.
Several clazifying remazks:
1) The individual living in Wisconsin who had a law firm send out a letter to hill
residents, in which he was identified only as "a property holder" in the area, has
every right to hy to influence the decision, but he has no vote, unless, of course he
changes his legal residence. I find this almost a textbook exampie of an attempt
to buy a political decision while hiding one's true motives. What interest does
such a person (landlord living in another state) have in the esthetic and historic
properties of the area? I do not know, but I certainly expect they are financial,
rather than otherwise.
2) Similazly, landlords, a very active voice in groups discussing the future of the hill,
do not have a vote unless they live within Boulder. Probably some do, and some
don't. Given the very high fraction of rental properties on the hill, I am inclined
to think that most do not live here. However they do get to vote, if they live in
Boulder. But the city resident who owns 10 rental properties gets to vote only
once, while my wife and I get two votes.
3) Student renters get to vote for City Council if they declare Boulder their legal
residence. I would not be surprised if a group of landlords solicit their renters to
do so in the next election.
I believe it is important for the city (the City Council) to recognize who should and by
law does have a legitimate voice in the affecting the outcome of the histotic
districting issue. It is the residents. Property owners don't count, unless they live in
Boulder. Wealth and property count for naught - the issue is to be determined by .
people who live here.
The next election will be interesting. My simple definition of political positions:
A liberal is a person who looks toward the future; a conservative wants his share of
the pie now. '
John Price
~l
Suggestions for historic districting on University Hill
Some months ago I spoke before the City Council, advocating acceptance of
inclusion of University Hill as a historic district. I handed out pictures of a house
under construction near us: a 3800 squaze foot three story addition to a 1260 square
foot one story home. Needless to say the new properiy is out of chazacter with the
neighborhood. My views have since changed because I recognize the viewpoint of
many of my neighbors. I have no idea whether what I have heard represents a
majority view.
1) In its present form the regulations for historic districts aze too intrusive according
to many. Who wants to request approval to paint his house? (On the other hand
look at houses on Grove just east of 15~' street to see what is possible). Why can't
I get modern windows, etc.? I have read and do not object to the regulations, but
many people do. I doubt that they have read them, but they would still object if
they did. The attitude " It is my property" is strong.
2) I see "scrapes" with extremely large houses going onto relatively small lots. The
property at 907 13~' street (I believe I have the address correct) will place a 5000
square foot house on a 6250 squaze foot lot. Most lots on the hill aze roughly this
size. One problem with scrapes and new construction is that often a number of
trees must come down. This greatly alters the chazacter of the neighborhood.
However people living in "fiinky fifties" houses, as one lady described them,
should have the right to expand vertically rather than having to fill their lot with a
one story structure. Many "popups" aze consistent with their surroundings. (Our
popup is not very pleasing, but we had few choices when we were buying a home
in Boulder).
3) I see people starting to put up six-foot fences that border the lot and come
virtually to the sidewalk in front. This destroys the residential character of the
neighborhood and creates the impression of a high security industrial zone.
I suggest two possibilities:
1) Create a greatly modified (less intrusive) set of regulations for the hill.
Requirements for review would apply to additions and scrapes, to fences, and to
properties that aze now called "contributing structures". All this would be
negotiable as to details. This would be consistent with current efforts to define
neighborhood dependent regulations. FAR would be limited, as below.
2) Alter existing zoning to reduce the maximum size (FAR) of houses, while
retaining existing regulations on setbacks, sunshine, etc. I suggest
a. FAR < 0.5 for lots less than 6500 sq. feet (3125 sq. feet for 50 x 1251ot)
b. FAR < 0.45 for lots less than 9500 squaze feet (4220 feet for 75 x 125)
c. FAR < 0.4 for lots greater than 9500 square feet. (5000 feet for 100 x
125).
I would be willing to participate in a panel on this subject.
John Price