HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.26.2006 LPAB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER
JOINT PLANNING BOARD AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY
BOARD ACTION MINUTES
October 26, 2006
Lobby, Municipal Building
1777 Broadway
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven
years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming
aud10 are also aVallable On the Web at http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Elise Jones, Chair
Simon Mole, Vice Chair
John Spitzer, left 9:00
Phil Shull, absent
Adrian Sopher
Claire L.evy
Richard Sosa
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Tim Plass, Chair
Leland Rucker, Vice Chair, left 9:00
Kirk Watson
Nancy Kornblum, left 9:10
Leonazd May
STAFF PRESENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
David Gehr, City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
Robert O. Cole, Current Planning Manager
Elaine McLaughlin, Planner
James Hewat, Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Preservation Planner
Michelle Allen, Administrative Specialist
1. CALL TO ORDER
Co-chair, E. Jones declared a quorum at 6:01 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Betty Chronic, 4705 Shawnee Pl., Boulder spoke in favor of the city adopting
conservation districts and guidelines to help prevent the unnecessary demolition of
historic resources and erosion of neighborhood character.
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1) District designation
a. Historic preservation plannin¢ obiectives
A number of issues were raised including: the inherently reactive nature of district
designation, that consideration of district designation should be limited to the
merits of the proposed distric[, and that designation of districts is often seen as a
method by which to regulate demolitions and inappropriate addi[ions to existing
buildings. The point was raised that historic districting results in the imposition of
a number of additional regulations and that steps might be taken to better inform
the public as to the benefits and responsibilities of district designation.
b. Land use implications of historic districtin¢
Several Planning Board members expressed the opinion that there are often
broader implications to historic district designation than generally acknowledged
by staff and questioned the rationale of designating small districts. Historic
district designations are similar to other forms of land-use regulation and that
consideration needs to be given to what restrictions may occur in the future as a
result of designation.
District Designation discussion summary points:
a. A healthy spectrum of concems were expressed
b. The Planning Boazd considers staff s interpretation of "land use implications"
too narrow.
c. Districts should be considered on the basis of inerit, not motivation.
d. Upfront support for district designation should be sought.
e. More flexibility might be considered in the relationship of old and new.
f. The two boazds have little knowledge of what the other does.
2) Site Review process - Planning Board and Landmarks Preservation Advisory
Board "overlap "
During the course of this discussion, both boazds acknowledged that as time goes
on, there will be an increasing number of projects requiring discretionary review
and overlap between the boards. Discretion should allow for the consideration of
all relevant issues, even those not specifically chazged to a particular board. It is a
disservice to the applicant if they get mixed messages. Messages from the two
boards to the applicant should be better coordinated.
Site Review process summary points.•
a. Staff should communicate better to identify historic resources eazly in the site
review process.
b. There are criteria in available in the site review process that allows the
planning board to consider historic preservation issues during that process.
c. The boards should work to arrive at a shared vocabulary and an understanding
of each board's role in achieving community objectives.
2
d. Staff should do a better job of keeping the Landmarks Board appraised as to
the status of discretionary review projects.
3) Preservation of resources and context - How are setting and context
addressed by landmarks and planning board? Design guidelines?
The question was posed as to whether there are other "tools" like conservation
districts available to address issues of community character outside of historic
districts.
In summary of this topic, the following points were made:
a. There aze currenUy not enough regulatory tools by which to protect
community character.
b. The Landmazks Board is in an uncomfortable position at times with the
demolition review process being seen as a means to preserve community
chazacter.
c. It is not the role of the Landmazks Board to consider the issue of community
character outside of designated historic districts.
4) Landmarks representative at Planning Board
It was agreed that the boazds would not ask City Council pernussion for the
appointment of an ex-officio member of the Landmarks Board to the Planning
Board. However, it was decided that a Landmarks Board member should make
comments to the Planning Board on issues of concern during scheduled meetings,
and that these comments will be sepazate from public comment to allow for
adequate time. Staff indicated it will do a better job of providing updates to the
Landmazks Boazd as to the status of discretionary review applications where there
are identified historic resources.
5) Annualized Landmarks/Planning Board Joint Meeting
Both Boazds agreed that the meeting was useful and should be annualized.
The joint meeting adjourned at 9:22 pm and Landmazks Boazd members left.
4. MATTERS
5. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjoumed the meeting at 9:35 pm
APPROVFyJ1BY
l/
Board Chai
ofi
DATE