Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Consideration of contributing restorable status for building in the Downtown Historic DistrictOctober 4`~, 2006 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: James Hewat, Chris Meschuk SUBJECT: Update Memo Historic Preservation Ordinance Changes See attached memo. Historic Preservation/Environmental Sustainability Integration Project In their review of findings from the Historic Preservation and Environmental Sustainability Integration project on July 18~', 2006, the City Council continued the public hearing to provide staff with additional time to further investigate the implications of adopting changes to the city's policy regarding the replacement of historic windows on designated buildings. In particular, the City Council requested that staff clarify what ~ impact adopting identified option B might have on the city's Certified Local Government status and modify option B accordingly. In consultation with the Colorado Historical Society, staff has been working on modifications to option B that don't rely on an elevation-based approach to assessing historic which windows might be replaced on a landmazk or contributing building. Staff will be presen[ing revised option B at the October 17`h City Council Meeting. Washington School On September 19"', the City Council voted unanimously in favour of the Wonderland proposal to redevelop the property. A covenant has been drafted between the city and Wonderland specifying the public benefits [he developer will be held to including historic landmark designation, affordable housing, and community space. 16`° Street Historic District Second reading of the historic district application wili be considered by the City Council on October 17`h. Valmont Butte Margare[ Hansen has been hired by the city's Facilities Management Department to undertake a condition assessment of the Valmont Butte Mill. Joint Landmarks/Planning Board Meeting October 26~' at 6PM in City Council Chambers. A draft agenda will be circulated for review by the Landmazks and Planning Boards in the next week. AC'ENDA ITENt k L~ ~ PAGE / ARTICLES AND INFORMATION: Pending Stay's of Demolition and cunent status. Mile High, Paul Goldberger in the New Yorker Dueling Home Outlook, Margaret Jackson in the Denver Post National Trus[ for Historic Preservation Conference October 31-November 5, 2006 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Stay of Demolition Status Summary, October 4`~, 2006 Address ~., Date of °~ Construction~ Date ':' -Staji' - tm sed ; Date of- : Ex 4ration° - t ; ., ~~'~~_ _ ~-Current Status~~~~ The applicant has submitted a building permit that does 3805 North not require a demolition Broadway c.1920 5/3/2006 10/10/2006 permit. Applicant is still unsure whether the demolition of the c.1920 house will be necessa . 563 Arapahoe 1904 5/3(2006 10(10/2006 Application withdrawn. -,i>CPJ.)A ITti41 tr?~~AGE ~_ THE SKY LINE MILE-HIGH ~lfter the World Trude Cent~r fi~ror, Daniel Liheskind rnoves on. I3Y PAUL GOLDaERGER ~niel Libesl:ind's architectural career Dhas had an unusual trajecton~. He ~vent from being a theoretician ~vho~e hi~hl~~ academic designs ~vere so ohscure that most people ~~~uldn't understand chem to heing a celebrin~ architect whose ~vork is dismissed bv mam~ of his peers as roo crowd-pleasin~. The transtorms- tion began with the ie~vish ~Iuseum in Berlin, which he de;i~ned less as a home for artifacts than as .i de-facto Holocaust memorial, using architecture to produce a sense of discomfort. The building, which opened in 2001, dretv~vell over half a mil- lion visitors a year, and Libeskind disco~•- ered the allure ofpopular accltim. l'V}~en he ~r~on the competition to design a mas- ter plan for the reconstruction of the site of the World Trade Center, in 2003, he cloaked his famili:u angular shapes in pa- triotic rhetoric. But, as reconstruction has mo~-ed fonvard, his plan has been com- promi~ed aUnost out of existence, and his continued arrempts to claim ownership of the project have sometimes made him a fi~ure of fun in the press. t1ll the buildings at Ground Zero have been assigned to other architects, and verv tew of Libes- kind's ideas will be ~nsible. In Dem~er, however, Libeskind's ideas are becoming ven• visible indeed. His ne~v building for the Dem~er Art 1~'1u- seum, which opens this fall, is his first tlmerican work to be completed. It's al- readv so popular in Denver that Libes- l:ind was invited to construct a pair of condominium buildings and a hotel next door, and to design a neighborhood plan for a"cultural district' surrounding the museum. I4Tarketed as the creations of "~vorld reno~vned architect Daniel Libes- kind"-whose face is all over the bro- chures-the apartmenu are among the highest-priced condos in town. Such suc- cess is a reminder of the fact that second- tier American cities have ofren proved more willing to take architectural risks than supposedlv sophisticated cities like New ~'ork. In giving Libeskind the freedom denied him in New ~'ork, Den- ver is taking a risk: Does Libeskind ha~~e the abiliri~ to design a building that will exert the magnetic pull of an icon and srill work well as a museum~ And can he set out a plan for an entire neighbor- hood, as he tried to do in New York% Libeskind's new Denver:~rt i~luseum is an eruption of hard-edged rhomboids that suggests gargantuan quartz cn~scals. This is a bold building, and it is neither an inaccessible theoretical work nor a brazen piece of entertainment, but some- ~vhere in benveen. The buildin~, otficiall~- called the Frederic C. Hamilton Building, is tech- nicallv an addition to an eccentric struc- ture bv Gio Ponti, an Italian architect best kno~vn for designing the Pirelli Tower, in ~Iilan. Ponti's museum is a forbidding, fortress-like block, clad in a million triangular tiles of reflective gra}~ glass, with ~vhat looks like castellation along the top. The onlv Ponti desi~n that ever got built in America, its an earlier example ot Dem~er s adventurousness, but ~vhen it opened, in 1971, not everv- one ~vas pleased: it was described as "an Italian casde wrapped in aluminum foil:' Ponti s building is an all but impossible structure to add to, so Libeskind didn't reallv tn'. Hejust did his o~vn .hing nea~t door, juxtaposing his crvstalline forms with Pond's stemlv rectilinear stvle. The two buildings are connected by~a glass- covered bridge across the street that sep- arates them. The bridge itself is some- what perfunctorv, but above it Libeskind daringlv extends one triangle of the build- ing over the road like the pro~v of a ship. An origami fold, blown up to monumen- tal scale, the prow is a powerful gesture: its point seems aimed direcdy at Ponti's building, a colossal siege engine set to storm the castle. The Libeskind addiaon is sheathed in more than nine thousand atanium panels, which are not completel~~ flat, so that as the light bounces off them the~• seem to ripple gentl~~, as if the builciiii~ ~vere co~~- ered ~vith a thin iilm of liquid. Since none ot the e~cterior walls are perpendicular to the ground and each surtace slopes at a dit~erent angle, at an~~ moment the sun strikes each of them differend~•, making some sections seem richl~~ tea~tured while others appe•u to have no te~~ture at all. ~1s a purelv sculptural feat, this build- ing is a thrillin~ .~irmation of the idea that museums can be art works as well as merelv containers. It is :ilso ~tiillful and ar- hitran~, and wildl~~ sel~=indulgent. Some people will praise Libesl:ind for creaung the most exciting place in downtown Denver since the exuberant Gilded Age atrium in the lobbv of the Brown Palace Hotel, and others ~vill denounce him for creating a building that appears to put an architect s love of cert~in shapes above arn~ commitment to the functions that a museum is supposed to serve. They will both be right. or~• do you display art in such a Hbuilding~ Not easih~, and not en- tirel~• successhill~~, but a lot better than you might expect. Like Frank Llovd Wright at the Guggenheim, Libeskind has de- signed a building that never recedes inro the baclcground but that is surprisingly svmpathetic to certain kinds of arc. His angular spaces-in which walls slope in- wud or outward, marn~ ceilings are raked, and every corner becomes a slandng line- are full of energv, tivhich may be why they work best with big contemporary works. In the largest of the temporarv exhibi- tion galleries, the architect's deterniination to ignore corn~entional nodons of rooms and galleries seems to make common cause with bold, large-scale works by artists like Damien Hirst, Matthew Richie, and Takashi 1~lurakami. Else- where, Libeskind's design makes for bi- zarre challenges: a wall that slopes away, like the side of a pyramid, has been used to display textiles-the effect is winning, if faintly reminiscent of a fashion bou- tique-and, in another gallerv, a huge striped painting by Gene Dar~s is hung from a wall that slopes the other way. The canvas dangles in space as the wall recedes behind it. But most of Libeskind's walls are empty, since there really isn't much to be done with them. The task of making sur- faces that you can actually hang paintings on has gone, instead, to D:~niel Kohl, the ,_._,.~.'~n IT'CA~1 _. ` ~ r~AC:~ _/ lus, tlm's i~lscallation designer. ~ohl has ~eated interior p:utitions that zig and zag ~ a ~ti•a~• that recalls Libeskind's angles ut ne~•er directl~• mimics them; the~~ are tcen painted in muted colors-plum, :llc~«', moss~~ green-to differentiate ler ~ from the white of Libeskind's, so ~at here is no uncert:unty about who did ha:. To the extent that Libeskind's of do~+nto«~n Dem-er. At moments like tiiis, Libes{:ind~~ as~erti~~eness comes off not as bombastic but as masterl~, and the museum com-inces ~~ou th3t complaints about form not tollo«~ng funaion are be- side the point. But for e~~en~ one of Libeskind's spaces that feel e~ultant there i~ another that is deeph~ disquieting. :~ Iam- of the first ~al- kinds cathedral. :~Imost ;~ll the internal ~t~al1, here run perpendi~uia: to tne ground, and the e~cterior has fairh~ stan- dard glass-curtain ~ti•alls, interrupted e~~en~ so often b~~ trapezoidal projections that look as if a piece of the museum had spun ofF and lodged there. Libeskind has h~ured out ho«~ to get be~~ond the stan- dud box ~ti~thout mal:ing spaces that feel ~ ulding is ~vorkable as a museum, it is ahl ~vho has made ic so. ~~ ~Iuchofthebuilding'sinteriormatches e v~sual drama of the exterior. Libes- ad'< spectacular atrium contains a char- :en, ticall~' odd ~~ersion of the tradiuonal ~nd staircase. His stairs ascend in a ~ed, irregular corkscre~i~, like some- ng out of "The Cabinet of Dr. Calig- ' This produces a sense oi ~~erti~inous rplexin~, which is accentuaced bv the z chat the wall against which the stair- t is set slopes a~va~~ lrom ~•ou. The cli- ~cric point of Libeskind's composition nes on the sculpture terraces that are ked under the prow, where the square ms of a large Donald Judd piece pla~~ ~perfectl~• against Libeskind's angles, j the architect s sloping ~valls create outdoor room that seems to engage all leries vou see are so awklcardh~ shaped that the~• leave ~•ou feeling onl~~ uneasi- ness. Does it reall~~ make :ense to have a gallen~ with a floor plan that is bent like the letter " L,° slanung walls, and a ceiling that is eight feet high at onr end and slopes sharph~ up to thim•-four feet at the other~ It s not just that it s hard to sho~v art in here; it isn't pleasant to be in a room like this when it s empn~. As for the mu- seum's celebrated collection of an from the American West, unlike the brash contemporan~ ~sorl;s that thri~~e in Libes- kind's uncom~enoonal rooms, these pieces look forlom and out of place. In the neighboring condominiums, now nearing completion, Libesl:ind has reined himself in. The buildings are long and lo~v, and are clearlv intended to defer to the museum: the cloiscers to Libes- intractable; the rooms aren't square, but let s just sa~• that ~~ou can put fumiture into them a lot more easil~~ chan ~•ou can install paintin~ in the museum across the wav. George Thom, a developer who worked wzth the museum and others to erect the condominiums, sa~~s that the units that sold most easil~~ were not the ones that offer a distant ~1e~v of the Rockies, as is usuallv the case with Denver real estate, but the ones that face the museum. It's eas~~ to see wh~-. l~1am- of these places have big windo~vs that look righc into the side of Libeskind's crvstalline shards, a mere fift~- teet awa~~. Perhaps this view is whac Libeskind had in mind all along. From there, the museum no longer feels like a piece of architecture. It is more like an enormous titanium sculpture that was created to decorate ~~our li~~ng rcwm. •~ ibeskincl's ~~ez:,~ building for the Denverh~rt Museum ~ill eventually be th~ centerpiece ofu whale district designed by him. ~ r-~-• ---- - ,., -. - r ~ . ~ ~Y ' . ~ ue 1 e 0 0 INCENTIVES OFFERED ON HUGE NEW HOUSES MARI<ET Empty mansions dot historic Hillto p Sonie se~ ~ busr, otliel a soft lanc Hc~cord im•c~~~t~~n' i jitiers, hiit iI thr 1~'• is hcalth~•. de-r~cirTC~ sta~~, murtr ec~~non By Aldo Svaldi Dertver Post StafTWrite U.S. homeo~~•ncrs ar sell .i.4z million hom~ im•enrory that coul~i F lower in cuming mont Some economists ar far as to predict ch: home values w~ill de~ ycar for thr first time ~93os. A. Gary Shilling. mist bascd in Spring: predicts home priccs : will turn ne~tative by ~ and mo~•c sharply sout Most other econom: ever, think the real esta will come in Cur a soft ; ic makcs a necessar from record-high levcl ~ ty. cushioned by stren~ cr parts of the econom "The best predictor sales and housing acti~~ gluymcnt. If the job rt main~ pretty good, th. ~nan,! F,r ~n~pcrt~• ~ complctclc a~cay,.. said n~nbaum. an economi~ "li~ ~a..i, ui Chicago. Thc National Asso cn hi~mc pricrs wil! ri> prrcent ncxt }•c~r. H~~ :c I~rn~ cr continued t~ annual pace of z.7 perc second quartcr, alth markct strugKles wit~ recurd z~.GG4 uns~~ld AuLUSt. Appreciatlon nf hnr has begun to slow t} the Front Rance. In ~'~ ly moving lowcr. '1 0.35 percent in the From Ieft. Scott Thornock and -ohn Fritzel of Paragon Real Estate and Duane Weiss af'~terling Development stand outsidr their property at tqs Fairfax St. Hiilton is 1 square mile h,,~n~~ : n Colo- ~, ie Bou~eva~ d,~nr! l+o~~ e•.. , - Li~~fi.~l 11VC';iJ" LC~ t~SI ~11'i;'E~i.l ~,Vpllllp ~t5 first resident5 drnv~d in the late 180~a, i~u! dcvelopmcnt v: i~ s~~~~v. Jus[ sr homes werr rounted ~n !f:~ 1~00 rensu• ~-! ~~: E,~ l~l: By 1~50 72~ hcme_ ~.vere ic~ '~ :~ ~i'Itcc Rea~ ~.s!atc n.vestors ciisco:~r~:;~ r~„ n,;. tur~ nCighborhuod mOre th~n a oeca~le aao. They have been uuviny ~ts smali olde~ hurTies tor the land b?neath tl~em and nave bPen rr~~~laanu them with larger new ~10111~5 So~,9~ Thotcgh scrape-off mania stows, protections sougl2t '- By Margaret Jaci~son ~BQR i Dertver Post StaJjWrirer ~ ' Developer John Fritze] will give a Mer- cedes-Benz to anyone willing to pay the full sz.is miliion asking price for a new Tuscan-style home he built in Denver's ' ~ ~ Hilltop neighborhood. ~ ~ I The 7,Goo-square-foot home at iqs Fair- C ~ fax St. has been on the market for only 30 ~ days, but competition is fierce in this century-old neighborhood east of Cherry Creek. An offer must be made by Oct. ~5 [o get the car. "We just don't hold product;' Fritzel said. "We want our inventory to turn over. If we're not building, we're not mak- ing money." With the invcntory of Hilitop homes reaching record levels - G7 homes are for sale, many of them new - it's possible the house could sit for a while. Lasc year, buyers purchased 78 older homes there with the intention of tearing them down and building new ones. Twen- ty of the new homes are still on the mar- ket. The trend of razing houses has slowed, with just iG sold as scrape-offs so far this year. "In Zoos, there was a fever. Everyone and anyone came into Hilitop and Crest- cording to the Offce Housing Enterprise O The weakness in th market and a slump in ~ ty prices have made it that the Federal Ope Committee will rais~ ratcs when it mcets day. "There is ao reason anything other than r in policy at Wednesd: ~1C-~NDA I I tM #FUTOP on GE ~.6~. ~~ --'-' --"~~ ""' SOUrCC Lconn~U LPO~idrtl 8 A5e0U.aloS uaea 19, 200G . , FROM THE FRONT ** WO ~ Su~~el nf 111~~ rarcl~~ riKuez of F miles north ii months in inR and tran migrants. T with the u ~ause Cyrus McCrimmon I 1i+P Denvar Post Interior trim carpenter Dan McIntyre installs a door frame between the kitchen and the pantry oCa new home at z99 Jasmine St. The q,85o-square-foot home is on the market for Fi,975,000. HILLT P: Scra e- ffs abound ! a o ~ p ~ ~ <CONTINUED FROM lA moor and bouRht and bou~ht and bought." said Uenice Reich, a brokcr with Rc!htax Alliancc. Nou• that the temperature is coolin~, Rcich has listed a num- ber of homes in the neighbor- hood, including une she devcl- oped at zos S. Fairfax St. Shc's willing to finish the 6asement or provide a SGo,ooo car allowancc to a buyer who ofCers the full Sz.795 million asking price. Because this closc-in neighb~r- hood is so dcsirablc, small 6unga- low~s and ranches have becn sell- ing for benveen sqoo.ooo and nearly- si million. 1'hose houscs have becn dwarfed b~• new man- sions that arc commanding pric- es of betwecn sz miliion and s3 million. Even thouKh dcmolition is now slowing, residcnts are still concerned about protecting thcir neighborhood's charactcr. To that end, a group is appear- in~ before the Landmark Preser- vation Cummission roday in an attempt to get the neighborhood dcsignated as a hisroric district. "The sense of community is lust «~hen you populace our strects with these so-called Mc- h9ansions that are really quite tarbiddin~,° said Betty Naster, who has lived in the neighbor- hood since i953. "They are not vcry open to neighbors getting acquaintcd. They're just lit[le furtresses." That's not the only neighbor- hood issue. Since builders start- ed replacing old homes with new about io years ago, resi- dencs have been livin~ in a con- sttuction zone, with heavy equip- ment rumbting through the strcets and jackhammcrs pound- ing out concrete. "This was a mature neighbor- hood," Nastcr said.'9 don't think anyone who moved here antici- pated that it would be a heavy consvuction zone for years." Stajf writer Margaret Jackson can be reached ar 3oj-954-~473 or mjackson~nn7denverpost.com. HOMES: Malz~~ experts believe Fed will drop rates <CONTINUED FROM lA ing," predicts David Joy, chief market strategist ~•ith River- Source Investments. A gro~•ing number of econo- mists think the Fed will leave in- Home values outpace income 5ingle-famity home prices nationalty would need to fall at least 15 percent to reach levels that incomes can support, argues economist A. Gary Shilling. Risky mortgage pract~ces, such as zero-down and adjustable-rate loans, have allowed buyers to stretcli beyond their me~ns The payback will be a decli~e in home values of 25 percent from their peak he foretasts. vears to stretc~ their finances. More than si trillion in mortgag- es are expected to adjust to sig- nificantly higher payments in ~nn-r ~ ~~--FI' '~ `E'-lUl # .._,~_ ~ President's Note o- '~~ lder neighborhoods are facing [he Obiggest threat since the heyday of uiban renewal and inrerstate tuqh- way construction. The threac is teardown.s. Here's how it works: Developers and homebuyers seazch desirable neighbor- hoodsforabuildinglotthatcanlawfully accommodate a much bigger house chan rhe one that's auiendy on a. The properry is acquired, the exvsring house razed, and a bigger one construaed in its place. Ttus simple process can transform the streetscape of an older neighborhood and demoy the charaaer ehat is its hfeblood. The Trust has documented tear- downs' unpaa in more [han 300 com- munities in 33 scares. In Denver, for ecam- ple, the number of teardowns inaeased by an alarming 78 percent between 2004 and 2005. And in Dallas, more than 1,000 houses have been demol~shed m the High- land Packand Umversiry Park areu, where new houses loom lilce mouncains over olderhomes. Several fattors encourage teardowns. One is the rise in real estate pnces, wtuch leads people to seek "undervalue8' prop- eraes in older neighborhoods Mother is the uend toward bigger houses: The aver- age Americari home has more chan dou- bled in size since 1950, even though [he average faznily has shnuilc dunng rhe same period. Finally, many people svnply find older wmmuniries appealing because of their mature landscaping, pedes[rian ori- encation, easy access to public trans- portatlon, and other amenities Unfomu~acely, coo many people ~y co shoehorn suburban-sryle muumansions into established neighborhoods where they just don't fic Modes[ cottages are [orn down, trees are removed, yards are eliminared, and sunl~ght is blocked by bullry new strucrures builc almost up [o the property lines. Etonomic and social diversity is reduced as teardowns turn affordable "scarter homes" into an endan- gered spedes. Of cou~se homebuyers should be able to al[er or espand their houses to meet their needs, and no one says that older neighborhoods should be frozen in time lilce museum exhibits. The challenge is to manage change so chat it doesn't destroy [he distinaive character [hat makes these places so appealmg. This means that people musc take action ins[ead of just sittingback and letvng tear- downs destroy rhe place they call home. Some communities have imposed temporary moratonums on demolieon to give residen[s and ciry officials time to develop reguladons-such as historic dis- tria ordinances-to preserre neighbor hood character. Lot cwerage formulas, secback requirements, and height resmc- nons can lunit the size of new structures and maintain tradidonal neighborhood building pattems. Preservanon or neigh- borhood o a nivanons can acquve ease- ments [o pro[ea historic builcLngs and even provide low-interesc loans to help encourage sensitive rehabilica[ion or e~ansion of older houses. Informauon on these and other tools is contamed in the Teardexms ftesourre Guide, available on our website, wwwnadonalttvst.org. Putting [he brakes on teardowns is a huge job, but u deserves our best effores. America's older neighborhoods are importan[ chapters in the story of who we are. Working together, we can keep that story alive. G~~~y(7/j~,~~o v{~L /"~i nchaid_moe@nthp.o~g \.~,TIO\AL "TRL'S'i' j~~.li6rtihFY~ I~'. ovn. rco+Tw'oucrT~~vsaixcsm~~e~.uswc~~ onr.uervinowcruces.wu~nwzeo~n<oMVi.mu Richard Moe Pnsidant ~dVld ~. BNWII Exttuhv~ Via Pnfida~t PetM &Ink Semor Vior Pruidrn~ Progoms GregCoble vcrFYmdrno, ' Buwass and Financ< PaulEdmondson v~nP.u~dmr, l.aw ~ Gcnaai Counsel Stanky0.LOwe vmeP+~:~drnr. Commwury MnaLzanan DOIoRS MCDOlldyh V¢r Piaidru Memberstup DaVidCoopel V~oePraidrntDeKiopmmr James M. Vaughan Vae Pru~drnq Sa..~abstup o( Humnc Srta EmllyWadh3m5 V¢ePra~drncPubLcPohcr u~<.iu.~~ uii-~ci~ Midwnt Office Su~te 150. 53 WeseJackson Boulrn~d. Ch~nga, lll 6060<, Q12) 939354) NarfMast OfHa Seven FaneuJ Hali Marketpla<a Fourth Roor. Bosmn. Mass 02109, (6 V) 523~0885 NorHieast ileW Offlu 6401 German~own Avenue. Philadelphu va ~siaa (zineae~eo3s SwNern Offke WJLam A~ken Housa 456I4ng Strtet Chadeswn.SC 29403.(B431122~8552 Sauthem Flefd Olfltt i]BS Marnchuseccs.4~xnue. N N'. Washmgmn. 0.C 2003b. f202t 58&610" MomRalm/PbimOfflu 535 16[h S~¢eL Swm )50 Demtc Colo 8020A (3011623~150i Southwesl OH¢! 500 Mmn 5[rcec Sw[e IOJO. Fov~ Worth, Tex I6102, (BI)) 132~43Y8 Wahm Offia 5 Tmd S~rcet Sm[e la'. San Fnnasm, C.9 9ai W, (01 L 9ai ~Ofi92 v.~~i~:uoi iu~.;iiti Jonathan M Kempcc Chavman Robert ~\'fuce, llce Chmrman MnmuukaYoungbload L'iarChmrman .Lda Alwrtz. Carolyn Brody. Lu~da Bruckheuner, Du~nc l eumham, Adde Chatfald~Tayloc, Mary Moagne Gookc Spcnar R Crcw.f uL~ Jones Daruels,pck W Drvis. Mary Wemer DeNadm,)ennJer Emerson. Haney B Gana, AumJn G~bson. PaW Goldbecgec Tony Goldman, Pecerw Gran~ III, enNey Hale. Irvm M Hendecion, J CL6ord Hudson, E Renee Ingvm, Dwel P Jardan. Bru¢ D Judd. Elvabevh Kev~an Nmcy I411e@q Marry Newman. Judy O'Bannon, Louue eryanc Poa¢. Gay Rad~R. JeRrt} Schucz. Bar6~n G Sidwa~t Daruel K Thome,John H Welbome ~ og~,o The Aaorney Genenl o( ~he Unimd Sn¢s The Secrcnry o( [he Inttnor 7he Duecror of ~he Nanonil Gallery o( M Reprtunnms. Mam Scrte~ Coordmamrs Chaic Nanonal Trus~ Board of Advuors Chav, Nanonal Trust Humnc 5~¢s Councds Chw. So!ewde and Locd Parmers CMnmrnEmmh Alm S Boyd, Roben M Bass Hrnry A Jordan. hanry N CampbeLL, WJLam 9 Hatt u~~~<,r.va~ iKUUr~ w~~ m~ay, wma~ cb~«, a,~,d M~c~~, tllll~Afftl AAUI~K1!Plkl~lltl To concaa e Namml Trus[ Par[ner wwwnaLanalWStorg/sGh_an~ laal/parMer aqamxationsasp ~~ui,.~i u,i,i in ~nr,,i ,u~~u, 1]BS MazsachuseHS Fee. N W. Wazhngton DC 20036 18001994-68i].11V Q021588-6W0 www.natianal trust.org SeO~amberl0<tober 2006 PRESERVFTION r:l_!:!~~r r~t~~~:7A~,~a~~' ~- > . , ~ _ ~ "4.--k,,..~~' -.. , _ ~ . _ ..t~a,~ ~ + 3i `'t ' ' - Y.y ~ ~ - sJ • f4-,': M N ~~~ C i. :~ .._..:" . _ .. " ' a w .n _ . . I~i'i .. :Y ^ _.,# }t.-: Y . ~ _ ~7 . - ~ . ..._--- ~ ~`;t{i ~ ~; F r~n,l, ITFPr1;~ 7~t~Af;~ ~_ National Preservation Conference 2 0 0 6 Every year preservation experts, professionals working in related fields, and community leaders all gather at the National P~eservation Conference. Come together to share preservation ehallenges, successes, new information, and inspiration. Be a part of the National Preservation Conference 2006 in Pittsburgh, a crty known for rts strong preservation work ethic and innovative public/pnvate partnerships. Meeting with colleagues and networking with new contacts makes the conference an important annual event. Meet the nation's leaders in preservation advacacy, community develapment, com- merual revitalization, real estate development, architetture, histonc Iandscnpes, heritage educatwn, and more. Hear about the latest trends m protectmg the irreplaceable. Rural, urban and suburban, the conference addresses issues that affect all types of older ond historic communrties and historic s~tes. Take part in mteractive sessions, presentations, tours, and mformal gatherings. Hundreds of experts are gathered in one city at one time ready to share their knowledge with you. Advanceyourcareerorvolunteerpasrtionthraughtheconferente. Become more valuable to your organizaUOn~ust by attendmg. Every day you participate, the conferen[e will grve you new resources and tools to be more effectwe. Plus tontinwng education (CE) c~edits are availahle through the American Institute of Architects and the Amencan Plnmm~g Association. Invest in your career, invest m com- mumty serwce, invest in yourse~f A special focus on green buildings. The conference will include tar- geted educational and field sessions plus n full-dny, pre-conference summit uddressingthe combined goals of green bwlding and historic preservation advocacy, LEED certifitation issues, and more. A spotlight on various types of revolvingfunds. Break-aut sessions on Friday tonsider the latest finantial and real estate tethniques for establishing and ezpandmg funds m communities, crties, and states of all s¢es. Look far spetial sessions that build ond expand on recent tonfer- ence "hot topics." If this is yourfirst year participating, yau'll take away an mformed perspe[trve on cntical issues and hot topics- informaLOn to use immediately back home. Pitts6urgh becomes our hving laboratory for ezploring the latest in preservation. The city's numerous histont districts, accessible dawntown, and historic resources within easy dnvmg distonce make the [ity a gold mine for hands-on learning. So~oin us in Pittsburgh for the National Preservation Conference 2006, Making Preservation Work! FEATURED PRE-CONFERENCE SEMINAR :~~erties Sponsored by The Heinz Endowments The Pittsburgh H~story B Landmarks Foundation (Landmarks) and the Green Bwlding Alliance (GBA) mvite yau to pnrtiapate m a National Summit on Greening of Histont Properties, to be held on Octo6er 30, 2006, at the SenntorJohn Heinz Pittsburgh Regional ~j ~ History Center, immedi- ~ ~ Green Building Alliancem atelyprecedmgthe Smart solutiom lo~ the built mvnonment Nationol Preservation Conference As o national Ieader in green building and histonc preservation, Pittsburgh is the ideal plute to hast a summrt that bnngs profes- sionals from both disuplines together to develop common goals and guidelines for greening histonc structures. The summrt wdl kick off a four-part process that will ultimately lead to the development af Guidelines for Greening Historit Properties. A panel of natmnal experts will 6e invited to participate m the summit, a day-lang charrette-style meeting from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. The expert panel wdl identrfy the technical ond process issues associated with greenmg histont pro~ects and draft practical solutions that meet the goals of both green building and historic preservation. • Public input will be sohcrted at the summit through a Town Meetmg that wdl be held immediately following the charrette, from 4:00 to 6:00 pm at the Heinz History Center. • A senes of field and educahon sessmns will be held throughout the conferente to provide addrtional educational opportum[ies along with a special area in the exhibit hall for conUnued publit input and discussion. • The results of the summrt and additional public input wdl be com- pded mto a white paper and shnred wrth U.S. Green Building Countd members at their Greenbudd conference m November. Landmarks and GBA will develop a set of gwdelines for use by their members and the public at large. We hope you will ~oin us for some component of this landmark event to advance our belief thn[ the best way to green a budding is to reuse a building! - To register to paRieipate in either the summit orTown MeMing, please visit www.phlf.org. -.~ ,~'rr~a;~~~~ - ~~1C,~~ MEMORANDUM October 4'~, 2006 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Review of approved historic preservation code changes and discussion of follow-up items. SUMMARY: At the beginning of 2003 the historic preservation program initiated a code revision project regarding the historic district designation process, following the attempted designation of the University Hili neighborhood. The project was expanded to include a detailed review of the demolition permit review for non-landmarked buildings, as well as a general update of the historic preservation ordinance. As a separate but related process, the Land Use Code Simplification project (LUCS) called for the historic preservation ordinance to be transferred into the land use title of the Boulder Revised Code (Title 9). The historic preservation code revision project included extensive public outreach, including eight neighborhood meetings, two meetings with civic groups, three open houses and ten check-ins and updates to the Landmarks Board, 3 public hearings at the Landmarks Board, one public hearing at the Planning Board, a study session with City Council, and 1 public hearing and 4 ordinance readings with City Council. The project received extensive public comment including at least 140 emails and letters, as well as extensive public testimony at the hearings. After 4 readings before City Council, the ordinance was approved and adopted on September 5, 2006. The ordinance will go into effect as chapter 9-11 on October 5~'. The final ordinance is attached for your reference and use. An electronic copy will also be posted on the city website. Also attached to this memorandum are some summary sheets which outline the new initial review process for demolition permit ~"C?ENQAITEM#~~PAGE /v applications, as well as the initiation steps now required for historic districts and individual landmarks. As a separate motion on July 11, 2006, the Council directed the City Attorney to redraft the historic preservation ordinance in a simplified format as used in the Land Use Code Sirnplification Ordinance. This redraft will be brought to Council in conjunction with Code reformatting actions needed to accommodate LUCS. FOLLOW UP ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: At the February 15~, March 1~~, and March 27~h Landmarks Board hearings, several issues, ideas, or items were raised which may require additional follow up and staff would like direction from the board regarding these possible follow-up topics: 1. Historic Preservation Organization The new ordinance includes a definition for a historic preservation organization, which is one of the entities that may submit an application for an individual landmark or historic district. The new definition reads: "Historic preservation organization" means an organization with demonstrated experience and expertise in historic preservation that has been recognized by the Landmarks Board. During review of the changes, the board questioned what "demonsriated experience and expertise in historic preservation" should mean, and whether the board should develop criteria by which to evaluate such organizations. Second, the question was raised on the process the board would like to use in order to "recognize" an organization. Questions: 1. Should criteria be developed to assess "demonstrated experience and expertise in historic preservation "? 2. Should there be a formal review/approval process for the recognition of a historic preservation organization, handled on an application by application basis, or for a period of tune, or indefinitely? Staff recommends that the board direct staff to investigate developing criteria for organizations, and develop options regarding a recognition process, to bring back to the board for discussion, and then adoption as administrative regulation. rr~!nA tTE141 ~_l~ PqGE /~ 2. Historic District Applications Under the new ordinance, a group of 25% or more of the property owners in an area may submit an application for a historic district (currently, the application only requires a list of the owner's names and addresses, and verification of the ownership, and payment of the $75 fee). These applications are then scheduled for the initiation public hearing. This could result in a significant increase in applications being submitted which may not meet the significance criteria, and may or may not have rational boundaries, but will require significant staff and board time for research and an initiation public hearing. Questions: 1. Should we revise the application form to require some up-front research prior to submission, in order to attempt to prevent reactionary applications? 2. Should we rely on the initiation hearing criteria (9-11-4) to filter those applications which may not have merit? 3. Should we wait and see if this change results in an increase of applications and initiation hearings, and if so, develop a solution then? Staff recommends that the board direct staff to begin investigating revisions to the historic district designation application, to require more research or analysis prior to submission of the application packet, and return to the board with proposed changes. 3. Historic District Significance Criteria The last two historic district applications have garnered a lot of discussion regarding historic district boundaries. Staff would like to gather feedback from the board on whether some guidance or criteria should be added to the Historic District significance criteria (administrative regulation) regarding delineating historic district boundaries. Currently, there is no 'official' guidance, but staff does utilize published information from the National Park Service and National Trust for Historic Preservation. Questions: 1. Should staff begin to investigate options for historic district boundary criteria? Staff recommends that the board direct staff to begin investigating options for historic district boundary criteria ~`3EN!")AITEY:i;s_!!.! pAGE ~~ 4. Enforcement regulations At the March 27'h public hearing, the board discussed interest in including revisions to the enforcement provisions within the historic preservation ordinance. Currently, a violation of a landmark alteration certificate or failure to obtain a landmark alteration certificate may result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or up to 90 days in jail per violation. A citation may only be issued after giving the violator at least 30 days to correct the violation. Failure to obtain an approved demolition permit for buildings not landmarked over 50 years old may result in up to a$5,000 fine an/or up to 90 days in jail per violation. The board and staff have discussed re-evaluating these provisions before, and during the March 27~h hearing staff agreed to begin investigating potential changes to the enforcement provisions after the code changes at hand were completed. Staff anticipates beginning this project in the spring of 2007. PROCESS & AMENDMENTS AFTER THE LPAB HEARINGS: The following section is a detailed summary of the motions and revisions to the ordinance which occurred after the Landmarks Board hearings. Planning Board After the Landmarks Board hearings, the Planning Board reviewed the changes, and made the following motions: • opposed any removal of the Planning Board's review of the land use implications of historic district designation proposals. Vote 7-0 • agreed to continue to have an ex-officio advisor to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Vote 7-0 • agreed to meet with the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board annually. Vote 7-0 • supported the staff recommendation on the options related to demolition review (Options 3 and 5). Vote 6-1 (S. Mole, opposed) The Planning Board did not make a formal motion regarding the historic district designation options as many members felt that this issue is outside the Planning Board's role in the ordinance, that they didn't have adequate understanding of some of the issues, and it was not appropriate to comment. City Council Study Session ~~_~r~~,a,r~~,~~F,7~ aa~~.~3 On May 9°", City Council held a televised study session regarding the ordinance changes, where staff gave a detailed presentation and posed numerous que-.tions for follow-up or clarification. City Councill~' Reading On June 6'", City Council held the first reading of the ordinance, and posed several questions for staff. As a result, staff made several revisions in order to further clarify sections of the ordinance, based on Council and public comment. The foliowing is a summary of those changes. 1. 10-13-1(d): This section referred to property maintenance for landmarked buildings within historic districts, but as a result of previous ordinance changes the section is no longer relevant. 2. 10-13-3: This section states what City Councfl can designate and clarifications to the definition of a historic district were made to include sites, structures, or features, which currently may be designated. 3. 10-13-4: This section addresses the landmark and district designation initiation process. This section has been completely reorganized to allow for clarification on the process and steps. A flow chart was also included. 4. 10-13-5: This section is the new section outlining the public process for historic district designation. The initial paragraph was reworded to clarify when these steps shall occur, and Section 3 was clarified to state that affected property owners will be included in the process. A new sub-section was added (10-13-5(3)(a) to clarify that guidelines may be amended or new guidelines proposed subsequent to designation. Section 4 was clarified to state that the draft design guidelines be included with the questionnaire for comment. Lastly, the comment period for the questionnaire was changed from a minimum of 10 days to a minimum of 21 days to allow for additional time for owners to respond. 5. 10-13-6: This section explains the Landmarks Board public hearing process for Landmarks and Historic districts. The posting requirements were amended to clarify how historic district applications should be posted. 6. 10-13-21: This section addresses the maintenance requirement section. The wording was amended to clarify what is covered by this section. 7. 10-13-24: This section is the non-designated demolition permit section. Subsection (d)(1) was reworded to clarify what types of permits staff can review. 8. All references to mailing and postings included either a minimum of 10 days or 15 days. As part of the revisions to this ordinance, consistency with all land use regulation notices were instituted, which is a minimum of 10 days. ,:~~~.,.a~~-~:;~;.7~ ~~~~~ Some of the minimum days were inadvertently not changed to the consistent time hame of 10 days. Those numbers were corrected. City Council2^d Reading & Public Hearing At the July 11, 2006 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing on second reading of Ordinance No. 7475, and voted 6-1 to approve the changes to the historic preservation ordinance as recommended by the Landmarks Board and Planning Board. 22 people spoke during the public hearing. The motion referenced option B regarding the process for historic districts (questionnaire taken but no minimum percentage of owner consent required), and options 3/5 regarding the demolition permit review process (staff initial review for applications of buildings built in 1940 or after). There were two friendly amendments to the motion, both of which requested that the ordinance be revised to add clarity regarding: • The role of property owners in developing the design guidelines. • The criteria for the process around the questionnaire and how it applies to the application. City Council, 3~d Reading At the August 15, 2006 City Council meeting the Council held the third reading of Ordinance No. 7475, and voted 7-1 to approve the changes, including the following revisions: Issue #1: 10-13-5(a)(2) Public Process for Design Guidelines: The Council requested that the ordinance stipulate the process for drafting district specific design guidelines, and clarify how property owners would be inciuded in the process. Specifically, the staff inemorandum of July 11, 2006 stated that the process would include a public meeting with the affected property owners, but the proposed ordinance did not specifically require any such meeting. This section of the ordinance was been revised, with the following changes: 1. Clarifies in the introduction paragraph that the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) will adopt district specific design guidelines as administrative rules (10-13-5(a)(2)). 2. Includes a new section, 10-13-5(a)(2)(B), which states that if design guidelines are developed for the district, they must be presented at a minimum of one public meeting with the property owners before the questionnaire is sent and the LPAB designation hearing is held. This section also includes notification requirements for such a meeting. Issue #2: 10-13-5(a)(3) Public Process for Questionnaire: _?~~ ~;a r!'; ~v., /~_PAC~ti ~~ The Council requested more clarity about the quesrionnaire process. Specifically, Council directed staff to outline the questionnaire content and how the results would be tabulated through the ordinance. A Sample questionnaire was included. This section of the ordinance was been revised, with the following changes: 1. The introduction paragraph has been revised to outline which steps in the public process must be completed prior to the questionnaire being sent. Specifically, this addresses the timing regarding the design guidelines. 2. Significantly re-worded sub-section B to: a. Identify what information the questionnaire shall contain, and clarify that property owners may remain anonymous in their response. b. Set a minimum time period in which the property owner has to respond. c. Establish a deadline for questionnaire responses. d. Specify that only official responses to the questionnaire will be tabulated, though all public comment will be forwarded to the decision makers (LPAB and City Council). e. Specify that copies of the questionnaire will be included in the LPAB and City Council record. Staff also recommended that two clarifying changes to the mailing effect clause be incorporated into the ordinance on fourth reading. The first was to make the minimum continuance period consistant for all three clauses, set for at least 10 days, and to strike the word "surrounding" at the end of each mailing effect ciauses. City Council, 4'h Reading On September 5~, 2006 City Council heid the 4~h reading of ordinance 7475, which was on the consent agenda. Councilmember Polk removed the item from the consent agenda, and the council held a public hearing on the item, as he had concems regarding the ordinance and format of the questionnaire. Councilmember Polk made two motions, the first to revise the questionnaire process to not allow owners to remain anonymous, and the second to add a reference to the Clunate Action Plan to section 10-13-1. Both motions failed, and the ordinance was approved and adopted with a vote of 6-2. ATTACHMENTS: A: Summary sheet on the initial review of demolition permits B: Summary sheet on the initiation process for individual landmarks C: Summary sheet on the initiation process for historic districts D: Copy of the Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 9-11 Historic Preservation ~-:: , ~-_ . 7~ ~~~-~ l~ ' ~ CITY OF BOULDER Attachment A a~iJ:,, Planning and Development Services ~„ ~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Phone:303.441.1880 Fax:303.441.3241 DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW FOR NON-LANDMARKED BUILDINGS OVER 50 YEARS OLD (9-11-23, B.R.C.,1981) This handout is a summary of the changes to the demolition pernut review process for non- landmarked buildings over 50 years old. These changes were adopted by the City Council on September 5, 2006, effective October 5, 2006. Age of Building: And the application includes: The application will be The review i~itially reviewed by: fee is: Partial or Complete Demolition of a Landmarks Design Over 50 years old Primary building Review Committee $275 d b ilt i (Committee Review) n or an u before 1939 Moving all or a portion of a primary Landmarks Design buiiding off the lot (Off-Site Review Committee $275 Relocation) (Committee Review) Moving all or a portion of a building Landmarks Staff $50 within the lot (On-Site Relocation) (Administrative Review) Over 50 years old Partial or complete demolition of a Landmazks Staff $50 and built in or after rimar buildin (Administrative Review) 1940 Moving all or a portion of a primary Landmazks Staff building off the lot (Off-Site (Administrative Review) $50 Relocation) Over 50 years old Partial or Complete demolition of Landmazks Staff $50 any accessory building (Administrative Review) Please note that "Demolition" is defined as 50% of more of the roof, 50% or more of the exterior walls, or any exterior wall facing a public street. See Chapter 9-16, Defnitions for more information. If an application includes the demolition of a primary and accessory building, the initial review fee is based on the age of the primary building. All initial reviews must be completed within 14 days of the application being submitted, although in most cases applications aze reviewed within 7 days. If the application is called up for review by the full Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, the application shall be stayed until the full board hearing fee is paid. This fee is currentiy $1,466. The next page includes a flow chart of the process. If you would like more information on the criteria used in the review, or to get more information on how the review process works, please call (303) 441-1880 and ask to speak to a historic preservation planner. :; r"._,.,. // ~ _fr')~~7~~+-= Histonc 1 .en'ation Code Changes CiN of Boulder ~ DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW ($275) Primary buildings built in or before 1939 Primary pre-1940 Off-Site Relocaiions Potentially Historically Significant LANDMARKS BOARD PUBLIC HEARING $1,466 Fee ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ($50) Primary buildings built in or after 1940 All accessory buildings All On-Site Relocations Primary post-1940 building off-site relocations Not Historically Significant DEMO PERMIT APPROVED Historically Significant Not Historicaliy Significant • Initiate 180 Day ~ Designation Stay No Action Taken in 180 days ; .................................• Public Consider Hearing Alternatives CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Designation I Approved Designation Denied =~~~~~~a fTE;~.~;E_ ~~ ~~ ~.~AGE _ /,~ CITY OF BOULDER Attachment B a~~~,~/~ Planning and Development Services ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Phone:303.441.1880 Fax:303.441.3241 INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION (9-11-1 to 9-11-10, B.R.C.,1981) The following sheet outlines the new process in which an application for individual landmark designation becomes initiated. This new process was adopted by the City Council on September 5, 2006, effective October 5, 2006. Apptications may be fled in one of three ways: 1. The property owner 2. The Landmarks Board or City Council 3. A historic preservation organization* *The organization must be recognized by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Contact a Historic Preservation Planner for more information. The fee for a individual landmark application is $25. 1. Proaertv Owner If the property owner(s) of a property applies for individual landmark designation, they must submit a complete application, including the application fee. As long as the application is complete, the designation process is initiated. 2. Landmarks Board or Citv Council If the Landmarks Board or City Council is going to consider initiating the designation of a property as an individua] landmazk, the following steps must occur to initiate the designation: 1. Schedule an initiation public hearing 2. Notice the public hearing by sending a mailed notice to the property owner(s) and publish the information in the newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing date 3. Hold a public hearing. A public hearing on the in: tiation consideration is held, public testimony is taken, and if council or landmazks board determines to proceed with initiation of an individual landmazk, either shall initiate by resolution so long as all other application requirements have been met. 3. Historic Preservation Orsanization If a historic preservation organization submits an application to designate a property as an individual landmuk, the following must occur to initiate the designation: ~ 1. Schedule an initiation public hearing 2. Notice the public hearing by sending a mailed notice to the property owner(s) and pubiish the information in the newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing date 3. Hold a public hearing. A public hearing on the initiation consideration is held, public testimony is taken. In considering the initiation the Council or Boazd must consider the criteria oudine in 9-11-4, BRC, 1981. , If council or landmarks board determines to proceed with initiation of an individual landmark, either shall initiate by resolution so :~_f~~i7~ CT~;vI ~._~~ f'AGF_ ~~ H~;t: ~_ Prese: ~ ahor ~ode Changes C~ty of Boulde; long as aU other application requirements have been met. It is not until a resolution has been passed that the application is officially initiated. Note: A historic preservation organization must be recognized by the landmazks boazd in order to submit an application. If initiated, the following general steps occur: l. Staff reseazches the history of the azea, and prepares a staff memorandum and analysis of significance for the Landmarks Board. 2. The Landmarks Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to City Council. 3. If recommended for designation, or appealed upon denial, the City Council holds a hearing and may adopt an ordinance designating the property. Note: These steps are quite general; refer to chapter 9-11, BRC,1981 for the detailed process. Once an individual landmark designation has been initiated, all exterior work on the property must obtain a Landmark Alteration Certificate. If you have questions about the designation process, or the benefits and responsibilities of individual landmark designation, please call (303) 441-1880 and ask to speak with a historic preservation planner. ~ :;t`t. ;~~ I`d~~l ~ : _al.l_~i~AG~ ~ a~~`%~ CITY OF BOULDER Attachment C ~ Planning and Development Services ~ `' 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 ti; Phone:303.441.1880 Fax:303.441.3241 HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION (9-11-1 to 9-11-10, B.R.C.,1981) The following sheet outlines the new process in which a historic dis[rict designation becomes initiated. This new process was adopted by the City Council on September 5, 2006, effective October 5, 2006. Applications may be filed in one of three ways: 1. 100 % of the property owners 2. The Landmarks Board or City Counci] 3. A historic preservation organization* 4. 25% to 99% of the property owners *The organization must be recognized by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Contac[ a Historic Preservation Planner for more information. The fee for a historic district application is $75. 1. 100% of the propertv owners mav initiate If all of the property owners within a proposed district apply to initiate the designation of their properties as a his[oric district, they must submi[ a complete application, including the application fee. As long as the application is complete, the district designation process is initiated. 2. Landmarks Board or Citv Council If the Landmarks Boazd or City Council is going to consider initiating the designation of an area as a historic district, the following steps must occur to initiate the designation: 1. Schedule an initiation public hearing 2. Notice the public hearing by sending a mailed notice to all affected property owners and publish the information in the newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing date 3. Hold a public hearing. A public hearing on the initiation consideration is held, public testimony is taken, and if council or landmarks board determines to proceed with initiation of a district, either shall initiate by resolution so long as all other application requirements have been met. 3. & 4. Historic Preservation Oraanization or 25% to 99% of the propertv owners If a historic preservation organization or more than 25% but less than 100% of the owners submit an application to initiate the designation of an azea as a historic district, the following must occur to initiate the designation: 1. Schedule an initiation public hearing 2. Notice the public hearing by sending a mailed notice to all affected property owners and publish the information in the newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing date ,C:ENilH lTEIt~ ~ ~~ PAGE ~/ Histonc Preservarion Code Changes City o~ Boulde: Hold a public hearing. A public hearing on the initiation consideration is held, public testimony is taken. In considering the initiation the Council or Board must consider the criteria outline in 9-11-4, BRC, 1981. If council or landmarks boazd determines to proceed wit6 initiation of a district, either shall initiate by resolution so long as all other application requirements have been met. It is not unti] a resolution has been passed inut the application is officially initiated. Note: A historic preservation organization must be recognized by the landmarks board in order to submit an application. If initiated, the following general steps occur: 1. Staff reseazches the history of the azea, and prepares a staff memorandum and analysis of significance for the Landmarks Boazd. 2. Specific public process steps must occur, including distributing information, holding neighborhood meetings, and possibly developing design guidelines. Lastly, a questionnaire must be distributed to gauge support. 3. The Landmarks Board holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to City Council. 4. The Planning Board reviews the application and reports on any land use implications to City Council. 5. If recommended for designation, or appealed upon denial, the City Counci] holds a hearing and may adopt an ordinance designating [he property. Note: These steps are quite general; refer to chapter 9-11, BRC, 1981 for the detailed process. Once a Historic District designation has been initiated, all exterior work on the included properties must obtain a Landmark Alteration Certificate. If you have questions about the designation process, or the benefits and responsibilities of historic district designation, please call (303) 441-1880 and ask to speak with a historic preservation planner. t:~i`d,`;,:a I~iLS: ~~.PAGF _v"